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.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Karan M » 08 Apr 2013 00:19

1. Proof required that 124 Arjun MK-2s have been ordered. This (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ind ... ion-04984/) indicates 116 Arjun MK-2 yet to be ordered.
2. Proof required as to why more than 124 MK-1s were not ordered despite Arjun MK-1 acing T-90 in trials.
3. Proof required why an inferior T-90 is being ordered in huge numbers despite 2. above.

PS: Bold font is not proof.

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 » 08 Apr 2013 00:19

Gentlemen,

Calm down, please! Flinging flames at each other won't win any battles, it will just scorch the Earth you both walk on. We all can see the passion you both have for the IA, but I think you should both take a day or two away from the boards to simmer down the tensions. Otherwise, I feel the mods are going to crack down.

Regards

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 08 Apr 2013 00:21

manum wrote:T90 is institutionalized in IA...that is the problem, the first dent it received when Arjun outperformed it in trials...This is only going to spiral down...


It is instututionalized in IA, you are right, and yes, the performance for Arjun in the comparative trial went a long way in demonstrating that Arjun had come of age.

To bank on that success, the remaining outstanding issues need to be fixed quickly (lack of adherence of committed time lines being one) and things will then move forward faster.

It is critical Mk II is delivered as per plan. If Mk II fails tests, we will be in same loop again.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Karan M » 08 Apr 2013 00:24

Sanku wrote:s in a certain way because I like to help those who are interested in serious discussion catch the emphasized points. Those who get it easily even better. Those who wont get it wont get it anyway. I thought it was pretty simple to understand that.


On the contrary, people engaged in a serious discussion don't need to have words yelled at them. Your behaviour is akin to frothing at the mouth, afraid that you are not able to make your points which are being countered at every turn.

Anyway no problems, glad to have cleared that up.


But you haven't cleared that up. And why should you have a problem with anybody asking you to tone down the bold?

The problem Karan, is that fiction is all on other side. That is why all some posts have no content but continuous personal attacks.

My posts have all data which can be backed with open sources.
[/quote]

Stating that your posts have fiction in them, which they do, is not a personal attack. Its merely a pointer to the fact that they are poorly researched, dubious interpretations of what you want the reality to be, to support your arguments.

Your posts rarely have any data in them. They have opinion. Opinion which you then try to force others to believe, and if they don't, you try the thought police approach with 100x spam posts (till the other person stops replying in disgust) and if that fails, out comes the "bold", the calls to admins etc.

If you realize that your opinions are not facts, that would be the first step.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Anujan » 08 Apr 2013 00:26

Okay I think I had way too much time trolling this forum and now I feel guilty.

Listen folks, we should buy foreign maal only if it is 10x better than what we have. Not 1.5x or 2x, 10x better. And if domestic maal is better, then fellows advocating foreign maal should be tried for treason. There I said it, they should be tried for treason.

Look at the state of our armed forces today. In the 60's we had an opportunity to make our own aircraft -- the Marut. It had some difficulties, was dissed and we went the Mig21 route. 55 years later, we are still upgrading our Migs, still buying Russian aircraft and concluding a deal with the French! And our own domestic aircraft development (late, costly ityadi) has not even a fraction of money, manufacturing or talent devoted to it as foreign maal does. Now you can argue that Russians stood by us during crises but we were their munna hedge against Pakis who were in Unkil's camp and GUBO'ed to them too! We paid more than our due share by rescuing Yeltsin's fortunes by signing the Sukhoi deal, saving his musharraf and even bringing stability to Soviets. (Please do read up why we signed a deal for Sukhois). And what did we get in return? Testimonial squeezing from Russians in MMRCA, and them handing over technologies of MKI to Malaysians (who train with Pakis) and outright selling the evolution to Cheenis.

With the Army it is the same rinse and repeat. We wanted to replace Vijayanta, we could have modified it. The very same timeframe when Israelis were jury rigging centurions and winning wars with it, we were buying T72 from Russia. 45 years later, Israelis have one of the best tanks in the world, most suited for their conditions and we are .... upgrading T72 with radio sets and ERA! Dont even get me started on our Arty.

The only fellows who didnt get GUBO'ed (much) was the Navy. Right off the bat they wanted to be a builder's navy. That is why they jury rigged Leander class (Nilgiri), produced Godavari class and fast forward 35 years today we have Shivaliks! In the Indian ocean region, apart from maybe Massa, there is not a single country that fields frigates which can stand toe to toe with Shivaliks. But even the Navy got GUBO'ed in Vikramaditya and that is another story.

So all this Avadi has poor quality control onlee. T90 is so small that they can run between two opposing side's tanks and attack them from rear onlee. Arjun's torsion bar broke onlee. A smooth bore canon is smooth onlee when compared to rifled bore canon. Is all missing the point. If we induct T90 in numbers, 40 years from now, we will be upgrading its ERA and getting our testimonials squeezed by Russians. If I exist and forum exists then, I plan to do a "I told you so post" then.

Discussions in this dhaaga have been along two directions: Brochure anxiety (which is understandable for n00bs) but which miss this larger point of indigenization. These kind of posts have useful, informative and engaging discussions where everyone gets educated.

But more importantly the second line of discussions (a) based on selective leaks. We all know "torsion bar of Arjun broke" but how many times do we come to know about Sensor failure in T90 or our crews riding the tank from the outside because ordnance exploded inside the tank? Or Russies GUBO'ing us on the ammo? and based on subtle misinformation: "Yeah yeah Arjun cant fire missiles. Oh when did I say it didnt? We made 200,000 missiles for T90. When did I say we made them? I said we have them. Well have them means maybe not assembled yet." These kind of discussion, the more you read, the more you are not sure if a tank called Arjun exists. This is nothing but directed psyops.

The former brochure anxiety I can understand. The latter is something that I am unable to wrap my head around. It is easy for me to allege vested interest based on material gains, subtle psyops but I would never say such a thing.

Ultimately the question is, is T90 10x better than the Arjun? It is not. Discussion closed.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Karan M » 08 Apr 2013 00:26

Gurinder P wrote:Gentlemen,

Calm down, please! Flinging flames at each other won't win any battles, it will just scorch the Earth you both walk on. We all can see the passion you both have for the IA, but I think you should both take a day or two away from the boards to simmer down the tensions. Otherwise, I feel the mods are going to crack down.

Regards


Two points -
No passion here - as they say.. just the fact's mum, whichever way they be.
The mods can do their job just fine without you, I or anyone egging them on..

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby manum » 08 Apr 2013 00:27

Sanku wrote: If Mk II fails tests, we will be in same loop again.


MK2 fails test respective to what?

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 » 08 Apr 2013 00:29

Sanku wrote:
manum wrote:T90 is institutionalized in IA...that is the problem, the first dent it received when Arjun outperformed it in trials...This is only going to spiral down...


It is instututionalized in IA, you are right, and yes, the performance for Arjun in the comparative trial went a long way in demonstrating that Arjun had come of age.

To bank on that success, the remaining outstanding issues need to be fixed quickly (lack of adherence of committed time lines being one) and things will then move forward faster.

It is critical Mk II is delivered as per plan. If Mk II fails tests, we will be in same loop again.


How is the engine development going for the Arjun? I haven't heard much about the indigenous 1500hp monster that is supposed to power the beast. The only teething problems I think will occur is with the engine.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 08 Apr 2013 00:55

Karan M wrote:1. Proof required that 124 Arjun MK-2s have been ordered. This (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ind ... ion-04984/) indicates 116 Arjun MK-2 yet to be ordered.

http://livefist.blogspot.in/2012/08/ind ... ealed.html
The total orders for the Arjun as of today are 240 (124 Mk-1 and 116 Mk-2)

http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... tank-arjun

2. Proof required as to why more than 124 MK-1s were not ordered despite Arjun MK-1 acing T-90 in trials.


This is clear. Mk1 production was to run till 2011-12. The Mk II production was to proceed from that time frame. Links already posted.

3. Proof required why an inferior T-90 is being ordered in huge numbers despite 2. above.


Proof required that T 90 is being ordered. Last order was in 2006 of 1500+ tanks. Show proof of new order.

Proof required that T 90 is inferior. Not shukla, I am looking for official sources. Note Mk 1 can not fire missiles still.

PS: Bold font is not proof.


Obviously. :roll: Emphasis != proof.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 08 Apr 2013 00:58

manum wrote:
Sanku wrote: If Mk II fails tests, we will be in same loop again.


MK2 fails test respective to what?


To its own specifications. For example if it is supposed to be able to fire missiles up to a minimum of X kms while moving at Y kms per hour, it should pass that.

If say, it can not fire the missile, or its performance is severely degraded. Mk II production would be in jeopardy. The question then would be whether to wait longer for fixed Mk II or make more Mk Is in the interim.

I dont think those are easy choices.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 08 Apr 2013 01:00

Marten wrote:>> If Mk II fails tests
That didn't keep the IA from ordering more Tincans.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Anujan, satire or logic is apparently difficult for most folks. Brochure anxiety should be placated easily, but in a country where non-existent torsion bars gain primacy over self-sufficiency, there is little we will do.

Bottomline: You WILL post an "I told you so" in 40 years.


So far I am the one posting I told you so. I was the one who said, Arjun's wil be accepted when the pass tests, when the view on the forum was that Arjuns will never be accepted and the program was about to be canned.

Misplaced sarcasm does not make up for reasoned debate.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 08 Apr 2013 01:01

Gurinder P wrote:
How is the engine development going for the Arjun? I haven't heard much about the indigenous 1500hp monster that is supposed to power the beast. The only teething problems I think will occur is with the engine.


Gurinder-ji; those are precisely the problems and answers we should seek on the forum. I dont know. I was hoping people would chip in for collective knowledge.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 08 Apr 2013 01:06

Anujan wrote:Okay I think I had way too much time trolling this forum and now I feel guilty.

Listen folks, we should buy foreign maal only if it is 10x better than what we have. Not 1.5x or 2x, 10x better.


A fine sentiment, but impractical, you are entitled to your PoV, but frankly I cant even take it seriously.

Of course the big real world issue of "which is better" is not so straightforward.

Which is "better"
Mig 21 or Mig 27?

Which is better?
Su 30 MKI or LCA?

Which is better
Apache or LCH?

Weapon systems are rarely head to head comparison pictures -- there are multiple roles, different uses, different strengths, different costs.

A huge matrix of bewildering trade-offs in multiple dimensions.

You want to reduce it to a simple "with us or against us" type of logic. Sorry can not agree.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 08 Apr 2013 01:11

Karan M wrote:But you haven't cleared that up. And why should you have a problem with anybody asking you to tone down the bold?


Because 1) they are not entitled to request not ask, mods can ask 2) people should learn how to accept others styles.

Stating that your posts have fiction in them, which they do, is not a personal attack. Its merely a pointer to the fact that they are poorly researched, dubious interpretations of what you want the reality to be, to support your arguments.


When you state that something is fictious without any proof, it is merely a personal attack.

In any case, all my posts have back ground links, when they dont, I explicitly mention this is chaiwalla info or opinion.

Your posts rarely have any data in them. .
[/quote]

The above is an example of personal attack. You have not been able to show a single case where the data point was wrong. You merely claim that.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Anujan » 08 Apr 2013 01:18

Sanku wrote:Proof required that T 90 is being ordered. Last order was in 2006 of 1500+ tanks. Show proof of new order.


Not that it would make any shred of difference to you but there you go:

October 22, 2008

"The Russian side agreed to deliver the specification of T-90 gun barrels by December 2008," Minister of State for Defence Production Rao Inderjit Singh told the Rajya Sabha in a written reply to question on the indigenous production of 1,000 T-90s from members. Admitting that the non-delivery of T-90 MBT gun barrel specification was one of the major obstacles faced by India in indigenous production of 1,000 of these tanks, Singh said the issue of transfer of technology (ToT) was discussed between the two sides {This was in 2008!} during the Indo-Russian Working Group on ship building, aviation and land system in August this year. The minister said the ToT documents for most of the parts were already with India and some technical data regarding armour plates along with gun barrel manufacturing was awaited. {Testimonial Squeezing} India had signed a Rs 4,200-crore agreement with Russia in 2007 for the 1,000 tanks as a follow-on order for the 310 tanks bought in 2001 and another 347 last year. {Last year = 2007. Now 2007 is greater than 2006 by one. But I am sure you will disagree with mathematics and rajya sabha statements vis-a-vis Russians. :mrgreen: }

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 » 08 Apr 2013 01:18

Sanku wrote:
Anujan wrote:Okay I think I had way too much time trolling this forum and now I feel guilty.

Listen folks, we should buy foreign maal only if it is 10x better than what we have. Not 1.5x or 2x, 10x better.


A fine sentiment, but impractical, you are entitled to your PoV, but frankly I cant even take it seriously.

Of course the big real world issue of "which is better" is not so straightforward.

Which is "better"
Mig 21 or Mig 27?

Which is better?
Su 30 MKI or LCA?

Which is better
Apache or LCH?

Weapon systems are rarely head to head comparison pictures -- there are multiple roles, different uses, different strengths, different costs.

A huge matrix of bewildering trade-offs in multiple dimensions.

You want to reduce it to a simple "with us or against us" type of logic. Sorry can not agree.


I personally favour both the Arjun and the T 90 (T 90MS that is). I believe that the T 90 can operate well in the Himalayas, while the Arjun can rule the Thar. However, in the end of the day, all tanks have the same job to complete and that is to destroy opposing tanks and maintain control of territory or support capture of territory.

Thus, I cannot agree with the comparison of some of the vehicles you have listed but I understand your point.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 08 Apr 2013 01:27

Anujan wrote:
Sanku wrote:Proof required that T 90 is being ordered. Last order was in 2006 of 1500+ tanks. Show proof of new order.


Not that it would make any shred of difference to you but there you go:

October 22, 2008

[[/color] India had signed a Rs 4,200-crore agreement with Russia in 2007 for the 1,000 tanks as a follow-on order for the 310 tanks bought in 2001 and another 347 last year. {Last year = 2007. Now 2007 is greater than 2006 by one. But I am sure you will disagree with mathematics and rajya sabha statements vis-a-vis Russians. :mrgreen: }


All right I accept that I was wrong. The last order of T 90 was not in 2006, it was in 2007.

I am terribly sorry. That I am sure is a critical difference.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Anujan » 08 Apr 2013 01:27

Weapons systems should be evaluated in several contexts. Arjun has better firepower, mobility, comfort and protection than T90, but T90 is much better than Arjun in the context of welfare of the Russians Arms industry. 8)

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 08 Apr 2013 01:28

Gurinder P wrote:
I personally favour both the Arjun and the T 90 (T 90MS that is). I believe that the T 90 can operate well in the Himalayas, while the Arjun can rule the Thar. However, in the end of the day, all tanks have the same job to complete and that is to destroy opposing tanks and maintain control of territory or support capture of territory.

Thus, I cannot agree with the comparison of some of the vehicles you have listed but I understand your point.


Gurinder ji I am actually agreeing with you. I was trying to show that it is not possible to compare systems of this type and say "ONLY THIS IS GOOD". There are many complexities etc as you pointed out.

May be it did not come out well.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Mihir » 08 Apr 2013 01:31

The name "Anujan" bears a striking similarity to "Arjun". Karan, as we all know, was Arjun's half brother. Hence, Anujan and Karan M are biased towards the Arjun, and have a vested interest in seeing the T-90 suffer setbacks. It is best that we dismiss their views for the nonsense they are.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Anujan » 08 Apr 2013 01:31

Sanku wrote:Well unfortunately for all the Arjun is not given a pass when it fails unlike T 90 -- there is no proof to back that.

Arjun has finally been given a go ahead after it could clear the tests -- just that problems found on T 90 were of far lesser magnitude, and turn around for fixes far faster.

If T 90 took as long as Arjun did to fix the issues, the T 90 induction would also suffer, but the advantage that one gets from buying from external vendors with experience is that they can fix issues faster. This is bound to happen. Getting upset about it is pointless.


And that is why we should export Arjun to Russia and re-import it from them. 7 years after the first batch is imported, they will deny us ToT for critical components, but then they will "fix" all issues pronto :mrgreen: I saw from Guru movie how Ambani was good at this. Exporting from India and re-importing it to get various tax breaks and such. I dont remember much details. Maybe Reliance can be roped into this scheme. They are certainly a vendor with experience in such issues. 8)

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 08 Apr 2013 01:34

Anujan wrote:Weapons systems should be evaluated in several contexts. Arjun has better firepower, mobility, comfort and protection than T90, but T90 is much better than Arjun in the context of welfare of the Russians Arms industry. 8)


And also in context of being actually present in India as a working product to fight a war.

Dont forget that small bit.

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

T 90 is better in terms of lighter logistics chain, ease of maintenance, being able to fire a missile, being able to cross multiple bridges which are unpassable for others, having a common platform with T 72s etc etc. In terms of being able to defeat APFSDS warheads through ERA.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 08 Apr 2013 01:35

Anujan wrote:[,,,,)


Your sentiment of feeling bad for trolling did not last very long clearly since you are back to sarcasm?
:mrgreen:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Anujan » 08 Apr 2013 01:40

No. This time I was elevating discussions to your level of informative posts.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Anujan » 08 Apr 2013 01:40

Sanku wrote:
Anujan wrote:Weapons systems should be evaluated in several contexts. Arjun has better firepower, mobility, comfort and protection than T90, but T90 is much better than Arjun in the context of welfare of the Russians Arms industry. 8)


And also in context of being actually present in India as a working product to fight a war.

Dont forget that small bit.

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

T 90 is better in terms of lighter logistics chain, ease of maintenance, being able to fire a missile, being able to cross multiple bridges which are unpassable for others, having a common platform with T 72s etc etc. In terms of being able to defeat APFSDS warheads through ERA.


And obviously better torsion bars.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 08 Apr 2013 01:48

^^^
Why dont you just accept that it is possible your cherished views are wrong?

Much easier than the torture of having to fight data with losing sarcasm.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Anujan » 08 Apr 2013 01:50

How can I be wrong when I can make up any fact I want? Also I have a tendency to deny I said things when it becomes unsustainable.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 08 Apr 2013 01:51

Anujan wrote:How can I be wrong when I can make up any fact I want? Also I have a tendency to deny I said things when it becomes unsustainable.


clearly

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Anujan » 08 Apr 2013 01:52

Sanku wrote:
Anujan wrote:How can I be wrong when I can make up any fact I want? Also I have a tendency to deny I said things when it becomes unsustainable.


clearly


It is not so clear. When did I ever say I deny things I said?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Anujan » 08 Apr 2013 02:14

Sanku wrote:All right I accept that I was wrong. The last order of T 90 was not in 2006, it was in 2007.

I am terribly sorry. That I am sure is a critical difference.


Okay awesome, let us then get back to what Karan M originally asked

Quote:
3. Proof required why an inferior T-90 is being ordered in huge numbers despite 2. above.

Proof required that T 90 is being ordered. Last order was in 2006 of 1500+ tanks. Show proof of new order.


There is the proof of the new order. You have accepted that. So let us delve into deep details of why huge numbers of T90 were still being ordered?

Let me give you my reason:
First order of 310 T90 was in 2001. Like a drug dealer selling cocaine near a school yard, the first hit was free (or cheap). Then we wanted to make it on our own. We wouldnt have ordered a single T90 if we could make it in numbers ourselves. And that is why the Russies had no ToT of critical components (dont ask me for proof of this, I already posted it). 7 years later, we couldnt yet make gun barrel or armor plates for it. The only way Russies would part with the technology (if they would part with it at all, I am not even sure if the ToT was done) is if we order more T90 directly from them. So we ordered 347 more. The first batch of 10 "indigenously built" T90 was rolled out in 2009! And the cost ballooned by 50% so I am not even sure how much was paid for ToT. So I am not sure if it was built from scratch or screw driver-ed from CKD and garlanded in a rolling out ceremony.

And even after that, they want a "razor is free, buy the blades from us" model. Except that the razor wasnt free either. And they dont want to let us use our own Ammo. And there is reverse engineering jugaad going on for that. Not sure how successful that was. Last time we tried it, ordnance exploded inside the tank and our crews rode outside. Given the heat and cramped quarters inside and all, I am sure it was more comfortable that way. But that is no cause to worry, they will keep cool inside because we now want AC inside T90! That is because, TI sights are failing.

And that speaks a lot about how "problems are fixed pronto" as your had taken care to state in bold font. 9 years for fixing Gun, Armor, Ammo, Thermal sights. I am not sure what else is left in a tank. If there is anything left, I am sure we are paying through the nose for that too. And oh, I am sorry I made a mistake. The Thermal Sights problem havent been fixed yet. I apologize for that mistake.

Mark my words, we are going to order more T90 from the motherland along with boatload of ammo to relieve some pressure from testimonial squeezing. This is just the Russies milking money from us plain and simple. It is as plain as what they are doing with the Vikramaditya.

T90 follow on order has nothing to do with Arjun passing or failing, it has to do with us wincing at the hand that is squeezing our testimonials. If a contract for 1000 Arjuns is signed tomorrow, broken torsion bars and all, suddenly everyone will be our friends again and all will be well.

And oh, I heard vendors are falling over each other to supply us with systems for P17A. Take a guess why.

And this is the reason why "T90 can go 50 kms more on the same amount of fuel - Different weapons have different advantages" discussions are meaningless and a pile of nandi droppings. And your misinformation, disinformation and semi-information is a cherry on top of that pile.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 08 Apr 2013 02:41

Anujan wrote:
Sanku wrote:All right I accept that I was wrong. The last order of T 90 was not in 2006, it was in 2007.

I am terribly sorry. That I am sure is a critical difference.


Okay awesome, let us then get back to what Karan M originally asked

Quote:
3. Proof required why an inferior T-90 is being ordered in huge numbers despite 2. above.

Proof required that T 90 is being ordered. Last order was in 2006 of 1500+ tanks. Show proof of new order.


There is the proof of the new order. You have accepted that. So let us delve into deep details of why huge numbers of T90 were still being ordered?.


:rotfl:

Clearly sarcasm only works one way here.

Also seem to be slipping in english a bit. Is being != were being. Yes, T 90 have been ordered till 2007 (and not 2006 as originally stated)

That is because we need tanks, and there arent any. We sat on our haunches for 25 years, and started moving only when "paani sar ke upar chad gaya".

The contract for manufacture in house was signed only in 2004-6 time frame (started in 2004 closed in 2006) -- the issues around ToT were ironed out by 2008. So at most 2 year delay between agreement and sorting of ToT.

The agreement to purchase 347 ready tanks was taken in 2007, just a year after the signing of contract for 1000 in house manufacture.

Now whether these tanks were ordered because in 2007 India had a grand total of 310 modern tanks and rest of the tank fleet at 30 year old levels?

Or whether they were ordered because Russians did not squeeze the testimonials hard enough just a year back?

You can take whatever suites your fancy. I personally think that the Russians had no reason to wait for year to squeeze the testimonials.

Further, they could squeeze the testimonials because we had no option, as of 2007 Arjun was still struggling, with trying to fix the issues from AUCRT. Hardly confidence inspiring.

Let me blaspheme a little more -- Would T 90s be still ordered in greater number going forward? Quite possibly yes.

T 90s are the proven option here today. The promise of Arjun is still shimmering hazily. The T 72 upgd program has unclear status.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... es-factory

Where is IA going to get enough tanks with latest technology?

In the end best friend of Russian workers may be their brothers in arms, the Indian workers, who will ensure through the dint of their hardwork that IA has no option but to import.

So dont be surprised if Arjun Mk II comes in late, so late that there is no option again but to import. (and this would not fixed by Mk1 order, that would be also be made equally fast at avadi after all)

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 08 Apr 2013 02:43

People really want Arjun to be inducted in large numbers? --> Please worry about Avadi meeting time lines.

Because if promises are not met, then blaming xyz is a good fun sport, but finally has no difference in real world.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Anujan » 08 Apr 2013 02:45

In the interests of full disclosure -- do you materially benefit from T90 orders? Not that it is a bad thing, but just curious for my own edification.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 08 Apr 2013 02:50

Anujan wrote:In the interests of full disclosure -- do you materially benefit from T90 orders? Not that it is a bad thing, but just curious for my own edification.


Yes, I live in India, and I am safer.

Significant material benefit -- cant think of a bigger deal than saving my SDRE skin. Very material.

Wont ask you about yours, cant care less.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Anujan » 08 Apr 2013 03:01

The reason I wondered is because sometimes people tend to delude themselves when it benefits them. It is in human nature to convince oneself that all parties benefit -- even when the situation is completely one sided. I mean honestly speaking, do you not see self contradiction in your own arguments?

1. You blame Avadi for Arjun QC issues, but Apparently 1000 T90s are going to be manufactured by them defect free.
2. You blame India MIC for not scaling up, and therefor want more foreign maal, therefore assuring that they wont scale up.
3. You allege that Avadi cannot supply Arjun in numbers, but somehow think they would be able to supply T90 in numbers.
4. If they dont supply T90 in numbers, you want an alternative, which is to buy more T90 from Russia so it is okay if they dont supply it in numbers. Which will assure that they dont supply T90 in numbers.
5. You dont want any Arjuns inducted unless *all* supposed problems are sorted out. And then claim that it is completely okay for Russians to Squeeze our testimonials because there are no tanks.

These are actually some of the arguments of yours that make any sense to me, and that is after I have sifted through disinformation, shifting goal posts, wrong facts, slight misinformation -- For example, despite being thrashed out in the forum like a 1000 times, you talk about "problems uncovered during AUCRT". AUCRT was not acceptance trials, and merely trials done to assess spares requirements during the lifetime of the tank. Then why are orders held hostage to fixing issues "uncovered" during AUCRT? On the one side thermal sights are not working, which is completely okay and on the other side, issues during AUCRT becomes a show stopper for orders.

Ofcourse now we will go off arguing over what AUCRT is, what issues were uncovered and why they need fixing. Away from the basic question: Why so much love for foreign maal when it is bleeding us dry?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby NRao » 08 Apr 2013 03:22

Today here is alternative to any Russian tank. And it runs the same risk as any other tank as far as qc is concerned.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby NRao » 08 Apr 2013 03:26

T 90 is better in terms of lighter logistics chain, ease of maintenance, being able to fire a missile, being able to cross multiple bridges which are unpassable for others, having a common platform with T 72s etc etc. In terms of being able to defeat APFSDS warheads through ERA.


Any reference? For all?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Karan M » 08 Apr 2013 03:55

Sanku wrote:http://livefist.blogspot.in/2012/08/ind ... ealed.html
The total orders for the Arjun as of today are 240 (124 Mk-1 and 116 Mk-2)

http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... tank-arjun


Good so your first link and your own revised statement of 116 for the MK-2 posits you were wrong about equal numbers of MK1 and MK2 being ordered. Second, proof please of 116 MK-2 being ordered already. Your own second link mentions no orders of MK-2 have been placed yet and puts the number at 142.

This is clear. Mk1 production was to run till 2011-12. The Mk II production was to proceed from that time frame. Links already posted.


Your "this is clear" won't do. We are clearly not blessed with your clarity of thought. Please provide verifiable data from accredited journalists or credible sources that MK2 production is underway and orders have been placed.

Proof required that T 90 is being ordered. Last order was in 2006 of 1500+ tanks. Show proof of new order.


See Anujans link.

Proof required that T 90 is inferior. Not shukla, I am looking for official sources. Note Mk 1 can not fire missiles still.


Why not Shukla? Because he punctures your statements? Sorry, but I rate him as credible. Ditto for other weblinks which detail Arjun superiority in FCS, and DRDO statements which showed the Arjun came out ahead. They all back up each other.

This selective choice of sources and denial of whatever contradicts your position, is what makes your opinions so pointless, since you cherry pick your sources and deliberately disregard every statement/source that contradicts yours. To those of who have been observing your methods for a while, your arguments are sadly, full of contradictions and mistakes. Second, what evidence is there that the T-90S in Indian service is currently successfully firing INVARS with a decent success rate?

Obviously. Emphasis != proof.


Why this raging desire to provide emphasis? None of the others in this discussion seem to have it. Your posts come across as more attuned to winning the argument as versus dealing in facts.

Because 1) they are not entitled to request not ask,


Really? What is the difference between requesting and asking? Are we supposed to inform you on bended knee? Ego much?

mods can ask 2) people should learn how to accept others styles.


Very nice of you to allow the mods the leeway to ask you. And regarding your second point, thats a bit rich, given how often you have been going hammer and tongs at anyone who doesnt fit your accepted style, namely all those who dont accept your opinions as facts.

When you state that something is fictious without any proof, it is merely a personal attack.


The correct word is fictitious, not fictious. If you cannot spell certain words please don't use them just because they sound fancy. They undermine your own credibility. Unfortunately, its a recurring theme in your posts.

Second, telling you that you are posting fiction is not a personal attack. Its merely feedback.

Its a bit rich of you to ask for proof proving you are posting fiction since you summarily dismiss any source that points out your fiction. Whether it be Shukla ( a far more credible source on the Arjun as things stand), or other sources. Just because you choose to deny any source that rebuts/contradicts you, does not mean the rest of us buy into your cherry picking.

In any case, all my posts have back ground links, when they dont, I explicitly mention this is chaiwalla info or opinion.


Interesting. So as you decide and choose, you bring in chaiwalla info or opinion. However you then inform other posters that they cant post chaiwalla info or opinion, even if that info is well known and common knowledge. Trying to play judge, jury, having your cake and eating it too? Do you seriously think the rest of the forum cannot see through this charade?

And what of posting back ground links? A few minutes on google, with your out of context misinterpretations are something to mention.. As shown prior, your interpretation of the INVAR links had a huge bunch of assumptions. They did not explicitly mention anything of the sort you were implying and browbeating another poster with.

The above is an example of personal attack.


Pointing out that your posts are repetitive, lack any solid information and are akin to spamming are not equal to personal attacks. I am not attacking you as a person. As a person you may even be a good human being. However, your online persona does not post useful data and spams the topic. Please improve. Don't keep complaining about how anyone who questions your repetitive and fallacious claims, is making a personal attack.

You have not been able to show a single case where the data point was wrong. You merely claim that.


On the contrary, you were the one making assumptions, linking together a bunch of links to make a case which was anything but. I showed that. Just a few posts above, you were categorically stating that 124 Arjun MK-2s are in production. Here it is, to refresh your admittedly short memory, which seems to vary post to post.

Sanku wrote:Only on this thread 124+124 tank order is not a firm order. Elsewhere in real world it is a very firm order.


And as support you now provide two links both of which don't specify that the MK-2 is in production and even disagree on numbers. The first says 116, the second says 142, neither says MK-2 is in production, with orders likely to be placed.

This sort of shoddy attention to detail, wherein you just rush to post, skim over news reports, in order to win arguments is typical of your posts.

Which is why your persona of choice needs to improve on posting quality, in order to be taken seriously. In short, your bete noire Shukla will be invited by choice by publications like Business Standard to write for them. You won't.

That has a lot to do with the signal to noise ratio in your "authorship". Please consider why it is so, before calling him, me or anyone else names for telling you the facts, as they stand.
Last edited by Karan M on 08 Apr 2013 05:13, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Karan M » 08 Apr 2013 04:07

Anujan wrote:In the interests of full disclosure -- do you materially benefit from T90 orders? Not that it is a bad thing, but just curious for my own edification.


If he did, that would at least be logical. No, this entire T-90 is good rooskie maal, Arjun big flaws stuff is just one big ego-maalish exercise, on the lines of i cannot be wrong because i say so (http://i.somethingawful.com/u/maxnmona/hmm.jpg).

Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 13757
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Suraj » 08 Apr 2013 05:42

Moderator's note:
All post reports made recently have been closed with no action taken. As long as everyone is equally involved in the debate, there is no means to differentiate greater or lesser alleged trolling; all we see here are new participants challenging existing ideologies.

'Running to the teacher' behavior, i.e., being actively involved in a lively debate while simultaneously reporting posts of the other side, will earn you a warning. You know who you are.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests