Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 12 Jan 2012 00:48

rohit thanks

can you increase the font size of your replies -

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 12 Jan 2012 00:52

rohitvats wrote:
nachiket, the 1,037kms point is from trials (before induction) while "two tanks" part and 90%/50% figure is from AUCRT - which happens after induction in the IA.

Sorry, got confused onlee.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Jan 2012 00:52

rohitvats wrote:Not so fast. The main sticking point is simple - IA reccomended the induction of T-90 based on trials in Russia and CCS even gave approval. It was the PNC which asked for trials in Indian conditions - something, IA should have done before reccomending the induction of the tank. On what basis was reccomendation done when the the performance was not proven in Indian conditions?

IA did not recommend the induction. IA merely cleared the first level of tests for in-principle purchase.

These may sound as semantics, but these semantics run the GoI.

Without the in-principle ok for T-90. No further tests/discussions would be possible.

IA approval in Russia means only one thing "looks good here, lets take the next step" no more no less.

Of course my statement is common sense, BRF style speak. The Bureaucracy including the parts of Army staff, use far more involved correct and formal jargon.

As for AUCRT - well, you forgot about the "two tanks" bit - sure, one engine ran for 90% of stipulated time and hours.

No I did not, I remember two tanks. However I remember only a 90% figure. We may need the report again to sort out the exact figures.

And btw, the same report also says that EME Team from IA had reccomendations about (a) cooling systems for electronics to avoid overheating(b) APU for the tanks (c) improved TI Sights. This was in 2003. AFAIK, none of the above has happened with T-90. So, the product improvement part is till pending. But the Arjun must get the XYZ number of upgrades before making the cut.

Not true, there are many such recommendations from IA about Arjun too which are going to be part of Arjun-II. Its not affected the 124+124 purchase.

Arjun story is SAME as T-90 with a lag of 6-10 years, and not its not IA's fault. Its how things turned out being.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Jan 2012 00:53

Vivek K wrote:The Gentleman is absolutely fit for being the DGMO. 50% == 90% onlee!

And some people are fit to become journo's on Boeing payroll.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 12 Jan 2012 00:53

That the engines ran to 90% of the broucher times.

Not engines - one stinking engine - out of two.

Let me repeat one engine at less than 50 and other at 90 does not equate to 90% for all engines.

(posted later - let me assure you that there were 2)

And more importantly - we never heard of it - except through a mistaken release.

But every little flaw of Arjun was tomtommed

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 12 Jan 2012 00:55

Sanku wrote: Not true, there are many such recommendations from IA about Arjun too which are going to be part of Arjun-II. Its not affected the 124+124 purchase.

Hold on. I was under the impression that the follow on order for 124 tanks was for the MkII version. Chacko can clarify.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 12 Jan 2012 00:59

Arjun story is SAME as T-90 with a lag of 6-10 years,

How?? you took one tank with more problems WHICH are still not resolved - and gave them a massive order

The other one you wanted it to clear every niggling "issue" and even when it kicked the T 90s ass , you give a piffling 124 tank order??

In which parallel universe other than Phillip's is that same??

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Jan 2012 01:02

Surya wrote:
That the engines ran to 90% of the broucher times.
Not engines - one stinking engine - out of two.

One stinking engine out of 2 is still stinking 50%.

. But as I said. Lets put that article again, from what I remember both did well.

I know there were two.

But every little flaw of Arjun was tomtommed

Yes, there is a Indian inferiority thread for it. If a Indian thingy fails, the press will cover it more, including Col Shukla when covering the failures would get him more eyeballs.

Now that the failures are not so much, he has taken to sensationalizing the next victim.

Why blame IA (expect for raising the likes of Shri Shukla to Col)

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Jan 2012 01:06

Surya wrote:
Arjun story is SAME as T-90 with a lag of 6-10 years,
How?? you took one tank with more problems WHICH are still not resolved - and gave them a massive order

T-90 orders were not massive orders on day 0. It was a 300 tank order then a 300 tank order then a contract to make tanks in India, 1000 tanks.

This took about 6-7 years.

Now that, T 90 problems == Arjun problems only 2007 onwards.

We are seeing orders now and Mk II work.

But yes, Arjun should get more orders now.

And oh Gnite. Its late here. Very.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 12 Jan 2012 01:26

No the situation is not equal:
To make it equal

Arjun should have got a 300 tank order circa 2006 (even given that it was better than the tin crap before that)

It did not

It still has not

OR

T 90 order\delivery should have been paused and told to fix everything and come back

It was not told to (problems did not even make it to press barring TI much later)

The problems are still not fixed

Follow up order NOT given

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Jan 2012 01:40

So, all things firang that satisfy 50% of the requirement does actually gets 90% mark. And all things Indian that satisfy 90% of the requirement does only get 50% mark. why?

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 12 Jan 2012 02:25

I think the gentle readers here are confused as I was once confused. Then I realized the error of my ways. The IA simply has two sets of requirements. One for foreign equipment and one for domestic. Domestic equipment as a former IA DGMF stated must have futuristic technology (which by definition cannot be available today-- he really said futuristic!!) imported equipment can obviously be 10-20 yrs or more out of date AND work only in Siberian like conditions and thats ok even if the IA uses it in Thar desert like conditions.

Get it??? Now go back to eating your rice and let the GOI and IA make their carefully deliberated decisions as they have been for the last 60 years. Just like Allah, they often work in ways far beyond our humble comprehension. At least a few forum members are prescient enough to partially appreciate their value.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Jan 2012 02:51

SaiK, If SDRE one has to work harder to prove themselves no? So its fair to assign 50% of the marks for 90% of the achievement. Its called handicapping to bring out the best!

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 12 Jan 2012 03:15

nachiket wrote:
Sanku wrote: Not true, there are many such recommendations from IA about Arjun too which are going to be part of Arjun-II. Its not affected the 124+124 purchase.

Hold on. I was under the impression that the follow on order for 124 tanks was for the MkII version. Chacko can clarify.

The follow on order of 124 was actually for Mk1 which was placed after the T90 was aced. But since the timing of the order meant that it would take around 3 years to start production again (ordering stuff takes time). So, DRDO decided to convert the order to Mk2 (or atleast Mk1.5) i.e first half of the batch will have some Mk2 improvements (essentially all that can be validated by the time production starts) while the second batch will be Mk2.

There was a Frontier article explaining this.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 12 Jan 2012 05:44

One stinking engine out of 2 is still stinking 50%. . But as I said. Lets put that article again, from what I remember both did well.

Yes that means 50% failed at half the distance

- and you think buying that is perfectly logical??

Yes, there is a Indian inferiority thread for it. If a Indian thingy fails, the press will cover it more, .

Oh I missed this gem

Press cannot find it from thin air - The IA went to town with it.

Well the IA never reported the failures for T 90 and since you been trying to harp that the IA has no fault - you are wrong.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 12 Jan 2012 08:37

nukavarapu wrote: The Indian inferiority thread my a$$, its those freaking SDREs who just assume that by default everything thats phoren is by default superior to anything comes from desh, and that default assumption is what bringing the inferiority complex and not the hard work put out by CVRDE and DRDO guys.

Um, the Army personnel are recruited from the same "freaking SDREs". So why would their views be any different? And no one is talking about the country being inferior. Only the view that Indian built products are.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 12 Jan 2012 09:16

For Sanku and Philip to survive with their (so called) antiKhan antics, myths of Russian maal must survive intact. They have nothing against Arjun as long as you do not call T90 names. No pun intended

For jingos, on the other hand, assasination of t-90 is the only way that Arjun can have a decent life. As such T90 is a wonderful machine coming from a distinguish line of tankage

If T-90 is == to tin can than Arjun == Arjunk, no?

If def minister have to wonder about sabotage of indigenous national product, DRDO has to get a third party audit to win IA's trust, it had to install temper proof systems/black boxes and call for comparative trials that IA requests MoD to cancel and only allows for side by side friendly comparision whose results it refuses to talk about while it never sighed away from detailing 94 deficiencies that needs to be fixed in Arjun every time IA had a look at it. IA orders T-90s in multiples of 300s and 1000s while domestic product gets orders of 124 per generation.

Something is wrong with this picture and it has nothing to do with T-90.

Also anyway you spin it buying a tank where both examples fail to reach the stipulated specifications smells of sweetheart deal. Unfortunately thes types of deals are reserved for domestic maal in more evolved cultures.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 12 Jan 2012 09:25

not all IA

please keep repeating once in a few posts

Faction of IA Armour and some in HQ

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Jan 2012 12:04

One old report said that when the T-90 was inducted ,it was to "replace" all the 1700+ T-72s in service in a phased manner,incrementally,with improvements in a manner similar to how the SU-30s were acquired,first SU-30s and later MKIs.This may account for the IA's reluctance to alter/apply brakes to the wheels set in motion to acqyuire the T-90 as the T-72s replaceemnt. I leave it to "Chronologists" to examine with their microscopes the timigng and actual, development status of Arjun when these orders were placed,whether Arjun has matured enough to be accepted.In general though,it does seem true that in the beginning and at the time the orders were first placed,the IA was not confident ( or biased according to some) of the Arjun maturing quickly and what kind of support it would get for it,when compared with ordering another T-series tanks,an improvement of the T-72 in service.Whatever shortcoming of the T-90s would be ironed out in the imprioved versions would roll out in later batches,after the first 300.

I am now confused about the second lot of 124 Arjuns.Are they going to be MK-1s (with some minor improvements) or MK-2s with major improvements? How does this square up to reports of abandoning T-72 upgrades left to order about 400 Arjuns MK-2s?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 12 Jan 2012 13:02

Philip wrote:I am now confused about the second lot of 124 Arjuns.Are they going to be MK-1s (with some minor improvements) or MK-2s with major improvements? How does this square up to reports of abandoning T-72 upgrades left to order about 400 Arjuns MK-2s?

It will be MK 2 standards.

FYKI, Army Chief said "Mark 2" is what Army wants. DRDO is delivering it in the second lot instead of the 3rd lot. It is expected to cannibalise T-72 upg in major ways. Only newer T-72's may be upgraded in lines with MiG-21 Bison project of IAF.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Jan 2012 14:31

nachiket wrote:
nukavarapu wrote: The Indian inferiority thread my a$$, its those freaking SDREs who just assume that by default everything thats phoren is by default superior to anything comes from desh, and that default assumption is what bringing the inferiority complex and not the hard work put out by CVRDE and DRDO guys.
Um, the Army personnel are recruited from the same "freaking SDREs". So why would their views be any different? And no one is talking about the country being inferior. Only the view that Indian built products are.

Thanks Nachiket, to add, in that statement, I was not referring to IA particularly, but Indians in general and how any negative news seems to get more traction in the press compared to positive news.

So yes, given the same stimuli and input the media + social machinery results into massively more caterwauling about Indian products. That is true.

So the perception != reality.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Jan 2012 14:34

Katare wrote:For Sanku and Philip to survive with their (so called) antiKhan antics, myths of Russian maal must survive intact. They have nothing against Arjun as long as you do not call T90 names. No pun intended.

That's quite childish.

I keep telling people, that there are folks who are not anti/pro any third country. Only pro India and do not have divided loyalties.

It appears that some just dont get it.

Anyway apart from gratuitous personal comment this post is mostly junk, and therefore apart from pointing out the personal rant, there is nothing to reply to this.

Repeating lies does not a truth make.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 12 Jan 2012 18:06

Sanku wrote: IA did not recommend the induction. IA merely cleared the first level of tests for in-principle purchase.

Is it? Somehow, the Parliamentary Standing Committe Report on T-90 induction (1999-2000) does no say so.

From the report:
In reply to a question the Ministry of Defence stated that the T-90S Tanks were offered by Russia in December, 1997. A technical delegation was deputed to Russia in 1998 for conducting evaluation of the Tank. The delegation evaluated the Tank in Russian conditions and recommended its acquisition. In December 1998, the Cabinet Committee on Security approved the proposal for acquisition of 124 fully formed Tanks and 186 Semi Knocked Down (SKD) and Completely Knocked Down (CKD) Tanks.

The Price Negotiation Committee (PNC) recommended that the Tanks should be tried in Peak summer conditions in India. Three T-90S Tanks were tried in Rajasthan during May-July 1999. Protection trial of the Tanks were also held in Russia during October-November 1999 which were witnessed by technical delegation from India. Based on these trials the Army headquafters prepared a General Staff Evaluation Report and recommended the induction of T-90S Tank into the service. At present PNC is continuing its negotiations with the supplier M/s RVZ of Russia.

No I did not, I remember two tanks. However I remember only a 90% figure. We may need the report again to sort out the exact figures.

You will have to take my word for it. Whether you do so or not, depends upon you. I have report saved but since IA removed it from their website,don't want to link it here.

And btw, the same report also says that EME Team from IA had reccomendations about (a) cooling systems for electronics to avoid overheating(b) APU for the tanks (c) improved TI Sights. This was in 2003. AFAIK, none of the above has happened with T-90. So, the product improvement part is till pending. But the Arjun must get the XYZ number of upgrades before making the cut.
Not true, there are many such recommendations from IA about Arjun too which are going to be part of Arjun-II. Its not affected the 124+124 purchase.

Now now, whose talking semantics - what has been recommended for Arjun are upgrades to make the tank even better. In its present form, the tank is better than T-90 and trounced it. While in case of T-90, these are basic issues affecting the servieability of the tank and its deployment. Two very different things. And those "PROBELMS" T-90 persist to this day.

Arjun story is SAME as T-90 with a lag of 6-10 years, and not its not IA's fault. Its how things turned out being.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Jan 2012 18:18

rohitvats wrote:
Sanku wrote: IA did not recommend the induction. IA merely cleared the first level of tests for in-principle purchase.
Is it? Somehow, the Parliamentary Standing Committe Report on T-90 induction (1999-2000) does no say so.

From the report:
In reply to a question the Ministry of Defence stated that the T-90S Tanks were offered by Russia in December, 1997. A technical delegation was deputed to Russia in 1998 for conducting evaluation of the Tank. The delegation evaluated the Tank in Russian conditions and recommended its acquisition. In December 1998, the Cabinet Committee on Security approved the proposal for acquisition of 124 fully formed Tanks and 186 Semi Knocked Down (SKD) and Completely Knocked Down (CKD) Tanks.

Absolutely -- IA does not recommend its induction. It recommends an acquisition.

This is what I have said before.

With all due respects, in this debate now, every word has its proper place. An recommendation for acquisition does not mean a recommendation for induction. Induction came much later. It was a distinct 4 step process even for first 300 tanks. Let alone later orders.

You will have to take my word for it. Whether you do so or not, depends upon you. I have report saved but since IA removed it from their website,don't want to link it here.

I remember some what differently rohit, so lets agree to disagree.

Now now, whose talking semantics - what has been recommended for Arjun are upgrades to make the tank even better. In its present form, the tank is better than T-90 and trounced it.

Sir, we had a quote from IA chief himself a few posts back. Can we please give it a rest. I would certainly believe Gen V. K. Singh any day over ONE particular journo.

While in case of T-90, these are basic issues affecting the servieability of the tank and its deployment. Two very different things. And those "PROBELMS" T-90 persist to this day.

Sorry there are no basic issues of the type you mention. No official reports by far mention it, on the contrary, all reports are fairly +ve.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 12 Jan 2012 20:25

Sir, we had a quote from IA chief himself a few posts back. Can we please give it a rest. I would certainly believe Gen V. K. Singh any day over ONE particular journo.

But you would not accept the IAF chief on the C17???

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 12 Jan 2012 20:51

^^^

The IAF Chief is a Boeing agint.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Jan 2012 22:09

Surya wrote:
Sir, we had a quote from IA chief himself a few posts back. Can we please give it a rest. I would certainly believe Gen V. K. Singh any day over ONE particular journo.

But you would not accept the IAF chief on the C17???

That is not relevant here because (though I know you will bring him up here) -- my issue with C 17 purchase, had nothing to with IAF if you notice. I never ever for a single instance blamed IAF.

In fact I can understand IAF being ok with C 17 (although I disagree with their assessment) -- I am not lambasting their PoV merely disagreeing a bit. My issue was primarily with GoI there. (And all my points still stand)

We have been over it before, but I can once again surely explain why C 17 purchase saga is different from all other cases.

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

PS> I have never lambasted C 17 as a platform either, its a good useful bird for the Khan.

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 12 Jan 2012 22:22

Sanku wrote: Absolutely -- IA does not recommend its induction. It recommends an acquisition.
This is what I have said before.

HUH? This is mere play of words. Nothing else.

So IA recommended "acquisition".
MoD/Govt goes out and makes the "acquisition".

So what happens when there are problems in "induction".
IA would stop the induction then?
Or it wouldn't order more.

Here is what IA did.
First, bury the reports.
Then it turns around and orders 1300 more of them?

When there are problems with Arjun and induction, we have DGMF shouting from roof-tops.

--Ashish.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Jan 2012 22:38

Misraji wrote:
Sanku wrote: Absolutely -- IA does not recommend its induction. It recommends an acquisition.
This is what I have said before.
HUH? This is mere play of words. Nothing else.

Only if you dont understand what the words mean. Which of course it quite possible.

The four step process was explained in detail. At any step if there are problem the step is delayed till problems are solved or aborted in worst case.

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 13 Jan 2012 00:12

Sanku wrote: Only if you dont understand what the words mean. Which of course it quite possible.
The four step process was explained in detail. At any step if there are problem the step is delayed till problems are solved or aborted in worst case.

Instead of that cryptic reply, why don't you explain us what that means?
Or you don't know about it either. Which of course is quite possible.

--Ashish.

PS: Kindly reply to rest of the post too. Its annoying when people conveniently choose to ignore that part of the post they don't have an answer too.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 13 Jan 2012 00:46

Sanku wrote: Absolutely -- IA does not recommend its induction. It recommends an acquisition.

This is what I have said before.

Oh! yes, I forgot. So,what is the difference between acquisition and induction? How can you induct something without acquiring it? And how do you itend to acquire something without first trying it out? On what basis did the IA say it is OK to acquire a system w/o trying it out in Indian conditions? And why did it take PNC to suggest that the tank be tried in peak Indian conditions? And what credifbility will IA have if the tank failed in Indian conditions? But wait - it did; the engine packed up. but we heard nothing of it.

All aspects of trials are undertaken before the price negotiations. Here is the "Acquisition" process as per DPP:

I Services Qualitative Requirements (SQRs).
II Acceptance of Necessity (AON).
III Solicitation of offers.
IV Evaluation of Technical offers by Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC).
V Field Evaluation.
VI Staff Evaluation.
VII Oversight by Technical Oversight Committee (TOC) for Acquisitions above 300 Crs.
VIII Commercial negotiations by Contract Negotiation Committee (CNC).
IX Approval of Competent Financial Authority (CFA).
X Award of contract / Supply Order (SO).
XI Contract Administration and Post-Contract Management
.

Please stop insulting people's intelligence with all this BS about semantics.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 13 Jan 2012 00:52

Why would the IA recommend the "acquisition" of a system, if it hadn't yet decided to "induct" it? That would mean that they could potentially decide against induction after the acquisition of at least some numbers of the system was complete. That makes absolutely no sense. The arguments for defending IA's dubious decision are getting more and more incredible.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 13 Jan 2012 00:59

So IA recommends acquisition of T90 after some halfway trials in Russia in 1998.
The PNC recommends more tests, in which the T90 does not meet OEM claims.
The AUCRT trials point out more flaws.
The CAG points out more issues in mid 2000s.
Yet, 10 years later, we have 700 of these in service.

What does the corresponding Arjun story look like?

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 13 Jan 2012 01:03

You can make people who are deaf understand your argument, but not people who are wilfully blind to reality.

Even engaging these Russia rakshaks makes it seem that there is a debate, with two sides to it, when the fact is that Arjun has outrun and outshot the T90 in repeated trials.

Why are we assembling imported Russian weapons when we have our own design, our own engineering, and our own production - that is better than whats available from imports!

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 13 Jan 2012 01:04

nachiket wrote:Why would the IA recommend the "acquisition" of a system, if it hadn't yet decided to "induct" it? That would mean that they could potentially decide against induction after the acquisition of at least some numbers of the system was complete. That makes absolutely no sense. The arguments for defending IA's dubious decision are getting more and more incredible.

Shhssss...........its all semantics onlee!!!!

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 13 Jan 2012 01:28

Frankly. Cut our losses with respect to T-90.
Stop that bloody farce of an acquisition at its current numbers.
Yes we made the wrong decision. Stop it and move on.

Bloody Hell. IA/DGMF/Tin-Can lovers think that they can play with public's money any way they like.

--Ashish.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 13 Jan 2012 02:11

WOOW! 100 PAGES of which half if probably reiterations of Arjunks vs Tin-Cans! Hopefully the next thread will not repeat history, then again it is the Armoured Vehicles Thread!

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 13 Jan 2012 02:49

t is not relevant here because (though I know you will bring him up here) -- my issue with C 17 purchase, had nothing to with IAF if you notice. I never ever for a single instance blamed IAF.

Who is talking whether you blamed IAF??

We are talking of words onlee. and in this case your selective belief in one chiefs words against the other

The word of the IAF chief that the C17 was evaluated amongst and it fits our needs was not enough for you - because that was just political pressure

The word of the IA chief that the T 90 is the future is good enough for you even though it gets spanked by other tanks and performs worse than the Arjun

Sudeep:

Not blind but cross eyed. this way they see something else

All words onlee indeed

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 13 Jan 2012 07:19

time for a new thread people.