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.
Rakesh wrote:Now watch them blacklist that too! Next time a tender is put out for howitzers, the companies should send scale howitzer models to the MoD and tell them to take a long walk off a short pier! This is pathetic indeed.
Sad to be laughing on our own forces and MoD but guess we deserve it for the kind of polity we elect and the IA for lusting after the best-of-the-best instead of at-least asking DRDO to start a homegrown ( even if flawed) effort even when they knew the ground situation of the howitzer saga
Boss, here's something the media needs to investigate and report as this is a serious internal challenge to national security.
Twenty years, a gazillion RFP and RFI's and only rejections and blacklists. I don't believe the same MOD that is allowing other services to import what they need is playing so truant with IA - leading to this Artillery fiasco and circus.
I do not blame the manufacturers if they no longer want anything to do with IA or MOD. Why not investigate and punish the bribe takers for a change instead of blacklisting every gun making company in the world. If all these companies are bad, how come the armies of the rest of the 200 countries in the world get their guns ??
Something is seriously wrong here that needs to be exposed.
Singha wrote:but I thought pegasus maker ST kinetics was blacklisted already?
denel is blacklisted
M777 is in trouble too
there is nobody left really apart from KMW
Pratyush wrote:The KMW solution is blacklisted as well as it is mated to the South African hull by Daneal. Since Daneal is blacklisted, KMW solution is blacklisted by default. The only way it can see service with IA now will be to mate it with Arjun Hull. But IA may not be interested in KMW turret & Arjun hull solution.
Not completely true. AFAIK Rheinmetall was also blacklisted, along with Soltam of Israel. So when it comes to towed artillery there are possibly no contenders! The only some what reputable SP artillery makers left are France(Nexter?), South Korea & BAE(non-Bofors).
I think Bae/Bofors is doing the right thing, this whole procurement is just a big mess. Their product is recognized by many as the best , but if the MoD won't let them win no matter what it's just a big waste of time and money.
Boss, here's something the media needs to investigate and report as this is a serious internal challenge to national security.
Twenty years, a gazillion RFP and RFI's and only rejections and blacklists. I don't believe the same MOD that is allowing other services to import what they need is playing so truant with IA - leading to this Artillery fiasco and circus.
I do not blame the manufacturers if they no longer want anything to do with IA or MOD. Why not investigate and punish the bribe takers for a change instead of blacklisting every gun making company in the world. If all these companies are bad, how come the armies of the rest of the 200 countries in the world get their guns ??
Something is seriously wrong here that needs to be exposed.
Agreed, earnest request to Vishnu & other Media persons who may read this. Please investigate, this is a huge tragedy, while a lot of us are happy that MMRCA is moving ahead, we shouldn't lose focus of this.
Henrik wrote:I think Bae/Bofors is doing the right thing, this whole procurement is just a big mess. Their product is recognized by many as the best , but if the MoD won't let them win no matter what it's just a big waste of time and money.
This was predicted on BRF a few years ago... the MoD issuing an RFP for which nobody responds.
Please do an investigation and feature on the 20 year failure of mod to induct new guns to mitigate the critical shortages and obsolesence. imo artillery is at the heart of any military operation - offensive or defensive and the army is going to be in deep trouble here.
You invited a lot of questions on your mmrca program - fighters is a ctitical need but it is being addressed now by iaf/mod but here's the chance to even the field by covering this critical and burning issue which seems to be getting completely ignored in the media.
The BAE product was the only one that met the Indian Army's stringent requirements. But since single vendor deals are discouraged by the DPP, the QR was diluted to allow the ST Kinetics' product to compete. Now BAE has withdrawn since its sees no point in jumping through hoops only to lose to a cheaper albeit qualitatively inferior product. Leaving the IA/MoD with.... a single vendor. Sigh.
Singha wrote:on can think of a future SP platform where the 'target console operator' is getting a live feed from upto 3 sources like UAV, vehicles with TV/thermals of target area, satellite feed.....
[a] he visually locates that targets, talking by secure radio to fwd observers if needed he uses the touchscreen or mouse to continuously 'mark' a series of targets noting the rounds to be fire on each
[c] system takes the GPS co-ordinates from the map and fees that into weapon aiming computer, with #rounds
[d] automatic loader feeds in the rounds from magazine
[e] gun steadily fires DUMB rounds at these static targets
[f] for special high value targets, the machine feeds in the image into IIR seeker onboard smart shell which goes terminal active using a radar altimeter
[g] a command operator can enslave a battery of guns to his target designation and a load distributor makes sure all guns get a share of targets to hit, keeping them all cool and ready
cheap. decisive. smart.
GD, check out the Mission Army episode on Artillery. The participants get to 'acquire' target coordinates from a LORROS system and radio it on to the 105 IFG crew to strike.
We also know that IA/IAF uses UAVs for target designation and BDA from recent IAF exercises.
Put two and two together, I will say that what you have outlined above (minus the smart rounds) is happening, no need for the future!
For past 4.5 years, I have been writing about Armeee's GSQR forming capabilities. Not initiating the inducting Arjun (atleast) in 1996 and dragging feet subsequently was a major mistake. Not forming an Indian Artillery project was another mistake. You can see all these elements in the article.
For induction of Arjun, the writer says "The early retirement of the T-72 has been stymied by the army’s incomprehensible refusal to order larger numbers of the DRDO-developed Arjun"
some folks here don't like Armee to be criticised and end up in calling names and asking "incomprehensible" proofs.
As has been stated innumerable times, problem with the fauj is, and I don’t completely blame them - they do not see themselves as a stakeholder. This arty fiasco will hopefully force them to see it that way.
The reason I don’t completely blame them is, in the 80s and early 90s they were passed on some desi products that were not entirely usable and used to fall short of the min requirements. That led to the mistrust that we see now. Fact that it got institutionalized made matters only worse.
But, yes it takes two to tango and both the parties need to straighten things up at their respective ends.
P Chitkara wrote:The reason I don’t completely blame them is, in the 80s and early 90s they were passed on some desi products that were not entirely usable and used to fall short of the min requirements. That led to the mistrust that we see now. Fact that it got institutionalized made matters only worse.
But, yes it takes two to tango and both the parties need to straighten things up at their respective ends.
In Israel, they would have considered it as mark I.
Would you go out and fight with a NVG that can hardly distinguish between the terrain and the vehicles or that fails very consistently? That can certainly not be called mark I - mark I is where at least some of the baseline requirements have been achieved.
I am all for the block/mark dev approach but using it to put forward less that satisfactory stuff is pushing things too much.
Not defending the fauj but, couldn’t help commenting. JMT.
P Chitkara wrote:Would you go out and fight with a NVG that can hardly distinguish between the terrain and the vehicles or that fails very consistently? That can certainly not be called mark I - mark I is where at least some of the baseline requirements have been achieved.
I am all for the block/mark dev approach but using it to put forward less that satisfactory stuff is pushing things too much.
Not defending the fauj but, couldn’t help commenting. JMT.
I agree - not all would have been that bad. But, consider this - you are giving a couple of new products to a new customer. Some of the initial one's fail or perform below expectations. It is not difficult to imagine what it will do to the customer's/stakeholders confidence.
This is now veering far OT so this will be my last post on this matter.
There is where the problem lies... This attitude is ok when you are importing from foreign nations. But being a defense force, you are equally responsibile for creating a efficient and effective MIC.
You right there were lot of problems initially to the level that they cannot be inducted. But what stopped IA from working with research team to rectify the problems. In the hindsight, even naval equipments were not ok in the first lot, but navy instead of distancing itself from the problem worked on the projects as equal partner and with a bonafide will to induct them once the product clears the base line requirement and is reaping the benefits of the same unlike IA which in spite of having clear indication of lack of spine on part of babus to order artillery did not find reason to involve desi research instittutions.
And the argument that fight with third grade desi equipment though often quoted to justify imports and reject desi maal, forgets that nations like Afghanisthan have/are fighting with 5th grade weapons against the finest in the world and still giving them the toughest fight to the extent that the largest ecomony of the world went into recession (atleast partly)
P Chitkara wrote:I agree - not all would have been that bad. But, consider this - you are giving a couple of new products to a new customer. Some of the initial one's fail or perform below expectations. It is not difficult to imagine what it will do to the customer's/stakeholders confidence.
This is now veering far OT so this will be my last post on this matter.
There were very few times when imported equipment performed good right from thw word go. GSQR's have been downgraded to allow equipment import.
As far as the Arjun is concerned, IA has no room for any manuever. They were justified only in the purchase of initial batch of 300 T-90 tanks.
After which, it is only the pig-headedness, pure and simple. The Armored Corps is crying out loud for modernization, we need numbers as of yesterday but Arjun must be restricted to 248 tanks.
Couldn't agree with you more, Rohit. Now even with change of the DGMO why is that opinion still persisting especially when the capabilities have been demonstrated on the ground? Is there a willingness to buy more Arjun Mk1s once the 248 are supplied?
He said DRDO, which had delivered 101 Arjun main battle tanks (MBTs) to the army, had received orders for another 124 tanks. The newer version of the Arjun MBT-II with 13 new features would be ready for formal demonstration in June 2012. The new features include better missile firing capability, better penetration of ammunition and thermal lighting for the tank commanders.
After all this rigmarole they will go through the FMS route and buys some more artillery pieces as long as it dosent come with that dreaded Bofors tag.
Come on guys anyone who has been around this forum for more than a year knows that most of the news concenring DRDO cant be good(except for the AKash in recent times and yes i come from the AJ establishment of Moulana Dilbu)
Last edited by suryag on 08 May 2011 01:08, edited 1 time in total.
chackojoseph wrote:Tomorrow, I will post an exclusive on Indian Artillery project by DRDO.
Awesome CJ ! Way to go, your wide scale coverage of all key arms and services, anciliaries and the r&d guys, infomed articles are the only sane thing in this country in the name of defense journalism. I am already a fan !
.
This is so unlike most others who make lofty statements, but only have substandard, sponsored stuff to show - plain broucheritis luffa journalism of the worst kind.
Please keep up the good work, and tie up with timesnow or ht or newsx etc to do and show tv programs on defense.....there is a huge audience there that needs the awareness.
chackojoseph wrote:Tomorrow, I will post an exclusive on Indian Artillery project by DRDO.
If you are in contact with DRDO types please tell them to adapt Sudarshan LGB technology for artillery. Excalibur is way too expensive, even if suppliers are willing to sell it.
Thank you for kind words. TV Channel tieup is a good idea. I will try. Alternatively, since TV and internet is merging, late next year you will find FI moving into the space. God willing, FI, will begin reaching homes via TV.
Pranav wrote:DRDO should move quickly, otherwise the import lobbies will have their way.
I doubt it is going to solve the present mess. IA needs artillery urgently and we don't have any other choice but to import. It will take considerable time before drdo can field a potent machine, as the project is still in its infancy. The continuation of present situation will compromise battle readiness of IA.
