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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 10 Aug 2012 00:10

It is easy, with the benefit of hindsight and later achievements, to castigate the Army for not accepting something at 10 year delay. Qualitative statements such as 'Arjun' mobility is very good will not suffice.

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?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17033
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Rahul M » 10 Aug 2012 00:12

nelson wrote:It is not more protection necessarily in terms of mass, it is in terms of metallurgy. That is where actual R&D should pitch in.

they asked for ERA bricks, plain and simple. please enlighten us how that can be added without adding mass.

If they don't ask and accept what they get, it is their life at peril.
funny they don't think so when it's the tin can that is being bought by the 100's.
of course, it's not the general's lives which is at peril.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby srai » 10 Aug 2012 00:16

nelson wrote:@Rahul M
Why did DRDO not baulk at Army's GSQR as unattainable at the beginning or mid way through or even now? What is the success rate of bridging systems that were planned to be developed alongside Arjun? These are pertinent questions to be answered before asking IA to accept something, at a scale, which it can not use.


I think you should watch these two videos with three former armored core generals discussing Arjun MBT:




The generals have answered your questions pretty clearly in the discussions. Basically, it's an chicken-and-egg scenario ... for Arjun to fully have its support infrastructure developed, it requires quantities to be inducted into service for cost-efficiency. And what you are saying is infrastructure needs to be developed before larger quantities can be ordered :wink:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 10 Aug 2012 00:19

@Rahul M
That is your perception, i need not share it. Obviously IA doesn't.

@srai
Let the bhutpurvs be.
Last edited by nelson on 10 Aug 2012 00:20, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19680
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Karan M » 10 Aug 2012 00:20

nelson wrote:It is easy, with the benefit of hindsight and later achievements, to castigate the Army for not accepting something at 10 year delay. Qualitative statements such as 'Arjun' mobility is very good will not suffice.


So whose word should we take? Your qualitative statements about what suffices and what does not or Army VCAS Niranjan Malik?

Hilarious. You have no idea of the program, or what Arjun mobility is or is not, and selectively choose to avoid evidence that totally scuppers your claims! That too from a VCAS who saw the program first hand.

Next, such is your awareness of the program that you didn't even follow the results of the Arjun versus T-90 trials mentioned in this very thread.

Result of those trials - the Arjuns matched the T-90s in mobility. Only one Arjun had a shed track thanks to a driver fault.

Next, how many years of those delays would have been due to the Army dragging its feet on induction & coming up with inflated requirements (which the T-90 doesn't even meet).

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?


Why don't you do the research yourself instead of asking for information (which you selectively reject anyhow)?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19680
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Karan M » 10 Aug 2012 00:26

nelson wrote:That is your perception, i need not share it. Obviously IA doesn't.


Do you speak for the entire IA? There are many IA & ex-IA folks who are relatively sane & are baffled by the manner in which Arjun has been treated and way some sections have behaved, with absolute lack of ethics.

http://business-standard.com/india/news ... ub/326234/

Business Standard has evidence of many more such incidents. On June 29, 2006, the commander of the elite 33 Armoured Division, Major General BS Grewal, visited the Mahajan Ranges along with a colleague, Major General Shiv Jaswal. Both drove and fired the Arjun for the first time that day; the two rounds that each fired punched holes through targets almost two kilometres away.

That same month, 43 Armoured Regiment, which is the first army tank unit equipped with the Arjun, pronounced itself delighted with the Arjun's firing performance. After firing trials in summer 2006, 43 Armoured Regiment endorsed: "The accuracy and consistency of the Arjun have been proved beyond doubt."

But the establishment was quick to strike back. Barely three months after that report, the commanding officer of 43 Armoured Regiment, Colonel D Thakur, was confronted by the then Director General of Mechanised Forces, Lt Gen DS Shekhawat. Eyewitnesses describe how he was upbraided for "not conducting the trials properly". But in a career-threatening display of professional integrity, Colonel Thakur's brigade commander, Brigadier Chandra Mukesh, intervened to insist that the trials had been conducted correctly.

In a series of interviews with the army, including the present Director General of Mechanised Forces, Lt Gen D Bhardwaj, and with the MoD top brass, Business Standard has learned that opposition to the Arjun remains deeply entrenched. This despite the soldiers of 43 Armoured Regiment declaring that if it came to war, they would like to be in an Arjun.


So what makes you speak for the entire Army? Or the men of 43 AR and the folks mentioned above lesser mortals?

The role played by people like Shekhawat in trying to scuttle the Arjun needs to be investigated. Shekhawat's vocal lobbying against the national project even after retirement using motivated leaks by media, is well known. What the above article points to is that even during service, he misused his position.

Its clearly 1 section of the Army attempting to run roughshod over the other/s. Don't try and portray your opinion as that of the entire Army.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Mihir » 10 Aug 2012 00:27

The bias and shifting of goalposts is quite evident from this one quote.

Unlike the T series tanks that have been airlifted to high altitudes like Leh and even out of the country, the Arjun cannot be airlifted by the IL-76 and C-130 J transports of the Indian Air Force (IAF). The C-17 Globemaster to be inducted by the Indian Air Force (IAF) has a maximum payload of 75 tonnes — insufficient to airlift the 67 tonne Arjun Mk-2 with attendant support equipment.

So a T series tank is fine because an Il-76 can just about carry it, but the Arjun is not because the C-17 cannot airlift it along with its support equipment? What sort of logic is this? Can the Il-76 airlift T-72s and T-90s with "attendant support equipment"?
Last edited by Mihir on 10 Aug 2012 00:43, edited 3 times in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19680
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Karan M » 10 Aug 2012 00:28

nelson wrote:@srai
Let the bhutpurvs be.


Brilliant. Any & all opinions that don't meet your standards are to be rejected apparently. "Qualitative statements", "bhutpurvs"...

And you speak for the Army. :roll:

If this is how the Army treats hard gained wisdom through experience, no wonder its procurement strategy is such a mess.
Last edited by Karan M on 10 Aug 2012 00:29, 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 » 10 Aug 2012 00:28

The answer to that question is obvious, no. What use is 1400 hp engine if it can not cross a 10m gap? Use Google Earth or visit places along IB to find the need to cross such gaps. Again, neither I am questioning the wisdom of people extolling Arjun's prowess vis-a-vis T-xx, nor am I absolving the Army of its shoddy participation in Project Arjun. But to lay the entire onus on the Army is bit far fetched. In any manner whatsoever it will not help Arjun's case with a gross weight more than 50T.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Surya » 10 Aug 2012 00:29

Obviously IA doesn't.


Not IA

but a section of the armored corp who at this point are guilty of wasting the nations time and resources with their nonsense. If the IA wants to be the laughin stock it can continue to support these geniuses.





yeah - get across or reach destination and then be cut to pieces - fat lot of good that will do

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17033
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Rahul M » 10 Aug 2012 00:49

Mihir, Il-76 can lift the t72 but not the t90.

but you know how the lies and half truths would be passed off as gyan.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 10 Aug 2012 00:51

All along today's discussion I had only one fact to place before participants here. If you can refute the fact, i am ready to learn. If it is plain emotions, i have had enough. Thank you.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17033
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Rahul M » 10 Aug 2012 00:53

and that 'fact' is plain wrong.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 10 Aug 2012 00:54

Rahul M wrote:Mihir, Il-76 can lift the t72 but not the t90.

but you know how the lies and half truths would be passed off as gyan.

As if the lies have been packed by IA and couriered to this discussion. It is an article by a journalist after his visit to CVRDE and mostly presents their viewpoint.
Last edited by nelson on 10 Aug 2012 00:58, 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 » 10 Aug 2012 00:56

Rahul M wrote:and that 'fact' is plain wrong.


That IA is devoid of bridging equipment in its inventory that has an MLC 60 that can cover a 10m gap is a fact. Merely saying it as wrong won't do. If need be ask the General.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19680
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Karan M » 10 Aug 2012 01:00

nelson wrote:The answer to that question is obvious, no. What use is 1400 hp engine if it can not cross a 10m gap? Use Google Earth or visit places along IB to find the need to cross such gaps. Again, neither I am questioning the wisdom of people extolling Arjun's prowess vis-a-vis T-xx, nor am I absolving the Army of its shoddy participation in Project Arjun. But to lay the entire onus on the Army is bit far fetched. In any manner whatsoever it will not help Arjun's case with a gross weight more than 50T.


No, where is all the evidence of the Arjun having to cross 10m DCB style defences in the Thar and the evidence of as to why such defences would preclude the Arjun from being used in the desert?

First, we had a rather dodgy statement from a journalist to affirm a position that the Arjun could not be used in the vast majority of places, including the desert, whereas we have a VCAS stating that it does fine in the deserts. Clearly not where the Arjun will have to move pillbox by pillbox and DCB by DCB, unlike in the Punjab etc.

Ignoring the fact that the Arjun too has decent mobility akin to T-tanks such as medium fording, we do know that there are class 70 Bridging systems available locally to India. These include the ready Sarvatra bridgelayer and other variants of Arjun which can be fielded, such as the Arjun BLT. Both can support Arjun formations.

When the US acquired and inducted the Abrams, after the M60, it too had too undertake mass investments in its logistics to keep pace. The Germans did likewise when moving from the relatively light Leopard 1 to the more capable, heavier Leopard 2 tank.

If the Army is concerned it does not have the engineering assets in depth, currently, to support the Arjun, let it make a business case and present it strongly to the MOD. After that, let the MOD make the call on overall investments and what India can support vis a vis the Arjun. I, as a taxpayer would not even mind paying an additional cess to support such an endeavour.

However, instead some sections of the Army keep wheeling out claim after claim, and then asking for the Arjun to jump through more hoops to "meet requirements" whereas going slow on any firm commitment towards mass production and induction. And these requirements of course add more weight, so the Army can cite those as further excuses.

Dodgy, to say the least!

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 10 Aug 2012 01:10

Please, care to look up Chhamb to Fort Abbas at least on a map. Rajasthan doesn't mean desert only, not any more. Sarvatra 15m spans can not be launched on 10m gaps. Surprising? Take a visit to R&DE Dighi, Pune.

How are you sure that such an exercise in MoD, has not taken place already before the second and third orders for T-90 were made?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19680
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Karan M » 10 Aug 2012 01:14

nelson wrote:That IA is devoid of bridging equipment in its inventory that has an MLC 60 that can cover a 10m gap is a fact. Merely saying it as wrong won't do. If need be ask the General.


And whose fault is that?

What prevented the Army for not making this point clear and then having it solved, with the firm commitment to acquire more Arjuns once done?

The capability to deploy 15/20m spans with MLC 70 already exists with the Army:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... apoor.html

Developed by 1999.

In the years thereafter, it has been fielded on the T-72 as well.
http://frontierindia.net/bridging-barri ... rvatra-way

BLT Arjun can do even more:

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2621/st ... 110600.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5p0YaICi7g

India’s main battle tank, Arjun, has taken the “avatar” of a bridge laying tank (BLT). The R&DE(E) did this by replacing the tank’s gun and turret with the bridge launcher. The bridge is cantilevered over chasms or across rivers to cover a distance of 26 m with a width of 4 m. The BLT-Arjun carries two halves of a bridge. At a wet or dry gap, the launcher slides the two parts and docks them to each other in such a way that the far end of the second half touches the other bank. The BLT then crosses the bridge, turns around, retrieves the bridge after undocking its two halves, folds it and is ready to move with the armoured column. U.R. Gautam, Joint Director R&DE(E), called it “a great piece of engineering”.


Net, your claim that some mythical lack of bridging expertise, justifies the Army's stand is wrong.

The capabilities exist in India and if the Army were to make a clear case that it needed these or even further variants, sliced and diced per your claims (10m, no 15m, no 17.5m) - they would be made!

The Army leadership has not taken such an unequivocal stand.

Instead it has chosen to only provide piece meal orders for the Arjun, stood by watching when retd officers with dubious conflict of interest (e.g. Shekhawat) attacked a national program, and went slow on comparative trials with its present T-90 so the Arjun could silence the dubious statements made about it.

Now it has come up with more and more requirements which are not even expected of the T-90.

And you bring up some dubious lack of "bridging capability" as the decider.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 10 Aug 2012 01:25

BR page also says Army Chief is Deepak Kapoor. So what? I am not anyone to decide here. If we follow the history of MBT for IA, Project Arjun and its aftermath it is evident that the decision to place orders of T-90s were made at such junctures when the Arjun was falling short of GSQR and there was an urgent need to fulfil gaps. There was no need to scuttle Arjun just for the sake of pecuniary considerations as is being alleged.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19680
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Karan M » 10 Aug 2012 01:26

nelson wrote:Please, care to look up Chhamb to Fort Abbas at least on a map. Rajasthan doesn't mean desert only, not any more. Sarvatra 15m spans can not be launched on 10m gaps. Surprising? Take a visit to R&DE Dighi, Pune.


Thanks much, but I already pointed out that your harping on 10m is rather pointless..since if the Army asked for it, it could be made. That they have not, can actually add another + to the perception that with all things Arjun, a "go slow" is the order of the day. Like accusing the tank of not being sufficiently local, yet placing only a handful of orders!

How are you sure that such an exercise in MoD, has not taken place already before the second and third orders for T-90 were made?


Care to provide the proof that such an exercise did take place? Care to point out one bit of evidence that the Army has asked for a 10 m bridge layer, which was not delivered, hence Arjun is not being ordered?

Sorry, this seems to be more myth making..

Furthermore, here is what we do know about the flawless procurement that is the T-90.

- Came without ballistic computers that could use Indian Ammo
- TOT was not given, as such armor & gun barrel metallurgy both had to be developed in India
- Critical weakness in FCS, with Thermal imager overheating in daytime (when battles are fought)
- Spares & logistics issues because the Russians asked for further TOT money & delays in overhaul of first tanks as a result
- INVAR missiles when actually tested in India, flopped.
- Engines packed up in trials, but Army said fine (same for the Arjun meant back to the workshop and more trials..)
- No AC with bizarre reasons trotted out (troops will go soft), later evaluation of Russian ACs (driver has a heatstroke), current situation, RFP/RFIs away and no credible solution in sight..

These apart from the known design flaws of the T-90, which the Army never asked for solutions for, before they placed bulk orders. Stuff like exposed ammunition, pathetic ergonomics, limited potential for upgrades to electronics, ammo etc.

I mean seriously, the reason the orders were placed for the T-90, repeat, were simple. First, the lack of credible upgraded T-72s (another Army fiasco, with FCS trials dragging on for ages) Second, organizational inertia, with a lack of ability to evaluate any possible alternatives.

Citing a 10 m gap is all very well, but there is no evidence to suggest any such issue.

And nor is it mentioned by any of the credible bhutpurvs!

Somehow, those bhutpurvs knew enough about Arjun to mention everything from spares, ad hoc Army procurement, Arjun-T90 trials, but missed this top secret information! :roll:

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19680
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Karan M » 10 Aug 2012 01:33

nelson wrote:BR page also says Army Chief is Deepak Kapoor.


A typical response intended to fudge the topic!

First, the BR Page link was used to cite the original Sarvatra, developed and deployed on the Kolos Tatra in 1999. It existed, and still exists, the same way a man called Deepak Kapoor rose to head the Indian Army. Or are you denying that he headed the IA?

Next, for current information, the FLONNET & FI links both depict the facts today, that the Sarvatra is further developed & now on the T-72 as well.

Sorry, but trying to discredit sources because they puncture your arguments, won't work!

So what? I am not anyone to decide here. If we follow the history of MBT for IA, Project Arjun and its aftermath it is evident that the decision to place orders of T-90s were made at such junctures when the Arjun was falling short of GSQR and there was an urgent need to fulfil gaps. There was no need to scuttle Arjun just for the sake of pecuniary considerations as is being alleged.


So the Arjun fell short of GSQR and the Army acquired T-90s which STILL don't meet QRs?

Thanks much- if that is the sort of argument you make, then yes, it paints the Army DGMF et al in a very unflattering light.

Either they are incompetent.

Or they attempted to scuttle the Arjun for "other interests".

Next, what's with the deliberate igorance regarding the actions of people like Shekhawat (ex DGMF, involved with T-90 acquisitions - considered by some as one of the prime movers in that deal) and who attempted to scuttle Arjun trials? A direct quote given above.

Whether "pecuniary interests" or arrogance, thats still malfeasance.

And finally, what's with the Army's behaviour NOW, with the T-90 issue yet to be solved, and still the footdragging re: Arjun?

No explanation, there either.
Last edited by Karan M on 10 Aug 2012 01:38, 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 » 10 Aug 2012 01:37

The fact that DRDO peruses the Noting sheet of every foreign procurement by MoD is proof enough that there has been one.

I have known that Army has asked for a 10m span bridge for dozen years now. It has not fructified yet from R&DE.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 10 Aug 2012 01:43

I have, time and again, stated that I am not defending Army for its commissions and omissions vis-a-vis Project Arjun and follow up programs. They are very much party to the fiasco. However, they are not the sole perpetrators. If it is made to sound like that it would be unfair, because their side of the story has never been heard and probably will never be.
Last edited by nelson on 10 Aug 2012 01:47, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby srai » 10 Aug 2012 01:45

nelson wrote:...

@srai
Let the bhutpurvs be.


:rotfl:


nelson wrote:I have, time and again, stated that I am not defending Army for its commissions and omissions vis-a-vis Project Arjun and follow up programs. They are very much party to the fiasco. However, they are not the sole perpetrators. If it is made to sound like that it would be unfair, because their side of the story has never been heard and probably will never be.


If you are not listening to them, then let the bhutpurvs be ;)
Last edited by srai on 10 Aug 2012 01:56, edited 2 times in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19680
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Karan M » 10 Aug 2012 01:54

nelson wrote:The fact that DRDO peruses the Noting sheet of every foreign procurement by MoD is proof enough that there has been one.

I have known that Army has asked for a 10m span bridge for dozen years now. It has not fructified yet from R&DE.


Sorry, but that's not enough as a reason to not buy the Arjun.

First, there is no such claim made by any credible source regarding the Arjun program - Parliamentary, defence, bhutpurvs et al.

Second, if R&DE, the poor guys who can make Sarvatra, BLT Arjun cannot make a 10 m span bridge, then the Army should drive a program to acquire the same.

That is expected of them.

Somehow, the Army can acquire dodgy engineering support vehicles from Poland in bulk (and which don't work) AFTER the T-72/T-90 are acquired.

Yet, it cannot acquire Arjuns because a bridging system is unavailable.

Meanwhile, it does not even release any credible commitment stating that IF 10m span bridges are made, it WILL acquire Arjun.

Net, this just smacks of myth making at best, and evidence of dodgy Army procurement as is more often the case.

I also look forward to hearing your explanations for other perfect examples of Army procurement cataloged here.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2007/05/c ... chase.html
http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... ds/285028/

This 10m business stuff you are claiming is the "new reason", after all the other reasons we have heard so far...is much in line with this:

Take just one of the many acquisitions it has examined, the procurement of the Integrated Oxygen/Communications Mask Helmet (IOCMH). This is worn by helicopter pilots when flying high altitudes, allowing them to talk on the radio and simultaneously breathe pure oxygen from an onboard cylinder. {same story different procurement..}

The army took ten years to go through the procurement process and eventually paid four times the price that the Indian Air Force (IAF) paid, a whopping Rs 3.75 lakh extra per mask. {T-90 deal anyone, pay through the nose and get worse kit}

While the IAF purchased the IOCMHs from an Indian company, the army (which flies the same helicopters in the same areas around Siachen) insisted that they needed oxygen at higher pressures and so time-consuming trials for foreign equipment were necessary. {arbitrary requirements}

The CAG points out that while the army insisted on meeting the specifications on higher oxygen pressure, it subjectively let other parameters fall by the wayside. {Arjun lacks x, but T-90 lacks abcdef, ergo Arjun worse!)

While conducting IOCHMs trials in Leh, the temperature parameters spelt out in the tender (that the mask should function from -40 degrees to +50 degree Centigrade) were not insisted upon. Instead the army tested the equipment only up to +35 degrees. { Arjun should fire on the move with 90% Pk, have ammunition containerization...T-90, we'll take ANYTHING}

Questioned by the CAG about why it chose a foreign supplier for the army IOCHMs when the IAF was using cheaper, Indian made masks, the MoD replied that the equipment was urgently required and the Indian supplier needed time to modify the IOCHM to army requirements. {10m, 10m!}

That reason was rejected by the CAG, who observed that MoD was aware about the Indian supplier 3½ years before the contract was signed and so adequate time was available for making modifications. {Ditto, don't ask for or plan for alternatives in time, use that to scupper procurement of all but chosen items}

The CAG termed it a clear case of discrimination against an indigenous supplier. The CAG also pointed out that another Indian firm had introduced itself as a supplier of IOCHM as far back as 1998.



Pecuniary interests? Or incompetence....take your pick.

Bottomline, the Army seems to have evolved a nice mechanism in several cases where a coterie of officers decide what equipment they prefer, and the rules/regulations be darned, the results of trials will be selectively interpreted.

In deal after deal, this is being shown to be a serious possibility.

Chopper deal? Gets cancelled after the rival vendor points out that the India representative of the winning bidder is the brother of the evaluator!

T-72 FCS? Deal stuck for ages, as vendor reveals how IA procurement relaxed rules for a rival..

Only a handful of depts, involved in bespoke development, seem to be behaving with more procurement rigor!

And 10m is the new reason?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19680
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Karan M » 10 Aug 2012 02:02

nelson wrote:I have, time and again, stated that I am not defending Army for its commissions and omissions vis-a-vis Project Arjun and follow up programs. They are very much party to the fiasco. However, they are not the sole perpetrators. If it is made to sound like that it would be unfair, because their side of the story has never been heard and probably will never be.


I am sorry but this 10m business is very much in line with the myth making of the "Army side of business", net - some hidden reason because of which the Army won't acquire the Arjun.

Lets be honest here. If the Army wanted to buy the Arjun, it would.

End of story.

Same as it did with the T-90.

Shekhawat et al ignored all the risks with that procurement, its obvious flaws and went ahead.

All this 10 m, 40 m, x ammo business is just pointless.

And apart from this forum, lets be honest, it is ONLY the Army side of the story that has been heard when it comes to the Arjun.

No influential media source out there openly points out the disaster that is Army procurement re: Arjun. In contrast, ex DGMF gives open interviews savaging a program he was supposed to have implemented. India Today, Express etc all ran articles based on this man;s claims.

In any other country, with a more professional civil-military relationship, with both sides having sane checks and balances, such "gentlemen" would not be allowed to handle such critical programs.

Net, that is the bigger danger than just 1 Arjun, as to how many such gentlemen are sitting in positions of responsibility and actively campaigning against the very national programs they are supposed to participate in, and see to fruition.

So the claim that "professional planning" was done to "arrive at decisions" is a bit disingenuous I am afraid, when such professionals have been involved with key decisions.

With the ability to selectively affect multiple procurement issues.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby rohitvats » 10 Aug 2012 02:06

nelson wrote:BR page also says Army Chief is Deepak Kapoor. So what? I am not anyone to decide here. If we follow the history of MBT for IA, Project Arjun and its aftermath it is evident that the decision to place orders of T-90s were made at such junctures when the Arjun was falling short of GSQR and there was an urgent need to fulfil gaps. There was no need to scuttle Arjun just for the sake of pecuniary considerations as is being alleged.


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I'm really going to enjoy this...!!!

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 10 Aug 2012 02:08

^^10m is just one example. Gross weight of 58.5 Tonnes is a no go. Army is a party to that, willingly or otherwise. Arjun's order will remain a few hundred for eons to come. To attribute motives where there is no proof is avoidable. Do not attack the entire organisation, if you are so sure of corruption or incompetence take names and provide proof.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby rohitvats » 10 Aug 2012 02:12

From the same article which was posted earlier:

We have also built the Arjun Bridge Laying Tank (BLT) but the Army says it may not be required.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 10 Aug 2012 02:15

Thanks Rohit, we now know, at least, who goes to the press and whose interest they serve!

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby rohitvats » 10 Aug 2012 02:24

nelson wrote:^^10m is just one example. Gross weight of 58.5 Tonnes is a no go. Army is a party to that, willingly or otherwise. Arjun's order will remain a few hundred for eons to come. To attribute motives where there is no proof is avoidable. Do not attack the entire organisation, if you are so sure of corruption or incompetence take names and provide proof.


Excellent.....It is IA - INDIAN ARMY - which places the order and not the DGMF on his own regard. The IA is responsible for the follies of idiots who have been sniping at the Arjun programme all the while occupying the high-seats in the AHQ. DRDO and exchequers money is not someone's jaagir in the IA - it cannot make the country go on a wild-goose chase with fabricated stories about short-fall in Arjun while importing the tin-cans which even the host nation does not want anything to do with. It is IA which is responsible and needs to answer to the nation on this waste...don't try to preach here about operational issues. IA should have considered all that while drafting the GSQR - all this 50T weight being sacrosanct is BS to again detract from the fvck-ups by the army. They need to look at PA and Al-Khalid to understand how to develop something in an iterative manner...how one needs to stick to domestic products to ensure they mature on time.

Since you're so hell-bent on the bridging equipment, why don't you tell me the scale of holding of such bridges with combat engineers? How many does an armored division hold?And (I) Armored Brigade? Or, the Corps Engineering Brigade? And what would be the replacement cost? Lets see where we stand on that.

This argument about the bridging equipment has to be the most idiotic argument I've heard...tail wagging the dog!!!

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby rohitvats » 10 Aug 2012 02:26

nelson wrote:Thanks Rohit, we now know, at least, who goes to the press and whose interest they serve!


That is quite rich...army fvcks up, but no one should know about it. So, what happened to the bridging argument?
"Woh qatl karen to kuch nahin, hum aah bhi karen to jurm hai".

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 10 Aug 2012 02:40

It is not even IA which places the order, it is GoI but when you want to ascertain wrongdoing, as asserted here, you have to be specific. IA is too broad a brush.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Gurneesh » 10 Aug 2012 02:41

Noob pooch: Why can't a 15m bridge be used on a 10m gap ?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 10 Aug 2012 03:02

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... 5.jpg.html

Sarvatra 15m span can not be launched on 10m gap without recourse to cutting the banks. Please see this photo and figure it out.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Gurneesh » 10 Aug 2012 03:19

^^^ So, what is the variation in the gap length that a particular bridge can handle (eg: +- 1m, 2m etc)....

Also (posted on milphotos forum)

Image

Would have looked better with a couple of tiles by the gunner sight (the radar could have been attached on the tiles).

VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1874
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby VikramS » 10 Aug 2012 04:05

nelson:

Going by your logic, human beings should still be driving in horse carriages.

After all metalled roads were not needed for horses and hence automobiles are worthless.

Trains of course need tracks and hence trains too are worthless.

IA should be getting horse chariots, and developing a mahout regiment to lead the elephants into battle.

======

All it takes is a bunch of engineers to design an appropriate bridge for shorter distances (10m, 5m, 2mm or whatever you fancy). The arguments being put forward are so pathetic that it is sickening.

Would you or any other T-xx supporters be willing to face the Arjun in battle while riding the T-xx?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby srai » 10 Aug 2012 05:42

Arjun BLT

Image

The Arjun BLT (or Bridge Layer Tank) is a combat engineering vehicle, designed to carry, lay and retrieve an assault bridge. It was developed by DRDO. The reason this bridgelayer was developed, is because the current Indian AVLBs are not capable of supporting the Arjun MBTs, that are much heavier than the previous tanks, operated by the Indian Army. It is worth mentioning that to date there were no production orders on this armored bridgelayer.

This combat engineering vehicle is based on the Arjun main battle tank, which is in limited service with the Indian Army. The turret was replaced with a bridgelaying system. It can handle larger loads and uses cantilever type bridgelaying method, where bridge is laid horizontally. The main advantage of such design, is that it can not be observed some distance away by the enemy.

It is an MLC-70 class bridge, with a payload capacity of 70 t. It provides passage for wheeled or tracked military vehicles. It is also capable of supporting the lighter T-72 or T-90 main battle tanks, that are currently in service with the Indian Army.

The Arjun BLT can carry two types of bridges. A steel bridge can span a gap of 24 m, while aluminum bridge can span a gap of 26 m. The bridge can be recovered from either end. On travelling the bridge is carried in two halves one on top of the other. It is claimed that Arjun based armored bridgelayer is superior to the T-72 based units.

This armored bridgelayer has a crew of two, including driver and commander (bridge operator).

The Arjun BLT has the same level of cross-country mobility as the Arjun main battle tank. Vehicle is powered by a German MTU MB 838 Ka-501 turbocharged diesel engine, developing 1 400 hp.


The whole 10m argument is hogwash. If DRDO can make a 26m MLC-70 class BLT and 15m MLC-70 class (75m - 5 bridges) Sarvatra bridging system, what's so difficult about 10m? If the IA requires a 10m only type of bridge, it's not difficult to make one ... but first a requirement from IA has to come and then xx orders placed for induction.

Why was the Sarvatra bridging system build with 15m bridge blocks? Isn't it the IA who specified that? If the 10m bridging was so important, then the IA should have required that instead. Besides no bridge is build without the support from various other engineering vehicles (AERV, C.E.T. etc).

Why only 10m specific? Does the enemy build their defenses at exactly 10m ditches? What happens if it is 7.5m or 12.5m? It is impossible to have that many variety of bridges. More better would be to have a bigger length bridge that can tackle a more variety of obstacles from 5m to 20m to 50m. Far less logistical nightmare.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Surya » 10 Aug 2012 06:28

we had chipanda drones

now we have army drones

10m :eek:


must be really some high tech wonder this 10m bridge

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10087
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby sum » 10 Aug 2012 08:15

. It is worth mentioning that to date there were no production orders on this armored bridgelayer.

:( :(


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests