LCA news and discussion

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 26 Feb 2010 05:15

HAL in last three years have put up lot of infra near its site in Bangalore. I believe its for LCA. If you really see its size, it should be able to manufacture atleast 20 aircrafts per year

chaiwallah's please respond

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 26 Feb 2010 06:41

HAL at best will be able to pull 14 aircraft's per year ,20 is way out of its league with current infrastructure

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 26 Feb 2010 10:40

HAL was producing 14 MKI per year,DM antony has asked them to speed it up to 17/year and neccessary infra structure was developed,if they can produce 17 MKI per year. i think they can make 20 LCA without much problem.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 26 Feb 2010 10:45

^^ IIRC HAL started around 8 MKI per annum in the early years, later it was increased to 14 and now 17 I guess (did not know this latest number). LCA is likely to follow a similar path although I have always hoped that the number acquired increases to 400 ala MiG-21.

So does SB 140 mean the IAF has at least as many numbers of MKI?

CM.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 26 Feb 2010 11:30

^^^ su numbering scheme in IAF :

series SB001 onwards but less than SB101--> russian made birds. includes the replaced k versions SB001-SB018. SB019 onwards russian made MKI's.

SB101 onwards HAL made/assembled MKI's.

I think 140 is the latest of the series we have seen so far, not sure though. total should come to around 110-120.

HarishV · Post by **HarishV** » 26 Feb 2010 11:53

HAL was producing 14 MKI per year,DM antony has asked them to speed it up to 17/year and neccessary infra structure was developed,if they can produce 17 MKI per year. i think they can make 20 LCA without much problem.

The MKIs were knocked-down Russian kits assembled by HAL. That is not true of the LCA. IMHO not a convincing argument to compare the two.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 26 Feb 2010 12:10

@Marten i have clearly mentioned Current infrastructure ,i don't know how to say this to you even after funds where provided to HAL to produce 8 LSP, it took them two years to set up a production line ,now funds are provided to improve current infrastructure and you expect them produce 20 Tejas per year ? ,even with Current infrastructure they have provided only Two LSP in three years , let them provide all remaining 6 LSP by this Dec which i bet will not happen ,after 2015 we can talk of 20 Tejas per year from HAL nothing before that

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 26 Feb 2010 12:24

Kartik wrote:the fact is that unfortunately, HAL doesn't treat the Tejas as its own product

Understandable - the LCA is not HAL's baby. But for a production/manufacturing agency, what difference does that make? Though they are not obliged to market the LCA, they sure get their share of work and profits right? And how could HAL market their own IJT/LCH etc without a proper PR channel? When India can spend millions on lobbying firms to secure a civil nuclear deal, they can definitely spend a few mils to promote their own products...

btw, any update on the integrating of Kaveri to the LCA?

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 26 Feb 2010 12:43

@Kailash last what i heard was that it will be integrated with PV-1 by end of this year or early next year for its first flight

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 26 Feb 2010 19:50

Rahul M wrote: series SB001 onwards but less than SB101--> russian made birds. includes the replaced k versions SB001-SB018. SB019 onwards russian made MKI's

Hey the Su-30Ks have been replaced?

RonyKJ · Post by **RonyKJ** » 26 Feb 2010 20:49

I think the time has come to invite the private sector to bid on making the LCA.
HAL is a huge monopoly which will not bet any better and does not deserve to have
more money put into it. It has learned nothing in all these decades of assembling
aircraft.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 26 Feb 2010 22:26

originally pvt sector was asked to take up the project during rajiv gandhi era. it was only after they refused that ADA/HAL took it up. HAL itself has had a lot of contribution to the program as also the necessary background. suddenly stripping them of this job and awarding it to organisation with no prior experience will destroy the project. what can be done is to get the pvt co's to produce subsystems leaving HAL as the final assembler.

Bheem · Post by **Bheem** » 26 Feb 2010 22:50

The Original budget for LCA was around US$ 100 million dollars. Pvt sector would have been idiots to take up a this big project for peanuts. Would GoI have given them US$ 2 Billion and 25 years which LCA project seems to be taking. Would the GoI tolerated delays of one decade and failure of Kaveri and MMR if the project had been handled by Pvt sector?

Even now Indian AMCA gets only US$ 1 Billion while Russian project PAKFA is allocated 10-12 Billion US$ out of which half "may" come out of India.

One cannot set up International quality R&D projects without similar scale of funding.

RonyKJ · Post by **RonyKJ** » 27 Feb 2010 00:08

Yes, I am talking about sub-systems being made by private sector industries much like how ISRO now buys
a lot of systems from private sector industries like L&T.
It is necessary for government funding to set up institutions like ADA, but HAL does not really seem to fit in anywhere other than as a facility to assemble CKD kits of aircraft. So it can continue in the same fashion except that the kits will be supplied to it by private indian industries.
ISRO has a very successful model for technology transfer and development of private sector industries that HAL and ADA can adopt.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Feb 2010 04:36

Bheem wrote:The Original budget for LCA was around US$ 100 million dollars. Pvt sector would have been idiots to take up a this big project for peanuts. Would GoI have given them US$ 2 Billion and 25 years which LCA project seems to be taking. Would the GoI tolerated delays of one decade and failure of Kaveri and MMR if the project had been handled by Pvt sector?

Even now Indian AMCA gets only US$ 1 Billion while Russian project PAKFA is allocated 10-12 Billion US$ out of which half "may" come out of India.

One cannot set up International quality R&D projects without similar scale of funding.

It is difficult to gauge what the response would have been, but, even $100 Million was - then - a large sum. And, the risks were many - but they were considered doable. (BTW, it was a Ph. D from Cal Tech that lead that effort - for what that is worth.)

On AMCA (these acronyms keep changing _ I hope it is to confuse others) is is quite different. India does have plenty of cash to play around with which she did not have even perhaps 10 years ago. BUT, the AMCA is highly dependent on the LCA experience, so the cost will be much, much less when compared to a new effort.

The PAK-FA is an animal by itself. I suspect the enticement there is to acquire latest technologies, which may give a boost to the AMCA too. ????

Besides all that the Indian Pvt sector is a whole lot mature today. There is no comparison with what they were 15 years ago. And, therefore, a 1 Rs. invested with them today should provide a far higher ROI than 10-15 years ago. Forget 20+ years ago.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 27 Feb 2010 05:50

RonyKJ wrote: I think the time has come to invite the private sector to bid on making the LCA. HAL is a huge monopoly which will not bet any better and does not deserve to have more money put into it. It has learned nothing in all these decades of assembling aircraft.

this is a very generalised statement that is way off the mark to be polite. HAL isn't quite as pathetic as you make it out to be here. They do have some areas that they're weak at being a PSU, but you're also over-estimating the R&D and Industrial capacity of India's private sector. And without having been involved in the aerospace industry for so long, there is no private entity in India which can either match or exceed HAL's capability to manufacture aircraft. There is plenty of experience that HAL has built up over decades that cannot be gotten just overnight by any private company.

And when you say "it has learned nothing from all these decades of assembling aircraft", what on earth do you mean? Look at the timelines for the design of the IJT or the LCH and compare that to any competitor product in the world.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Feb 2010 08:26

Is there any possibility of increasing mach level with the budgeted new firangi engines for Tejas, without changing the design?

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 27 Feb 2010 10:58

SaiK wrote:Is there any possibility of increasing mach level with the budgeted new firangi engines for Tejas, without changing the design?

Apparently not. The GE upgrade to the EPE meant that the design had to chage a tad, but the goal at that stage was to improve the thrust and reduce manifacturing costs. Not sure about the EJ..

Thankfully DRDO and ADA have, on seperate occasions, confirmed through their feisability studies that they would need only 'minor' tweaks to either engines for integration into the LCA and the choice would largely depend on cost,TOT and industrial pacakge..

One of the officers related to the the tech evals leaked info that the GE engine was larger and hence the aircraft would need significant changes to the fusilage, potentially jeopardising progress of the project and further delaying induction of the LCA, both for the IN and especially for the IAF

The tech eval committee has pitched the EJ as a better option but fears loom large that, the cost of the engines and Geo-politics might mean that the order falls straight into GE's lap and the 414 would be thrust upon the LCA. Not that ADA & HAL are averse to it,as It would also mean more work and money for ADA & HAL as the aircraft would need to be redesigned.

Moving off topic for a bit, this order is not just immensely crucial for the LCA's success but it would mean a foot-hold into the MMRCA race. It would only make sense to have the same engine for the LCA & MMRCA. From my point of view the Gripen, SH and EF are already have a distinct advantage from that perspective. With a decision looming around the corner... Whoever wins in bound to get a boost fto the chances of their perspective aircrafts in the race.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 28 Feb 2010 09:46

Boost for CISO ( Central Scientific Instruments Organisation ).. new orders for HUD after LCA success!

The CSIO recently completed the last phase of transfer of total 20 units of HUD to Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) which would be fabricated in the Light Combat Aircrafts (LCA) to be used by the Air Force. Not only the LCAs, the CSIO has also received order to develop 200 more items of equipment for the next generation aircrafts.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/CSIO- ... aft/585363

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 28 Feb 2010 09:53

^^

shukla wrote:Boost for CISO ( Central Scientific Instruments Organisation ).. new orders for HUD after LCA success!

Not only the LCAs, the CSIO has also received order to develop 200 more items of equipment for the next generation aircrafts.

what does NEXT GENERATION AIRCRAFT mean....and look at the number it is 200...!
for what FGFA/NGFA??...nothing is that near..as of now....as per my knowledge...!

Or may be it just a move to place all Indigenous items in whatever aircraft by retrofitting it...As the news further says that

The CSIO is now in the process of development of the HUD systems for SU-30 MKI, Jaguar and MiG series aircraft.

or may be just a confused Jurno...!

Gurus..words of wisdom..?

HarishV · Post by **HarishV** » 28 Feb 2010 10:47

The CSIO is now in the process of development of the HUD systems for SU-30 MKI, Jaguar and MiG series aircraft.

AFAIK, the CSIO HUD project was started back in 92 and these were only integrated in to the LCA. Comparative tests were done only against the Israeli HUDs and it turned out to be better, so not sure its still "Best in the World" yet.
The CSIO director had indeed stated a while back that the HUDs will be integrated in to the Su-30's, Mig-27's and Jaguars.

The 200 x items of equipment - whatever that means in DDM lingo - doesn't seem to be linked to anything tangible. Are we taking MRCAs or MCA's or NGFAs or PAK-FA's - Lets atleast have a deal on paper - signed sealed and delivered before we order HUDs for aircrafts that don't exist. There were some tests being done for the Indian Army, and while there was a plan to start serial production of the HUDs I'm not sure where the deal is at and what state they are in.

rad · Post by **rad** » 28 Feb 2010 12:07

I think we should take the statement that our HUD `s are better than the Israeli ones, with a bit of salt ,
may be better in some ways than the older versions compared . We should understand that they are in
the forefront of technology in avionics, wherelese we have just started .World over Holographic HUD`s are the norm
with a very wide view . I did speak to the CSIO rep at Aero india 2009 about the Holographic HUD`s and he
was at a loss and admitted we dint have that technology so far .Well the latest trend is to totaly remove the HUD .
All the info will be projected on the HMS. The advantage is better forward view ,the weapon cueing symbology will be
always there in front of him leading to better situational awarness, rather than looking into the HUD to get infromation
in a dogfight

Rad

Bheem · Post by **Bheem** » 28 Feb 2010 13:45

NRao wrote:
Bheem wrote:The Original budget for LCA was around US$ 100 million dollars. Pvt sector would have been idiots to take up a this big project for peanuts. Would GoI have given them US$ 2 Billion and 25 years which LCA project seems to be taking. Would the GoI tolerated delays of one decade and failure of Kaveri and MMR if the project had been handled by Pvt sector?

Even now Indian AMCA gets only US$ 1 Billion while Russian project PAKFA is allocated 10-12 Billion US$ out of which half "may" come out of India.

One cannot set up International quality R&D projects without similar scale of funding.
It is difficult to gauge what the response would have been, but, even $100 Million was - then - a large sum. And, the risks were many - but they were considered doable. (BTW, it was a Ph. D from Cal Tech that lead that effort - for what that is worth.)

On AMCA (these acronyms keep changing _ I hope it is to confuse others) is is quite different. India does have plenty of cash to play around with which she did not have even perhaps 10 years ago. BUT, the AMCA is highly dependent on the LCA experience, so the cost will be much, much less when compared to a new effort.

The PAK-FA is an animal by itself. I suspect the enticement there is to acquire latest technologies, which may give a boost to the AMCA too. ????

Besides all that the Indian Pvt sector is a whole lot mature today. There is no comparison with what they were 15 years ago. And, therefore, a 1 Rs. invested with them today should provide a far higher ROI than 10-15 years ago. Forget 20+ years ago.

Are you saying that even in 1980s a sum of US$ 100 million was adequate? Would you like to compare what others nations spent on 4th gen aircraft or what LCA programme "actually" spent. I hope you know that Pvt companies would have to enter into contracts to perfrom and not like any GoI department like GTRE where failure does not mean a thing.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 03 Mar 2010 19:53

LCA completes another 11 flight tests

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Mar 2010 20:40

Bheem wrote: Are you saying that even in 1980s a sum of US$ 100 million was adequate? Would you like to compare what others nations spent on 4th gen aircraft or what LCA programme "actually" spent. I hope you know that Pvt companies would have to enter into contracts to perfrom and not like any GoI department like GTRE where failure does not mean a thing.

There is plenty of confusion on this topic (not a knock on any one). And, it is not easy to respond in a single post. Will try:

The "LCA" was meant solely to counter the (Pakistani acquisition of) F-16C - that is it. Nothing more, nothing less. There was no concept then of "other nations", no concept of "4th Gen", budget was relatively unlimited, BUT the funding was considered adequate when it all started (and over the years). The issues encountered were the total lack of facilities - which had to be built up and project management (there were other new ones that were generated as the project went along).

Which is why it is silly to compare the LCA to other efforts just because it was never meant to be compared (if you get the picture) outside of the F-16C (LM/Boeing/Dassault/EADS/whatever compete. The "LCA" effort was not about competition.)

On private companies, etc. There were none to help out. Even the non-private facilities were in a woeful shape (then). THE issue: none could deal with the latest and greatest - which is what the LCA was designed to be. (Imagine how far they came to even make the first one fly.)

On people. They were all Indians who had migrated abroad and were in the top 5%tile (then). They were very, very well recognized in their own field and had standing offers if they decided otherwise. (You have to know the picture of that era to understand this - no use comparing it to today's environment.)

On GTRE. It was outside the "LCA" project - an animal of its own making. And, the outcome was predicted way back in the early 90s. Whay, what ................. there are reason, not worth posting on the net.

Given the circumstances the LCA is a very nice effort + product. Could some more have been done - absolutely. BUT, to compare the effort to others is not right.

Compare the MCA all you want. Compare the MKI all you want. Today there is an element of comparison - IMHO it is because more of acquiring capabilities - I can do better (dunno???) (which is fine).

Not easy to explain, but there you have it. However, there is more to the LCA story that is not out - as yet.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Mar 2010 22:12

Bheem wrote: Are you saying that even in 1980s a sum of US$ 100 million was adequate? Would you like to compare what others nations spent on 4th gen aircraft or what LCA programme "actually" spent.

A very weird example of the terrible imbalance in funding but a a totally acceptable result set:

March 3, 2010 :: ISRO's budget is just three per cent of that of NASA

Ironically the ADA leader wanted (70-80s) an IRSO type of a management and structure - to realize similar benefits (that we are experiencing today) - the vision was there for the ADA/LCA. A great part of the problem was that others sadly could not ID with the vision.

Tentalizing abstract. Pay great attention to every name there is - including the author.

S R Valluri, who was one of Dhawan's many friends during 1949-51, recalls how his GALCIT colleagues refused to erase Dhawan's blackboard scribbles even after Dhawan left GALCIT [3].

pali · Post by **pali** » 03 Mar 2010 22:54

Hi guys, i am new to this forum so don't know if this question has already been addressed. My question is about the status of LCA LSP3. This aircraft is supposed to be the closest to the IOC standard and hence is quite important. But it seems to have been significantly delayed. What is the status now, what's causing the delay and when can we see it take to the skies?

Asit P · Post by **Asit P** » 04 Mar 2010 00:01

NRao wrote:Given the circumstances the LCA is a very nice effort + product. Could some more have been done - absolutely. BUT, to compare the effort to others is not right.

Well summarised.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 04 Mar 2010 00:04

What is puzzling is the inability of HAL/ADA/DRDO to produce more than one aircraft per year even though we are in Limited Series Production.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Mar 2010 18:13

Yes,I've moaned about the stated production rate (8 per year,max 12),which is just too little for the LCA to be a major player in the IAF's inventory.It will suffer the same fate as that of the HF-24.According to some old reports,the EJ manufacturers claim that their engine will require little or no fuselage changes unlike the GE engine.If this is the case then we should just plump for it and develop the MK-2 version asap.The lethargy that shrouds the entire project,wiuth th appearance of haste beats me.I cannot udnerstand why deadlines are not being made or kept.The LCA engine decision seems to be linked with that of the MMRCA deal,perhaps by vested interests.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 05 Mar 2010 19:24

>>>PS:If we are really serious about the Tejas we should give it absolute top priority and take decisions on a war footing,also building up production capacity for at least 20 per year.That way about 200 can be inducted within a decade.The committment to buying 200 will then automatically boost local production/component manufacturers.These aircraft not only should be bought in large numbers but also produced as quickly as possible because we need in the words of one analyst,a "60 sqd." air force wheras we have less than 40 today.

Suppose we build up the capacity to produce 20 LCA per year..Then the initial lot of 20 LSPs will be out in a years time. What then ?? what will you do with the production staff? Unfortunately, they cannot be sent back home.

Hence the production capacity is increased gradually..when there is an order for 200 aircrafts, rest assured the production would go up to 20 or more aircrafts per year..thill then they are managing with internal resources and minimum capital investment.. No point in throwing out 2-3 year old machines annd replace them with new ones, because there are design modifications in the new series..It is basically a question of management of resources.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 05 Mar 2010 20:41

LSP order for 8 aircraft was put in at least 4 years back. Order for 20 more was put 2-3 year back so far they have delivered only 1/year.

It appears like some big technical or other supply bottleneck is restricting completion of these orders. It is possible that several LSP LCAs are waiting for radar integration tests to be completed.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 06 Mar 2010 00:40

geeth wrote:Suppose we build up the capacity to produce 20 LCA per year..Then the initial lot of 20 LSPs will be out in a years time. What then ?? what will you do with the production staff? Unfortunately, they cannot be sent back home.

Hence the production capacity is increased gradually..when there is an order for 200 aircrafts, rest assured the production would go up to 20 or more aircrafts per year..thill then they are managing with internal resources and minimum capital investment.. No point in throwing out 2-3 year old machines annd replace them with new ones, because there are design modifications in the new series..It is basically a question of management of resources.

there is no point mentioning this Geeth. I've stated in at least 3 posts earlier that production ramps up only on the basis of existing orders and funds available to produce the existing orders. But there is no point telling these things. Some people will crib about this as if its HAL's fault or there is some intrinsic fault with HAL that stops them from producing in larger numbers.

Talking about the unsustainability of such a large production run for such a small order for long-lead items (for e.g landing gear struts) that take up a lot of time to be produced, and cost a heck of a lot in tooling, or other composite and machine tooling costs, labour costs, supply chain management and the associated costs for a 20 units per-year production line when you have only 20+20 Tejas on order is likely to fall on deaf ears. Jingos want to believe that we can churn out fighters like commie China, and its possible no doubt. There is the small issue however, of the IAF placing orders for the same. However, we cannot expect facts to come in the way of criticism. Comparison of a 2500-3000 unit F-35 production line that needs to produce nearly 1 per day just to fulfill its standing orders in another decade with a 40 unit Tejas Mk1 production that needs to fulfill its standing orders in 3-5 years are stupid to say the least, but hey the new BRF doesn't need facts to make such comparisons, does it ?

actually I'll use an analogy- say Indian boy wants 20 pants to be tailored for a given size for some occasion. the local tailor says ok, I have 1 sewing machine, and 1 apprentice who will tailor the pants for you. Obviously it will take time, so come back in 2 months time. If you want me to produce faster, I'll need to buy a new sewing machine, hire more tailors, and after your order what do I do with them ?

(At least in the case of the sewing machine the tailor can sell it because it can be used for other pants, but what on earth will HAL do with the tooling that they spent on which is custom-built for the Tejas ? keeping it idle is throwing away money that is invested in these)

US boy wants to buy 3000 pants for his whole baraat. the tailor goes gaga and says no problem sir, I will be able to set up a small-scale cottage industry after your order. so he can go ahead and buy tools, hire people, spend on their training, welfare whatever, and amortise the investment over 3000 pants. by the time he's done making 3000 pants, he's recovered all the costs he sunk into acquiring the tools and in hiring and keeping the additional employees.

big difference you see?

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 07 Mar 2010 17:01

Philip wrote:the EJ manufacturers claim that their engine will require little or no fuselage changes unlike the GE engine.I.

Yes. At DE 2010 I had a long discussion with the EJ man. He said that it is one of the few major jet engines to have been developed form the scratch. The F 414 is heavily derived from F 404. The only disadvantage I see is that it is used in only one aircraft, till date i.e. Typhoon. He said with EJ Tejas would have a much better T/W ratio compared to F 414. Tejas would have a longer range as EJ is more economical than F 404 / F 414

We are all super critical on DRDO, ADA, HAL, NAL etc. Do you know that the concept studies of EJ begun in 1985, YES 1985. It took 5 years to conceptualise the design. Detailed designs were completed in mid - late 1990s.

The gentleman said that today to develop a jet engine form the scratch, it would take a European consoutoum at least 5 years and it would cost US$ 5 - 7 BILLION !!!

K

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 07 Mar 2010 17:05

The time taken to change a EJ engine, on a Typhoon, is 45 minutes. I believe that it takes several hours to change a tank engine

K

vina · Post by **vina** » 07 Mar 2010 17:25

Well Kersi, you are talking of the T series type tanks. If you are talking of the Leopard or some such modern western analog, the tank engine can be changed in the same 45 mins. Swap out engine, swap in a spare, rig up the hoses and other accessories and you are all set to go.

In fact, our own Arjun is designed that way. You can swap the engine in 45 mins and the tank can get back in service in under an hour even if there is a major engine breakdown!. In the T series, even if there is a minor hitch like an accessory pump or subsystem breaking down, the tank may be down for a couple of hours minimum and that too ,the tank might have to go to a depot to do that kind of repair and not be repaired in the field. The Western /Arjun type tanks, you can swap the engines in the field!.

Oh well, the Indian Army knows this quite well of course, but they will do funny math to account for downtimes of the Arjun and the T series and also fudge the availability of the machines, sort of like our politicos.. Nothing is real as it seems I guess.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 07 Mar 2010 17:35

vina wrote:Well Kersi, you are talking of the T series type tanks. If you are talking of the Leopard or some such modern western analog, the tank engine can be changed in the same 45 mins. Swap out engine, swap in a spare, rig up the hoses and other accessories and you are all set to go.

In fact, our own Arjun is designed that way. You can swap the engine in 45 mins and the tank can get back in service in under an hour even if there is a major engine breakdown!. In the T series, even if there is a minor hitch like an accessory pump or subsystem breaking down, the tank may be down for a couple of hours minimum and that too ,the tank might have to go to a depot to do that kind of repair and not be repaired in the field. The Western /Arjun type tanks, you can swap the engines in the field!.

Oh well, the Indian Army knows this quite well of course, but they will do funny math to account for downtimes of the Arjun and the T series and also fudge the availability of the machines, sort of like our politicos.. Nothing is real as it seems I guess.

Vina, Thanks for educating me.

K

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Mar 2010 18:37

vina wrote:............<SNIP>..........Oh well, the Indian Army knows this quite well of course, but they will do funny math to account for downtimes of the Arjun and the T series and also fudge the availability of the machines, sort of like our politicos.. Nothing is real as it seems I guess.

The Report Card will read something like:

--Arjun: Engine problem - Changed in 45minutes
--T-90:Engine Problem - Repaired (no one will mention the downtime of very many hours).....

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Mar 2010 18:46

different philosophies - the russians had plenty of tanks and no time to sit around repairing tanks in the
2 weeks rush to the english channel. units which were combat ineffective would be replaced with new ones.
units which advanced would be resupplied, those bogged down would be left behind.

and they had the gigantic mil industrial production capacity and logistical tail to match - enough atleast to
last for the 2-3 weeks of WW3 after which pax russica would rule.

that model breaks down when we keep stuff like T-series and Mig-21 for decades when they were used like
condoms by the original russians and meant to be thrown away after a while.

even today I think they have 1000s of tanks and artillery as mothballed war wastage reserves. in
chechen wars they are said to have used bombs and such stockpiled from WW2 days!

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Mar 2010 18:53

Singha wrote:different philosophies - the russians had plenty of tanks and no time to sit around repairing tanks in the
2 weeks rush to the english channel. units which were combat ineffective would be replaced with new ones.
units which advanced would be resupplied, those than were bogged down would be left behind................

OT here an my last post on the topic: The russian desire for tanks as T-XX series and the large numbers was adirect result of their doctrine of Deep Battle Concept and subsequent requirement for large highly mechanized Tank Armies. Fat chance of achieving the results with drastically lesser number of tanks in the Abrams/Leopard Class. They needed those numbers to break through the first line of NATO Defence and then use their Operational Maneuver Groups(OMG) to exploit the battle in deep.....and ofcourse, they did realize the ability and competence of an average russian soldier will not permit any fancy-schmancy stuff.....and as for philosophy of war----"They reinforced victory, not defeat"...