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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby rohitvats » 11 Aug 2012 22:11

nelson wrote:It is quite easy to dismiss the need for adequate bridging capabilities as 'tail wagging the dog'. However the need has been acknowledged and is being worked upon. To this date the success achieved has been few and far in between. Here is a list of equipment being developed towards fulfilling the need.

http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/labs/RDE%28E%29 ... chieve.jsp


It quite funny that you should talk about 10M bridge being the clincher for armored warfare and yet, on the DRDO's website, there is no single 10M MLC-XX system. The one there is more of a gap-filler for larger system. Strange that what is the most critical aspect as per you, is missing from the portfolio.

I asked this of you earlier - what is the holding pattern of such 10M bridges with Indian engineers in IA? Also, what is this 10M width requirement based on? Is the DCB on Pakistan side, or the major canals/their tributaries, running in north-south direction are of 10M? Can you please point to one place on Google Eart/Wikimapia such a location? After you, you claimed that even desert is not 'desert'.

I really hope you reply to the above.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby SaiK » 11 Aug 2012 22:17

I still would say, DRDO come up with a reduced weight 50tonner with similar Mk-2 spec like the tank-ex slam dunk project.. just working quickly agile enough to get that rolled out .. and eat those tin can orders - it is not necessary for t90s to have 1800 odd tanks, while DRDO can deliver the same specs within country in couple of years time..

why is that there is no request like this is happening? or DRDO not thinking in these terms? have the tin-can clout gotten hold of the thinkers and subdued them by any means [ :evil: ]?

--
It would not be surprising if DRDO comes up with kevlar tanks, with ballistic nylon fillers... and it be rubbished by tin can clout.

nakul
BRFite
Posts: 1251
Joined: 31 Aug 2011 10:39

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nakul » 11 Aug 2012 22:25

The IA is too smart by half. They order a tank weighing 67 tons (Arjun) but do not induct it because the weight exceeds 50 tons. Then they induct a tank (T 90) that does not meet their requirements. Talk about mixing up needs with dreams.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby SaiK » 11 Aug 2012 22:52

^when all these points to what? /fishbone anlaysis? don't ask don't tell eh!.

Gurneesh
BRFite
Posts: 465
Joined: 14 Feb 2010 21:21
Location: Troposphere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Gurneesh » 11 Aug 2012 23:13

I need help in finding any 10m MLC 50 class bridges that IA uses (i.e. which can transport t70/90). Googling did not show anything :(

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 11 Aug 2012 23:52

If people had hopes of larger order for Mk II they were mistaken. Yes truth is bitter, but it does not stop from being truth. The same has been brought out by the article which started this round of discussion.

I have maintained through this discussion that a number of factors would have gone behind the reasoning in 2007 to restrict Arjun to a particular theater of operations; one of them was the weight. I also told that 50T gross weight is sacrosanct, or nearly. As of now it remains so. As an example I told that there is no bridging system in Indian Army inventory which can take Arjun over a 10m gap.

R&DE has been developing bridging systems as in the link provided. If one reads through carefully and correlates with other sources, it can be found that only one relevant system of MLC-70 has been inducted, that is Sarvatra and that too in limited number of units. Other systems are still under development or awaiting induction.

An armoured formation operating in almost any place across IB from Chhamb to Fort Abbas will face a number of natural and artificial obstacles. The assault bridging resources was not there for operating Arjun of 58.5 tons in such terrain. This has certainly contributed to the decision made in 2007. Even today the bridging capabilities does not exist.

Widening of track width of Arjun Mk II and associated drawbacks of slipping chains from bogey wheels and stopping power minefield was an offshoot of the main discussion.

It has become the practice here to pillory the poster who does not conform to popular perception. The BRF of 10 years back was not like this. I make my decision to believe something based on my inputs and assimilation capability. I choose to place that in front of the forum. It is for others to accept it or ignore it. There is absolutely no need to make personal remarks and brand others in condescending tone and language. And Admins are party to that and justify their action too!
Last edited by nelson on 11 Aug 2012 23:59, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 11 Aug 2012 23:54

Gurneesh wrote:I need help in finding any 10m MLC 50 class bridges that IA uses (i.e. which can transport t70/90). Googling did not show anything :(


All bridges are not automatically laid. Krupmann and MGB equipment are used to bridge gaps upto 9.8m by a method known as rush crossing.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 12 Aug 2012 00:07

rohitvats wrote:
nelson wrote:It is quite easy to dismiss the need for adequate bridging capabilities as 'tail wagging the dog'. However the need has been acknowledged and is being worked upon. To this date the success achieved has been few and far in between. Here is a list of equipment being developed towards fulfilling the need.

http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/labs/RDE%28E%29 ... chieve.jsp


It quite funny that you should talk about 10M bridge being the clincher for armored warfare and yet, on the DRDO's website, there is no single 10M MLC-XX system. The one there is more of a gap-filler for larger system. Strange that what is the most critical aspect as per you, is missing from the portfolio.

I asked this of you earlier - what is the holding pattern of such 10M bridges with Indian engineers in IA? Also, what is this 10M width requirement based on? Is the DCB on Pakistan side, or the major canals/their tributaries, running in north-south direction are of 10M? Can you please point to one place on Google Eart/Wikimapia such a location? After you, you claimed that even desert is not 'desert'.

I really hope you reply to the above.


It is under the label Short Span Bridging Systems. Also, recently R&DE unveiled a 5m composite bridge of requisite MLC. A 10m version of same is also under development.

I have always said here that a 10m is only one instance of the gaps in preparation, that prevents acceptance of western philosophy of tank construction and operation.

I have my limitations. Sorry.
Last edited by nelson on 12 Aug 2012 00:26, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Surya » 12 Aug 2012 00:13

on the burkha forum or maybe hot air forum someone had posted a link on the modus operandi of how to turn a discussion into nonsense and divert attention

this seems to be a text book operation from that link

very interesting
Last edited by Surya on 12 Aug 2012 00:25, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 12 Aug 2012 00:17

Rahul M wrote:nrao sahab, the rajasthan front does not feature bridges, only the punjab one does. max weight has no relevance there since the army already operates the relevant bridging equipment for whatever canals the pakis might have dug on the other side of the borer.

even in punjab, whether the bridges over the canals are rated for that weight class is unknown to most of us. we are told by some that they are not. whether that is true is anybody's guess. after all, even the flimsiest and most dangerous bridges around the country routinely carry heavy duty trucks which easily weigh in that ballpark.
_______________
about serious discussion, it's hard to keep a straight face and avoid emoticons when confronted by farcial reasonings.


You have not been to north Rajasthan, district of Sriganganagar and some part of Bikaner. At least see it on Google Earth and don't miss the other side of IB. And J&K too.

When launching an operation of a required magnitude, at least the plans have to be fool proof. It can not depend on anybody's guess.

And there is something that Admins advise others, you can put me on ignore list.

max weight has no relevance there since the army already operates the relevant bridging equipment for whatever canals the pakis might have dug on the other side of the borer.


Incorrect.
Last edited by nelson on 12 Aug 2012 00:50, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Surya » 12 Aug 2012 00:45

One can guess who the DM was referring was to when talking of wasteful expenditure.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=19559

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Misraji » 12 Aug 2012 00:51

Surya wrote:One can guess who the DM was referring was to when talking of wasteful expenditure.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=19559


Damn, right. As a nation, we have to draw a line between legitimate needs and defense

An indigenous MBT is ready. Army has to use it.
Else they can go to war without an MBT!!!!

--Ashish.

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 Aug 2012 01:08

nelson wrote:If people had hopes of larger order for Mk II they were mistaken. Yes truth is bitter, but it does not stop from being truth. The same has been brought out by the article which started this round of discussion.


Informed people on this forum have long speculated that Indian Army will find ways and means to KILL the Arjun program. And this problem dates from late 90s to early 2000s when IA already had substantial T-72 in service. No other authority than General SR Chowdhury has commented on the same in his autobiography. Every thing else flows from this mindset - if the IA did not want the Arjun tank, it could have said so in 90s. I'm yet to see a single officer or a statement from an officer stating so in plain words - what these worthy gentlemen have been doing is to discredit the Arjun program on one point or other. The weight issue is the final argument when everything else has failed.

You referred to T-90 being purchased as a counter to purchase of T-80UD by PA - well, how many T-80UD did it buy? And was there any follow on order after the first purchase? You see, unlike the IA, PA long realized that it cannot rely only on imports and that too, for such a critical system as an MBT. So, when the AL-Khalid program wasn't doing too well, they got T-80UD as an 'INTERIM' measure. And then stuck to Al-Khalid - and today, they have the second version of it. That is called iterative development.

I have maintained through this discussion that a number of factors would have gone behind the reasoning in 2007 to restrict Arjun to a particular theater of operations; one of them was the weight. I also told that 50T gross weight is sacrosanct, or nearly. As of now it remains so. As an example I told that there is no bridging system in Indian Army inventory which can take Arjun over a 10m gap.


Where was this 50T sacrosanct parameter when army asked for a 4-man tank? Or when Arjun rolled out of the CVRDE factory? Why bring up the weight factor now? All this while, IA never said anything about the weight and now suddenly, it has become the Sine qua non? Why the duplicity? the weight of the tank should have been the issue the very day is came out - why did the army not say so then and remain mum?

Why was the nation led on a wild-goose chase of wasted resources and time? Why was the nation made to bear of ignominy of its domestic tank program being subjected to external review because India Army said that the tank was not good enough?

Under normal circumstances, heads need to roll in the IA for wasting the tax-payer's money. And no, just because they wear OG does not make them beyond scrutiny. This is not someone's person fiefdom to order things around.

R&DE has been developing bridging systems as in the link provided. If one reads through carefully and correlates with other sources, it can be found that only one relevant system of MLC-70 has been inducted, that is Sarvatra and that too in limited number of units. Other systems are still under development or awaiting induction.


Oh! how quaint... this argument is beyond ridiculous actually.

So, let me get this straight - IA would have inducted the Arjun if it had substantial BLTs of MLC-70 class in 10M category.Right?

So, here is a requirement for 1,000+ modern MBTs and we've a domestic solution in the form of Arjun and yet, we don't see any enthusiasm from the IA to place orders for such bridging equipment. Why so? Was an RFP issued at any point in time for 10M MLC-70 class BLT or associated equipment? When we can import an ARV from Poland, what stops Army from importing such equipment from abroad?

I asked you this question earlier and I'm asking this of you again - what is the holding pattern of such equipment in IA? You have been quick to pontificate about lack of such equipment but have not commented on who is responsible for this lack?

Let me try some back of the envelope type of calculation here - we have 3 x armored divisions, 7 x armored brigades plus 6 x RAPID.

Now, assuming the Engineer Regiment (or Field Companies of brigades) of all these formations have 5 x BLT per Field Company (FC). And IIRC, an Engineer Regiment has 3 x FC. So, how many such systems do we need? - Armored Divisions (45)+RAPID (90)+Armored Bde (45). That makes it 180; let us add another 20% by way of contingency plus training. That makes it 216. Let us round this off to 300 - a very generous number.

NOTE: I've already over-compensated for RAPID even though they hold 1/3 the armor of AD.

Now, further suppose that IA decides to make only Southern Command as Arjun dominated formation. So, we have the 12 RAPID, 36 RAPID and 31 Armored Division plus an (I) armored brigade. So, even if I divide the number of BLTs required on prorate basis, what is the number required for 10M MLC-70 class equipment? So, IA did not induct Arjun in numbers because it could not order 50-60 10M MLC-70 bridging equipment?

Do you even realize how stupid this argument makes the decision makers within the IA look?

It is like saying the war was lost for want of a nail.

An armoured formation operating in almost any place across IB from Chhamb to Fort Abbas will face a number of natural and artificial obstacles. The assault bridging resources was not there for operating Arjun of 58.5 tons in such terrain. This has certainly contributed to the decision made in 2007. Even today the bridging capabilities does not exist.


Yes, the mythical bridging equipment argument again. I've asked this of you earlier - why don't you visit the Google Earth and Wikimapia and show me these 10M obstacles? You see, these have to pretty numerous and spread across the entire length (or, at least a major portion) to constitute such a challenge as to force IA to decide against inducting Arjun.

for starters, this map linked below is centered on the Hakra Canal Barrage from where it bifurcates and even feeds the DCB along the border. It runs till Fort Abbas and then some more. Why don't you spend some time on the map, use the distance measure tool on Wikimapia and let us know the 10M wide gaps which IA will for sure need to negotiate to reach its objectives.

http://wikimapia.org/#lat=29.9334131&lon=73.374855&z=12&l=0&m=h

And mind you, exact 10M because that seems to be crux of the problem.

Widening of track width of Arjun Mk II and associated drawbacks of slipping chains from bogey wheels and stopping power minefield was an offshoot of the main discussion.


Is it? how many there are no such off-shoots about T-90 imaging system failure, IA running around to get a domestic fix once the Russian one failed, the use APU tech from Arjun on the vaunted T-90 and so on and so forth? Those somehow never made IA from not making further orders for T-90.

It has become the practice here to pillory the poster who does not conform to popular perception. The BRF of 10 years back was not like this. I make my decision to believe something based on my inputs and assimilation capability. I choose to place that in front of the forum. It is for others to accept it or ignore it. There is absolutely no need to make personal remarks and brand others in condescending tone and language. And Admins are party to that and justify their action too!


There are two things that you can do - (a) convey what you heard and be done with it (b) convey what you heard and defend the same because you believe in it.

You have chosen to take the second route so, rest assured, you'll be required to answer for your beliefs and provide back-up data. Something, you've not done. You're taken everything told to you at face value with-out questioning the logic and reason - good for you. But if you expect the same from people here, well, sorry mate, you just found out the hard way that it ain't gonna happen.

Given the ham-handed approach of the IA to Arjun program, it is difficult to accept whatever it says at face value.
Last edited by rohitvats on 12 Aug 2012 01:16, edited 1 time in total.

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 Aug 2012 01:11

nelson wrote: You have not been to north Rajasthan, district of Sriganganagar and some part of Bikaner. At least see it on Google Earth and don't miss the other side of IB. And J&K too. When launching an operation of a required magnitude, at least the plans have to be fool proof. It can not depend on anybody's guess.<SNIP>


Why don't you walk the talk. While you're quick to point to north-south canal based defenses, why don't you take the pain of visiting the map of these areas and figuring out the width of these water obstacles?

Let me see you come back with answer to the above.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 12 Aug 2012 01:18

That was pretty decent language and tone, thanks. If i can exercise the option (a) now, I am done with it.

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 Aug 2012 01:45

nelson wrote:That was pretty decent language and tone, thanks. If i can exercise the option (a) now, I am done with it.


A better approach would be to revisit your assumptions and information/reasoning and see how they stack up? Why don't you ask the very same question that I have asked of you - how many such BLTs would be required in the given class - to warrant induction of Arjun tank in large number? And why were these not ordered all this while? After all, IA had enough lead time on the subject.

Who is responsible for this aspect of fvck-up? It would be interesting to hear the argument(s).

Let me tell you the main reason that I've been able to deduce - the IA is wedded to the tank for multiple reasons.

- The threat of a heavy tank across the border to west had receded. In case the Abrams had made it to the PA inventory, rest assured, India would have been importing Leopards and not Tin-Cans.

- Purchase of T-80UD gave the army an opening - especially those who were wedded to the eastern way of tank design. This east versus west current in the army is mentioned as such by former COAS General SR Chowdhury in his autobiography. Senior officers were openly questioning the rationale for a 'Western' design tank. This actually goes to show the fickle minded approach to product and capability development - as if an MBT can be made overnight.

- Nothing is more indicative of Army's desire for T-90 induction as Indian Army giving A-OK to the tank by conducting trials in SIBERIA. It was the Price Negotiating Committee which asked IA to conduct trials in India - where T-90 actually had number of issues.

- By 2006 when Arjun truly came of age, IA had already got the T-90 into the system in substantial numbers. And then Russians through their shenanigans (of withholding the ToT for T-90) ensured that IA would place a follow-order for T-90 directly from Russian. This led to T-90 becoming more entrenched in the system.

- I will go out on a limb here and say that financial consideration (arm lobbies and agents and IA officers and babus/netas combine) ensured that more follow-on orders for T-90 are given by MOD.

But, am yet to hear a single, honest admission of screw-up by the army from anyone in the OG. It has always been something wrong with Arjun delaying the induction.

asprinzl
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 08 Sep 2004 05:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby asprinzl » 12 Aug 2012 02:04

I was an army man and this fate of the Arjun Mk2 is a little disconcerting. When it comes to terrains, every tank in the world will have some degrees of difficulties. No exceptions. If one had been to Israel, one would see the crazy terrains with which our boys train. The Sinai is not a cake walk either. Worst of all the hilly terrains that forms the frontiers of Syria/Israel. There is no cake walk. The Iraqi desert was no cake walk either. In the beginning when the M1 rolled over well paved roads it was alright but in a lot of skirmishes it was country terrain..mud, ditches, man made obstacles, dried river beds, creeks, rocky fields, rice fields, etc...it was not easy.

From my personal observation (Caucasus) the T series performed horribly in Chechnya. I am not talking about combat performance. I am talking about performance in patrols. Perhaps it is an insult to the word "horrible". It was that bad.

The death of the leading Arjun scientist is suspicious.....

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby SaiK » 12 Aug 2012 02:20

They should named it Karan rather then. Then he can side with bishma, on the evil side of things!. 8) .. who cares? as long as the order for it is at least 500.

They can can come up with Mk3 order for another 500. that way can see progress in a different name - karan! ko jai ho!

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby negi » 12 Aug 2012 03:43

This is such a lousy argument, I mean helloooo did Roosis get a sapna about nature of nalas and terrain in Rajasthan and NW Punjab ? And then they were considerate enough to design T-90 keeping those in mind. Then some brilliant soul brought up the point of T-90 having a lower silhouette and how it can hide behind the natural features , again what is the difference in height of the two tanks and are these natural obstacles miraculously of exact same height as that of T-90 ?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby SaiK » 12 Aug 2012 08:34

Actually, when army aviation corps is now engaged.. they need not depend on tanks on terrains that unsuitable to any type of tank. It is a good move to provide IA the controls to blast al khalids and T90++chippanda tanks from air. Instead buying 2000 T90s, they could buy 300-500 odd LCH.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Hobbes » 12 Aug 2012 09:43

nelson wrote:....
Arjun-1 is combat ready at 58.5 tons. Do we have assault bridges of MLC 60 with span less than 15m (yes 15 m) in inventory?


Interesting that nelson brought this up. A little googling brought up this article:
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/we-have-the-worlds-best-bridging-system-rnde/664222/

After successfully designing Sarvatra-the longest multi-span bridging system in the world, Research and Development Establishment, Engineers (RnDE, DRDO) has recently added two Short Span Bridging Systems (SSBS) to their Universal Bridging System (UBS), which they claim is the most advanced bridging system in the world. This has given a perfect completion to India’s mobile, military bridging requirements.

“We have just finished the designing aspects of SSBS 5 and 10 that provide bridging on 5 and 10 metre gaps encountered on the battlefield. Besides, these short bridges will assist Sarvatra which has a span of 75 metre in steps of 5 to 15- metre bridges,” said N B Vijauakumar, scientist and group director, Combat Engineering Group, RnDE.

Designed on the lines of Sarvatra, the SSBS will ensure sturdy and smooth operation of heaviest military traffic for negotiating wet and dry obstacles on the battlefield with the help of ‘double A shaped’ trestle operated with the use of advanced hydraulic mechanisms.

“As far as the technical specifications are concerned, the UBS in general has four metre width, between 2.5 to six metre depth and a load bearing capacity of MLC 70 which is approximately 70 tonne. “The heavy Indian tanks- MBT Arjun weighs 58.5 tonne, which means that these bridging systems are capable of bearing more weight than the heaviest Indian military vehicles,” said UR Gautam, scientist F and head, Integrated Management Systems Group, RnDE.

Designed over an extensive research of three years, the SSBS can be used as standalone bridges as well as in assistance to Sarvatra. Loaded on the conventional Tatra vehicle, these bridges aim at providing mobility to the Indian Armed Forces over trenches- either man made or natural, thus assuring an effective reach. “The development of these two bridging systems was based on the inputs obtained from the Armed Forces after the development of Sarvatra,” said Gautam. With BEML as the nodal agency, along with other industrial partners, the scientists claim the UBS is the most advanced bridging system in the world.

It looks like nelson, who claims either to be an insider or at least to be privy to inside information, is turning a Nelson's eye to the SSBS and bringing up the non-existent bogey of lack of 10 metre bridging equipment in the latest effort to kill the Arjun. This report is dated August 24, 2010 which means it is just about two years old. More than enough time IMO for it to have gone into production.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Hobbes » 12 Aug 2012 09:56

Oh, and one more thing. I believe China to be the significant medium and long term threat and not Pakistan, which belief IMO most informed Indians share. Wikipedia shows the Chinese Type 99 to weigh between 54 to 58 tons, with the newest iterations (Type 99A1 and A2) weighing between 57 and 58 tons. The Type 99 has a 1500 HP diesel engine. Refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_99. Sounds familiar?

Given the quality of the main opposition, I believe it is time for the Army brass, the DGMF and MoD to wake up and smell the coffee.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 12 Aug 2012 09:59

Hobbes wrote:...
Interesting that nelson brought this up. A little googling brought up this article:
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/we-have-the-worlds-best-bridging-system-rnde/664222/

After successfully designing Sarvatra-the longest multi-span bridging system in the world, Research and Development Establishment, Engineers (RnDE, DRDO) has recently added two Short Span Bridging Systems (SSBS) to their Universal Bridging System (UBS), which they claim is the most advanced bridging system in the world. This has given a perfect completion to India’s mobile, military bridging requirements.
“We have just finished the designing aspects of SSBS 5 and 10 that provide bridging on 5 and 10 metre gaps encountered on the battlefield. Besides, these short bridges will assist Sarvatra which has a span of 75 metre in steps of 5 to 15- metre bridges,” said N B Vijauakumar, scientist and group director, Combat Engineering Group, RnDE.

Designed on the lines of Sarvatra, the SSBS will ensure sturdy and smooth operation of heaviest military traffic for negotiating wet and dry obstacles on the battlefield with the help of ‘double A shaped’ trestle operated with the use of advanced hydraulic mechanisms.

“As far as the technical specifications are concerned, the UBS in general has four metre width, between 2.5 to six metre depth and a load bearing capacity of MLC 70 which is approximately 70 tonne. “The heavy Indian tanks- MBT Arjun weighs 58.5 tonne, which means that these bridging systems are capable of bearing more weight than the heaviest Indian military vehicles,” said UR Gautam, scientist F and head, Integrated Management Systems Group, RnDE.

Designed over an extensive research of three years, the SSBS can be used as standalone bridges as well as in assistance to Sarvatra. Loaded on the conventional Tatra vehicle, these bridges aim at providing mobility to the Indian Armed Forces over trenches- either man made or natural, thus assuring an effective reach. “The development of these two bridging systems was based on the inputs obtained from the Armed Forces after the development of Sarvatra,” said Gautam. With BEML as the nodal agency, along with other industrial partners, the scientists claim the UBS is the most advanced bridging system in the world.

It looks like nelson, who claims either to be an insider or at least to be privy to inside information, is turning a Nelson's eye to the SSBS and bringing up the non-existent bogey of lack of 10 metre bridging equipment in the latest effort to kill the Arjun. This report is dated August 24, 2010 which means it is just about two years old. More than enough time IMO for it to have gone into production.


(please see blue coloured font)

There is some distance between designing and induction in service. I have always mentioned about what is already in IA service, not about what is still on the drawing board. I also mentioned that the need has been accepted and the action towards fulfilling the gap is afoot.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby PratikDas » 12 Aug 2012 11:19

nelson hasn't addressed rohitvats' argument that 60 odd 10m BLTs could just as well have been imported and this would've paved the way for the induction of the Arjun in much greater numbers.

It would behoove him to answer this critical question.

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 Aug 2012 11:35

PratikDas wrote:nelson hasn't addressed rohitvats' argument that 60 odd 10m BLTs could just as well have been imported and this would've paved the way for the induction of the Arjun in much greater numbers.

It would behoove him to answer this critical question.


If he had the answer, he would have already replied.

He simply took what told to him by his friends in the IA at face value and that is it. If the IA was so keen on inducting Arjun, it would have moved heaven and earth to get the system - the same way it sidelined every issue about T-90 tank to ensure its induction in large numbers. The treatment of Arjun program by the IA is well known fact - not inducting a 10M MLC-70 bridging could well be a planned exercise to create bottleneck for induction of Arjun tanks. I would not put that past the powers-that-be in the IA when it comes to Arjun tanks.

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 Aug 2012 11:57

I am sure the polish have something in that area...seems to be favourite place where we shop for specialized engineering vehicles.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 12 Aug 2012 12:05

For one, at 58.5 tons, the Arjun is more than 10 tons heavier than the T 90. The added weight and size gives the tank several advantages over the Russian machine in terms of more armour, greater capability to carry ammunition as well as extra sensors. The plan to compare a 58.5 ton machine with a 46 ton tank has been described as ‘absurd’.

The T 90’s weight is crucial to the Army’s war plans along the long Indo-Pak border, especially in the plains of Punjab. The T 90 as well as the older T 72 were ordered because they weighed below 50 ton — the load carrying capacity of thousands of canal and river crossings all along the border.At close to 60 tons, the Army would find it impossible to deploy the Arjun in the Punjab sector as well as parts of the Jammu region. The Arjun’s weight is the biggest nemesis to further orders. The cost of upgrading all bridge heads to a capacity of 60 tons, experts point out, would be considerably more than the cost price of the entire tank fleet.


http://www.indianexpress.com/news/arjun ... h/585683/0

TIFWIW. I will not try to justify what I claimed, but only place reports and articles in open source which may give an insight to the topic.

Sumair
BRFite
Posts: 117
Joined: 02 Jun 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sumair » 12 Aug 2012 12:07

The T90 purchase is perhaps one of the biggest scandals that no one talks about. How it was pushed through without any objections from anyone, (except from Dave Gowada for a while) flouting all the defense procurement policies, manipulating the prices, where a lot of the essential hardware was not part of the initial quoted price in order to get it through and was later purchased at much higher prices, making the per unit cost much higher than the quoted price in the contract. How many GSQRs were ignored, yet no one says a peep. WONDER WHO GOT PAID???

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 Aug 2012 12:25

nelson wrote:
For one, at 58.5 tons, the Arjun is more than 10 tons heavier than the T 90. The added weight and size gives the tank several advantages over the Russian machine in terms of more armour, greater capability to carry ammunition as well as extra sensors. The plan to compare a 58.5 ton machine with a 46 ton tank has been described as ‘absurd’.

The T 90’s weight is crucial to the Army’s war plans along the long Indo-Pak border, especially in the plains of Punjab. The T 90 as well as the older T 72 were ordered because they weighed below 50 ton — the load carrying capacity of thousands of canal and river crossings all along the border.At close to 60 tons, the Army would find it impossible to deploy the Arjun in the Punjab sector as well as parts of the Jammu region. The Arjun’s weight is the biggest nemesis to further orders. The cost of upgrading all bridge heads to a capacity of 60 tons, experts point out, would be considerably more than the cost price of the entire tank fleet.


http://www.indianexpress.com/news/arjun ... h/585683/0

TIFWIW. I will not try to justify what I claimed, but only place reports and articles in open source which may give an insight to the topic.



Well, well, well......what do we have here? Another canard? So, IA ORDERED THE T-72? And because the Canal bridges have the 50T ceiling? Well, how about the fact that initial Indian Army preference was for Leopard 2 and it was USSR which torpedoed the effort by offering T-72 at throwaway prices....so, did the Leopard 2 weigh under 50Ts?

But it still begs the question - what about deployment in the Rajasthan Sector?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 12 Aug 2012 12:30

You see, I did not make up that article. Where as people are ready consume articles from the same media riling IA they are not ready to accept even a single counter argument. This is an indication of prejudiced minds, shaped by concerted reporting by likes of Col retd Shukla, SU, Aroor, Suman Sharma and co over the last decade.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 12 Aug 2012 12:34

rohitvats wrote:...
Well, well, well......what do we have here? Another canard? So, IA ORDERED THE T-72? And because the Canal bridges have the 50T ceiling? Well, how about the fact that initial Indian Army preference was for Leopard 2 and it was USSR which torpedoed the effort by offering T-72 at throwaway prices....so, did the Leopard 2 weigh under 50Ts?

But it still begs the question - what about deployment in the Rajasthan Sector?


I can hazard a guess. Strike formations may no longer be theater specific on the western front.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Katare » 12 Aug 2012 12:39

I think T90 purchase, as a quick fix, at that time was an OK decision. Arjun was not ready, neither was IA ready to induct a heavy weight MBT of western design. Although continued insistence on light tanks while a great home grown tank with proven superior performance is available, is nothing short of criminal. IA's argument that it needs a 40ton class tanks and since T90 is already there and FMBT would again be a lighter tank, it does not make sense to create infrastructure for a heavy tank as stop gap measure. The argument of IA on its face may make sense but it's classic case of missing the forest for woods.

I think IA should use Arjun as the main MBT and use t90 as a light supplementary armor for difficult terrain. Most of the developed world depends on heavy armors and they are designed to be deployed on some of the poorest, hardest and undeveloped terrain in most backward countries. IA's light argument can not fly for long.

Also it is clear that 40 ton FMBT is a trap, if you make a 40 ton FMBT from scratch it would look like an upgraded T90 tank. FMBT should be an advance version of arjun in 55ton class anything else is poor project scooping/specification by IA.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 12 Aug 2012 12:43

FMBT is 50T gross, at least in concept. Arjun MkII is 67 Tons. They belong to different classes, just like T-XX and any western MBT.

kmc_chacko
BRFite
Posts: 326
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 10:10
Location: Shivamogga, Karnataka

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby kmc_chacko » 12 Aug 2012 12:45

what happened to T-XX project ?

pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 519
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby pralay » 12 Aug 2012 12:48

Any chaiwallah.. Is there any news guys about the GSQR for FMBT?
They are making it since 2010 i guess.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 12 Aug 2012 12:49

^^If you mean the Arjun turret on T-72 chassis, Tank-Ex , was shelved as unviable.

The T-XX in above post was used to denote T series tanks T-55, T-72, T-90 and so on.

member_23629
BRFite
Posts: 676
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby member_23629 » 12 Aug 2012 12:55

If Arjun II is "too heavy" for the army (despite it being on par in weight with other Western tanks), it should form the second line of defence and should assigned defence of major cities and prevent Pakistanni or Chinese ingress if they breach the first line. What if chinese manage to come down the Himalayas in the next war? Or the Pakis manage to make inroads in some stretches? Who will stop them from reaching the plains? The Arjun should be there to stop them. Arjun formations should stretch from east to west as a formidable second life of defence. The army officers are being stupid to reject a tank that can hold its own among the top Western tanks. These are strange people who have no shame in making the defence of country dependent on costly imports. These "import generals" have to be quietly eased out.
Last edited by member_23629 on 12 Aug 2012 13:00, edited 2 times in total.

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 Aug 2012 12:57

nelson wrote:You see, I did not make up that article. Where as people are ready consume articles from the same media riling IA they are not ready to accept even a single counter argument. This is an indication of prejudiced minds, shaped by concerted reporting by likes of Col retd Shukla, SU, Aroor, Suman Sharma and co over the last decade.


Do you even realize the what that article paints IA as? It paints IA and its senior officer corps as people who cannot stand-up and say what is right and what is wrong for them but must rely on a newspaper to fight shadow wars. Why the fvck did IA not say so when the tank was being conceived? If 50T was such a sacrosanct number, why not include that in the GSQR and haul the DRDO over the coals when the Arjun turned out the way it did?

And mind-you, you're quoting from IE which ran a vicious campaign against DRDO with-out even bothering to check the facts. While you're quick to point fingers at Shukla, can you please tell me which dog he has in the fight? After all, it was the same Shukla whose articles upon articles you've quoted during the VKS versus GOI DOB issue. So, does he suddenly become a villain because what he says goes against your assumptions?

Before painting everyone as agent provocateurs, how about doing some homework and letting us know which points/arguments made by Shukla with respect to Arjun and T-90 tanks are incorrect? Let us do some hard work and post some numbers and data and analysis rather than link some innocuous article from here or there.

And BTW, you might want to check old threads on Arjun in the archives...Col. Ajai Shukla was a member of BRF and debated against the Arjun tank on this very forum. And left the forum because people asked him some very tough questions...he even mentions this episode of sparring on BRF in one of his articles on the blog.

Here is the link: http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2007/09/big-arjun-question.html

Here is an excerpt:

In this specific case, I’ve reported all along on how the Arjun project is coming along, what is going wrong, what is going right, what the DRDO is doing and saying, and what the MoD and the military attitudes and policies are.

The position right now is… as my stories on NDTV and the Business Standard say… many of the problems that had plagued the Arjun have been sorted out. In contrast, one of the problems that afflict the T-90 has NOT been sorted out. Therefore, the army is trying to scuttle the trials so that it does not have to rework the armour acquisition plan. It fears that, at this point in time, the Arjun may outperform the T-90 in trials. The MoD has confirmed the cancellation of comparative trials and says this is because you cannot compare apples and oranges, the Arjun and the T-90, which is not a tenable argument because they were always about to compare apples and oranges.

That’s all the story says.

So the question above should really be phrased as: Mr Shukla, what has happened in the last two years (when you said on Bharat Rakshak that the Arjun had serious problems) that has changed what you are reporting (NOT changed your stand, because, remember, my story does not indicate what my stand is).

That would be the intellectually correct question, and that is the question that I will answer, even though what I’m about to tell you is not yet in the public domain. But then, I’ve had access all along to everything that is not in the public domain, whereas most others work off public domain statements.


You see, for want of a better phrase, you're johnny-come-lately to this Arjun versus T-XX debate. We have been through many iterations of this debate and almost all the points have been fleshed out. The 10M MLC-70 bridging was a good argument - but not against Arjun. All it did was show IA in bad light.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Austin » 12 Aug 2012 13:13


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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 12 Aug 2012 13:18

^^My intention was not portray any one as a villain, but merely to bring out the diffidence in accepting some article and touting it as a canard. That is why i said, TIFWIW.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests