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.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 17 May 2010 13:46

Sanku unfortunately these days adhoc purchase is showing up as the norm depending on the closeness of political class with specific entities. I do think US will put in its weight into this MBT business since IA is looking for mythical FMBT , if not the entire tank then certain key systems on it.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 17 May 2010 14:04

rohitvats wrote:But Sanku and you had us beleive that IA will buy whatever the GOI+MOD will decide. So, did IA finally order Arjun or MOD+GOI ordered it for Army?


Well the recent trials has been sucessful , so yes it is GOI+MOD decision in concurrence with go ahead from the IA , Decision making is a GOI task to evaluate is IA and MOD task.

Which means that we need to lock up this thread and wait for another 2-3 years, comparative trials with T-90XX and some more circus. Having said that, these should be the current variants. Why you ask? Zimple onlee; it is these tanks which have passed the "trials" in desert...In case of MK2, will not IA want to validate evey screw and nut & bolt before giving the green signal? You see, IA is bhery behry shtrict with specifications...everything needs to be evaluated in "trials"...in between if you loose couple of years and have to import some more T-XYZ, all par of course.... :roll:


Possible it could be the Mk1 but highly unlikely as well , considering the new 124 batch will start building from 2012 onwards , considering the stuff Ajai has mentioned these are just improving the existing system and not adding new stuff which needs long trials , these improvements like ERA , Lahat , APS , CITV can be incorporated within those times.

I think the chosen ERA , APS,CITV and systems which are common and chosen will get implemented on T-90 to keep it standard , good chance that newer Burlak will be built within the existing 1000 tanks being built at Avadi.

The PIB would have us believe that it is only Arjun which was on trials. No mention of "Comparative Trials" with T-90 and how the latter performed. How did the Army establish that Arjun is so good? Because it wiped the floor with it's favorite toy, as given by ajai's blog and chaiwala on B
RF.

“Comparative trials between MBT Arjun vis-à-vis the Russian T-90 tank has been undertaken with an aim to evaluate the operational performances. Comparative trials conducted in various phases encompassing fire power, survivalibility, protection, reliability and miscellaneous issues has just concluded.”


This again brings us to the same point - 1,647 inferior tanks while 248 superior tanks...Business as usual. :evil:


PIB is right , one to one comparision is a futile exercise or can be done for fun but not while doing serious evaluation exercise to see in which scenario Arjun fits in well to meet operational requirenment.

No body does a one to one comparision just to prove x system is superior in abc scenerio or y system is superior in 123 scenario.

By your logic for MMRCA trial all the competing aircraft should end up with one to one duel with the other 6 plus they should also end up on a 1 to 1 with MKI and 6 vs MKI so that IAF can choose which one is a superior MMRCA.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 17 May 2010 14:09

@rohitvats

Austin can certainly speak for himself (which he did in parallel I see), but here are my views on the questions you raised

1) A purchase is always MoD decision, saying IA bought it is colloquial usage -- so Arjun's are purchased by GoI for IA, after IA cleared the fact that Arjun has met all test criteria.

2) I do not expect Arjun Mk II to need to go through as much test cycles as Arjun I, its a case of LCA Mk II achieving FOC far faster than LCA Mk I. No hanky panky there, just a simple cutting down on time taken for derivations.

3) 1647 tanks vs 124 tanks? Not quite. Lets look at the rate of intake -- whats the rate of intake of T 90s per year? Around 100 best case, practically including the knocked down kits et al, its more like 50-60 per year. It compares with what Arjun line is supposed to do, of 50 per year. So its not that drastic difference.
The difference comes from
1) Early availability of T 90 (in 2000) -- thus longer tenure
2) Available from Russia in addition to Avadi

An external order makes more sense to make in one shot (since you negotiate for tech transfer etc) in case of Indian purchase more flexibility in terms of order schedule is present.

As Arjun production issues and Mk II etc become further streamlined, I expect same rate of induction and eventual similar numbers (a wish a view expressed in at least two parliamentary committee reports by MoD)

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 17 May 2010 14:10

Austin wrote:Sanku unfortunately these days adhoc purchase is showing up as the norm depending on the closeness of political class with specific entities. I do think US will put in its weight into this MBT business since IA is looking for mythical FMBT , if not the entire tank then certain key systems on it.


:(( :(( :((

wilson_th
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 03 Jul 2009 14:16

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby wilson_th » 17 May 2010 14:13

After many years of trial and tribulation it has now proved its worth by its superb performance under various circumstances, such as driving cross-country over rugged sand dunes, detecting, observing and quickly engaging targets, accurately hitting targets – both stationary and moving, with pin pointed accuracy. Its superior(against what..) fire-power is based on accurate and quick target acquisition capability during day and night in all types of weather and shortest possible reaction time during combat engagements.


one paragraph of praise from MoD and the order is only 124...-(

SanjibGhosh
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 30 Jan 2009 18:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby SanjibGhosh » 17 May 2010 14:35

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/05/fl ... tanks.html

FLASH! Indian Army Orders 124 More Arjun Tanks!

Report from Shiv Aroor .....

Good news but not great new ....... We want more .....

ASPuar
BRFite
Posts: 1538
Joined: 07 Feb 2001 12:31
Location: Republic of India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby ASPuar » 17 May 2010 14:52

?! 124 is a big order. Isnt 248 tanks enough to equip an armoured brigade? Or am I mistaken? The order will run into several hundred crores, and will keep the project alive, and an update Mark II in the pipeline!

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23779
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby SSridhar » 17 May 2010 14:55

Army places fresh order for 124 more Arjun tanks
"After many years of trials and tribulations, the tank has now proved its worth by its superb performance under various circumstances, such as driving cross-country over rugged sand dunes, detecting, observing and quickly engaging targets and accurately hitting targets, both stationary and moving with pinpointed accuracy," the spokesperson said.

pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 515
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby pralay » 17 May 2010 15:01

Austin wrote:
sameer_shelavale wrote:Austin ji why you still love to rely on other countries even though DRDO have proved that it can make better products?


Dont tell me Arjun is better than M1A2 ?


Arrr austin saar,
i didn't mean anything related to Arjun or M1A2.

i mean we should not rely on other countries especially Amrikha for technology.
Amerikha has proven record of screwing our programs by means of sanctions and tech denials.
better not rely on them, better be self-reliant. Even though things seems to be positive with amrikha today, it don't take a long time for things to change and amrikhans will be quick to set sanctions and hurt our programs for years.

Amrikha, russia, Israel or any damn nation... why to rely for technology on them ? why not have a indigenous program for each of our requirements ?

JVs can surely save some time but i doubt that they will add anything to our technological expertise.

Austin wrote:^^^ Wonder if the new Indo-US bonhomie will lead to something like the next gen FMBT for IA is here the M1A3 8)

Your statement surely displays a clear distrust on indian mil-complex and assumes that the indian mil-complex is unable to produce that capacity.

Its very disappointing to see respected peoples like you showing distrust on capabilities of our scientists without giving them any chance for that task, even before handing over the official requirements to them.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 17 May 2010 15:11

sameer_shelavale i do agree with your sentiments that we should not rely on other country if we can deliver them and in that sense Arjun development is a right move.

DRDO has some splended success in key areas specially in field of missile and strategic systems at the same time there is no need to reinvent the wheel and do any and every thing inhouse for slogan sake.

Even if you look at Arjun or LCA or even so called IN ships there are many critical things in there which are imported and sanctions can derail it , so do not get carried away while you focus on things that matters.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 17 May 2010 15:34

Question to gurus

How do they go about building the turret of Arjun , is this entire thing developed from one cast or each modular part is welded ?

The Israel Merkava 4 has an interesting turret design Merkava 4, the top view of Merk 4 Merk 4 seems to have an all sloped turret.

Will it be a big ask to make the current turret of Arjun to an all sloped one for Mk2 type ?

ashish raval
BRFite
Posts: 1390
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 00:49
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby ashish raval » 17 May 2010 15:42

Version of Arjun should also include Amphibious assualt vehicle or amphibious Expeditionary vehicles which can travel over the horizon in sea and in case of attack on pukes or any other nations we need these tanks to be launched from atleast 50 nautical miles in sea with anti-missile countermeasures as shore-based missiles can be a tank killer. These attack vehicles can prove to be a deadly assault and a nasty surprise to any country (read pukes) which would least expect such things coming out from the sea like a sea-monster. One night they are sleeping thinking that it is just a start of war and next morning they discover Indian Army Arjun Amphibious tanks rolling in streets of Karachi annoucing capture of Karachi harbour. These vehicles can be particularly important for initial punch because if they are launched from Kutch shoreline near Pak, it can hit Sindh in 3-4 hours time and can create havoc on the ground. :twisted:

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7716
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 17 May 2010 16:11

Austin wrote:Well the recent trials has been sucessful , so yes it is GOI+MOD decision in concurrence with go ahead from the IA , Decision making is a GOI task to evaluate is IA and MOD task.


That explanation is a far cry from what you've been arguing all along - MOD responsible for lack of Arjun induction and IA's hand is lilly white. The fact remains that decision to not induct Arjun so far was held up because of lack of go ahead from Army. See, MOD is not the villian in this story.

And again, in my opinion - this has been done to placate the observers while DRDO will be sent on leather hunt for MKII.

PIB is right , one to one comparision is a futile exercise or can be done for fun but not while doing serious evaluation exercise to see in which scenario Arjun fits in well to meet operational requirenment.


The section on comparative trials I quoted is from Parliamentary Standing Committe Report (PSCD) - March 2010. The reply was from MOD - not mine. So, yes we know comparative trials are nonsense - but Indian Army thinks otherwise and did exactly the same. It is just that the script ran contrary to the expectation - Arjun wiped the floor with IA's favorite toy.

As for "meet the operational requirement" argument - I don't know wether you choose to parrot these arguments because you believe in these arguments or for sake of it. Which part of MBT = MAIN BATTLE TANK, you do not understand? And how is comparing Arjun in Field Firing Range in Rajasthan in a series of manouvers against T-90 same as evaluating the scenarios in which Arjun can operate? IA has already tested the tank from Sambha to Gujarat - that should have told IA about the deployability of the Arjun and not these trials.

If IA believes that there is some specific scenario in which one uses a MBT like Arjun while T-90 in another - it needs to get it's fundamentals correct.

No body does a one to one comparision just to prove x system is superior in abc scenerio or y system is superior in 123 scenario. By your logic for MMRCA trial all the competing aircraft should end up with one to one duel with the other 6 plus they should also end up on a 1 to 1 with MKI and 6 vs MKI so that IAF can choose which one is a superior MMRCA.


Austin dear, not my logic - Indian Army's Logic......... :mrgreen:

PS: I've not replied on the MKII trial issue - time does not permit a good analysis of the said topic

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7716
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 17 May 2010 16:21

ASPuar wrote:?! 124 is a big order. Isnt 248 tanks enough to equip an armoured brigade? Or am I mistaken? The order will run into several hundred crores, and will keep the project alive, and an update Mark II in the pipeline!


How rich and magnanimous on the part of the Indian Army - a whole Independent Brigade worth of Arjuns+one additional Armored Regiment, WOW!!!.....now, what more could DRDO ask for?

Meanwhile, DGMF to ADC - Just check,when is the third armored division converting in full to T-90? Before end of 2011 you say? Good...Good. Also, Check who's soldiering on with Vijayantas? Regiment X and Y is it? Hmmm....give them those goddamn Arjuns...have to hand over these machines also to someone...and send a sorry note along with those tanks.....

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 17 May 2010 16:38

rohitvats wrote:That explanation is a far cry from what you've been arguing all along - MOD responsible for lack of Arjun induction and IA's hand is lilly white. The fact remains that decision to not induct Arjun so far was held up because of lack of go ahead from Army. See, MOD is not the villian in this story.


I never said MOD is responsible for lack of Arjun induction , what I said was the IA evaluates and GOI ( CCSA ) makes the final decision , CCSA has discretionary power and makes that descision on what it thinks is best , it may agree to a services view point and put its approval or may have a view of its own.

Decision making is a GOI business and MOD is part of GOI atleast the head of MOD is a member of CCSA.

Indian Army thinks otherwise and did exactly the same. It is just that the script ran contrary to the expectation - Arjun wiped the floor with IA's favorite toy.


Really how do you know Arjun wiped the floor , the result of the trial is a closely guarded secret ,but we know that Arjun performed well in meeting its objective.

Does PIB mentions that T-90 performed horribly ?

As for "meet the operational requirement" argument - I don't know wether you choose to parrot these arguments because you believe in these arguments or for sake of it. Which part of MBT = MAIN BATTLE TANK, you do not understand? And how is comparing Arjun in Field Firing Range in Rajasthan in a series of manouvers against T-90 same as evaluating the scenarios in which Arjun can operate? IA has already tested the tank from Sambha to Gujarat - that should have told IA about the deployability of the Arjun and not these trials.


From what we know through media reports Arjun is being inducted in certain area which is deserts of Rajasthan , so the current trials were held there.

I do not think even if Arjun were sucessfully tested from Sambha to Gujrat they plan to deploy it there.

If IA believes that there is some specific scenario in which one uses a MBT like Arjun while T-90 in another - it needs to get it's fundamentals correct.


Unless we know all the facts , we cannot say in which scenario and under what conditions and logistics availability which tank is needed and will perform best , that is IA decision and their fundamental right.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7716
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 17 May 2010 16:57

Austin wrote: I never said MOD is responsible for lack of Arjun induction , what I said was the IA evaluates and GOI ( CCSA ) makes the final decision , CCSA has discretionary power and makes that descision on what it thinks is best , it may agree to a services view point and put its approval or may have a view of its own.


So, in this case did CCSA and MOD act unilaterally or on recco of the Indian Army? Can you qoute an instance of CCSA acting unilaterally and forcing IA to buy a system that IA never asked for? How come CCSA+MOD never asked for induction before this point? Please don't insult the intelligence of people with these arguments.

Really how do you know Arjun wiped the floor , the result of the trial is a closely guarded secret ,but we know that Arjun performed well in meeting its objective. Does PIB mentions that T-90 performed horribly ?


So, you choose to ignore a media source which goes against you line of argument? Well, you're free to live in your fantasy land.

But I see that you've dropped the "comparative trials" = "nonsense" argument when it dawned on you that it is IA which did the same. How quaint...

From what we know through media reports Arjun is being inducted in certain area which is deserts of Rajasthan , so the current trials were held there.


From what we also know from media sources is that T-90 was trialled in Rajasthan but is being deployed with formations which will fight from Sambha to Gujarat. Also, formations every year go to Rajasthan for firing practice and exercises. Ever heard of a place called Mahajan Field Firing Range? Does that mean all of them are going to fight in Desert?

From Boradsword:

India’s home-built Arjun tank has emerged a conclusive winner from its showdown with the Russian T-90. A week of comparative trials, conducted by the army at the Mahajan Ranges, near Bikaner in Rajasthan, has ended; the results are still officially secret. But Business Standard has learned from multiple sources who were involved in the trials that the Arjun tank has outperformed the T-90 on every crucial parameter.


Just because you're ignorant doen't mean everyone else is.



I do not think even if Arjun were sucessfully tested from Sambha to Gujrat they plan to deploy it there.


And the basis of your argument is?

Unless we know all the facts , we cannot say in which scenario and under what conditions and logistics availability which tank is needed and will perform best , that is IA decision and their fundamental right.


How fweet!!! Even the IA would have never thought of these arguments but you have. What facts need to be know? That Arjun looks, feels and acts like a MAIN BATTLE TANK should be more than enough to decide what to do with it.

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 577
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby nrshah » 17 May 2010 17:31

Rohitvats/Austin and others

Dont you guys think we are criticizing DRDO/IA for their non- cooperative and adamant approach while having the same...

Not intended to hurt any of you guys... Your are the gurus who enlighten the jingoes like me

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7716
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 17 May 2010 17:40

nrshah wrote:Rohitvats/Austin and others

Dont you guys think we are criticizing DRDO/IA for their non- cooperative and adamant approach while having the same...

Not intended to hurt any of you guys... Your are the gurus who enlighten the jingoes like me


No guru here....zimple phata-pyjama abdul onleeee.....as for non-cooperative approach - the tag team of Austin and Sanku would have us beleive that IA is lily white in this Arjun saga...which flies in the face of facts and something I don't see myself agreeing to.....rest, we are one happy phamily onleeee.... :mrgreen:

sathyaC
BRFite
Posts: 124
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 19:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sathyaC » 17 May 2010 18:01

Follow up order of 124 tank is not a great news but some what good news .....

Their is no chances for more Arjuna Mk1, until something extraordinary happens.

Leaving apart the emotions attached to the Arjuna and thinking logically , to
induct the present order it would take at least another 4years form now (40-50 tanks per/year, 124+124=248 50 delivered, 198 left )
By that time Mk2 will be in final stage as their is no major changes need
in the frame apart from the engine thing, then we hope that the Mk2 is mass produced

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby anirban_aim » 17 May 2010 18:37

rohitvats wrote:How rich and magnanimous on the part of the Indian Army - a whole Independent Brigade worth of Arjuns+one additional Armored Regiment, WOW!!!.....


Chill..... This might be demotivating for us all but surely wasn't completely unexpected. :|

I don't think that one should presume that one particular type of weapon system will be preferred just because it performs better. There are multiple other "softer" issues which many of us (Including you) realize. These issues will be there in MBT selection, in Light Howitzer selection, in MMRCA selection and what have you....

Will you disagree with me that capabilities will be a third parameter after politics and cost negotiations in the MMRCA deal. I'm ready to go out on a limb and claim that it will be surely split between more than one contender, to arrive at a compromise and keep every one important as happy as is possible.

The Army didn't want any more Arjuns and thats that. The 124 no again is a compromise with a consolation prize to DRDO, now the expectation is that this controversy just dies down. So be it. One can't fight finalities.

Look at the bright side, this year by Oct we should hear something good on the LCA (probably the IOC), more flights of the LCH, whatever way you look at it, indegenious proiduction can only increase. Sooner or later FDI in defence is going to be increased.

India is a 3rd largest buyer of military hardware, the domestic industry simply can't ignore this huge oppurtunity for long. May earlier they didn't have the scale and the technologies, but all that is changing.

The reorganization of DRDO is a good begining. More things will follow. Just bide your time. No one can stop an idea whose time has come :twisted:

ASPuar
BRFite
Posts: 1538
Joined: 07 Feb 2001 12:31
Location: Republic of India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby ASPuar » 17 May 2010 18:46

Looks like nothing satisfies some people! The army and MoD have reacted positively to the successful results of trials. But still, some people take it as a reason to bash the Army/MoD. I dont understand the logic. The army's Damned if it does, and the Army's damned if it doesnt!

Did you want them to order 10000 Arjuns with immediate effect? Wtf? Theyve taken a step in the right direction.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RoyG » 17 May 2010 18:50

124? BAHAHAHAHAHA!

Arjun fans - Rest easy, be breezy!

Anabhaya
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 20 Sep 2005 12:36

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Anabhaya » 17 May 2010 18:54

Don't you realise without large orders local armoured vehicles development is dead for another 10 years? Your tanks are hostage to mother Russia's goodwill just like the Sea King choppers were hostage to Clintons goodwill.

Go on and allow yourselves to be held at ransom to foreign powers. The T series are best, and the IA did a favor to this nation by ordering 5 Arjuns a month.

vardhank
BRFite
Posts: 194
Joined: 17 Feb 2007 15:16
Location: Mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vardhank » 17 May 2010 19:05

ASPuar wrote:Looks like nothing satisfies some people! The army and MoD have reacted positively to the successful results of trials. But still, some people take it as a reason to bash the Army/MoD. I dont understand the logic. The army's Damned if it does, and the Army's damned if it doesnt!

Did you want them to order 10000 Arjuns with immediate effect? Wtf? Theyve taken a step in the right direction.


Weeeell... I think we wanted more than another consolation prize, that's one part of it.

And the other part is annoyance that this the other side of the C-17 debate: there, the IAF is (probably) being handed down a piece of equipment, (possibly) against its will, but one that won't cripple us in any way at worst, and will be a useful asset at best.

Here, the IA's demanding a piece of equipment that ISN'T great, could quite easily fail, DOES have sanctions of a kind (refusal to integrate Indian-made shells for example) and could VERY LIKELY cripple us in a shooting war (already has, with its lack of night-fighting ability). What the Arjun fans would like, ideally, is a capping of the T-90 order at maybe 1,000, ordering say another 250 minimum (instead of the second batch of 124) to keep the lines running till the Mark 2 comes up, and reduce our dependence on a foreign supplier, especially considering we're getting a better tank into the bargain.

A token 'step in the right direction' isn't good enough. But all right, let's be fair - things move slowly here. If tomorrow the IA orders ANOTHER 124 or whatever, that might convince us that there's actually been a change in thinking. I think the IA's done its bit to deserve a kicking in the issue, na? One right doesn't undo a wrong.

Pankaj C
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 8
Joined: 12 May 2010 14:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Pankaj C » 17 May 2010 19:06

The argument given against Arjun is, it is too heavy. Can a tank with similar specs be made lighter than Arjun? If not, wasnt the IA alive to this fact while framing the GSQR for Arjun?

One more thing, if today Arjun has performed very well (comparitive trials with T-90) today, how will it be obsolete and not the T-90 down the line?
Last edited by Pankaj C on 17 May 2010 19:07, edited 1 time in total.

vardhank
BRFite
Posts: 194
Joined: 17 Feb 2007 15:16
Location: Mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vardhank » 17 May 2010 19:07

But fine, we're being glass-half-full-ers :D Hurray for whatever we've got?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7306
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby nachiket » 17 May 2010 19:08

ASPuar wrote:The army's Damned if it does, and the Army's damned if it doesnt!

Its more like "Damned if it does too little!".

Did you want them to order 10000 Arjuns with immediate effect? Wtf? Theyve taken a step in the right direction.


Step in the right direction? They need to correct the several steps in the wrong direction they took before.
The first order for 310 T-90s was totally justified. Thereafter the Army ordered 1300+ T-90s. And now they order a mere 124 more Arjuns despite the Arjuns proving their superiority according to the PSCD release. They are throwing peanuts to the DRDO to placate them.
Last edited by nachiket on 17 May 2010 19:18, edited 1 time in total.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2195
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Vivek K » 17 May 2010 19:16

No! We expected the IA to order 1500 more T-90s because they didn't do as well as the Arjuns!! This time the Russians will get it right.

However, ordering more Arjuns is the right thing to do. 248 Arjuns will win over the Army's minds.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby merlin » 17 May 2010 19:29

ASPuar wrote:Looks like nothing satisfies some people! The army and MoD have reacted positively to the successful results of trials. But still, some people take it as a reason to bash the Army/MoD. I dont understand the logic. The army's Damned if it does, and the Army's damned if it doesnt!

Did you want them to order 10000 Arjuns with immediate effect? Wtf? Theyve taken a step in the right direction.


And that will be the only step in that direction.

We are going to see the same rigmarole with Arjun Mk II. IA making DRDO run around trying to add all that the IA needs and then IA will say too late, not modern enough, we need FMBT Mk II, ityadi, ityadi.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21405
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chetak » 17 May 2010 19:44

Is there some tactical or Army doctrine reasons that preclude the use of Arjuns in large numbers?

Logistics can surely be managed because we have adapted over the years to the induction of diverse weapon systems from foreign countries with all the attendant problems.

Can the manufacture of the Arjun be outsourced to say a company like BHEL or L&T or the like?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8146
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 17 May 2010 20:28

SSridhar wrote:Army places fresh order for 124 more Arjun tanks
"After many years of trials and tribulations, the tank has now proved its worth by its superb performance under various circumstances, such as driving cross-country over rugged sand dunes, detecting, observing and quickly engaging targets and accurately hitting targets, both stationary and moving with pinpointed accuracy," the spokesperson said.



Its a great news for the Indiginous development. I look forward to see a repeat order in not so distant future for the Indian Army.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8146
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 17 May 2010 20:34

Sanku wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:PIb release though

Army Decides to Take 124 More MBT Arjun

.


Right on dot, as predicted for last 4 years (at least)


Hope fully Avadi will be ramped up to a 100 tanks per year line while this order if fulfilled and those will all be Mk II.



Does HVF Avdhi has the human resources needed to make 100 Arjuns / year. If they are also producing the T 90??

Can a guru enlighten

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7716
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 17 May 2010 20:44

anirban_aim wrote:
Chill..... This might be demotivating for us all but surely wasn't completely unexpected. :|

I don't think that one should presume that one particular type of weapon system will be preferred just because it performs better. There are multiple other "softer" issues which many of us (Including you) realize. These issues will be there in MBT selection, in Light Howitzer selection, in MMRCA selection and what have you....

Will you disagree with me that capabilities will be a third parameter after politics and cost negotiations in the MMRCA deal. I'm ready to go out on a limb and claim that it will be surely split between more than one contender, to arrive at a compromise and keep every one important as happy as is possible.

The Army didn't want any more Arjuns and thats that. The 124 no again is a compromise with a consolation prize to DRDO, now the expectation is that this controversy just dies down. So be it. One can't fight finalities.

Look at the bright side, this year by Oct we should hear something good on the LCA (probably the IOC), more flights of the LCH, whatever way you look at it, indegenious proiduction can only increase. Sooner or later FDI in defence is going to be increased.

India is a 3rd largest buyer of military hardware, the domestic industry simply can't ignore this huge oppurtunity for long. May earlier they didn't have the scale and the technologies, but all that is changing.

The reorganization of DRDO is a good begining. More things will follow. Just bide your time. No one can stop an idea whose time has come :twisted:


I don't know whether to laugh or cry after reading your post... :-?
But you forget, I have BRF to whine... :((

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6948
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Anujan » 17 May 2010 20:49

Ajai Shukla says that the follow on order of 124 tanks is

a validation of Broadsword's reporting and opinion over the preceding three years....In this, we have been a lone voice in the entire media --- english, hindi, tv, print, whatever.


Good to see Shukla-ji as a committed support & Champion of the Arjun :mrgreen: 8) :twisted:

Other "whatevers" have shirked their duties and havent done their part :mrgreen: :)

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7716
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 17 May 2010 20:59

ASPuar wrote:Looks like nothing satisfies some people! The army and MoD have reacted positively to the successful results of trials. But still, some people take it as a reason to bash the Army/MoD. I dont understand the logic. The army's Damned if it does, and the Army's damned if it doesnt!

Did you want them to order 10000 Arjuns with immediate effect? Wtf? Theyve taken a step in the right direction.


No I'm not satisfied. Not satisfied by the fact that IA is playing God here and treating the domestic product as an untouchable. By giving orders as if it is throwing crumbs at DRDO - "Good show boys, here is order of 124 tanks. Now go play....."

Why 124 and not more? Does it not need to replace 1000+ T-72 which are not being replaced by T-90 or being upgraded? Where is the urgency for that? So, the fact that Arjun can be manufactured @50 tanks per annum is the bottleneck? But having older T-72 which cannot fight at night is not? Are 50 Arjuns not better than 50 T-72? And if production rate of Arjun is a problem, do you see IA making noises about production rate?

Again, why the order for 124 Arjuns now? Why not earlier? What have Arjun's got in 2010 that they did not have in 2007/2008/2009?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 17 May 2010 21:02

my hisaab:
55 tanks = 1 regiment (though we allegedly operate some @ 40)
3 regiments = 1 armour div.

so 248 tanks = 4 regiments + 28 reserve/training/protos = 1 armour div + 1 indep armour brigade.

imo 248 more Mk1 should have been ordered, but can Avadi deliver on time for Mk2 to start IOC run in 5 yrs?
I have serious doubts on Avadi production rate...perhaps the 124 order is realistic keeping in mind their shabby record.

symontk
BRFite
Posts: 904
Joined: 01 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby symontk » 17 May 2010 21:07

It is really a stretch to say that GOI/MOD approves everything regarding defence acquisitions / induction. From my understanding, they only approves the funding for a wing / project / acquisition. Defence arms have full say in which tank / plane / ship to be acquired. So if army has already spend all its money for armour on t-90, there may not be funding for Arjun. Now one thing which Army can do is to cancel the 1000 t-90 tank order with Russia and go ahead with Arjun. Not sure how things are currently to see how it works out or going to work

Also Armour div will have 500 tanks right, so this is around half of that? am i right?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 17 May 2010 21:11

Guys before you will mud sling. Arjun Tank cannot be ordered in a single go. It is a new equipment and it will take familirisation. so, the orders "could" be in increments and the tech + design will be tweaked. So, I urge you not to discuss which is not required.

I am using words like "could" , because other than upperwallah, no one knows what will happen tomorrow.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7716
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 17 May 2010 21:19

symontk wrote:
<SNIP>

Also Armour div will have 500 tanks right, so this is around half of that? am i right?


The numbers ordered (124) factors 17 tanks extra per regiment as reserves. Each Armored Regiment has 45 tanks. And an Armored Division has 6 Armored Regiments - that makes it 270 tanks. What IA has ordered is tanks for 4 Armored Regiments. My guess is that they'll convert the 140 (I) Armored Brigade into Arjun Brigade. It already has the 75th Armored Regiment - balance two can have these new tanks. Makes sense from logistics perspective. That leaves one extra Arjun Regiment.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7716
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 17 May 2010 21:23

Singha wrote:my hisaab:
55 tanks = 1 regiment (though we allegedly operate some @ 40)
3 regiments = 1 armour div.

so 248 tanks = 4 regiments + 28 reserve/training/protos = 1 armour div + 1 indep armour brigade.

imo 248 more Mk1 should have been ordered, but can Avadi deliver on time for Mk2 to start IOC run in 5 yrs?
I have serious doubts on Avadi production rate...perhaps the 124 order is realistic keeping in mind their shabby record.


45 tanks - One regiment.
2 X Regiments - One Brigade
3 X Brigades - One Armored Division - 6 Armored Regiments in all per Division.

Independent Armored Brigade - 3 X Armored Regiments


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests