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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Anujan » 07 Dec 2012 00:15

Israel has natashas?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 07 Dec 2012 00:20

Anujan wrote:Israel has natashas?


Everyone has Natasha's.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2453
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Prem Kumar » 07 Dec 2012 01:04

They have Zivas, Sarahs and even Mayas.

"Buy Merkava, Ride Ziva!"

Tell me a comparable marketing slogan using T-90 and Natasha

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Mihir » 07 Dec 2012 02:28

In Soviet Russia, Natasha rides YOU!!!

Funny, eh guys?

Guys...?

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 » 07 Dec 2012 05:18

Just curious are these Natashas as golgeous as Natasha Henstridge ? :mrgreen:

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby srai » 07 Dec 2012 07:48

vina wrote:
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:


It's easy to not see what goes on behind the scene to make x amount of idlis -- farming ingredients (planting, growing, harvesting), supplying to market (collecting, storing, packaging, transporting), shipping), shopping for those ingredients, food prep (cutting & mixing), cooking, and then finally plateing/packing for delivery. The eater for the most part only sees the end-product i.e. what's on the plate in front of him.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby ShibaPJ » 07 Dec 2012 08:28

Sanku wrote:
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.

I really don't get so much time to post, so would only cover in brief. First, many others (take Rohitvats since I agree him being far more knowledgeable) has already provided enough data points, you would do better going over those than me doing a repeat. Unfortunately, I only see an outpouring of Sankuitis and Rodinaitis in your posts, they are the same across threads. From yous posts, India's well-being goes thru Rodina only (not downplaying Russia, I respect them and the Indo-Russia relationship for a host of different things) and you would go to any lengths, even trashing a far, far superior home-grown tank to support it. Can't say for others, but for me someone's credibility factor will keep going south, the more I see such outpourings.

All of us bear our own cross. I will continue batting for Indian interest foremost, you should introspect whose interests are you batting for.
..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)

Strange that you quote Rohitvats, he has already requested you to stop peddling blatant lies and spinning half-truths. Not that it made an iota of a difference. And, for the record, I find Rohit, Vina, Anujan and a host of other poster's viewpoints and explanations far more convincing and to the point. But, not to digress, T-90 tests were carried out only after PNC asked for it in 99 (a mandatory procedure that should have been done even before IA made the recommendation). In comparison, Arjun was made to jump thru hoops and each and every issue was made an excuse for not making a bulk order. As many others pointed out, only the initial T-90 order made sense, the subsequent orders were made even w/o the identified issues being fixed, while Arjun was ready to roll and was outmatching and outgunning the T-90 by miles (a fact brought out from the trials).

So, probably we will continue to see some more of some other fluffed up posts, concerned posters will continue to wail for Arjun's misfortunes and how we should be building our own MIC rather than financing someone else's and we will see stout defense of Mother Russia..

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 07 Dec 2012 08:55

ShibaPJ wrote:blah blah blah

T-90 tests were carried out only after PNC

blah blah blah
.


So you do agree that T 90s were tested. So why did you say they were not? In any case that is not relevant. I am glad that you at least see one point.

Now next point --

Obviously the detailed trials can happen ONLY after a preliminary clearance is given, and this was in 99 when the process was not even clarified to the extent it is today.

Do you see any issue in having a preliminary screening followed by a detailed test?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby srai » 07 Dec 2012 15:28

It's ok to agree to disagree ;)

Both sides are not going to see eye-to-eye. So let's move on to other discussions.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8216
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Pratyush » 07 Dec 2012 17:38

Sanku wrote:Everyone has Natasha's.


except drdo ;(

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby ShibaPJ » 07 Dec 2012 22:11

Sanku wrote:
ShibaPJ wrote:blah blah blah

T-90 tests were carried out only after PNC

blah blah blah
.


So you do agree that T 90s were tested. So why did you say they were not? In any case that is not relevant. I am glad that you at least see one point.

Now next point --

Obviously the detailed trials can happen ONLY after a preliminary clearance is given, and this was in 99 when the process was not even clarified to the extent it is today.

Do you see any issue in having a preliminary screening followed by a detailed test?

Since you won't stop peddling blatant lies/ spins, so for the nth time.. IA didn't do trials in India before recommending T90 acquisition, PNC had to force it to.. There is nothing like a prelim screening and then a detailed evaluation after price negotiations or induction happens.. You don't have to give a fig leaf of an excuse of non-existent DPP or ignorance on IA's part. Lack of a DPP didn't stop IA from doing an exhaustive trial of Arjun.. So there was a differential treatment for both T-90 and Arjun, and posters here expect the home-grown tank to be given the same treastment in the least, if not a reversal. You have chosen to willfully ignore these facts and whine with some ridiculous logic.. Anyways, you can continue with your rah rah posts or take up some other issues; Torsion bar and smooth bore barrel (your fav) options have already been suggested and some Talibs have jumped in. :lol:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Surya » 07 Dec 2012 22:57

I bet Amartya sen must have come across Sanku before he got the idea for writing the Argumentative Indian!!! :D

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby rohitvats » 08 Dec 2012 02:06

Surya wrote:I bet Amartya sen must have come across Sanku before he got the idea for writing the Argumentative Indian!!! :D


Was wondering how come you're missing from action... :mrgreen:

Been traveling, is it?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Surya » 08 Dec 2012 10:40

yes travelling

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10493
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Vayutuvan » 12 Dec 2012 02:31

New source of Armored vehicle tech for PA :)

Joking aside, looks not that bad for just $10K. Purportedly uses a Wii Controller to control the machine gun.

Sham II: New fighting machine of Syria rebels

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Indranil » 12 Dec 2012 02:41

VRDE has a tender for design and development of 4 stroke diesel engine with a power output of 170 bhp. A few questions:

1. What could it be for?
2. I could only think of the VRDE Light Armoured Wheeled Vehicle/Armoured Paratrooper Vehicle (LAWV/APV). What is the status of that project?
3. What is the difference between LAWV with the light armored vehicles from Tata/Ashok Leyland?

P.S. It could be for the TATA 713c armoured bus too, but I don't think VRDE would have been looking for it's engines

pentaiah
BRFite
Posts: 1671
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby pentaiah » 12 Dec 2012 04:51

matrimc wrote:New source of Armored vehicle tech for PA :)

Joking aside, looks not that bad for just $10K. Purportedly uses a Wii Controller to control the machine gun.

Sham II: New fighting machine of Syria rebels


That's for civilians survive civil war it's a peace vehicle in war times

Also what does VRDE stand for ? just float tender ideas

Also checked it looks like VRDE also makes Tata Ace chassis modification
Delivered 80 numbers of Pinaka systems in 12 years
Made chassis modification to
Tata
Tatra
Worked with L&T
Very unusual achievements sounds like my resume!
Should be called vehicle search modification establishment
VSME
:rotfl:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 13 Dec 2012 14:39

Cross posting some excellent posts from LCA thread. We see exactly the same story here as well

Briefing Business Standard the Director of the Aeronautical Development Agency ( ADA), P Subramanyam, who runs the LCA programme, explains that nobody realised that setting up a production line was a technology by itself.


and

Dileep wrote:Setting up a production line that is a copy of an existing line is very simple. You don't have to think. You get everything specified. Which variant of which machine with which option package. Even the plant layout, electrical/pneumatic/hydraulic diagram and automation programmes are available.

It is a whole different matter when you want to setup a production setup for something new. I know, I have done BOTH for some electronic stuff that is some ten orders of magnitude simpler than a fighter plane. NO amount of licensed production, or prototype manufacturing would prepare you to setup a volume production system.

The basic problem is, be it IAF or HAL, they take ADA/DRDO as equivalent to the other OEM, like MiG/Sukhoi/BAe/Dassault. HAL might have expected ADA to provide the full design of the production line, while ADA might have expected HAL to take care of production.

I have experience in this "disconnect" as well. A "product designer" almost NEVER thinks about the volume manufacturing. You need the "manufacturing engineer" to do that. I started my working life as the "manufacturing engineer" and later moved to be the "priduct designer".

Tata did the nano plant with the whole lot of expertise of setting up lines in an incremental fashion, from pure licensed production, to some internal design, to full internal design. It can be done, but it takes time, resources, and on top of all, MOTIVATION.


Its the same story, and now in LCA thread, the same whine is beginning to be heard by some. "If IAF had ordered 1900000000000 LCA 25 years back then HAL would have known that a production line was needed with given technology."

Given time, it will become accepted wisdom. HAL cant make a manufacturing line for LCA because IAF did not order 14000000 LCA 4000000 years ago.

D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby D Roy » 13 Dec 2012 15:36

The point about firm orders is valid. It is true for any business and any industry. It goes to the very heart of economies of scale and of attracting suppliers for LRUs etc.

sub-contractors also look at volumes. if you just want five pieces of something (e.g) they are going to say make it yourself.

This is what delayed the Kaveri also. Loads of components were denied and those that weren't were offered for delivery gadzillion years later as five pieces of something gets the lowest priority.

And that has plagued the Arjun program also.

when you order 20 of something, the very notion of that somehow being a 'production line' becomes a little strange especially when hundreds of that generic something are usually built.

Typically it leads to things ultimately crafted in a manner not to differently from the way the lSPs were built and an associated increase in cost.

Of course given your prior post, it's clear that you don't agree with these views. And that is why I will leave it here.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 13 Dec 2012 15:58

D Roy wrote:The point about firm orders is valid. It is true for any business and any industry. It goes to the very heart of economies of scale and of attracting suppliers for LRUs etc.


Fair enough, yet this is a problem, that the user wants prototypes, then LSPs, then limited orders and then massed orders. Especially for a new system, no one will be willing to order the farm before the due diligence and also it takes time to slowly absorb the units and ramp up.

None of this is also a surprise for anyone involved in the game, the above are given, therefore working solutions around production ramp up must exist, and must be signed off on -- there are such solutions in the manufacturing world, this is not a completely new or Indian problem.

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Kersi D » 13 Dec 2012 20:49

Sanku wrote:
Anujan wrote:Israel has natashas?


Everyone has Natasha's.


Israeli Natashas are battle hardened. And they are very proficient using various ATGMs like Spike.

Ask Kapil if you doubt my word !!!!!!

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7660
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nachiket » 13 Dec 2012 22:53

Sanku wrote:Its the same story, and now in LCA thread, the same whine is beginning to be heard by some. "If IAF had ordered 1900000000000 LCA 25 years back then HAL would have known that a production line was needed with given technology."

Given time, it will become accepted wisdom. HAL cant make a manufacturing line for LCA because IAF did not order 14000000 LCA 4000000 years ago.

The IAF had already ordered 40, before the LCA even flew with a radar. That is a good number to start with for a fighter jet.

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 » 13 Dec 2012 23:00

Surya wrote:I bet Amartya sen must have come across Sanku before he got the idea for writing the Argumentative Indian!!! :D

Let me tell you a secret; you guys have no chance. :mrgreen:

member_23364
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 39
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby member_23364 » 14 Dec 2012 01:02

^^ Forget the Argumentative Indian. It is more like the Jugaadu Indian.

Sanku wasted no time in dismissing Shukla to Kingdom come when supporting the T-90 and blasting the Arjun.

NOW, he quotes Shukla as "excellent" as there what Shukla says is "useful" to his agenda.

Cross posting some excellent posts from LCA thread. We see exactly the same story here as well

Quote:
Briefing Business Standard the Director of the Aeronautical Development Agency ( ADA), P Subramanyam, who runs the LCA programme, explains that nobody realised that setting up a production line was a technology by itself.


These are hardcore Indian politician skills, If Sanku is doing anything else, he is wasting his "skills".

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 14 Dec 2012 16:06

Guru_Tat wrote:^^ Forget the Argumentative Indian. It is more like the Jugaadu Indian.

Sanku wasted no time in dismissing Shukla to Kingdom come when supporting the T-90 and blasting the Arjun.

NOW, he quotes Shukla as "excellent" as there what Shukla says is "useful" to his agenda.

Cross posting some excellent posts from LCA thread. We see exactly the same story here as well

Quote:
Briefing Business Standard the Director of the Aeronautical Development Agency ( ADA), P Subramanyam, who runs the LCA programme, explains that nobody realised that setting up a production line was a technology by itself.


These are hardcore Indian politician skills, If Sanku is doing anything else, he is wasting his "skills".


That is not what Shukla has said, that statement is by P Subramanyam, of ADA.

I do not think the above characterization of a statement by ADA officer to Shukla was a honest mistake on your part.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 14 Dec 2012 16:11

nachiket wrote:The IAF had already ordered 40, before the LCA even flew with a radar. That is a good number to start with for a fighter jet.


IAF has firm order for 20 + 20 in principle order.

In comparison IA ordered 126 Arjuns in 1999, even before it met its first set of benchmarks. (no one questions that) -- it ordered 124 Mk IIs by 2009-10 even before Mk II has met its prototype tests.

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 » 14 Dec 2012 20:08

Yeah but iaf didnt order 1000 rafales in parallel ;)

member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby member_20292 » 14 Dec 2012 23:31

^^^ what BS 2-3 people above me are peddling?

that ajai shukla hard hitting article, really hit home for me. absolutely right that poor production engineering leads to inconsistent quality. and now its not inconseivable for me to say that the t 90 was chosen for some good reasons...............

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby member_22539 » 15 Dec 2012 01:01

^^Hmm, T-90 must be real crappy for it to be beaten by a tank with such "poor production engineering." The question is what are "you" peddling?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Viv S » 15 Dec 2012 02:49

mahadevbhu wrote:that ajai shukla hard hitting article, really hit home for me. absolutely right that poor production engineering leads to inconsistent quality. and now its not inconseivable for me to say that the t 90 was chosen for some good reasons...............


The T-90 is manufactured by the same establishment.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1672
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Khalsa » 15 Dec 2012 02:56

^^^ NAILED !!!

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Surya » 15 Dec 2012 04:03

aha but you have natashas supervising those linese

its only sdre on the Arjun ones :mrgreen:

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Austin » 15 Dec 2012 07:24

Well analogy could be the same where HAL can make good MKI or Jaguar but when it comes to LCA is falls far short of mark.

Building something under lic and under supervision with significant import content is different compared to do it your self even with significant import content.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby NRao » 15 Dec 2012 08:29

It is not so much imported material nor supervision. It is the R&D, Design and testing experience.

I think the LCA is stuck (and rightfully so) on lack of testing experience. I do not expect this to happen to this extent at least with the AMCA.

Singha wrote:Yeah but iaf didnt order 1000 rafales in parallel ;)


Since I have some on my ignore list, I can only guess what this is about.

However, fear not, just like the T90s, the PAK-FA - AKA FGFA - AKA PMF (Perspective Multi-Role Fighter) sounds very Russiany too, is coming.

Sorry for the one liner.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 15 Dec 2012 09:41

Singha wrote:Yeah but iaf didnt order 1000 rafales in parallel ;)


Well not quite 126+ MRCAs and 300 Su 30s?

nash
BRFite
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nash » 15 Dec 2012 14:48

I am not expert like you guys , that's why it hard for me understand why we are comparing number of aircraft with number of tanks.For me the thing matter is approach of our armed forces towards domestic products.IN is best in this regard they indulge from the beginning(design),this make them best.IAF is learning these things and getting better.But IA is still hopelessly lagging behind.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 15 Dec 2012 15:05

The numbers per se are not important, it is more to show a common trend in Indian Mil-Ind complex, a thread which spans LCA, Arjun and the destroyers being made forever at GRSE.

And this when IN has direct control over the shipyards and design unit. Ask the friendly neighborhood babu, if they will give IA power over DRDO and OFBs while we are on the topic.

nash
BRFite
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nash » 15 Dec 2012 15:25

GRSE is making corvettes not destroyer.

And IN not in control of Shipyard, its good professional relationship b/w them, IN have the design department and they always in sync with shipbuilder and DRDO for their warship.

What IA have and what they do in this regard?

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5835
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby vishvak » 15 Dec 2012 15:37

Even if numbers are not important, some numbers of home-made hardware is a must to understand first of all running of military-industrial complex as well as for tech and spare parts for selves and allies.

Win-win scenario?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7660
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nachiket » 15 Dec 2012 17:18

Sanku wrote:IAF has firm order for 20 + 20 in principle order.

In comparison IA ordered 126 Arjuns in 1999, even before it met its first set of benchmarks. (no one questions that) -- it ordered 124 Mk IIs by 2009-10 even before Mk II has met its prototype tests.


Sanku wrote:Well not quite 126+ MRCAs and 300 Su 30s?


The LCA is never going to replace every aircraft in IAF inventory. It was never designed to do that. It can't match an MKI or Rafale in capabilities. It was only meant to replace the Mig-21's and now perhaps the 27's. So its total numbers are unlikely to exceed 200 in the best of cases. In such a situation 40 is a very good initial order. And the LCA is even now far more incomplete than the Arjun, relatively speaking. On the other hand, the Arjun can replace every tank in the IA's inventory if the IA wants it to. It is a more capable tank than the Tincan. You can't say that about the LCA and Rafale/Su-30.

And when there are 4000 night-blind, obsolete tanks in use, ordering 124 Arjuns is not even funny.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests