Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_26622 » 24 Dec 2014 20:45

Funny to see folks changing tune when damming evidence surfaces. Here are my thoughts on procurement for Indian army and air force (let's leave the navy for some other time)

1. We need PUBLIC INCRIMINATION of officers (politicians need another treatment) involved in this activity. OTHERWISE ITS PURE BULS**IT. I mean look at VVIP helicopter import and the traitors are walking free. NEED TO MAKE A PUBLIC STATEMENT OTHERWISE TALK DOES NOT RESONATE WITH ACTIONS.

2. Should the acceptance criteria for domestic developments be 80 or 90 or 100 or 150% (current standard) of import equivalents? I vote for 80% as we can field 200%+ more in quantity, plus we own IP and earn $$$ through exports. Having 200% more at 80% capability is enough deterrent for any aggressors to reconsider starting a conflict.

3. SIMPLE RULE FOR THE ARMY AND AIRFORCE > THEY CAN ONLY IMPORT 'X' $ worth of goods if they have exported X $ of defense goods in same category (ARMY, NAVY and AIRFORCE categories). This will rewire their thinking overnight and really make 'MAKE IN INDIA' happen.

4. Force a $$$ import reduction curve on Armed forces. Higher budget does not mean more $$$ for going import shopping. This will artificially limit them from shopping for 'Republic Day' parade white elephants.

SUMMARY > NOTHING WORKS BETTER THAN LOWER IMPORT BUDGET $$$ TO FLUSH OUT IMPORT MAFIA OUT OF DELHI :)

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2453
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Prem Kumar » 24 Dec 2014 20:49

For the T-90 supporters & the DGMF, its time to pull out the "Its all water under the bridge. Lets move on. We agree that the Arjun-MK2 is a great tank. But the future is FMBT" argument

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_26622 » 24 Dec 2014 20:57

The real price we paid for T-90 is when Putin just landed and took home 30 plus billion $ of contracts. He killed our Thorium fast breeder program with one stroke.

Rant-on
How different is this from Ghazni's plundering of India ?
Rant - off

KiranM
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Location: Bangalore

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby KiranM » 24 Dec 2014 21:02

d_berwal, what about the relaxed parameters for T-90 during comparative trials with Arjun by IA? How do you explain that in 'your humble opinion'?
What about the requirement by IA for zero water ingress during fording for Arjun (which delayed Arjun programme), but leeway of 2.5 litres for T-90? How do you explain that in 'your humble opinion'?

Selective highlights such as those by you is the what creates the rankles.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 24 Dec 2014 21:35

Some of us are simply shameless, throwing away billions to make us slaves to foreign powers again. How different are these people from those that sold out India to the British? Despicable!!

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby d_berwal » 24 Dec 2014 21:56

KiranM wrote:d_berwal, what about the relaxed parameters for T-90 during comparative trials with Arjun by IA? How do you explain that in 'your humble opinion'?
What about the requirement by IA for zero water ingress during fording for Arjun (which delayed Arjun programme), but leeway of 2.5 litres for T-90? How do you explain that in 'your humble opinion'?

Selective highlights such as those by you is the what creates the rankles.

@ KiranM

Selective highlights creates the rankles

my thought only ... because CAG is involved.

ARJUN requirements were for unproven design and product and based on BEST of the BEST

vs

T-90 Bhishma requirements are actually what is available commercially and ge0-politacally without compromise to use of them.
Last edited by d_berwal on 24 Dec 2014 21:58, edited 1 time in total.

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby d_berwal » 24 Dec 2014 21:57

Vivek K wrote:Some of us are simply shameless, throwing away billions to make us slaves to foreign powers again. How different are these people from those that sold out India to the British? Despicable!!


your comment is on US lobby or EU lobby vs Ru

or for ppl who have left us with this condition after 6+decade of independence

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_26622 » 24 Dec 2014 22:26

^ We are really stuck in history while China forges ahead

Anything anti RU means you are Pro US or EU
Anything anti US means you are Pro RU

How about been Pro India for a change? China is neither pro US or Pro RU, they are Pro China and pull this off very well!

member_28782
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 7
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_28782 » 24 Dec 2014 22:51

Requirements were similarly watered down for the basic trainer by the IAF. Seeing a pattern here.

IAF diluted al least 12 benchmarks for trainer aircraft
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 068_1.html

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby d_berwal » 24 Dec 2014 22:55

nik wrote:The real price we paid for T-90 is when Putin just landed and took home 30 plus billion $ of contracts. He killed our Thorium fast breeder program with one stroke.

Rant-on
How different is this from Ghazni's plundering of India ?
Rant - off


hows is T-90 related to Thorium.......?

If we need to discuss Thorium in Armoured Vechiles ...Thread ... then why not discuss:
- Why has thorium reserves disappeared form India in lest 10 years?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Viv S » 24 Dec 2014 23:26

d_berwal wrote:ARJUN requirements were for unproven design and product and based on BEST of the BEST


And just what was so unproven about the Arjun in 2007 when the IA should have placed a follow-on order? The electronics had been heat-hardened, the HSU wasn't a problem anymore, the tank had demonstrated snorkeling and its fire-on-the-move capability had already surpassed the T-90.

T-90 Bhishma requirements are actually what is available commercially and ge0-politacally without compromise to use of them.


Ah yes, 'without compromise to use of them'. And here we're going to have to consult the CAG report from Feb 2014.

CAG Report on Army and Ordnance Factories, Feb 2014 wrote:However, immediately after introduction of the Tanks ‘X’ into service, it was observed by the Army HQ (September 2002) that the performance of various sophisticated and state of the art systems fitted in the Tanks, viz. FCS, TI sights and missile firing mechanisms were degraded due to their prolonged exposure to heat and dust conditions. It was, therefore, considered essential by MoD (September 2002) to procure ACs for Tanks ‘X’ from OEM to derive optimum level of performance of all systems in the Tanks.

Subsequently, for efficient functioning of the Tanks DGMF initiated a case (September 2002) for procurement of ACs from OEM for the 310 Tanks ‘X’ and TOT for the balance 1000 numbers. Acceptance of Necessity (AON) for these ACs was accorded in July 2004 by the MoD. Prior to AON the Department of Defence Production and Supply (DDPS) recommended in 2004, that instead of issuing Request for Proposal (RFP) for the ACs, coproduction route involving OEM and HVF be adopted to achieve optimum results without delay. The case was, therefore, taken up with OEM for coproduction of ACs with HVF Avadi. The trials for co production of ACs were conducted in August 2006 but the same failed. The case was therefore closed in March 2008.


^

So first the T-90 failed in the heat. And then the Russian supplied AC solution failed in the heat. Meanwhile the Arjun is operating perfectly well without any air conditioning.

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 624
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rajsunder » 25 Dec 2014 00:24

Viv S wrote:
d_berwal wrote:ARJUN requirements were for unproven design and product and based on BEST of the BEST


And just what was so unproven about the Arjun in 2007 when the IA should have placed a follow-on order? The electronics had been heat-hardened, the HSU wasn't a problem anymore, the tank had demonstrated snorkeling and its fire-on-the-move capability had already surpassed the T-90.

T-90 Bhishma requirements are actually what is available commercially and ge0-politacally without compromise to use of them.


Ah yes, 'without compromise to use of them'. And here we're going to have to consult the CAG report from Feb 2014.

CAG Report on Army and Ordnance Factories, Feb 2014 wrote:However, immediately after introduction of the Tanks ‘X’ into service, it was observed by the Army HQ (September 2002) that the performance of various sophisticated and state of the art systems fitted in the Tanks, viz. FCS, TI sights and missile firing mechanisms were degraded due to their prolonged exposure to heat and dust conditions. It was, therefore, considered essential by MoD (September 2002) to procure ACs for Tanks ‘X’ from OEM to derive optimum level of performance of all systems in the Tanks.

Subsequently, for efficient functioning of the Tanks DGMF initiated a case (September 2002) for procurement of ACs from OEM for the 310 Tanks ‘X’ and TOT for the balance 1000 numbers. Acceptance of Necessity (AON) for these ACs was accorded in July 2004 by the MoD. Prior to AON the Department of Defence Production and Supply (DDPS) recommended in 2004, that instead of issuing Request for Proposal (RFP) for the ACs, coproduction route involving OEM and HVF be adopted to achieve optimum results without delay. The case was, therefore, taken up with OEM for co production of ACs with HVF Avadi. The trials for co production of ACs were conducted in August 2006 but the same failed. The case was therefore closed in March 2008.


^

So first the T-90 failed in the heat. And then the Russian supplied AC solution failed in the heat. Meanwhile the Arjun is operating perfectly well without any air conditioning.

Does any one remember when the DGMF said no to AC's in ARJUN saying that soldiers do not need luxury. And then DRDO has to harden the electronics and made the work in higher temperatures.

On the other side, when a similar problem came up with tin cans, they said OK to russian supplied AC's.

I just hate it when our own armed forces people go to DARK SIDE.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_26622 » 25 Dec 2014 03:40

My prior post was harsh and hope the intent did not get washed out. I am tired of India been pushed around by Chinese incursions and Paki terrorism. We spend our hard earned money and still cannot assure peace for our citizens to reach their full potential. At the same time, every $ sent outside is one less to pull a third of India from economic poverty - but the value of money is not understood by many.

nik wrote:Funny to see folks changing tune when damming evidence surfaces. Here are my thoughts on procurement for Indian army and air force (let's leave the navy for some other time)

1. We need PUBLIC INCRIMINATION of officers (politicians need another treatment) involved in this activity. OTHERWISE ITS PURE BULS**IT. I mean look at VVIP helicopter import and the traitors are walking free. NEED TO MAKE A PUBLIC STATEMENT OTHERWISE TALK DOES NOT RESONATE WITH ACTIONS.

2. Should the acceptance criteria for domestic developments be 80 or 90 or 100 or 150% (current standard) of import equivalents? I vote for 80% as we can field 200%+ more in quantity, plus we own IP and earn $$$ through exports. Having 200% more at 80% capability is enough deterrent for any aggressors to reconsider starting a conflict.

3. SIMPLE RULE FOR THE ARMY AND AIRFORCE > THEY CAN ONLY IMPORT 'X' $ worth of goods if they have exported X $ of defense goods in same category (ARMY, NAVY and AIRFORCE categories). This will rewire their thinking overnight and really make 'MAKE IN INDIA' happen.

4. Force a $$$ import reduction curve on Armed forces. Higher budget does not mean more $$$ for going import shopping. This will artificially limit them from shopping for 'Republic Day' parade white elephants.

SUMMARY > NOTHING WORKS BETTER THAN LOWER IMPORT BUDGET $$$ TO FLUSH OUT IMPORT MAFIA OUT OF DELHI :)

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_26622 » 25 Dec 2014 03:55

rajsunder wrote:I just hate it when our own armed forces people go to DARK SIDE.


Don't let the actions of a few bad apples wash out the hard of rest. People vote corrupt folks in to power and our constitution gives them all decision making authority. No point in walking away from the obvious outcome in this situation.

arijitkm
BRFite
Posts: 137
Joined: 12 Oct 2009 23:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby arijitkm » 25 Dec 2014 15:18

And also from CAG

The ToT for indigenous production of T-90 tank was marred by delays in translation of design documents, which took six years, and the Russian firm’s failure to share designs on critical assemblies such as the gun assembly. The problem was compounded by delays in decisions on alternative solutions on these designs.
CAG pointed out that a case in point is the Directorate General of Quality Assurance thwarting the proposal by the ordnance factories for using “modified chemistry” proposed for the barrel for T-90 tank. This was despite the fact that the factories had experience with “modified chemistry” for the barrel of T-72 tanks.


http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/t-90-tank-induction-short-by-40/21041.html

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby chackojoseph » 25 Dec 2014 17:24

Viv S wrote:
Arjun production ends in 2009-10, while the T-90 production begins in 2009-10.


T-90's assembled in most cases.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rohitvats » 25 Dec 2014 17:42

RajG wrote:Requirements were similarly watered down for the basic trainer by the IAF. Seeing a pattern here.

IAF diluted al least 12 benchmarks for trainer aircraft
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 068_1.html


IAF has already given a rebuttal to that article. All the 'dilution' is simply in the head of Ajai Shukla.

SanjayC
BRFite
Posts: 1557
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby SanjayC » 25 Dec 2014 17:57

rajsunder wrote:^Does any one remember when the DGMF said no to AC's in ARJUN saying that soldiers do not need luxury. And then DRDO has to harden the electronics and made the work in higher temperatures.

On the other side, when a similar problem came up with tin cans, they said OK to russian supplied AC's.

I just hate it when our own armed forces people go to DARK SIDE.


There is definitely an attitude problem with the generals regarding India-made products. People who don't admit to it have their head in the sand. It's strange to see the army of such a huge nation getting stubborn on imports and thwarting indigenous capabilities -- what are the generals trying to achieve?

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Gyan » 25 Dec 2014 18:42


abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2835
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby abhik » 25 Dec 2014 21:07

Yagnasri wrote:When huge amount of malayee and what not is there for all the babus and others there will be always sabatage attempts. So just ban imports for Army. I do not see any system army needs which can not be produced in India. As a mango man I may be wrong. But surely a nation which can send a probe to Mars can make some suitable rifle to troops from raw material stage? Once there is no option then all the dramas for imports will go. I.A.F. may take some time and serious effort, time, funding and leadership to stop imports. Navy is already doing what it can and can be pushed to do more than what they are doing.

Time to make "Make in India" compulsory at least for army immediately.

An outright ban of imports (or at least as much as possible) is exactly what we need. Foreign arms should just stop being an option. For that we need a government with clarity of thought, and of course balls, which I am afraid current government seems to be lacking.

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby d_berwal » 25 Dec 2014 21:16

abhik wrote:An outright ban of imports (or at least as much as possible) is exactly what we need. Foreign arms should just stop being an option. For that we need a government with clarity of thought, and of course balls, which I am afraid current government seems to be lacking.


Government in last 66+years did everything but this new govt. from 2014 has created this mess and stopped all the efforts of past 66+ years so we should do what?

RajD
BRFite
Posts: 144
Joined: 29 Mar 2011 16:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby RajD » 27 Dec 2014 09:32

Good news Gentlemen
http://idrw.org/?p=53522
CAG blames army for delay in the induction of Arjun Tank.
Questions army's sincerity after trial results in favour of the Arjun and slamms MOD for playing along with the Army in the game of imports.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5095
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby jamwal » 27 Dec 2014 10:29

Hold your lungis. The knights hiding behind olive armour and thier associate baboons will find a way to shrug it off too like they have done countless times before. A few harsh words hardly matter when so much import kickbacks are at stake.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8216
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 27 Dec 2014 11:22

The DM can always say that no imports any more. If you want to import then it is better that you fight with sticks and stones. What can the MOD do about it.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1616
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 27 Dec 2014 17:22

Thakur_B wrote:CVRDE is looking for partners to develop active protection system for Tanks/AFVs.
Objective
To jointly develop Active Protection System to provide best posible protection to the tank and crew against wider spectrum of threats including Rocket propeled Grenade (RPG), anti-tank grenades, HEAT, HESH, CE, KE rounds and advanced ATGMs.

Requirement
1. The system should be capable of detecting and neutralizing various threats viz. RPG, HEAT, HESH, CE, KE projectiles and ATGM fired from any kind of platform (Land or Air based).
2. The system should have fully automated detection, identification, tracking and neutralization of incoming threats which includes Sensor suite, Control System, set of protective ammunition & its launcher, Launcher activation Unit and Display.
3. The system should have Multi spectral Sensor based threat detection including RADAR, LASER Sensors to cover wide variety of threat velocities ranging from 70 - 240 m/s
4. The system should have accurate Intercept computation based on various threat parameters in both static and dynamic conditions.
5. The system should have engagement range from 50 to 150 m and quick reaction time to effect neutralization before 50m.
6. The system should be able to neutralize close range threats.
7. The system should have Simultaneous Multi directional multiple threat detection and Neutralization capability with very high hit probability (95%)
8. The system should provide 360 degree hemispherical protection coverage.
9. The system should be able to intercept the target accurately when the tank is in both static and dynamic condition.
10. The system should be safe for nearby troops and issue audio/visual warning during activation of counter measure.
11. The system should have protection against accidental activation of the explosive charges due to small arm firing, artillery splinters or flares and flying objects of earth.
12. The system should be robust, light weight and modular in design and construction.
13. The system should be based on Open System Architecture with BITE facility.
14. The mounting of the system should not affect the Silhouette of the platform.

Scope of Work
1. To design and implement hardware and software for Active Protection System meting the above requirements with required Interface.
2. Integration of Active Protection System in AFV
3. Field Evaluation of Active Protection System
4. The system developed wil be part of AFV which should met he following requirements
(a) Environment Test Miltary Standard MIL 810G/JS555
(b) EMI /EMC standard MIL 461F
(c) Power suply as per MIL1275D
(d) Aplicable Software Standards


Not specifically related to Indian armour, but Raphael, IMI and IAI have come together to develop the follow on to Trophy, by combining the sensors of Trophy and interceptor of Iron Fist.
http://www.israeldefense.co.il/he/content/%D7%A8%D7%A4%D7%90%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%A2%D7%90-%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%A2%D7%A9-%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%AA%D7%97%D7%95-%D7%99%D7%97%D7%93-%D7%94%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%94%D7%91%D7%90-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%9C-%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%97
Currently, Trophy does not offer protection against kinetic penetrator and it uses buck shot. Iron fist interceptor on the other hand used an explosive formed penetrator and could be used against kinetic interceptor. The hard kill mechanism currently under development at DRDO too uses EFP warhead, however the projected requirements are directed at low velocity threats like RPGs. Since they are looking for partners, it would be prudent to go for system requirements to defeat kinetic threats as well, like the Israelis are doing currently.

Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2400
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Yogi_G » 27 Dec 2014 20:11

Ran into a senior executive from MTU Germany during one of my recent travels. Some of the updates from him are as below,

1. They have found Indian army and navy technical people to be exceptionally competent. The maintenance levels are top notch and are done to the dot from whatever manuals are provided to them. But there is also a negative side, see point below.
2. MTU has stopped fixed cost agreements with the IA and IN. He said that brought in complacency on the part of our defence technicians. MTU service folks would be flown in even for the smallest of tasks that they would not have been asked to do in the case of a per-incident servicing agreement. MTU servicing infrastructure is centered around Vizag with service centers elsewhere especially with a large one in Guindy Chennai.
3. MTU engines will continue to rule the roost in the IN smaller ship engine segment, he was concerned on the increasing American presence in the larger engines category especially the LM2500.
4. He was all praise for the Russian tank engines praising their ruggedness. Said they are no match to the MTU engines in terms of fuel efficiency.
5. Was not very convinced about the indigenous Cummins engine being built. Pointed towards their competition in the civilian backup power set segment where MTU continues to rule the roost as a result of better reliability. I felt a clear bias here.
6. MTU has railway engines but India nowhere in its radar.
7. He had the highest of opinion about the Arjun and grapevine he heard is that its power pack is easily serviceable due to the design factors. He however had some concerns on the APU. He dint delve into too much detail there.


-------

He felt India missed big chances during the Soviet Union's break up where very talented tank scientists and engineers could have been easily absorbed into our institutions just like China did. He mentioned that a lot of Soviet scientists came to India looking for jobs in the immediate aftermath of Soviet breakup and where they salary arrears running into several months. He quoted the example of one scientist who was considered the world's leading expert in heat transfer technology. He came to India to collect his 50$ thesis review fees from some individuals in IITs(he pointed to this as desperation of this individual). He was felicitated in one of the the IITs where he was recognized and well known. The scientist left disappointed that the Indian govt could not use his expertise. The MTU executive I was with was telling me that his services could have been well used in the Arjun program but there was lot of inflexibility in hiring such advisors due to pay related issues and conformance to scientist pay guidelines.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2835
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby abhik » 27 Dec 2014 21:32

^^^
Cummins BTW is an American company, I don't know how "indigenous" that engine is going to be.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Kersi D » 28 Dec 2014 00:13

Yogi_G wrote:Ran into a senior executive from MTU Germany during one of my recent travels. Some of the updates from him are as below,

1. They have found Indian army and navy technical people to be exceptionally competent. The maintenance levels are top notch and are done to the dot from whatever manuals are provided to them. But there is also a negative side, see point below.
2. MTU has stopped fixed cost agreements with the IA and IN. He said that brought in complacency on the part of our defence technicians. MTU service folks would be flown in even for the smallest of tasks that they would not have been asked to do in the case of a per-incident servicing agreement. MTU servicing infrastructure is centered around Vizag with service centers elsewhere especially with a large one in Guindy Chennai.
3. MTU engines will continue to rule the roost in the IN smaller ship engine segment, he was concerned on the increasing American presence in the larger engines category especially the LM2500.
4. He was all praise for the Russian tank engines praising their ruggedness. Said they are no match to the MTU engines in terms of fuel efficiency.
5. Was not very convinced about the indigenous Cummins engine being built. Pointed towards their competition in the civilian backup power set segment where MTU continues to rule the roost as a result of better reliability. I felt a clear bias here.
6. MTU has railway engines but India nowhere in its radar.
7. He had the highest of opinion about the Arjun and grapevine he heard is that its power pack is easily serviceable due to the design factors. He however had some concerns on the APU. He dint delve into too mubch detail there.


-------

He felt India missed big chances during the Soviet Union's break up where very talented tank scientists and engineers could have been easily absorbed into our institutions just like China did. He mentioned that a lot of Soviet scientists came to India looking for jobs in the immediate aftermath of Soviet breakup and where they salary arrears running into several months. He quoted the example of one scientist who was considered the world's leading expert in heat transfer technology. He came to India to collect his 50$ thesis review fees from some individuals in IITs(he pointed to this as desperation of this individual). He was felicitated in one of the the IITs where he was recognized and well known. The scientist left disappointed that the Indian govt could not use his expertise. The MTU executive I was with was telling me that his services could have been well used in the Arjun program but there was lot of inflexibility in hiring such advisors due to pay related issues and conformance to scientist pay guidelines.


LM 2500 is a gas turbine not a diesel engine.

Beyond say 15,000 - 20,000 hp, gas turbines would be preferred for ships for CODAG or CODOG use.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1616
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 28 Dec 2014 01:28

abhik wrote:^^^
Cummins BTW is an American company, I don't know how "indigenous" that engine is going to be.


IIRC, the indigenous powerpack for Abhay was also developed with Cummins.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1150
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 30 Dec 2014 07:33

"Phase-IV of user trials of Arjun Main Battle Tank
Mk-II, that included trench crossing and step
climbing capabilities, were successfully
completed."
" Dynamic trials of 120mm
Penetration-cum-Blast (PCB) ammunition for
MBT Arjun Mk II were conducted successfully."

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1150
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 30 Dec 2014 07:49

can someone provide the whole CAG report on Arjun

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20711
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 30 Dec 2014 15:03

How many "phases" left for Mk-2 before it is declared kosher? Can anyone also find out what the comparative costs of a T-72UG,T-90,Arjun MK-1 and est for Mk-2 are? How many specialised armoured vehicles are also being designed around the Arjun's chassis? Is there any open source plan projection of the IA's armoured corps showing by 2020 how many tanks/types will be in service (T-72UGs,T-90s,Arjuns 1&2)?chassis.

If IU recollect ,a 130mm catapult has been developed for the IA using the Arjun;s
Last edited by Philip on 30 Dec 2014 15:35, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rohitvats » 30 Dec 2014 15:22

I think it is time for DRDO to consult an astrologer and show 'janampatri' of Arjun Tank to assess any there are any 'doshas' in the birth chart. May be, the astrologer can suggest some yagnya to ward off these 'doshas' and evil eye and we may finally see Arjun mass muster with IA.

Short of this, I think DRDO has done everything. What we're witnessing is bl@@dy farce!

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9799
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Yagnasri » 30 Dec 2014 15:26

As per a report I read sometime back, about 50 tanks are damaged/retired every year on avarage. So IA needs some 50 tanks per year just to maintain force levels. Considaring the number of tanks we have. I feel 50 units a year may be a reasonable figure. Surely Mk1 or 2 can be ordered for 500 units with 50 units a year to maintain force level. Yet nothing was given and the production line is kept without work. If there are budgetory constrains then why T-90 is being inducted?

The problem is IA does not want Arjun. Simple and clear. I fear unless forced MOD and IA may not accept anything produced in India. MP as RM need to do serious kick a** babus in MOD first and then IA and IAF will automatically fall in line. I feel Babus are too much happy in getting natashas.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8216
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 30 Dec 2014 15:55

MP, is not a political DM. We need a political DM. Who can break through the entrenched lobbies in the MOD. In the absence off that, you can forget any changes in the MOD>

anirban_aim
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 25 Jul 2009 21:28

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby anirban_aim » 30 Dec 2014 17:07

OT Alert:

Pratyush wrote:MP, is not a political DM. We need a political DM. Who can break through the entrenched lobbies in the MOD. In the absence off that, you can forget any changes in the MOD>


Understand the underlying sentiment but it is not entirely true.

A Political DM will use it as a source to milk funds for self and party. A Non Political DM will maintain the status quo.

Polity is not interested in Fauj as a subject, as it does not effect their interests/constituencies. You may contrast it with Rail or Heavy Industry portfolio. For that matter even Steel.

You will see parties in a coalition hankering over these so called not critical portfolios, but never MoD.

But MoD is like Fauj itself of today, lot of spit and shine but little else in real terms for the RM or his party so......

Unless of course foren maal can be brought in, that is a game changer!


Rant Alert

You know who is the best friend of the Indian Fauji. China. May god bless it.

I wish and pray that China ups the supply of Fighters to Pukes. I pray that the railway line to the border fructifies fast. May the Paki Chini linkup in POK get complete and ramped up soon. I wish they move heavy artillery and armor to border (wherever feasible) I wish they launch more Aircraft Carriers and dock more nuke subs at SL.

Since time immemorial, the only thing that has moved us Bhartiyas to act with alacrity is crisis. Not the kind which builds over some time, about which gyaanis pontificate.

We don't need perspective plans, we need Chini UAVs and planes flying over AP. We need Chini Boats on Pangong Tso and Chini Subs surfacing and testing ballistic missiles close to Mumbai Coast. We need a crisis which is here and now. In our face.

Rant End
OT Alert End

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9799
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Yagnasri » 30 Dec 2014 18:13

Today at IIT-B Parrikar said this:

Indicating his dissatisfaction with DRDO, Parrikar said that while the defence research organisation gels well with the navy, it is not working as well in most other programmes. The involvement of IITs will "put defence acquisitions in a different orbit," he said.

Why is it doing ok with Navy and not other two wings??? The answer is obvious. There is no clear culture and vision in respect of the systems of both the wings at MOD. Even IA, IAF has not made serious interest/effort in design and development of systems till date. Hopefully this will change.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Kersi D » 30 Dec 2014 23:08

rohitvats wrote:I think it is time for DRDO to consult an astrologer and show 'janampatri' of Arjun Tank to assess any there are any 'doshas' in the birth chart. May be, the astrologer can suggest some yagnya to ward off these 'doshas' and evil eye and we may finally see Arjun mass muster with IA.

Short of this, I think DRDO has done everything. What we're witnessing is bl@@dy farce!


You will find a lot of Natashas in the financial house !!!!!

Which is the cause of "poor performance" of Arjun vis-a-vis T 1234566789

mody
BRFite
Posts: 680
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby mody » 31 Dec 2014 17:31

This OT but anyways

You will find IA and IAF being much better gelled with DRDO, if DRDO and the services get a say in who will manufacture the products developed by DRDO. DRDO should have 80% weighted and the concerned service 20%. DRDO itself has been asking for right to decide which production agency/company takes up the product for manufacturing. Currently this is decided purely by MoD.
Therein lies a big problem.
If DRDO and the services had the freedom to choose the production company whether public or private or any combination thereof, then the things would definitely improve. JMT.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1616
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 31 Dec 2014 17:49

Philip wrote:If IU recollect ,a 130mm catapult has been developed for the IA using the Arjun;s


It's a makeshift arrangement with some electronics slapped on because the older Vijayanta chassis was beyond service life.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest