Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 15 Dec 2012 19:00

Well analogy could be the same where HAL can make good MKI or Jaguar but when it comes to LCA is falls far short of mark.

arey baba at least wait for series production to start before casting your evil eye on this

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Dec 2012 07:23

Israel To Develop Family Of New Armored Vehicles

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 18 Dec 2012 17:33

124 order is nothing but an eyewash. They can not fully take Tincans after Arjun beat them in the tests. So some bit order is given.

Some times I feel that we are require to ban all imports of systems which our private of public sector people can make. Even if less sophistication is there we have to start on this path immediately so that there is no import options. lack of options will force people to accept things which otherwise they are not ready to accept as no "mulla" in Indian products.

Services feel that they are still in British Raj (just like police IAS fellows etc) so a fundamental change is needed.

Starting with removing regiments names which are part of British army. There is no nee to have forces names which were extensively use on our people to still exist.

mody · Post by **mody** » 18 Dec 2012 17:50

Last sunday was Army mela in Mumbai, at Shivaji park. There was no Arjun on display, but a guy from the 43 regiment, an instructor was on hand giving information about the T-90 (thats where he was assigned).
When I asked him some questions, he said he was presently only working with the Arjun and was instructor for Driver and Loader.

However, he had no knowledge about the Arjun MK-2 or its trials.

mody · Post by **mody** » 18 Dec 2012 17:57

The only hope for Arjun Mk-2, lies in the hands of the Pakis and their chinese master's.
Hope the pakis get atleast 4 regiments worth of Type 99 tanks from the Chinese and the Chinese deploy an equal nos. of them in Tibet and publicize the same for all and sundry.

The latest iterations tip the scale at about 58 Tons.
Hence going by Lahori logic, the IA will need 60 ton plus arjuns to counter them.
Then we can expect an order for 8-10 regiments of Arjun MK-II instead of this joke of 124 nos. and requirements for further development of MK-III variant and so on.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 20 Dec 2012 14:08

Arun Menon wrote:^^Hmm, T-90 must be real crappy for it to be beaten by a tank with such "poor production engineering." The question is what are "you" peddling?

lets place 1 billion $ in two bank accounts.

then lets see how many tanks of Arjun are made with them in 1 year. how many T 90 are made in 1 year with the same 1 billion $.

then using the x and y number of tanks above, lets have a small simulated battle in rajasthan. Non lethal war.

end result will tell us which choice is better.

See....HAVING tanks is better than having an awesome prototype.

and yes, I HAVE been involved with taking products from lab to market ; doing basic RnD to end marketing. and boy o boy...its not that easy to say "a" is better than "b" .

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Dec 2012 15:43

nachiket wrote: The LCA is never going to replace every aircraft in IAF inventory.

Neither is Arjun, and was never intended to.

And when there are 4000 night-blind, obsolete tanks in use, ordering 124 Arjuns is not even funny.

Yes, what is even less comic is that 124 were ordered 10 years back and have yet not been delivered. The follow on order of 124 in principle is supposed to be answered with perhaps 50 by 2014.

Ordering more or less tanks is NOT a issue, the issue is that the few tanks ordered can not be made. And that is what it is.

Time for folks to face the reality and not blame IA in the fond hope that our DPSUs are delivering or would deliver if something as minor as a 'attitude adjustment" would occur.

They are not -- and if something big is not done, they wont either.

And blaming IA for corruption is passe, if anything DPSUs are both inefficient, non-performing AND corrupt, as seen by TATRA case.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 20 Dec 2012 17:18

but sanku

nowhere has the army said its only problem with ordering more tanks is the production aspect of it.
only you are bringing it up

The production aspect bedevils even the assembled tin cans

but orders galore for it

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 20 Dec 2012 17:54

Where is the efforts to give orders so that a production line of good capacity can be created. With 124 systems and no assurence for follow up orders what production line can be created in any economic sense??? Say a line with 200 Tanks per year??? On a assured order of 124 with no follow ups promissed??? Now the argument shifted from Capabilities of the product to the lack of production capacity. Why not convert all Tin can assembly lines to Arjun immediately and see what happens. By the way Arjun can replace all the tin cans and more. Surely night blind T72s ( so called improved models) and T55s etc can be replaced immediately with Arjun and your non A/c t90 can also be rosted any day by arjun.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 20 Dec 2012 18:02

mahadevbhu wrote:
Arun Menon wrote:^^Hmm, T-90 must be real crappy for it to be beaten by a tank with such "poor production engineering." The question is what are "you" peddling?

lets place 1 billion $ in two bank accounts.

then lets see how many tanks of Arjun are made with them in 1 year. how many T 90 are made in 1 year with the same 1 billion $.

then using the x and y number of tanks above, lets have a small simulated battle in rajasthan. Non lethal war.

end result will tell us which choice is better.

See....HAVING tanks is better than having an awesome prototype.

and yes, I HAVE been involved with taking products from lab to market ; doing basic RnD to end marketing. and boy o boy...its not that easy to say "a" is better than "b" .

500 T90s will be made because they will be accepted without trials. 500 more will be ordered because Russkies are squeezing our testimonials and will not hand over Armor and Gun ToT without further orders. Ammo for all the 1000 will be ordered because the T90 will not work with our ammo. 2 Billion $ more will have to be tacked on to the bank account, because basic cost of T90 will be calculated without a proper thermal imager or AC to cool the electronics. For the first six months 0 Arjuns will be made because 4000 modifications will be requested. All those modifications will be implemented. 10 Arjuns will be made. But Army will ask to stop production because they want a future tank weighing 20 Tonnes with 155mm man gun, 120mm secondary gun, 5 machine guns, 3 rocket launchers with electric propulsion capable of fording over Brahmaputra in full flood without preparation, able to ford up to andaman with preparation and able to drive up to Mount Everest to demonstrate trench crossing.

Finally the Arjun team will ask to take on 500 T90 in rajasthan with 10 Arjuns they already have, but the comparative trials will be canceled because "one cannot compare a maruti with BMW"

Then we will have a smoothbore vs rifled bore discussion here and Shiv Aroor will write how Arjun's torsion bar failed.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 20 Dec 2012 18:34

2 Millpn Frazer banks with Warph 9.99 spead and photon torpedos and trans warph optional and Borgs as drivers.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 20 Dec 2012 19:07

Boss, all said and done, the army is manning the borders of my country such that I can sleep in peace in my hometown.

If they want marutis they can have them, if they want bmws they can have them. end user of weapon, who ACTUALLY going to go to battle gets the choice.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Dec 2012 21:18

The latest IMR has a feature ,"Army Modernisation",on the choices for the IA for its future MBT acquisitions.It appears that a desi FMBT has now been discarded as CVRDE says that they cannot develop a 3-man advanced tank weighing 50t to suit the IA's requirements.The options therefore are ,incremental improved versions of the Arjun-Mk-2,3,etc.,T-90S and T-90MS-incremental version of the T-90S.Detailed specs and descriptions of all 3 are given.According to the report,within the IA there is a strong pro-Russian T-series lobby who prefer a lighter 3-man crewed tank to the heavier Arjun,which (please don't shoot the messenger!) is less suitable for theatres like J&K,mountains etc.The Arjun is better in the hot desert regions where the T-90 has had overheating problems.Therefore,3-4 regiments of Arjun would be the max. required if the current thinking holds sway.The T-90 MS has separate compartments for crew and ammo storage,unlike in earlier models.All three have much improved defences against lasers,etc.,better ERA,etc.,The report also says that for the proposed new mountain strike corps to face the Chinese,350+ MBTs will be required and the IA appears to have budgeted for the T-90MS.

Excerpt:
"The Russian Tank Lobby against Arjun".
Key points:

DGMF has formally proposed that Arjun be incrementally deveeoped,"Mk-2,3,4" etc.,instead of a tech leap with a new FMBT.
A school of thought within the IA prefers the T-90 over Arjun.

The IA is committed to buying 118 Arjun Mk-2s after trials have been completed,to add to the 128 in service.

*A key hurdle is reconciling the need for a 4-man crew instead of Russian tanks with 3-man crews and the simultaneous wish for a lighter tank.The 60t Arjun has been criticised as being too heavy.

The GOI is considering 6 regts of 354 tanks for the mountain strike corps and two tank brigades..The IA has put in the cost of 354 T-90 MS tanks.

The Arjun has outperformed the T-90 in trials,"but some in the IA argue that the Arjun is too heavy for the soft soil in the Punjab and J&K.It must therefore be confined to the deserts of Rajasthan,that would mean only 4-6 of the IA's 65 tank regts. will be able to operate arjuns.

The T-90MS,a new version of the T-90 earlier bought,is regarded as well suited for Ladakh,Sikkim and Ar.P,where the two new armoured brigades will operate.The arjun in contrast is designed to withstand the heat of the Indian plains.T-90s have often malfunctioned at high temps.The quality of Avadi manufactured T-90s is also less reliable than earlier bought Russian built T-90s.

There are also pics showing the internal commander/gunner stations of an Arjun and T-90MS.

If the report by Col. (retd.) Anil Kaul VrC and analysis is accurate,it appears that limited numbers of Arjuns will be bought for "the plains",while in other theatres in the mountains,etc., the T-90s will be the preferred tank of choice.

sum · Post by **sum** » 20 Dec 2012 21:26

Therefore,3-4 regiments of Arjun would be the max. required if the current thinking holds sway.

Sigh.....What can one say!

yantra · Post by **yantra** » 20 Dec 2012 22:25

For all those cribbing about production quality/reliability for Arjun - both T-90 and Arjun are produced in India and manufactured by PSUs - Ordnance Factories. If it can work for T-90, why not for Arjun?

Given that the production units are similar (one of the PSUs), there is a clear case of neglect against Arjun. Any other country would have aggressively pursued to develop Arjun further by deploying in large numbers, and near-certain future orders.

If I am not guaranteed to produce more than 124, my installed production capacity is going to be 10/20 per year. If there are more orders and a reasonable hope for more in future, I will up the capacity to produce 100 a year. No country would produce 124 a year against an order of 124 and sit tight to see if (till) the next order flows!

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 20 Dec 2012 22:44

thanks Philip

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 20 Dec 2012 23:13

Well, have they tested Arjun on the so called soft soil of Punjab and J&K against T90s to make that argument? I bet it's another lame excuse to maintain status-quo in fear of change.

Let's trial 'em both in a winner takes it all cage match in soft soil of Punjab!!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Dec 2012 23:16

Soil softness can't be different for a difference of 10 tons, unless the compared weight value is at zero. It is the softness towards Russian arm muscle. If one wants to test real capabilities, they have to test it in enemy lands, ie, in pakistan and china. If the general acceptance if punjab and j&k, then that means our russian tanks have allowed the enemy penetrate in.. this is just to say, we are screwed, and now can you protect from here on? please save us... is a weak mil posture.

vic · Post by **vic** » 21 Dec 2012 00:02

Army insists on Arjun to have 4 crew members then cribs it is heavy. Why not 3 men Arjun to compete with T-90s?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Dec 2012 02:54

^then it fails GSQR. go back to your drawing board. leave our arms lobby nexus intact.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Dec 2012 05:25

To be fair to the IA,when Arjun was first conceived ,decades ago,it was in the historical background of the IA operating Centurion and Vijayanta tanks.Then along came the T-72,3-man crew,auto-loader,which appears to have been preferred by the majority of the IA's cavalry corps.I've been asking this Q repeatedly,for some stats/info showing the cost-effectiveness of a 3-man crewed tank vs a 4-man crew.Both from the capital and operating life-cycle costs ,plus the extra crew member, a 25% addition to the manpower costs.

I don't know why the CVRDE has thrown in the towel so early,so to speak regarding an FMBT,3 man crew and weight of 50t,with "all mod-cons" .In the future,some tank manufacturer will think outside the box and come up with a new concept.Change always takes place.At least the R&D could continue while developing incremental versions of Arjun.In the past it has done exactly that with the prototypes of Tank-Ex.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 21 Dec 2012 05:28

Russia To Nudge India Toward Buying BMP-3s.

Russia is hoping to persuade India to shelve its $10 billion homemade Futuristic Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) project and instead buy Russian BMP-3 vehicles, according to an Indian Defence Ministry source.

Russia has offered to transfer BMP-3 combat vehicle technology to India if India cancels the FICV project, which has yet to take off four years after it was conceived. Russian President Vladimir Putin will likely make the offer during summit talks with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Dec. 24, the source added.

An Indian Army officer said buying BMP-3s on a license-production basis would make better sense because the FICV likely won’t be inducted in the next 10 years. In the meantime, India’s existing Russian-made infantry combat vehicles — BMP-1s and -2s — need upgrades, he said.

Putin was scheduled to visit New Delhi in November, but the visit was postponed. While no official reason was given, sources in the Indian Foreign Ministry said Moscow was reacting to a delay in the implementation of the Indo-Russian nuclear project in southern India’s Tamil Nadu state. In addition, the Russians want a greater share of the Indian defense market, which is shifting to the U.S. and other Western nations.

Under the FICV project, India will spend $10 billion to produce 2,600 vehicles to replace the older BMPs. The project falls into the “Make India” category, in which only domestic automobile companies can compete. The shortlisted company or consortium will develop the FICV prototype while the government funds nearly 80 percent of development costs.

The FICV project was approved nearly four years ago. Since then, domestic Mahindra Defence Systems has partnered with BAE Systems; Larsen & Toubro is also working on overseas partnerships. Tata Motors is also attempting to tie up with overseas companies after its deal with Rheinmetall stalled following India’s blacklisting of the German company’s Swiss subsidiary. State-owned Ordnance Factory Board is also in the race.

While Russia has partnered with India on several joint development projects — and moved away from mere “Buy and Make” weapons relations — India has had issues with complete technology transfer from Russia and has often complained about after-sales support, especially on spares and their prices. India and Russia are jointly producing the supersonic BrahMos anti-ship cruise missile and are under contract to jointly produce fifth-generation fighters and multirole transport aircraft. Russia has yet to transfer full technology of its T-90 tanks, which are license-produced here, another Indian Army officer said.

India’s MoD is also struggling to resolve timely supply of spares for Sukhoi and MiG-29 aircraft, Smerch multibarrel rocket systems, and upgrades to Kilo-class submarines and a variety of Russian air defense systems.

Indian defense forces have a large inventory of former Soviet and Russian weaponry, which they want to replace or upgrade soon. It is estimated that this market is worth more than $30 billion. And while Russia wants India to upgrade this inventory, the users — the Indian Army, Air Force and Navy — want to replace the weaponry with supplies from the U.S. and other Western nations.

srai · Post by **srai** » 21 Dec 2012 05:37

Philip wrote:...

I don't know why the CVRDE has thrown in the towel so early,so to speak regarding an FMBT,3 man crew and weight of 50t,with "all mod-cons" .In the future,some tank manufacturer will think outside the box and come up with a new concept.Change always takes place.At least the R&D could continue while developing incremental versions of Arjun.In the past it has done exactly that with the prototypes of Tank-Ex.

Correction: it was IA's decision to not pursue FMBT because it itself could not define what it should be. There were many conflicting requirements which made developing a tank impossible. Besides IA realised that there weren't any significant new breakthrough developments in the tank world over. Arjun MK.2 already incorporates the best philosophies and technologies of the "Western" tank design. From Mk.2, the logical way forward is incremental improvements to incorporate new developments or specific operational requirements.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 21 Dec 2012 07:03

FICV is inferior to BMP3 due to its rifled gun and torsion bar breaking. Also it is being produced in low quality and quantity, has a bigger profile and cannot be transported over current bridges and train wagons.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 21 Dec 2012 07:32

Yes Anujanullah is right and Philipovsky garu will also be right with his upcoming post supporting BMP3

sum · Post by **sum** » 21 Dec 2012 08:04

Russia is hoping to persuade India to shelve its $10 billion homemade Futuristic Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) project and instead buy Russian BMP-3 vehicles, according to an Indian Defence Ministry source.

Somehow, have no doubt this will happen very soon!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Dec 2012 12:09

BMP-3 is a terrible vehicle. its just about the worst choice for the role one can think of. if you import atleast find a good solution, not this reject which I believe even Russia does not use much.

its hard not to laugh looking at its design. the driver has 2 infantry guys for company on either side of him? why, because there is room in the back only for 5 troops squeezed between the turret ring and the engine which is kind of half below the floor, leaving a crawl space these 5 have to get into to exit the back door under fire. great.
it has neither the layout, nor the high elevation commanders remote weapon station std in all modern IFVs now.
http://media.desura.com/cache/images/gr ... cut6so.jpg

and what is that 100mm gun supposed to do? it cannot kill a MBT, but will alert it and attract 125mm shells.

the BMP2 was much better....though nowhere near the better nato IFVs.

and these are the tiny "doors" through which troops in full combat gear are supposed to deploy under fire. just imagine with with the top panels down and only rear doors open
http://img.liveinternet.ru/images/attac ... 1968dh.jpg

they have helpfully provived a marriage hall type red coir kerala carpet over the engine so that people can crawl out
http://img11.nnm.ru/9/8/d/9/b/e7dfd6293 ... 129154.jpg

the guys in the Namer IFV sit around in spacious AC comfort eating KFC chicken and sipping coke, until that barndoor opens, the ramp slides down and they deploy easily with heavy backpacks
http://www.military-today.com/apc/temsah_l6.jpg

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Dec 2012 12:15

Surya wrote:but sanku

nowhere has the army said its only problem with ordering more tanks is the production aspect of it.
only you are bringing it up

Actually Army or anyone else has said very little on the matter. BRF and we seem to the be only people intrested in it. The matter is not really in centerstage so to say.

The production aspect bedevils even the assembled tin cans

Well at least not significant enough to be seen in public domain, I am sure Avadi would be making heavy weather of turning screws as well (HAL has in the past also done similar things) -- but the damage they can do not that line is really limited.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Dec 2012 12:19

yantra wrote:For all those cribbing about production quality/reliability for Arjun - both T-90 and Arjun are produced in India and manufactured by PSUs - Ordnance Factories. If it can work for T-90, why not for Arjun?

Please go back a page and read the discussion on the exact same question. This is also the exact same question being discussed in context of LCA and pretty much every other case in India.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p1375623

Net net, an Arjun production line is something that has to be made locally, where as a T 90 production line is something which is imported wholesale.

sum · Post by **sum** » 21 Dec 2012 12:22

BMP-3 is a terrible vehicle. its just about the worst choice for the role one can think of. if you import atleast find a good solution, not this reject which I believe even Russia does not use much.

That itself should set the stage for a 10,000 order from Desh so that we buy it, find the wrinkles, iron them out painfully and provide free user feedback to Russia so that they incorporate everything we painfully learnt and sell it back to us and to rest of the world as a F-BMP4!!

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 21 Dec 2012 15:30

Now no one is talking about Abhay IFV programme.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Dec 2012 15:44

FBMP4 = ha ha ha. sure you can fix a horse which has its head and ass in reverse by a double transplant. remove the pigs blood it has and inject pure breed iranian horse blood too.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 21 Dec 2012 16:05

How about making defense-heavy Arjun-1 made available for ideological Gandhian friends as a gesture of goodwill?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Dec 2012 16:33

interesting old article. seems china tried to take whatever little was useful in the dog and used it for a learning exercise

CHINA DEVELOPS 2G IFV
<Kanwa News June 20, 2003> A source from the Chinese military industry confirms that China is designing 2G IFV with the upgraded version BMP3 turret technologies. The progress of the project has been slow, as there are still disputes and disagreement within the Chinese army concerning the future direction of 2G IFV. Besides, the 2G IFV upgraded from BMP3 technology is extremely expensive and therefore cannot be deployed in the army in large scale. The source claims China has conducted tests on two upgraded models of 2G IFV. The latest version adopts the upgraded version BMP3 turret. Currently, a prototype vehicle is undergoing a series of tests. Meanwhile, China is considering the production of wheeled combat armor car on the basis of BMP3 fire control system.

The chassis of 2G IFV is designed by China, and the reliability of the chassis is still one of the major problems. As a result, the source adds, the testing will at least last for a whole year. The source points out that China is expected to develop its own 125mm ATM within two years time on the basis of BASTIAN 100mm gun launched ATM. Right now, China has encountered some difficulties in the development of small-size engines. " It is comparatively easier to upgrade from 100mm to 105mmm. But the changes on the 125mm MBT gun launched ATM are significant. It is virtually a total new design." The source stresses the major reason of importing BMP3 fire control system is to further study the designing principles of MBT gun launched laser guided ATM.

The Russian source further confirmed that according to the agreement signed in 1999 concerning the transfer of MBP3 IFV fire control system, China has already obtained latest BMP3M turrets, though the fire control system is still the earlier version. <Kanwa digest news>

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 21 Dec 2012 18:19

So long the FICV, which was to have been made by the Indian industry. It would have been nice is we got to see you. But alas it was not to be. 30 years down the line, a new generation of jingos will be debating the virtues of the next gen of imported ICV, while never knowing the joys of a seeing an Indian beauty. Just like we will never see one.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Dec 2012 18:29

We are caught between Scylla and Charbydis,"...."atwixt the devil and the deep sea" ,so to speak.On the one hand we rue the tardy supply of spares and support,etc. from Russia,while we face exactly the same from the west! Hawk spares problem,refusal of full TOT,intrusive inspections of US eqpt.,etc. There is an old story, decades ago,about the German refusal to provide their engine for Arjun,until a desi engine was almost developed.The Arjun today still relies on the German import.

To sort this out,in some measure, the problem of spares and support reg. Russian eqpt. is being redressed with the stockpiling of essential spares and support staff in non-PSU JVs .Similar measures must be taken with any western systems imported.However,the holy grail of indigenous weapon systems and their development appears to be facing real problems both with the level of technology that can be developed and absorbed as well as the management of defence PSUs. As with the report cited,quality of desi built T-90s aren't as good as the imported beasts.Quality of Arjun and its support too was mentioned wanting in another post.

Looking at order books of our PSUs,it is not for want of orders.There is a huge requirement in the aviation sector as well (apart from the massive order book at Avadi),both for aircraft and helicopters.Development delays and cost overruns plague most defence PSUs.The delay in decaxdes in the LCA's commissioning saw us plump for the Rafale as an interim measure.The IN in particular requires about 40-50 more warships and subs to reach the 180+ figure intended.With our yards taking 10 years to deliver a destroyer ,there is simply no chance that indigenous manufacturing will deliver the goods.Unless the GOI/MOD give the most serious attention to the problem,which is proper planning and management of the PSUs. The security of the nation must be THE top priority,esp. with the expanding threat from the Sino-Paki axis of evil,we will be mired in the whirlpool of foreign imports with the usual accompaniments of scam charges often levelled by those entities who have lost out,further delaying orders (like the 10 yr. wait for light-weight howitzers),thus seriously harming the nation's security by the non-availability of essential weaponry for the armed forces.

The design capability of armoured vehicles on the country by the DRDO seems to lack ingenuity.I refer to the awkward missile carrier,the NAMICA.Just flip through the pages of any reference manual on worldwide armoured vehicles and ee the huge number and variety of vehicles ,many designed and produced by much smaller nations than India,that too with far smaller armies than ours.As with Israel,Russia and others,a long time ago we should've developed/initiated a time bound programme for developing a family of armoured vehicles given that our numbers required are so large.We can live with both imports/local manufacture as well as indigenous designs.One can't understand why the corporate giants have taken so long to get their act together,as most of them were planning to have JVs with foreign suppliers.Have these suppliers been stingy with TOT? Unless clear timeframes are fixed and adhered to,the disease of drift will continue and the "what me worry" of the babus,who warm their seats and procrastinate with an eye to make a killing in any deal,will persist. AKA has also been party to the problem with his ultra cautious attitude afraid to make swift decisions and using the axe to cut off deadwood.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 21 Dec 2012 19:54

Sanku wrote:Net net, an Arjun production line is something that has to be made locally

Why?

Sanku wrote:where as a T 90 production line is something which is imported wholesale.

Define "production line". Please. This should be fun to watch.

RajD · Post by **RajD** » 21 Dec 2012 21:11

[quote="Philip"]We are caught between Scylla and Charbydis,"...."atwixt the devil and the deep sea" ,so to speak.//unquote
A small nitpik and as an aside for benefit of many who may not know sirji.
While Scylla serrata( called as 'Chimbori' in Marathi ) is a monster in the esturine mud flats and mangroves Charybdis cruciata is free swimming but a very delicate and colourful deep sea crab.
Regards.
Rajendra

Hobbes · Post by **Hobbes** » 22 Dec 2012 08:45

The design capability of armoured vehicles on the country by the DRDO seems to lack ingenuity.I refer to the awkward missile carrier,the NAMICA.Just flip through the pages of any reference manual on worldwide armoured vehicles and ee the huge number and variety of vehicles ,many designed and produced by much smaller nations than India,that too with far smaller armies than ours.As with Israel,Russia and others,a long time ago we should've developed/initiated a time bound programme for developing a family of armoured vehicles given that our numbers required are so large.We can live with both imports/local manufacture as well as indigenous designs.One can't understand why the corporate giants have taken so long to get their act together,as most of them were planning to have JVs with foreign suppliers.Have these suppliers been stingy with TOT? Unless clear timeframes are fixed and adhered to,the disease of drift will continue and the "what me worry" of the babus,who warm their seats and procrastinate with an eye to make a killing in any deal,will persist. AKA has also been party to the problem with his ultra cautious attitude afraid to make swift decisions and using the axe to cut off deadwood.

Er, isn't the Namica a BMP-2 derivative, and so a Russian design with some modifications to accomodate the missile launchers?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Dec 2012 17:39

cross posting from "chetak" in another thread.

Faulty tank ammo caused Rs. 687 crore loss to Govt

More than Rs. 408 crore worth of tank-fired ammunition - 1,02,014 rounds - that made its way into army depots in 2009-10 were found to be faulty, much before completing the prescribed shelf life of 10 years, a latest CAG report has revealed.

While no thorough investigation and
analysis was conducted to find out why and how this took place, to meet the army's shortfall, ammunition worth Rs. 279 crore (16,000 rounds) had to be imported from Rosoboronexport, a Russian company.

As a result, the losses to the public exchequer due to unserviceable ammo and consequent imports totalled Rs. 687 crore.

The ammo defects included flimsy propellant material, cracks in combustible cartridge case, sticking of cartridge case in packing container, etc - considered critical for effective and safe firing.

In 2010, a task force exploring the possibility of rectifying the faulty consignment had opined that the ammo was beyond repair.

While the Army attributed the defects to insufficient quality control during manufacture, the ordnance factory that produced the ammunition attributed the 'faults' to design deficiencies, a charge denied by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), the indigenous designers of the ammunition.

While the Army accepts ammunition only after appropriate quality assurance tests at various levels, any defect noticed during periodic test firing or otherwise during storage, is required to be thoroughly investigated, responsibility fixed and loss statements prepared for writing off the value of defective ammunition.

From 1997-2005, the Army had received about 3.5 lakh rounds of this ammunition valued at about Rs. 1400 crore.

"Contrary to the prescribed procedure, no serious investigation was concluded to ascertain the reasons for defects in the ammunition and to fix responsibility for such failure," the CAG report said.

In another finding in the CAG report, intervention by audit led to a saving of about Rs. 169 crore that would have been spent on 5.56mm bullets for INSAS rifles and .22 Rim Fire Tracer bullets, despite the defence ministry holding surplus stocks of such ammunition.

Recommending strengthening of internal controls in the ministry to ensure that procurement decisions are made based on available stock positions, CAG said, "The episode of placing of indent and obtaining approval for import when surplus stock of ammunition existed reveals deficiencies in monitoring inventory levels at ammunition depots."