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.
rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1165
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby rkhanna » 19 Mar 2014 10:50

SIMs should NOT replace training with Live rounds..they should only supplement. No simulation can compensate for that experience.

If we are only firing ~ 10-20 rounds a year and relying on SIMs i dont know what to say....

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby vic » 19 Mar 2014 10:58

I think DRDO has to be mandated to develop two future variants or versions of Arjun. First a three man crewed, equivalent of say, le clerec which would weight 50-55 tons and another with unmanned turret which would weight around 45-50 tons. Or if army likes T-90 then simply reverse engineer and roll out a fully indigenous versions of T-72 or T-90 like Chinese are doing.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19839
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Karan M » 19 Mar 2014 12:05

Vic, aur kya, hovercraft version bhi? yahan par fauj wont even take mk2 in quantity

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby vic » 19 Mar 2014 15:02

I think we must accept that Army wants a lighter tank and apply course correction. The proposed solution of FMBT is too far in future. So we need a mid term solution. In my mind the best solution is complete indigenisatin of T-90 or let's say Indian version of T-90.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby srai » 19 Mar 2014 15:13

^^^

Russians won't allow it.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9859
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Yagnasri » 19 Mar 2014 16:44

What Vic sir is saying forget Arjun and go for some super duper Tin can clone made by OFB/Awadi.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby vic » 19 Mar 2014 17:40

I am saying that if Army wants a lighter tank then make a design which is more realistic rather than super duper pie in the sky FMBT.

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Hitesh » 19 Mar 2014 18:21

You know when they say, "Show me the money"....

Karan,

It was several years ago and I did bring it up before on BR but was quickly shouted down by others of the jingoistic type who did not understand what creating a MBT means. For example, take a look at S. Korean and Turkey's MBTs. Sure they have their homegrown MBTs which was a joint programme, but they made sure that their MBTs was compatible with either M-1 Abrams or the Leopard tank (they had some degree of significant commonality) so their built up of their supporting infrastructure was manageable and not over the top. Furthermore, they are not inducting their tanks in large numbers. Wiki says that S. Ko. only planned to induct 206 K2 Panther tanks. The K2 Panther is an advanced upgrade from K1 which was based on the M-1 Abrams tank. Turkey only had 4 tanks and they haven't made the decision to mass produce it. You see other western countries sharing one common tank such as Leopard or in the case of Egypt which had over 1000 tanks and Australia (56), Saudi Arabia (350+), Kuwait (218), and Iraq (140), they all used Abrams tank but in small numbers as not to break their budget trying to support their tanks. Egypt receives financial assistance which was being used to support M-1 Abrams tank. Look at Israeli IDF's Merkava tank series. The first Merkava tank was based on the British Centurion and they only produced 250 and they upgraded to the next level, Merkava II using the same chassis, drivetrain, and gun. Merkava III was a radical design but based on Leopard 2 gun and some technology from Abrams tank. There are 780 Merkava III tanks in the world. Merkava IV was an upgrade of Merkava III and there are about 360 built and 300 on order. It took IDF over 35 years to support and build up its own indigenous MBTs and they received massive military financial assistance from US to allow IDF to support its tanks which is only less than 1100 tanks(The Merkava I and II are being phased out) as of right now.

British only has 360 Challenger II tanks and French has 406 LeClerc tanks and they put way more money into their tank projects and supporting them than India ever did with its Arjun tanks. Only US has mass produced its tanks in thousands (nearly 8500) and US had to spent tens of billions of dollars to support its tank.

Building and supporting a world class MBT is not cheap. Other than US, other countries did not mass produce and buy their tanks more than 500 ~ 600 tanks. The only countries that did were Israel and Egypt and those countries received massive military financial assistance from US and Egypt just used American tanks.

Here, IA is being asked to transitioned from a T type supporting infrastructure capable of supporting thousands of T-72s + T-90s tanks which they have painstakingly built over the last couple decades and ironed out all the wrinkles especially the spare parts after the USSR break-up and now they are being asked to move to a new type of tank with no commonality at all and they would have to start the whole process of building up the supporting infrastructure but this time at a much higher price because nobody else support this type of tank since it was an indigenous design.

If the Arjun tank induction goes well, IA will have more 50+ ton class MBT than France, Britain, Turkey, S. Korea, Italy, Australia, Canada, and Saudi Arabia. Only Israel and Egypt has more and that is because of massive military financial assistance from US. China only has around 700+ 50+ ton class MBT and they are not planning to mass produce them in the thousands.

Think about the analogy of supporting MiG fighters and then changing to a complete different type of planes. Look at the growing pains that Poland and former Warsaw Pact countries who became recent NATO countries had to go through when they switched from Russian planes to western planes. They had to factor in the cost of building up the supporting infrastructure although it was eased by the fact that these western weapons are being supported by other countries and NATO and they received some military financial assistance to build up those infrastructure.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9859
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Yagnasri » 19 Mar 2014 18:57

I agree with you sir, but does these reasons require sabotaging tests? If IA has some issues with the Arjun it has to put those issues like what you have highlighted clearly so that everyone involved knows about these things and what is needed to done. We don't hear such talk at all from IA.

With regard to numbers- surely our security situation is much more bad that say France unless France is preparing for German invasion again. I am sure you agree we need large numbers.

Somehow I feel IA feels it has no obligation to create local capabilities so that dependency on imports do not weaken national security. Just take the new drama for import of guns.

How can a nation which on average fought a war once a decade can be secure by being the biggest importer of weapons and still employees almost 1m people in DPSUs?

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby chackojoseph » 19 Mar 2014 19:08

Hitesh,

Its not that people are oblivious on the infrastructure issue. The AUCRT is over. Government has never stopped funds for change of infrastructure, mostly imports get into issues. Solutions for mobility is there. Arjun is IA made tank and has been developed under watchful eyes of VCOAS. These debates are old.

Narayan Rao has summed up the challenges.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby NRao » 19 Mar 2014 19:42

I am little perplexed by the figures Hitesh has provided for the large scale induction of the Arjun. Never ever chased this angle, so I am totally in the dark. But, the numbers rival that of the Rafale!!!!! So, is a tank acquisition, in the Indian context, as much as that of a plane? Next, world wide? TIA.

There is another aspect to *all* such acquisitions. Political/strategic angle. The question I have is how far does India want to go in being politically independent - at times referred to as a "World power". Or for that matter any "power". The more the scale slides to the right (assuming the right represents more political independence and left more dependence), this "cost" we are talking about has to be borne. No two ways about that.

Next, I really do not like to compare Indian military situations to that of any other nation: they are not even close. What is common is the presence of cost/finance/politics/power-projection/MIC/etc, but the actual value, for each, for each nation, differs dramatically.

So, paying billions for the Rafale is OK, but to pay billions for the Arjun is not (yes, including the associated pain to move from a reliable support system of the T-series to .............. etc, etc, etc)? Are we saying that India can be politically and strategically reliant on another nation in an area where she has a very high chance of being self reliant? And, we have not even touched the area of the benefits from research, other economical benefits, etc.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby rohitvats » 19 Mar 2014 20:04

Hitesh wrote: <SNIP>Here, IA is being asked to transitioned from a T type supporting infrastructure capable of supporting thousands of T-72s + T-90s tanks which they have painstakingly built over the last couple decades and ironed out all the wrinkles especially the spare parts after the USSR break-up and now they are being asked to move to a new type of tank with no commonality at all and they would have to start the whole process of building up the supporting infrastructure but this time at a much higher price because nobody else support this type of tank since it was an indigenous design.


Hitesh - these arguments make sense if the Arjun tank was being developed in isolation of Indian Army.

Fact of the matter is that Arjun tank was conceived and looks+feels like a heavy MBT because that is what the army wanted. And not the martians...And further, it is not as if IA went for T-72 because of any great love or strategic vision but because it was literally shoved down their throat once the USSR started releasing advanced hardware to us in 80s. Along with BMP-1 and Mig-29.

IIRC, IA was actually eyeing the German Leopard and not the T-72...but then T-72 happened along with 'I'll make them an offer they can't refuse' kind of prices and rest is history. Had Leopard been imported, we'd not be having this decision.

Also, remember that by the time Arjun came online in 1998-99 period, a generation of tank men in IA had already been trained on T-72 and an institutional inertia and bias had already built against a 4-man tank in the IA. No less than former COAS SR Chowdhary has documented this in his biography. And mind you, IA 'acquired' the wisdom of this three-man argument only when T-72 entered IA service and not because of some deep through process.

Coming to the commonality part - everything in IA service is undergoing replacement or will undergo replacement. Take for example the planned FICV project; by your argument the best candidate is BMP-3 or if that is found unacceptable (and it was) to work with Russians on better version. But here the IA is willing to go for a clean break and induct what would be most probably a western inspired IFV.

Same goes for artillery, air defense and everything else.

If the Arjun tank induction goes well, IA will have more 50+ ton class MBT than France, Britain, Turkey, S. Korea, Italy, Australia, Canada, and Saudi Arabia. Only Israel and Egypt has more and that is because of massive military financial assistance from US. China only has around 700+ 50+ ton class MBT and they are not planning to mass produce them in the thousands.


Sorry to say this but this a flawed and bogus argument.

Each country maintained a force level as per its operational requirement. The argument of the purse string does not arise in this case. The fact that these some of these countries have lesser tanks does not mean they cannot afford more. We've a bigger standing army than even the Chinese. So, should we also downsize?

Think about the analogy of supporting MiG fighters and then changing to a complete different type of planes. Look at the growing pains that Poland and former Warsaw Pact countries who became recent NATO countries had to go through when they switched from Russian planes to western planes. They had to factor in the cost of building up the supporting infrastructure although it was eased by the fact that these western weapons are being supported by other countries and NATO and they received some military financial assistance to build up those infrastructure.


Well, rise and shine. IAF has actually done that over two-generations of transformation and the third one which will follow now.

We went from western aircraft dominated AF to Russian one and then again are going towards western + indigenous ones. Commonality is good to have but cannot always be the objective especially when there is generational transformation between old and new systems.

Commonality of T-90 with T-72 exists exactly because T-90 does not represent a generational transformation in technology from T-72. Yes, some sub-components do like FCS and TI and Active SP systems but overall, it is a chip of the old bloke.

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Hitesh » 19 Mar 2014 21:08

NRao,

I am aware of the threat profile but you also have to remember the financial constraints that India has to deal with. As PM Singh (I am no fan of him) says, "Cut your coat according to your cloth." For example, if we buy an expensive house outright but we don't have the necessary funds to maintain the house over 25 years, it doesn't make sense to buy that house if you cannot afford the ability to maintain it and utilize it.

If we want thousands of Arjuns, then give us the money necessary to support the thousands of Arjuns. Otherwise you are going to see a slow piecemeal induction of the Arjun tanks as the IA budget will allow.

I am not arguing in favor of T-72s over Arjun. I am just saying that we have to look at other factors including financial constraints. I brought up other countries' tanks and their numbers and issues to show that creating and maintaining a world class MBT is not cheap. That is why I said, "Show me the money" in the first place. If MoD and Finance Ministry is willing to show the money, I have no doubt that IA would go for the Arjun tank but otherwise, IA does not want to be caught dead with thousands of tanks it cannot afford to maintain so it has to go in a slow and steady way, not what DRDO wanted which was orders for 2000 Arjun tanks.

As for Rafale, I am not in favor of Rafale. I am opposed to it because we need to support Tejas and our AMCA program. If we are going to spend 20 billion dollars, I would rather support our indigenous program. For the T-90s, the IA only had to pay for the costs of the tanks, not the supporting infrastructure because it was already there. That was what was so attractive about the T-90 in the first place.

Rohit,

I agree that commonality should not the overriding consideration but when the MoD and Finance Ministry shove the financial constraints down your throat and give you a hard time on various systems that you want to get, what can you do but work with what you have? You can maintain a force level as per operational requirement but it requires realistic planning of financial outlay whether you like it or not. So yes the argument of the purse string is valid in this case and hence the proverb. "Show me the money"

As for having a bigger standing army than China, well there are some arguments why the need for a bigger standing army because it means less money for equipment upgrades and more personnel cost more money. If the Finance Ministry is not willing to give more money to the MoD and you want a bigger army and you want more modern equipment, well something has to give. That is the reality of budget constraints with defense spending.

As for replacement, it is very easy to replace something when you know that new product can be easily supported by your current existing support infrastructure. But when you are replacing something with a new product that your current supporting infrastructure cannot support and you must revamp that infrastructure, then it takes a whole different meaning. It is like upgrading thousands of computers with new iterations of Microsoft OS that works on Microsoft exchange servers. But when you replace Microsoft computers with Apple OS based computers that may not work well with Microsoft exchange servers and requires replacement of the exchange servers and upgrade of other software necessary to make the whole thing work, it suddenly takes on a whole different meaning.

it is not as if IA went for T-72 because of any great love or strategic vision but because it was literally shoved down their throat once the USSR started releasing advanced hardware to us in 80s. Along with BMP-1 and Mig-29

That should tell you why T-72 was attractive in the first place to MoD and Finance Ministry because it was cheaper than the Leopard 1 and could be imported in thousands whereas Leopard 1 would too cost prohibitive to import in the thousands.

The IA wanted a heavier tank but once they realized that they need the supporting infrastructure and the MoD and Finance Ministry wasn't willing to give the necessary money and USSR was willing to help out with the cost of supporting the T-72 tanks, the rest is history.

Also, remember that by the time Arjun came online in 1998-99 period, a generation of tank men in IA had already been trained on T-72 and an institutional inertia and bias had already built against a 4-man tank in the IA. No less than former COAS SR Chowdhary has documented this in his biography. And mind you, IA 'acquired' the wisdom of this three-man argument only when T-72 entered IA service and not because of some deep through process.


Of course there is institutional inertia and bias around because for a generation, the IA has developed battle tactics and doctrines around the T-72s and to suddenly change over to Arjun would require a radical rethinking of battle tactics and doctrine. Normally that would not be a problem but when the MoD and Finance ministry is not willing to support the cost and subsidize the radical re-thinking of the armor tactics and doctrines, it is not surprising that IA got cold feet when they were asked to buy the Arjun tanks by DRDO.

Moreover, no tank is invincible. The Soviets got over the weaknesses of their tanks vis a vis western counterparts by including massive artillery barrages as part of their tactics and doctrines. Sure the T-72s and T-90s have weaknesses but the Soviets/Russians have shown how those weaknesses can be minimized. When IA saw that, I am sure some people faced with the reality of budget spending constraints decided to go for the next best thing, upgrade to T-90s and buy more artillery to minimize the weaknesses and make do with it.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby NRao » 19 Mar 2014 21:21

Commonality of T-90 with T-72 exists exactly because T-90 does not represent a generational transformation in technology from T-72


Would the Arjun be considered a "generational transformation"?

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Hitesh » 19 Mar 2014 22:01

chackojoseph wrote:Hitesh,

Its not that people are oblivious on the infrastructure issue. The AUCRT is over. Government has never stopped funds for change of infrastructure, mostly imports get into issues. Solutions for mobility is there. Arjun is IA made tank and has been developed under watchful eyes of VCOAS. These debates are old.

Narayan Rao has summed up the challenges.


Budget debates are never old. I am sure that VCOAS watched over the development of the Arjun tank carefully because he has to and that is his job. But tell me why, despite IA armor branch clamoring for the Arjun tanks (I take the reports of sabotage with a grain of salt) and strong support for the Arjun, the IA brass has been reluctant to import Arjuns in large number but only in small numbers such as hundreds? If the IA brass wanted to kill Arjun tanks, they would have done it long ago. But they want the Arjun tanks and are trying to keep it alive and going but cannot induct in large numbers. What does that tell you? They cannot afford to induct the Arjun tanks in large numbers without a bigger increase in the budget.

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2033
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby srin » 19 Mar 2014 22:10

I just discovered that the T-90 (derived from T-72) and T-84 (from T-64) have different lineages. And given that our T-90s have to probably counter the T-84s of TSP, are they both broken wrt air conditioning, thermal imagery, FCS etc ?

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9859
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Yagnasri » 19 Mar 2014 22:22

Harish sir, the why army issued its requirement document asking for sun, moon and what not? Mine plow??? How many tanks in the world has it as requirement? IA wants Arjun to fly but will order only a couple of dozen. IA fixed the requirements without thinking on the tactics and logistical issues???

My issue with IA is that it never came out in support of Arjun in public. I at least never read any such statements from IA. It went on to order huge number of T90s even when there were serious issues with it. All the issues of tincans were glossed over and Arjun was continuously "tested" and iA even tired to misrepresent the results. Serious negative stories were planted in the media on Arjun and IA leadership never supported Arjun even after it proved much better than T90.

I also have serious issue about this talk of tactics etc. Is IA want only the night blind T72s and T90 both of which fry their crew in summer. Does the tactics provide that IA will fight only in winter and during office hours at day time? Has Army not seen how T72s fared against Uncle in Iraq wherein they were proved as tincans. May be our T72s/T90s are better. I do not know. But surely the performance in Iraq is a serious concern? How IA continued to import same kinds of systems in hundreds even after that. Has IA does any serious examination on this?

IA has serious problem of not supporting indigenous systems and Arjun is one of such cases.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby NRao » 19 Mar 2014 22:42

They cannot afford to induct the Arjun tanks in large numbers without a bigger increase in the budget


Chicken and egg case?

I am sure there are aspects of it that are issues, but none that are insurmountable.

The day is not too far when technically it will all tilt towards Indian "stuff". So, they better get their act together. This excuse cannot ride for too much longer.



BTW, on bridges, made some inquiries and found:
* Bridges should fall under Central/State/Local jurisdictions. Defense has nothing to do with them. Exceptions could be bridges close to the border could get some Def funds. ??????
* Unrelated, but NH bridges can take weight of Arjun. Of course, no NH near border. But, just a data point.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby chackojoseph » 20 Mar 2014 05:50

Hitesh wrote:Budget debates are never old. I am sure that VCOAS watched over the development of the Arjun tank carefully because he has to and that is his job. But tell me why, despite IA armor branch clamoring for the Arjun tanks (I take the reports of sabotage with a grain of salt) and strong support for the Arjun, the IA brass has been reluctant to import Arjuns in large number but only in small numbers such as hundreds? If the IA brass wanted to kill Arjun tanks, they would have done it long ago. But they want the Arjun tanks and are trying to keep it alive and going but cannot induct in large numbers. What does that tell you? They cannot afford to induct the Arjun tanks in large numbers without a bigger increase in the budget.


Hitesh, I will tell you what I have known since past decade and I have interacted right from the top.

There is a re-equipment plan which IA is working on. There is no dearth of money for modernisation as this equipment comes within India (Arjun BLT, BAFTA etc). The re-equipment plans had been solely drawn on T-90's, Even former Army Chief JJ Singh said that Army has to see how to fit the tanks in its plans. I was the first one to openly name the DGMO responsible for trying to kill this project and the makers asked me to pull down the name. Subsequently someone else named him. The re-equipment plan does not require an immediate investment in billions , as you mention.

Arjun Tanks, in same given numbers, will fall cheaper than T-90 and in fact, its cheaper than T-90 now. Put all the equipment on T-90 which is on par with Arjun and you will see the cost.

There is a sabotage angle and the fitment of the blackbox and later error free performance of the tank is real. There was an attempt to delay the tank for "demonstration" of fording, which was averted.

Army is on a go slow method instead of abrupt sabotage.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 20 Mar 2014 12:04

chackojoseph wrote: There is no dearth of money for modernisation as this equipment comes within India.


1) There is no evidence of the above assertion
2) Arjun continues to have a significant imported content -- and no the economics is not the driving issue -- the lack of technology is.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby chackojoseph » 20 Mar 2014 12:25

Selective quote?

"There is no dearth of money for modernisation as this equipment comes within India (Arjun BLT, BAFTA etc)"

And no, if Arjun gets bigger orders, the imports will fall, says the maker.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 20 Mar 2014 13:35

chackojoseph wrote:Selective quote?

"There is no dearth of money for modernisation as this equipment comes within India (Arjun BLT, BAFTA etc)"

And no, if Arjun gets bigger orders, the imports will fall, says the maker.


No proofs available for assertions. In fact contra proof exists.

As long as they import the components and cant make it inhouse, prices wont fall based on 100 orders or 400 orders by large volume.

Some small price differential may exist, but in context of price of a tank even, let alone the over all costing as explained by Hitesh, no change is expected.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby vina » 20 Mar 2014 14:19

2) Arjun continues to have a significant imported content -- and no the economics is not the driving issue -- the lack of technology is.


Ah. deleted by moderator Arjun has significant import content, while the T-90 has none! Howzzat?deleted by moderatorfor Tincan components? Order in numbers and you can do screwdriver giri for imported Arjun components as well, including the main one, the engine and transmission !
Last edited by Gerard on 20 Mar 2014 16:39, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Please avoid personal attacks and keep the conversation civil

member_23891
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 27
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby member_23891 » 20 Mar 2014 14:56

Enough is enough! IA should now stop fighting against Arjun instead it should fight with Arjun MBT. IA is cornered now without any logical excuse on Arjun.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Manish_Sharma » 20 Mar 2014 18:03

Sanku wrote:
chackojoseph wrote: There is no dearth of money for modernisation as this equipment comes within India.


1) There is no evidence of the above assertion
2) Arjun continues to have a significant imported content -- and no the economics is not the driving issue -- the lack of technology is.


Are you convinced that even if an order for 2000 Arjuns is placed then this significant imported content won't be produced here?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby NRao » 20 Mar 2014 18:23

Sanku wrote:
chackojoseph wrote: There is no dearth of money for modernisation as this equipment comes within India.


1) There is no evidence of the above assertion
2) Arjun continues to have a significant imported content -- and no the economics is not the driving issue -- the lack of technology is.



The fact that the IA has asked the Indian Labs to upgrade the T-90 (that too, it is a complete rebuild) shows that there are adequate funds AND that there is enough techs in-house.

The only two point I am willing to concede to the T-90 - IF at all - is the weight of the Arjun and that the Y-90 could have a better support - *at the moment*.

And, both these points can be overcome.
Last edited by NRao on 20 Mar 2014 18:43, edited 1 time in total.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby chackojoseph » 20 Mar 2014 18:37

Dhananjay wrote:Are you convinced that even if an order for 2000 Arjuns is placed then this significant imported content won't be produced here?


After production, they will do what? Or you stating that they will R&D and create it?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 20 Mar 2014 20:32

Dhananjay wrote:Are you convinced that even if an order for 2000 Arjuns is placed then this significant imported content won't be produced here?


Dhananjay, I am NOT saying that if 2000 Arjun's are ordered the significant imported components WONT be produced here. What I am saying is
1) The issue of localization is not merely numbers.

The issue is also technology -- the chief imported components, will we have ToT or be able to develop he imported components ? There are no clear answers.

2) Will localization happen in a time frame in a manner to massively reduce cost of the tank ?

Difficult to say -- a heavier vehicle prima facie will cost more anyway (all things being equal)

3) Does the reduction of the tank cost per piece, obviate the expenses on entire eco-system that Hitesh was talking of ? Certainly not. So per piece tank cost is only one piece of puzzle.

So basically which ever way you look at it -- large outlay is required for Arjun. Now I am of the view that, the money SHOULD BE spent. But then this is not a IA or Arjun issue, it is a GoI issue.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 20 Mar 2014 20:35

NRao wrote:The fact that the IA has asked the Indian Labs to upgrade the T-90 (that too, it is a complete rebuild) shows that there are adequate funds AND that there is enough techs in-house.
.


1) **Complete rebuild** is your opinion and not a fact.

2) Let us first see the labs upgrade T-90, and the whole thing move beyond a plan on paper. Since I am reading the 62 report, the difference between paper plans and actual support for ground actions by GoI (money and permission for the actual steps) -- is zameen-asamaan

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Manish_Sharma » 20 Mar 2014 21:04

chackojoseph wrote:
Dhananjay wrote:Are you convinced that even if an order for 2000 Arjuns is placed then this significant imported content won't be produced here?


After production, they will do what? Or you stating that they will R&D and create it?


a.) Yes for a bigger production number, R&D can done in case the numbers are done. Each platform will used these 'items' multiple times due to wear and tear. So yes would make sense to do R&D possible. Even after the production bulk of those can continued to be produced for maintenance reasons.

b.) Like Hitesh said T-90 was based on T-72 so the infra for 72 could be used for 90 too. The same way future tank 'Tank x' hopefully called 'Dhananjay Tank' 8) will also be based on Arjun and continue to use most of these 'contents' are 'improvements of these contents. As an aside it'll build up our inhouse capabilities too.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby NRao » 20 Mar 2014 21:18

zameen-asamaan


I completely agree with you. However, over time there has been a very, very slow creep. From T-90 >>>>> than-anything-you-can-give-us, now to, at least on paper, upgrade the T-90 for us. Extrapolation, understand it is still zameen-asamaan, it is not too hard to figure out where they will go with this.

All that I can find common with old arguments and these newer ones is "zameen-asamaan", "it is only on paper". Fact remains that the Russian supplied machines are inadequate. The latest request speaks for itself - even if only "on paper". Now that "paper" will be soon worth millions.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby uddu » 20 Mar 2014 21:26

The syrian war has many videos of armoured warfare in Urban areas. May be there can be a seperate thread to discuss all that. Some interesting videos found in youtube is posted here.




Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Manish_Sharma » 20 Mar 2014 21:31

Sanku wrote:Dhananjay, I am NOT saying that if 2000 Arjun's are ordered the significant imported components WONT be produced here. What I am saying is
1) The issue of localization is not merely numbers.

The issue is also technology -- the chief imported components, will we have ToT or be able to develop he imported components ? There are no clear answers.

2) Will localization happen in a time frame in a manner to massively reduce cost of the tank ?

Difficult to say -- a heavier vehicle prima facie will cost more anyway (all things being equal)

3) Does the reduction of the tank cost per piece, obviate the expenses on entire eco-system that Hitesh was talking of ? Certainly not. So per piece tank cost is only one piece of puzzle.

So basically which ever way you look at it -- large outlay is required for Arjun. Now I am of the view that, the money SHOULD BE spent. But then this is not a IA or Arjun issue, it is a GoI issue.


Yes Sanku ji, this draws quite a clear picture.

As Hitesh says T-90 is based on T-72, same way whatever extra kharcha-paani we do for Arjun indigenisation can be used for next get tank. We'll have the eco system ready for that.

Love the red part in your post. :)

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 20 Mar 2014 22:00

NRao wrote:
zameen-asamaan


Fact remains that the Russian supplied machines are inadequate. .


Not at all. They are in fact more than adequate for the tank threat we face. Arjun's may be better in various respects being a heavier tank, but T 90s are certainly more than adequate.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1289
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby RKumar » 20 Mar 2014 22:36

But I thought we wanted to give our army best equipment at whatever cost to win the war. But this logic will not work when equipment is local developed.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby NRao » 20 Mar 2014 22:46

adequate


"that is your opinion". IA, with their current "paper" request does not *think* so.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby NRao » 20 Mar 2014 22:53

Eco systems are created. They can be undone. And they can be replaced too. What is the big deal?

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Hitesh » 21 Mar 2014 03:54

NRao wrote:Eco systems are created. They can be undone. And they can be replaced too. What is the big deal?


The big deal is the COST! Money does not grow on trees.

Furthermore,
If one branch, infantry of the Army sees another branch, i.e., the armor, getting a lot of money to support the tanks and doesn't see its own budget increase, there would be a ruckus, and hence turf wars.

= "ChackoJoseph"There is a re-equipment plan which IA is working on. There is no dearth of money for modernisation as this equipment comes within India (Arjun BLT, BAFTA etc). The re-equipment plans had been solely drawn on T-90's, Even former Army Chief JJ Singh said that Army has to see how to fit the tanks in its plans.


Of course the Army has to see how to fit the tanks in its plans especially when it is not made as the main MBT to the increased cost of incorporating the new tank and redoing the eco-system of supporting the Arjun tank and the T-90/T-72s will be the primary MBT. Of course he will say that.

What I am trying to say is that MoD/GoI need to increase the budget of the IA if you want to see Arjuns as the main MBT in large numbers so the IA can create and maintain the necessary eco-system to support the Arjun tanks because if they don't, Arjuns become static pillboxes in very short order.

When I spoke to the tanker, he was telling me how maintenance intensive the tanks are and that without a good supporting infrastructure, the tank will quickly become useless. He said that we have no idea how parts hungry tanks can be. Maintenance is a vital, necessary, and crucial component of keeping a credible tank force.

So just coming up with the budget/money to buy the Arjun tanks and expect those tanks to work in the current eco-system is dreaming in la la land. You gotta create the eco-system and the IA leadership is not hearing the right words from GoI/MoD on creating that necessary eco-system so of course they got cold feet and surely, they didn't come out with support of the Arjun tanks because they are afraid that if they come out in support of the Arjun tanks without the required amount of money to maintain the tanks, the tanks become useless and the IA just wasted a lot of money and the infantry branch is now mightily pissed off because the money that they could have gotten is now gone and they cannot get their own weapon programmes which is equally important in their eyes as to the Arjun tanks such as helicopters, artillery, network technology, reconnaissance & communication systems, living quarters, training, etc.

So if you can get MoD/GoI to agree to an increase of the budget, I am very positive that you will see a change of attitude among the IA leadership overnight because it means that the IA can create the necessary eco-system to support the Arjun tanks and the tanks won't become useless in short order and be of strong utility. With the way the budget is, I am not surprised if the IA cannot support any more than 500 Arjun tanks because it means they only have to modify one depot and keep those Arjun tanks in two or three regiments that can be localized in one area. But it is another thing if you want the Arjun tanks to be supported all over the country which means overhauling/construction of depots & motor pools that can support Arjun all over the country and suddenly you are not just talking about one facility, but tens of facilities and a logistic system with its own warehouses and stores that can support Arjuns in all theaters.

That is what former COAS Gen. J.J. Singh meant when he said that the IA had to figure out to incorporate the tank in its forces. The IA has to figure out where the Arjuns can be stationed so that it can be supported and maintained in good facilities and be of good utility/use to the IA. As the saying goes, "Amateurs think tactics and equipment. Professionals think of logistics." In this case, most people on BR are not aware of the logistical issues that come with incorporating Arjuns.

I am not saying that IA has a good reason not to incorporate Arjuns. I am just explaining the point of view behind IA's thinking & attitude towards the Arjun tank and their reluctance to incorporate in large numbers. It would take a visionary and a man of great confidence and strength to force IA to embrace the Arjun because he has to persuade other branches of the IA to bite their tongues and accept that the armor branch would be getting a lot more money than other branches and persuade the MoD/GoI to loosen up its purse strings necessary to make this Arjun induction happen.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Misraji » 21 Mar 2014 04:09

Hitesh wrote:...

Hitesh,

Thanks for the info.

One reason why the word of Army is suspect (and I suspect them as well) is various reports over the years
about the go-slow-on-induction,renk-incident, fording-trials, missile-trials issues over the years.

Did the serviceman speak anything about the various tests and the conspiracy angle?

--Ashish.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby srai » 21 Mar 2014 04:59

NRao wrote:This Discovery Channel vid was posted earlier, but removed from youtube:



As part of a PR campaign, MoD/DRDO should distribute this type of videos to every armored corps officer so that they all have a copy of it sitting at home, and they and their kids can watch at their leisure. It's a long term campaign to change the hearts and mind on indigenous tanks ;)


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests