Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby rajsunder » 20 Jun 2021 17:57

BTW does anyone know what missile is fired by the tincan-90? And what are its range figures?

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2116
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby srin » 21 Jun 2021 08:38

^^^^ Invar missile. Haven't checked the specs lately

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55672
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 22 Jun 2021 07:00

Quite pathetic.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5052
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby srai » 22 Jun 2021 09:26

Main Gun tube fired anti-tank missile nonsense was to address T-90 weak main gun firepower deficiency.

But over time, the IA requirements on Arjun have become ridiculous. See below.



By June 2012, the DRDO offered the Arjun for trials with all the enhancements, except one: a cannon-launched guided missile (CLGM) the army wanted to fire through the Arjun’s main gun.

The DRDO had sourced the Lahat CLGM from Israel, but that could strike targets between 2 and 5 kilometres (km) away. The army insisted on being able to strike targets as close as 1.2 km.

It pointed out that the Arjun’s powerful main gun had already proved its ability to destroy targets at ranges up to 2 km. But the army insisted the CLGM should be usable against targets 1.2 km away.
So, the DRDO began work on an indigenous CLGM to meet those specifications.
By 2015, a series of trials had validated the improvements the army demanded. Even the CLGM’s laser designator was tested and validated with Lahat missiles. The DRDO asked for production order, promising to develop and supply the indigenous missile on priority.

However, the army dilly-dallied for three years, until March 2018, when it was agreed that the next batch of Arjuns would be supplied without missile firing capability, which would follow up separately. This version would be designated Arjun Mark 1A.



Might as well acquire many more NAMICAs instead of MBTs :mrgreen:

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5508
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby jamwal » 04 Jul 2021 13:42

Image
But Arjun is too heavy to cross canals on pakistani side.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2837
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 04 Jul 2021 13:49

^ Is the thinking along the lines that the Pakis will blow up those cross canal bridges if the Indian armor overwhelms their front ?

How deep are these canals? Enough to prevent Arjuns from fording?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8815
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 04 Jul 2021 14:48

^^^

The canal argument is yet another example of the disingenuous argument presented by the Indian army.

The tank when under development in its current form would have been reviewed by the DGMF. At that time the army would have known the issues an induction of Arjun would present and it's design could have been altered to avoid such matters.

But they allowed it's design to go ahead. Only to start presenting such arguments once the tank reached its current form.

sanjayc
BRFite
Posts: 636
Joined: 22 Aug 2016 21:40

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby sanjayc » 04 Jul 2021 16:15

srai wrote:


The DRDO had sourced the Lahat CLGM from Israel, but that could strike targets between 2 and 5 kilometres (km) away. The army insisted on being able to strike targets as close as 1.2 km.

It pointed out that the Arjun’s powerful main gun had already proved its ability to destroy targets at ranges up to 2 km. But the army insisted the CLGM should be usable against targets 1.2 km away.
So, the DRDO began work on an indigenous CLGM to meet those specifications.
By 2015, a series of trials had validated the improvements the army demanded. Even the CLGM’s laser designator was tested and validated with Lahat missiles. The DRDO asked for production order, promising to develop and supply the indigenous missile on priority.

However, the army dilly-dallied for three years, until March 2018, when it was agreed that the next batch of Arjuns would be supplied without missile firing capability, which would follow up separately. This version would be designated Arjun Mark 1A.


Might as well acquire many more NAMICAs instead of MBTs :mrgreen:


Wish the Defence Ministry had stepped in to put a stop to this vile mischief of Generals of making outlandish, frivolous demands just to ensure that the import gravy train doesn't stop while indigenous products are made to jump through endless hoops. This is anti-national behavior. Time to make these generals accountable and ease all these import-loving specimens out of the army. China looks so imposing only due to its capabilities in large-scale military production. Our generals on the other hand have built capabilities in large-scale imports. They even dumped INSAS and went for imports rather than working on the next version or making it in multiple calibers.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2752
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 05 Jul 2021 08:31

Well said! I agree that this behavior is treason!

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11251
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 05 Jul 2021 11:30

sanjayc wrote:Wish the Defence Ministry had stepped in to put a stop to this vile mischief of Generals of making outlandish, frivolous demands just to ensure that the import gravy train doesn't stop while indigenous products are made to jump through endless hoops. This is anti-national behavior. Time to make these generals accountable and ease all these import-loving specimens out of the army. China looks so imposing only due to its capabilities in large-scale military production. Our generals on the other hand have built capabilities in large-scale imports. They even dumped INSAS and went for imports rather than working on the next version or making it in multiple calibers.

As asinine as the army's argument is, who in the MoD or the PMO's office is qualified to sit across the table with a General from the Armoured Corps and argue against this foolishness? What do you honestly expect their counter argument to be?

The answer is no one and the Army knows it. This is a game and the Babus and the Govt are miserable at it. No Babu or Govt official is qualified to talk about the doctrine of tank warfare. This is their backyard.

The import lobby is very strong in India and to these folks...defence is a business, not a calling. Lots of money to be made and life is cheap.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1683
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 05 Jul 2021 11:37

Pratyush wrote:^^^

The canal argument is yet another example of the disingenuous argument presented by the Indian army.

The tank when under development in its current form would have been reviewed by the DGMF. At that time the army would have known the issues an induction of Arjun would present and it's design could have been altered to avoid such matters.

But they allowed it's design to go ahead. Only to start presenting such arguments once the tank reached its current form.


The canal argument is not disingenuous. However, applying it just to Arjun is disingenuous. Pakistan's defences have been designed keeping in mind the numerical superiority and in anticipation of the axis or attacks in the western sector - esp areas where armr is going to be used.

The canals and armr is not just about fording the canal. If I was to use the canal as a means of denial then I will ensure that I have the ability to demolish them and flood and impede armr is it not?

So the question is not so much about Arjun but about the overall need of this much of armr (4K plus tanks).

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1683
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 05 Jul 2021 11:40

Rakesh wrote:
sanjayc wrote:Wish the Defence Ministry had stepped in to put a stop to this vile mischief of Generals of making outlandish, frivolous demands just to ensure that the import gravy train doesn't stop while indigenous products are made to jump through endless hoops. This is anti-national behavior. Time to make these generals accountable and ease all these import-loving specimens out of the army. China looks so imposing only due to its capabilities in large-scale military production. Our generals on the other hand have built capabilities in large-scale imports. They even dumped INSAS and went for imports rather than working on the next version or making it in multiple calibers.

As asinine as the army's argument is, who in the MoD or the PMO's office is qualified to sit across the table with a General from the Armoured Corps and argue against this foolishness? What do you honestly expect their counter argument to be?

The answer is no one and the Army knows it. This is a game and the Babus and the Govt are miserable at it. No Babu or Govt official is qualified to talk about the doctrine of tank warfare. This is their backyard.


But the GOI and the Bureaucracy can ensure that CAPFs and other paramil forces are equipped and trained appropriately so the requirement on the IA is reduced considerably so that army officers can get back to soldiering properly. That will also allow the army to spend more time thinking along doctrinal lines.

Right now we are a CI army and beyond timat not much time for thinking and training on traditional soldiering.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11251
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 05 Jul 2021 11:44

ks_sachin wrote:
Rakesh wrote:As asinine as the army's argument is, who in the MoD or the PMO's office is qualified to sit across the table with a General from the Armoured Corps and argue against this foolishness? What do you honestly expect their counter argument to be?

The answer is no one and the Army knows it. This is a game and the Babus and the Govt are miserable at it. No Babu or Govt official is qualified to talk about the doctrine of tank warfare. This is their backyard.


But the GOI and the Bureaucracy can ensure that CAPFs and other paramil forces are equipped and trained appropriately so the requirement on the IA is reduced considerably so that army officers can get back to soldiering properly. That will also allow the army to spend more time thinking along doctrinal lines.

Right now we are a CI army and beyond timat not much time for thinking and training on traditional soldiering.

Thinking along doctrinal lines will not necessarily eliminate the import lobby. For that, the MoD needs to put her foot down. But in order for that to happen, the MoD needs to be staffed with personnel who are well versed in tank warfare, to counter this 1.2 km minimum range argument. Who is there really?

Same with artillery. ATHOS vs ATAGS.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1683
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 05 Jul 2021 12:01

Rakesh wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:
But the GOI and the Bureaucracy can ensure that CAPFs and other paramil forces are equipped and trained appropriately so the requirement on the IA is reduced considerably so that army officers can get back to soldiering properly. That will also allow the army to spend more time thinking along doctrinal lines.

Right now we are a CI army and beyond timat not much time for thinking and training on traditional soldiering.

Thinking along doctrinal lines will not necessarily eliminate the import lobby. For that, the MoD needs to put her foot down. But in order for that to happen, the MoD needs to be staffed with personnel who are well versed in tank warfare, to counter this 1.2 km minimum range argument. Who is there really?

Same with artillery. ATHOS vs ATAGS.


It will not necessarily but it will free up resourcing for good officers to go to more staff postings. But that also goes hand in hand with army having the bandwidth to think differently. The way I see it there are a number of different things that need to be done.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8815
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 05 Jul 2021 12:24

^^^

I think that you missed the main thrust of my argument. The canal was only one of the examples that I was using.

The main argument was as follows.

1) An organization when issuing a GSQR should have considered it's impact on the rest of the logistics and engineering capacity of the force and also taken relevant steps to make sure that it was resolved.

2) It could have taken corrective measures in the product if it realised that it was not possible to adapt to the challanges presented by the vehicle as a result of the GSQR. Then alter the GSQR for a vehicle that could fit the logistical realities of the organisation.

It didn't do either of that. You can argue that point 1 is a function of the budget. But point 2 was entirely in the hands of the Indian army.

Nikhil_Naya
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 29
Joined: 06 Nov 2018 16:44

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Nikhil_Naya » 05 Jul 2021 13:09

The GSQR was done in response to 'news' that the PA was going to get Abrams Mk'1 as hand-me-downs (the US Army was upgrading to the Mk2's). The reaction was to create our own tank which would be a Challenger+LeClerc+Leopard. Why didn't we go to the USSR/ Russia - because they didn't have a 'heavy' tank in their arsenal. Most features on the Arjun are 'cherry picked' from these three plus the Abrams.

Did we have tank transporters for 'heavy' tanks? No, Did we have bridges that time for this, No! - the Army took a pragmatic step of creating an eco-system around the Arjun. Designs for new tank transporters, rail wagons, Bridge layers (Sarvatra was an outcome), etc - happened after the GSQR for the Arjun was done.
Then, PA didnt get the Abrams instead getting the T80UD (which we countered with T90S, 90>80) and the Arjun suddenly started feeling frivilous and short of shutting down the program, everything else was done.
If the PA does get the VT4's, maybe Mk2's will get ordered.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8815
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 05 Jul 2021 14:10

That's the point. The program should have been shut down in 1992-93 time frame. But it wasn't.

Now we have this farse of mk2 with contradictory requirements.

The FRCV when looked at in isolation from the Arjun saga appears to be a balanced document. But when looked at with Arjun experience. It is quite frightening.

I guess how the ATAGS project is managed here on out will decide how the FRCV will pan out.

Fingers crossed.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3003
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 05 Jul 2021 15:11

Rakesh wrote:As asinine as the army's argument is, who in the MoD or the PMO's office is qualified to sit across the table with a General from the Armoured Corps and argue against this foolishness? What do you honestly expect their counter argument to be?

The answer is no one and the Army knows it. This is a game and the Babus and the Govt are miserable at it. No Babu or Govt official is qualified to talk about the doctrine of tank warfare. This is their backyard.


There is an answer to this & we need to look no further than the corporate world. The CEO/VP/Manager wouldn't be more technical than the systems engineer. He can spin a web around them if he wants to.

But they manage by setting goals, measuring outcomes & mandating constraints (budget, manpower etc). The same rules apply here. As an example: the MoD needs to just add 2 items to the "no import list": tanks & artillery. Period. No qualifications. Everything is covered under this umbrella: Light tank, medium tank, heavy tank. 155 mm, 130 mm, SPH, MGS, Towed blah blah. And "no import" means no import - no "Buy & Make" crap. It has to be the IDDM category: Indigenously Designed, Developed & Manufactured.

And for good measure, the MoD can also stipulate that, in artillery & armor, "emergency purchases" cannot be used as a backdoor to imports. All emergency purchases must be made from indigenous suppliers only.

If the Army huffs & puffs, they must be told to "fight with what they have" (a favorite phrase of theirs), use the Arjuns, Vajras, Sharangs, ATAGS etc and if that's not enough, they can collaborate with DRDO & private industry to build whatever is missing.

No need for the MoD to get into details. Tell the IA "You are the expert. Go, figure it out"

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10035
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Yagnasri » 05 Jul 2021 16:17

Ban all imports for IA and cap 25% or less amount imports in Defense budget for IAF and IN. Equal footing for Private Sector with PSUs. End of most of the issues.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5052
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby srai » 05 Jul 2021 18:51

Manish_P wrote:^ Is the thinking along the lines that the Pakis will blow up those cross canal bridges if the Indian armor overwhelms their front ?

How deep are these canals? Enough to prevent Arjuns from fording?

Arjun MBT fording capabilities:
  • Fording 1.4 m
  • Fording (with preparation) ~ 2.2 m


In reply … an old post of mine

DRDO MLC-70 class (suitable for Arjun MBT Mk.2) bridges:
  1. SSBS 5m
  2. SSBS 10m
  3. BLT-T-72 22m
  4. Arjun BLT 24m
  5. Modular Bridge 14m-46m
  6. SARVATRA 5m-75m (15m plus SSBS 5m & 10m compatible)

Pictures…
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11251
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 06 Jul 2021 06:28

Prem Kumar wrote:As an example: the MoD needs to just add 2 items to the "no import list": tanks & artillery. Period. No qualifications. Everything is covered under this umbrella: Light tank, medium tank, heavy tank. 155 mm, 130 mm, SPH, MGS, Towed blah blah. And "no import" means no import - no "Buy & Make" crap. It has to be the IDDM category: Indigenously Designed, Developed & Manufactured.

You are well aware of the no-import list that came out last year. All of us were quite happy when the MoD came out with it. Link below.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FkSuv3 ... ceuHj/view

But that list can easily be amended or changed at the drop of a hat. See this tweet below from Saurav Jha.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/141 ... 48385?s=20 ---> The Israeli Smash-2000 (already imported by the Navy) counter-drone system is going to be brought in via the emergency import route. Hahahahahaha.

Date of above tweet is 30 June 2021. In all fairness, drones are not among the list of 101 items banned by the MoD...but what is stopping the decision makers from pulling the same stunt on any of the items in the list above?

Look at No 80 on the list ---> Conventional Submarines. In less than six months time, the Indian Navy will no longer be permitted to import submarines as per the MoD policy. But then what is Project 75I? Are we honestly expecting the MoD to complete the acquisition of six P75I vessels in under six months? Obviously not. So this will get an exception or also known as emergency acquisition. To echo Saurav Jha....Hahahahahaha :lol:

Look at at No 73 on the list ---> Assault Rifle 7.62 x 39mm. This is what is called a "filler" item. Add stuff like this onto a list, just to pad up the numbers to show the media what an amazing job they are doing with Atmanirbhar Bharat. The army just acquired the 7.62 x 39mm Ak-203 Assault Rifle from Russia. Last I read there were some pricing hurdles, but reportedly resolved and production will commence soon. Expiry due date is by December 2021. The import lobby will work overtime to ensure that production commences ASAP. And if that fails, it will labelled as emergency import. For a nation that is building a fleet of SSBNs - one of the most technologically intensive platforms known to man - we are relegated to importing a new generation assault rifle? What is wrong with this picture?

Look at No 45 on the list ---> Light Combat Helicopters. Orders are still in planning stage, but the Army has got time and money to order six AH-64 Apache. What they are planning to do with six Apaches? And I am aware the AH-64 is not a LCH. And ever wonder why the Light Utility Helicopter is no where on this list? Because adding that would mean bye-bye to Ka-226.

Look at at No 88 on the list ---> Astra Mk1 BVRAAM. Can someone enlighten me why is this on the list? And all these years I thought Astra was a desi missile :) Yet another "filler" item!

I am confident that others who know more can poke holes in many of the items on the list in the above link. All 69 items on that list - which had an expiry date of Dec 2020 - can easily be acquired via the emergency import route. This list is a joke and the joke is on us.

Prem Kumar wrote:And for good measure, the MoD can also stipulate that, in artillery & armor, "emergency purchases" cannot be used as a backdoor to imports. All emergency purchases must be made from indigenous suppliers only.

Look at at No 4 on the list ---> Towed Artillery Gun (155mm x 52 Cal). Expiry due date has already been passed six months ago in Dec 2020. But yet the Army is looking at the Israeli ATHOS which is a 155mm x 52 Cal towed artillery gun and this is when we have ATAGS which is also a 155mm x 52 Cal towed artillery gun. Every excuse has been thrown onto ATAGS, but ATHOS gets full marks because it is an import after all.

What is the Raksha Mantri doing really? Is he not aware of the Army's attempt to acquire the ATHOS?

Prem Kumar wrote:If the Army huffs & puffs, they must be told to "fight with what they have" (a favorite phrase of theirs), use the Arjuns, Vajras, Sharangs, ATAGS etc and if that's not enough, they can collaborate with DRDO & private industry to build whatever is missing.

No need for the MoD to get into details. Tell the IA "You are the expert. Go, figure it out"

Well said Saar. +108 to you. I fully agree.

That job of telling the IA falls onto the Raksha Mantri. He is heading the MoD. That is his job. No one else.

The real tragedy of this Atmanirbhar Bharat list is that it will only remain valid till as long as the Modi Govt is in power. The day the Congress comes in, they will gleefully throw it out the window and replace it with an import list.

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 1042
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby sivab » 06 Jul 2021 08:49

^^^ I think there is some misunderstanding about "no import list". GoI make in india/atmnirbar policy is just about getting some portion of the pie (30-70%) go to Indian companies. Items on "no import list" simply means those items cannot be imported from foreign mfg directly. They can be imported so long as there is a Indian license mfg is involved. It is a big loophole, I don't like it, but that is all the policy is about. They were quite clear about it from the beginning.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1931
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Thakur_B » 06 Jul 2021 08:56

Just 50% local content will make the supplier a class 1 local supplier and classify it as make in India. So tanks arty rifles etc if added to no import list will make no difference.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11251
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 06 Jul 2021 09:13

I defer to both you gentlemen, because this is our MoD after all. They are the masters of legalese. There are loopholes for every import.

But just out of curiosity, what does the term "Indicative Year - Import Embargo" mean exactly? That is what is found in that document. Because in plain and simple English, it means that platform can no longer be acquired from abroad.

But what is the MoD's version of that statement? I need to visit some of our Babus and learn English from them :)

Added Later : sivab you already answered my question in your post above. My fault, I did not read it properly.

So license mfg = screwdrivergiri. Fair assessment to make? So from "covert" screwdrivergiri, we will now be conducting screwdrivergiri in full view. Nice.

And since this is the Armoured Vehicles thread...let me ask this. Tomorrow - under this new policy - if the Army acquires the T-14 Armata and conducts license mfg of that tank, it will not be considered an import. Is that the logic?

csaurabh
BRFite
Posts: 901
Joined: 07 Apr 2008 15:07

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby csaurabh » 06 Jul 2021 10:45

Well to be honest most of our industry is screw driver anyway, not just military industry. Better to have that in the open so that everyone knows.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5052
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby srai » 06 Jul 2021 10:50

^^^
T-90S is not considered an “import” by the babus. The IA can keep ordering it.

No distinction between “truly indigenous” (researched, designed and built) vs “assembled with some local parts”. To the babus, if Apple sets up iPhone assembly plant in India then it will qualify as indigenous :roll:

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 1042
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby sivab » 06 Jul 2021 19:40

Rakesh wrote:So license mfg = screwdrivergiri. Fair assessment to make? So from "covert" screwdrivergiri, we will now be conducting screwdrivergiri in full view. Nice.

And since this is the Armoured Vehicles thread...let me ask this. Tomorrow - under this new policy - if the Army acquires the T-14 Armata and conducts license mfg of that tank, it will not be considered an import. Is that the logic?


It is somewhat unfair to equate "license mfg=screwdrivergiri", but it was true for OFB/govt shipyards/HAL in the past and that is one end of the spectrum. A better example is L&T SP 155mm vajra gun. 50+% of this gun is reported as indigenous, some portion of that was designed in house. Granted main gun is screwdrivergiri and low end tech on this system not so. So it is up to private mfg company. The loophole here is private companies can go full screwdrivergiri route, nothing to stop them, but that is not in their best interest or GoI intent.

Regarding T-14, yes that is the logic. So long as there is an Indian license mfg is involved with some specified portion (as defined in RFP/contract) of Indigenous content, it will not be considered import. OFB 7.62x39 rifle is not considered import nor does any imported submarine built by govt/private shipyards.

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 1042
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby sivab » 06 Jul 2021 19:47

srai wrote:^^^
No distinction between “truly indigenous” (researched, designed and built) vs “assembled with some local parts”.


To be fair there is a distinction between those in MoD procurement. First one is called "Buy (Indian-IDDM)". But very few items are in that category. And it is separate from "no import list". So loop holes exist to game this policy.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8463
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 06 Jul 2021 23:42

sivab wrote:To be fair there is a distinction between those in MoD procurement. First one is called "Buy (Indian-IDDM)". But very few items are in that category.

Even if there are only a few items in the IDDM category, what exactly have we done with them? There are no orders for the NAMICA, the LCH, ATAGS, WhAP (last reports mentioned a supposed order for...100 when the need is in the thousands). The less said about the Arjun the better. Furthermore, who exactly does an upstanding Indian citizen go to to find out why these have not been ordered? Is it the armed forces who are responsible? Or MoD babus endlessly haggling over the price with another govt. entity like HAL? I doubt you can make an RTI inquiry about this because they can block any real info out citing national security or provide a vague answer like they do in Parliament. The people who do know why, are silent.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5052
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby srai » 07 Jul 2021 07:56

^^^
Ideally, IDDM category should also benefit from fast-tracked streamlined procurement process supported by a large basket fund. Competitive advantage.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5508
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby jamwal » 08 Jul 2021 22:32

https://www.pearson-eng.com/news/1500-t ... dian-army/

Pearson Engineering is pleased to announce that we are now under contract to supply over 1500 Track Width Mine Ploughs (TWMP) to the Indian Ministry of Defence. The order, which will see the Pearson plough integrated with the T-90 S/SK tank, will be delivered in partnership with BEML Limited.

This pearson has just 75 employees. BEML on other hand will have 175 people just for serving chai biscoot. British maal being routed through BEML stamp and jesus knows what else.

Image

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8815
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 09 Jul 2021 11:33

If this is what passes for make in India then let's not make in India please.

Pure fraud.

Every time one thinks in terms of things getting better.

News like this pull to the ground in a brutal fashion.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12936
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 09 Jul 2021 11:50

I dont think the Russians make the main money in our T-90 Purchases

1) Optics and thermal sights - mulla is made by the French and Israelis
2) Mine Ploughs -UK
3) COmmunication equipment UK

No wonder the T-90 is supplied cheap with Engine and tracks and everything from Armour is added on separately. The quality of Armour is also questionable. The ecosystem really feeds off such deals.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3781
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Kakkaji » 10 Jul 2021 01:00

Pratyush wrote:If this is what passes for make in India then let's not make in India please.

Pure fraud.

Every time one thinks in terms of things getting better.

News like this pull to the ground in a brutal fashion.


BEML has a habit of squeezing such 'buy from abroad and put your label on' deals from the GoI.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11251
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 25 Jul 2021 04:21

https://twitter.com/JaidevJamwal/status ... 78724?s=20 ---> But Arjun is too heavy to cross canals on Pakistani side.

Image

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2837
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 25 Jul 2021 13:12

Maybe the thinking is that Paki abdools will blow up the bridges over the canals.. a la scorched earth, the moment they hear IA rumbling on the horizon.

Then it will be left to IA engineering corps to lay bridges over the canals.

Can those bailey bridges support Arjun weight?

Incidentally what is the typical depth of these canals? Fording possible?

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1726
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Khalsa » 25 Jul 2021 15:29

Deep fording is possible with lots of preparation. A bridge brings across the tank in a ready to fight state.
Deep fording needs preparation on both sides before tank becomes fight ready.


Each bridge on both side is rigged with plenty of explosives and manned by detachment of the corps of Engineers (from both armies) to delay the sudden rush of enemy forces so yes you are right they could be blown but due to anything so romantic such as russian scorched earth policy but for carefully planned delayed at each ring of concentric circle is breached.

here is my two centes.

Almost all the pakistani rivers are starting up in my kashmir. Why can't I tighten the tap and decrease the water levels in these pakistani canals.
After all how much water is core indus providing to the DCB network.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2837
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 25 Jul 2021 17:34

I am aware that fording requires preparation. So does laying of the temp bridges (do they roll with the armor boys?).

w.r.t turning the taps off, did we do it in earlier wars? Unlikely that we will do what will be pushed (by the world media) as an attack against humanity :((

A Deshmukh
BRFite
Posts: 342
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:24

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby A Deshmukh » 25 Jul 2021 18:33

Manish_P wrote:w.r.t turning the taps off, did we do it in earlier wars? Unlikely that we will do what will be pushed (by the world media) as an attack against humanity :((

err.... there could be a simpler explanation... we don't have enough taps....dams

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3814
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ArjunPandit » 26 Jul 2021 05:03

Khalsa wrote:here is my two centes.
Almost all the pakistani rivers are starting up in my kashmir. Why can't I tighten the tap and decrease the water levels in these pakistani canals.
After all how much water is core indus providing to the DCB network.

-as previously told we didnt have enough taps
- we lacked will remember a great guy gave 80% of water to lower riparian state which was much less in terms of population
- even of we do it takes time for the water to flow down would be a matter of at least few weeks remember haryana to delhi takes 1-2 days..it might take around 3 days..might end element of surprise from AF perspective
- dont think anyone has tried such things before, but even if you do ..it would
- not sure thinking through my behind but damns have holding capacities and which may lead to flooding downstream if the damn breaks..which may not necessarily be a bad thing given we are going to war and paxis will suffer anyways..but still gives a bad press that evil endians killed 10000 paxis who anyways would have died or had dementia due to phoopho cousin marriage
- lastly in a no. of places, esp around lahore (read icchogil canal) dry river bed may not be of help as their side banks are higher protected and eastern side lower and unprotected..i dont rule out steeper gradient on eastern side too..


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BALAR025 and 32 guests