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.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby NRao » 05 Apr 2013 13:37

2. report was ignored in toto.

it would be interesting to discuss how Arjun would overcome this if it were to be inducted for operations in these areas. Thank you.


BTW, I was waiting to see if you do provide a little more informed/balanced info. Those very articles ALSO state:

Saraswat who is also the secretary, department of defence, R&D, added that the problem in Punjab can be tackled with the use of large iron bridges developed by DRDO for smooth transportation of troops in hostile terrain.


Of course tin can supporters will not accept that for sure. Understandably Punjab's canals are not "hostile terrain".

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 05 Apr 2013 13:40


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby NRao » 05 Apr 2013 13:43

Thx.

Just goes to prove Arjun will do very well in there.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 05 Apr 2013 13:47

NRao wrote:
....

Of course tin can supporters will not accept that for sure. Understandably Punjab's canals are not "hostile terrain".


No need to brand posters.

Punjab is in Pakistan also, with common borders/LC with Indian Punjab, Rajasthan and J&K.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 05 Apr 2013 13:48

NRao wrote:Thx.

Just goes to prove Arjun will do very well in there.


We will see.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby NRao » 05 Apr 2013 13:49

IF India can and wants to improve infrastructure in the NE, the SAME can be done in the "plains". NOT a big deal. Huge effort? Yes. costly? I do not think so - if we can get rid of corruption. Doable? absolutely - for the nation. What we are paying the Russians can go into bridge re-construction.

Actually these bridges must be nearing the EOL. They must be around a 100 years old or so.
Last edited by NRao on 05 Apr 2013 13:55, edited 2 times in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby NRao » 05 Apr 2013 13:53

Punjab is in Pakistan also, with common borders/LC with Indian Punjab, Rajasthan and J&K.


What has Pakistani bridges got to do with Arjun? That problem will be there no matter what. You have to expect them to blow every bridge as they retreat.

The canal bridges DRDO chief was referring to was in India - in Punjab.

We will see


Army has said no more Arjuns. Now a Russian is saying 300 more T-90s. What is there to see. It is a done deal.

More Russian tanks, bad infrastructure in Indian Punjab.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 05 Apr 2013 13:55

Main angst here seems to be that Russians are profiteering, rather than seeing and discussing

What is good for the forces/ IA?
How Arjun can be deployed all along?
Are there any gaps that prevents IA from such deployment?
How and in what time-frame the gaps can be filled?
and so on.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 05 Apr 2013 13:57

NRao wrote:
The production of the MK I is stopped because the Army has said it will not induct any more of them. There are ample data points to support that.


What ample data point, and if you have any, so tell us the date when the last order was completed.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 05 Apr 2013 14:00

....

Of course tin can supporters will not accept that for sure. Understandably Punjab's canals are not "hostile terrain".


MODs, are you going to allow the stupid personal attacks to continue?

As one of you said, I can give back as much as I get, so should these posters be replied to in the language they understand, instead of data and discussions (since clearly they do not understand that) -- or would then be all poster be warned because there would be fracas on the thread?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby NRao » 05 Apr 2013 14:00

Main angst here seems to be that Russians are profiteering, rather than seeing and discussing


You are 100% right.

But a profiteering person will cause problems in "seeing and discussing" - which is my complain. Yes, I do think and conclude (based on good data points) that Russians are pushing an item so that they profiteer. All those points have been discussed plenty of times.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby amit » 05 Apr 2013 14:05

Nelson,

I'm trying to understand what you are saying. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Do you think the Arjuns cannot be deployed in Punjab (Indian side) because the bridges cannot carry their weight and hence importing T90s spending hundreds of crores is justified?

Don't you think the money is better spent in solving production issues of Avadi (wrt Arjuns) and identifying and strengthening the bridges which supposedly cannot carry Arjun's weight.

I mean if the Indian Army abandons a worldclass indigenously developed tank because an X number of bridges cannot support its weight and instead spends millions of dollars buying a foreign made inferior tank, then... well I'm speechless that anyone can even think this way.

PS: As Rao ji said and what I wrote earlier, Pakistan bridges is a lame excuse. If Indian armour advances and the Pakistani Army retreats then every single bridge will be blown. The Pakistan Army may be stupid but not that stupid. Surely you concur on that point?
Last edited by amit on 05 Apr 2013 14:08, 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 Apr 2013 14:08

nelson wrote:Main angst here seems to be that Russians are profiteering, rather than seeing and discussing
.


Not only that, in my opinion the real angst is quite different really, because Russians are hardly "profiteering". The T 90 deal is not a hyper priced deal like C 17 or Apaches (people have posted the inflated costs for those compared to other US sales)

The T 90 is a fairly decently priced unit, and in any case mostly manufactured in Avadi, so the Russian profiteering can not be a real issue.

So if some one says they are upset because Russia is profiteering, not only are they being anti-Russia in the primary outlook rather than pro-India, they are also being incorrect, and I suspect in cases deliberately. (Shukla comes to mind here)

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 05 Apr 2013 14:15

amit wrote:Nelson,
.....


What a bunch of tosh.

First put up a straw-man -- Army has abandoned xyz, without a shred of proof, and then proceed to make a thesis around it.

Nelson -- do be aware that you will get into a morass of "have you stopped beating your wife yet" level of debate. Where a basic unfounded statement will be slipped in and future attacks be made on that consistently avoiding the fact that the base argument is itself incorrect. In fact even if the base argument is shown as untrue by data points, people will still repeat that merrily.

Some one here spent two pages trying to flog the falsehood that Invar missiles on T 90 do not work. :roll:

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby amit » 05 Apr 2013 14:19

^^^^^^^

Sanku wrote:Then why dont you stay out? I am tired of your asking the exact same question after three pages.

You should spend your time on the fora of nation you love so much for running a successful tank programs than bothering with me no.


:rotfl: :rotfl:

In the real world you'd have to pay top dollar for this kind of entertainment.
Last edited by amit on 05 Apr 2013 14:20, edited 1 time in total.

manum
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Location: still settling...
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby manum » 05 Apr 2013 14:19

The issue is not even profiteering, if there is...as the money must be at least keeping Russian projects bankrolled...

But the issue is its a billion Dollar issue, Arjun is not that bad, so why not keep that money in here, corruption is not going to be zero anyway...and despite all that, if we invest the money in bridges of Punjab hopefully we can phase out 70% of the issue...

but no-one is willing, There is no need to pity as its strictly business...Arjuns are not bad, and we can build on that program a lot better if its bankrolled and it also sends a strong message elsewhere...

but no...its mother Russia who Sari we need to patch than better our clothes...

Put any reason the common sense is not there....

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 05 Apr 2013 14:27

manum wrote:corruption is not going to be zero anyway...and despite all that, if we invest the money in bridges of Punjab hopefully we can phase out 70% of the issue....


OT, but there is a myth that DRDO/OFB related projects are corruption free.

Not by a long chalk, Tatra was a case which got shown, there are many many examples. Retired babu's running their own companies feeding stuff to OFBs because of contacts and what not.

Its just more diffused rather than centralized (where the very top of MoD is involved in scam and the mhoney goes to queen bee directly) -- more mid levels are involved, each of the sums is smaller (than say the AW scam)

So no corruption is the least of the reasons for not taking Indian goods, you think Babu's will leave any channel untapped?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 05 Apr 2013 14:32

manum wrote:, Arjun is not that bad, so why not keep that money in here,


The other point is the the view that some how money would fix the domestic programs. I am not sure if it is true. Money would help, but there are significant issue in terms of OFBs having a extremely poor culture of work and quality.

DRDO own record is patchy, while they have had successes in some areas, they have also had horrendous delays, and dangerous failures. They have their own structural issues of poor program management, and need to keep control over their fiefdoms and not listen to others (forces) too much -- while being in their own cocoon.

Just putting money down the hatch will not address those problems.

A significant overhaul of the structure and culture of OFB is critical, because that is our only option for domestic products (private sector is a pipe dream right now)

--------------------------------------

And then of course there are issues of DRDO-MOD-Forces coordination, and the civvies in MoD being least interested in defence preparedness. Lets not even get started on those.

manum
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Location: still settling...
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby manum » 05 Apr 2013 14:36

I don't know what to say...lets outsource our nation to abroad because there is corruption and we eternally can not manage it...

answering your post beyond it will take away attention to rhetoric...

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 05 Apr 2013 14:49

manum wrote:I don't know what to say...lets outsource our nation to abroad because there is corruption and we eternally can not manage it...

answering your post beyond it will take away attention to rhetoric...


Well corruption has certainly been a issue, however the point was that there are real issue which are not corruption related -- and for things to work those need to get fixed.

Unless we fix the real issues, people can get hot under the collar but nothing will change, and to fix the real issues the focus has to be on the real issues.

manum
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Location: still settling...
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby manum » 05 Apr 2013 14:56

You deal with things many ways...one of them is doing first thing right than going round and round...Things are better than ever before for indigenous tech, at least as much I am seeing...

Despite all that I think the budget for services should seek the amount of indigenous products inducted by services every financial year...there should ratings for better induction of Indigenous tech...

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Viv S » 05 Apr 2013 16:34

Sanku wrote:Who says its stopped? Official sources please. No track II Shukla here.

This has been discussed before, there is no open source data which says what is the rate of production of Mk I, what is the down time between Mk I and II, and what is time needed for retooling.

I am hardly going to assume that full rate of production is achieved at Avadi till I see any numbers. Heck even T 90 rate of production is not achieved.


May 2010: 75 tanks delivered (49 balance)

August 2010: 85 tanks delivered (39 balance)

June 2011: Over 100 delivered.


By extrapolation, as of April 2013 - The Arjun MkI is no longer in production.


The Arjun MkII will enter service only after 2015. (2016 as per Shiv Aroor)

That's between three and five years of lost production while the T-90 line chugs on regardless (even if at a less than optimal rate). As a patriot and supposedly strong supporter of the Arjun, how do you justify that?


When the decision to buy 310 T 90s was taken in 2000 -- T 72s were 25 year old.

When the decision to buy 1200+ T 90s was taken in 2004-6, T 72s were 30 year old.

There was no usable product in Arjun at those points of time. Arjun Mk I has matured as a usable product only in 2008.


I see, you were referring to the T-72 not the Arjun. Fine.

Lets assume the Arjun matured only by 2008. Why shouldn't every tank delivered to the IA after that date, be an Arjun (save for the T-90s that the MoD is financially committed to)? Only about 700 or so T-90s had been delivered by the end of decade. How does a patriot and strong supporter of the Arjun justify purchasing 1600-700=900 units of a foreign tank rather than scaling up production of an Indian tank to make up the difference?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 05 Apr 2013 17:09

Viv S wrote:
Sanku wrote:Who says its stopped? Official sources please. No track II Shukla here.

This has been discussed before, there is no open source data which says what is the rate of production of Mk I, what is the down time between Mk I and II, and what is time needed for retooling.

I am hardly going to assume that full rate of production is achieved at Avadi till I see any numbers. Heck even T 90 rate of production is not achieved.


May 2010: 75 tanks delivered (49 balance)

August 2010: 85 tanks delivered (39 balance)

June 2011: Over 100 delivered.

Thank you for the figures. So between May 2010 -- 75 tanks -- to a June 2011 100 tanks. Avadi has made 25 tanks a year in the known period.

So we now know that Avadi has been making Arjuns at 25 tanks a year. If we accept the extrapolation, this means Avadi was done some time June of 2012 or thereabouts.

However this question remains open --

sanku wrote:what is the down time between Mk I and II, and what is time needed for retooling.


We do not know that yet.

Also
The Arjun MkII will enter service only after 2015. (2016 as per Shiv Aroor)


Yes, the goal is to deliver 40-60 tanks by 2014-2015 (DRDO chiefs statement posted before). Which again going by the rate of 25 tanks a year, means 2 years roughly.

Which means that Mk II production should start in June 2013 IF the Mk II goals are to be met.

That's between three and five years of lost production while the T-90 line chugs on regardless (even if at a less than optimal rate). As a patriot and supposedly strong supporter of the Arjun, how do you justify that?


So as you can see from the above, there is no LOST time for production. The time lines are
1) Mk1 complete by 2012.
2) Retooling and development of manufacturing line for Mk II 2012-2013
3) Mk II production begin 2013
4) First induction of Mk II 2014-2015.

You can find this here as well
http://www.defencenow.com/news/252/arju ... rials.html
the MBT will go for a first user trial in October 2011 and production is expected to start from July 2012 after the second user trial. If all the tests and trials go as per the schedule, Heavy Vehicles Factory will roll out its first batch of Arjun Mark II by the end of 2014 and a unit will cost $ 7.7 million. Arjun Mark II will have 90 per cent indigenization.


So as you can see, there is no should be no gap in MkI and MkII if things go according to plan. -- that is why the status of Mk II is critical.

If Mk II is late, then yes, the line will idle. But why blame IA for it? Poor planning by MoD/DRDO here isnt it?

Lets assume the Arjun matured only by 2008. Why shouldn't every tank delivered to the IA after that date, be an Arjun (save for the T-90s that the MoD is financially committed to)?


For two reasons,
1) Financial commitment is already for 1600 tanks. In a project the bulk of the cost is upfront capital for line setup. The line setup if stopped at 700 would mean massive wasted expenditure.
2) The Arjun line even if magically working at 50 tanks a year, is still not enough to meet the modernization needs. Setting up additional line, takes time, and Arjun Mk I has matured but still undergoing rapid changes for Mk II.

In addition why do you want to stop T 90 anyway? Its not that Arjun is stopped because of funds. At not point of time funds have been cited as a issue. Stopping T 90s does anyway not help Arjun.

They are two independent efforts, with more than enough space and money for each. The linkage is flawed.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 05 Apr 2013 17:51

Viv S, thank you for some high quality debate on really relevant issues. Finally.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby SaiK » 05 Apr 2013 17:54

IMHO, realistically speaking, corruption can be attributed to any indic thread. Unfortunate and sad. It is very omnipotent force that can kill not only IA but the whole nation into oblivion pretty soon or surely later., only realized when countries like pakistan looks at us, does a lol.

People are getting so obsessed with the fact, that whatever IA chooses, has to be the best in the world., and beat the crap out of any other tank. Well, though that "quality assumption" is nice to have, and driven by transcendent approach to view such products are given, and shall protect us from all evil.. would be a recipe for disaster, when things goes downhill. We have repeatedly shown our preparedness and tech/equipment level awareness and what change to forces means, logistic nightmare, etc., and gradual induction, gradual progression and learning are important. The challenge is graduating from firang dependency to homegrown acceptance. After eons of firang mindset, it is extremely hard for anyone on the planet to change.. however, there is only one help that can be given for such condition - patriotism.. that is the only way to correct, not only quality attributes, but also objectives to what we really want to achieve.

I still think, that we have a mission objective of >70% dependence to home grown systems.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Viv S » 05 Apr 2013 18:20

Sanku wrote:
Thank you for the figures. So between May 2010 -- 75 tanks -- to a June 2011 100 tanks. Avadi has made 25 tanks a year in the known period.

So we now know that Avadi has been making Arjuns at 25 tanks a year. If we accept the extrapolation, this means Avadi was done some time June of 2012 or thereabouts.


March 2012 @ 30 tanks/year.


However this question remains open --

sanku wrote:what is the down time between Mk I and II, and what is time needed for retooling.


We do not know that yet.


And why do you need retooling? Set up a new production/assembly line for the Mk2, start drawing the T-90 production line down and let the Mk1 line continue to run at the very least until 2014.


Which means that Mk II production should start in June 2013 IF the Mk II goals are to be met.

That's between three and five years of lost production while the T-90 line chugs on regardless (even if at a less than optimal rate). As a patriot and supposedly strong supporter of the Arjun, how do you justify that?


So as you can see from the above, there is no LOST time for production. The time lines are
1) Mk1 complete by 2012.
2) Retooling and development of manufacturing line for Mk II 2012-2013
3) Mk II production begin 2013
4) First induction of Mk II 2014-2015.


Mk 2 production by 2013 was never possible. And the retooling argument is a clear non sequitur. Setting up a Mk 2 production line does not necessitate the shutting of the existing Mk1 line.


So as you can see, there is no should be no gap in MkI and MkII if things go according to plan. -- that is why the status of Mk II is critical.

If Mk II is late, then yes, the line will idle.


Question is, why does a mature Arjun tank's production merit closure albeit a temporary one, while the T-90 gets a pass?

But why blame IA for it? Poor planning by MoD/DRDO here isnt it?


Isn't the Army intransigence responsible for Arjun orders being placed piecemeal in an uneconomical fashion hamstringing the development of the program. Why did it take them so long to recognize the merits of the Arjun? In fact without the MoD's involvement they'd have scrapped the program years ago. They may wear uniforms but they still have plenty in common with the slothful bureaucracy, in that they are fundamentally resistant to change. Much more so than their sister services.

For two reasons,
1) Financial commitment is already for 1600 tanks. In a project the bulk of the cost is upfront capital for line setup. The line setup if stopped at 700 would mean massive wasted expenditure.


Care to justify that figure.

1. How much does 'massive' mean for a $3-4 million tank (in your opinion)? Because the Russians already have a line in the motherland and the Indian Army could have a received a 'massively' discounted tank through direct import. No point in domestic production/assembly.

2. What the price paid in terms of logistics? The DGMF has recommended scrapping the FMBT and persisting with the Arjun platform. If the Arjun is to be standardized upon, what is the price to paid for those 900 additional tanks in terms of support and upgrades over the next 30 years.

3. What is the price being paid in terms of valuable foreign exchange for the assembly of a Russian tank?

Does the capital expended upfront overshadow the net cost paid in both money and capability?


2) The Arjun line even if magically working at 50 tanks a year, is still not enough to meet the modernization needs. Setting up additional line, takes time, and Arjun Mk I has matured but still undergoing rapid changes for Mk II.


How is the objective of setting up an additional line to scale up production, served by shutting down the only existing production line?


In addition why do you want to stop T 90 anyway? Its not that Arjun is stopped because of funds. At not point of time funds have been cited as a issue. Stopping T 90s does anyway not help Arjun.


Every T-90 commissioned is one less Arjun that could have been inducted in the same position. That's a self evident fact. There's no sharing to be done here.

They are two independent efforts, with more than enough space and money for each. The linkage is flawed.


Why don't we induct the Leopard II and M1A2 as well in that case? As two new but 'independent' programs. Capability-wise they are both head-and-shoulders above the T-90 (no exaggeration) and you could probably get rebuilt and upgraded units for a considerably lower price (and assertion backed by several senior Russian generals).

As a matter of principle we should be looking to minimize defence imports. Here we have a mature Indian tank in production and you're asking why we shouldn't continue to buy a foreign 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 Apr 2013 22:00

Viv S wrote:
So we now know that Avadi has been making Arjuns at 25 tanks a year. If we accept the extrapolation, this means Avadi was done some time June of 2012 or thereabouts.


March 2012 @ 30 tanks/year.


You do realize that these are all rough figures. Its not like the media reported figures are correct down to last day and decimal. Qublling over 25 or 30 tanks is entirely pointless at this level of granularity.

sanku wrote:what is the down time between Mk I and II, and what is time needed for retooling.


And why do you need retooling? Set up a new production/assembly line for the Mk2, start drawing the T-90 production line down and let the Mk1 line continue to run at the very least until 2014.


Again T 90? You need to retool the Arjun line because you want Arjuns to be Mk II standard. T 90 line has nothing to do with this.

Please dont keep bring in extraneous factors, a good discussion will degenerate.



Mk 2 production by 2013 was never possible. And the retooling argument is a clear non sequitur. Setting up a Mk 2 production line does not necessitate the shutting of the existing Mk1 line.


No you are wrong Mk 2 production was possible by 2013 IF all the tests last year are cleared. Why not?

Also you dont understand production lines I am afraid. A major improvement of a line does often neccessiates down time. Even if no down time was needed (for the sake of argument) -- we see max down time of about 6 months if things stay on schedule.

So as you can see, there is no should be no gap in MkI and MkII if things go according to plan. -- that is why the status of Mk II is critical.

If Mk II is late, then yes, the line will idle.


Question is, why does a mature Arjun tank's production merit closure albeit a temporary one, while the T-90 gets a pass?


Err because they are two ^^different products^^ :lol: And a T 90 cant magically transform into a Arjun line or vice versa?



Isn't the Army intransigence responsible for Arjun orders being placed piecemeal in an uneconomical fashion hamstringing the development of the program.


No proof whatsoever of that statement. IA ordered 124 tanks in 1999 which will be fulfilled in 2012. Army placed a 124 tank order in 2008-9 for Mk II which is yet to be executed.

Why did it take them so long to recognize the merits of the Arjun? .


Because the merits of Arjun were recognizable only post 2008. You cant ask IA to wait around for a road map in the fond hope it will some time come true. In fact they did precisely that for 25 years leading to a situation where no purchases were done for 25 years while they sat and waited.

It was not possible to wait any longer, it was already too late.

1. How much does 'massive' mean for a $3-4 million tank (in your opinion)?

Because the Russians already have a line in the motherland and the Indian Army could have a received a 'massively' discounted tank through direct import. No point in domestic production/assembly.


What are you talking about? T 90 line we are talking about is in Avadi. A captial expense has been made on the line. Why do you want it wasted in a fit of pique?

2. What the price paid in terms of logistics? The DGMF has recommended scrapping the FMBT and persisting with the Arjun platform. If the Arjun is to be standardized upon, what is the price to paid for those 900 additional tanks in terms of support and upgrades over the next 30 years.


You are not making any sense. As of now, Arjun is the non standard tank. Logistics are in favor of T 72 and T 90. Yet Arjun is being persisted with because going forward, a mix of T 90 and Arjuns will exist. There are 2500 T series (72/90) and the production of Arjun for all intents are purposes has just begin.

We still have enough T 55 etc and IA has had two or three tanks. So while standardizing on one tank might be a good goal, it is not going to happen in next 10-20 years in any case (already existing T will live that long)

It is also possible that IA will keep two lines of tanks, of different weights. It is a perfect reasonable approach. Till a 50 ton FMBT comes across

3. What is the price being paid in terms of valuable foreign exchange for the assembly of a Russian tank?


Are you being deliberately difficult? We are talking of manufacture here in Avadi.

Does the capital expended upfront overshadow the net cost paid in both money and capability?


Well net cost paid in terms of money is in favor of T 90s. In terms of capabilities till mK II comes across, T 90 is still ahead.

2) The Arjun line even if magically working at 50 tanks a year, is still not enough to meet the modernization needs. Setting up additional line, takes time, and Arjun Mk I has matured but still undergoing rapid changes for Mk II.


How is the objective of setting up an additional line to scale up production, served by shutting down the only existing production line?


Because that line has to be upgded. When equipment is upgd it goes offline. Basics


Every T-90 commissioned is one less Arjun that could have been inducted in the same position. That's a self evident fact. There's no sharing to be done here.


No Sir it is not a fact, let alone a self evident one. Sorry to say it is completely meaningless statement with no rhyme or reason. lack of supporting evidence can not be passed off as self evident statement.

Heck even T 72 will be upgded and will exist for next 20 years. You are complaining about T 90s?
:lol:

Let Arjun replace the T 55 first
There are still 600 around in reserve storage.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7007
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Anujan » 06 Apr 2013 05:53

we should have a smooth bore Vs rifled gun debate.

arjun's rifled gun cannot fire APFSDS rounds. Discuss.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7007
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Anujan » 06 Apr 2013 06:00

has arjuns torsion bar problems been fixed? I have not seen a single open source information that torsion bar issues have been addressed. it's probably because of very poor manufacturing and quality control standards.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby SaiK » 06 Apr 2013 06:23

wow! classic anujan! you have been squared by DDM and tincan folks!

Arjun and torsion bar problems!!??? that was the tincan problem and not Arjuns.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby amit » 06 Apr 2013 06:31

Sanku wrote:Let the Arjuns replace the T55s first


The patriot unfurls his flag - finally!
Last edited by amit on 06 Apr 2013 06:33, edited 1 time in total.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby amit » 06 Apr 2013 06:32

SaiK wrote:wow! classic anujan! you have been squared by DDM and tincan folks!

Arjun and torsion bar problems!!??? that was the tincan problem and not Arjuns.


:rotfl: :rotfl:

Look before you step!

symontk
BRFite
Posts: 920
Joined: 01 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby symontk » 06 Apr 2013 06:39

Anujan was being sarcastic

But can there be some secret due to which army still wants T-90? maybe we dont know

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby SaiK » 06 Apr 2013 06:46

ha ha! haven't been playing minesweeper for a long time.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby amit » 06 Apr 2013 07:41

Good idea. And we can always ask the Russian MIC to do that for us. All problems solved onlee!

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7007
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Anujan » 06 Apr 2013 08:08

SaiK wrote:wow! classic anujan! you have been squared by DDM and tincan folks!

Arjun and torsion bar problems!!??? that was the tincan problem and not Arjuns.


Well that's what I said. I didn't see any news about the problems being fixed in Arjun. Avadi is to blame.

Gurinder P
BRFite
Posts: 209
Joined: 30 Oct 2010 18:11
Location: Beautiful British Columbia

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Gurinder P » 06 Apr 2013 08:50

Anujan wrote:
SaiK wrote:wow! classic anujan! you have been squared by DDM and tincan folks!

Arjun and torsion bar problems!!??? that was the tincan problem and not Arjuns.


Well that's what I said. I didn't see any news about the problems being fixed in Arjun. Avadi is to blame.


How can the Arjun have torsion bar problems when the Arjun runs on Hydropneumatic Suspension?

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 » 06 Apr 2013 09:09

there are good nos of upg T72 now notwithstanding the various problems and n number of upgrade pkgs. being 42tons with 2t of ERA, why arent these deployed in large number in overstrength armour brigades in ladakh and sikkim instead of buying 300 new T90. its just another backdoor buy if the T90...

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7007
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Anujan » 06 Apr 2013 11:15

Gurinder P wrote:How can the Arjun have torsion bar problems when the Arjun runs on Hydropneumatic Suspension?


Maybe that's why the torsion bar has problems. This article from Indian express quoting highly placed sources say that it has torsion bar problems.

http://m.indianexpress.com/news/army-to ... cts/29951/

And where did you hear it has hydro pneumatic suspension? Please don't quote hearsay or make unverified claims.

SKrishna
BRFite
Posts: 151
Joined: 21 Jan 2008 19:18
Location: Bombay
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby SKrishna » 06 Apr 2013 12:06

One of the distinctive features of the Arjun tank is its hydro-pneumatic suspension, distinct from and far more advanced than the "torsion bar" arrangement that conventional MBTs (including the T-90) feature. The Arjun's suspension provides a smoother ride, making the tank a more stable gunnery platform that permits more accurate engagement of targets whilst on the move.


Improving the Arjun's already great suspension

To set the record right... 8) 8)


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests