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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Misraji » 27 Nov 2012 15:14

Sanku wrote:Terribly sorry to have overloaded you with more information and details of real world complexities I can handle, from now, please remind to try and talk to you in one or two lines only.


Oh come come. You misunderstand me, Sir.
Its a pleasure reading your long multi-line posts. Like watching a train-wreck in slow motion.... :rotfl:

Not to mention the gratification one gets in taking apart your logic apart piece by piece and watch you reply
to insignificant pieces of posts with smart one liners in the hope of having the last word.... :mrgreen:

--Ashish

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby member_20317 » 27 Nov 2012 16:13

Sanku wrote:
ts “nominal ground pressure ...

This is validated by history, says Lieutenant General (Retired) RM Vohra, who won a Mahavir Chakra in the 1971 war while commanding 4 HORSE, a tank regiment equipped with Centurion tanks. He says the 42-tonne Pakistani Patton M-48 tanks got mired in the soft soil of Asal Uttar, in Punjab, while the 51-tonne Centurion moved around that battlefield easily.


Centurion Ground pressure: 0.95kg/sq.cm.
M 48 Patton Ground pressure: 0.88kg/sq.cm.

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/we ... atton.html
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/we ... urion.html

So perhaps he can tell us how his "ground pressure theory" (which btw is obviously correct :roll: ) is validated by showing a example which goes the other way (or at least are similar best case)

He must have been hoping for a receptive audience tuned to his level of thought process so that he could get away with it.
:rotfl:

In Asal Uttar, the reason why Patton got trapped were because the Indian deliberately broke the canal and made the area slushy and the Paki's were lured in the kill zone. The Indians obviously did not move into the slush and stood back and picked them off.

Let us discuss the tanks for mountain corps as and when we get more info, from more credible sources.


Sanku ji,

42 tons mentioned in the handout should have warned you. The observation by Lieutenant General (Retired) RM Vohra is not correct in terms of details but good enough to make the point that Arjun vs. T90 cannot be decided merely on type of soil in Punjab and J&K and that is borne out by the REAL LIFE example where Heavier tank which Centurion definitely was compared to M-47 or even M-48 won the day even though the lighter tanks (AMX, Shermans, M-47, M-48) employed in the same fight, did not stand a chance.

Anyhow your POV and the POV of Lieutenant General (Retired) RM Vohra are not even on the same point.

So what is the point? Your point that is? Why do I feal like lost?

Pakis had almost equal numbers of M-47 and M-48.

M47 Ground pressure: 0.935kg/sq.cm.
from the same site as yours.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 27 Nov 2012 17:01

ravi_g wrote:So what is the point? Your point that is? Why do I feal like lost?


My point is that the article is a hatchet job. Probably Stryker or something is going to lose out to T 90 for mountain tanks and hence some one has started bawling.

I say this, because the article has both factual and logical inconsistencies. Some Rohit has pointed out before; such as no correlation between the decision for mountain tanks and induction of tanks in Army in South/western command(s). Also there is no indication that ground pressure is even a issue of importance in context of mountain tanks. So what is the need for the random point is not fully understood either.

Also so far, the above critique assumes, that at least the basic premise of article is right, viz T 90s are being considered for the Mountain divisions -- so far there is no indication other than this one article that this is even true.

So net, net, the article has dubious logic, incorrect factoids and in general given Shukla's recent alignment with a company starting with the name B, makes me smell something completely rotten here.

Even if not rotten, just the article is useless piece of junk given the various issues therein.
Last edited by Sanku on 27 Nov 2012 17:15, edited 1 time in total.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4106
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Manish_Sharma » 27 Nov 2012 17:14

Is this "cheating issue" sorted out, where russian cheats took money , but refused to transfer tech for gun barrels?

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2008-02-16/news/27723357_1_t-90s-tanks-main-battle-tanks-heavy-vehicles-factory

Russia plays spoilsport in T-90S tank deal
TNN Feb 16, 2008, 05.45am IST

NEW DELHI: As if the huge cost escalations and time overruns in several defence projects was not enough, Russia is now putting some roadblocks in India's plan to indigenously manufacture 1,000 T-90S main-battle tanks.

Russia is refusing transfer of technology (ToT) in a couple of critical areas - like the metallurgy for gun barrels, ordnance and armour plates - for the manufacture of T-90S tanks at the Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 27 Nov 2012 17:21

Manish_Sharma wrote:Is this "cheating issue" sorted out, where russian cheats took money , but refused to transfer tech for gun barrels?

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2008-02-16/news/27723357_1_t-90s-tanks-main-battle-tanks-heavy-vehicles-factory


2008? Are we seriously going to discuss the 2008 news now? In that case let me put the newer news (note timelines)

http://livefist.blogspot.in/2009/08/pho ... ilt-t.html

http://www.domain-b.com/defence/def_pro ... _tank.html
New Delhi: The first T-90 Main Battle Tank to be manufactured under license in India will roll out of the Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi, near Chennai on 24 August 2009. Production of this frontline equipment resumes after a delay of one year with India and Russia settling outstanding issues related to transfer of technology for local manufacture.

The dispute over transfer of technology related mainly to the tank's gun barrel
.


:mrgreen:

Come on now. Lets not be like Shukla here. :P

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby member_20317 » 27 Nov 2012 17:45

Sanku wrote:
ravi_g wrote:So what is the point? Your point that is? Why do I feal like lost?


My point is that the article is a hatchet job. Probably Stryker or something is going to lose out to T 90 for mountain tanks and hence some one has started bawling.

<snip>

and in general given Shukla's recent alignment with a company starting with the name B, makes me smell something completely rotten here.

Even if not rotten, just the article is useless piece of junk given the various issues therein.


I thought so too. But I came to an entirely different conclusion. Shukla ji has two articles posted successively. One gives the impression that IA is out to kill Arjun to get 6 new regiments of T90. Then second one gives the impression that some big shots in IA want to save Arjun for plains while allowing T-90 for mountains. But we already have enough T-90s. Some part of the planned production can be spared for the 6 new regiments and Arjuns can be used to fill up the gaps in plains. But obviously that is not how anybody else will think so the jockeying essentially remains for the purchase of 6 new regiments. And only guys who have any serious dog in this fight are the Russians. I see it as a case of pre-emption of a make-or-buy decision in favour of a buy.

My dog in this fight is limited to Arjun. How the bloody hell do we get the IA to accept more of these.

Though I do agree with your opinion Shukla ji is getting used and he seems to be ok with it.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 27 Nov 2012 18:00

ravi_g wrote:My dog in this fight is limited to Arjun. How the bloody hell do we get the IA to accept more of these..


IMVHO the answer is simple, IA will accept more of these when CVRDE and Avadi are able to perform on the three metrics of quality, timeliness and responsiveness.

Till then even if IA wants, it cant.

PS> Arjun has come a long way, and it would be sad to see it meet the INSAS type of fate.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby member_20317 » 27 Nov 2012 18:13

But then why would a production organization even care for setting things right if they do not get a reasonable order. Which complaint came first. Was not the IA informed of such troubles.

Had manufacturing been the problem, I am sure IA would not have asked Indian ord. factories to make T-90s.

I think we need to increase the capital budget by a billion dollors to enable the IA to buy Arjuns.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 27 Nov 2012 18:26

ravi_g wrote:But then why would a production organization even care for setting things right if they do not get a reasonable order. Which complaint came first. Was not the IA informed of such troubles.


Well this is back to old debate -- of chicken and egg. Are you going to ask some one who cant manufacture LSP in time and quality and has terrible track record in general to make 1000 units before they can demonstrate effectiveness with 125 units?

Why has Avadi not displayed the qualities of responsiveness, timeliness and build quality in past LSP?

Only when the currently promised tank (Mk1 order and Mk2 prototype) is delivered on time and with proven build quality, can the next step be taken.

Had manufacturing been the problem, I am sure IA would not have asked Indian ord. factories to make T-90s.


No, in that case, the Russians are passing the entire know how, of the manufacturing line, the entire jigs and fixtures, the metallurgical processes, the quality processes etc etc. They also offer oversight and consultancy and help in rectification.

Arjuns:LCA where as T 90:Mig 27/Su 30 etc.

I think we need to increase the capital budget by a billion dollors to enable the IA to buy Arjuns.


That would help, but IMVHO first the manufacturing+design at AvadiCVRDE has to be fixed and upgraded. That would be money better spent.

Once the system is smooth, cost will also drop, and IA will be able to induct more Arjuns at lesser capital outlay.
Last edited by Sanku on 27 Nov 2012 18:27, edited 1 time in total.

Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2396
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Yogi_G » 27 Nov 2012 18:26

The T-90 engine is 1000 HP, the latest Ferrari car's engine has 750 HP :eek:

pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 514
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby pralay » 27 Nov 2012 18:30

Sanku wrote:2008? Are we seriously going to discuss the 2008 news now? In that case let me put the newer news (note timelines)
http://livefist.blogspot.in/2009/08/pho ... ilt-t.html
http://www.domain-b.com/defence/def_pro ... _tank.html

Read your domain-b link to the bottom, it says
An agreement was subsequently signed in 2006 for the licensed production of another 1,000 T-90s through 2020. This, however, was delayed due to Russian reluctance to transfer technology. This compelled India to make another off-the-shelf purchase of 300 tanks from Russia last year.

So, the article concludes that your beloved Russia armtwisted India over ToT and forced us purchase 300 extra tanks from them.
Even then the article does not makes it clear if Russia actually provided barrel ToT or not.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 27 Nov 2012 18:33

sameer_shelavale wrote:Even then the article does not makes it clear if Russia actually provided barrel ToT or not.


Where is the bangs head against the wall icon when you need it.
Production of this frontline equipment resumes after a delay of one year with India and Russia settling outstanding issues related to transfer of technology for local manufacture.

The dispute over transfer of technology related mainly to the tank's gun barrel.


:(( :(( :((

Avinandan
BRFite
Posts: 176
Joined: 12 Jun 2005 12:29
Location: Pune

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Avinandan » 27 Nov 2012 18:43

Sanku Sir,

How do you foresee the Arjun Mk 2 in respect to the current procurement of T-90 MS.
I also have the concern is that why is such hasty decision of procuring them now.
Can't IA wait for some more time ? The money saved here could be spent on CVRDE so in the long run we wont have the issues with Arjun Mk2.

Please advise.

pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 514
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby pralay » 27 Nov 2012 18:44

Sanku wrote:Where is the bangs head against the wall icon when you need it.

Better bang your head for
This, however, was delayed due to Russian reluctance to transfer technology. This compelled India to make another off-the-shelf purchase of 300 tanks from Russia

Don't act as if Russia gave ToT without a hiss.

pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 514
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby pralay » 27 Nov 2012 18:48

Avinandan wrote:How do you foresee the Arjun Mk 2 in respect to the current procurement of T-90 MS.
I also have the concern is that why is such hasty decision of procuring them now.
Can't IA wait for some more time ? The money saved here could be spent on CVRDE so in the long run we wont have the issues with Arjun Mk2.
Please advise.

Be warned mate, He will advise you to abandon all home made products and will tell you that only and only russian products can give you best quality and performance :)

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 27 Nov 2012 18:55

Avinandan wrote:Sanku Sir,

How do you foresee the Arjun Mk 2 in respect to the current procurement of T-90 MS.


First off, I am not sure what the current procurement of T 90s is supposed to be. The procurement for T 90s as been decided to 1670 or so tanks, in the period of 2004-6. The manufacturing and induction of T 90s is as per that plan.

If there is procurement of T 90s for mountain corps, we can discuss this once some more information is available. Right now we have nothing to base the discussion on.

However any discussion on tanks for mountain divisions has nothing to do with Arjun since they are not related (expect for sensation value) -- there is more than enough space in IA for both. There are tons of older tanks which need replacement. (older Ts, vijayanta etc)


Can't IA wait for some more time ? The money saved here could be spent on CVRDE so in the long run we wont have the issues with Arjun Mk2.

Please advise.


The Army captial budget, and CVRDE budget, are often distinct and unrelated, (whether they should or should not be so is a different issue) -- this is tied at the top at MoD, above IAs level.

I personally am a staunch supporter of massive up-gradation of Indian Mil-Ind capability, this includes spending more money, getting a better performance audit and perf culture in the organizations (some minor tweaks were made by Shri Antony 2-3 years back) and involvement of Indian pvt sector on a large scale.

That however is not a question of either this or that. Given our current situation, BOTH are needed. Money for IA for capital expenses, which may include short term solutions, AND money for Indian R&D.

Can be achieved at a fraction of the money poured down the drain in NREGS type hare brained scheme where 1 Rs out of 100 reaches the beneficiary and the rest is siphoned off. The money spent on local R&D would produce many more jobs and economic improvements even (multiplier effect)
Last edited by Sanku on 27 Nov 2012 19:05, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 27 Nov 2012 18:58

sameer_shelavale wrote:
Avinandan wrote:How do you foresee the Arjun Mk 2 in respect to the current procurement of T-90 MS.
I also have the concern is that why is such hasty decision of procuring them now.
Can't IA wait for some more time ? The money saved here could be spent on CVRDE so in the long run we wont have the issues with Arjun Mk2.
Please advise.

Be warned mate, He will advise you to abandon all home made products and will tell you that only and only russian products can give you best quality and performance :)


Could you cut out the comedy and stick to speaking for yourself instead of ascribing words to others, which have not been made.

If you have zero content to speak of, you can always exercise the option of not saying anything, rather than troll. Thank you for the understanding in advance.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby member_22539 » 27 Nov 2012 18:59

Sanku wrote:Where is the bangs head against the wall icon when you need it.

:(( :(( :((


Why use an icon? Please proceed to the nearest wall, bang your head as much as u please, take a video and post it. Besides, I don't think your pearls of wisdom would be any worse.

ASPuar
BRFite
Posts: 1538
Joined: 07 Feb 2001 12:31
Location: Republic of India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby ASPuar » 27 Nov 2012 19:05

I think it is worthwhile to note, that there are lobbies favouring either product. Whereas it is completely incorrect to say that the army as a monolith is favouring the Russian tank, it is equally incorrect to say that it is monolithically refusing the Arjun. Even Ajai Shuklas report clearly states that there are Armoured Corps Generals who are strongly in favour of the Indian warhorse.

So, my friends, wait and watch, and see who wins the game.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 27 Nov 2012 19:09

ASPuar wrote:So, my friends, wait and watch, and see who wins the game.


Hopefully both will. Win-win. There is enough reason for it.

pentaiah
BRFite
Posts: 1671
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby pentaiah » 27 Nov 2012 21:20

Keri's ji Saar ji
You went tangential to my post

No body makes everything in house even RR
The point is Arjun is as much as an imported machine
The only thing if at all that is home made is the welding of sheet metal
Thick skin of course

The point is we need pvt and joint sector
To make those components we are importing

If you can forge the gun barrel even the Chinese way!
Locally it's fine

If you can mull transmission gears and the entire package
That's great

If you can make the control systems for gun loading
Missiles anti aircraft that's excellent

Just think Bharat forge
Just think Tatas making the transmission
BEMl the tracks

Imagine

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36284
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby SaiK » 27 Nov 2012 21:46

It is not without any reasons that IA named their pet tank "bishma". Even kRSNa's sudarshan is of no use and the power politics seeks a shikhandi now. Name some tank that looks femalish and has all the qualities of Arjun. I don't mind FMBT named Shikhandi to take on now.

This will work 100% pissk!

member_22906
BRFite
Posts: 305
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby member_22906 » 27 Nov 2012 22:22

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2012/11/army-proposes-to-scrap-future-main.html

Senior army sources tell Business Standard that the Directorate General of Mechanised Forces (DGMF), which oversees the army’s tank force, has formally proposed that the Arjun be gradually improved through successive models --- Mark II, Mark III, Mark IV and so on --- rather than attempting a major technological leap into the unknown, which is what the FMBT would be


Three important realizations drive the DGMF’s new proposal. Firstly, there is growing acceptance of the Arjun, after its strong performance in field trials. Secondly, the need for an industrial “eco-structure” for providing spares and maintenance backup for the Arjuns that are already operating. This would come up only if a viable number of tanks are in service. Finally, the DGMF believes that there are no recent breakthrough technologies in armoured vehicle design, which eliminates the logic for building an entirely new tank.


Does this call for a lungi dance... I really do hope... :)

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby vic » 27 Nov 2012 22:40

This just an attempt to kill both FMBT and Arjun "with love". Arjun will remain a 60+ton tank due to requirement of 4 men crew and will never be ordered in numbers. After Russia rolls out prototypes of it's own FMBTs suddenly a requirement will be created for import. It's HTT-40, wired ATGM, air defense gun, recent FICV which were dropped/delayed all over again.
Last edited by vic on 27 Nov 2012 22:48, edited 1 time in total.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6887
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nachiket » 27 Nov 2012 22:47

Sanku wrote:My point is that the article is a hatchet job. Probably Stryker or something is going to lose out to T 90 for mountain tanks and hence some one has started bawling.

Sanku this is BS and you know it. You have desperately tried to muddle the issue by bringing Shukla's motives into question when other attempts have failed. Don't think this tactic is lost on the posters here. And Stryker? You are clutching at straws here. It's an 18 ton wheeled IFV for god's sake. Shukla's argument in favor of heavier tanks wouldn't really help it now, would it? There is no American hardware involved.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 27 Nov 2012 22:53

nachiket wrote:
Sanku wrote:My point is that the article is a hatchet job. Probably Stryker or something is going to lose out to T 90 for mountain tanks and hence some one has started bawling.

Sanku this is BS and you know it. You have desperately tried to muddle the issue by bringing Shukla's motives into question when other attempts have failed. Don't think this tactic is lost on the posters here. And Stryker? You are clutching at straws here. It is a 18 ton wheeled IFV for god's sake. There is no American hardware involved.


Two things,
1) The article is demonstrably bogus.
2) The motives, in specifics and in generics, in generics, I stand by what I said. Shukla's motives are very questionable, and have been for quite some time now. This has been discussed. (The track II team membership, the MRCA stand etc etc etc)
3) On specific in this case -- is it stryker especially? Clearly I did say that stryker or something. So yes I do not know, that is why probably was attached.

But I am convinced that there has to be reason for his latest hatchet job.

Otherwise how do you reconcile the two wildly different articles posted by him? Either he has lost it, or there is something fishy here.

member_22906
BRFite
Posts: 305
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby member_22906 » 27 Nov 2012 22:53

vic wrote:This just an attempt to kill both FMBT and Arjun "with love". Arjun will remain a 60+ton tank due to requirement of 4 men crew and will never be ordered in numbers. After Russia rolls out prototypes of it's own FMBTs suddenly a requirement will be created for import. It's HTT-40, wired ATGM, air defense gun, recent FICV which were dropped/delayed all over again.


Possible, but I hope you are wrong. I am sure this is one thing that most of us would gladly like to be proven wrong on...

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6887
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nachiket » 27 Nov 2012 22:54

Sanku wrote:Where is the bangs head against the wall icon when you need it.
Production of this frontline equipment resumes after a delay of one year with India and Russia settling outstanding issues related to transfer of technology for local manufacture.

The dispute over transfer of technology related mainly to the tank's gun barrel.


:(( :(( :((

And in the meantime they successfully forced us to buy 300 more T-90s off the shelf when we were supposed to have built them ourselves. :(( :(( :((

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 27 Nov 2012 23:12

nachiket wrote:And in the meantime they successfully forced us to buy 300 more T-90s off the shelf when we were supposed to have built them ourselves. :(( :(( :((


True the price of not being self reliant, that said, still a very small price to pay.

We ourselves have paid before, and so have others.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36284
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby SaiK » 27 Nov 2012 23:14

self reliance only begins after first use of home grown product, and not by desisting to use it.

are we paying a price or shooting our own legs?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 27 Nov 2012 23:19

SaiK wrote:self reliance only begins after first use of home grown product, and not by desisting to use it.


Platitudes are fine, but the reality is that no one is desisting to use it. It has to be available and ready, once it is, it will be used. As Arjun' get ready, they are getting used.

The problem is that those making it are doing it too slowly. What do you want the user to do?

Ask the enemies to wait till Avadi gets its act together?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36284
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby SaiK » 27 Nov 2012 23:22

Is it not ready now? Either way, can you prove what you are saying is true?

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby member_20317 » 27 Nov 2012 23:43

Sanku ji, my god you are drawing so much flak.

Sanku ji, there is no project anywhere in the world that gets done in time or gets done to the standards + at the time + at the place, comfortable to the user.

IA did not have any inkling of Kargil. Kya karen IA ko bhi retire kar dein kya?

Come this is one part of country trying to reach out to the other part of the country and you are giving us the 'you can't handle the truth' routine. And you are not even half as convincing as Jack Nicholson was.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 27 Nov 2012 23:54

ravi_g wrote:Sanku ji, my god you are drawing so much flak.


Possibly for the 100th time. :((

Sanku ji, there is no project anywhere in the world that gets done in time or gets done to the standards + at the time + at the place, comfortable to the user.


Sure, and that is why Arjun is being supported through delays. But then if the threat perception demands that there is no option but to seek other solutions in the interim.

That is all that there is to it.

IA did not have any inkling of Kargil. Kya karen IA ko bhi retire kar dein kya?


No but a number of people up at RAW should have been.

Come this is one part of country trying to reach out to the other part of the country and you are giving us the 'you can't handle the truth' routine. And you are not even half as convincing as Jack Nicholson was.


Hain jee? No, not at all. I am not doing anything like that. In fact quite the opposite.

It is only that this thread seems to resemble the China mil watch thread any time the words Arjun and T 90 come up together. The latest episode of communal wailing is triggered by that amazing article from Shukla, which if not for unnecessarily heightened sensitives, would be laughed out of the room for the absurdities it contains.

BRFites are unnecessarily ready to feel depressed on this topic. This is not very different from other sagas in India (LCA, INSAS etc etc) for better or for worse -- if we dont get into such extreme reactions on those, there is no need to treat this any differently.

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

In any case, this got dragged into a different direction, but in this iteration, my starting point was simple, lets give the article its due, which is, consider it a rather puzzling piece of literature, and no more.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4106
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Manish_Sharma » 28 Nov 2012 00:40

Sanku wrote:2008? Are we seriously going to discuss the 2008 news now? In that case let me put the newer news (note timelines)

http://livefist.blogspot.in/2009/08/pho ... ilt-t.html

http://www.domain-b.com/defence/def_pro ... _tank.html
New Delhi: The first T-90 Main Battle Tank to be manufactured under license in India will roll out of the Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi, near Chennai on 24 August 2009. Production of this frontline equipment resumes after a delay of one year with India and Russia settling outstanding issues related to transfer of technology for local manufacture.

The dispute over transfer of technology related mainly to the tank's gun barrel
.


:mrgreen:

Come on now. Lets not be like Shukla here. :P


:)
Yup just like shukla fell to new low trying to bring in f 35 , some folks fall to new level selling T-90.

Cheating is cheating whether in 2008 or 2018, taking money and refusing ToT, hari om hari !!!

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 28 Nov 2012 00:44

Manish_Sharma wrote: :)
Yup just like shukla fell to new low trying to bring in f 35 , some folks fall to new level selling T-90.


No selling is required for T 90s, they are already sold.

Cheating is cheating whether in 2008 or 2018, taking money and refusing ToT, hari om hari !!!


There was always hitches, in any case it was resolved amicably. Hardly "cheating". :) -- and this is the world of arms purchase, such disagreements things are not really a big deal. Part of most deals unfortunately. (scorpene, Hawk etc etc.) -- no need to be melodramatic on that count.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Viv S » 28 Nov 2012 02:02

ASPuar wrote:So, my friends, wait and watch, and see who wins the game.


Sanku wrote:Hopefully both will. Win-win. There is enough reason for it.



God forbid. One's a Russian tank and the other's Indian.

The French Army buys a French tank not the 'best' tank, the British Army buys a British tank, the Russian army buys a Russian tank and the Israelis buy an Israeli tank. The same applies to the Chinese, Germans, Italians, Japanese, Koreans and Turks. If they find problems they fix them, if they find drawbacks they upgrade them.

Ought to have been an easy choice....

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 28 Nov 2012 02:08

Viv S wrote:God forbid. One's a Russian tank and the other's Indian.


As of now, they are both Indian tanks.

T 90s are the mainstay of IA, and will be for quite some time, even when Arjun enters in numbers, they will both be equally important. Furthermore there are more T 90s in Indian service than anywhere, more will be produced by Avadi in India than anywhere.

A small and simple fact that seems to escape many people.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36284
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby SaiK » 28 Nov 2012 02:12

If my dad purchases a vehicle for me, it still does not make it my vehicle per say.. if I had bought it on my own money, yes it does. There is a difference between T90 and Arjun. Should we go that low in logic in this thread?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Viv S » 28 Nov 2012 02:12

Sanku wrote:
Viv S wrote:God forbid. One's a Russian tank and the other's Indian.


As of now, they are both Indian tanks.


The T-90 is an Indian tank. I have to admit, I didn't see that one coming.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 0 guests