Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

amit · Post by **amit** » 19 Apr 2013 12:01

pragnya wrote:
amit wrote:....

There have I got everything in?
unfortunately not sir.

you forgot 'reality' and 'alternate reality' (your own phrase) exist in real world!!!

I am "humbled" by the fact that you remembered!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 19 Apr 2013 12:07

nachiket wrote:
Sanku wrote:Rohit >> I dont want to get into a argument or intercede between you and Nelson, but the Parl committee report says various aspects in which Arjun is superior, no doubt, but does not say that "Arjun is clearly a superior tank". That is your take away but not mine.
Among the "various aspects" mentioned are "far superior weapon accuracy" and "excellent mobility" If that does not make it a clearly superior tank, then I don't know what does. .

No problem I will repeat. It does not become a clearly superior tank, because the superiority of the tank also depends on

1) Logistics train
2) Theaters where it can easily work

People may not care for those aspect, but IA does, and therefore does not use the words like "clearly superior tank", but "superior in some respects"

Furthermore, the point that Arjun Mk1 can not fire missile is critical. There is a good reason why this is important requirement of Mk 2. Post this, one mismatch will be addressed as well.

However the above two will remain, till further work on weight reduction etc is carried out.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 19 Apr 2013 12:10

amit wrote:
2) Sivakumar has made the following points: a) The production line is lying idle for two years;

Where has he said that?

amit · Post by **amit** » 19 Apr 2013 12:17

Sanku wrote:Where has he said that?

Please re-read the last couple of pages.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 19 Apr 2013 12:21

amit wrote:
Sanku wrote:Where has he said that?
Please re-read the last couple of pages.

He has not said that.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 19 Apr 2013 12:32

So the Chief Semantics Officer is on the prowl again

"superior in some respects" is > "equal in other respects". btw these were pointed out by the parliamentary committee. IA said comparing the two is like comparing a Mercedes to a Maruti. Of course, given that Sanjay Gandhi chose to invest in the logistics train of a Maruti must mean that the maruti is superior in 'other' respects to a Mercedes.

incidentally, if missile firing capability was not demonstrated by Arjun, wouldn't the army have gone to town regarding the failure of Arjun in that respect in the comparitive trials?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 19 Apr 2013 12:38

arnab wrote: incidentally, if missile firing capability was not demonstrated by Arjun, wouldn't the army have gone to town regarding the failure of Arjun in that respect in the comparitive trials?

No it would not. Because IA despite the attempts of many people to run it down, has a very different agenda that the infantile "size comparison" that Shukla is peddling. IA carried out those tests to evaluate Arjun after the fixes from AUCRT were available to see how to make the best use of it.

That is the official stated stance of IA, and there is no reason to remotely think that is not correct!!

And no Mk1 does not have the feature as deployed. It was only demoed in 2004 (or 2006) that is all. That is captured. So it only a "capability"

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 19 Apr 2013 12:44

Sanku wrote:
arnab wrote: incidentally, if missile firing capability was not demonstrated by Arjun, wouldn't the army have gone to town regarding the failure of Arjun in that respect in the comparitive trials?
No it would not. Because IA despite the attempts of many people to run it down, has a very different agenda that the infantile "size comparison" that Shukla is peddling. IA carried out those tests to evaluate Arjun after the fixes from AUCRT were available to see how to make the best use of it.

That is the official stated stance of IA, and there is no reason to remotely think that is not correct!!

And no Mk1 does not have the feature as deployed. It was only demoed in 2004 (or 2006) that is all. That is captured. So it only a "capability"

Saar 'official stance' is demonstrated in actions. Last action of the IA were a reduction of the indent numbers for Arjun from 124 to 119 (Mk1) and 118 for Mk2 and increasing the numbers for T-90. Re missiles: Well in 2006 the invars were not working at all. So Arjun demonstrated a capability that T-90 did not have (despite allegedly being deployed).

IA's agenda with respect to Arjun is effectively CYA - given all their attempts to stall the comparisons. So either the invars during the comparitive trials failed as well or Arjun demonstrated its LAHAT firing capability again.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 19 Apr 2013 12:48

arnab wrote:
Saar 'official stance' is demonstrated in actions. Last action of the IA were a reduction of the indent numbers for Arjun from 124 to 119 (Mk1) and 118 for Mk2 and increasing the numbers for T-90. Re missiles: Well in 2006 the invars were not working at all. So Arjun demonstrated a capability that T-90 did not have (despite allegedly being deployed).

IA's agenda with respect to Arjun is effectively CYA - given all their attempts to stall the comparisons. So either the invars during the comparitive trials failed as well or Arjun demonstrated its LAHAT firing capability again.

You are again, to put it mildly, misrepresenting . In 2006, assembly of one batch of Invars was faulty. Which is not the same as missile not working.

The rest of your post is of similar stand of Dissimulation.

So yes, IAs stance is shown by its actions, and yes, you are not being truthful about it.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 19 Apr 2013 12:48

amit wrote:
Sanku wrote:Where has he said that?
Please re-read the last couple of pages.

I am still waiting for the proof.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 19 Apr 2013 12:52

Sanku wrote:You are again, to put it mildly, misrepresenting . In 2006, assembly of one batch of Invars was faulty. Which is not the same as missile not working.

The rest of your post is of similar stand of Dissimulation.

So yes, IAs stance is shown by its actions, and yes, you are not being truthful about it.

Sorry saar all this "one batch - shon batch" is your interpretation. The defence minister has claimed that the supplied CKD kits were faulty. The imported invars did not work in 2001 either and were shipped back. The rest of your stuff how do we put it? unverifiable - so what's new?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 19 Apr 2013 12:53

arnab wrote: Sorry saar all this "one batch - shon batch" is your interpretation. The defence minister has claimed that the supplied CKD kits were faulty. The imported invars did not work in 2001 either and were shipped back. The rest of your stuff how do we put it? unverifiable - so what's new?

Again dissimulation, to put it mildly.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 19 Apr 2013 12:59

Sanku wrote:
arnab wrote: Sorry saar all this "one batch - shon batch" is your interpretation. The defence minister has claimed that the supplied CKD kits were faulty. The imported invars did not work in 2001 either and were shipped back. The rest of your stuff how do we put it? unverifiable - so what's new?
Again dissimulation, to put it mildly.

but I'm not the one desperately nitpicking on "superior in some respects". The invar issue has been discussed. No proof of "one batch faulty" has been provided (infact initially an unproven allegation was made that BDL was reponsible for faulty assembly) - so what else is new

amit · Post by **amit** » 19 Apr 2013 13:09

Sanku wrote:I am still waiting for the proof.

Why am I not quaking in my dhoti? I don't come to BRF to spoon feed you so you have to wait for a long time.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 19 Apr 2013 13:44

amit wrote:
Sanku wrote:I am still waiting for the proof.
Why am I not quaking in my dhoti? I don't come to BRF to spoon feed you so you have to wait for a long time.

I expected that.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 19 Apr 2013 13:45

arnab wrote: but I'm not the one desperately nitpicking on "superior in some respects". The invar issue has been discussed. No proof of "one batch faulty" has been provided (infact initially an unproven allegation was made that BDL was reponsible for faulty assembly) - so what else is new

Still more dissimulation to back previous dissimulation.

amit · Post by **amit** » 19 Apr 2013 14:25

Sanku wrote:I expected that.

You know boss, sometimes I wonder. Are in you in real life - that is when you are not wearing your abrasive Sanku avaatar - a school teacher?

You certainly act like one.

Any OT, my last post before the Bradmins start bombing.

And yes still keep waiting - that is after you have put in the last word eer I mean last post on this chain.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 19 Apr 2013 14:31

tsarkar wrote: Freedom of speech is not the right to propagate lies. Freedom requires responsibility to learn & understand the truth.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 19 Apr 2013 22:42

Sanku wrote:Also when discussion the capabilities, Mk1 production still does not fire LAHAT. Only the capability has been demonstrated. This might appear like nit picking, but I think these are important points.

That is nit picking.

If the US Army could upgrade the armour of its M1A1 tanks with DU meshes, the Indian Army's Arjun MkIs could very well have been modified to employ the LAHAT - a minor upgrade by most standards. New build MkIs in any case would have been capable of using it.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 20 Apr 2013 00:52

This might appear like nit picking, but I think these are important points.

its an important point for tin can because of its gun and ammo limitations

unless it was in GSQR its not an important point for Arjun.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 20 Apr 2013 01:35

Surya wrote: its an important point for tin can because of its gun and ammo limitations

unless it was in GSQR its not an important point for Arjun.

This is a very important point. In general, western heavies have never given too much importance to the missile firing capability due to the superiority of the gun, fcs and single piece ammo that they use compared to the T series. The Abrams, Challenger II and Leclerc do not have missile firing capability AFAIK. The Leopard 2 demonstrated the capability to fire LAHAT only in 2010. I don't know if the Merkava's in Israeli service use the LAHAT.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 20 Apr 2013 01:44

Sanku wrote: No problem I will repeat. It does not become a clearly superior tank, because the superiority of the tank also depends on

1) Logistics train
2) Theaters where it can easily work

People may not care for those aspect, but IA does, and therefore does not use the words like "clearly superior tank", but "superior in some respects"

Does the parliamentary report mention Logistical and deployment difficulties? Besides, these arguments have been countered n times before by rohitvats, etc.

Furthermore, the point that Arjun Mk1 can not fire missile is critical. There is a good reason why this is important requirement of Mk 2. Post this, one mismatch will be addressed as well.

It is not even remotely critical. Refer above posts by Surya and me. And the Mk1 has demonstrated the capability. There is no reason why existing Mk1s can't be modified to fire it. And with or without the LAHAT, the Arjun is still a million times better than the Army's T-72s which the T-90 is not replacing. There is absolutely no reason for the Army not to order more Mk1s to reequip T-72 regiments instead of halting production for 2-3 years till the Mk2 comes online.

However the above two will remain, till further work on weight reduction etc is carried out.

Weight reduction?

The army asked for modifications to the mk1, that would increase its weight, not reduce it.

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 20 Apr 2013 02:52

nachiket wrote: This is a very important point. In general, western heavies have never given too much importance to the missile firing capability due to the superiority of the gun, fcs and single piece ammo that they use compared to the T series. The Abrams, Challenger II and Leclerc do not have missile firing capability AFAIK. The Leopard 2 demonstrated the capability to fire LAHAT only in 2010. I don't know if the Merkava's in Israeli service use the LAHAT.

Missiles are used on Tincans for their longer range (when Mother Russia does not supply duds, that is).
They are not required as badly on Western-heavies simply because their sabot rounds get the job done.
(Check out the longest tank kill by Challenger 2, friendly fire, at 5100m, using a HESH round)

Its also related to the cost. A quick wiki-lookup shows that LAHAT missile costs $20,000 in 1999 dollars.
While the latest US round, M829A3, costs $8508 in 2009.

--Added-later
It actually gets better. The Refleks, according to Wiki, costs $37500.
No wonder, Tincan lovers have been tom-tomming it around as the wonder-weapon ... That will make Mother Russia rich.

--Ashish

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 20 Apr 2013 10:34

arnab wrote:So the Chief Semantics Officer <SNIP>

I will remember that...precious!!!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Apr 2013 12:47

nachiket wrote: Does the parliamentary report mention Logistical and deployment difficulties? Besides, these arguments have been countered n times before by rohitvats, etc.

But then the report does not say what rohit says either. So we need to keep the same standards no.

I went out of the report because Rohit did.

That apart, I do not think there has been any disagreement on the logistics train + weight restricting theater of operation. We have been discussing DRDOs own statement on the latter, and the previous has been backed by links before.

Furthermore, the point that Arjun Mk1 can not fire missile is critical. There is a good reason why this is important requirement of Mk 2. Post this, one mismatch will be addressed as well.
It is not even remotely critical. Refer above posts by Surya and me. And the Mk1 has demonstrated the capability. There is no reason why existing Mk1s can't be modified to fire it.

Well it is critical, it completely changes the game, it is a development like AFPDS on smooth bores on tanks. It takes the abilities to the next level.

There is a good reason why DRDO has itself said it is one of the most critical pieces for Mk2. And yes, while there is no reason why Mk1 can not be upgd to fire it (in fact I am sure they will all be upgd to Mk2) -- I merely made a statement about here and now.

And with or without the LAHAT, the Arjun is still a million times better than the Army's T-72s which the T-90 is not replacing. There is absolutely no reason for the Army not to order more Mk1s to reequip T-72 regiments instead of halting production for 2-3 years till the Mk2 comes online.

However the above two will remain, till further work on weight reduction etc is carried out.
Weight reduction? The army asked for modifications to the mk1, that would increase its weight, not reduce it.

Correct, but DRDO is working to eventually bring the weight down.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Apr 2013 12:51

Missiles are not being used by western heavies for the same reason Russia moved to Sabots and smootbores before everyone else.

IA god bless, being significantly more intelligent than "west is bhest" has adopted this paradigm with gusto. The massive order for INVARs goes to show that IA is convinced of the edge it brings.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Apr 2013 23:46

April 10, 2013 :: MoD Tweaks Procurement Rules To Encourage Indian Industry

1. Prioritisation of Various Categories for Capital Acquisitions under Defence Procurement Procedure: Preference for indigenous procurement in the Defence Production Policy 2011 has now been made a part of DPP through an amendment that provides for a preferred order of categorisation, with global cases being a choice of last resort. The order of preference, in decreasing order, shall be: (1) “Buy (Indian)”; (2) “Buy & Make (Indian)”; (3) “Make”; (4) “Buy & Make with ToT”; and (5) “Buy (Global)”. Any proposal to select a particular category must now state reasons for excluding the higher preferred category/ categories.

This should impact any more purchasing of T series here on out.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 20 Apr 2013 23:48

^^^^^
Inside it will be a tiny clause exempting deals already concluded. Next time we want to buy a plane, they will write it off as a follow-on to the T90 order. I wouldnt be surprised if the T90 order itself was passed off as a follow on of the T72 order. Dont underestimate our ability to navigate around mild inconveniences like these.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 20 Apr 2013 23:53

I would also like a course for the Officer cadre in the armed forces on the Indian MIC complex, it's achievements, flaws etc. for a better appreciation. It would help also in if they could follow with some economic data and outflows, constraints that foreign made weapon systems may bring about. I am certain in 70 years we have collected enough data on these issues. It will help in developing future Officers with a better appreciation to indigenous industry and effort.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Apr 2013 02:53

Anujan wrote:^^^^^
Inside it will be a tiny clause exempting deals already concluded. Next time we want to buy a plane, they will write it off as a follow-on to the T90 order. I wouldnt be surprised if the T90 order itself was passed off as a follow on of the T72 order. Dont underestimate our ability to navigate around mild inconveniences like these.

A second tiny clause should say: "See main clause 1".

No?

I think Avadi should install ejection seats in the T series.

rgsrini · Post by **rgsrini** » 21 Apr 2013 06:24

(1) “Buy (Indian)”; (2) “Buy & Make (Indian)”; (3) “Make”;

Pretty confusing. I am not sure I understand the difference between these 3. Does "buy" mean buy from an Indian private company, and "make" mean, made by DRDO or PSU? Is "Buy and Make" a combo of these options.

All of them are "Designed, developed and Made in India by Indian companies" right? How will foreign companies manufacturing in India be categorized in this case?

I hope they publish some details behind these categories.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Apr 2013 07:58

^^^^^

That is meant for those that do not get "buy stuff made in India". Like Russophiles. It takes time for such simple things to sink in.

Jk

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 21 Apr 2013 20:46

^^^

I now hope that the FICV will now go through, rather then getting canceled.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Apr 2013 21:40

Anujan wrote:^^^^^
Inside it will be a tiny clause exempting deals already concluded.

Fan of retrospective actions are we? Time travel ? There is no need to have a specific clause prohibiting time travel, it is standard part of all deals.

We are aware of one case of retrospective action -- needed a special bill.

This is so childish.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Apr 2013 21:46

NRao wrote:^^^^^

That is meant for those that do not get "buy stuff made in India". Like Russophiles. It takes time for such simple things to sink in.

Jk

Russian is unlikely, because quite simply that right now that would mean Indian forces dying from lack of equipment, and I do not think our establishment is so sold out still, but yes, if this stop the overpriced crap from countries basically using corruption to sell their equipment, such as AW, and Boeing (of Air India fame) the lure of which lucre seems to have filled Indian ranks with people shamelessly plugging for their interests over Indian interests, then it would be a good thing.

And no I am not kidding.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Apr 2013 22:50

Anujan wrote:^^^^^
Inside it will be a tiny clause exempting deals already concluded. Next time we want to buy a plane, they will write it off as a follow-on to the T90 order. I wouldnt be surprised if the T90 order itself was passed off as a follow on of the T72 order. Dont underestimate our ability to navigate around mild inconveniences like these.

From one of the articles:

only if developing and building in India proves impossible

At worst the 300 tanks that the Russian spoke of would appear in India. IF that Russian's statement does not count I really do not see any more T series.

As I have stated earlier, it is time India closed all T series effort and diverted that to the Arjun - a far better tank.

They will have to hide every screw driver to make it impossible to make the Arjun. : )

amit · Post by **amit** » 22 Apr 2013 07:34

NRao, this 300 odd latest incarnation of the tin cans are a test case IMO. The so called USP for the "flying tank" is it is specially suited for rugged "cold weather" of the North East. IMO this is one of the most blatant marketing gimmicks yet.

Of course this presupposes that the existing T90s in India are not "suited" for cold weather operations. This begs the question if the T90 was designed just for the Punjab plains? After all we've been told that the T90s have issues with the heat in Thar and that's why we need Arjuns there. So no cold weather ability and not suited for hot weather. Balle balle...

One can understand the Army's wish for T90s in the mountains. However IMO this requirement can be met from existing and already contracted for T90s and there place can be taken by more Arjuns.

Let's see what happens.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Apr 2013 07:53

Have been, very, very slowly looking into the NE requirements.

Cannot say much right now but for sure there are areas where these heavies - from both sides - cannot operate.

On the tibetian side the Arjun should do well.

I still feel that the 90 should replace the 72 and the Arjun should replace the vacating 90s. Bridging is not an issue, in fact if they wanted it would have been solved by now. Logistics too - not too sure the state of affairs - but that for sure is not an issue.

USSR did a lot for India, although India could have done far better for India. But Russia is making India reliant on her. This new emphasis should push India in the right direction. To that I must thank those who took bribes for the VVIP helos.

amit · Post by **amit** » 22 Apr 2013 08:31

NRao wrote:USSR did a lot for India, although India could have done far better for India. But Russia is making India reliant on her. This new emphasis should push India in the right direction. To that I must thank those who took bribes for the VVIP helos.

Yes USSR/Russia has done a lot for us. But we also did support their MIC with orders when they needed them the most. So it's never been a one way street. What is now needed is to transcend this partnership from a client supplier relationship to one between equal partners. That may be more difficult for the Russians to adjust to than Indians IMO.

But bottom line is Indian MIC and its development should be the sine qua non of every stake holder. Unfortunately the attitude of the Army and IAF raises questions. Hopefully this new rule will bring a sense of purpose all around.

srin · Post by **srin** » 22 Apr 2013 10:16

Not getting into Arjun vs T-90 ...

Tibet being a high altitude plateau, the tank performance will suffer. I don't know for tanks, the rule of thumb for cars is 3% loss of horsepower per 1000 ft of altitude.

Chushul is at around 13K feet, DBO (if we can get the tanks there) is around 17K feet, North sikkim is around 16K feet.

If that thumbrule is accurate, at 14K feet of Chushul, the available horsepower would be around 58% of sealevel horsepower. Which means, Arjun will have 812 hp and t-90 will have 580 hp. The power/weight ratio will look terrible in both cases. That would decrease the mobility and ability to climb inclines.

So - tanks will have to carry less ammo and armour or reduce the empty weight by going for lighter tanks with better power/weight ratio