Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 10 Aug 2012 21:54

So, the purpose of having an MBT is to be ready and fight war when necessary or hone your reverse engineering and production skills. IA has its priorities correct. Otherwise they will have to face ignominy in case of hostilities.

India is moving and will certainly continue to move towards self reliance, but as in any other field, defence technology and production will also take its time. IA, as in many other fields, will be a forerunner in this too.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3048
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Kanson » 10 Aug 2012 22:04

nelson,

which GSQR you are talking about? Original GSQR for Arjun put no redline on weight. On Mk2, Army is on board with weight increase and there are Okay with the solution on mobility proposed by CVRDE. I don't know why we are having this discussion again?

nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 10 Aug 2012 22:05

As far as the argument of corruption goes, it is endemic in India. I will not matter if the tank is manufactured in India or imported from xxx, the deal will be corrupt in that the product will be overpriced from its intrinsic worth. It takes place in the case of ballpoint pen to latest fighter plane. Armed Forces have little control over this.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3048
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Kanson » 10 Aug 2012 22:05

nelson wrote:Whoever said that IA doesn't care about it. The previous Army Chief went on record that Arjun was fiasco and Army contributed to that bungling. Does it not amount admitting mistake on their part?

could you pls point out that record where Army Chief accepting the mistake??

nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 10 Aug 2012 22:08

Kanson wrote:nelson,

which GSQR you are talking about? Original GSQR for Arjun put no redline on weight. On Mk2, Army is on board with weight increase and there are Okay with the solution on mobility proposed by CVRDE. I don't know why we are having this discussion again?



It can not happen that a GSGR for a tank does not carry an upper limit of Gross weight. The discussion started with a journalist, after his visit from CVRDE, reported in Forcemagazine, that Arjun's numbers will be capped because IA can not operate it in certain theatres due to its weight. You can go back a couple of pages.

nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 10 Aug 2012 22:09

Kanson wrote:
nelson wrote:Whoever said that IA doesn't care about it. The previous Army Chief went on record that Arjun was fiasco and Army contributed to that bungling. Does it not amount admitting mistake on their part?

could you pls point out that record where Army Chief accepting the mistake??


IIRC, it is in the televised interview he gave to Chauthi Duniya in Hindi.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3048
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Kanson » 10 Aug 2012 22:09

nelson wrote:As far as the argument of corruption goes, it is endemic in India. I will not matter if the tank is manufactured in India or imported from xxx, the deal will be corrupt in that the product will be overpriced from its intrinsic worth. It takes place in the case of ballpoint pen to latest fighter plane. Armed Forces have little control over this.

Fine. Atleast the money will be rotated within India. And that will create a job pool. Further it removes us from shackles of foreign interference and we don't have to look over our shoulder everytime if the decision is against our big brother russia.

nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 10 Aug 2012 22:12

We will get to that stage, but as of now trumping the adversary is more important than economic spinoffs of defence procurement, at least for the IA.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3048
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Kanson » 10 Aug 2012 22:13

nelson wrote:It can not happen that a GSGR for a tank does not carry an upper limit of Gross weight.


Sir, being the one who asked this question, I thought you must be aware all those GSQRs associated with Arjun development.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3048
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Kanson » 10 Aug 2012 22:15

nelson wrote:IIRC, it is in the televised interview he gave to Chauthi Duniya in Hindi.


For the benefit all the members here why don't you quote them here, pls!

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8015
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nachiket » 10 Aug 2012 22:21

nelson wrote:GSQR -> RFP -> Procurement of T-90 in 2001, 2006, 2007. I don't need to use RTI because I think I have sufficient first hand knowledge of the issue at hand.

So you ask others to give sources and post links, but you don't hold yourself up to those high standards of posting. Practice what you preach! You made the original claim that a 50T maximum weight was specified by the Army but have provided ZERO evidence to back that up. And now you are asking other posters to prove that it was not the case? :rotfl: Give me a break.

And you still haven't answered my question. If, as you say, there is/was a 50T weight limit, why didn't the Army reject the Arjun outright when the first prototype rolled out? It should have been obvious that it was larger and heavier than what they wanted, no? Why did they let taxpayer's money be wasted further on a tank they never had any intention of buying in meaningful quantities?

nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 10 Aug 2012 22:28

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnFyo9GH1ro

The admitting of mistake of the uniformed personnel, was in context of indigenous production and framing of GSQR. It is in middle part of the interview.

nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 10 Aug 2012 22:28

nachiket wrote:
nelson wrote:GSQR -> RFP -> Procurement of T-90 in 2001, 2006, 2007. I don't need to use RTI because I think I have sufficient first hand knowledge of the issue at hand.

So you ask others to give sources and post links, but you don't hold yourself up to those high standards of posting. Practice what you preach! You made the original claim that a 50T maximum weight was specified by the Army but have provided ZERO evidence to back that up. And now you are asking other posters to prove that it was not the case? :rotfl: Give me a break.

And you still haven't answered my question. If, as you say, there is/was a 50T weight limit, why didn't the Army reject the Arjun outright when the first prototype rolled out? It should have been obvious that it was larger and heavier than what they wanted, no? Why did they let taxpayer's money be wasted further on a tank they never had any intention of buying in meaningful quantities?


Take a break.

Sorry, I did not take your name, but I think I answered your question by touching upon the bridging capabilities that were promised. I can not give more details.

sharma.abhinav
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 23 Jan 2009 18:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby sharma.abhinav » 10 Aug 2012 22:40

It can not happen that a GSGR for a tank does not carry an upper limit of Gross weight.

Arjun initially was conceived as a tank which would provide enhanced performance in all parameters over Centurions (Vijayantas), now Centurions already weighed around 52 Tons with 105 mm rifled gun, so a tank having better protection (armor) and a better gun (120 mm) could not have weighed less than 50 Tons. The only genuine reason that I can think of why Army would not want to order more Arjuns is that all these features and logistics to support it, have made Arjun a lot more expensive than what the Army can afford. (I am only guessing here.)

nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 10 Aug 2012 22:43

sharma.abhinav wrote:
It can not happen that a GSGR for a tank does not carry an upper limit of Gross weight.

...The only genuine reason that I can think of why Army would not want to order more Arjuns is that all these features and logistics to support it, have made Arjun a lot more expensive than what the Army can afford. (I am only guessing here.)


I accept that, except the part that it would have been the only reason. What you said here would have been one of the reasons.

BTW, Vijayantas are renamed from Vickers, not Centurions. Gross weight of Vijayanta was 39.0 metric tonne.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Surya » 10 Aug 2012 22:58

admitting is not enough
maybe for you

we need a sustained production run to maintain the skills and grow the industry

else we will continue to be the laughing stock - importing everything from side arms to tanks


Lets put the bullcrap of GQSR = RFP for the T 90 - thats been hashed all over

Where is it in the GQSR of the Arjun

dont BS around the main issue since you are blaming Arjun as overweight

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3048
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Kanson » 10 Aug 2012 23:00

nelson wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnFyo9GH1ro

The admitting of mistake of the uniformed personnel, was in context of indigenous production and framing of GSQR. It is in middle part of the interview.


Yes sir. But he is not talking about Arjun and no indication of owning up for the mistakes made by the IA in Arjun procurement

nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 10 Aug 2012 23:02

I agree. He said it in a general manner once and with reference to Bofors. My mistake.

The only point being that Army is ready to accept its mistakes and mend ways in future. But that is no ground for thrusting a weapon system down their throat, which they can not use as of now.

sharma.abhinav
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 23 Jan 2009 18:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby sharma.abhinav » 10 Aug 2012 23:18

Oops my bad got confused between Vickers and Centurions

nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 10 Aug 2012 23:24

Surya wrote:admitting is not enough
maybe for you

we need a sustained production run to maintain the skills and grow the industry

else we will continue to be the laughing stock - importing everything from side arms to tanks


Lets put the bullcrap of GQSR = RFP for the T 90 - thats been hashed all over

Where is it in the GQSR of the Arjun

dont BS around the main issue since you are blaming Arjun as overweight


My understanding is that GSQR is not made with relation to a particular platform, say Arjun or T-90. GSQR is framed for in general for a weapon system, say MBT. The RFP for T-90 would have been formulated on the basis of then prevailing GSQR for MBT.

http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/General ... sad_191211

http://classic.kanglaonline.com/index.p ... 9dbc05eaa8

The indigenously designed Arjun main battle tank (MBT) has been in the pipeline for over two decades. Though the tank has many good features, it has consistently failed to meet the army’s GSQR for an MBT and orders have been placed for only 124 tanks to be manufactured. The lack of progress on the Arjun MBT had slowed down the pace of armour modernisation. India then signed a deal with Russia to acquire 310 T-90S tanks in the year 2000. Subsequently, India began to assemble these tanks at Avadi. It has recently been reported that in addition to these, India has decided to acquire another 347 T-90S tanks and assemble them within the country.


Another example would be ASQR for MMRCA not for Rafale or F-16.

nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 10 Aug 2012 23:28

An interview with Director General Mechanised Forces.

http://www.spslandforces.net/interviews ... ndian-Army

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Surya » 10 Aug 2012 23:50

My understanding is that GSQR is not made with relation to a particular platform, say Arjun or T-90. GSQR is framed for in general for a weapon system, say MBT. The RFP for T-90 would have been formulated on the basis of then prevailing GSQR for MBT.


you cannot be serious - if this is the case then the Armor leaders need to be sent to school


No one has seen or heard of a GQSR for the T 90 - and would like to see it against the Arjuns

I am not going to assume the RFP came out of a GQSR
the whole thing is rotten and the earlier DGMF made laughingly stupid statements -
Last edited by Surya on 11 Aug 2012 00:04, edited 1 time in total.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby SaiK » 10 Aug 2012 23:53

nelson wrote:So, the purpose of having an MBT is to be ready and fight war when necessary or hone your reverse engineering and production skills. IA has its priorities correct. Otherwise they will have to face ignominy in case of hostilities.


You are mixing up priorities between categories, and furthermore here is an enabler technology platform for future army needs.. they will have something no body in the world can have.. etc like many r&d->product developing nations. Except the maasans, no other country has the capability to invest in r&d, and survive by the home market alone.. and this is the challenge DRDO is facing, but with an added negative aspect that the home market is not conducive to grow up on.

When you say priorities, you have to provide which one, and not just say they have it right. IA is as always buying from abroad and -is- dependent on external war fighting machine. I don't think DRDO has come in IA's way anyway to say, that priority is wrong?

DRDO has worked out many difficulties, and come out with an excellent product. Now IT IS IA's responsibility to accept it's child [Arjun], and not to dump it. What you are saying is IA wants throw away the child for a step-child., even after proving that blood related child is more worth now for war-fighting.

Didn't they prove with various phases and integration that it did take on T90s one-on-one and proved it better? what more war fighting you are asking?

nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 10 Aug 2012 23:58

See the timeline, the last order for MBT in bulk was made in 2007. The announcement of FMBT as an idea to be conceptualised was made in 2008. The comparative trials and results were in 2010; there were no comparative trials prior to that.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1284
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby RKumar » 11 Aug 2012 00:06

^

As per wiki

The Army wrote in the report that during the "accelerated user-cum-reliability trials" in 2008, the Arjun "was found to have failure of power packs, low accuracy and consistency, failure of hydropneumatic suspension units, shearing of top rollers and chipping of gun barrels".[21] Sabotage was suspected, but the Army rejected that any sabotage happened during the trials.[10][59] A later report published by the Government of India during the induction ceremony of the Arjun tank, confirms the success of the trial. "An independent evaluation of the tank by a reputed tank manufacturer found that the MBT Arjun is an excellent tank with very good mobility and fire power characteristics."[60] DRDO installed an instrument to function as a black box in the Arjun, following attempts to "sabotage" its engine.[61]

Subsequently in September 2008, the Indian Army signed a deal with Russia to import 347 T-90 tanks and license build a further 1000.[62][63][64] Transfer of key T-90 technologies has also been agreed upon as a part of the deal
Last edited by RKumar on 11 Aug 2012 00:07, edited 1 time in total.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby SaiK » 11 Aug 2012 00:07

And they wanted 1000s of T90s [not considered by Russian Army at all] "by 2020". This is like a bad father preempting future problems by writing a will for the elder son all 100%, and ignores his other children... he is alive, but goes by the will onleee.
Last edited by SaiK on 11 Aug 2012 00:08, edited 1 time in total.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Surya » 11 Aug 2012 00:07

FMBT was a red herring

Not one draft requirement has come up - because they have no clue what they want

Rest of justification for T 90 order (second order ) is nonsense

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby SaiK » 11 Aug 2012 00:13

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/11/ ... ly-of.html
and what about this?
Even today [then/reported data/perhaps even now], India’s T-90S fleet remains seriously constrained; with war clouds looming after the 26/11 Mumbai terror strike, the army told the government that the strike formations were critically short of equipment.


Now, still critically short because of T90s, and when Arjun is ready to be supplied without any technology transfer issues.
Last edited by SaiK on 11 Aug 2012 00:15, edited 1 time in total.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1284
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby RKumar » 11 Aug 2012 00:14

As per T-90 Wiki

In April 2008, the Indian Army sent request for proposals to Rafael, BAE Systems, Raytheon, Rosoboronexport, Saab, and IBD Deisenroth Engineering for an active protection system for the T-90S Bhishma.[21] The contract is expected to be worth US$270 million. Saab's LEDS-150 won the contract in January 2009.[22]

A third contract, worth $1.23 billion, was signed in December 2007 for 347 upgraded T-90Ms, the bulk of which will be license-assembled by HVF. The Army hopes to field a force of over 21 regiments of T-90 tanks and 40 regiments of modified T-72s. The Indian Army would begin receiving its first T-90M main battle tank in completely knocked-down condition from Russia’s Nizhny Tagil-based Uralvagonzavod JSC by the end of 2009.[23][24]


Even tanks were bought without active protection system and ordered for 270 million in 2009

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1284
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby RKumar » 11 Aug 2012 00:17

Indian FMBT is already decided, so lets stop further development of Arjun and save the public money n time of DRDO.


From 2011, the Russian armed forces have ceased ordering the T-90, and are instead waiting for the development of the Universal Combat Platform T-99 that is expected to enter service in 2020.[4]

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby SaiK » 11 Aug 2012 00:20

I think we have listened enough on this subject. Next thing is asking DRDO to do a 1:10 kill on Al khalid, and prove its worth. They might buy 10 al khalids now for this purpose.. or perhaps M1s., which imho not bad idea to prove again Arjun capabilities. It can only get better.

and I would not expect to read something like this:

IA orders 1200 Arjuns, and reduces the T90s order to keep it at <500. However, I am sure people will be willing to listen if they do this, and continue to complain about 50t Arjun weight requirements for the next FMBT.

nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 11 Aug 2012 00:26

@RKumar
If you read about T-90 from Arjun page you will definitely get that in those shades.

@SaiK
Unfortunately that is not going to happen. Arjun will not see Kurukshetra, never again.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby SaiK » 11 Aug 2012 00:28

So is Beeshma! I have already started chanting sahasra-naam for him.

sharma.abhinav
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 23 Jan 2009 18:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby sharma.abhinav » 11 Aug 2012 00:29

Indian FMBT is already decided, so lets stop further development of Arjun and save the public money n time of DRDO.

What has been decided of FMBT, no firm specs are given, only vague terms like FMBT to be better than both T-90 and Arjun in mobility, firepower and protection and yet with a weight of only 50 Tons. Considering today's technology this is not possible. Since 2008 when the idea was originally conceived nothing concrete has come out, yet they want it operational by 2020. This is nothing but an effort to buy some Russian super duper T series in next decade. :P

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3048
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Kanson » 11 Aug 2012 00:43

nelson wrote:I agree. He said it in a general manner once and with reference to Bofors. My mistake.


Yes, IA never said sorry for the Arjun fiasco.

nelson wrote:The only point being that Army is ready to accept its mistakes and mend ways in future. But that is no ground for thrusting a weapon system down their throat, which they can not use as of now.

Sir, you are quoting Gen. VKS interview to base your above statement. But you will eagerly agree that Gen. VKS is an aberration among IA top brass. IOW, he is an exception, and he and his words/actions can't be taken as an epitome/reflection of IA top brass.

Second, if Gen. VKS can come down so hard on the way IA was framing and altering GSQR, I don't have to explicitly say, IA allowed itself both knowingly and unknowingly to be manipulated by Vendors. So, in my opinion, the statements like 'thrusting a weapon system down their throat' is pretty rich.

Gen VKS in fact used the same language as we here use to mock the unattainable GSQR framed by IA.

Sorry Sir, I couldn't agree with your statements.

nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 11 Aug 2012 00:52

@SaiK
OTOH, Bheeshma visits Kurukshetra very often, mostly in transit.

All I would like to say is have faith in Army. There are enough checks and balances now, to allow corrective action, unlike what was in 1980/90s. I sincerely hope that Army, DRDO and their overlord do not visit the same mistakes as last time.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20972
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Philip » 11 Aug 2012 00:54

The F mag's article on the IA and its armoured steeds,esp. Arjun was extensive in coverage with details and quotes.So Hodson and Skinner's Horse are faced with "Hobson's choice" what? We are now informed that A-2 works well,but is obese and spares for even A-1 are a problem given the limited production.The obesity factor prevents the tank from being airlifted to mountainous battle zones and are unsuitable for ops even in the desert? This latter statement I'm at a loss to understand when it is also reported in the same article that Arjun-1s are located in the Jaisalmer sector! There is also the acknowledgement that the IA's tank corps have a blind spot/mental attitude against the tank.

Thus despite its relative "success",even Arjun Mk-2 when perfected -but too obese to be of much use,will be ordered in diminished quantities and if production figures are so low as have been given,then the tank which will total about 350-400 ,is never going to have any significant impact . The Q still remains as to where even these few hundred Arjuns are going to be stationed by the IA.As usual the "beast in the bush",the FMBT is being touted as being the great brown hope (GBH).This beggars the Q,what was going on for decades between the IA and the DRDO/CVRDE. "What did the IA have to say about the weight factor and when did they say it?"
Reading between the lines and previous glimpses into the IA's thinking,it appears that what the IA wants for the future in simple lingo is a 3-man crewed tank (from its predominant tank culture) around 50 t with all "mod cons".But even here we are not sure whether the GBH is going to be Arjun-3 or the T-99 as some are predicting.The saga continues.
Last edited by Philip on 11 Aug 2012 01:39, edited 1 time in total.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby srai » 11 Aug 2012 01:18

^^^

If bhutpruvs are any indication, the IA top brass is quite confused as to what the FMBT should be. Here take a look at this towards the end when asked about what the FMBT should be. All three former armored core generals (one brigadier and two major generals) had different vision on what the FMBT should be:


SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby SaiK » 11 Aug 2012 01:19

nelson, one can't run country army by faith. that argument does not buy me. I'd be happier to see better IA always., and the reason all this support for Arjun.

capability and intention are two factors by which we can measure.

nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nelson » 11 Aug 2012 01:25

This beggars the Q,what was going on for decades between the IA and the DRDO/DVRDE. "What did the IA have to say about the weight factor and when did they say it?"


A very pertinent question. This will be the key to solve problems in co-operation between DRDO and the Army.

The unsuitability of Arjun in desert and its deployment is a paradox indeed.

As far as the IA's mental block towards Arjun is concerned, it is more in the minds of readers shaped by the media and their sources. The writer was able to gauge the minds after visiting CVRDE! At least he should have visited one of the Arjun Regiments.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests