Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

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.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 23 Mar 2013 10:45

Misraji wrote:As far as I am concerned, the pivoting point about IA's dishonesty was the fact that they dragged their feet on comparative trials vs T-90 for years(IIRC 2006-2010) while DRDO demanded the same.
--Ashish


Thank you as I always suspected -- many of those are supposedly pro Arjun are have some other agenda -- of running down IA down to the very sick behavior of accusing the entire IA of dishonesty based on dishonest reports of dishonest track II US agents. However even that is not enough, so they will add more falsehoods.

Arjun failed its AUCRT in 2008 so the DRDO asking for compartive trials in 2006 is another of the hoax perpetrated by determined anti IA lobby which is trying to fire off Arjun shoulders (while in reality couldn't care less)

Man the amount of FUD being created is truly amazing.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 23 Mar 2013 10:46

manum wrote:Tanks represent a huge of expense out of which certain flows into the army as commission to various ranks...They could not allow Arjun, else the liquidity will dry out, so will be liquid from bottles..

No Indian organization is untouched with commission...Otherwise it woudn't have been a problem to upgrade or brace few bridges Arjun will have to cross...

No one wants to open the can of worms...


Entire threads are now over runs by two-line posters with exactly the same two lines on each topic.

BRF mods need to do something about this.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Surya » 23 Mar 2013 11:11

If we go by the clip posted of Syrian tank man, the above is not true. He categorically says that apart from IED, crew losses have been minimal.


Boss that was a staged propaganda interview

the man looks gaunt and yet answers snappily and throws in a minor problem to make it sound he is balanced. plus what is he going to compare against?? its like the Amby and fiat drivers of 80s. he has probably never operated a western tank - the tin can is the best he has on his side for eons

meanwhile the other clips show the tanks cooking up. one poor guy makes it out in one all burnt black - the others had no chance.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4117
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby srai » 23 Mar 2013 11:15

Round and round and round and round ... one man arguing his own points over and over again. Maybe the admins need to create a separate topic for these types of circular argumentative discussions. Whole thread is being occupied.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1831
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby uddu » 23 Mar 2013 11:29

T series Diwali

:eek:

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Austin » 23 Mar 2013 11:37

New APFSDS reveled

Image
svinets-1 and 2 has a length - 680-690mm(piercing tol be around 600-650mm RHA for Tungsten )

Image
grifel-1 and 2 has a length of approx more than 900mm

Image
Image

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6834
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nachiket » 23 Mar 2013 11:42

^^Where is this from?

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 23 Mar 2013 11:43

srai wrote:Round and round and round and round ... one man arguing his own points over and over again. Maybe the admins need to create a separate topic for these types of circular argumentative discussions. Whole thread is being occupied.


Since we are all offering free advice to Mods, my advice is start warning people who make allegations against IA based on incorrect data points.

That will cut down the noise and keep only the meaningful set of information kept. The same should be extended to people who are uncomfortable with others perspective and indulge in personal attacks when they cant stop the data points from conclusively showing that their pet agendas are wrong.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 23 Mar 2013 11:47

Surya wrote:
If we go by the clip posted of Syrian tank man, the above is not true. He categorically says that apart from IED, crew losses have been minimal.


Boss that was a staged propaganda interview


Most of the information can be classified as propaganda, there is enough propaganda from the western side too, however most of it is being taken at face value.

The truth is some one where in between.

One reason that the western tanks look good is that they comparison is between the top line US tanks vs 30 year old Soviet hand me downs, run by rag tag Arab armies.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6834
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nachiket » 23 Mar 2013 11:59

Sanku wrote:Arjun failed its AUCRT in 2008

This is from PIB http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=48844

The outcome of AUCRT trials raised the confidence levels of the users over the reliability and endurance of MBT Arjun and they confirmed that the overall performance of the MBT Arjun during the stringent AUCRT trials was satisfactory and cleared the production tanks with minor modifications suggested during AUCRT, for induction. Both CVRDE and HVF along with DGQA agencies worked out methodologies to introduce all AUCRT modifications within shortest time frame and the next batch of 17 tanks were handed over to Army by 3rd March 2009.

As suggested by Army after AUCRT trials, Arjun tanks were subjected to rigorous trials and assessment by a third party audit (an internationally reputed tank manufacturer). After the extensive evaluation, the reputed tank manufacturer confirmed that the MBT Arjun is an excellent tank with very good mobility and fire power characteristics suitable for Indian desert.


There were some problems encountered with the transmission but they were fixed. Yet the Army kept insisting that the Arjun "failed".

The DRDO meanwhile alleged sabotage and they went as far as installing a black box in the test tanks to detect it.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Austin » 23 Mar 2013 12:00

nachiket wrote:^^Where is this from?


Reveled in (Nauchno-issledovatelʹskiy mashinostroitelʹnyy institut) book , source

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6834
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nachiket » 23 Mar 2013 12:01

^^Thanks.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6834
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nachiket » 23 Mar 2013 12:09

Sanku wrote:It is a settled debate, quite likely IA would ask Arjuns to have smoothbores when Arjun;s would be ready to be commissioned in larger numbers.

So that would mean that the Arjuns would never be commissioned in larger numbers, since a whole new gun would have to be designed, developed and tested before the Army will accept it. Nice tactic for ensuring that the Arjun is never successful and more tincans are ordered. Meanwhile the bulk of our Armored forces still use 70's era rust buckets that fry their occupants when hit.

This is what I have been saying all along. The IA is not serious about buying the Arjun. They don't want it. They have just been wasting the DRDO's time and taxpayer's money.

Forget the T-90, none of the tincan champions on this thread have been able to say why the Army can't place bulk orders for the Arjun Mk1 to replace the T-72s in service? The T-90 orders as they stand today still cover less than half the total tank inventory of the IA.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1831
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby uddu » 23 Mar 2013 12:19

Guys, Arjun will have to be inducted and will be inducted in large numbers. There is no other way around. Even the Chinese are following the Arjun way of designs. They are going in for the heavier tank with better protection, firepower with 1500hp engines.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2415
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby vic » 23 Mar 2013 12:22

manum wrote:Tanks represent a huge of expense out of which certain flows into the army as commission to various ranks...They could not allow Arjun, else the liquidity will dry out, so will be liquid from bottles..

No Indian organization is untouched with commission...Otherwise it woudn't have been a problem to upgrade or brace few bridges Arjun will have to cross...

No one wants to open the can of worms...


Agusta Westland has shown that bribes on spare parts is even higher than the bribes on the main product. So it is gravy train for many years after questionable imports.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9466
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Yagnasri » 23 Mar 2013 13:38

Let us not also forget who is involved in Agusta bribes - Rtd Air Cheif. By the same yard stick MOD babus and Armed forces top brass are all interested in imports. Indian state which fought wars almost once in a decade since its birth and has two despotic, nuclear armed states with whom its has serious border and other disputes can not even make a proper rifles, pistals, Cannons even Trucks let along even a propellar driven air craft. But the same India can send probes to Moon and can send probes even to Mars shortly.

Why - two things - DPSUs and involvement of MOD, Politico, uniform boss in bribes. Plain and simple. Immediately abolish OFB and sell all DPSUs and prohibit all weapon imports, invlove private sector. Then in 10 years you will find all the kinds of systems are being not only produced but even exported by India.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 23 Mar 2013 13:54

Narayana Rao wrote:Let us not also forget who is involved in Agusta bribes - Rtd Air Cheif. By the same yard stick MOD babus and


By the same yard sticks all Indians are corrupt. Including DRDO and including all private parties. WHere are you going to find any single clean person?

The same ISRO which has been sending people to moon has been involved in a alleged case of corruption in case of Antrix and Devas.


So what gives? Should we disband India based on such sweeping generalizations?

There is no need for this negative thinking, there are real issues which are not corruption related, the entire BRF is now reduced to "XYZ is not happening because of corruption" -- there are issues of corruption, there are issues which are not corruption related.

Reducing fairly complicated topic to a simple generalization wont work.
Last edited by Sanku on 23 Mar 2013 14:04, edited 1 time in total.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 23 Mar 2013 13:59

nachiket wrote:
Sanku wrote:Arjun failed its AUCRT in 2008

This is from PIB http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=48844

The outcome of AUCRT trials raised the confidence levels of the users over the reliability and endurance of MBT Arjun and they confirmed that the overall performance of the MBT Arjun during the stringent AUCRT trials was satisfactory and cleared the production tanks with minor modifications suggested during AUCRT, for induction. Both CVRDE and HVF along with DGQA agencies worked out methodologies to introduce all AUCRT modifications within shortest time frame and the next batch of 17 tanks were handed over to Army by 3rd March 2009.

As suggested by Army after AUCRT trials, Arjun tanks were subjected to rigorous trials and assessment by a third party audit (an internationally reputed tank manufacturer). After the extensive evaluation, the reputed tank manufacturer confirmed that the MBT Arjun is an excellent tank with very good mobility and fire power characteristics suitable for Indian desert.


There were some problems encountered with the transmission but they were fixed. Yet the Army kept insisting that the Arjun "failed".

The DRDO meanwhile alleged sabotage and they went as far as installing a black box in the test tanks to detect it.


Some problems? Enough for the need to have the fixes in shortest time.

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=38445

There has been some delay in issue of tanks to Army due to design modifications and removal of defects noticed during various trials by Army. The manufacture of Arjun tank is being regularly monitored through Working Group headed by Director General Mechanised Forces and Steering Committee under the co-chairmanship of Secretary (Defence Production) and Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri.

Following defects have been noticed during the ongoing Accelerated User Cum Reliability Trials by Army:-

Failure of power packs

Low accuracy and consistency

Failure of Hydropneumatic Suspension Units

Shearing of Top Rollers


Chipping of Gun Barrels

The rectification of defects and performance of tanks are being closely monitored.

This information was given by Minister of State Defence Production Rao Inderjit Singh in a written reply to Shri Prabhunath Singh in Lok Sabha today.


So yes, irrespective of the words pass and fail, a number of issues were found which needed fixing.

The sabotage theory was a stupid comment by Pallam Raju, all that resulted in was an egg on his face. It is better to accept facts than be overzelous in defending something just because DRDO is involved. That holds true for posters here too.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 23 Mar 2013 14:08

nachiket wrote:
Sanku wrote:It is a settled debate, quite likely IA would ask Arjuns to have smoothbores when Arjun;s would be ready to be commissioned in larger numbers.

So that would mean that the Arjuns would never be commissioned in larger numbers, since a whole new gun would have to be designed, developed and tested before the Army will accept it. Nice tactic for ensuring that the Arjun is never successful and more tincans are ordered. Meanwhile the bulk of our Armored forces still use 70's era rust buckets that fry their occupants when hit.


I am sorry but this is strange, if any improvement/change/upgd will results into "oh no, we need to develop and test and make it work for users, this will take 10000000000 years" -- is considered a valid argument, then nothing will ever be discussed.

Yes, there is a need to ensure that there exists a FAST way for upgds and changes. There need to be a quick turn around by ALL involved parties.

Blaming IA that it wants tests and it wants successful tests is bizarre. IA at least has the quickest link in this chain of testing and providing feedback.

The need is to strengthen the other parts of chain, instead of saying the design, development and test cycle be thrown out of the window since it takes too long.

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

PS> I did not say that Arjuns should not be inducted till the above is done. All I said is that the I WISH (the poster Sanku -- as opposed to IA) should be done before large numbers (> 500) Arjuns are inducted.

This is right now a distant goal, we need to understand whether 50 tanks a year line is up and ready and how are Mk IIs fairing. Then that too is a wish by a random poster (me) -- why blame IA for it?
:shock: :eek:

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Austin » 23 Mar 2013 15:42

Sanku wrote:The sabotage theory was a stupid comment by Pallam Raju, all that resulted in was an egg on his face. It is better to accept facts than be overzelous in defending something just because DRDO is involved. That holds true for posters here too.


The sabotage theory was rejected in Parliament by MOD there is a statement in PIB press release if you search , i remember posting it long time back ....post that they even place some special equipment to make sure such allegation did not come up.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7631
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby rohitvats » 23 Mar 2013 20:26

Sanku wrote:<SNIP>Arjun failed its AUCRT in 2008 so the DRDO asking for compartive trials in 2006 is another of the hoax perpetrated by determined anti IA lobby which is trying to fire off Arjun shoulders (while in reality couldn't care less)<SNIP>


Let me state this upfront - You are lying by making the above statements. You have been given explanations earlier of what AUCRT is (by me) and in spite of that you are giving the above argument. This simply goes to show that your interest here is simply to argue for the sake of it and for that, you'll obfuscate a point or simply lie your way through.

I know you're incorrigible but for the sake of people reading this thread - let me state this one more time: AUCRT means Accelerated Usage cum Reliability Trials. Basically, IA takes the equipment, like 02 Arjun tanks in this case and puts them through paces. The objective is to subject the equipment to such intense usage so as to mimic the utilization over entire life period (which can be 20-25 years for a tank).

This utilization gives estimates of the spare part requirement over the entire lifetime of the equipment as well as tests the actual versus projected life cycle of various sub-components. Arjun tanks were subjected to AUCRT of 8,000 kms and firing of 800 rounds.

Post 5 stage AUCRT of Arjun in Novemer 2007-August 2008 (winter and summer cycle), Army stood up its first regiment in 2009.

And BTW, the AUCRT of T-90 was termed as inadequate by the team from EME because the tanks were not run to death - this is as per a case study from College of Defense Management on Induction of T-90 tanks. And even in this limited AUCRT, one of T-90 tank engines seized at ~90% of the rated no of hours of operations while the other had to be replaced at 50% of the rated no of hours of operations.

And all this is from internal literature of the Indian Army.

So, if somebody tells you that Arjun failed in AUCRT - please tell him that he is an idiot for making this statement. Equipment is pushed to failure to test their endurance so that spare part requirement can be worked out.

It so happens that while some like Arjun fail at or close to rated hours/kms while others like T-90 show that most of the claims are only for brochures.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36298
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby SaiK » 23 Mar 2013 20:51

uddu wrote:Guys, Arjun will have to be inducted and will be inducted in large numbers. There is no other way around. Even the Chinese are following the Arjun way of designs. They are going in for the heavier tank with better protection, firepower with 1500hp engines.

wake me up when IA buys the 1500th Arjun Mk.x. SHOW ME THE PURCHASE ORDER or plan to operational induction!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16238
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby NRao » 23 Mar 2013 21:07

No use talking of what happened (or did not) in 2008-2012.

THE issue - TODAY is we have a Russian (sitting in the Middle East nonetheless) and claiming:

From licensed assembly to joint production: India wants to produce Russian tanks T-90C

India is interested in continuing the licensed production of Russian T-90C tanks. This came in a statement by Chief Executive of the Russian-Indian tank contract, General Director of "Uralvagonzavod" scientific industrial corporation Oleg Siyenko at the IDEX-2013 arms fair.


To make matters worse the article takes on an aura of its own claiming how great things are in India:

On the basis of total characteristics, today the T-90C tank is the best tank on the international market. According to Siyenko, "there are hundreds of already manufactured tanks". This tank is produced on the base of the Russian license at a tank factory in the city of Avadi, in the state of Tamil Nadu. Today, the T-90C tank is the main striking force of the Indian army.


On a false basis, which he converts into a marketing point that supports Russia he goes on to state: "Today, the T-90C tank is the main striking force of the Indian army." While true to some extent, it is a false truth, one that needs correction in 2013+.

Then, of course, the inevitable - now that the fox has entered the chicken coup:

According to estimations of experts, in 2014-2019, India can additionally purchase about 600 new, modernized T-90C tanks and start their complete licensed production on the spot


These 600 SHOULD go to the Arjun, NOT the T-90C.

The the expected: false extrapolation of a Russophile:

day, India sticks to the same pattern at other enterprises producing various military equipment under Russian licenses. Indian Corporation "Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd" produces one of the world's best fighters Su-30 MKI under the Russian license. Today, together with India we manufacture a prospective fifth generation fighter - FGFA (Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft). It is for several years now that the Russian-Indian BrahMos joint venture, named in honor of the Russian Moscow River and the Indian Brahmaputra, produces the fastest BrahMos cruise missiles.


Non of these can make the T-90C good for India. The T-90C is NOT better than the Arjun MK1.


Again, it is no use discussing what happened in the past. (And not to talk about a person who page after page twists the truth and claims to represent it!!!!)

The debate or discussion has to be as to how to discontinue the T-Can series and start the Arjun.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7631
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby rohitvats » 23 Mar 2013 21:25

^^^If people have already not woken up to the fact then let me state this - Sanku is a troll as far as Arjun and T-90 debate is concerned. Stop feeding the troll and we may actually be able to discuss something more useful on this thread.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16238
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby NRao » 23 Mar 2013 21:31

rohitvats wrote:^^^If people have already not woken up to the fact then let me state this - Sanku is a troll as far as Arjun and T-90 debate is concerned. Stop feeding the troll and we may actually be able to discuss something more useful on this thread.


True.

Place him on you ignore list. You will not miss anything I can tell from experience (data point for you).

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Surya » 23 Mar 2013 23:37

One reason that the western tanks look good is that they comparison is between the top line US tanks vs 30 year old Soviet hand me downs, run by rag tag Arab armies.


thats the tin can problems :mrgreen:

they are 30 yr old designs with no growth potential unlike the western ones which have grown

all the T 72 can grow is into the T 80 and T90 - minor improvements here and there

but basically tin cans which will meet the same fate as the others

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36298
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby SaiK » 24 Mar 2013 03:08

It would be really nice if DRDO can show a video of Arjun's protection against various kinds of shells and missiles. All they need is a large square box of kanchan armor with 4 pumpkins inside.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8068
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Pratyush » 24 Mar 2013 09:00

SaiK wrote:It would be really nice if DRDO can show a video of Arjun's protection against various kinds of shells and missiles. All they need is a large square box of kanchan armor with 4 pumpkins inside.


The IA post the test will still go on with the T 90. The T 90 purchase is a scam, that no one talks about. A tank that is inferior to the Arjun in nearly all aspects. Yet gets 1600+ orders. While a better Indian tank gets 124 orders and then the line goes quite.

bmallick
BRFite
Posts: 303
Joined: 05 Jun 2010 20:28

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby bmallick » 24 Mar 2013 10:48

Pratyush wrote:The IA post the test will still go on with the T 90. The T 90 purchase is a scam, that no one talks about. A tank that is inferior to the Arjun in nearly all aspects. Yet gets 1600+ orders. While a better Indian tank gets 124 orders and then the line goes quite.


Ghar ki murgi daal barabar.

I just do not understand, why GOI, does not make a rule whereby it says that once you have a local product ready, you simply cannot buy from outside, no matter what is the issue. You fix the issue and work on it. Else what's the point of indigenisation. Look at the case of INSAS. There we made our own rifle, put it through its paces, corrected its issues, learnt a lot on how to build a good rifle. But now we want to chuck that knowledge away and buy a new one from outside. We probably are the laughing stock of the world's arms bazaar. Just design a new rifle at home.

Also I just do not understand this craving of people for the soldier should get the best equipment. Yes, a very noble thought. But you do not need the nest weapon to win a war, you need one which is adequate, reliable & easily serviceable. The best fit for that is a home grown solution. You have your own factories to churn out these in good numbers. Are never held to ransom during war by someone else for spare parts. What happens if the ship carrying critical spare parts for your tanks on the front is sunk by a lurking enemy submarine. You go out and call a timeout and say boss you were wrong in sinking my critical spare carrying ship, now we cannot fight.

The gold plated stuff have never won wars for their nations, its the workhorse weapon system that did.

Added Later: I think since we have never fought a long drawn out war, a war running into months/years we do not truly appreciate the need to have factories churning out replacements for sending stuff to the front. Our short duration wars till date means that whatever is in the stores/reserves have been probably adequate.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby member_22539 » 24 Mar 2013 11:26

^+1 We should ban all imports with domestic alternatives or even potential alternatives.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 24 Mar 2013 12:24

rohitvats wrote:
Sanku wrote:<SNIP>Arjun failed its AUCRT in 2008 so the DRDO asking for compartive trials in 2006 is another of the hoax perpetrated by determined anti IA lobby which is trying to fire off Arjun shoulders (while in reality couldn't care less)<SNIP>


Let me state this upfront - You are lying by making the above statements. You have been given explanations earlier of what AUCRT is (by me) and in spite of that you are giving the above argument. This simply goes to show that your interest here is simply to argue for the sake of it and for that, you'll obfuscate a point or simply lie your way through.


Well if you are using the lying word, I am afraid let me be blunt and say that it is my understanding that is correct and you are wrong. I wont call you are lying, just taken yourself where you are opinionated to a point where you are at variance with reality.

And please dont tell me what AUCRTs are, I am sure you will remember that this point was explained by me on the forum

Basically, IA takes the equipment, like 02 Arjun tanks in this case and puts them through paces. The objective is to subject the equipment to such intense usage so as to mimic the utilization over entire life period (which can be 20-25 years for a tank).


For the first time, when people were complaining that T 90 engine failed, I was the one to explain the same.

And BTW, the AUCRT of T-90 was termed as inadequate by the team from EME because the tanks were not run to death


I am sorry they were indeed run to death, the deaths happened as expected.

=====================================

Let me add another thing now ---

There is a concept of PASS and FAIL in AUCRT.

If a equipment can run to its designed life -- it passes.

If a equipment shows excessive wear and tear before its designed life, it fails.

=====================================

Arjun failed AUCRT because it showed excessive wear and tear far earlier than its designed life. We are not talking of 90% as in case of T 90. These were basic failures at early stages (as documented, of course they were so dramatic that sabotage was claimed, but unfortunately, the reason was not sabotage, but poor manufacturing)

People should learn to accept the facts as they exist.

And btw, even DRDO/CVRDE/Avadi accepts the same, so other than this thread which is truly in la la land, where Arjun was flapping its wings and flying and shooting down F22 in 1974, the reality is that Arjun has been ready for deployment only in 2009 best case.

The other reality is that NO ONE knows what the current sustained rate of production at Avadi is.
Last edited by Sanku on 24 Mar 2013 13:17, edited 1 time in total.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 24 Mar 2013 12:50

bmallick wrote:
Also I just do not understand this craving of people for the soldier should get the best equipment. Yes, a very noble thought. But you do not need the nest weapon to win a war, you need one which is adequate, reliable & easily serviceable.


It would be be difficult to point to single case where the services have not done exactly what you have suggested, in fact Indian services have rarely obtained the best of class solutions, for most of its life, the equipment purchase has been exactly on the lines mentioned.

In fact even when importing from outside, the best in class approach is rarely taken, it is more in terms of adequacy at best price.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 24 Mar 2013 12:53

Pratyush wrote:
SaiK wrote:It would be really nice if DRDO can show a video of Arjun's protection against various kinds of shells and missiles. All they need is a large square box of kanchan armor with 4 pumpkins inside.


The IA post the test will still go on with the T 90. The T 90 purchase is a scam, that no one talks about. A tank that is inferior to the Arjun in nearly all aspects. Yet gets 1600+ orders. While a better Indian tank gets 124 orders and then the line goes quite.


Except that T 90 was FIRST purchase in 99 and follow on orders were given in 2004-6, and Arjun's become available for deployment only in 2009.

Barring this little glitch of IA not being able to time travel as some of the posters on this thread, the point is fully valid.
:rotfl:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby pralay » 24 Mar 2013 16:53

Sanku wrote:Let me add another thing now ---
There is a concept of PASS and FAIL in AUCRT.
If a equipment can run to its designed life -- it passes.
If a equipment shows excessive wear and tear before its designed life, it fails.

More lies of TinCanFans are being exposed by themselves in their last face-saving efforts :D

Sanku wrote:People should learn to accept the facts as they exist.

Yes, people now know the facts that's why you have no option but to twist your own words.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby amit » 24 Mar 2013 17:35

^^^^^

It's best not to feed the Troll. They/he is not here for an objective discussion. So every response is a victory as it takes the discussion away from the main point which is despite having a worldclass indigenous MBT, various interest groups are trying to ram tin cans down India's throat. Note Rao ji's link which quotes the Russian guy as saying India may buy 600 more. No smoke without fire. And the Army has indicated that 248 is the cap for Arjun if it can have it's way.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4421
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby putnanja » 24 Mar 2013 20:51

Sanku wrote:I am sorry they were indeed run to death, the deaths happened as expected.

=====================================



I don't know if you had even read the AUCRT of T-90, but one of them had an engine and transmission failure pretty early in the tests. The document should still be floating around somewhere on the web, which many on the BRF know. The deaths of T-90 didn't happen "as expected".

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16238
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby NRao » 24 Mar 2013 20:58

The latest I have been able to find:

A Look at Indian Army's Main Battle Tanks

(This article was UPDATED on Mar 6, 2013)

In all, India plans to have 310 T-90S and 1,330 T-90M tanks in service by 2020 (total of 1,657 tanks by 2020).

Manufactured locally in India. Rs 10,000-crore purchase of 354 new T-90MS tanks for six tank regiments for the China border has been approved. This takes total no. of T-90 tanks to 2011.


Seems to me the Russian is implying that the 600 is in addition to these.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 26 Mar 2013 16:06

Can any one id this vehicle


Image

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7631
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby rohitvats » 26 Mar 2013 16:27

Sanku wrote:Can any one id this vehicle<SNIP>


Warrior IFV of the British Army.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby member_22539 » 26 Mar 2013 16:31

^What is funny is that he is comparing an "IFV" to Tincan "TANKS" and implying that all of them catch fire, so equal equal between Western and Russian stuff.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brar_w and 62 guests