Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Singha » 10 Aug 2012 08:29

imo the Arjun gunner sight should be moved atop the turret like most MBTs do. this would permit putting tiles and making that area stronger...its a prime area where a hit might occur...does not make sense not adding extra protection there.
however this means a manfacturing and placement change and has to be carefully thought out. perhaps in a Mk2.1 minor release type thing not to block the whole release.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8311
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Pratyush » 10 Aug 2012 08:36

Gurneesh wrote:Noob pooch: Why can't a 15m bridge be used on a 10m gap ?


Straight from my musharraf. Because a 15 m span cannot be used for any thing less then 15m, If it becomes 14.99m you need a 14.99M set. So on and so forth.

Hope you get the picture.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8311
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Pratyush » 10 Aug 2012 08:38

Singha wrote:imo the Arjun gunner sight should be moved atop the turret like most MBTs do. this would permit putting tiles and making that area stronger...its a prime area where a hit might occur...does not make sense not adding extra protection there.
however this means a manfacturing and placement change and has to be carefully thought out. perhaps in a Mk2.1 minor release type thing not to block the whole release.


GD, careful, the IA will ask just for that in the next iteration of revision before then order the MK 2, then for all you know, it will be year 2030. And on to FMBT.

member_23360
BRFite
Posts: 152
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby member_23360 » 10 Aug 2012 08:51

VikramS wrote:nelson:

Going by your logic, human beings should still be driving in horse carriages.

After all metalled roads were not needed for horses and hence automobiles are worthless.

Trains of course need tracks and hence trains too are worthless.

IA should be getting horse chariots, and developing a mahout regiment to lead the elephants into battle.

======

All it takes is a bunch of engineers to design an appropriate bridge for shorter distances (10m, 5m, 2mm or whatever you fancy). The arguments being put forward are so pathetic that it is sickening.

Would you or any other T-xx supporters be willing to face the Arjun in battle while riding the T-xx?


+1, there must be an independent inquiry into the t90 procurement

nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 10 Aug 2012 09:20

Please do not take it to personal level. The answer is yes. As i told earlier, the fact that there is a failure in developing bridging systems and it was one of the important considerations and might not have been the entire case of the Army when the decision to procure T-90 was last made in 2007.

Yes, Arjun has proved itself after that. Bridging systems are still being developed. Sarvatra has been deployed in limited number of units. These are facts that fill in the matrix in the last two to three years. But the decision to go for an alternative was already made. The alternate is worthy machine better in some respects and may be inferior in others. As is the case the DRDO was also party to the decision made then. MAy be the quantity of Arjun was sealed then.

You can call for an enquiry. At the cost of repetition...

nelson wrote:Well i acknowledge that BRFites hold sufficient information to conclude whatever, like in the previous pages of this thread, but that does not constitute knowledge and certainly not the final word. There is no reason to attribute motives with a broadbrush.


Bye, thanks.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby SaiK » 10 Aug 2012 09:33

Gurneesh wrote:http://i.imgur.com/I0dVx.jpg

Would have looked better with a couple of tiles by the gunner sight (the radar could have been attached on the tiles).


Nice pic, drdo was talking about integrating isreali active protection system (trophy?) that would be positioned around that place, correct?

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10102
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby sum » 10 Aug 2012 12:27

Livefist has a big article on Arjun Mk.2.

Whats stands out is:

The Arjun Mk-2 programme also suffered a severe setback with the unfortunate demise of senior scientist G K Kumaravel a few months ago. Kumaravel died in a road accident, while at Pokhran for trials of the Arjun Mk-2. He was heading the Arjun programme and slated to take over as Director, CVRDE in the future. He had played a crucial role in the developments and system integration of the Arjun MBT Mk II. The Arjun programme will now be led by V Balamurugan. The biggest problem being faced by the Arjun and a fate that is shared by almost all other indigenous programmes, is the small numbers ordered — that precludes investment in the required production and tooling. Sivakumar told FORCE that “Greater numbers are essential for reducing the price, establishing the process, good quality control mechanisms and continuous consistency in production”. This is also the reason he says that orders are a must. The Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) has not been producing Arjun MBT’s for two years and lot of the know-how is being lost.


Keeping this in mind, the Arjun Mk-2’s improved performance seems to have put the Army in a spot. What does one do with a tank that is fast, can shoot accurately on the move and is relatively well protected but is too heavy to be deployed in the deserts near the Pakistan border as a replacement for the T-72 or T-90? Paradoxically, while the tank itself has demonstrated high speed and mobility, its weight precludes it from being able to operate anywhere the army wants it to. The Arjun Mk-2 will weigh around 67 tonnes and this fatally limits the tank’s operational effectiveness for the Indian Army.

The tank is too heavy to be deployed across the border with Pakistan. It is unable to effectively traverse terrain filled with natural and/or artificial obstacles. Or areas criss-crossed with rivers and canals. That rules out most places in Rajasthan, Punjab and the mountainous terrain of the J&K sector.

This has forced the army to identify areas where the Arjun can safely be deployed and its operational units based. This probably means the Arjun will not fight alongside the T-90s and T-72s. It will certainly not be part of the Indian Army’s strike corps formations, as it could get bogged down in unfamiliar terrain. This runs counter to the philosophy of armoured formations, which are designed for mobile offensive operations deep inside enemy territory. Unlike the T series tanks that have been airlifted to high altitudes like Leh and even out of the country, the Arjun cannot be airlifted by the IL-76 and C-130 J transports of the Indian Air Force (IAF). The C-17 Globemaster to be inducted by the Indian Air Force (IAF) has a maximum payload of 75 tonnes — insufficient to airlift the 67 tonne Arjun Mk-2 with attendant support equipment.



During this correspondent’s visit to the CVRDE facility at Avadi in Tamil Nadu, it was evident that despite the best efforts of its highly committed team of designers and scientists, the Arjun is unlikely to ever be ordered in significant quantities by the Indian Army — which fields close to 3,500 tanks in its Order of Battle (ORBAT). The total orders for the Arjun as of today are 240 (124 Mk-1 and 116 Mk-2). For the Army, ordering more tanks would result in it having to devote more resources — something it seems loath to do.

Seems that it is the end of the road for Arjun ( Mk1 or 2 or xyz)

And how are the IA's blue-eyed tanks performing?

Meanwhile, the Indian Army is struggling to maintain its ageing fleet of T-72 MBT’s. While the T-72 was acknowledged to be one of the finest Russian tank designs, the ageing tank fleet is now increasingly difficult to maintain. Its small size and cramped turret make it difficult to incorporate the latest technology — like fire control systems, night vision and electronics. Unfortunately for the Army, the T-90 has not proved to be as sterling a performer as its predecessor. A number of glitches have come to the fore and production at HVF has been slow to take off. Russia has also refused to transfer technology related to metallurgy for T-90S gun barrels and armour plates to the HVF.

Despite all that, the Arjun outgunning the T-90 and T-72 in comparative trials, is akin to the Light Combat Aircraft ‘Tejas’, defeating the F-16 in a dogfight! The units that took part in the competition put up their best tanks and crew. The Arjun managed to fare very well. Army sources have freely admitted to FORCE, that there is a mind block with regard to the Arjun, by those who have operated the T series tanks. But they also admit that the Arjun is appreciably more modern in comparison to the T-72 & T-90, in many respects. For example, the Arjun can fire almost twice the number of rounds the T series tanks can, from its main gun.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby member_22539 » 10 Aug 2012 12:40

^^I'm getting the feeling that we are beset by traitors from all sides, even in the army. Mere incompetence can't explain this.

prabhug
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby prabhug » 10 Aug 2012 12:56

Arjun tank has become owners pride and neighbours envy.Every equipment will have problems.I believe the only technology Russia holds would be tank barrel for the T-90s.But what is is this 1800hp engine for a 50tonne tank.Looks like army still have not figured out using modular and non russian tanks.I see change is coming and inevitable.Now army would take a decade to start using the latest technologies.

nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 10 Aug 2012 13:16

Arun Menon wrote:^^I'm getting the feeling that we are beset by traitors from all sides, even in the army. Mere incompetence can't explain this.


I understand that BRFites are motivated to follow and contribute here for the sake of love of thy nation, but it is not correct to brand those in disagreement to views propounded here, as traitors.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby member_22539 » 10 Aug 2012 13:21

^^you are entitled to your opinion as am I. It is just sad to see a BMW being allowed to rust in favor of an Maruti 800.

nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 10 Aug 2012 13:24

That brings me to a question - How many of us in India own/ use an indigenous car? Just asking.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby member_22539 » 10 Aug 2012 13:32

^^How many Indians own/use a Lada? Just asking.

saje
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 89
Joined: 08 Oct 2010 16:28
Location: Bangalore

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby saje » 10 Aug 2012 15:54

(1) What does one do with a tank that is fast, can shoot accurately on the move and is relatively well protected but is too heavy to be deployed in the deserts near the Pakistan border as a replacement for the T-72 or T-90? (2) It is unable to effectively traverse terrain filled with natural and/or artificial obstacles or areas criss-crossed with rivers and canals. It will certainly not be part of the Indian Army’s strike corps formations, as it could get bogged down in unfamiliar terrain. (3) It cannot be airlifted by the IL-76 and C-130 J transports of the Indian Air Force (IAF). (4)The Arjun is unlikely to ever be ordered in significant quantities by the Indian Army


From the criticisms above, I've come up with some scenarios were we might be able to find use for the Arjun:
1)Urban Warfare - -- IRAQ has shown that urban warfare cannot be taken lightly. And we might face two scenarios of urban warfare -- either we roll into Pak and have to fight the 'proxies' (AQ,Taliban etc) in the villages/towns/cities of Pak or we might be subjected to the humiliation of a Sino-Pak push deep into our border culminating at some prominent village/town/city. Since we already know that the tin cans cannot last in such an environment, the agility and heavy armour of ARJUN will come in handy here.
2)Last stands -- If the Arjun will not go out and play with the others, at least it can be left in small detachments (1-2 per company) with the BSF in some strategic points where an enemy push might be expected (eg Loungewala). Since it will have to necessarily fight against overwhelming odds in such situations again the agility and heavy armour of ARJUN will come in handy here.
3)Marine invasion/Island Defense -- there is a possibility that in the event of a nuke attack on our strike formations heading into Pak, we might have to consider a marine invasion of Pak. In such a scenario ARJUNs can accompany the Marine force (while everybody's has lamented that the ARJUN can't be easily transported by rail or air, nobody's said anything about carrying ARJUNs by sea!) and help secure the beachhead, where it's mine ploughs, thermobaric warhead shell and heavy armour will come in handy for suppressing the shore defenses. Contrastingly, ARJUNs can be used in hull down mode for securing the beaches of A & N islands against enemy marine invasions.

Seen in the light of the above roles, the small quantities of ARJUNs being purchased actually makes sense! Since ARJUN is heavy, it won't go to war... war will come to ARJUN! :-)

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10102
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby sum » 10 Aug 2012 16:05

^^ Chanakian theories being transported from TSP dhaaga to Armoured dhaaga now?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Singha » 10 Aug 2012 17:50

how exactly did the weight go from 58t to 67t?

1. because 2 tons of plough was saddled on it, while let us see how the T90 does with a similar plough on its front end?
2. ERA bricks added - surely these cannot be more than a couple tons .... seems quite a minimal fit to keep the ERA lovers happy.

where else?

member_20453
BRFite
Posts: 613
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby member_20453 » 10 Aug 2012 18:00

True Arjun is ideal for many roles. I think they need to build a supporting Arjun based Engeneering and well as bridge laying versions. With a complete set of different vehicles it becomes easier to acquire it. As of now it indeed cannot cross rivers due to being too heavy, however, as far as i know it has no other terrain related problems, there is no reason why they cannot be deployed in the himalayan areas, they just need trains to haul such heavy equipment up there. Besides with proper roads and rail networks, there is no reason why it can't get up there.

prahaar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2797
Joined: 15 Oct 2005 04:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby prahaar » 10 Aug 2012 18:05

There are already Arjun carriers for road and rail networks. Also ARV/Bridge layers. All the equipment is designed and developed. Deployment cannot happen without sizable manufactured numbers.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Singha » 10 Aug 2012 18:33

67t is about the weight of the abrams...are people sure of this figure. I had read somewhere the new weight as 62t - much more believeable

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby PratikDas » 10 Aug 2012 19:08

Surya wrote:we had chipanda drones

now we have army drones

10m :eek:


must be really some high tech wonder this 10m bridge


+1

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby SaiK » 10 Aug 2012 19:11

I would say, Arjun Mk2 is worth an order of at least 500 odd tanks in how many ever phases. But, considering the weight reduction efforts can be taken by newer designs with reduced weight composites or even kevlar tanks if that is what the user wants. The important milestone event must be met, and made successful. User can't keep increasing the threshold of success every time they come for review. They should understand what tranche based development is.. not, from DRDO perspective, but more from the user requirements based.

If they want tin cans only, then DRDO should also be prepared to deliver them tin cans, but enough power pack features to out beat the existing ones. That is the only way to get over this firangs are the best mindset. {even though it requires firang components to slowly improve on the image}. DRDO should not claim it is 100% indigenous etc.. and remove the firang mindset totally.. having incorporated the engines and various other components from germany etc.. it is important to use those as marketing tactics for the firang infatuated minds.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Surya » 10 Aug 2012 19:26

if they want 50 tons then like the Japanese it should have been in the request and then added modular armor

Our armour geniuses should take a lesson from the Japanese on that. When they are deputed as attaches they come back all fascinated about how the Japanese say Hai and jump and do any task

that aspect appeals to them :evil:

nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 10 Aug 2012 19:35

It is not as if the 50T requirement cropped up yesterday. It has been there in operational philosophy of IA for about forty years now. That is why i asked a question if any one can point to something on the contrary. There are replies from 38 posters, but the question remains unanswered. If you do want to dismiss something, do it with authority of facts not on emotions.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Surya » 10 Aug 2012 19:48

It has been there in operational philosophy of IA for about forty years now


If thats the case all the more reason it is criminal what the IA and the armour corp did with the Arjun project

interesting choice of 40 years :)


Can you point out a GQSR which indicated the weight needed to be 50 tons plus all the features asked for?

and then show us one tank in the world which matches that

and stop trolling

Here is your own advice back at you - file a RTI - make some effort to research
Last edited by Surya on 10 Aug 2012 19:51, edited 2 times in total.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Mihir » 10 Aug 2012 19:49

Why does the Army consider a weight limit of 50 tons "sacrosanct" in 2012, when they successfully deployed and used 52 ton Centurions in the fifties? :-?

abhishekgoel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 06 Oct 2009 17:45

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby abhishekgoel » 10 Aug 2012 19:53

Weight can be issue if the bridges cannot support 60 tonnes or the trains are not able to carry these tanks to border. As for the operations in Rajasthan and Punjab someone kindly explain me how this weight is an issue? I have read that the ground pressure is less than T-90 or t-72 implying it has lesser probability of getting stuck in a swamp or loose sand.

Note: Anyhow I don' t feel investing in tanks is good idea. We should spend more on drones, attack helios and mobility of infantry.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2490
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Vivek K » 10 Aug 2012 19:53

Have you guys not lived in India? The reason for Arjun's fate is quite obvious. Indian procurement is deeply mired in corruption that seems to have left nationalist pride and patriotism far behind. I pray that it will not take a humiliating defeat for that mindset to be changed/defeated.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Surya » 10 Aug 2012 19:53

mihir

thats why he mentioned as 40 years

like 10m its a useful number to troll with

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby SaiK » 10 Aug 2012 19:56

Simply put they don't want to change their operational tactics.. tin cans can be vaporized by airborne top attack missile systems which are advancing day by day.. only a tank that has good protection like Arjun's kanchan armor and further enhancing with trophy like active protection system there is chance of survival.

Their tactical ops are limited since IA only recently thinking/allowed to take ownership of helo ops. They will soon realize that attack from air and protecting against them, especially considering chinese helo attacks, arjun is mandatory.. and not tin cans by the dozens.

However, the 50t challenge must be taken by DRDO by improved light weight composite materials for other areas where tonnage can be reduced.. that is another milestone the tin-can market lobby group is focused now, so that the delays can help them secure more tin cans.

We need both .. IA support 500 Arjun Mk2s., and upgrades is good., and at the same time work on the 50t FMBT, to be take by 1000s and not the tin can variety.

And if IA can air drop M777, they can drop Arjun as well.

andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1620
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby andy B » 10 Aug 2012 20:50

Image
Image
Image

Arjun mk2 images from military photos .net via Kunal Biswas.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby SaiK » 10 Aug 2012 21:15

fantastic!.. I can see the tin-can lobby cry about weight pretty much now.

nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 10 Aug 2012 21:17

It is 40 years because the first GSQR on the basis of which Project Arjun was initiated was circa 1973.

It has become a very convenient practice in BRF to attirbute uncomfortable arguments as trolling, and Admins wink at such a practice!

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby SaiK » 10 Aug 2012 21:20

what is your point?

nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 10 Aug 2012 21:23

I am not a fan of T-XX. I just pointed out fallacy in putting the entire blame on failure in induction of Arjun as an MBT, on IA. There are shortcomings on all sides a good share of which belongs to IA. But it would do good to the country to draw lessons from the experience and make amends.

At the end of it it will be their battle, when it matters. Sad that they have to fight it on the front within.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby SaiK » 10 Aug 2012 21:31

well.. don't consider that as blame. consider that as some constructive criticism, and look at ways to look forward towards future requirements. IA should participate in the project as managers and requirement engineers. they should be the stakeholders. and that is all again for the healthy growth of Arjun..

Now, if you say, IA doesn't care about it.. then, you are shooting at foot, for no reasons.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Surya » 10 Aug 2012 21:35

well you are trolling because this has been hashed umpteen times in this thread and you conveniently choose to ignore whats uncomfortable for you and keep moving around from 50 tonnes to 10 m bridge to R&D and other such bullcrap.

and since you are .
on GQSR again

can you point it on the GQSR the request for it to be 50 tonnes with all features requested

and once you produce that we will look around for a tank like that in the world
Last edited by Surya on 10 Aug 2012 21:48, edited 1 time in total.

nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 10 Aug 2012 21:36

Whoever said that IA doesn't care about it. The previous Army Chief went on record that Arjun was fiasco and Army contributed to that bungling. Does it not amount admitting mistake on their part?

nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 10 Aug 2012 21:38

GSQR -> RFP -> Procurement of T-90 in 2001, 2006, 2007. I don't need to use RTI because I think I have sufficient first hand knowledge of the issue at hand.

nakul
BRFite
Posts: 1251
Joined: 31 Aug 2011 10:39

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nakul » 10 Aug 2012 21:41

there can be no way that DRDO can produce a tank weighing 50 t and with all the features requested. IA either has to compromise on weight or on features. What is so hard to understand?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Surya » 10 Aug 2012 21:50

Nope not enough -

what matters is ensuring the skills and lessons learnt are not lost and a constant stream of production takes place with improvments.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests