Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 10 Dec 2013 11:42

east or west the tin can is the best.

Next we will see that the Arjun is not good enough because it cannot launch A 5 and Akash, while in a battle, so buy more T 90.

member_28131 · Post by **member_28131** » 11 Dec 2013 06:40

India Rejects BMP-3 Offer, Will Maintain FICV Program

India will not shelve its homegrown $10 billion Futuristic Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) program in favor of advanced Russian BMP-3 combat vehicles..

During Russian President Vladmir Putin’s visit to India last December, the Russians offered to transfer technology for its BMP-3 infantry combat vehicles if India agreed to shelve its indigenous FICV program, which will see production of 2,600 vehicles to replace aging BMP-1 and BMP-2 combat vehicles.

An executive of Russia’s Rosoboronexport in New Delhi said the company made the BMP-3 proposal because the Indian Army sought the vehicles, but the Defence Ministry would not agree with the condition that the FICV program be shelved. (something is rotten in the army)

The FICV project will be in the “Make India” category, which means only domestic companies will be able to compete. The selected company or consortium will develop an FICV prototype on its own although the government will fund nearly 80 percent of the development costs. Thereafter, production will be done in India by the winner.

BMP-2 Upgrade
Meanwhile, the Indian Army plans to upgrade the existing 1,400 BMP-2 infantry combat vehicles with advanced weapons and night-fighting capabilities at a cost of $1.8 billion. However, the MoD canceled a tender floated last year to purchase 2,000 engines for the upgrade because none of the domestic vendors fulfilled the engine’s requirements. Now a global tender is likely to be issued for the engines, the MoD source said.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 11 Dec 2013 06:49

Kartik wrote:they're hardly issues that should cause alarm..any product development program sees such issues that resolved before the product goes into production..the report didn't state the IA was looking to derail any orders based on these issues.

That's because there are no orders in the first place.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Dec 2013 08:21

TOT for the advanced BMP3

thanks the lord for small mercies. even TSP could not have designed a worse ICV than the BMP3.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Dec 2013 08:27

Indian Army made the request!!!

The President of Russia added a rider and then made the offer!!!!!!!! On an official visit to India !!

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Dec 2013 10:54

Veer wrote: An executive of Russia’s Rosoboronexport in New Delhi said the company made the BMP-3 proposal because the Indian Army sought the vehicles, but the Defence Ministry would not agree with the condition that the FICV program be shelved. (something is rotten in the army)

Go easy on passing judgement based on preconceived notions.

That Russian executive is peddling nonsense. BMP-3 was trialed by Indian Army long time back (I think in mid 2000s) and was rejected.

The initiative to push for participation of private companies in FICV program was from Indian Army - it is the MOD which was sitting on the proposals made by private companies in 2010.

And here is another data point to chew on - the private companies were fearful that OFB will tie-up with Russians and propose a version of BMP-3 for the competition. But guess who would have footed the bill for development of the 'version' of BMP-3? Indian tax-payer.

Like IAF, IA is trying to break the monopoly of OFB on the defense production. And after one project related to C3I, this is going to be the second project.

vic · Post by **vic** » 11 Dec 2013 13:17

BMP-2 Upgrade
Meanwhile, the Indian Army plans to upgrade the existing 1,400 BMP-2 infantry combat vehicles with advanced weapons and night-fighting capabilities at a cost of $1.8 billion. However, the MoD canceled a tender floated last year to purchase 2,000 engines for the upgrade because none of the domestic vendors fulfilled the engine’s requirements. Now a global tender is likely to be issued for the engines, the MoD source said.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Dec 2013 14:04

vic wrote:BMP-2 Upgrade
Meanwhile, the Indian Army plans to upgrade the existing 1,400 BMP-2 infantry combat vehicles with advanced weapons and night-fighting capabilities at a cost of $1.8 billion. However, the MoD canceled a tender floated last year to purchase 2,000 engines for the upgrade because none of the domestic vendors fulfilled the engine’s requirements. Now a global tender is likely to be issued for the engines, the MoD source said.

And what exactly do you intend to convey by bolded part?

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 11 Dec 2013 14:55

rohitvats wrote: The initiative to push for participation of private companies in FICV program was from Indian Army - it is the MOD which was sitting on the proposals made by private companies in 2010.

And how sure are you that the proposal made by the private Indian companies are credible?

IMHO, the best bet would be the DRDO's Abhay jointly further developed and manufactured with a consortium of private Indian companies, maybe the Tatas (Tata motors, TAM, etc.), L&T, Ashok Leyland and Mahindras look like candidates to me. Keep it completely Indian except maybe for engines if not done in house.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Dec 2013 15:30

merlin wrote: And how sure are you that the proposal made by the private Indian companies are credible?

