Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 01 Mar 2010 23:12

Vivek K wrote:d_berwal IIRC even one of the Ministers accused the IA of sabotage at the AUCRT. So please stop harping on it.

do u believe evey statement of our Ministers

am i the only one Harping

every one is harping on ARJUN vs T-90

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 01 Mar 2010 23:14

d_berwal wrote:
Vivek K wrote:d_berwal IIRC even one of the Ministers accused the IA of sabotage at the AUCRT. So please stop harping on it.
do u believe evey statement of our Ministers

No I only believe the statement of Lt. Gen Shekhawat and all he says is true!

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 01 Mar 2010 23:16

they took 10yrs to build 100.... (how is it self-defeating logic: it was ordered in 2000.... do u knwo which year we are in ?

Please stop peddling BS on the forum. It did not take Avadi to manufacture 10 years the said number of tanks. Remember the AUCRT trials and orders for Arjuns? This is what Ajai Shukla says on his blog:

Falsehood No. 1: “70 Arjuns have been rolled out in 8 years!
Wrong. These 70 tanks have taken less than two years to manufacture. The Arjun’s series production didn’t start in 2000… it only began last year. And the Arjun production line is already very close to producing its installed capacity of 50 tanks a year.

If an equipment fails a test it will be rejected !!!PERIOD!!! it is his job to reject it.

And which test did Arjun fail? The problem was with transmission and not engine..though the whole damn engine was changed in 40 minutes. Can you tell me, what would have happened in case of T-90/72 in similar situation?

soo ARJUN has only run in trials ... thats it... tell me one instance when ARJUN has notched 100+ km outside of TRIALS.. leave 80000 alone

This is like a aha! statement.....how many kilometers did T-90 or any other tank in IA service run before they were inducted and underwent the AUCRT? Or are you implying that T-90 entered IA service without AUCRT? And is AUCRT like some beauty pageant compared to the operational deployment where the requirement on tank and its system are any lesser? And were TRIALS like walk in the park compared to the 'macho' stuff that T-90 does in operational deployment? And has the Arju not done XXX kms outside of trials because it is not capable or because IA top brass is biased in terms of its deployment? Please answer these questions as objectively as possible before give gyaan on any other aspect.

ARJUN has a seprate Assembly line to T-90. GoI can any day Increase the capacity... they just have to sanction ARJUN assembly expension plan... why are they not doing that?

This is like, hain ji? bhat did you say?.......you really crack me up, sir.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 01 Mar 2010 23:18

d_berwal ji,

Avadi did not say that they can manufacture T-90's faster. The logic was that T-72 and T-90 had commonalities, hence Avadi can make t-90's faster. It was army which inferred. I remember estimations of rate of Arjuns that could have been made at Avadi. It was in press. But, the new facilities for Arjun had come up by then.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 01 Mar 2010 23:19

Marten wrote: Point is no one can afford to upgrade a captive factory without orders or clear intent for the same. Now that the old arguments of inadequacy have been quelled, what keeps the IA from ordering any more? If you read what Negi said, there is something clearly amiss.

Boiling of emotions detract from the subject, but they are due to the reasons we read above. Can you objectively state that no more than 248 Arjuns should be inducted and that we should rather invest in the future orders for the T-90? Point is why is the DGMF projecting that we need more T-90 SKDs rather than augmenting the current manufacturing capacity for the Arjun? Your issue with the numbers will be solved when they place firm orders in larger numbers. If you truly believe 124 more will pay for that scale of production, you are sadly mistaken. The term economies of scale should be familiar, right?

few weeks back it was 124... now 248... next six months to year it will become 500... dont worry sir.. Things have finally come on Track... can we pls keep T-90 out of it...

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 01 Mar 2010 23:21

Marten wrote:
d_berwal wrote:can u count the number of defects in ARJUN pre 2008...
Sir, can you count the number of defects as of 2010 and compare them with the T-90?
PS: now that you have Rohitji to interact with, I will get some popcorn and watch your replies with some amount of glee.

so as of toady number has jumped to 248... waite for more... dont be too greedy

Hats off to IA they have stayed with ARJUN and not killed it

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Mar 2010 23:23

can we pls keep T-90 out of it...

I sure hope so !

as long as it == IA !

how many T-90's do we have now btw ? have all the 310 from russia been delivered ?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 01 Mar 2010 23:25

d_berwal wrote: chacko jiiii it was AVDHI whic said ARJUN cannot be made fast enough as per IA demands. That leaded to subsequent orders for T-90

It was lack of domestic production of T-90 because Russia played hard ball on TOT that IA order additional (347) T-90 and not because of lack of domestic production of Arjun. Heck, the AUCRT were done in December 2007-January 2008 and order for additional T-90 went out in 2007. So,please stop alluding the shenanighans of powers-that-be to the Arjun saga.

The system has had its share of problems, no doubt, but make it to be a monster as IA is hell bent to do.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 01 Mar 2010 23:26

d_berwal wrote:Hats off to IA they have stayed with ARJUN and not killed it

If they would have, it would have been Pants off.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 01 Mar 2010 23:28

chackojoseph wrote:d_berwal ji,

Avadi did not say that they can manufacture T-90's faster. The logic was that T-72 and T-90 had commonalities, hence Avadi can make t-90's faster. It was army which inferred. I remember estimations of rate of Arjuns that could have been made at Avadi. It was in press. But, the new facilities for Arjun had come up by then.

how is IA responsible for it then.... No one wants to ramp up the production ... plus they give IA an option to buy other equipment also... who is at fault here... not the customer....

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 01 Mar 2010 23:28

chackojoseph wrote:
d_berwal wrote:Hats off to IA they have stayed with ARJUN and not killed it
If they would have, it would have been Pants off.

close to six50

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 01 Mar 2010 23:30

Rahul M wrote:
how many T-90's do we have now btw ? have all the 310 from russia been delivered ?

360
124 fully assembled ones directly bought from Russia + 186 assembled from kits at Avadi + 50 produced at Avadi last year

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Mar 2010 23:31

are you sure 50 were produced last year ?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 01 Mar 2010 23:31

KrishG wrote:
Rahul M wrote:
how many T-90's do we have now btw ? have all the 310 from russia been delivered ?
~360.
124 full assembled ones from Russia + 186 assemble in Avadi + 50 produced at Avadi last year

IIRC, it was ten? Or was the first lot consisted of 10 tanks?Thanx.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 01 Mar 2010 23:33

d_berwal wrote:how is IA responsible for it then.... No one wants to ramp up the production ... plus they give IA an option to buy other equipment also... who is at fault here... not the customer....

I think, you did not get it. I wrote, that Arjun facilities were up and running. It was Army who said all that. Those days T-90 set up was not even avaliable.

What Army said was that let T-90 roll out and let Arjun come in its own time.

It was purely the user guesstimating. It had nothing to do with the truth.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 01 Mar 2010 23:34

KrishG wrote:
Rahul M wrote:
how many T-90's do we have now btw ? have all the 310 from russia been delivered ?
360
124 fully assembled ones directly bought from Russia + 186 assembled from kits at Avadi + 50 produced at Avadi last year

310 + 347 + 10(AVDHI)

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 01 Mar 2010 23:35

chackojoseph wrote:
d_berwal wrote:how is IA responsible for it then.... No one wants to ramp up the production ... plus they give IA an option to buy other equipment also... who is at fault here... not the customer....
I think, you did not get it. I wrote, that Arjun facilities were up and running. It was Army who said all that. Those days T-90 set up was not even avaliable.

What Army said was that let T-90 roll out and let Arjun come in its own time.

It was purely the user guesstimating. It had nothing to do with the truth.

Sir when was ARJUN production line up and running pls...

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 01 Mar 2010 23:38

d_berwal wrote:Sir when was ARJUN production line up and running pls...

Sir, the time lines are on internet. Would you mind moving something meaningful after some researching? I will give you time till tomorrow eve. I will see your reply after that time and then post. I thank you in advance for the understanding and gesture.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 01 Mar 2010 23:40

chackojoseph wrote:
d_berwal wrote:Sir when was ARJUN production line up and running pls...
Sir, the time lines are on internet. Would you mind moving something meaningful after some researching? I will give you time till tomorrow eve. I will see your reply after that time and then post. I thank you in advance for the understanding and gesture.

ur welcome sir... i dont need to.. i dont wanna harp on..

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 01 Mar 2010 23:45

d_berwal wrote:ur welcome sir... i dont need to.. i dont wanna harp on..

Yes Sir,

So, by tomorrow evening. i will be looking forward your argument on how Arjun infra was not up and how Avadi guys gave an estimate that Arjuns will not be in production as much as T-90. Also Avadi decided that T-90 could be produced in numbers than Arjun etc.

I will be really looking forward to that sir.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 01 Mar 2010 23:50

chackojoseph wrote:
d_berwal wrote:ur welcome sir... i dont need to.. i dont wanna harp on..
Yes Sir,

So, by tomorrow evening. i will be looking forward your argument on how Arjun infra was not up and how Avadi guys gave an estimate that Arjuns will not be in production as much as T-90. Also Avadi decided that T-90 could be produced in numbers than Arjun etc.

I will be really looking forward to that sir.

......Self deleted...........

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 01 Mar 2010 23:53

Rahul M wrote:C, it was ten? Or was the

rohitvats wrote: IIRC, it was ten? Or was the first lot consisted of 10 tanks?Thanx.

Yes only 10 tanks were rolled out in the first batch but IIRC the target for first stage was 50 in different batches. By 2009-10, the Army was to get 50 tanks from Avadi but problems over ToT from Russia resulted in production starting only in late 2008.

So yeah 320 T-90s in active service as of now.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 02 Mar 2010 00:09

d_berwal wrote:can u count the number of defects in ARJUN pre 2008...

d_berwal, why dont you, for a change, list all those defects in Arjun. Lets all hear from you, your considerate opinion and facts on this.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 02 Mar 2010 00:33

Kanson, if he is from the IA, he would not want to do it because once you tie down to a set of defects, you cannot claim that everything else is wrong with the Tank. So d_berwal will never answer your question just like he is ducking Surya's question.

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 02 Mar 2010 01:02

d_berwal wrote: ur welcome sir... i dont need to.. i dont wanna harp on..

D_berwal,

Sorry to jump in the fray like this. And the following lines are NOT meant as any disrespect.
But as a really really long time lurker on BR, I think I have seen these discussions tens of times.

Even Col Shooklaw, a tank guy himself, had a hard time and had quite a few of his arguments rebutted.
The point is that any long time member of this forum basically knows answers to all the points you are raising,
by rote.

If all you are gonna do, are make such claims without backing them up, then know that BR sees enough of such guys EVERY month.

So instead of cheeky one line comments like "Google it yourself" or "Do you know the the number of errors prior to 2008" etc, why
dont you post some hard data like news articles of relevant time periods?? Or even better, accounts of your interaction with
the service men.

Its get really tiresome to see such discussions again and again, when you know that how it ends.
So please post hard links/data so that it becomes meaningful.

Regards,
Ashish

ManuJ · Post by **ManuJ** » 02 Mar 2010 01:40

d_berwal wrote:who is at fault here... not the customer....

For me, this signifies the root of the problem. IA has for long thought of itself as the customer, and DRDO as just another vendor. Sir, IA is a partner of DRDO.

There are some signs that this reality is finally dawning on IA, but I guess the old guard is still stuck in the past!

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 02 Mar 2010 02:14

I love the way our friend brings up what would we done if there was a war between 2000 and 2008- and how the order of T 90s saved our day.

Except Shukla says

Worse was to follow when the initial batch of 310 T-90s entered service (124 bought off-the-shelf and 186 as knocked-down kits). It quickly became evident — and that too during Operation Parakram, with India poised for battle against Pakistan — that the T-90s were not battleworthy. The T-90’s thermal imaging (TI) sights, through which the tank aims its 125mm gun, proved unable to function in Indian summer temperatures. And, the INVAR missiles assembled in India simply didn’t work. Since nobody knew why, they were sent back to Russia.

Even more alarmingly, the army discovered that the T-90 sighting systems could not fire Indian tank ammunition, which was falling short of the targets. So, even as a panicked MoD appealed to the DRDO and other research institutions to re-orient the T-90’s fire control computer for firing Indian ammunition, Russian ammunition was bought.

Not seen anyone challenge Shukla on this??

except someone in comments section whose

was that my father is to be trusted

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 02 Mar 2010 02:48

Great find Surya! And no one has been court martialled for putting National Security in jeopardy?? Wow!

ankit-s · Post by **ankit-s** » 02 Mar 2010 02:55

Vivek K wrote:all we would like is a honest, fair chance to the Arjun

Yes all n sundry myself included!

Because there R several reasons of national integrity to remain intact, every patriot should, for the following stark reasons, because T-90 lagged behind several other tanks anyway when it was picked:

Those who brought in T-90 baby home with band baja, failed to realize that it was not the best tank in the world which was competing against M1, Le clerck, Leopard 2, Challenger, Merkava at that time (universal fact). They went in for a cheaper price!

Hence on the above reasoning why not buy swadeshi Arjun at cheaper price n create more jobs at home and stop foreign exchange outflow?

And how many of us think Ajay Shukla is wrong on this in the following?

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/02/ ... ur-of.html

My gally which nation puts in black boxes in their tanks against sabotage?

So what if Arjun is deficient in some way, well so is T-90 against the others?

India has 280 billion FOREX, but our external debt is 240 billions and we have fiscal deficit which if plugged with the remaining balance of 40 billions, we are left nowhere, and worse, we R in minus!

India is borrowing beyond means (China has 360 external debt) with Firangi at the helm, Bagwan bachaye India ko. Indian exchequer lost 10 billion dollars as per CAG last year - where is that money, anyone? And here we are discharging unceremoniously our own production of tanks.

I am sure ARJUN is better than Khalid - our nefarious neighbour´s prize possession. I am positive India wont fight China with all those tanks as you know. But anyway modern war would be fought with tank buster missiles (manpads or namicas) and adequate air cover for IA with their missile firing choppers.

So this angle should be well thought over in the interest of national security.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 02 Mar 2010 02:58

I think that your needless political rambling needs to be deleted ankit. That clouds your good points.

Also, the PA is going ahead with Al-Khalid II after using the Mk1. Iterative development of the Al-Khalid will put it ahead of the game if the Pakis have brains.

ankit-s · Post by **ankit-s** » 02 Mar 2010 03:23

Vivek K wrote:I think that your needless political rambling needs to be deleted ankit. That clouds your good points.

Also, the PA is going ahead with Al-Khalid II after using the Mk1. Iterative development of the Al-Khalid will put it ahead of the game if the Pakis have brains.

I am outspoken n not sugar coated when it comes to national interest.

If it were not for political decision from higher level, with all those bigwigs pulling the strings from behind, Indians would have been much better placed, and everyone should endorse this fact, for the benefit of mass awakening of India - to be a developed nation time permitting!

And on the Pakis, as u said they would come up with Khalid-II - well they would be sitting ducks too against NAG and our air cover. Unless u remember A 10 TANK BUSTER WARTHOG which changed the battlefield wargame totally in favour of US n its allies by shooting numerous Iraqi tanks at their own will. Wargames n war doctrines have changed, I am sure India has graduated beyond 1971.

BR forumites have option to shun me on above political ramblings.......

A responsible country is supposed to behave in a fiscal disciplined manner, or else think ICELAND, and NOW its GREECE

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 02 Mar 2010 04:03

Please restrict yourself to the thread topic. For other issues, there are several other threads that you can use.

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 02 Mar 2010 04:15

ankit-s wrote: India has 280 billion FOREX, but our external debt is 240 billions and we have fiscal deficit which if plugged with the remaining balance of 40 billions, we are left nowhere, and worse, we R in minus!

India is borrowing beyond means (China has 360 external debt) with Firangi at the helm, Bagwan bachaye India ko. Indian exchequer lost 10 billion dollars as per CAG last year - where is that money, anyone? And here we are discharging unceremoniously our own production of tanks.

One useful line in all the rambling that repeats once every month like a dog chasing its tail!! This is the kind of hat we all need to wear at all times.

To add to above, China has $2400 Billion in Forex reserves right now!

IA or forces in general may have a choice today of importing fancy Tanks and Artillery from Russia, Europe and US. But it serves to remember the times when we had to severely curtail our acquisitions couple of decades ago and know that less dependence on Forex reserves is in their long term interest (I am not even touching the sanctions aspect yet).

Not suggesting going on an extreme austerity drive at expense of National Security, but to squeeze every opportunity to save or increase Forex reserves instead of depleting them.

If an Arjun can save or possibly increase our Forex reserves, then put your weight behind it. If IA needs T-90 in interim, so be it, but only as an interim.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 02 Mar 2010 04:21

Good point A_kumar!

ankit-s · Post by **ankit-s** » 02 Mar 2010 05:53

a_kumar wrote:
ankit-s wrote: India has 280 billion FOREX, but our external debt is 240 billions and we have fiscal deficit which if plugged with the remaining balance of 40 billions, we are left nowhere, and worse, we R in minus!

India is borrowing beyond means (China has 360 external debt) with Firangi at the helm, Bagwan bachaye India ko. Indian exchequer lost 10 billion dollars as per CAG last year - where is that money, anyone? And here we are discharging unceremoniously our own production of tanks.

IA or forces in general may have a choice today of importing fancy Tanks and Artillery from Russia, Europe and US. But it serves to remember the times when we had to severely curtail our acquisitions couple of decades ago and know that less dependence on Forex reserves is in their long term interest (I am not even touching the sanctions aspect yet).
The choice may be that of Generals and colonels, but the final endorsement comes from Rakshamantralya babus and other stalwarts who have time n again rocked the Indian boat starting from Morarji Desai of Nishan-e-Pakistan fame, to Inder Kumar Gujaral who dismantled India´s covert capabilities vis a vis Pakistan, then came BOFORS followed by Tehelka.com, which released a secretly filmed documentary apparently showing 31 politicians, bureaucrats, and army officials receiving bribes from undercover journalists posing as arms dealers. The scandal leads to the resignation of Defense Minister Georges Fernandes.

Not suggesting going on an extreme austerity drive at expense of National Security, but to squeeze every opportunity to save or increase Forex reserves instead of depleting them.
National security is a bigger envelope which encompasses many more things than Arjuns and Arihants. As a nation we must behave fiscally responsible or else think of those days when India pawned its gold reserves (400 tons airlifted to London via chartered flight) to Bank of England and IMF refused further lending. Many a little make a mickle, mass awakening is need of the hour for the benefit of Indian national security.

If an Arjun can save or possibly increase our Forex reserves, then put your weight behind it. If IA needs T-90 in interim, so be it, but only as an interim.

Interim is not the appropriate word here, T-90 has become the mainstay of Indian tank and 1000 more would be rolled out in the near future.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 02 Mar 2010 06:57

ankit-s wrote:India has 280 billion FOREX, but our external debt is 240 billions and we have fiscal deficit which if plugged with the remaining balance of 40 billions, we are left nowhere, and worse, we R in minus!

India is borrowing beyond means (China has 360 external debt) with Firangi at the helm, Bagwan bachaye India ko. Indian exchequer lost 10 billion dollars as per CAG last year - where is that money, anyone? And here we are discharging unceremoniously our own production of tanks.

There are lots of good reasons why the Arjun project needs to be patronised, but forex and external macroeconomic is certainly not one of them...First, India's fiscal deficit is not 40 billion, its close to a 100 billion this year (about 4 lac crores) - but its funded entirely internally through rupee savings, its got nothing to do with forex reserves...

Next, external debt...What is important is debt-servicing, ie, how much debt (principal+interest) that needs to be a repaid every year as a % of current a/c recipts and the proportion of short term debt..In both cases, India's ratios are exemplary..

Forex reserves are a "balance number", its one indicator of the liquidity robustness of the economy, but beyond a point signifies very little else...Running a current a/c deficit (as India does) is a conscious economic strategy call - it means that we pull in more from abroad than we push out in terms of resources...A current a/c surplus (as China does) is just the opposite..One can argue that a high growth, developing economy should do the former rather than the latter..

Net net, saving forex is hardly a factor in the Arjun decision, more so given the import intensity of the product...Building a domestic MIC is a better argument..

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 02 Mar 2010 08:44

Vivek K wrote:I think that your needless political rambling needs to be deleted ankit. That clouds your good points.

Also, the PA is going ahead with Al-Khalid II after using the Mk1. Iterative development of the Al-Khalid will put it ahead of the game if the Pakis have brains.

As per individuals I have spoken with in the past, Indian Army has a strong reason to induct Arjun Tanks. It is expected Al-Khalid tank is putting on weight, as it adds on new systems in future Mark phases.

Logically, Indian Army, no matter how much it harps on the FMBT, will have to keep hi-lo mix of tanks, i.e, Light - Medium - Heavy. Current tilt is for medium tanks as this is what dominates South Asian scenario.

Another possibility is Afghanistan may get residual M1A1 Abrams. Since, US is leaving Iraq with some M1A1 Abrams, it is only logical to assume that Afghanistan may also get these.

[a part of Era of Era of heavy MBT's in South Asia I wrote somewhere]

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 02 Mar 2010 09:54

Modern tank designs have favoured a "universal" design that has generally eliminated these sorts of classifications from modern terminology, which tends to refer to almost all designs as main battle tanks despite sometimes significant weight differences.

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 02 Mar 2010 10:14

d_berwal wrote:
so why have Gripen in MMRCA? and F-16 ?

B'coz one of the greatest flummoxes of the MMRCA episode is that the IAF hasnt even specified ( IOW hasnt made up its mind) on whether it wants a single engine or a multi engine fighter, even when the GoI statedly makes its decisions on an L1 basis. Brochuritis is contagious !

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 02 Mar 2010 12:22

T90 deal under CAG scrutiny

Russia, for instance, has delayed giving `full ToT' for India's plan to indigenously manufacture 1,000 T-90S tanks. This despite India first importing 310 of these tanks for over Rs 3,625 crore in a February 2001 contract, and then signing another Rs 4,900 crore contract in November 2007 to import 347 more tanks.

The auditors, incidentally, are also examining the inordinate delay in development of Arjun tanks when its prototypes were developed as early as 1983 and were also put through some field trials in the next few years.