Given the recent developments and quotes from DRDO -- I think it might be better to say that FMBT was IA's idea.nachiket/Suyra wrote: FMBT is IA's idea.
Well 248+ expected follow on + regiments being formed etc clearly points to future course. It can be better yes, it must be made better by all concerned, but the corner seems to have been turned.nachiket wrote: The situation is no better now. Still only token orders from the army.
Stop with this holier than thou bullshit and all the other crap you are throwing. Philip's point was that the Arjun tank did not satisfy the IA's requirements during the 90s and I know this for a fact because I asked several members of the armored corps in the late 90s about the Arjun. Their biggest complaints were reliability, lack of infrastructure to go with it and the cost of bringing the infrastructure, and other issues that made Arjun, in the eyes of the IA, a lesser tank despite its indigenous design. The members were very much willing to accept Arjun if only it could meet their requirements. But at that time, it didn't and left a bad impression on the members. It was only this decade that the DRDO had to redo it and take in the complaints of IA before Arjun finally met the requirements. Nowadays Arjun is a tank worthy of IA's attention.rohitvats wrote:Oh! How the mighty have fallen. So, you were only refering to the delay in the Arjun program, is it? Too bad - everything you have posted is right here.Philip wrote:It is beneath contempt to respond to those who accuse me of 'lies" and spreading "falsehoods'".This is something I have never done on BR ever since its inception.The vast majority of members know that.I do not wish to descend to their deplorable levels of manners of some of my critics and their infantile and juvenile discussions.However,for the seriously inclined who have an open mind here are some facts. <SNIP>
Post 1 -When I accused you of lying, you changed the stance to this:Philip wrote: Arjun was never designed with the IA in the loop from the start,which is why it faced so much resistance from the Army.Nevertheless,the IA eventually ordered the Arjun and a repeat order is said to have also been made for the MK-2 version.And, it is the second statement you're trying to defend.The IA rightly rejected Arjun for years because it did not make the grade.Read the voluminous CAG reports of the same.Years of debate has been on BR on the issue.When it did,and proved itself well against the T-90, it bought it
Do you have anything to support your first assertion i.e. IA was never in the loop? I think not. The reason - it is a blatant lie and flies in the face of facts. So, please stop ataking recourse to manners and civility and what not. If you have the humility, please accept that the first point was incorrect and delete the post or the said portion of the post. All this references to CAG and PAC or PSCD Reports does not absolve you of the nonsense you wrote. Pure and simple.
baring reliability the rest speaks volumens of the requirements drafted - Read these -Their biggest complaints were reliability, lack of infrastructure to go with it and the cost of bringing the infrastructure, and other issues that made Arjun, in the eyes of the IA, a lesser tank despite its indigenous design
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... Arjun.htmlIn all fairness why blame the ARJUN, The DRDO or even the MOD. If all you can do is pull out a GSQR from Jane's Armor cut & paste it this is what you will get notwithstanding almost 5000 Cr of taxpayers money going down the drain. .
Hmm but now it is not - the tin cans are death traps - again the experience of the only people who have seen combat in tin cans notwithstanding dberwals mysterious non open source encounter somewhere.But then when you are the end user, you want the best product available because your very life and your buddies' lives are at stake and you need to have faith in the weapons you are holding or manning.
People have been pointing out it was and towards the end the IA men involved who actually were happy with it.Philip's take was that perhaps IA was not part of the designing group or decision making group at that time and if it was, it could have prevented the bad reputation that IA associated with the Arjun project.
To enlighten you, any new product will have the three mentioned complaints in the beginning. Specially the two infrastructure related. Plus any new product may not be very reliable either. That is why you need an initial batch (not a token number of 10) to identify and effectively deal with those issues (more so if the issues relate to small tinkering rather than large scale design issues). This is what the first user does. IA as the first user will have to swallow the fact that a brand new product may not be super duper reliable. Beyond a certain limit reliability is built over tranches and not overnight.Hitesh wrote: Their biggest complaints were reliability, lack of infrastructure to go with it and the cost of bringing the infrastructure, and other issues that made Arjun, in the eyes of the IA, a lesser tank despite its indigenous design. The members were very much willing to accept Arjun if only it could meet their requirements. But at that time, it didn't and left a bad impression on the members. It was only this decade that the DRDO had to redo it and take in the complaints of IA before Arjun finally met the requirements. Nowadays Arjun is a tank worthy of IA's attention.
The vijayantas produced indigenously had initial teething problems in their driving & maintenance aspect and this was drummed up to such an extent that we almost saw their end before they even got going
The gun (t 72)is inaccurate beyond 1000m. On the move it has a FRHC of 68% as given by the manufacturer whereas the Arjun has achieved almost 85%
Dude, don’t come here and tell me what I need and need not do. Take this bullsh1t somewhere else.Hitesh wrote: Stop with this holier than thou bullshit and all the other crap you are throwing. Philip's point was that the Arjun tank did not satisfy the IA's requirements during the 90s and I know this for a fact because I asked several members of the armored corps in the late 90s about the Arjun. Their biggest complaints were reliability, lack of infrastructure to go with it and the cost of bringing the infrastructure, and other issues that made Arjun, in the eyes of the IA, a lesser tank despite its indigenous design. The members were very much willing to accept Arjun if only it could meet their requirements. But at that time, it didn't and left a bad impression on the members. It was only this decade that the DRDO had to redo it and take in the complaints of IA before Arjun finally met the requirements. Nowadays Arjun is a tank worthy of IA's attention
You can go take a hike for all I care, dude. Stop acting angry and agitated and please put some facts on the table. Philips point was incorrect then and continues to remain even now. If you’re equally ignorant about the facts then least you can do is shut-up and not add noise to the forum.Hitesh wrote:Hence, the last statement of Philip is correct. So stop with the holier than thou indigenous stuff. I am beginning to detect some sort of a mafia thing going on where criticism against indigenous products must be met with outright hostility and name calling. Yeah sure enough indigenous products are hard to make and hard to get it right but once they meet the requirements; it should be pursued at all costs. But then when you are the end user, you want the best product available because your very life and your buddies' lives are at stake and you need to have faith in the weapons you are holding or manning. IA did not have that faith in Arjun during the 90s because Arjun did not meet the very necessary requirements. Philip's take was that perhaps IA was not part of the designing group or decision making group at that time and if it was, it could have prevented the bad reputation that IA associated with the Arjun project.
Please drill this down into your cranium – there is a difference between facts and opinions. Arjun looks and feels the way it is today because it was designed to meet the army’s requirement. It was made as per army’s GSQR. This is a fact. You cannot have an opinion that “IA was not in the loop”. In the loop about what? Did IAF design the LCA? Or did DRDO design LCA to meet the ASQR of IAF? So, please stop taking recourse to semantics of opinions and facts.Hitesh wrote:I do not agree with most of Philip's posts especially regarding Russian products. However, by engaging in this kind of posting, you are attempting to create an atmosphere where only one set of opinions is allowed and no other opinions that run contrarily to it is tolerated. I strongly resent this even more than I do regarding Philip's overzealous defense of Russian products which can border on the lines of blindless devotion and which can be a pain in the ass sometimes but tolerable because I know for a fact that,it is just an opinion and Philip is entitled to it. I can either choose to ignore it or rebut him factually and let the others make their own opinions without having need to personally attack him.
Sonny boy, go fly a kite or play with your teddy bear. Come back if you have something to add to the debate.Hitesh wrote:If you can't handle that, you got no business criticizing the IA for its decisions.
Rohit Saar, who said that this debate was for IA's moronity or T-90 vs Arjun??rohitvats wrote: Dude, don’t come here and tell me what I need and need not do. Take this bullsh1t somewhere else.
.... SNIP .....
Sonny boy, go fly a kite or play with your teddy bear. Come back if you have something to add to the debate.
Oooh... touched off a nerve, didn't I?rohitvats wrote:
Dude, don’t come here and tell me what I need and need not do. Take this bullsh1t somewhere else.
Don't count me as one of the T-90s cheerers. I am one of the Arjun's ardent supporters. I greatly want to see the Arjun program to succeed. But I am not surprised at this long gestation of this program. In fact, there is enough blame to go around and IA must shoulder its share of blame and likewise, the DRDO for overpromising certain things that they claim they would deliver but actually hindered IA's combat capability procurement and screwed up the procurement policy and doctrine.I don’t need a Johnny-come-lately to teach me about the Arjun program. There have been enough rounds of debates on the Arjun Story on BRF and if in spite of that someone says that Arjun was designed without the involvement of the Army, then he needs to consult a shrink.
Coming to the deficiencies in the product, what you and your ilk forget that the very same army went ahead and bought a tank WITHOUT making it do even fraction of tests that Arjun went through. And when it finally came for tests, the damn thing had an engine seizure!!! But there is no word about those or other issues liked TI and Sabot Rounds which still persist. So much for objectivity!!!
Once a procurement decision has been made, it is very hard to stop it. There is this bureacratic momentum not to mention the logistics momentum. I take it you have never had experience with ordering large cost items. Because when you order the 1000 T-90s, it is not just the machines themselves, but the tooling, kits, tools, training, infrastructure that you end up paying. Once you set up all that, the costs have already been sunk in. What good is cancelling the 1000 T-90s when you have already sunk in more than 60% of the costs? Hence I see no surprise in IA's hesitancy/reluctance in canceling the T-90s.As to availability of Arjun in late 90s and early 2000, while the decision of IA is justified with respect to first purchase and to some extent the second tranche, there is no justification for license production of further 1000 T-90 when a superior design and system is available.
It s actually you that are adding the noise to the forum when you are making statements about lying and stuff and launching personal attacks against a long time veteran poster who was here a lot longer on this forum than you have. So I am perfectly justified in telling you to take a hike.You can go take a hike for all I care, dude. Stop acting angry and agitated and please put some facts on the table. Philips point was incorrect then and continues to remain even now. If you’re equally ignorant about the facts then least you can do is shut-up and not add noise to the forum.
Now you are changing the subject. So who is moving the "goal posts"?rohitvats wrote:Please drill this down into your cranium – there is a difference between facts and opinions. Arjun looks and feels the way it is today because it was designed to meet the army’s requirement. It was made as per army’s GSQR. This is a fact. You cannot have an opinion that “IA was not in the loop”. In the loop about what? Did IAF design the LCA? Or did DRDO design LCA to meet the ASQR of IAF? So, please stop taking recourse to semantics of opinions and facts.Hitesh wrote:I do not agree with most of Philip's posts especially regarding Russian products. However, by engaging in this kind of posting, you are attempting to create an atmosphere where only one set of opinions is allowed and no other opinions that run contrarily to it is tolerated. I strongly resent this even more than I do regarding Philip's overzealous defense of Russian products which can border on the lines of blindless devotion and which can be a pain in the ass sometimes but tolerable because I know for a fact that,it is just an opinion and Philip is entitled to it. I can either choose to ignore it or rebut him factually and let the others make their own opinions without having need to personally attack him.
The Arjun may have been made as per army's GSQR on paper but did it stand up to scrutiny at that time during the 90s? It was tested and it was found to be wanting on several key requirements. I have spoken to several IA armoured corps' members quite extensively and they were not happy with the tank and did not have faith in DRDO's ability to deliver a reliable tank at a time when the need for new tanks were pressing. So caught with a choice of ordering T-90s tanks or waiting another decade for the DRDO to finally deliver the tank the IA wants (given the IA's experience with DRDO's claims and promises and its track record of delivering an final end user product), it was no surprise that the IA went in for the T-90s and started setting up the purchase. Now fast forward 5 years later when the DRDO has finally rectified it, the DRDO came and asked the IA to cancel the T-90s buy when the IA has already sank a very significant portion of money into the T-90s purchase. I am not surprised that the IA balked at getting out of the T-90s deal when doctrines and tactical plans in which years of planning and training have been put in to make good use of the T-90s have already taken place and the IA would have to do it all over again just for the Arjun tank and eat up more of its operating budget just to learn how to use the Arjun tank in battle. So there was that inertia that was hard to overcome.I think there have been enough experience of that, given your example of juvenile ranting and display so I politely decline your offer to play with your teddy bear or kite. And as for calling me sonny boy, it is quite evident towards your lack of comprehension or maturity and thusly, shine a shining fat beacon of light on the quality of your posts.Sonny boy, go fly a kite or play with your teddy bear. Come back if you have something to add to the debate.
You just nailed the point. The infrastructure was not supporting hence unreliability. Not DRDO problem right? Like you, I too have spoken to the folks and pinpointed to this fact. They admitted that if there was more support, they could have seen it inducted. It is up to Army which had to create it.Hitesh wrote:Stop with this holier than thou bullshit and all the other crap you are throwing. Philip's point was that the Arjun tank did not satisfy the IA's requirements during the 90s and I know this for a fact because I asked several members of the armored corps in the late 90s about the Arjun. Their biggest complaints were reliability, lack of infrastructure to go with it and the cost of bringing the infrastructure, and other issues that made Arjun, in the eyes of the IA, a lesser tank despite its indigenous design. The members were very much willing to accept Arjun if only it could meet their requirements. But at that time, it didn't and left a bad impression on the members.
Philip's original comment, as you can see where it all started, was factually wrong. He later admitted that the second order was MK-1. Then he accused that there were no "embeds" in the project from the army. For that we even gave him the names of the people not just embedded there, but, also headed, including the (later) Army Chief. This army chief saw to the acceptance of Arjun in 1996.Hence, the last statement of Philip is correct.
My understanding is that both has pluses and minuses. IA/DRDO changed their decision - why are you goading other forumites in this case?Sanku wrote:Its a pity that those who were going on and on about how 120 mm rifled canon was the best thing since sliced bread (and not a artifact of dated GSQRs coupled with a long development cycle) -- are not brave enough to come up and admit they were wrong.
As fully expected, once DRDO came to grips with the canon making process, a common cannon between T 90 series of armor and tanks of Indian origin (Arjun, Arjun+, FMBT) would come about.
Army should have uniform policies atleast, if not favourable towards homegrown equipment. that is peeve of most forumites - as i understand.Sanku wrote:
Except that Arjun and T 90 did not both lack X. One lacked X and another Y.
What good? The supreme benefit is you break this loop of dependence. Once you have 1600 T-90s, it opens the door for importing and spending more for these because ofHitesh wrote: Once a procurement decision has been made, it is very hard to stop it. There is this bureacratic momentum not to mention the logistics momentum. I take it you have never had experience with ordering large cost items. Because when you order the 1000 T-90s, it is not just the machines themselves, but the tooling, kits, tools, training, infrastructure that you end up paying. Once you set up all that, the costs have already been sunk in. What good is cancelling the 1000 T-90s when you have already sunk in more than 60% of the costs? Hence I see no surprise in IA's hesitancy/reluctance in canceling the T-90s.
On lighter note :Hitesh wrote: I take it you have never worked in a large bureacracy such as the Army.
I thought that is the domain of MoD and GoI. So far they were the in-charge of it, I have read posts after posts on this topic. I have learned something new 
Not goading, its a "I told you so" -- you will have to travel down a few years back in history of BRF discussions to know why.alexis wrote:My understanding is that both has pluses and minuses. IA/DRDO changed their decision - why are you goading other forumites in this case?Sanku wrote:Its a pity that those who were going on and on about how 120 mm rifled canon was the best thing since sliced bread (and not a artifact of dated GSQRs coupled with a long development cycle) -- are not brave enough to come up and admit they were wrong.
As fully expected, once DRDO came to grips with the canon making process, a common cannon between T 90 series of armor and tanks of Indian origin (Arjun, Arjun+, FMBT) would come about.
then it came back from verge of death by a miracle and on the back of our economic growth, to finally ride the dunes again...History of Arjun Tank DevelopmentPratyush wrote:Another nube pooch. In the 30 + years of the arjun project. How many times the gsqr was revised by the IA. Forceing the DRDO to start afreash.
Sir,Pratyush wrote:Cj, thx for the link. Can you confirm if new prototypes were also built as aresult of each new gsqr.
How many iterations did the vehicle have before it reached the current form.
It will show us what the thinking of the army was. At different times of the project.
Shame on you for asking common-sense to prevail....Surya wrote:The funny part is one interview\article by one of the few men who has seen action in tin cans and which shreds so many of the naysayers nonsense is completly ignored.
Thank you for idea mate. Writing a book or thesis takes a lot of time and money especially when the distance is very far. But, if folks can help and take off their ad blocks (that's the theme of the year, I will keep reminding) and show solidarity. I can bring out info in bits and pieces.Pratyush wrote:Perhaps it will result in a book by you that we at BRF will buy
Doesn't matter. Once you commit to a weapon systems procurement/buy, you are committed to it for the next 20 years depending on the lifecycle of the program. It is the same for all armies all over the world, even in the US Army. One major reason is that you have committed a doctrine around the weapon system and you have devoted countless manhours to developing the doctrine for using the weapon system, including war gaming, logistics planning, timetables, battle plans, etc. Unless the weapon system is so glaring defective or that it has so big of a major weakness that it would become a major liability despite any amount of repair or reduction work, no army in the world is gonna stop it. That's how armies work, including the western armies. That is why, with the exception of few programs such as the JSF program, in the US DoD, once the weapon system makes it past the R&D stage and into the procurement stage, it is hard to stop it or retire it early unless you are in a budget fight. Look at Crusader and Comanche, even the FCS programs. They did not make it past the R&D so it was easy to cancel it. But once you commit to the procurement, it is very hard to stop it. You can reduce the order but it means you are not gonna get anything else to make up for the lost numbers. Look at Raptor. They went from 767 to 187 without making up for the numbers. The JSF does not make up for the lost numbers. The planned numbers were already planned before Raptor's numbers were cut and they are even cutting the numbers. For a better example, take a look at the Sheridan project. It was found to be wanting on some levels but they kept it in service for 30 years because they have already committed to the procurement of the weapon systems. When the tank reached its end of the lifecycle, there was no replacement for that tank.RKumar wrote:What good? The supreme benefit is you break this loop of dependence. Once you have 1600 T-90s, it opens the door for importing and spending more for these because ofHitesh wrote: Once a procurement decision has been made, it is very hard to stop it. There is this bureacratic momentum not to mention the logistics momentum. I take it you have never had experience with ordering large cost items. Because when you order the 1000 T-90s, it is not just the machines themselves, but the tooling, kits, tools, training, infrastructure that you end up paying. Once you set up all that, the costs have already been sunk in. What good is cancelling the 1000 T-90s when you have already sunk in more than 60% of the costs? Hence I see no surprise in IA's hesitancy/reluctance in canceling the T-90s.
- you have to import ammo for it
- keep maintaining it for next 40 yrs
- keep upgrading it
I didn't know that IA has to pay the bill ... I keep hearing here that services should have the best equipment irrespective of the what cost? What happened to that logic when it comes to desi maal. Why to use exported stuff when better product is local made. And every penny spent, will be in desh.
hain ji
All large armies are bureacracies whether you like it or not. It is the nature of the beast.RKumar wrote:On lighter note :Hitesh wrote: I take it you have never worked in a large bureacracy such as the Army.
bureaucracy in army
Surya,Surya wrote:The funny part is one interview\article by one of the few men who has seen action in tin cans and which shreds so many of the naysayers nonsense is completly ignored.