IMHO, the best bet would be the DRDO's Abhay jointly further developed and manufactured with a consortium of private Indian companies, maybe the Tatas (Tata motors, TAM, etc.), L&T, Ashok Leyland and Mahindras look like candidates to me. Keep it completely Indian except maybe for engines if not done in house.

One of the four companies in fray is OFB. Nothing prevents OFB to partner with DRDO to put forth their proposal of FICV based on Abhay concept.

On the flip side, Indian companies (L&T, TATA, Mahindra) are in partnership with foreign companies. The real benefit of opening this competition to private players is if they can learn to develop a FICV in collaboration with foreign players.

They way I see it, the foreign player will bring in the technical knowledge based on prior experience and existing platforms. This platform is further developed and customized to Indian conditions - using the MOD money - and prototype developed, trialed and absorbed for service.

What is important that INDIA should learn to develop a FICV and the IP generated using Indian taxpayer money resides in India. I hope this does not simply become a backdoor entry point for foreign players to showcase their stuff w/o INDIA learning anything in the process.

The benefit of your approach - using DRDO for R&D and Private sector for manufacturing - is that the knowledge base will be developed within a government organization. Which to a large extent will not be subject to business case considerations as with private companies. And knowledge which can be used for further development.

vic · Post by **vic** » 11 Dec 2013 17:46

While the debate is going on between OFB Abhay vs Pvt Sector FICV vs BMP-3, the cake will be eaten away by BMP-2 upgrade. As everything is being changed in the BMP-2 by imported content except the hull which constitutes around 1% cost of the upgraded BMP-2, therefore it is an import under the pretext of upgrade.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Dec 2013 18:33

vic wrote:While the debate is going on between OFB Abhay vs Pvt Sector FICV vs BMP-3, the cake will be eaten away by BMP-2 upgrade. As everything is being changed in the BMP-2 by imported content except the hull which constitutes around 1% cost of the upgraded BMP-2, therefore it is an import under the pretext of upgrade.

And what you suggest army should in the period required to develop and gradually induct the FICV into the inventory?

Even assuming that first FICV rolls out in 2020 and we manage a production rate of 250 systems per annum, it will be 10 years i.e. 2030 by the time last of FICV is inducted.

What do you think we do with BMP-2 in IA inventory in the intervening period? Let them rot? While the the quality of threat faced by ICV in battlefield increases. As does the overall complexity of battlefield.

And BTW - the FICV project cost is estimated at INR 50K crore (these are sure to escalate) for 2,600 vehicles. Which works out to be INR 20 crore per vehicle. Which is pretty optimistic considering that even the selection of vendors is yet to happen. And the cost quoted is from 2010. New ICV like CV90 in late 2000s were costing INR 30 crore.

The cost of upgrade at USD 1.8 billion@INR 55 works out to be INR 7 crore per vehicle. So, for 37% of the cost of a new vehicle, you're upgrading existing platform which are expected to soldier on for next 10 years at least.

member_28131 · Post by **member_28131** » 11 Dec 2013 19:43

rohitvats wrote:
Veer wrote: An executive of Russia’s Rosoboronexport in New Delhi said the company made the BMP-3 proposal because the Indian Army sought the vehicles, but the Defence Ministry would not agree with the condition that the FICV program be shelved. (something is rotten in the army)
Go easy on passing judgement based on preconceived notions.

That Russian executive is peddling nonsense. BMP-3 was trialed by Indian Army long time back (I think in mid 2000s) and was rejected.

The initiative to push for participation of private companies in FICV program was from Indian Army - it is the MOD which was sitting on the proposals made by private companies in 2010.

And here is another data point to chew on - the private companies were fearful that OFB will tie-up with Russians and propose a version of BMP-3 for the competition. But guess who would have footed the bill for development of the 'version' of BMP-3? Indian tax-payer.

It seems you feel pretty strongly about this so it will be hard to argue with you. Your facts may be valid but the fact remains that the Army's stance on indigenization is well known among the private players too which is why the reluctance. A half assed effort to involve the private players into a program like this doesn't do justice and the private players are no fools. The fact that the army approached the private firms AFTER approaching the Russians despite the fact that our firms are more than capable of producing such a system should say something about its intentions to you.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 11 Dec 2013 19:58

Thank god for small mercies. That the FICV will continue. Eagery look forward to the products designed by the domestic firms and hope that they dont replace the ofb as screw driver walas. The combat control system may not be Indian. But every thing else can be done in the country.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Dec 2013 22:45

Veer wrote: It seems you feel pretty strongly about this so it will be hard to argue with you. Your facts may be valid but the fact remains that the Army's stance on indigenization is well known among the private players too which is why the reluctance. A half assed effort to involve the private players into a program like this doesn't do justice and the private players are no fools.

Don't bull-sh*t even more to cover your earlier completely inane comment.

If my facts are valid, then it automatically means that Russian (and your) assertion is incorrect. And if you've problem looking for information and fact(s) before forming an opinion, then I suggest you look for alternate place to air your half-a**ed views.

A little bit of effort would have told you this:

(1) http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2010/08/y ... ve-it.html - From 2010:

Excerpt:

Three Indian private companies with ambitions in the defence sector won a major battle when they were invited to compete, on level terms with the public sector, in developing a Future Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) for the Indian Army. In the FICV project, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has conceded almost everything that the private sector has demanded since it was allowed into defence production in 2001. The MoD will fund 80% of the development cost of the FICV. And, with the army looking to buy in quantity, economies of scale are guaranteed during production.

For those who did not read yesterday’s Business Standard, four Indian companies --- Tata Motors; the Mahindra Group; L&T; and the MoD-owned Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) --- will submit proposals on 25th August for designing and building 2600 new-generation FICVs. Two vendors with the best proposals will be invited to develop a prototype each, contributing just 20% of the expense. Then, after the army chooses the better design, the winner will build 65-70% of the army’s requirement of FICVs; the runner up will build the rest.

(2)http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2012/06/f ... -ficv.html - from June 2012

Excerpt:

Last week, the MoD flagged off India’s first competitive development of a major military system, the high tech Tactical Communications System. Now all eyes are on the second, with the MoD finalizing the two winners in the four-cornered contest to develop a Future Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) for the army. While figures are tentative, this is by far India’s biggest-ever land systems contract, the Rs 50-60,000 crore production of 2600 FICVs to replace the army’s venerable Russian BMP-2.

Since Oct 09, when the MoD approved the FICV project, private sector aspirants like the Mahindras, Tata Motors and L&T have put in place the designers and technical facilities needed for developing the complex FICV in the MoD’s tight timeframes. Now there is concern that, 20 months after submitting their project proposals to the MoD in Oct 2010, the winning proposals have not yet been announced. According to the MoD’s own timelines, this evaluation should have been completed in 8 months.

“The Mahindra Group has invested Rs 30 crore in putting together our FICV team. For two years, we have trained our people, working with our technology partners, BAE Systems, in Sweden; and Rafael in Israel. We are looking for an early decision from the MoD. Keeping this team idle costs us money,” says Brig Hai.

Business Standard visited the Mahindra Group’s facility in Palwal, Haryana, where its joint venture company, Defence Land Systems India (Mahindra, 74%: BAE Systems 26%), has set up a high-tech Systems Integration Laboratory that will spearhead the FICV design process.

L&T, too, hopes for an early decision. It has set up a design facility at Talegaon, and tied up with technology partners like CMI of Belgium. Interestingly, L&T is looking to Indian company, Ashok Leyland, to play a role in the automotive aspects of the FICV. “L&T’s design strengths are well known. Many hours of skilled engineering have gone into the innovative design that we have presented to the MoD,” says MV Kotwal, L&T’s heavy engineering chief.

(3) http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2012/10/s ... ustry.html - From October 2012.

The private sector’s much tom-tommed opening into defence production, via the Future Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV), intended to replace the army’s 2,600 BMP-2s at an estimated cost of Rs 50,000 crore, faces an uncertain future. The defence ministry (MoD) is contemplating scrapping the current tender and restarting anew. This comes after sitting for two years on the FICV proposals from three private sector consortia and one public sector entity.

But the MoD’s Acquisitions Wing, which must make the short list, now complains that the tender (called an Expression of Interest, or EoI) did not define the criteria by which the winners would be selected. It wants a fresh EoI to be issued, with the criteria specified.

The wing cites the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) of 2008, where Para 22 of the “Make” category, covering the FICV project, says: “The EoI should also lay down the broad parameters of the evaluation process and acceptance criterion for the system under development.”

But the MoD brass realises that cancelling the EoI (drawn up in the ministry) and going back to 2010 would involve a serious loss of credibility. Besides, the “Make” category itself outlines the acceptance criteria, specifying that, “the contribution of the Indian industry in the critical technology areas should be the key criterion in assessment of various proposals.”

Two things become obvious from the above data points:

1. It is not some weak-kneed attempt on part of IA to involve the private sector in the development of FICV.
2. The private sector is taking it very seriously and has expended considerable time, effort and capital to gear for the project.

The fact that the army approached the private firms AFTER approaching the Russians despite the fact that our firms are more than capable of producing such a system should say something about its intentions to you.

Again, as the data point shows, the project to include private players started BEFORE 2010 - when the private players actually submitted their proposals. If anyone led to the delay in the project, it is the MOD and not the Indian Army. Further, Army has no authority to independently ask any country or manufacturer for even a bit of information - the aspect of Indian Army asking for BMP-3 TOT from Russia is a bloody outlandish claim.

Next time you feel the urge to morph into keyboard ninja and make inane comment(s), take couple of deep breaths and think for few minutes.

vic · Post by **vic** » 11 Dec 2013 22:53

As usual Rohitvats is using abusive language against posters!

Indranil: Please don't add fuel to fire. If you feel a moderator is not following guidelines of posting, please report his posts. We will not tolerate abuse of power by a moderator. At the same time we will not tolerate flame baiting by any poster. Please be warned.

member_28131 · Post by **member_28131** » 11 Dec 2013 23:04

rohitvats wrote:
Veer wrote: It seems you feel pretty strongly about this so it will be hard to argue with you. Your facts may be valid but the fact remains that the Army's stance on indigenization is well known among the private players too which is why the reluctance. A half assed effort to involve the private players into a program like this doesn't do justice and the private players are no fools.
Don't bull-sh*t even more to cover your earlier completely inane comment.

If my facts are valid, then it automatically means that Russian (and your) assertion is incorrect. And if you've problem looking for information and fact(s) before forming an opinion, then I suggest you look for alternate place to air your half-a**ed views.

Get off your roid rage, go back and read my posts again.

The army is not serious about indigenization. If it was, it would not run up to the Russians every time it needs something. It would look for home grown solutions, which, in this case it did not do.

User warned for persistent rants - rohitvats

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Dec 2013 23:06

vic wrote:As usual Rohitvats is using abusive language against posters!

Abusive language? Harsh yes, abusive no.

And that is what one gets if he comes here posting idiotic stuff inspite of being shown the reality earlier.

I don't see the need to suffer fools gladly whose only interest is to come here and make completely inane posts. This aspect as been the single biggest reason for the quality of debate and discussion to have gone down on Military forum. And something which I don't think needs to be tolerated.

member_28131 · Post by **member_28131** » 11 Dec 2013 23:23

Ye because being a moderator on BR is a license to forward your agenda while ignoring all the other sane voices. You lack the basic skills to even interpret plain English and are so hell bent on your own preconceived notions that you ignore everything else. The fact that you lack basic debating skills and resort to using your moderating powers to limit me shows a lot about the kind of person you are. And since your warning is a bait for me (which I took) to make another "rant" so you can eventually ban me. Go ahead and do so.

Even if I wish, I cannot ban you because BRF has the policy to issue three warnings before handing the ban. So, I'll have to deny you your wish and issue another warning - rohitvats

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 11 Dec 2013 23:35

Okay. Okay. Cool it, all of you. Please.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Dec 2013 23:59

everyone cool down and read this.

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/5646 ... 33ee26.png

we all want the same things and friendly fires are to be avoided at all costs. they are simply not worth it.

veer, I deleted your last post.

raj-ji · Post by **raj-ji** » 12 Dec 2013 02:02

Veer wrote:
It seems you feel pretty strongly about this so it will be hard to argue with you. Your facts may be valid but the fact remains that the Army's stance on indigenization is well known among the private players too which is why the reluctance. A half assed effort to involve the private players into a program like this doesn't do justice and the private players are no fools. The fact that the army approached the private firms AFTER approaching the Russians despite the fact that our firms are more than capable of producing such a system should say something about its intentions to you.

Your comment about the Army's stance on indigenization assumes that the Army's primary goal should be pushing for locally produced products. That may be the logic by some on this forum but the Army is acting like a typical consumer, which is what they should be doing. The Army wants the best product available for the best price. If there is a locally developed product designed, developed and ready to be compared then I can understand your comment. But asking the Army to wait while none of this is done is unrealistic.

I am a fan of indigenization as well, closely watching the Tejas and waiting for it to roll out in large numbers. But a BMP type vehicle does not include critical technologies. It is recreating the wheel. The tie up between Indian private firms and foreign experts in this field is an excellent balance of potentially getting an excellent product produced locally through TOT. For non strategic products this is the most logical of options. Not every military product needs to be indigenous. If that is done, it could create problems as well, look up the discussions on industrial military complex.

Indranil: Corrected quotations.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Dec 2013 03:09

Rahul M wrote:everyone cool down and read this.

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/5646 ... 33ee26.png

we all want the same things and friendly fires are to be avoided at all costs. they are simply not worth it.

veer, I deleted your last post.

Good advice, that image has. However, also a good way to develop a big belly. And now I am hungry and want a sandwich. (just cant win)..

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Dec 2013 03:21

raj-ji wrote:Your comment about the Army's stance on indigenization assumes that the Army's primary goal should be pushing for locally produced products. That may be the logic by some on this forum but the Army is acting like a typical consumer, which is what they should be doing. The Army wants the best product available for the best price. If there is a locally developed product designed, developed and ready to be compared then I can understand your comment.

Disagree. The Army is not the typical consumer, and hence it cannot afford to act like a typical consumer. By being dependent on foreign arms it:
1. Runs the risk of losing wars (as more and more systems are complex and can be stopped by preventing even delivery of small widgets/ or get compromised). Google Qari and Iraq for an example of the above.
2. Diverts precious FE from the Indian economy, which needs every bit of it, to build up hitech infrastructure. Weapons are extortionately priced
3. Indian economic wealth is sucked abroad (in addition to the FE part of 2)
4. Forces India into dependency on other nations (e.g EU nations can preach to us on Kandhamal)

Net, the IA has to be an atypical consumer, like other developed national armies - eg French Army/US Army etc and have a strong product development culture. There would be no Merkava or Abrams or Leclerc otherwise.

But asking the Army to wait while none of this is done is unrealistic.

Depends on how critical the need is. If its properly forecasted, there can be time available to evaluate local production even including development.

I am a fan of indigenization as well, closely watching the Tejas and waiting for it to roll out in large numbers. But a BMP type vehicle does not include critical technologies. It is recreating the wheel.

You have to be kidding here. A BMP type vehicle does not involve critical technologies? Its a pretty complex piece of kit and involves breakthroughs in automotive tech (high power density engines), armor (light armor specifically), armaments, fire control and battle management systems.

Take a look at the cost associated with the BMP upgrade. The high cost is precisely because of the fact that these systems are complex.

This reinventing the wheel argument is tedious. Unless you have your own wheel, you will not advance. Other folks wheels are protected by IPR and hoarded tech.

The tie up between Indian private firms and foreign experts in this field is an excellent balance of potentially getting an excellent product produced locally through TOT. For non strategic products this is the most logical of options. Not every military product needs to be indigenous. If that is done, it could create problems as well, look up the discussions on industrial military complex.

TOT, as the Indian experience has shown so far, is merely limited transfer of production TOT, eg process TOT. It does not transfer any design knowledge in detail (e.g. why the turret is faceted in a certain way) and even skips complex systems which are merely assembled ( how to design or manufacture the optics of a certain type etc is not available).

In short, TOT can be used merely as an intermediate step for Indian firms to familiarize themselves with defence production. It cannot be used as the standard method.

And BTW, countries of Indian depth and heft - China, Russia, US, even France - have almost all their systems locally sourced, with only subsystems and COTS items (eg industrial microprocessors) procured from the open market.

This entire TOT/reinvent the wheel/license production/JV stuff is a nice package cooked up by several Indian conglomerates and their trade supporters to quick fix the IA procurement and get into it. In short, make the same mistake the DPSUs did.

But it cannot be the goal by itself.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 12 Dec 2013 08:32

^+1 million. Some people think that defense acquisition is akin to buying yourself a new TV i.e. go and get the best deal and technology you can (be it a foreign brand or Indian one). Frankly, I would urge that everyone buy an Indian brand (ya, I know the components are mostly chinese), so you can guess my opinion about defense acquisition. The FICV initiative is a good one and I am hopeful about the Army when I look at it, but the this saga is not yet decided in any way and I will reserve my judgment and be "cautiously" hopeful, as things can yet be sabotaged. At the same time, NO ONE can forget how the Army has treated the Arjun Tank, so I would not be trustful of the Army's decision independent of the facts.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 12 Dec 2013 08:50

FICV with 4 contenders will make it hard for the army to give it the arjun treatment.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 12 Dec 2013 09:03

^ I certainly hope so, but the ingenuity of the corrupt is not to be underestimated.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 12 Dec 2013 09:15

nachiket wrote:
Kartik wrote:they're hardly issues that should cause alarm..any product development program sees such issues that resolved before the product goes into production..the report didn't state the IA was looking to derail any orders based on these issues.
That's because there are no orders in the first place.

I thought there were orders for 124 Arjun Mk2s already placed. Or did I get it wrong?

vic · Post by **vic** » 12 Dec 2013 10:27

Army is delaying placing orders for next batch of Arjun. Such criteria is not imposed on foreign maal as shown by CBI FIRs in some cases.

in any case, one would like to know, when was BMP upgrade considered? How much time and money was allocated to Indian entities to come up with indigenous upgrade solutions? Will tender tailoring mean indirect single vendor deal with pretense of Global tender? Has in last two decades army asked OFB to start developing BMP upgrade?

vic · Post by **vic** » 12 Dec 2013 10:30

Note even large commercial organizations develop their vendor network to avoid getting blackmailed by rivals.

srai · Post by **srai** » 12 Dec 2013 11:32

Kartik wrote:
nachiket wrote:[quote="Kartik" they're hardly issues that should cause alarm..any product development program sees such issues that resolved before the product goes into production..the report didn't state the IA was looking to derail any orders based on these issues. /quote]
That's because there are no orders in the first place.
I thought there were orders for 124 Arjun Mk2s already placed. Or did I get it wrong?

That order is conditional on Mk.2 passing trials. One can expect delays since HVF cannot start production until the IA is fully satisfied with the trials. Even without any delays on Mk.2 development and trials, the Arjun assembly line is going to be idle for two and a half years.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 12 Dec 2013 15:48

srai wrote:That order is conditional on Mk.2 passing trials.

The order is for Mk 1 and not conditional mk2. its DRDO, which is utilising idle time to get mk2 approved.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 12 Dec 2013 15:55

Given the attitude of the army with respect to Arjun and the developments so far, I guess it will be news only when IA says something positive about the tank. Till then, it is all whining and what could have been...sigh!

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 12 Dec 2013 21:31

May be it is the MOD and socialist ideas that are responsible for the mass of weapon system procurement? Huge babudom, political power, creating work, looting, dealing weeling partying system in Delhi wherein all decision makers enjoy benefits of status quo is responsible for all this. Arjun or 155 arti procurement etc all are results of this system.

Corporate/sell OFB units piecemeal or as a total unit, allow full private systems. Drastic defence procurement reforms are must now.

raj-ji · Post by **raj-ji** » 13 Dec 2013 03:54

Karan M wrote:
raj-ji wrote:Your comment about the Army's stance on indigenization assumes that the Army's primary goal should be pushing for locally produced products. That may be the logic by some on this forum but the Army is acting like a typical consumer, which is what they should be doing. The Army wants the best product available for the best price. If there is a locally developed product designed, developed and ready to be compared then I can understand your comment.
Disagree. The Army is not the typical consumer, and hence it cannot afford to act like a typical consumer. By being dependent on foreign arms it:
1. Runs the risk of losing wars (as more and more systems are complex and can be stopped by preventing even delivery of small widgets/ or get compromised). Google Qari and Iraq for an example of the above. Comparing India to Iraq seems extreme. This point is not valid using the private Indian firms partnering with foreign companies option mentioned.
2. Diverts precious FE from the Indian economy, which needs every bit of it, to build up hitech infrastructure. Weapons are extortionately priced. Indigenous products use their share of foreign parts, tech and consulting which will use up FE. To a less extent however. The extortionately priced comment is true, but would we know the full cost of a locally produced product? Then we can compare costs effectively.
3. Indian economic wealth is sucked abroad (in addition to the FE part of 2). Being sucked abroad to pay for important military equipment used to protect the lives of Indian soldiers. There are enough examples of how the MIG 21s still in service with no indigenous alternative in production for many years has affected operations and the safety of individuals in the armed forces.
4. Forces India into dependency on other nations (e.g EU nations can preach to us on Kandhamal) We are already dependent on other nations for more critical and strategic equipment that this. This item will not swing the balance of a conflict. Besides the dependency factor is on everyone's radar and there are adequate measures in place.

Net, the IA has to be an atypical consumer, like other developed national armies - eg French Army/US Army etc and have a strong product development culture. There would be no Merkava or Abrams or Leclerc otherwise. Interesting you should say this. Have you seem the movie about the Bradley Fighting Vehicle called 'Pentagon Wars'? If not would check it out. Very interesting and relevant to the topics being discussed.

But asking the Army to wait while none of this is done is unrealistic.
Depends on how critical the need is. If its properly forecasted, there can be time available to evaluate local production even including development. This assumes a locally designed, developed and produced product will roll out on schedule and on budget. Even the big boys (read F35) have issues with this.

I am a fan of indigenization as well, closely watching the Tejas and waiting for it to roll out in large numbers. But a BMP type vehicle does not include critical technologies. It is recreating the wheel.
You have to be kidding here. A BMP type vehicle does not involve critical technologies? Its a pretty complex piece of kit and involves breakthroughs in automotive tech (high power density engines), armor (light armor specifically), armaments, fire control and battle management systems. More complex technology than already developed for the Arjun tank? Really?

Take a look at the cost associated with the BMP upgrade. The high cost is precisely because of the fact that these systems are complex. Again could anyone estimate what an indigenous alternative will cost?

This reinventing the wheel argument is tedious. Unless you have your own wheel, you will not advance. Other folks wheels are protected by IPR and hoarded tech. We have the wheel using the Arjun as an example. Focusing efforts on improving /enhancing it makes more sense than diverting efforts and resources on a product less complex than a MBT.

The tie up between Indian private firms and foreign experts in this field is an excellent balance of potentially getting an excellent product produced locally through TOT. For non strategic products this is the most logical of options. Not every military product needs to be indigenous. If that is done, it could create problems as well, look up the discussions on industrial military complex.
TOT, as the Indian experience has shown so far, is merely limited transfer of production TOT, eg process TOT. It does not transfer any design knowledge in detail (e.g. why the turret is faceted in a certain way) and even skips complex systems which are merely assembled ( how to design or manufacture the optics of a certain type etc is not available). Agree with you that TOT has not been to the levels it should be. But working on changing that should be the priority. Also the important difference is including Indian private firms, which is long overdue. This part needs to be started ASAP and this type of product for my points above is a good candidate.

In short, TOT can be used merely as an intermediate step for Indian firms to familiarize themselves with defence production. It cannot be used as the standard method. Again, for Indian private firms this is a good first step to much more in the future.

And BTW, countries of Indian depth and heft - China, Russia, US, even France - have almost all their systems locally sourced, with only subsystems and COTS items (eg industrial microprocessors) procured from the open market. Suggestion is that India does this better than them, not exactly like them. The Indian private firm option better gets us to the end state you mention.

This entire TOT/reinvent the wheel/license production/JV stuff is a nice package cooked up by several Indian conglomerates and their trade supporters to quick fix the IA procurement and get into it. In short, make the same mistake the DPSUs did. There are opportunities here that are being discounted. Having Indian conglomerates participate in defense production is par for the course. It is the business model used by the US, Europe. As long as it is not strategic weaponry the GoI should be looking at this with great interest.

But it cannot be the goal by itself.

I see the points you are trying to make but disagree with your analysis. My responses are added above in bold.

srai · Post by **srai** » 13 Dec 2013 06:12

chackojoseph wrote:
srai wrote:That order is conditional on Mk.2 passing trials.
The order is for Mk 1 and not conditional mk2. its DRDO, which is utilising idle time to get mk2 approved.

India begins developmental trials of Arjun mkII MBT

27 June 2012: India's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has started developmental trials of the new Arjun Mark II main battle tank (MBT) at Pokhran field firing range in Rajasthan, India.

DRDO spokesperson Ravi Gupta was quoted by Press Trust of India as saying: ''The trials started on Friday and will continue for the next two months. The ongoing trials will mainly focus on 19 parameters.''

If successful, the trials will provide DRDO with approval for production of 124 Arjun mark II at its heavy vehicles factory in Avadi, to add to the 124 Arjun Mark I MBTs currently in service with the Indian Army.

Indian Defence Ministry spokesman colonel SD Goswami said: ''The Indian Army accepted 124 Arjuns into service but has made a follow-on order conditional upon 93 improvements to the Arjun, including 19 major modifications.''

According to Goswami, the tank features an improved long-range missile-firing capability, panoramic sight with night-vision, explosive reactive armour, advanced air-defence gun to engage helicopters, land navigation system and a warning system to fire smoke grenades to confuse enemy laser guidance.

Other upgrades include an enhanced auxiliary power unit, improved gun barrels, the commander's panoramic sight with eye safe LRF, a digital control harness, new final drive, track and sprocket.

According to DRDO, the newly integrated thermal imaging (TI) night-vision replaces the day-only sight in the Arjun I, enabling the new tank to go on operations at night.

Dubbed the lightweight futuristic main battle tank (FMBT), the Arjun mkII is scheduled to be ready for delivery by 2013 to 2014 and is expected to be the potential contender for the replacement of the army's ageing fleet of 2,400 Russian T-72 tanks.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 13 Dec 2013 09:11

Veer wrote:It seems you feel pretty strongly about this so it will be hard to argue with you. Your facts may be valid but the fact remains that the Army's stance on indigenization is well known among the private players too which is why the reluctance. A half assed effort to involve the private players into a program like this doesn't do justice and the private players are no fools. The fact that the army approached the private firms AFTER approaching the Russians despite the fact that our firms are more than capable of producing such a system should say something about its intentions to you.

Army's procurement is in mess in artillery, armour and small arms, which forms the back bone. You are exaggerating with the use of word half assed, its just below a quarter. They have no clue of capabilities required, technical standards and they are more obsessed with the source of origin.

Its the general assessment after hearing out armywallas in a recent armour exhibition when one speaker has a different view from the other and right hand does not know what the left is doing (I too said that few years ago). As western and private participants have begun attending these conferences, brutally honest views are being expressed, while they do not want to offend a potential customer. However there appeared a glee that Army will support them instead of desi option, so let the sleeping dogs lie.

Added later.

On the technical part, when a DRDO speaker offered that they can write a SQR for FMBT, since the army is in the dark, the awrmywalas were up in arms.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 13 Dec 2013 09:15

srai wrote:India begins developmental trials of Arjun mkII MBT
27 June 2012: India's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has started developmental trials of the new Arjun Mark II main battle tank (MBT) at Pokhran field firing range in Rajasthan, India.

DRDO spokesperson Ravi Gupta was quoted by Press Trust of India as saying: ''The trials started on Friday and will continue for the next two months. The ongoing trials will mainly focus on 19 parameters.''

If successful, the trials will provide DRDO with approval for production of 124 Arjun mark II at its heavy vehicles factory in Avadi, to add to the 124 Arjun Mark I MBTs currently in service with the Indian Army.

Indian Defence Ministry spokesman colonel SD Goswami said: ''The Indian Army accepted 124 Arjuns into service but has made a follow-on order conditional upon 93 improvements to the Arjun, including 19 major modifications.''

According to Goswami, the tank features an improved long-range missile-firing capability, panoramic sight with night-vision, explosive reactive armour, advanced air-defence gun to engage helicopters, land navigation system and a warning system to fire smoke grenades to confuse enemy laser guidance.

Other upgrades include an enhanced auxiliary power unit, improved gun barrels, the commander's panoramic sight with eye safe LRF, a digital control harness, new final drive, track and sprocket.

According to DRDO, the newly integrated thermal imaging (TI) night-vision replaces the day-only sight in the Arjun I, enabling the new tank to go on operations at night.

Dubbed the lightweight futuristic main battle tank (FMBT), the Arjun mkII is scheduled to be ready for delivery by 2013 to 2014 and is expected to be the potential contender for the replacement of the army's ageing fleet of 2,400 Russian T-72 tanks.

It still does not prove that the order is for conditional MK2, except Goswami's statement. However, the order does not state that, which makes goswami stand out in the sun. I have read this article before.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 13 Dec 2013 09:17

chackojoseph wrote:
Veer wrote:It seems you feel pretty strongly about this so it will be hard to argue with you. Your facts may be valid but the fact remains that the Army's stance on indigenization is well known among the private players too which is why the reluctance. A half assed effort to involve the private players into a program like this doesn't do justice and the private players are no fools. The fact that the army approached the private firms AFTER approaching the Russians despite the fact that our firms are more than capable of producing such a system should say something about its intentions to you.
Army's procurement is in mess in artillery, armour and small arms, which forms the back bone. You are exaggerating with the use of word half assed, its just below a quarter. They have no clue of capabilities required, technical standards and they are more obsessed with the source of origin.

Its the general assessment after hearing out armywallas in a recent armour exhibition when one speaker has a different view from the other and right hand does not know what the left is doing (I too said that few years ago). As western and private participants have begun attending these conferences, brutally honest views are being expressed, while they do not want to offend a potential customer. However there appeared a glee that Army will support them instead of desi option, so let the sleeping dogs lie.

You can do better than a quote a post which was made in a different context. And a wrong one at that.

And as for clues about capabilities and technical standards, I guess the army needs to outsource the same to arm-chair strategists and take their opinion before making their RFI/RFP...

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 13 Dec 2013 09:23

rohitvats,

I have not replied to you.

As added later in the above post

On the technical part, when a DRDO speaker offered that they can write a SQR for FMBT, since the army is in the dark, the awrmywalas were up in arms.