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.
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 » 11 Apr 2013 05:51

arnab wrote:Now that the 'shooting' and 'protection' abilities of the Arjun vis a vis T-90 have been established, we are left with the 'scooting' abilities of T-90 in urban areas! Unless the T-90 can outrun / out-manoeuvre an ATGM / RPG, it will be deficient to Arjun in such scenarios as well. Remember the Battle of Grozny anyone? and the decimation of the T-72s there?


Tanks in urban combat are pretty much useless, unless they are needed for bunker busting. Thermobaric weapons are effective at snuffing out buildings with ease and efficiency. That being said, the idea of the BMPT is pretty neat, with it being a bit more heavily armoured and gunned than an APC/IFV but it has more maneuverability than a tank. Maybe, private India design bureau's can come up with an idea.

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 948
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby KrishnaK » 11 Apr 2013 08:16

Suraj,
I know you have way more exposure to our defense services that me. That said, I find it hard to believe that a major decision making chunk of the IA/IAF don't comprehend this:
Anything longer than a week, and we will have an extremely expensive logistical problem on hand, including the possibility that supplies simply may not be available for any price, turning whatever best-of-class item we field into a hangar/garage/drydock queen for the duration of hostilities.

A hypothesis: they've taken that into account. They don't expect us to be in any major brawl well over 2 weeks (just a number based on your 1 week). In fact that is all they've been tasked for by their higher ups, our political class. We have a far worse chokepoint - oil. If we can't keep a supply going for spares for our tanks and fighters, how are we going to keep one going for oil ? This might not necessarily explain the T90 vs Arjun debate. That might well be a case of 'refusing to change their mindset' for the IA armoured corps.

I think only our Navy has had any charter/ambitions of being a strategic power projecting service.

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 » 11 Apr 2013 09:13

>> Thermobaric weapons are effective at snuffing out buildings with ease and efficiency

does our 105mm and 155mm regiments have thermobaric shells or does our infantry even have the Shmel rockets? not to my knowledge.
I dont think our shipon and Carl gustaf units have any thermobaric warheads.

thing is , we can hope not to get pulled into urban combat but as you know plans can go for a six due to enemy action, political directives..etc.
lets hope we dont have to face such a "ab tera kya hoga kalia" type situation. suppose the pakis do a counter strike and grab some indian towns near
the border like say Gurdaspur....now whether it makes military sense or not, orders from PMO will come down to COAS to retake it for congi media soundbytes at ANY cost.

specialized kit like this armoured bulldozer cannot be drummed up on a hajji armour basis when shit hits fan.....these kind of kit need to be purchased, be part of the orbat and training cycles. managing crisis by congi style hand waving isnt the solution. :lol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IDF-D ... or-001.jpg

The D9R, the latest generation of D9 bulldozers in IDF service, has a power of 405 to 410 horsepower (302 to 310 kW) and drawbar pull of 71.6 tonnes-force (702 kN). It has a crew of two, an operator and a commander. It is operated by the TZAMA (צמ"ה = ציוד מכני הנדסי, Mechanical Engineering Equipment) units of the Israeli Engineering Corps.

The main IDF modification is the installation of an Israeli-made armor kit which provides armor protection to the mechanical systems and to the operator cabin. The operator and commander are protected inside an armored cabin ("the cockpit"), with bulletproof windows to protect against bombs, machinegun, and sniper fire. The IDF also developed a slat armor add-on to deflect RPG rounds. The fitted armor package adds roughly 15 additional tons to the production-line weight of the D9. The modified D9 bulldozers can be fitted with disparate features, such as crew-operated machine guns, smoke projectors, or grenade launchers.

The IDF uses the D9 for a wide variety of engineering tasks, most notably home & structure demolition, even if under fire, as well as earthworks, digging moats, mounting sand barriers, building fortifications, rescuing stuck, overturned or damaged armored fighting vehicles (along with M88 Recovery Vehicle), clearing landmines, detonating IEDs and explosives, clearing terrain obstacles and opening routes for armored fighting vehicles and infantry.

During the Second Intifada the armored D9 bulldozer gained notoriety as being an effective tool against Palestinian fighters & civilians, as they were almost impervious to Palestinian weapons and withstood even RPGs and belly charges with more than 100 kg and even half a ton of explosive. Therefore they were used to open safe routes for IDF forces and detonate explosive charges. The bulldozer was used extensively to clear shrubbery and structures which could be used as cover. In addition they razed houses of civilians and the families of suicide bombers.[citation needed]

Following several incidents where armed Palestinians barricaded themselves inside houses and killed soldiers attempting to breach the entries, the IDF developed "Noal Sir Lachatz" (נוהל סיר לחץ "Pressure Pot Regulation") in which D9s and other engineering vehicles were used to bring them out by razing the houses; most of them surrendered because of fears of being buried alive.[citation needed]

While Palestinians saw the D9 as a devastating weapon, and human rights groups criticized it for the massive damage it caused to Palestinian infrastructure, Israelis and military experts claimed the D9 was a necessary tool for combatting insurgency and a key factor in reducing IDF casualties.[

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 » 11 Apr 2013 11:23

KrishnaK wrote:A hypothesis: they've taken that into account. They don't expect us to be in any major brawl well over 2 weeks (just a number based on your 1 week). In fact that is all they've been tasked for by their higher ups, our political class. We have a far worse chokepoint - oil. If we can't keep a supply going for spares for our tanks and fighters, how are we going to keep one going for oil ? This might not necessarily explain the T90 vs Arjun debate. That might well be a case of 'refusing to change their mindset' for the IA armoured corps.

I think only our Navy has had any charter/ambitions of being a strategic power projecting service.


Krishna,

I don't know who's to blame but I do think there is a lack of proper strategic thinking.

Consider this. At the moment we are a (roughly) $2 trillion economy. By 2020 we'd be around $4-5 trillion and very soon after that we'd be the world's third or second largest economy.

And today we are the world's biggest importer of arms.

What this implies for the various MICs around the world, be it Russia, France or the US, is that if India remains the biggest importer of arms, while growing to be a over $5 trillion economy, the country single handedly can keep all the MICs well-funded, supplying enough money to keep next generation projects in these countries running.

We already have the case of India bankrolling to a significant degree all new military development in Russia. In the case of the MMRCA, India's buying (or not buying) Rafale will determine what future this aircraft has. Yet instead of India having the testimonials of the Russian and French MICs in their hands, this lack of strategic thinking has allowed our testimonials to be squeezed by all and sundry.

These MICs have a powerful vested interest in ensuring that our Armed forces’ fetish for imported maal is kept intact. Those MICs (think Russia) which traditionally have had deep connections with the Armed forces are better positioned to ensure the love for their stuff remains. Mind you I'm not talking about straightforward corruption, of course some of it is there (be it in terms of Natasha, vodka or plain cash); it’s a much more insidious subtle mental conditioning - to the effect that all Indian maal is by definition inferior - that has not only afflicted sections of the armed forces but also folks who keep track of these developments like posters on BRF.

Like they say in IT, a CIO can’t go wrong by buying IBM or Microsoft even if better, though riskier, options exist. Similarly for the Army it’s so much easier to go in for more T90s than to invest the time, effort or money into helping the DRDO to iron out the kinks in the Arjun, both in terms of its performance and the backend supply chain. And since using imported maal is not considered haarm the Army can also get away with this saying that it’s business is to fight wars and not worry about whether the equipment they use are desi or foreign.

As a result, IMO, we are a $2 trillion economy with the mentality of a $500 billion economy in terms to our approach to war. We expect to fight one week or maybe two weeks by which time the world’s mai baaps like the Amerikis or the Rusikies will enter the fray and stop the schoolyard dishum, dishum.

It takes 50 years minimum to develop a decent MIC. By 2063 India will be, as I said, either the second or third biggest economy and it’s major contenders would be China and/or the US and what would we be doing? Probably going to Russia, which would have an economy the fraction the size of ours and begging for the T140s or whatever tin cans they would be rolling out then.

There has to be a mindset change – we have to take ourselves and what we do (and make) more seriously. Just think of some of the stuff we've heard here. Somebody questioned how indigenous is Arjun, when the competing tank is 100 per cent foreign. And somebody else said Avadi had to get it’s act together before the Army can go for Arjuns – as if problems can and will be fixed without firm orders and a commitment both from the Army as well as the government.

In many ways I think the US arms embargo on China has done the latter a huge favour. It has kick started their MIC. Maybe what they make today is not best in class but given time it will soon get there.

And wither India’s MIC? You can't become a superpower or even a great power on the back of imported arms. You can only fight one or two week wars, the way Pakistan is primed to do. Do our strategic community realise this?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 11 Apr 2013 12:26

-OT-

Shmel RPO is standard issue in IA. For want of a better qualified source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPO-A_Shmel

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/8664/70x94i.jpg

anjan
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 08 Jan 2010 02:42

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby anjan » 11 Apr 2013 12:53

KrishnaK wrote:I think only our Navy has had any charter/ambitions of being a strategic power projecting service.
Only the navy can truly project power. This is true of every country. Even the US with bases everywhere(and thus the potential to use the airforce) really uses it's navy for power projection.

India's problem lies primarily in the fact that the Armed forces are kept out of the loop on National Security discussions. This was a very conscious decision by the bureaucracy and the political class. They are specifically told that their job is to fight wars and keep out of everything else. There is no clarity on what the national goals are and the armed forces are kept out of any discussion on it.So why is this a surprise? They come to an independent assessment of how a war would be and gear for that. And yes, the expectation indeed is that we'd never fight a long war.

This is a systemic failure and requires an overhaul of how we approach national power. And the problem cuts both ways. The IAS, IFS and the armed forces are badly in need for greater institutionalised communications channels. It's abundantly clear that neither the IAS nor the IFS(a few individuals aside) really understand military force or it's utility either. The IFS looks on even intelligence agencies(historically one of the most important tasks of a diplomat) in disdain. Sadly both neta and babu are more invested in divide and rule and localizing power.

P.S. I see lots of Pakistan comparisons. The Pakistani problem is the opposite. With the generals in charge purely military goals predominate. Essentially we approach the same point from two very different ends.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 11 Apr 2013 15:37

Anujan wrote: The cons of making it ourselves are obvious: Unit costs might be high, we cannot make the best machine, we cannot make enough of them quickly and so on. Now the cons of importing, in my opinion are far higher.
........................

We pass through a near death experience of fighting an all out multi year war.


Actually the above two are linked, at the current rate, if we decide, that we will be pig headed and say that our defence needs will be met locally or not at all, we will under go a near death, or certain death situation very soon.

Now this simple fact may be galling, but is the truth, the reason why Indian forces ask for the equipment they ask for, in the timeframe that they need is that they know that if they don't get it, they can kiss winning good bye.

As it is Indian forces are HORRENDOUSLY UNDER EQUIPPED AND RUNNING BEHIND THE REARMAMENT SCHEDULE.

What Anjuan has done has taken a ideological position, "in the long term considering various factors, the right thing to do is blah blah blah.."

Absolutely.

But as they say, in long term we are all dead, and that death will come sooner if we follow the teary eyed, "we must make do with Indian solutions or how will they develop" type of appeals, which are all very nice, but also a quick trip to the graveyard.

If we are going to take such ideological position, I believe Nehru's "we dont need Army, we are a peace loving country" is a good enough ideology. They will give similar results.

Like Sanku-ji insisting on a smoothbore gun for Arjun. The beauty and convenience of this statement is if it happens by chance, it is a huge "I told you so!" moment and validation for everything that he ever said. If it doesnt happen, then it can always be passed off as something that is going to happen in the future or something that was considered but stonewalled by the obstinate DRDO/Avadi folks.


However to hide the basic impracticality of the suggestions like "dont import till your MIC is up even if it takes 1000000000000000000000000000 years" is to make

1) Personal attacks on those who differ
2) Misrepresent what others are saying.

Anujans above post is excellent example of (2) followed by (1) --> Displaying a mind reading capabilities which are phenomenal, he has figured out the deep latent reasoning behind my desire to see the best type of armament for Arjun. Despite clearly saying that, I hold the OLD GSQR framed in 70s and 80s as th the reason for legacy choice of a rifled gun, and a smooth bore gun is preferred due to being a technically preferable solution.

He has NO QUALMS, in deciding for me what I really meant, and what I really want. He follows this up by another many paragraphs on why I am so evil.
:rotfl:

I have not taken the approach that the real reason that he wants to denude IA of armor based on some pipe dream is because Anujan secretly wishes to have Pakis defeat us, thus enabling more action in BENIS thread (for those who dont get it, that statement is meant to show the absurdity when X makes a claim on behalf of Y)

=========================================

Of course the standard junk rona dhona of not enough support, not enough orders is still there, when it has been shown that 124+124 tank order is a fairly large order for a tank of Arjun class. More than good enough to bootstrap the project.

Either the civvies in India dealing with Armed forces need to stop making excuses and deliver on their primary responsibilities, or get the hell out of the way and let IA take over.

And this is not for DRDO alone, before some one elses emotions get hurt and we have wails of "our MIC is being run down"
Last edited by Sanku on 11 Apr 2013 16:01, edited 2 times 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 » 11 Apr 2013 15:42

amit wrote:
I don't know who's to blame but I do think there is a lack of proper strategic thinking.

Similarly for the Army it’s so much easier to go in for more T90s than to invest the time, effort or money into helping the DRDO to iron out the kinks in the Arjun, both in terms of its performance and the backend supply chain.


It is extremely amusing when posters pontificate about things like lack of strategic thinking and base their statements on sheer absurdities.

In India, it is NOT IAs job to help DRDO stop acting like a scooters india unit, it is MODs job.

A lot of rona dhona happens regularly about Navy being better, by actively ignoring (despite being told) -- is that due to historical reasons (primarily both Navy and Navy's capital outlay was peanuts and there was hence no turf battle) -- Navy is in control of its operations.

Navy is allowed to OWN projects, Navy officers are the top guys in Shipyards, Navy has a design beaura attached to it.

Does the IA have any of this? The entire DRDO chain goes directly into civvies at MoD.

But hey deliberately ignoring real world fact is obviously the strength of those who have a upper hand in strategy which they can teach the stupid IA as well? Right?
:rotfl:
Last edited by Sanku on 11 Apr 2013 15:48, 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 » 11 Apr 2013 15:47

anjan wrote:India's problem lies primarily in the fact that the Armed forces are kept out of the loop on National Security discussions. This was a very conscious decision by the bureaucracy and the political class. They are specifically told that their job is to fight wars and keep out of everything else. There is no clarity on what the national goals are and the armed forces are kept out of any discussion on it.So why is this a surprise? .


Brilliant post anjan ji. Fully agree, with a minor nitpick. This was a conscious decision primarily by Nehru, who detested Indian army, and let no occasion go to run it down, preferably publicly, this dates back from the time when IA officers had the spine to stand up to him and tell him off when he talked nonsense, which is of course something he often did, being his core competency, but did not get countered by many except in IA.

So he raised the bogey of a military coup and other such further nonsense, ran IA down to the level to ensure his defeat at the hands of his friends, then washed his hands off the whole business and sulked.

These issues (like many others in the country) stem directly from the executive decisions taken by one man in infancy of our nation.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 11 Apr 2013 15:56

Singha wrote:
specialized kit like this armoured bulldozer cannot be drummed up on a hajji armour basis when shit hits fan.....these kind of kit need to be purchased, be part of the orbat and training cycles. managing crisis by congi style hand waving isnt the solution. :lol:


What are you saying Singha saar, Not purchasing 1310 T 90 is 2000 to plan for over next 20 years since Arjun was foreseen in 2000 already to be ready in 2005 give or taken 5 years this way or that is considered perfectly acceptable strategy for Indian defence through robust support for MICs.

Arjuns are just about making the first cut ready in 2008, however they should be part of planning for 2000-12 time period.

Purchase, part of orbat, training, logistics, -- they are sissy issue for wimps. The real patriots have foresight, vision, ability to take bold risks, and a good ability to compare tanks by looking having them do a shoot out at ok corral.

You are demeaning your reputation saar.
:(

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 11 Apr 2013 15:57

When comparing with Israel, Israel, their politicians have all been in IDF.

I think that somehow, makes a difference.

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 » 11 Apr 2013 16:04

And here I was thinking sadly that we were going to miss out on our free dose of entertainment for today. :wink:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby NRao » 11 Apr 2013 17:11

India's problem lies primarily in the fact that the Armed forces are kept out of the loop on National Security discussions. This was a very conscious decision by the bureaucracy and the political class. They are specifically told that their job is to fight wars and keep out of everything else. There is no clarity on what the national goals are and the armed forces are kept out of any discussion on it.So why is this a surprise? They come to an independent assessment of how a war would be and gear for that. And yes, the expectation indeed is that we'd never fight a long war.


Reread your post.

There has always been a mechanism, just that it is either more misused or abused (perhaps) in the case of India. With the corruption in India I am sure there is no semblance of the original intent.

But all democracies have it and perhaps India is lagging behind in some aspects, but should have a majority of it in place.

However, inherently, diplomacy plays a bigger role - as it should - but the military is always consulted when needed. As a simple example, as we are aware there are military attaches in pretty much every embassy and perhaps consulates.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 11 Apr 2013 18:16

amit wrote:And here I was thinking sadly that we were going to miss out on our free dose of entertainment for today. :wink:


How can that be, you posted, didnt you?

Ah I forgot, cause and effect, and other such logical mechanisms are not always well understood (apart form real world data that is)

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 » 11 Apr 2013 18:28

Rao ji,

I think it's a bigger issue than just a question of whether our armed forces are in the loop or not. I sometimes feel as a people we don't understand our own weight and potential.

This manifests itself in various ways IMO. All the way from timid foreign policy (things like SeS for example) to our reluctance to go after Pak based terrorists.

Again IMO this disdain for local products - due to the greater short term uncertainty associated with them (Anujan dwells on these) stems from this. It's so much easier to go for phoren maal like tin cans.

In short we short sell ourselves in all areas, be it politicians, babus, army officers or even amm Abduls. This IMVHO is the reason for our fetish with foreign maal and our disdain for local stuff - remember even in this discussion, it was asked if the Arjun is really indigenous. I'm sure if it wasn't then we'd have a 300 piece order asap.

JMT

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby ramana » 11 Apr 2013 23:18

X-post....
Vipul wrote:DRDO fires on towards MIRV capability.

...

For instance, after supplying 119 Arjun Mark-I tanks - the order initially was for 124 - DRDO is now developing the Arjun Mark-II and nearly 80 percent of the improvements/changes sought by the Indian Army had already been incorporated. Work on the remaining features is underway and there would be trials this summer to satisfy the user requirements.The Arjun Mark-I has already outperformed the T-90, Saraswat said, adding that the Mark-II would have enhanced night fighting capabilities with advanced equipment for the gunner, driver and commander. There will be better rough terrain and amphibious (fording) mobility, better surveillance and firing capability, as well as increased protection.

An agreement is in place with the army for another lot of 118 - or two regiments - of Arjun Mark II tanks.The Mark-II has a better 120 mm gun, capable of firing anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs). DRDO was examining offers from Israel and Belarusfor the new ATGMs.

....

Misraji
BRFite
Posts: 401
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Misraji » 12 Apr 2013 01:22

Interesting snippet with respect to Spike ATGM deal
The force is keen to begin inducting the new ATGMs soon to ensure each infantry battalion deployed in the plains has eight ATGM launchers (each with 12 missiles), and those in the mountains have at least two, by the end of the 12th Plan (2017). "Even mechanised infantry battalions will get them later," said the source.

How does this work? Every company will have two ATGM launchers?

--Ashish

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3994
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby hnair » 12 Apr 2013 01:52

Sanku-saar, point about Pakjab getting riddled with rat holes is accurate. But from whatever one hears of their way of thinking, they are more worried about square footage being surrendered per day in a short war, rather than ultimate survival in a long drawn out war (like what Saddam faced) against an overwhelming foe. So their armor will be running around, outside these areas, rather than switching off and pillboxing inside crowded areas. The crowded areas, I suspect, will be left to the beards with ATGMs. Best is to identify pakjabi quislings in khaki before any war and use them to shepherd such areas, while staying outside with a foot on the food supply tap.

Unlike khan, India has no point in "occupying" a potty like pakistan, once the flush handle is turned.

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 948
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby KrishnaK » 12 Apr 2013 02:47

amit,
With all due respect, China's MIC isn't going anywhere ours isn't. For all the brouhaha about independent development, they are getting design help from the Russians if not importing wholesale. China tomtoming about their independent MIC is just making virtue out of necessity. They'd kill to be in our shoes. This post doesn't mean I advocate importing entire systems either.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby arnab » 12 Apr 2013 04:37

Looks like bold fonts, caps and hyperbole are a being provided as a response to the detailed analysis of Anujan :) What's with: "horrendously under equipped" "1000000000000 years" and "get out of the way and let the army handle it", along with the oft repeated BS that IA isn't in part of the national security loop?

The question is not between imports and no imports - The issue is to stop importing inferior products when there is a good local alternative available and fix teething problems as they come. Like was done for the T-90 between 2001 and is currently ongoing. For the IA to be spending tax payers money (see I can use rhetoric too :) ) like a drunken sailor - like importing T-90 and then paying some more to iron out the existing faults and weakness and constantly changing requirements for the home grown Arjun is a luxury we do not have.

Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Hobbes » 12 Apr 2013 05:51

arnab wrote:Looks like bold fonts, caps and hyperbole are a being provided as a response to the detailed analysis of Anujan :) What's with: "horrendously under equipped" "1000000000000 years" and "get out of the way and let the army handle it", along with the oft repeated BS that IA isn't in part of the national security loop?


Not to worry, that is merely another manifestation of Tovarisch Sanku's expertise in agitprop.

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 » 12 Apr 2013 06:34

ramana wrote:X-post....
Vipul wrote:DRDO fires on towards MIRV capability.

...

For instance, after supplying 119 Arjun Mark-I tanks - the order initially was for 124 - DRDO is now developing the Arjun Mark-II and nearly 80 percent of the improvements/changes sought by the Indian Army had already been incorporated. Work on the remaining features is underway and there would be trials this summer to satisfy the user requirements.The Arjun Mark-I has already outperformed the T-90, Saraswat said, adding that the Mark-II would have enhanced night fighting capabilities with advanced equipment for the gunner, driver and commander. There will be better rough terrain and amphibious (fording) mobility, better surveillance and firing capability, as well as increased protection.

An agreement is in place with the army for another lot of 118 - or two regiments - of Arjun Mark II tanks.The Mark-II has a better 120 mm gun, capable of firing anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs). DRDO was examining offers from Israel and Belarusfor the new ATGMs.

....


Thanks for posting this.

So we have some interesting facts right from Saraswat.

1) 119 Arjun Mk1 have been actually supplied and not the 124 that is being bandied about.
2) An agreement is place for 118 Arjun Mk2 and not 124 (I hope Sanku Maharaja keeps a note of this – you can’t get more “real world” facts than this.)
3) Arjun Mk1 “has already outperformed T90” (Invars notwithstanding ;-) )

So that means despite Mk1 being clearly a better tank than T90 its production has been stopped after just 119 units and we have to wait till such time the Arjun Mk2 meets the Army’s “high standards”. But the more important question is what happens after the 118 have been produced? Does the production line stop as the Army tests the Arjun Mk3? How long is this going to go on?

Folks here talk about Avadi production line inefficiencies and other such bullsh**t without even considering other “real world” facts like the only way to kink out problems in production lines is to support it, nurture it and back it with sufficient orders.

However, as Arnab just said when it comes to T90 teething problems, non-functioning whatever, the Army is more than willing to slog it out. When anyone points out this dichotomy in attitude between a home grown product and a foreign maal they become “Army bashers”.
Last edited by amit on 12 Apr 2013 10:23, edited 4 times 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 » 12 Apr 2013 06:45

KrishnaK wrote:amit,
With all due respect, China's MIC isn't going anywhere ours isn't. For all the brouhaha about independent development, they are getting design help from the Russians if not importing wholesale. China tomtoming about their independent MIC is just making virtue out of necessity. They'd kill to be in our shoes. This post doesn't mean I advocate importing entire systems either.


Krishna,

The Chinese already have several versions of aircraft flying - sure they are not worldclass and cannot compare with our MKI, Rafale etc. However, the point is they are already on their way to developing their own aeronautical complex. By 2063 - the date I mentioned - I dare-say they will be producing pretty compelling stuff.

We do have Tejas but remember one misstep even now, like a crash, can send the aircraft the Marut way. How many Chinese pilots have died while flying Chinese planes?

And finally they have their own MBT and seem to be pretty happy with it. :-)

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 » 12 Apr 2013 06:59

pandyan wrote:Arjun II is 65 ton tank. not sure if the bridges would be there after arjun I has demolished. I think even T90 is a heavy tank. I would rather prefer LPT 3723. It has proven itself as a light, capable, bridge ready road warrior.


+100

:rotfl: :rotfl:

isubodh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 03 Oct 2008 18:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby isubodh » 12 Apr 2013 11:46

Just a naive question. Is it not possible to develop an Arjun variant that will be at par with T90 on all fronts especially weight and then stop more T90's

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2485
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Vivek K » 12 Apr 2013 11:49

Sigh!

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 12 Apr 2013 11:51

isubodh wrote:Just a naive question. Is it not possible to develop an Arjun variant that will be at par with T90 on all fronts especially weight and then stop more T90's


No, primarily because T 90s are the done solution in the current term, what you are talking about is FMBT, which is far enough in future and uncertain enough to be not provide a solution to the need for more T 90s if that arises.

BTW, do not MORE T orders 90s are not coming (they may, but right now they are not coming). T 90s that are there are all part of older orders which are getting manufactured.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 12 Apr 2013 12:03

amit wrote:Folks here talk about Avadi production line inefficiencies and other such bullsh**t without even considering other “real world” facts like the only way to kink out problems in production lines is to support it, nurture it and back it with sufficient orders.


Which is what is happening, there are enough orders and enough support. Instead of :(( :(( :(( the effort should be in identifying the real way forward, which the :(( :(( :(( brigade seems unwilling to do.

There are enough orders, and INVARs notwithstanding is just funny.

Not withstanding the fact that the sun rises from the east every day, I can summarize the situation into saying that sun follows a secular outlook towards east and west and may sometime rise from west too.

The question of INVAR had come in only when some people were insisting on one tank vs other tank simplisim, because the overall picture seemed to be too complicated for them.

Now when that got beaten out, they seem to revert to other end.
:lol:

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

The thing that I find most amusing is the people clutching at straws in terms of saying
118 instead of 124
2007 instead of 2006.

While missing the fact that 118/124/119/120/121/122 or whatever orders are there, and present. :roll:

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 948
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby KrishnaK » 12 Apr 2013 12:30

amit wrote:We do have Tejas but remember one misstep even now, like a crash, can send the aircraft the Marut way. How many Chinese pilots have died while flying Chinese planes?

You mean how the Avro hack crash killing all scientists aboard shelved the AEW project ?

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 » 12 Apr 2013 12:31

Sanku wrote:Which is what is happening, there are enough orders and enough support. Instead of :(( :(( :(( the effort should be in identifying the real way forward, which the :(( :(( :(( brigade seems unwilling to do.


This is one of those times I'm not going to ignore you. :twisted:

Enough orders? For what Mk1 or Mk2? Please be specific.

Sanku wrote:... only when some people were insisting on one tank vs other tank simplisim, because the overall picture seemed to be too complicated for them.


The "simplisim" presumably extends to Saraswat saab as well who said the Arjun MK1 outperformed T90. But then what does Saraswat saab know? The overall picture seemed to be too complicated for him. He should realise that Sanku Maharaj is on a roll (in entertainment quotient that is)

Sanku wrote:Now when that got beaten out, they seem to revert to other end.
:lol:


But wait I do get an inkling that you laugh at your own posts as well. :lol:

Sanku wrote:The thing that I find most amusing is the people clutching at straws in terms of saying
118 instead of 124


Oh yes folks do clutch at straws when they see that the Army is ordering T90s by the hundreds and now has expressed an interest to buy 300 odd T90 MS versions, while starving the Arjun production line. But for loyal servants of Mother Russia that is only par for the course, hain ji?

PS: I'm surprised, only one bold in your post? I hope you're feeling OK, the BP under control? Just to compensate I've tried to use as much bold as possible.

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 » 12 Apr 2013 12:33

KrishnaK wrote:
amit wrote:We do have Tejas but remember one misstep even now, like a crash, can send the aircraft the Marut way. How many Chinese pilots have died while flying Chinese planes?

You mean how the Avro hack crash killing all scientists aboard shelved the AEW project ?


Yes. May not have shelved the project but it certainly was a set back. Do you seriously think if, God forbid, even today the Tejas programme suffers a crash, the testing will go on smoothly as was the case for example with Gripen?

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 » 12 Apr 2013 12:37

Sanku wrote:BTW, do not MORE T orders 90s are not coming (they may, but right now they are not coming). T 90s that are there are all part of older orders which are getting manufactured.


:eek: :eek: :eek:

Can any kind soul tell if the above means this:

No more orders not coming (actually) means that they may come but not right now?

(If it does indeed mean that, then this is another "I told you so" statement that Anujan ji mentioned. Once the T90MS order comes, that is.)

:P
Last edited by amit on 12 Apr 2013 13:08, 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 » 12 Apr 2013 12:41

isubodh wrote:Just a naive question. Is it not possible to develop an Arjun variant that will be at par with T90 on all fronts especially weight and then stop more T90's


Boss that was the unobtainable goal that the Army was seeking after a severe case of brochuritis. They wanted a four-man crew in a tank that weighed 50 tons. It took them a long time to realise that 50 ton is feasible only with a 3 man crew and adding an extra person increases the weight by 10 tons.

And that is why the FMBT mania has died and the Army may - this is a big may - try to derive its future tank from an Arjun derivative. Read a report on this by Ajai Shuka which I've linked a few pages ago on this thread.

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 » 12 Apr 2013 13:04

it all depends on how the new russian tank pgms go. hopefully they will screw up badly like the BMP3 - thats my old fervent hope.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 12 Apr 2013 14:03

amit wrote:This is one of those times I'm not going to ignore you. :twisted:


:rotfl:

What happened to your resolve? Anyway, it does not matter whether you ignore me or not, I am only too willing to rip the lies to a shred once more.
:P

Let us see what your point is now? I am so confused, given that you downhill ski so often, and change at slightest application of pressure

1) Are there enough orders for Arjun -- yes there are enough orders for Arjun in order to support the program. That can be seen by other tank programs of the world. Hard facts
2) Is India ordering more T 90s than Arjun, yes it is because while the program is being nurtured and supported, the IA rearmament program must carry on. Hard fact again
3) Is there any linkage between ordering more T 90s and the fact that Arjuns are maturing slowly? No there is no linkage, Arjun and T 90 programs are independent, Arjun's fate depends on the ability of Arjun to come on line.
4) Is Arjun a better tank than T 90? Yes and no, depends on what parameters are used to decide better. Right now T 90 has a edge thanks to the missile system. Arjun Mk II would be a tank which will be better than T 90 is most respect except that of logistics train. So Dr Sarawsat's point is valid in a limited sense for Mk I and in more general terms for Mk II and there is no discrepancy in that with other views.
5) Which is a better tank is mostly a moot point, since T 90 exists, and Arjuns are just coming into existence.

So while
Boss that was the unobtainable goal that the Army was seeking after a severe case of brochuritis. They wanted a four-man crew in a tank that weighed 50 tons. It took them a long time to realise that 50 ton is feasible only with a 3 man crew and adding an extra person increases the weight by 10 tons.


So here we have people who have not seen a tank by a mile, telling IA AND DRDO what they can do or what they can not do.
:rotfl:

Why did Dr Saraswat agree that they are working on a 50 ton tank hain jee? They did not get the memo it seems. Or can Dr Saraswats word be used only when twisted in a malicious manner?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby rohitvats » 12 Apr 2013 14:05

Misraji wrote:Interesting snippet with respect to Spike ATGM deal
The force is keen to begin inducting the new ATGMs soon to ensure each infantry battalion deployed in the plains has eight ATGM launchers (each with 12 missiles), and those in the mountains have at least two, by the end of the 12th Plan (2017). "Even mechanised infantry battalions will get them later," said the source.

How does this work? Every company will have two ATGM launchers?

--Ashish


The 8 x ATGM Launchers are held by an ATGM platoon under direct control of Battalion HQ. Deployed and allocated as per requirement.

So, we're talking about 8 x 12 = 96 missiles per infantry battalion. Assuming 60% of of 300 odd (this number would actually be higher) infantry battalion are in plains, we're talking about 17,280 missiles in front line service...reserve stocks would be separate as would be holdings by infantry battalions deployed with mountain divisions.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 12 Apr 2013 14:07

amit wrote:No more orders not coming (actually) means that they may come but not right now?

:P


Obviously, it depends on how fast Avadi makes both the current order of T 90s as well as Arjun Mk II.

If the above flops, I would rather that IA armed itself rather than wait for imaginary solution based on advice of people who dont know the front of the tank from its rear, and/or have a vested intrest in making sure that IA is weak (such as Shukla) so they can later do a
:(( :(( :(( "lets have CBM with Pakis because IA is not ready only"

You may have a problem with Russia helping IA get ready for war, but by god I do not have such problems. My moral compass points at the right place all the while.

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 » 12 Apr 2013 14:27

Sanku wrote:So Dr Sarawsat's point is valid in a limited sense for Mk I and in more general terms for Mk II and there is no discrepancy in that with other views.


OK so the great tank expert, Sanku Maharaj, who knows from which side the mizlie is fired, is qualifying Dr Saraswat's comments. The great tanku expert that you are, I'm sure you are qualified to do so. And I'm sure fellow posters here will agree.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Oh yes the rest of your post, as usual, is bladderdash.

Regarding responding or not to your post, you don't seem to understand the beauty of it. :lol:

You see, I have the option of deciding whether or not to respond to you. You on, the other hand, do not have any options. You HAVE to respond, even if I'm actually interacting with another poster.

Do you understand what a humourous situation that is? :)
Last edited by amit on 12 Apr 2013 14:32, edited 2 times 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 » 12 Apr 2013 14:30

Sanku wrote:My moral compass points at the right place all the while.


Aha! The famous "moral compass" makes a come back on BRF? :D

Man you must be desperate. You want to flash your moral compass as a cry for help to get your chestnuts out of the fire.

For the sake of old times, it will be interesting to see if your ploy works.

:lol:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 12 Apr 2013 14:51

rohitvats wrote:<snip>

Nelson – you need to first decide what is that you’re arguing about.

You have shifted the very premise on which the discussions have been built. Over last couple of pages, your arguments have taken different positions and each has different implications. Let me summarize your arguments (and my response) here for sake of clarity and reference:

(a) You have argued that one of the factors behind induction of T-90 tank (tank weighing less than 50T) was that the bulk of bridging equipment held by IA was MLC-50 rated. Induction of Arjun as MBT of IA, or even across other sectors apart from desert, would entail mass up-gradation and induction of MLC-60/70 class equipment. To that, I did back of the envelop calculation (using AM-50 and Sarvatra Bridge Layer System example) to show that the IA would be required to spend ~USD 200-300 million to upgrade the bridging equipment to MLC-70 standard of Sarvatra type.

(b) Next, you shifted the argument to the fact not only would AM-50 require up-gradation but also associated bridging equipment like MT-55, Kartik BLT, T-72 BLT and Kruppman floating assault bridge. On being pointed out (by me) that apart from AM-50 and MT-55, all other equipment are of MLC-60 standard, you brought in the argument that these MLC-60 standard equipment started becoming available only in mid-2000 and thereon.

There is no shifting of argument here. I just pointed out that what is in (a) above is part of the requirement and we must consider the necessity in total which you have indicated partly in (b) above.

Now, you do realize that by shifting the argument to point (b) above – which is the right positions as far as bridging equipment goes – you’re weakening the case for such mass scale induction of T-90?

No, i don't think so because induction of 1310 T-90s was decided based on weight factor of Arjun among other reasons in 2001, when contract for purchase of 310 tanks and whole manufacture of 1000 tanks under license was signed by then government. At that point of time, in 2001, weight of Arjun formed important part of the decision matrix. And it continues to do so, hence we hear Dr Saraswat's statements in press to that effect.
However, first things first – I actually support the induction of T-90 tanks in 2002 and to some extent can even work with induction of second tranche. I could even understand the requirement for 2,000 T-90 in IA inventory if IA had been honest about induction of Arjun tanks. But it is not.

And these arguments about bridging equipment and weight and canal bridges and 4-man crew are all cooked up in retrospect to somehow delay and kill the Arjun program. However, we digress.

That is the general assumption here. I would say nobody is trying to kill Arjun program, it will live on its own strengths.
Coming back to 50T tank and bridging equipment of IA – when IA decided to express induct first batch of T-90 in 2002, the existing inventory of bridging equipment would have been of MLC-50 standard. So, during this period, the bridging equipment argument holds.

Correct except that the year was 2001, and induction was on during Operation Parakram.
After Russians played hardball on ToT and no production could take place at Avadhi, IA inducted the second lot from Russia in 2006-2007 time frame. And post that, 300+ tanks have rolled out as of 2012
from HVF.

It is wrong to conclude that additional procurement of 347 T-90 in 2007, was due to delay in production of T-90 in Avadi .
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=22583
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=50638
http://pib.nic.in/release/rel_print_pag ... elid=50248

Now, you’ve yourself pointed out that Kartik BLT, T-72 BLT and other equipment (like Sarvatra) started becoming available in mid-2000. These MLC-70 standard equipment were not being inducted for Arjun tanks; these were being inducted because IA was in the process of replacing MLC-50 standard equipment (examples: MT-55 and AM-50) with new MLC-70 standard equipment. Existence of Arjun does not even feature in this decision on up-gradation of bridging equipment.

Kartik, based on Vijayanta chassis, was first demonstrated in 1989. I am not sure that much are in service today as Vijayanta was declared obsolescent in 1998.

To say that "existence of Arjun does not even feature in this decision on up-gradation of bridging equipment" is wrong. The decision to develop mobile bridges of MLC 70 was made in early 1990s because most of the PPS Arjun tanks weighed above 60 tonnes. The 15th PPS of Arjun weighed 59 tons. Sarvatra and BLT-72 were developed in the late nineties as MLC 70 bridges primarily keeping Arjun in mind. And based on the outcome of trials they are being inducted.

So, while 50T tank in 2002 and 2006 could be understood with respect to existing inventory of MLC-50 standard equipment, how does this bridging equipment argument hold up beyond 2008 when IA (Arjun tank or no Arjun tank) was as it is in the process of inducting new MLC-70 standard equipment across the board? Even a 50T T-90 tank will in future cross water obstacles and trenches on MLC-70 standard equipment.

Certainly, 50 Tonne tanks can pass over bridge of MLC 70, whereas 60 Tonne tanks can not pass over an MLC 50 bridge.

This IA wide transition of bridging equipment to MLC-70 standard punctures holes into two other arguments against Arjun:

(1) That induction of Arjun would require substantial investment in upgrading the bridging equipment – as pointed out earlier, IA is at is going to upgrade the bridging equipment to MLC-70 standard, Arjun or no Arjun. So to say that induction of Arjun would entail additional investment is bridging equipment is plain incorrect.

(2) Arjun cannot be deployed across all sectors because of commonality of bridging equipment – again, if IA is upgrading entire bridging equipment paraphernalia to MLC-70 standard, all the engineering formations across the IA can support the Arjun tank.

Of course, IA will replace its existing bridging resources of vintage that are due to be retired, based on what is the latest available. It is good that IA has chosen indigenous products for induction.

However, we will see when that happens. IA can not ride its armoured formations across obstacle using bridges that are in order with BEML or L&T or HVF. As of now these bridges are on RD parades and order books only. We will see when, as you rightly say, "all the engineering formations across the IA can support the Arjun tank".

Lastly, you spoke about numbers of these MLC-70 standard equipment in the IA and pace of induction. Let me ask you a counter-question – Does it appear that IA is losing sleep over this aspect? It does not to me. And that is because it knows it can manage for a while with earlier equipment which can support T-90 tanks.

Had IA been serious about induction of Arjun tank in large numbers, it would have been shouting from the rooftops about lack of bridging equipment holding up Arjun induction – and IA’s operational posture and readiness.

I am not amazed that IA is not shouting from rooftops:-
1. Govt on the recommendations of IA made a conscious decision in 2001 that T-90 will be MBT for two decades. Perspective planning, you see.
2. Arjun, after coming of age in 2006/07/08, is being inducted by IA in a particular sector based on a decision that was taken in 2001 and an order which was placed in 2001.
3. Arjun, Mk2 whenever it comes, will be inducted in large quantity, based on an agreement already in place in 2010. Yes, 124 is a large quantity. It is most likely, with 63 tonne weight of Arjun Mk2 AND considering Dr Saraswat's statement of its suitability in Rajasthan, that they will be inducted in a particular sector only.
So while meeting their primary aim of being operationally ready always, they are also supporting indigenous development of Arjun, by inducting in suitable areas.

Didn’t it use the T-80UD in PA service argument to push the T-90 deal? And subsequently to get second batch of 330 T-90 in 2006? I’m yet to see the same level of eagerness when it comes to Arjun. In fact, as per interview of DG of HCF Avadhi which was carried IIRC in FORCE Magazine, IA has told HVF that it will not be inducting Arjun BLT. Any guesses, why?

Do you believe that there was no gaping hole in IA's armour capability around the time of Op Vijay, due to delays in Arjun. As i said before, they have it covered now and for future.

If you get the gross weight of Arjun BLT, you can yourself speculate why Director CVRDE might have said so.

And BTW, Ajai Shukla, one of the fiercest critics of Arjun, too accepts that Mk1 was ready for large scale induction by 2006.

This bout of discussion on the topic started due to news reports carrying Dr Sarawat's statement to such effect that Arjun cannot be deployed in Punjab and they are deployed in Rajasthan, not COAS or DGMF but DRDO chief. He also said that any future tank developed will be 50 tonne max, because of such reasons. I don't know why he is spreading this canard.


On the Punjab thing, he is simply saying what DGMF and others in IA have been saying for a long time. As for 50T FMBT - FMBT is as good as dead. As per reports by AS, IA has come around its senses to not ask for unobtanium and feels that iterative development of Arjun will serve as FMBT.


As I said earlier, Col retd Shukla is in a profession to earn his bread, let him be. He can compare Sarvatra with PMP/PMS bridges and tout the former as replacement of later. He did so in a couple of articles.

However question remains why should Dr Saraswat toe the IA's line, as far as limitation of Arjun's weight is concerned? Is it because he is not getting an extension? We will see when we see Arjun Mk 3.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests