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?
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.
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"?
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.