Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Surya » 24 Dec 2014 04:19

Save it boys before it disappears

then read and weep

and wait for tin can supporters to muddy the waters with some other report from 1845

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2385
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Prem Kumar » 24 Dec 2014 04:32

This damning CAG table was tweeted by Saurav Jha. Note how the Arjun's test parameters were consistently tougher than T-90s. The table speaks for itself:

Image

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1924
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby PratikDas » 24 Dec 2014 04:38

rajsunder posted the same thing. It is a shame.

ravip
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby ravip » 24 Dec 2014 08:20

Moderator Note: rant with offensive language deleted. You're free to criticize the army but mind the language. Comparing with Pakistan Army is not something which will be tolerated.

rohitvats.
Last edited by rohitvats on 24 Dec 2014 08:28, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: post with offensive language to Service deleted.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7713
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rohitvats » 24 Dec 2014 08:25

I hope Pannikar reads this report in detail and takes the army and MOD to task on both Arjun and T-90. Arjun for the way in which program has been stymied at every occasion to the point of scuttling it; T-90 for the way Russians have used delay tactics to ensure delay cum lower production at Avadi so that we resort to CKD/SKD imports.

The whole saga is interlinked to ensure continued imports from Russia. Even domestic production of T-90 is being scuttled!

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1857
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby uddu » 24 Dec 2014 08:25

The previous DGMF has tried all it can to scuttle the Arjun project. This exposes them. There need to be an investigation into the attempt to scuttle the Arjun tank project by DGMF.
It seems even today DGMF wants the CLGM missile test to be completed, before going ahead with the production of Arjun MK-II. Is that another delay tactic? Seems Parikkar has to have a look into these things and fix it. Also those who are not in favour of indigenous products which are far superior to imported products must not hold any decision making post in the Army.

Also it's time to think about the Mark-III variant with indigenous engine and further improvements. This must be mass produced to replace the T series of tanks in the Army.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9630
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Yagnasri » 24 Dec 2014 08:41

Simply stop all imports by at least by Army. No exports at all except things like Nuclear Subs etc should be produced in India only. Rifles can be made/produced in Indian private sector or even a PSUs. Considering the volumes production form raw material level can be done.

Things are needed to be forced into the throat armed forces. There is no other solution as of today.

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 » 24 Dec 2014 08:47

Yagnasri wrote:Simply stop all imports by at least by Army. No exports at all except things like Nuclear Subs etc should be produced in India only. Rifles can be made/produced in Indian private sector or even a PSUs. Considering the volumes production form raw material level can be done.

Things are needed to be forced into the throat armed forces. There is no other solution as of today.


AK Antony nearly succeeded. He pushed forward Arjun, pushed creation of 155 MM 45 cal for time being, okayed development of 52 cal, pushed Indianisation of guns and munitions. There were certain setbacks due to corruption which let to ban fiasco. (Ducks - Category 10 storm expected).

ravip
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby ravip » 24 Dec 2014 09:01

ravip wrote:Moderator Note: rant with offensive language deleted. You're free to criticize the army but mind the language. Comparing with Pakistan Army is not something which will be tolerated.

rohitvats.


My anger is not against army as an institution but against those who conducted the trials.

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rajsunder » 24 Dec 2014 10:14

The worst part was when DRDO had to install black box in RENK transmission to prevent sabotage of Arjun tank while it was undergoing comparative trials.
One starts to loose respect for the army when we start reading these sort of news.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8125
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 24 Dec 2014 10:24

Still if as a result of this report, good sense prevails. It would have ended well for the product and give a lot of confidence to the design team for the future projects.

But as it is, my fingers are crossed, as the last nearly 20 years have shown that the number of pig headed people in the country are considerable and there ability to **** things up is almost beyond compare.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7713
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rohitvats » 24 Dec 2014 10:47

ravip wrote:
ravip wrote:Moderator Note: rant with offensive language deleted. You're free to criticize the army but mind the language. Comparing with Pakistan Army is not something which will be tolerated.

rohitvats.


My anger is not against army as an institution but against those who conducted the trials.


Those who conducted the trial are also part of the same army. Further, even when you criticize their actions, bringing in comparison to PA or using offensive language is a no go territory. Please bear the same in mind.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20323
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 24 Dec 2014 11:34

Go back in time to the chronology of T090 and Arjun acquisition.I think a few years ago it was spelt out.When Pak acquired at a bargain T-80UD tanks from the Ukraine,the IA had no alternative but to acquire the T-90 to counter it and also acquire it in large number to replace old T-72s which could not be upgraded.Arjun at that time had yet to be perfected in MK-1 avatar. There is no Q/issue about a Mk-1 meeting the grade in trials subsequently and the need for substantial orders to be placed.The IA's requirements have further evolved with additional improvements being made so that MK-2 is even better than MK-1.How many tanks Avadi can roll out is a moot point.As mentioned in many earlier posts it has a huge order book of upgrading hundreds of T-72s,manufacturing T-90s,Arjun MK_1s and developing/manufacturing MK-2 in the future. Unless tank production is ramped up substantially -and it is necessary whether we manufacture Arjuns,Russian tanks,whatever,we will be behind the moderniisation curve.

Looking into the future for the next decade when an FMBT design should be developed keeping in mind the foll. features.A 3-man crewed tank with a heavier gun and auto-loader,ER ATGMs,active/passive defences ,perhaps with a turretless profile as is supposed to feature on the new Russian FMBT the Armata to be unveiled next year,which will also be lighter than the 4-crew Arjun design,and enhanced armour protection . The tech developed successfully for the Arjun that will still be relevant for for the next decade should be factored in so that deign coincepts could be worked out asap. If we start now,by 2020 prototypes could be rolled out.

nash
BRFite
Posts: 847
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby nash » 24 Dec 2014 11:43

May be Mr Parrikar aware about this but if he is not then we should send this snapshot to him through social media. It may not do much difference but hopefully sanity prevail and someone do something about this non-sense act from some IA wallas.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8125
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 24 Dec 2014 11:49

Philip,

So what the Bakis got the t 80, we must get the T 90. That automatically makes it better. So by that logic If the PRC supplies the latest tank to Bakis. That they will call T 2010. We must get T 2020 from Russia. That is just another name for Armata.

What kind of logic is that?

The solution is to painstakingly develop the domestic design and debug them. Not buy from abroad and then debug the problems in the imported system. Which is what happened with the T 90.

It looks like shit and stinks like shit. But we cant call it shit because it involves the IA.

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 » 24 Dec 2014 12:27

Philip, both Arjun and T90 were available. It was decided to go for T90 citing t72 linage and easier production. The descision proved truma for rest of the years.

ravip
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby ravip » 24 Dec 2014 13:02

Now some people will crop up saying that t90 provides almost same output in parameters for less weight and there is also commonality etc and what not....shame that people allowed this to happen.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7713
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rohitvats » 24 Dec 2014 14:19

Pratyush wrote:Philip,

So what the Bakis got the t 80, we must get the T 90. That automatically makes it better. So by that logic If the PRC supplies the latest tank to Bakis. That they will call T 2010. We must get T 2020 from Russia. That is just another name for Armata.

What kind of logic is that?

The solution is to painstakingly develop the domestic design and debug them. Not buy from abroad and then debug the problems in the imported system. Which is what happened with the T 90. It looks like shit and stinks like shit. But we cant call it shit because it involves the IA.


While it made sense to import the first lot of T-90, or second even, there is no justification for further imports which happened. Or, the license production agreement.

The real funny thing is that Pakistan itself imported T-80 as an interim measure - and post import of 320 T-80, they've spent entire effort to develop and induct 'indigenous' Al-Khalid.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8125
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 24 Dec 2014 14:37

Rohit,

That second lot at the expense of the the Arjun is the crux of the matter.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4770
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Kartik » 24 Dec 2014 15:59

Prem Kumar wrote:This damning CAG table was tweeted by Saurav Jha. Note how the Arjun's test parameters were consistently tougher than T-90s. The table speaks for itself:

Image


if there was ever any proof required that there are different standards adopted for imports and indigenous developments, here it is.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12926
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby pankajs » 24 Dec 2014 16:12

Well it still is not late for course correction. What has happened in the past is past lets hope more indigenous stuff will be ordered progressively.

This is also an opportunity to set up a board of inquiry (or SIT) on why different benchmark for the same parameter was specified often to the disadvantage of the indigenous product and responsibility should be fixed.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8125
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 24 Dec 2014 16:14

The solution is a political DM who is not scared to take a stand. All else will fall in place.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9630
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Yagnasri » 24 Dec 2014 16:50

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.

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 17:54

chackojoseph wrote:Philip, both Arjun and T90 were available. It was decided to go for T90 citing t72 linage and easier production. The descision proved truma for rest of the years.


chacko can you support your statement that ARJUN was available when T-90 was inducted ? (we didnt have a production line for ARJUN until 2008 and 2000-2001 was when T-90 was inducted)

its a fad to bash russians and IA and specially T-90 in India, sighting ARJUN saga.

The funny part is AL-Khalid is called 'indigenous', when everyone knows that its MBT 2000 from China.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11444
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Aditya_V » 24 Dec 2014 17:59

d-brewal, what about the 2nd and 3rd batch, why was the original order kept at 124 and no further orders made while T-90 was ordered in 100's. Why did Arjun have to jump through loops while T-90 got a free ride.

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 18:12

Aditya_V wrote:d-brewal, what about the 2nd and 3rd batch, why was the original order kept at 124 and no further orders made while T-90 was ordered in 100's. Why did Arjun have to jump through loops while T-90 got a free ride.


2nd Batch Ordered in 2006 - Still Arjun production line was not in sight.
3rd Batch Ordered in 2014 - (this is most probably to keep the rate_of_induction_w.r.t_new_raising_intact considering the new formations which have been approved for 2 front scenario)
This new order is because of AVDHI failure to make it in desired numbers as per requirement and orders placed with it.

we will have this situation till AVDHI will not be able to produce at 100% capacity.

AVDHI is known to be highly inefficient, it is know to run at around 30-40% capacity only and this is not because of lack of orders.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 572
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby mody » 24 Dec 2014 18:13

d_berwal, the extract from the CAG report given on the previous page has the details. The first batch of 5 Arjuns were manufactured in 2003-04. The inspection for the same was conducted by the army only is 2005, after a 1 year delay. So much for the need for urgent equipment. These 5 tanks were accepted. Thereafter the next batch of 9 tanks were made ready. Once again the inspection was delayed for no apparent reason. The inspection took place in 2007. By this time 53 Arjun tanks were ready.
So your claim that the assembly line was setup in 2008, is plain wrong.

During the second inspection, Arjun's were rejected due to the water ingress during fording and modifications were required for all 53 tanks that were ready at the time. The report was that Arjun's have failed the quality check and hence new fresh order for T-90 was finalized in November 2007.

Anyone defending the IA after reading these reports and many other reports and facts that have emerged over the years, with regards to the Arjun program, is simply burying their head in the sand.

I can only hope that Parrikar after reading these reports, sanctions a production for 10 regiments worth of Arjun MK-II, i.e. 590 tanks and authorizes the further development of Arjun MKIII, with the army fully entrenched with the program.
Also, action should be taken upon all officers of the army, who were responsible for this fiasco and dis-service to the nation.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 572
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby mody » 24 Dec 2014 18:16

d_berwal wrote:
Aditya_V wrote:d-brewal, what about the 2nd and 3rd batch, why was the original order kept at 124 and no further orders made while T-90 was ordered in 100's. Why did Arjun have to jump through loops while T-90 got a free ride.


2nd Batch Ordered in 2006 - Still Arjun production line was not in sight.
3rd Batch Ordered in 2014 - (this is most probably to keep the rate_of_induction_w.r.t_new_raising_intact considering the new formations which have been approved for 2 front scenario)
This new order is because of AVDHI failure to make it in desired numbers as per requirement and orders placed with it.

we will have this situation till AVDHI will not be able to produce at 100% capacity.

AVDHI is known to be highly inefficient, it is know to run at around 30-40% capacity only and this is not because of lack of orders.



From the CAG report, the first lot of 5 Arjun tanks were ready in 2003-04 and were inspected after a 1 year delay in 2005. The second batch of 9 Arjun Tanks were ready 2005 and were inspected after a 2 year delay in 2007. Hence the production of Arjun was up and running in 2003-04 itself. Also note that the first 5 tanks produced were accepted after all the rigorous testing.
Please get your facts right. Or maybe you are disputing the entire CAG report.

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 18:18

DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRO HYDRAULIC GUN CONTROL SYSTEM (GCS)

Status: Closed in December 2002

DDR&D sanctioned a project for Development of GCS. The aim of the project was indigenous development of GCS for armoured fighting vehicles and supply of two systems. The project was successfully completed by CVRDE. However, even after 11 years since successful completion of the project, the technology developed under the project did not find application in any staff project indicating lack of user interest.

In reply CVRDE stated that by the time the trial under this project was completed, the configuration of Arjun MBT MK-I was firmed up by the user for productionisation. It was further stated that the user was contemplating placement of an indent for 118 nos. of MBT Arjun MK—II, which was not an economically viable quantity for productionisation of GCS. The reply corroborates our comment that the technology developed under the project did not find application in a Staff project.

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 18:20

mody wrote:d_berwal, the extract from the CAG report given on the previous page has the details. The first batch of 5 Arjuns were manufactured in 2003-04. ........


well mody sirji please check you can go back this thread 5-6 years back and you will see enough evidence that production line was ready when.

ARJUN saga is well documented i have no more to say.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 572
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby mody » 24 Dec 2014 18:31

d_berwal wrote:
mody wrote:d_berwal, the extract from the CAG report given on the previous page has the details. The first batch of 5 Arjuns were manufactured in 2003-04. ........


well mody sirji please check you can go back this thread 5-6 years back and you will see enough evidence that production line was ready when.

ARJUN saga is well documented i have no more to say.


Sir I have also been following the arjun saga for many years. However new facts always emerge.
I am sure not many of us knew about the rejection of Arjun due to water ingress during fording trials and the different yard sticks for T-90 and Arjun. Sure everyone always suspected that different yardsticks are being applied, but now for the first time we have seen the exact specifics of the same.

Also, if after the inspection of first pilot batch of production standard Arjuns were accepted in 2005, if Avadi churned out an additional 48 tanks between 2005 and 2007, I don't understand how that could have been done without an assembly line.
Also the CAG report states, that the assembly line was setup at Avadi and it was for a production capacity of 30 tanks per annum. Agreed that 30 tanks per annum capacity is small, but to say that production of Arjun did not exist is plain wrong.

The second batch of T-90 tanks, along with the license production agreement, should have been avoided.

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 18:32

d_berwal wrote:chacko can you support your statement that ARJUN was available when T-90 was inducted ? (we didnt have a production line for ARJUN until 2008 and 2000-2001 was when T-90 was inducted)

its a fad to bash russians and IA and specially T-90 in India, sighting ARJUN saga.


- The HVF delivered 90 T-90s in 2012-13 while the Arjun deliveries stood at 'NIL'. While folks here aren't saying much (owing to mods keeping a close eye) but There's a lot of unposted unsaid vitriol and downright abuse in the air. And the IA or rather the IA brass has earned every bit of it.

CAG Report wrote:The Russian Firm, M/s Rosoboronexport (ROE) was expected to transfer the design details in the Transfer-of-Technology (ToT) documents by March 2003. The documents were in Russian; the Army/Ordnance Factories’ efforts to get translated documents from ROE, failed.

We found that ToT documents in respect of some critical assemblies were not transferred by the Russian manufacturer, ROE, even after lapse of 12 years as of July 2013. An important component was the gun system (including barrel) for which the design had not been received as of May 2014. In fact, the Ministry cited this issue as the main reason for slippage in indigenous production of T-90 tank.


The bashing of the Russians isn't a fad, its a consequence.

d_berwal wrote:The funny part is AL-Khalid is called 'indigenous', when everyone knows that its MBT 2000 from China.


Actually 'everyone' knows that when you put something in quotes, as RV did, the phrase is referring to someone else's description or speech.
Last edited by Viv S on 24 Dec 2014 18:37, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Surya » 24 Dec 2014 18:36

oh I forgot the tin can folks will bring up the future FMBT

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 18:37

mody wrote:
Sir I have also been following the arjun saga for many years. However new facts always emerge.
........


well you are not ready to accept facts what can i do...

you are entitled to your opinion/ viewpoint and i am to mine and others to theirs.

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 18:45

@ Viv S you are entitled to your opinion/ viewpoint and i am to mine and others to theirs.

I can say only that actual ground_situation_warranted_the_new_order that's why people in higher ups have taken the decision.

well if others believe there is a sinister motive to it then i cant stop them thinking that way.

the actual discussion should be on efficiency of AVDHI but we are ready to turn it into T-90 vs ARJUN and ready to pounce on IA and brand them as people working against our own country.

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 18:50

Surya wrote:oh I forgot the tin can folks will bring up the future FMBT


Sirji did you forget the up-comming T-90 mid-life-upgrade?

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rajsunder » 24 Dec 2014 18:52

d_berwal wrote:
Aditya_V wrote:d-brewal, what about the 2nd and 3rd batch, why was the original order kept at 124 and no further orders made while T-90 was ordered in 100's. Why did Arjun have to jump through loops while T-90 got a free ride.


2nd Batch Ordered in 2006 - Still Arjun production line was not in sight.
3rd Batch Ordered in 2014 - (this is most probably to keep the rate_of_induction_w.r.t_new_raising_intact considering the new formations which have been approved for 2 front scenario)
This new order is because of AVDHI failure to make it in desired numbers as per requirement and orders placed with it.

we will have this situation till AVDHI will not be able to produce at 100% capacity.

AVDHI is known to be highly inefficient, it is know to run at around 30-40% capacity only and this is not because of lack of orders.

There was step brother treatment of Arjun tank from day 1.

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 19:09

d_berwal wrote:@ Viv S you are entitled to your opinion/ viewpoint and i am to mine and others to theirs.

I can say only that actual ground_situation_warranted_the_new_order that's why people in higher ups have taken the decision.

The ground reality still is that the Arjun outperformed the T-90 in the comparative trials.

well if others believe there is a sinister motive to it then i cant stop them thinking that way.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

the actual discussion should be on efficiency of AVDHI but we are ready to turn it into T-90 vs ARJUN and ready to pounce on IA and brand them as people working against our own country.

So, HVF did not deliver any Arjun tanks last year because - (1) it is an inefficient organisation OR (2) it has zero orders for the tank.

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 19:27

Viv S wrote:So, HVF did not deliver any Arjun tanks last year because - (1) it is an inefficient organisation OR (2) it has zero orders for the tank.


how much time did it take to deliver on 1st order, that proves the inefficiency.

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 20:23

d_berwal wrote:
Viv S wrote:So, HVF did not deliver any Arjun tanks last year because - (1) it is an inefficient organisation OR (2) it has zero orders for the tank.


how much time did it take to deliver on 1st order, that proves the inefficiency.


The T-90 production was barely beginning when the Arjun production started ending. So no, pointing at HVF does not, by any means, justify the IA's sabotage.

ARJUN PRODUCTION

Image


T-90 PRODUCTION

Image


Arjun production ends in 2009-10, while the T-90 production begins in 2009-10.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests