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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 05 Dec 2012 08:52

arnab wrote:In other words - the Bofors purchase (an excellent gun btw, which underwent extensive tests in Indian conditions. This was before the T-90 purchase) could not be a case of corruption, since there was no DPP at the time which specified that middle men couldn't be used to seal a deal :)


What is this love of other words? Why not stick to the original posters original words? :-?

Once more and slowly -- The issue of corruption and purchase decisions are not necessarily linked. The DPP codidfied in 2004, aims to streamline the same, and codify the process, but is no guarantee that hanky panky wont happen, like we saw in C 17 case. So yes systems can be strengthend and should be, but directly causality is not guaranteed.

One can have corruption even with trials, like in Bofors case.

One can have no trials and no corruption -- T 90, Su 30 etc etc.

One can have no trials and corruption. -- Tatra.

Chamka kya?

Of course any one (like a Kerjirwal) can claim corruption without proof, without a CAG report, without a report from any public oversight committee, without a shred of evidence -- it goes these days. But doesnt make that kite flying accurate.

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby arnab » 05 Dec 2012 08:57

Sanku wrote:
What is this love of other words? Why not stick to the original posters words?

Once more and slowly -- The issue of corruption and purchase decisions are not linked.

One can have corruption even with trials, like in Bofors case.

One can have no trials and no corruption -- T 90, Su 30 etc etc.

One can have no trials and corruption. -- Tatra.

Chamka kya?


Agreed. One should not ascribe corruption to where stupidity would suffice (though one cannot rule out corruption in this case, because testing under Indian conditions would be a norm for weapons systems and there was precedence with Bofors. So one must wonder why the IA was pushing through this deal - specialy the follow on orders after the initial panic buying) :) Btw SU-30 is a process of co-development and should not be compared with trials 'observed' in Siberia. Valid comparisons would be with other off-the shelf purchases (whether single or multiple vendors)- Bofors, C-17s, Rafale.
Last edited by arnab on 05 Dec 2012 09:03, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 05 Dec 2012 09:02

arnab wrote:Agreed. One should not ascribe corruption to where stupidity would suffice


I accept the climbdown. More is needed though

Btw SU-30 is a process of co-development and should not be compared with trials 'observed' in Siberia.


Su 30 is co-development? No its not, its a purchase with in-depth customization based on user needs. A lot like T 90. (Uses French electronics in a Russian tank based on Indian requests)

Co-development is Brahmos and FGFA.

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby arnab » 05 Dec 2012 09:05

Sanku wrote:
arnab wrote:Agreed. One should not ascribe corruption to where stupidity would suffice


I accept the climbdown. More is needed though

Btw SU-30 is a process of co-development and should not be compared with trials 'observed' in Siberia.


Su 30 is co-development? No its not, its a purchase with in-depth customization based on user needs. A lot like T 90. (Uses French electronics in a Russian tank based on Indian requests)

Co-development is Brahmos and FGFA.


er..no - does not explain the enthusiasm for follow on orders (smells more like corrupton I'm afraid - after the initial panic buying). And what french electronics? - Catharine was incorporated because the Russian ones did not work (naturally it would have worked in Siberia :) ). It was not a thought through process like the SU-30.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby member_22539 » 05 Dec 2012 09:11

^^Is there any way to launch PIL in defence matters? Asking just out of curiosity.

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby arnab » 05 Dec 2012 09:14

Arun Menon wrote:^^Is there any way to launch PIL in defence matters? Asking just out of curiosity.


I wouldn't think so. Too many security implications. For instance, if the 'worthlessness' of T-90 were part of the public domain - what implications would it have for the success of cold start? Asymmetric information is always desirable.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6951
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Anujan » 05 Dec 2012 09:28

I think we should now vigorously debate why Arjun is an inferior tank because it has a rifled bore gun.

ShibaPJ
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 20 Oct 2005 21:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby ShibaPJ » 05 Dec 2012 09:29

Pehle Banian utar gayi thi, abhi chaddi bhi nikal gayi. Logic put forward by T-90 lovers in this thread puts all common sense and logic to shame. Let me try to put the chronology far as I remember.

a) It was some non-existent procurement policy pre-2006 that led IA to an "innocent babe in the woods" T90 emergency purchase w/o proper trials in Indian conditions. The PNC had to go out of its brief to call for the trial, and still orders were placed w/o the issues getting fixed.
b) Then we had a follow-on purchases of 1600 odd tanks without previously identified show stoppers being fixed.
c) The procurement lobby deliberately understated the per unit price to push through the subsequent purchase
d) Mother Russia then deliberately played around with ToT so that an additional 300 tank order was placed.

All through, Arjun was given a run around the block till a determined DRDO forced a trial, where the non-Avadi T-90s got their arses handed back to them. Then

e) Couple of dhagas where a lively smooth v/s rifled bore discussion took place
f) We had couple of pages of tank tonnage, improper infra and ground pressure related discussions
g) Then the super duper mythical, 3-crew 40 ton T-xx FMBT to be co-developed or produced was peddled. That ended with the whole concept proving a non-starter.
g) Now, another round of pigheaded posts to justify T90.

All this despite multiple posters proving that T-xx is an evolutionary dead end, blows up with a very poor crew protection and not the right response to the quality of tanks/ ATGMs we will be facing in a future war.

This thread definitely sees a lot outpouring of lahori logic. What next? :roll:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 05 Dec 2012 09:50

arnab wrote:er..no - does not explain the enthusiasm for follow on orders (smells more like corrupton I'm afraid - after the initial panic buying). And what french electronics? - Catharine was incorporated because the Russian ones did not work (naturally it would have worked in Siberia :) ). It was not a thought through process like the SU-30.


I dont know where you are and what you are smelling.

Certainly not somewhere in the real world.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 05 Dec 2012 09:52

arnab wrote:
Arun Menon wrote:^^Is there any way to launch PIL in defence matters? Asking just out of curiosity.


I wouldn't think so. Too many security implications. For instance, if the 'worthlessness' of T-90 were part of the public domain - what implications would it have for the success of cold start? Asymmetric information is always desirable.


More wink-wink nudge nudge nonsense to make up for the basic lack of info.

P 1>> There is no info --

P 2>> oh I know what its really is, but I cant tell you otherwise I will have to kill you.

P 1>> Huh, why?

P 2>> National security issue you, so even if what I am saying goes against every available detail, you should believe me, because my nose told me so.

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby arnab » 05 Dec 2012 09:53

Sanku wrote:
I dont know where you are and what you are smelling.

Certainly not somewhere in the real world.


I'm only a simple user of 2000 Indian T-90 tanks that I didn't need - all that tank fuel is giving me a high :)

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby arnab » 05 Dec 2012 09:58

Sanku wrote:More wink-wink nudge nudge nonsense to make up for the basic lack of info.

P 1>> There is no info --

P 2>> oh I know what its really is, but I cant tell you otherwise I will have to kill you.

P 1>> Huh, why?

P 2>> National security issue you, so even if what I am saying goes against every available detail, you should believe me, because my nose told me so.


eh? Where have I claimed that I'm privy to inside info? I just gave my views on the chances of lodging a successful PIL on Indian defence procurement. You don't have to take my word for it. Do go and lodge one.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 05 Dec 2012 10:29

ShibaPJ wrote: Let me try to put the chronology far as I remember.


Poor memory let me refresh it.

a) It was some non-existent procurement policy pre-2006 that led IA to an "innocent babe in the woods" T90 emergency purchase w/o proper trials in Indian conditions. The PNC had to go out of its brief to call for the trial, and still orders were placed w/o the issues getting fixed.


There was a informal policy, which was followed for purchase of a excellent and much needed tank which had been delayed for 25 years.

b) Then we had a follow-on purchases of 1600 odd tanks without previously identified show stoppers being fixed.


No serious issues were seen and all minor issues were fixed

c) The procurement lobby deliberately understated the per unit price to push through the subsequent purchase


Untrue, apart from Shukla's musharaff and others who play with its output, no one (say CAG) even mentions it.

d) Mother Russia then deliberately played around with ToT so that an additional 300 tank order was placed.


partially correct, no additional orders were placed. However of the original 1670 order, some had to come from Russia.

All through, Arjun was given a run around the block till a determined DRDO forced a trial, where the non-Avadi T-90s got their arses handed back to them. Then


Arjun was being run around the block to see if it could run. It could finally come to scratch in 2008 where it performed as per expectations.

Hope that will help.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 05 Dec 2012 10:31

arnab wrote:eh? Where have I claimed that I'm privy to inside info? I just gave my views on the chances of lodging a successful PIL on Indian defence procurement. You don't have to take my word for it. Do go and lodge one.


I will not take your word for it, and neither will lodge any. However your views were rather colorful. The original post stays, so we know what exactly you said in the guise of the PIL question. Let me refresh (not restate, or reinterpret, let me just repost what you said)

I wouldn't think so. Too many security implications. For instance, if the 'worthlessness' of T-90 were part of the public domain - what implications would it have for the success of cold start? Asymmetric information is always desirable.


Sir-jee we can all see what is happening here.

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby arnab » 05 Dec 2012 10:36

Sanku wrote:
I wouldn't think so. Too many security implications. For instance, if the 'worthlessness' of T-90 were part of the public domain - what implications would it have for the success of cold start? Asymmetric information is always desirable.


Sir-jee we can all see what is happening here.


But the facts do show that a 'badly' made arjun beat the 'non-issue' facing T-90 :) Our defence is the himalayas to the North and the badly tanking TSP economy to the west (which does not let them upgrade to the M-1 Abrams) - certainly not the T-90.

ShibaPJ
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 20 Oct 2005 21:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby ShibaPJ » 05 Dec 2012 10:54

Sanku,

My memory is fine. I have gone through all posts and counter posts and I find your stand and spins ridiculous as others have already pointed out. Of course, many posters have tried to correct you, put facts/ logic before you.. But one can only take a horse to water.. eh?

There was a informal policy, which was followed for purchase of a excellent and much needed tank which had been delayed for 25 years.

So, IA procurement got lost and forgot the whole simple matter of weapon trial in Indian summer/ conditions? You claim Arjun being tested to see if it can run, but IA forgot to test T-90 for crawl in the same conditions?? IA's informal policy was different for T90 and Arjun, and then your tomfoolery on top of it :evil:

b) Then we had a follow-on purchases of 1600 odd tanks without previously identified show stoppers being fixed.


No serious issues were seen and all minor issues were fixed

Really?? Night blindness, the tank was/ is a blast furnace in the desert, can't target properly on the move, turret blows up with RPGs and what not, Russian CI went for a toss, engine broke down.. All these were minor issues for T90, but deal breakers for Arjun

c) The procurement lobby deliberately understated the per unit price to push through the subsequent purchase


Untrue, apart from Shukla's musharaff and others who play with its output, no one (say CAG) even mentions it.

You have selective amnesia? then why subsequent orders for French CI, A/C and all bells and whistles? Whereas all or most of this was considered must-haves for Arjun? Both tanks were being evaluated on different parameters?

d) Mother Russia then deliberately played around with ToT so that an additional 300 tank order was placed.


partially correct, no additional orders were placed. However of the original 1670 order, some had to come from Russia.

So you admit that Rodina screwed us even with a written contract, or do you have more spins on it?

All through, Arjun was given a run around the block till a determined DRDO forced a trial, where the non-Avadi T-90s got their arses handed back to them. Then

Arjun was being run around the block to see if it could run. It could finally come to scratch in 2008 where it performed as per expectations.

Hope that will help.

How considerate of you? So, while Arjun was being tested if it could run, T90 was being ordered though it could not walk! Do you really have to stoop that low to trash a world-beater home-grown Indian tank to fluff up the Russians? Or is it just your H&D that has to be protected at all costs?

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6951
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Anujan » 05 Dec 2012 11:36

Why isn't anyone debating the torsion bar failure in Arjun ?

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 » 05 Dec 2012 11:38

Anujan wrote:Why isn't anyone debating the torsion bar failure in Arjun ?


The sign of a much hunted snow wolf is that it senses traps and trick questions a mile away and declines to bite.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby negi » 05 Dec 2012 11:43

Anujan wrote:Why isn't anyone debating the torsion bar failure in Arjun ?

Well if you are hinting at regurgitation of old stuff then perhaps dead horses like length,size, silhouette and more complex western technology should be flogged first. :mrgreen:

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6951
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Anujan » 05 Dec 2012 11:50

I also heard APFSDS ammo is not effective in rifled bore guns.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 05 Dec 2012 13:26

arnab wrote:But the facts do show that a 'badly' made arjun beat the 'non-issue' facing T-90 :)


Yes it did certainly exceeds T 90s capability on many fronts, it has been designed for that, and when it works as designed, the above is to be expected.

Our defence is the himalayas to the North and the badly tanking TSP economy to the west (which does not let them upgrade to the M-1 Abrams) - certainly not the T-90.


What should be the right tank force in Himalaya's is a very different discussion -- however that is a bridge too far. The question is -- is Avadi able to produce 50 Arjuns per year. If not why. Is the Mk II on track. What can be done to cut down the time to get Mk II in production.

Let us cross that bridge when we get to it.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 05 Dec 2012 13:30

ShibaPJ wrote:My memory is fine. I have gone through all posts and counter posts and I find your stand and spins ridiculous as others have already pointed out. Of course, many posters have tried to correct you, put facts/ logic before you.. But one can only take a horse to water.. eh?


Well the way I see it, this thread has Shuklaities, and unfortunately only a few are trying to get the cure from the zombie state since they are yet not infected.
:mrgreen:

Unfortunately, while others speak for themselves, you have not quoted a single data point which can stand up with real world facts. You should therefore certainly question your beliefs. So should others, but each individual must bear their own cross.

So, IA procurement got lost and forgot the whole simple matter of weapon trial in Indian summer/ conditions? You claim Arjun being tested to see if it can run, but IA forgot to test T-90 for crawl in the same conditions?? IA's informal policy was different for T90 and Arjun, and then your tomfoolery on top of it :evil:


You are wrong. T 90 WAS tested. IA tested it. No one forgot. There was a preliminary look see in Russia and detailed tests in India.

Tests were carried out by IA.

Do you agree that tests were carried out in India by IA in summer winter of 99. Yes or no? (Rohit Vats does btw, and I quote him, because despite the difference of opinion in our views, he is one person that is certainly very knowledgeable, universally agreed on BRF)
Last edited by Sanku on 05 Dec 2012 13:42, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 05 Dec 2012 13:32

Anujan wrote:Why isn't anyone debating the torsion bar failure in Arjun ?


You can certainly introduce it to the debate. That has been the level of debate right now anyway.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2091
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Picklu » 05 Dec 2012 13:38

Reading Sanku Ji's post without taking a bonine beforehand is a serious health hazard.
If you fall ill, you will be lectured why you can not handle "truth" :rotfl:

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6951
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Anujan » 05 Dec 2012 14:37

Avadi deserves severe criticism for not producing more tanks than those which have been ordered.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 05 Dec 2012 16:03

Anujan wrote:Avadi deserves severe criticism for not producing more tanks than those which have been ordered.


Very funny -- however that would come after they make the tanks which have been ordered.

Their current plan is to make 30 Arjun Mk IIs by 2014, out of tranche of 125.

Good luck beating IA with that stick.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12023
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Aditya_V » 05 Dec 2012 16:07

Anujan wrote:I think we should now vigorously debate why Arjun is an inferior tank because it has a rifled bore gun.


Debated and discussed to death Sanku Vina and Co and closed, please refer previous threads.

Please let us know based on your research on AFSPDS, Hesh, Barrel like of L-55 on Abrams, muzzle velocity, spin advantage/ disadvantage od rifling etc on why rifled gun is inferior to smooth bore

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7726
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby rohitvats » 05 Dec 2012 16:18

Aditya_V wrote:
Anujan wrote:I think we should now vigorously debate why Arjun is an inferior tank because it has a rifled bore gun.


Debated and discussed to death Sanku Vina and Co and closed, please refer previous threads.

Please let us know based on your research on AFSPDS, Hesh, Barrel like of L-55 on Abrams, muzzle velocity, spin advantage/ disadvantage of rifling etc on why rifled gun is inferior to smooth bore


I knew it...someone was sure to fall for the IED. These senior maulanas, I tell you...always baiting an unsuspecting talib... :mrgreen:

Chinmayanand
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2585
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 16:01
Location: Mansarovar
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Chinmayanand » 05 Dec 2012 16:33

Does anybody have any idea what percentage of a defence deal goes into the coffers of politicos, bureaucrats, forces people and middlemen ?
Does anybody have a fair breakup of this blackhole where the money vanishes without a trace ?

Let's hope 20% is not a modest figure.
Last edited by Chinmayanand on 05 Dec 2012 16:57, edited 2 times in total.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby vina » 05 Dec 2012 16:34

Their current plan is to make 30 Arjun Mk IIs by 2014, out of tranche of 125.


UDIPI Restaurant - U Demand I Produce Immediately - Restaurant.

If they can produce as many Idlis as you demand, immediately in the local Udipi restaurant, why cant Avadi produce as many tanks as demanded immediately.

Udipi Restaurant good. Avadi OFB bad! :cry:

Chinmayanand
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2585
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 16:01
Location: Mansarovar
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Chinmayanand » 05 Dec 2012 17:04

Marten mullah , thanks for showing me the light .After reading your post, for a moment i thought i had donned the soo-sai vest without knowing it. :mrgreen:
Damn !!! The dynasty slaves would have been baying for my blood with their sickular swords and new itvity laws.:rotfl:

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10031
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby sum » 05 Dec 2012 18:52

Aditya_V wrote:
Anujan wrote:I think we should now vigorously debate why Arjun is an inferior tank because it has a rifled bore gun.


Debated and discussed to death Sanku Vina and Co and closed, please refer previous threads.

Please let us know based on your research on AFSPDS, Hesh, Barrel like of L-55 on Abrams, muzzle velocity, spin advantage/ disadvantage od rifling etc on why rifled gun is inferior to smooth bore

:lol: :lol:
IED laid and stepped on!

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby arnab » 06 Dec 2012 09:49

Sanku wrote:Very funny -- however that would come after they make the tanks which have been ordered.

Their current plan is to make 30 Arjun Mk IIs by 2014, out of tranche of 125.

Good luck beating IA with that stick.


Odd isn't it? Arjun MK-I beat the 'no issues' T-90, yet Army wants Arjun MK-II while staying the course on T-90? :)
Ah well - perhaps CAG will notice the deficiencies, 'after the wench was dead' - like they did in the aftermath of 1962. Till then all was well :)

Chinmayanand
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2585
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 16:01
Location: Mansarovar
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Chinmayanand » 06 Dec 2012 17:30

DRDO should sell 500 Arjun tanks to TSPA and we can have a live fire drill with TSPA operating Arjun and IA operating T90in the Rajasthan desert.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby merlin » 06 Dec 2012 17:33

Chinmayanand wrote:DRDO should sell 500 Arjun tanks to TSPA and we can have a live fire drill with TSPA operating Arjun and IA operating T90in the Rajasthan desert.


Why sell? Give them away for free.

Chinmayanand
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2585
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 16:01
Location: Mansarovar
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Chinmayanand » 06 Dec 2012 17:43

merlin wrote:Why sell? Give them away for free.


You are right. Those bankrupt pakis can't afford to buy.Give them free . That is the only way , DRDO can prove that Arjun is better than T90.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2385
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby John » 06 Dec 2012 20:04

Wouldn't PA go further bankrupt from having to upgrade their logistics to maintain a 50+ ton tank. Sorry i couldn't help myself :D . Back on topic while yes IA should support Arjun but considering how badly it was delayed IA had every right to purchase T-90, it is fine tank. Lets leave it at that.

keshavchandra
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 22:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby keshavchandra » 06 Dec 2012 20:12

Chinmayanand wrote:
merlin wrote:Why sell? Give them away for free.


You are right. Those bankrupt pakis can't afford to buy.Give them free . That is the only way , DRDO can prove that Arjun is better than T90.

Still they would expect this under buy one get another free scheme? :rotfl: :rotfl:

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6951
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Anujan » 06 Dec 2012 21:29

merlin wrote:
Chinmayanand wrote:DRDO should sell 500 Arjun tanks to TSPA and we can have a live fire drill with TSPA operating Arjun and IA operating T90in the Rajasthan desert.


Why sell? Give them away for free.


I have a better idea. US should give pakis Abrams for free. Arjun will be inducted pronto.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2452
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Prem Kumar » 06 Dec 2012 23:59

No. We will buy Merkava


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests