Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 05 Jan 2012 01:04

nachiket/Suyra wrote: FMBT is IA's idea.


Given the recent developments and quotes from DRDO -- I think it might be better to say that FMBT was IA's idea. :mrgreen:

Clearly DRDO now has some ideas of its own, and F for DRDO != F for IA. (Which in my book is a good thing)

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 05 Jan 2012 01:06

nachiket wrote:The situation is no better now. Still only token orders from the army.


Well 248+ expected follow on + regiments being formed etc clearly points to future course. It can be better yes, it must be made better by all concerned, but the corner seems to have been turned.

At least that is how I read it.

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Hitesh » 05 Jan 2012 01:50

rohitvats wrote:
Philip wrote:It is beneath contempt to respond to those who accuse me of 'lies" and spreading "falsehoods'".This is something I have never done on BR ever since its inception.The vast majority of members know that.I do not wish to descend to their deplorable levels of manners of some of my critics and their infantile and juvenile discussions.However,for the seriously inclined who have an open mind here are some facts. <SNIP>


Oh! How the mighty have fallen. So, you were only refering to the delay in the Arjun program, is it? Too bad - everything you have posted is right here.

Post 1 -
Philip wrote: Arjun was never designed with the IA in the loop from the start,which is why it faced so much resistance from the Army.Nevertheless,the IA eventually ordered the Arjun and a repeat order is said to have also been made for the MK-2 version.


When I accused you of lying, you changed the stance to this:
The IA rightly rejected Arjun for years because it did not make the grade.Read the voluminous CAG reports of the same.Years of debate has been on BR on the issue.When it did,and proved itself well against the T-90, it bought it


And, it is the second statement you're trying to defend.

Do you have anything to support your first assertion i.e. IA was never in the loop? I think not. The reason - it is a blatant lie and flies in the face of facts. So, please stop ataking recourse to manners and civility and what not. If you have the humility, please accept that the first point was incorrect and delete the post or the said portion of the post. All this references to CAG and PAC or PSCD Reports does not absolve you of the nonsense you wrote. Pure and simple.


Stop with this holier than thou bullshit and all the other crap you are throwing. Philip's point was that the Arjun tank did not satisfy the IA's requirements during the 90s and I know this for a fact because I asked several members of the armored corps in the late 90s about the Arjun. Their biggest complaints were reliability, lack of infrastructure to go with it and the cost of bringing the infrastructure, and other issues that made Arjun, in the eyes of the IA, a lesser tank despite its indigenous design. The members were very much willing to accept Arjun if only it could meet their requirements. But at that time, it didn't and left a bad impression on the members. It was only this decade that the DRDO had to redo it and take in the complaints of IA before Arjun finally met the requirements. Nowadays Arjun is a tank worthy of IA's attention.

Hence, the last statement of Philip is correct. So stop with the holier than thou indigenous stuff. I am beginning to detect some sort of a mafia thing going on where criticism against indigenous products must be met with outright hostility and name calling. Yeah sure enough indigenous products are hard to make and hard to get it right but once they meet the requirements, it should be pursued at all costs. But then when you are the end user, you want the best product available because your very life and your buddies' lives are at stake and you need to have faith in the weapons you are holding or manning. IA did not have that faith in Arjun during the 90s because Arjun did not meet the very necessary requirements. Philip's take was that perhaps IA was not part of the designing group or decision making group at that time and if it was, it could have prevented the bad reputation that IA associated with the Arjun project.

I do not agree with most of Philip's posts especially regarding Russian products. However, by engaging in this kind of posting, you are attempting to create an atmosphere where only one set of opinions is allowed and no other opinions that run contrarily to it is tolerated. I strongly resent this even more than I do regarding Philip's overzealous defense of Russian products which can border on the lines of blindless devotion and which can be a pain in the ass sometimes but tolerable because I know for a fact that,it is just an opinion and Philip is entitled to it. I can either choose to ignore it or rebut him factually and let the others make their own opinions without having need to personally attack him.

If you can't handle that, you got no business criticizing the IA for its decisions.

VinayG
BRFite
Posts: 181
Joined: 07 Apr 2010 19:02
Location: chicago

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby VinayG » 05 Jan 2012 02:00

after reading long and lengthy arguments and pages of data all i can say is i can give more reasons to go for arjun in Indian army than tin cans

the reason i am bringing T 72 is i want to prove or give one of the most sane and valuable reason to go for more arjuns since its better to have a new horse and mature it rather than a old hag which is about to die also to justify how can we use arjun in numbers if some people in the IA or the Russian lobby want to have the T 980s fine . since there is always space for arjun and in large numbers

For A second let us agree that tin can 90 is a super duper tank and they only ordered it since arjun did not meet the army specs initially or what ever i am new and learning sorry for not being too technical why then heck we even need to pour more taxpayer money upgrading 72's when we can get rid of the monkey model t72 and replace them Arjun in numbers . now someone please dont give me a crazy and insane excuse that there are no rail cars or trucks or bla bla bla or there commonality it dosent mean that you need to carry on something obsolete and about to extent

i think BMEL is capable enough to sort this out at any given time making new rail cars since i believe most the guys in IA new the weight of the end product so why don't you order it before hand rather than scratching heads later.

after scratching my grey and white matter or my entire spinal cord i couldn't figure out what we have achieved in buying new and upgrading or smokey model tin tank when something better is in the making. i can say this because we bought T 90 since we felt the T 72s cannot counter the puki T 80s or what ever so here we indirectly agreeing that the tin can 72 is absolute only thing is its numbers

so why the heck some one justify by having both t 90 well if in-case u like the super t90 till now we only have S version and arjun in numbers rather than something like 2k 72s half of them are night blind and even the mk1 arjun is far better at any day in present condition.

SO some one telling me that arjun is not even worth to replace at-least the tin 72 come on the only excuse i find is commonality and bla bla bla

this is not against anybody but i am sick and disgusted the way the things are going

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 05 Jan 2012 02:20

Their biggest complaints were reliability, lack of infrastructure to go with it and the cost of bringing the infrastructure, and other issues that made Arjun, in the eyes of the IA, a lesser tank despite its indigenous design


baring reliability the rest speaks volumens of the requirements drafted - Read these -

In all fairness why blame the ARJUN, The DRDO or even the MOD. If all you can do is pull out a GSQR from Jane's Armor cut & paste it this is what you will get notwithstanding almost 5000 Cr of taxpayers money going down the drain. .

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... Arjun.html


But then when you are the end user, you want the best product available because your very life and your buddies' lives are at stake and you need to have faith in the weapons you are holding or manning.


Hmm but now it is not - the tin cans are death traps - again the experience of the only people who have seen combat in tin cans notwithstanding dberwals mysterious non open source encounter somewhere.
And the tin cans were inducted with lots of problems while the Arjun had to be perfect.

Philip's take was that perhaps IA was not part of the designing group or decision making group at that time and if it was, it could have prevented the bad reputation that IA associated with the Arjun project.


People have been pointing out it was and towards the end the IA men involved who actually were happy with it.
Again read Kaul's interview

Gurneesh
BRFite
Posts: 465
Joined: 14 Feb 2010 21:21
Location: Troposphere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Gurneesh » 05 Jan 2012 02:29

Hitesh wrote: Their biggest complaints were reliability, lack of infrastructure to go with it and the cost of bringing the infrastructure, and other issues that made Arjun, in the eyes of the IA, a lesser tank despite its indigenous design. The members were very much willing to accept Arjun if only it could meet their requirements. But at that time, it didn't and left a bad impression on the members. It was only this decade that the DRDO had to redo it and take in the complaints of IA before Arjun finally met the requirements. Nowadays Arjun is a tank worthy of IA's attention.


To enlighten you, any new product will have the three mentioned complaints in the beginning. Specially the two infrastructure related. Plus any new product may not be very reliable either. That is why you need an initial batch (not a token number of 10) to identify and effectively deal with those issues (more so if the issues relate to small tinkering rather than large scale design issues). This is what the first user does. IA as the first user will have to swallow the fact that a brand new product may not be super duper reliable. Beyond a certain limit reliability is built over tranches and not overnight.

Take M16 for example, it was reported to have jammed a lot during Vietnam but US stuck with it and now it is a world class gun.

If IA has been making the excuses that you have mentioned then they do not deserve to be the first user of anything because they clearly cannot cope with the responsibilities of being a developer and primary user. We should then close DRDO et al and save some precious tax payer money. IA can then buy tried and tested designs (like the super duper tin cans).

Plus a question that all T90 supporters seem to avoid every time. Did it not have issues during the user trials ? Was it not ordered in large numbers even when it had issues with engine seizing as well as more crucially the thermal sight going bad.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 05 Jan 2012 02:39

From Kauls interview

The vijayantas produced indigenously had initial teething problems in their driving & maintenance aspect and this was drummed up to such an extent that we almost saw their end before they even got going



But T 55s with problems of poor gun, ammo and sights Ok

keeps repeating itself.

suddenly safety, best equipment arguments all vanish


And to Vinaygs point
from Kauls interview from years ago (2006)

The gun (t 72)is inaccurate beyond 1000m. On the move it has a FRHC of 68% as given by the manufacturer whereas the Arjun has achieved almost 85%

VinayG
BRFite
Posts: 181
Joined: 07 Apr 2010 19:02
Location: chicago

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby VinayG » 05 Jan 2012 03:11

to all the arjun bashers and my last post on the topic

THIS HOW MERKAVA BEGAN ITS JOURNEY

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Mekava.htm

The first Merkava Mk. 1 tanks were supplied to the IDF in April 1979, nearly nine years after the decision to produce the Merkava Mk. 1 tank was taken. The Merkava Mk. 1 tank has been designed in accordance with experience gained from IDF armored battles in all Israel's wars since the Sinai Campaign (1956).At that time, Israeli weaponry was always inferior in both qualitative and quantitative aspects, consisting mainly of World War Two vintage Shermans, and French AMX-13 tanks. Some years later, Israel managed to acquire some British Centurions and American M48 Patton tanks, and more recently, some American M60 Main Battle Tanks. But the numeric and qualitative inferiority continued, and Israel had no option except to start developing their own armored force, with whatever resources available.

The Merkava Mk. 1 is unique in its basic concept, common to all generations of the Merkava Mk. 1, according to which armor and survivability of the tank are its basic features. The tank's protection is based on all-round spaced ballistic armor, and deployment of the tank systems around the crew, thus utilizing basic elements and systems of the tank to protect the crew and ammunition, in addition to their specific functions. The most striking example of this concept is placement of the power pack (engine and transmission) at the front of the tank.

Other factors contributing to the Merkava Mk. 1's survivability are:

Low profile when in firing position
Elimination of flammable materials from the crew compartments
Storage of main gun ammunition under the turret ring, well to the rear of the hull, in heat-resistant containers

The Merkava Mk. 1 tank participated with a high degree of success in Lebanon War (1982) when the war started Israel had 200-300 Merkava Mk. 1 tanks. The Merkava Mk. 1 proved superior to the Syrian T-72 MBT (then the Soviet's newest tank).

Production of Merkava Mk. 1 continued up to 1983, when the IDF Armor Corps began to receive the
Merkava Mk. 2 tanks.

Lessons learned from the operation of the Merkava Mk. 1 tanks were applied to the Merkava Mk. 2 tanks, mainly in the following: here i don't see IA has any patience to learn in case of arjun mk1 if thay have patience and learned something why a token order

Improved mobility
Improved fire control system
improved special armor
Internal 60mm mortar

The production of Merkava Mk. 2 tanks continued until the end of 1989, at which time Merkava Mk. 3 tanks started to come off the production line.

The Merkava Mk. 3 entered service in the IDF at the beginning of 1990. It is a sophisticated tank. The difference between the Mk. 3 and the Mk. 2 is in essence and not in degree. All systems and assemblies were new, and except for the engine, are of Israeli design and production.

Among the prominent features of the Merkava Mk. 3 were the new and unique suspension system, the high powered engine, the powerful main gun, and, especially, a new and unique concept of armor. Ballistic protection is provided by special armor modules, which are attached to the tank by bolts. These can be easily replaced whenever better ballistic technology is introduced. Thus, the tank will remain "young" forever.

During the Merkava Mk. 3's years of production, a number of modifications have been introduced, the major ones being a modern fire control system with an automatic target tracker ("Baz") and significant improvements in ballistic protection.

The production of the Merkava Mk. 3 lasted until 2002, whereupon the Merkava Mk. 4 was first fielded to the Armor Corp.

AND THE M1AI ABRAMS

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/M1.html

this is how those 2 tanks had evolved into one of the best tank s

ROME IS NOT BUILD IN A DAY

THANK YOU JAI HIND

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7745
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 05 Jan 2012 04:09

Hitesh wrote: Stop with this holier than thou bullshit and all the other crap you are throwing. Philip's point was that the Arjun tank did not satisfy the IA's requirements during the 90s and I know this for a fact because I asked several members of the armored corps in the late 90s about the Arjun. Their biggest complaints were reliability, lack of infrastructure to go with it and the cost of bringing the infrastructure, and other issues that made Arjun, in the eyes of the IA, a lesser tank despite its indigenous design. The members were very much willing to accept Arjun if only it could meet their requirements. But at that time, it didn't and left a bad impression on the members. It was only this decade that the DRDO had to redo it and take in the complaints of IA before Arjun finally met the requirements. Nowadays Arjun is a tank worthy of IA's attention


Dude, don’t come here and tell me what I need and need not do. Take this bullsh1t somewhere else.

I don’t need a Johnny-come-lately to teach me about the Arjun program. There have been enough rounds of debates on the Arjun Story on BRF and if in spite of that someone says that Arjun was designed without the involvement of the Army, then he needs to consult a shrink.

Coming to the deficiencies in the product, what you and your ilk forget that the very same army went ahead and bought a tank WITHOUT making it do even fraction of tests that Arjun went through. And when it finally came for tests, the damn thing had an engine seizure!!! But there is no word about those or other issues liked TI and Sabot Rounds which still persist. So much for objectivity!!!

As to availability of Arjun in late 90s and early 2000, while the decision of IA is justified with respect to first purchase and to some extent the second tranche, there is no justification for license production of further 1000 T-90 when a superior design and system is available.

Hitesh wrote:Hence, the last statement of Philip is correct. So stop with the holier than thou indigenous stuff. I am beginning to detect some sort of a mafia thing going on where criticism against indigenous products must be met with outright hostility and name calling. Yeah sure enough indigenous products are hard to make and hard to get it right but once they meet the requirements; it should be pursued at all costs. But then when you are the end user, you want the best product available because your very life and your buddies' lives are at stake and you need to have faith in the weapons you are holding or manning. IA did not have that faith in Arjun during the 90s because Arjun did not meet the very necessary requirements. Philip's take was that perhaps IA was not part of the designing group or decision making group at that time and if it was, it could have prevented the bad reputation that IA associated with the Arjun project.


You can go take a hike for all I care, dude. Stop acting angry and agitated and please put some facts on the table. Philips point was incorrect then and continues to remain even now. If you’re equally ignorant about the facts then least you can do is shut-up and not add noise to the forum.


Hitesh wrote:I do not agree with most of Philip's posts especially regarding Russian products. However, by engaging in this kind of posting, you are attempting to create an atmosphere where only one set of opinions is allowed and no other opinions that run contrarily to it is tolerated. I strongly resent this even more than I do regarding Philip's overzealous defense of Russian products which can border on the lines of blindless devotion and which can be a pain in the ass sometimes but tolerable because I know for a fact that,it is just an opinion and Philip is entitled to it. I can either choose to ignore it or rebut him factually and let the others make their own opinions without having need to personally attack him.


Please drill this down into your cranium – there is a difference between facts and opinions. Arjun looks and feels the way it is today because it was designed to meet the army’s requirement. It was made as per army’s GSQR. This is a fact. You cannot have an opinion that “IA was not in the loop”. In the loop about what? Did IAF design the LCA? Or did DRDO design LCA to meet the ASQR of IAF? So, please stop taking recourse to semantics of opinions and facts.

Hitesh wrote:If you can't handle that, you got no business criticizing the IA for its decisions.


Sonny boy, go fly a kite or play with your teddy bear. Come back if you have something to add to the debate.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55332
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 05 Jan 2012 04:12

Can we all be civil to each other and reduce the admin work load this year please?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Misraji » 05 Jan 2012 04:58

rohitvats wrote:Dude, don’t come here and tell me what I need and need not do. Take this bullsh1t somewhere else.
.... SNIP .....
Sonny boy, go fly a kite or play with your teddy bear. Come back if you have something to add to the debate.


Rohit Saar, who said that this debate was for IA's moronity or T-90 vs Arjun??
Whoever said this debate was about bringing facts to the table?

Every one agrees that Arjun trounced T-90 ..

THE REAL QUESTION IS:
Are Arjun-Fans more polite than T-90-Fans ??

See ... Thats where you lose ..
The T-90 fans are debating about Net Etiquette .. Not about facts ... :mrgreen:

--Ashish.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21312
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 05 Jan 2012 05:43

I bow to Karan's wisdom.The almighty guru of all things military! If you go by his thesis,there was nothing wrong with Arjun all these 3 decades and the marriage between the DRDO and IA was a perfect one! If so,how did it take that long to deliver the baby? Rubbishing the PAC reports which give in detail the tortured saga of the tank's development and its imperfections,then imply that the entire reports are either bogus or inaccurate and that if IA armymen loved the tank,why did the IA reject the tank? There was thus a massive conspiracy to dump Arjun involving the entire establishment? If so,please let us have chapter and verse in evidence and not "drinking buddies" tales.If there were some armymen who gave the tank the "green light" so to speak a decade ago,that the tank had met the IA's parameters,please let us have their official reports/statements,press quotes whatever. Neutrals on the topic have easily understood the chronology,that only when its defects were finally ironed out it was the tank accepted.

As for Karan's personal snide remarks,they betray his frustration and arrogance.There is a jingoistic group of people who believe that everything desi developed is sacrosant and cannot be criticised objectively.I am all for the indigenous route as long as it works,is delivered on time for the end-user and is cost-effective.If key tech is unavailable at home,then the JV/purchase route is fine.I have no wish to debate with him till kingdom come ,as his mind is fossilised that this was the perfect project, but for some filthy politicos,babus,whoever,Arjun was the perfect beast and should've been inducted decades ago! In the ultimate analysis,the facts stand out.The IA ,no matter how many of its men were allegedly involved with the project,REJECTED it,time and time again, until it performed to their satisfaction and only THEN decided to go ahead and order it!. Karan,you cannot rewrite history.It speaks for itself.

As for the current situ,where we have both Arjun and the T-90,both are being produced at home and I've always maintained that whichever suits the IA best let it decide.Let it evaluate the two,then give the IA what it wants.The current debate is now moving onto the concepts of the next tank,for the future and and what tech should go into it.This is where the debate on this thread should move on.

As for being a Russophile.I didn't buy the T-72 or the T-90,it was the IA! So therefore scores of Armymen from chiefs downwards are all Russophiles and their agents? Grow up! This entire debate,which by the way is about the history of the project (3 decades on),began because someone called me a "liar" and said I had no basis for my opinions.I've proved the allegations wrong by tracing the history of the project,with detailed posts, and the official records,not "drinking buddies" tales.If this dismays some who rubbish the official records,which include the detailed Army reservations about the tank,until the last few years,then their bias speaks for itself.As I said,they don't like the message of history and want to shoot the messenger.Let my critics also remember,that yes,one criticises politicos for their misdeeds,scams,etc,we all do and need to do in our country's interests,but reports like the PAC are multi-party and if anyone cares to read them,will find that they are based upon hard,detailed facts,accurate costing, and not the whims and fancies of individuals or their political ideology.To rubbish such reports without studying them indicates a mind trying to defend the indefensible!

Blind prejudice clouds vision they say and unfortunately,some of my vociferous and rude critics have never read my posts in full,on the various threads.If the bulk of our eqpt. is from Russia,and forget about the legacy eqpt.,that was during Cold War days when we had no better options,why then during the days of the supposed "sole superpower",when western options are now open to us are we still buying from Russia? We've had heartburn with the Gorshkov acquisition,I've given reasons for the saga just as with Arjun,to understand the undercurrents.So why have we gone ahead with projects like Brahmos,the Akula,Talwars,FGFA,MTA,T-90s too, etc.? There must be some good reason.Or are they all actually worthless and the deals should be scrapped? My posts have been to try and understand the logic and reasoning behind the decisions made to better understand the acquisition/equation.I have never like a certain journo ,whose name crops up from time to time,blindly said that "X" is better than "Y" without quoting from a report/article if at all.

If you examine my posts carefully,I've been advocating for a decade+ to restart German U-boat production,questioned the extra Scorpenes because of their high cost,wanted an Indo-Russian AIP sub with Brahmos (designs available) because smaller European subs cannot accommodate the missile and that the Russians might object to fitting it on a competitor's sub.I've advocated that we buy more C-130s and Apaches,which we need in large numbers and would be happy with either Eurobird for the MMRCA (praised the Gripen too) if the costs are not prohibitive impinging upon our LCA and UCAV development! As for the LHPD/LPD,I've said the Spanish Juan Carlos is the best for us .If you prepare a list of items which I've plumped for,I would be delighted to see how many Russian items are in the list as opposed to European or western! Even in the search for FMBT tech,I've suggested that we take a long hard look at the French le Clerc! In all my statements advocating the items,I've tried to base them upon sound info that is available mainly in the public domain and given reasons.They are not a "beauty parade" vote!
Therefore,I am much amused by those who accuse me of being biased in Russia's favour,or of any other nation or industry,please total up my scorecard and look elsewhere within the three services and MOD who take the decisions.By the yardstick of the critics,they are either crooks,ignoramuses or basing their decisions upon sound analysis.Take your pick and throw your darts there my friends!

Finally,I must state that in recent times the level of debate in the forum has deteriorated.Civility has been thrown out of the window.Personal jibes,insults and accusations have replaced qualified counter-arguments and analysis.Those who are indulging in this kind of character-assassination are frankly beyond the pale.Some of us have been with BR from its inception and are saddened to see that differences of opinion must end up into flaming wars.One can always agree to disagree without personal invective.This will result in an exodus of those who have much to contribute to the quality of the forum.Some have left in the past.Please,even if you feel the poster is speaking through his nether end,or smoking some weed,be civil to him,refute his arguments with hard facts and humour if need be,and let the "cut and thrust " be of civilised debate and not of bodies.

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Hitesh » 05 Jan 2012 06:21

rohitvats wrote:
Dude, don’t come here and tell me what I need and need not do. Take this bullsh1t somewhere else.
Oooh... touched off a nerve, didn't I? :roll:

I don’t need a Johnny-come-lately to teach me about the Arjun program. There have been enough rounds of debates on the Arjun Story on BRF and if in spite of that someone says that Arjun was designed without the involvement of the Army, then he needs to consult a shrink.

Coming to the deficiencies in the product, what you and your ilk forget that the very same army went ahead and bought a tank WITHOUT making it do even fraction of tests that Arjun went through. And when it finally came for tests, the damn thing had an engine seizure!!! But there is no word about those or other issues liked TI and Sabot Rounds which still persist. So much for objectivity!!!

Don't count me as one of the T-90s cheerers. I am one of the Arjun's ardent supporters. I greatly want to see the Arjun program to succeed. But I am not surprised at this long gestation of this program. In fact, there is enough blame to go around and IA must shoulder its share of blame and likewise, the DRDO for overpromising certain things that they claim they would deliver but actually hindered IA's combat capability procurement and screwed up the procurement policy and doctrine.

As for consultancy, I take it you have never worked in a large bureacracy such as the Army. You can be surprised as to how many train of thoughts can exist in a bureacracy and how one can be totally isolated from the decision-making process. I recommend you read up the tank designs that the US Army went through when it came to designing the Abrams and not to mention the MBT-70. There were two totally different train of thoughts and each one was battling each other. Perhaps the people involved in the Arjun concept were from one train of thought and the people who were not involved with the Arjun concept and was involved in the decision-making process was another train of thought. Remember IA is not primarily a tank-oriented army but an infantry-oriented army. So it means that most officers were infantry based or some of them were artillery based. That means when you have an expensive project that could eat up more of IA's budget and thus take away from other projects that other arms of the IA depends on, don't be surprised if there is strong resistance to your project. For instance, people of the infantry and artillery arm may have objected to the Arjun concept and say "T-90 is good enough. After all, best is enemy of good enough" and argue that tanks are not such a high priority but go for other programs such as artillery, battle information networks, even more small arms training, trucks, helicopters, you name it. If you want further insight, I recommend looking at the decision makers in the IA during the late 90s and see what field of arm they came from and that should tell you how much importance and what kind of thinking they had when it came to considering the purchase of the T-90s versus continued development of the Arjun programme. Which by the way, I do not agree with because I believe in pursuit of indigenous weapon programs no matter what. But then again, it is a question of whether you have a weapon readily available in your hand now or wait for that perfect indigeous weapon later on. IA could not afford both at that time. Look at the budget of IA and look at the budget requirements of the Arjun program and the T-90 (the prices conveyed to them and yes I know that the Russians only put up the flyaway costs, not the lifecycle costs upfront)

As to availability of Arjun in late 90s and early 2000, while the decision of IA is justified with respect to first purchase and to some extent the second tranche, there is no justification for license production of further 1000 T-90 when a superior design and system is available.

Once a procurement decision has been made, it is very hard to stop it. There is this bureacratic momentum not to mention the logistics momentum. I take it you have never had experience with ordering large cost items. Because when you order the 1000 T-90s, it is not just the machines themselves, but the tooling, kits, tools, training, infrastructure that you end up paying. Once you set up all that, the costs have already been sunk in. What good is cancelling the 1000 T-90s when you have already sunk in more than 60% of the costs? Hence I see no surprise in IA's hesitancy/reluctance in canceling the T-90s.

You can go take a hike for all I care, dude. Stop acting angry and agitated and please put some facts on the table. Philips point was incorrect then and continues to remain even now. If you’re equally ignorant about the facts then least you can do is shut-up and not add noise to the forum.


It s actually you that are adding the noise to the forum when you are making statements about lying and stuff and launching personal attacks against a long time veteran poster who was here a lot longer on this forum than you have. So I am perfectly justified in telling you to take a hike. :roll:

rohitvats wrote:
Hitesh wrote:I do not agree with most of Philip's posts especially regarding Russian products. However, by engaging in this kind of posting, you are attempting to create an atmosphere where only one set of opinions is allowed and no other opinions that run contrarily to it is tolerated. I strongly resent this even more than I do regarding Philip's overzealous defense of Russian products which can border on the lines of blindless devotion and which can be a pain in the ass sometimes but tolerable because I know for a fact that,it is just an opinion and Philip is entitled to it. I can either choose to ignore it or rebut him factually and let the others make their own opinions without having need to personally attack him.


Please drill this down into your cranium – there is a difference between facts and opinions. Arjun looks and feels the way it is today because it was designed to meet the army’s requirement. It was made as per army’s GSQR. This is a fact. You cannot have an opinion that “IA was not in the loop”. In the loop about what? Did IAF design the LCA? Or did DRDO design LCA to meet the ASQR of IAF? So, please stop taking recourse to semantics of opinions and facts.


Now you are changing the subject. So who is moving the "goal posts"? :roll: The Arjun may have been made as per army's GSQR on paper but did it stand up to scrutiny at that time during the 90s? It was tested and it was found to be wanting on several key requirements. I have spoken to several IA armoured corps' members quite extensively and they were not happy with the tank and did not have faith in DRDO's ability to deliver a reliable tank at a time when the need for new tanks were pressing. So caught with a choice of ordering T-90s tanks or waiting another decade for the DRDO to finally deliver the tank the IA wants (given the IA's experience with DRDO's claims and promises and its track record of delivering an final end user product), it was no surprise that the IA went in for the T-90s and started setting up the purchase. Now fast forward 5 years later when the DRDO has finally rectified it, the DRDO came and asked the IA to cancel the T-90s buy when the IA has already sank a very significant portion of money into the T-90s purchase. I am not surprised that the IA balked at getting out of the T-90s deal when doctrines and tactical plans in which years of planning and training have been put in to make good use of the T-90s have already taken place and the IA would have to do it all over again just for the Arjun tank and eat up more of its operating budget just to learn how to use the Arjun tank in battle. So there was that inertia that was hard to overcome.

And don't forget one major thing. The T-90s can be fitted into the existing logistics chain of IA without too much trouble and too much cost because the T-90 is based on the T-72 and that was so appeallable to the IA in the first place whereas a different kind of tank with no proven track record would require a complete different set of logistics chain and not only that but require additional years of training and planning and formulating a new set of doctrine and tactical plans.

IA was not certainly going to take up the Arjun tank unless the MoD had agreed to fund the cost for training, planning, devising, education, etc. for the use of Arjun tanks. It was only then after pressure by both sides, DRDO and IA, did the MoD agree to not to just buy the Arjun tanks but fund the necessary infrastructure, logistics, planning, and training that comes with a new type of weapon platform.


Sonny boy, go fly a kite or play with your teddy bear. Come back if you have something to add to the debate.
I think there have been enough experience of that, given your example of juvenile ranting and display so I politely decline your offer to play with your teddy bear or kite. And as for calling me sonny boy, it is quite evident towards your lack of comprehension or maturity and thusly, shine a shining fat beacon of light on the quality of your posts. :roll:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 05 Jan 2012 07:38

Hitesh wrote:Stop with this holier than thou bullshit and all the other crap you are throwing. Philip's point was that the Arjun tank did not satisfy the IA's requirements during the 90s and I know this for a fact because I asked several members of the armored corps in the late 90s about the Arjun. Their biggest complaints were reliability, lack of infrastructure to go with it and the cost of bringing the infrastructure, and other issues that made Arjun, in the eyes of the IA, a lesser tank despite its indigenous design. The members were very much willing to accept Arjun if only it could meet their requirements. But at that time, it didn't and left a bad impression on the members.


You just nailed the point. The infrastructure was not supporting hence unreliability. Not DRDO problem right? Like you, I too have spoken to the folks and pinpointed to this fact. They admitted that if there was more support, they could have seen it inducted. It is up to Army which had to create it.

Also, Gurneesh has pinned down the next argument, so I do not want to repeat that.

Hence, the last statement of Philip is correct.


Philip's original comment, as you can see where it all started, was factually wrong. He later admitted that the second order was MK-1. Then he accused that there were no "embeds" in the project from the army. For that we even gave him the names of the people not just embedded there, but, also headed, including the (later) Army Chief. This army chief saw to the acceptance of Arjun in 1996.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17073
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby NRao » 05 Jan 2012 07:42

Guys,

All of you seem to be saying the same things in diff words. We need a timeout for the next 24 hours.

sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 348
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sarabpal.s » 05 Jan 2012 11:10

hey cant we use our T55 with upgrade in higherground, it will save lots money and we have many about to retired.
upgrade like upgunning, better engine, more armour.
it has small size can be airlifted easily more less like alzarra
Last edited by sarabpal.s on 05 Jan 2012 11:31, edited 1 time in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 05 Jan 2012 11:27

israeli style jugaad of beating something useful even of shermans and pattons into the 80s is not preferred here.

after hemming and hawing for a decade+ we will likely take the Anders light tank, Stryker and a russified Abhay for our mountain formations....ofcourse after making the Abhay run for 100,000,000km of desert trials and rejecting it 17 times.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby merlin » 05 Jan 2012 12:28

+1 rohit, well said. Nice points put across.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 05 Jan 2012 12:49

One good thing about the discussions. Each time the argument brings in more positive facts for the Arjun Tank.

alexis
BRFite
Posts: 468
Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby alexis » 05 Jan 2012 14:02

Sanku wrote:Its a pity that those who were going on and on about how 120 mm rifled canon was the best thing since sliced bread (and not a artifact of dated GSQRs coupled with a long development cycle) -- are not brave enough to come up and admit they were wrong.

As fully expected, once DRDO came to grips with the canon making process, a common cannon between T 90 series of armor and tanks of Indian origin (Arjun, Arjun+, FMBT) would come about.


My understanding is that both has pluses and minuses. IA/DRDO changed their decision - why are you goading other forumites in this case?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17074
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 05 Jan 2012 14:07

Hitesh, being longer on the forum doesn't give people to twist facts into something it is not. philp saar's posts in this thread is like a disinformation campaign, misleading, passing opinion as facts and factually incorrect.

alexis
BRFite
Posts: 468
Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby alexis » 05 Jan 2012 14:07

Sanku wrote:
Except that Arjun and T 90 did not both lack X. One lacked X and another Y.


Army should have uniform policies atleast, if not favourable towards homegrown equipment. that is peeve of most forumites - as i understand.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1326
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RKumar » 05 Jan 2012 14:24

OT STARTS
The problems are not about products ...

1. corruption, every one wants their cut.
2. lazy, want ready made and finished stuff
3. jugaadu, services pay for above two during war but they save their skin by applying jugaad.

Solution:
1. maintain what we have, no expensive upgrades, Put that money in R&D and infrastructure development.
2. force services to use local stuff and let them work with developers to mature the products like Arjun, LCA, INSAS...
3. stop crying about costs, we always pay by giving them one leg and one arm. Stop worrying about fees already paid for ToT etc. Use existing ToT by integrating it into local products or burn the documents.
4. No new ToT, just buy and use it until we have a local solution. Make R&D wins, no hope of getting any help from anywhere except human resources.
OT END

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1326
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RKumar » 05 Jan 2012 14:33

Hitesh wrote:Once a procurement decision has been made, it is very hard to stop it. There is this bureacratic momentum not to mention the logistics momentum. I take it you have never had experience with ordering large cost items. Because when you order the 1000 T-90s, it is not just the machines themselves, but the tooling, kits, tools, training, infrastructure that you end up paying. Once you set up all that, the costs have already been sunk in. What good is cancelling the 1000 T-90s when you have already sunk in more than 60% of the costs? Hence I see no surprise in IA's hesitancy/reluctance in canceling the T-90s.


What good? The supreme benefit is you break this loop of dependence. Once you have 1600 T-90s, it opens the door for importing and spending more for these because of
- you have to import ammo for it
- keep maintaining it for next 40 yrs
- keep upgrading it

I didn't know that IA has to pay the bill ... I keep hearing here that services should have the best equipment irrespective of the what cost? What happened to that logic when it comes to desi maal. Why to use exported stuff when better product is local made. And every penny spent, will be in desh.

hain ji

Hitesh wrote:I take it you have never worked in a large bureacracy such as the Army.

On lighter note : :rotfl:
bureaucracy in army :?: I thought that is the domain of MoD and GoI. So far they were the in-charge of it, I have read posts after posts on this topic. I have learned something new :twisted:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 05 Jan 2012 15:02

alexis wrote:
Sanku wrote:Its a pity that those who were going on and on about how 120 mm rifled canon was the best thing since sliced bread (and not a artifact of dated GSQRs coupled with a long development cycle) -- are not brave enough to come up and admit they were wrong.

As fully expected, once DRDO came to grips with the canon making process, a common cannon between T 90 series of armor and tanks of Indian origin (Arjun, Arjun+, FMBT) would come about.


My understanding is that both has pluses and minuses. IA/DRDO changed their decision - why are you goading other forumites in this case?


Not goading, its a "I told you so" -- you will have to travel down a few years back in history of BRF discussions to know why.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8491
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 05 Jan 2012 15:21

Another nube pooch. In the 30 + years of the arjun project. How many times the gsqr was revised by the IA. Forceing the DRDO to start afreash.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 05 Jan 2012 15:24

was the vijayanta 105mm gun a rifled one and good exp with and a desire to target fortifications using tanks in direct fire mode in infantry support (we did not have a huge ATGM force then just jonga mounted carl gustav and 75mm guns) that led to rifled in arjun GSQR?

the british also stuck to rifled in chally and are not planning a change iirc.

Arjun seemed to be a child of the vijayanta and centurion gen who had actually fought and won engagements using british eqpt in 65 & 71, but got hijacked along the way by the t-72 genNext who never got the chance to try the t-72 in a real war and by zia-ul-haq's attempt to get himself 100s of free abrams tanks. :mrgreen: then it came back from verge of death by a miracle and on the back of our economic growth, to finally ride the dunes again...

Marut
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 25 Oct 2009 23:05
Location: The Original West Coast!!

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Marut » 05 Jan 2012 15:33

The L7 105mm on Vijayanta was rifled gun. IA liked it so much that the 100mm T55 main guns were replaced with the L7!

The Chally is planning to get the Rheinmetall L55 smoothbore in the next version.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 05 Jan 2012 15:41

mashallah we should go L55 smoothbore as well in the mk2 Arjun and improved charges giving 2200 m/s of apds muzzle velocity. either adapt the T90 gun or get the Leclerc L52 gun with improvements to keep the Giat heritage.

dekhte hain ZTZ99 ke gaand mein kitne dum hai.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 05 Jan 2012 16:00

Pratyush wrote:Another nube pooch. In the 30 + years of the arjun project. How many times the gsqr was revised by the IA. Forceing the DRDO to start afreash.


History of Arjun Tank Development

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8491
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 05 Jan 2012 16:48

Cj, thx for the link. Can you confirm if new prototypes were also built as aresult of each new gsqr.

How many iterations did the vehicle have before it reached the current form.

It will show us what the thinking of the army was. At different times of the project.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 05 Jan 2012 17:49

Pratyush wrote:Cj, thx for the link. Can you confirm if new prototypes were also built as aresult of each new gsqr.

How many iterations did the vehicle have before it reached the current form.

It will show us what the thinking of the army was. At different times of the project.


Sir,

You are asking for a thesis. If I get lucky with the info, I will do it.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 05 Jan 2012 18:57

The funny part is one interview\article by one of the few men who has seen action in tin cans and which shreds so many of the naysayers nonsense is completly ignored.

:eek:

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7745
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 05 Jan 2012 19:01

Surya wrote:The funny part is one interview\article by one of the few men who has seen action in tin cans and which shreds so many of the naysayers nonsense is completly ignored.

:eek:


Shame on you for asking common-sense to prevail.... :P

PS: Another fun point - Philip posted a dated Outlook article where some IA officer claimed the difficulty in deploying Arjun in "critical" Hanumangarh/Suratgarh Sector. Guess where the armored bde (Of which 43 AR is part) of 24 Rapid is located? :mrgreen:

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8491
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 05 Jan 2012 19:54

CJ,

That is exactly whats is on my mind.

I know that the first prototype was a 40 ton 105 MM torsion bar machine. Then it became a 115 MM machine. I need to understand when and why the Arjun became a 60 ton 120 MM machine.

I am requesting this from you because, you as a defense journalist will have access to materials and photographs needed for the work.

Perhaps it will result in a book by you that we at BRF will buy :P

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 05 Jan 2012 20:07

Pratyush wrote:Perhaps it will result in a book by you that we at BRF will buy :P


Thank you for idea mate. Writing a book or thesis takes a lot of time and money especially when the distance is very far. But, if folks can help and take off their ad blocks (that's the theme of the year, I will keep reminding) and show solidarity. I can bring out info in bits and pieces.

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Hitesh » 05 Jan 2012 22:08

RKumar wrote:
Hitesh wrote:Once a procurement decision has been made, it is very hard to stop it. There is this bureacratic momentum not to mention the logistics momentum. I take it you have never had experience with ordering large cost items. Because when you order the 1000 T-90s, it is not just the machines themselves, but the tooling, kits, tools, training, infrastructure that you end up paying. Once you set up all that, the costs have already been sunk in. What good is cancelling the 1000 T-90s when you have already sunk in more than 60% of the costs? Hence I see no surprise in IA's hesitancy/reluctance in canceling the T-90s.


What good? The supreme benefit is you break this loop of dependence. Once you have 1600 T-90s, it opens the door for importing and spending more for these because of
- you have to import ammo for it
- keep maintaining it for next 40 yrs
- keep upgrading it

I didn't know that IA has to pay the bill ... I keep hearing here that services should have the best equipment irrespective of the what cost? What happened to that logic when it comes to desi maal. Why to use exported stuff when better product is local made. And every penny spent, will be in desh.

hain ji


Doesn't matter. Once you commit to a weapon systems procurement/buy, you are committed to it for the next 20 years depending on the lifecycle of the program. It is the same for all armies all over the world, even in the US Army. One major reason is that you have committed a doctrine around the weapon system and you have devoted countless manhours to developing the doctrine for using the weapon system, including war gaming, logistics planning, timetables, battle plans, etc. Unless the weapon system is so glaring defective or that it has so big of a major weakness that it would become a major liability despite any amount of repair or reduction work, no army in the world is gonna stop it. That's how armies work, including the western armies. That is why, with the exception of few programs such as the JSF program, in the US DoD, once the weapon system makes it past the R&D stage and into the procurement stage, it is hard to stop it or retire it early unless you are in a budget fight. Look at Crusader and Comanche, even the FCS programs. They did not make it past the R&D so it was easy to cancel it. But once you commit to the procurement, it is very hard to stop it. You can reduce the order but it means you are not gonna get anything else to make up for the lost numbers. Look at Raptor. They went from 767 to 187 without making up for the numbers. The JSF does not make up for the lost numbers. The planned numbers were already planned before Raptor's numbers were cut and they are even cutting the numbers. For a better example, take a look at the Sheridan project. It was found to be wanting on some levels but they kept it in service for 30 years because they have already committed to the procurement of the weapon systems. When the tank reached its end of the lifecycle, there was no replacement for that tank.

Another example would be the small firearms procurement. I am sure that once every two or three years, there comes up a design for small fire arms that prove to be better than the previous generation but no army is gonna stop the procurement of previous generation because they have already committed to the procurement, lock, stock, and barrel. And the key reason for that is logistics and bureacracy momentum. So that means the army would be stuck with that generation for at least 10 years.

RKumar wrote:
Hitesh wrote:I take it you have never worked in a large bureacracy such as the Army.

On lighter note : :rotfl:
bureaucracy in army :?: I thought that is the domain of MoD and GoI. So far they were the in-charge of it, I have read posts after posts on this topic. I have learned something new :twisted:


All large armies are bureacracies whether you like it or not. It is the nature of the beast.

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 950
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby KrishnaK » 05 Jan 2012 22:27

Surya wrote:The funny part is one interview\article by one of the few men who has seen action in tin cans and which shreds so many of the naysayers nonsense is completly ignored.

:eek:


Surya,
Which one is this ? I'm sorry if it has been posted before.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 05 Jan 2012 23:34

Krishna

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... Arjun.html

The gist is
1. Its basically two factions preferring diff philosophy -thanks to numbers you can see which faction is dominating

2. this sort of problems happened before with older tanks and likewise a big deal was made of one and not the other(Vijayanta). The same happened on a magnified scale with arjun.
3. problems with T series were never made a big deal off (and run to local\western companies to make them effective where possible - radios\electronics) - Yes T 55, T 72 and T 90 all have problems but.. did you ever hear ofT T55s lousy gun\ammo, bad radio, poor ergonomics, T 72s being pretty useless at higher ranges, shitty radios,bad ergonomics let alone the other gory stuff. of course we have only heard of TI sights for T 90, engines seizing during testing etc never made it

4. GQSR was a cut and paste (and was based on Leo 2 and an ex DGMF actually had the gall to then rip on it)
5. Arjun when it had issues was still better than the Tin can and was still being rejected
6. Original designator was EME (as pointed by others here) putting the nonsense that DRDO went off and came up a wet dream on its own

7. incremental efforts which we all here would have seen as logical did not happen - (this should have speeded up the induction even earlier)

So it starts with IA Armour guys badly thought through GQSR\mngt and ends up with the other problems DRDO\industry etc had

This is what the pro Arjun folks have been saying - we have flogged DRDO for overpromising and struggling to deliver(and bad mngt) in intial stages in a country where the industry infrastructure was non existent but lets look at the other side where buyer totally effed up their role in it.

Both have an responsibility to move us further down the Mil Industrial complex. (also a third part the darn OFB\manufacturing and thats MODs responsibilty)

meanwhile we buy crap from another country get tied in to their supply chain blackmail and further use that to justify THE next purchase!!!!
Last edited by Surya on 05 Jan 2012 23:46, edited 3 times in total.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7745
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 05 Jan 2012 23:37

^^^And please add to it the deliberate attempts to paint the Arjun in bad-light. And nary a word about the issues which still plague the Tin Can-90 and IA showing all the empathy and patience which it did not to Arjun.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests