Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Locked
Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1444
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Kersi D »

SaiK wrote: If one takes records, there are more non-Russian origin systems in scams and blacklists and against a very 100% Mr. Clean Russia. How is that possible, in a country where the corruption index itself says [An index is worth thousands words].
There is rot not just in our political system, but more.
WRONG. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

THERE ARE SCAMS ONLY FOR NON RUSSIAN SYSTEMS.
Bhala uski khamis meri khamis se jyada safed kaisi ?
Maybe because the Russians are fair !!!
You have hit the nail on the head. There are never ever any scams regarding Russian systems.

I get a dirty feeling that one fine day Russia will come up with a 155 mm gun which the IA (rather than the Russians) will say is THE BEST GUN IN THE WORLD, and buy it, after Russia completes the development work at our cost. With plenty of cost escalations. Yes we give the gun but the barrel costs extra. That is called as having soembody over the barrel
RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by RayC »

rohitvats wrote:
RayC wrote:BMS is in the pipeline and I believe commercial agencies are also working on it.
Sir, can you provide link to source of the above information. Thank you.
I would love to, but it was very personal an info between someone who served with me and now in the civvy street.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7827
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by rohitvats »

chackojoseph wrote:^^^^^^ rayC has given the correct information on the BMS.
I'm not questioning the authenticity of the information. I want to learn/read more about it. If you can help with any additional information, it would be great.

Added later: Sir, just saw your message. I uderstand the concern.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by chackojoseph »

rohitvats wrote: I'm not questioning the authenticity of the information. I want to learn/read more about it. If you can help with any additional information, it would be great.

Added later: Sir, just saw your message. I uderstand the concern.
I have just backed up the fact. I understand that you have not questioned the authenticity of the information.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7827
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by rohitvats »

chackojoseph wrote: I have just backed up the fact. I understand that you have not questioned the authenticity of the information.
Point taken. :)
ASPuar
BRFite
Posts: 1536
Joined: 07 Feb 2001 12:31
Location: Republic of India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by ASPuar »

Somehow these Armoured forces/DRDO threads always turn into services bashing arenas. Shouldnt people who dont know everything about procurement in the services refrain from making ridiculous assumptions about senior service personnel, and then posting them on here?

In the first place, you should understand that procurement is largely in the hands of bureaucrats and the final say is in the hands of the political executive. The armed forces role is limited to evaluating the systems presented, and saying whether it is ok or not.

Quite often, the military chap at the top, is simply given the job of speaking out in favour of a particular system, because it is being pushed by someone in government, and the army fellow is told to go out and give it a sheen of acceptability. The ones who are pliable, are naturally preferred, and there has been a strong move in the last fifteen to twenty years, to install only malleable officers in senior army positions.

Imagine what embarassment ensues, when a strong military officer rubbishes the favourite gun/missile/NVG/FCS/Ship/Turbine of the Minister of XX's cousins uncles third wifes brother in law?

Or, if you want a real life example, think Adm Sureesh Mehta trashing the Gorshkov, and demanding that the Russians play fair. See the consternation that caused. After a lot of CYA actions, the government finally packed the good Admiral off as Ambassador to NZ after retirement, to keep him far away, and quiet! (Which is not to say that he didnt deserve the honour... he has far and away been the best service chief in terms of caring for his personnel, for years now).

99% of the time, when you see someone being favoured in defence deals, its because big money has changed hands behind the scenes. And that money NEVER goes to the fauji. The babus and the netas divvy it up against themselves, and tell the fauji that if he wants to keep his stars, he should big up their candidate, and make it sound good! Sadly, todays generation of defence officers has many candidates who are willing toe the party line, and are actively afraid of the bureaucracy. In the old days, there was no shortage of officers at the top who, if they saw any dirty work afoot, would not have hesitated to give the perpetrators a boll0cking to remember! I guess that explains why the govt is so keen to reign in the armed forces high command. Theyre too clean for their (politicos and babus) own good.
alexis
BRFite
Posts: 469
Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by alexis »

Sanku wrote:
As simple as that -- and its not IAs fault that Indian mil-ind complex is late lateef, that is not its task.

Instead of worrying about the REAL issue, the state of Mil-Ind complex, we are covering every other ground. Including how leadership of Kalki avatar level must come from IA otherwise its a failure.
Actually, i would disagree with that. It is the responsibility of the defense forces to nurture a mil-ind complex in the country. Else the defense forces wont be able to do it's task in a crunch situation if the suppliers would switch off the supply tap.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Sanku »

alexis wrote:
Sanku wrote:
As simple as that -- and its not IAs fault that Indian mil-ind complex is late lateef, that is not its task.

Instead of worrying about the REAL issue, the state of Mil-Ind complex, we are covering every other ground. Including how leadership of Kalki avatar level must come from IA otherwise its a failure.
Actually, i would disagree with that. It is the responsibility of the defense forces to nurture a mil-ind complex in the country. Else the defense forces wont be able to do it's task in a crunch situation if the suppliers would switch off the supply tap.
Not a question of your agreement or disagreement, this is not about a PoV, this is about how organizations are structured.

In India it is not like what you say. The responsibility lies with MoD. The forces ask for equipment with justifications for the same; the MoD provides them with what it can using its own set of logic.

This has to do with the primacy of Civilian control in decision making in all (including military) role -- the final head of MoD is a civilian politician

Read this for details if you are interested.

http://mod.nic.in/aboutus/body.htm
The responsibility for national defence rests with the Cabinet. This is discharged through the Ministry of Defence, which provides the policy framework and wherewithal to the Armed Forces to discharge their responsibilities in the context of the defence of the country.
Also just spend a few moments here on who's who page to get some idea of who really calls the shots

http://mod.nic.in/whoswho/body.htm#w2
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34915
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by chetak »

EDIT.
Last edited by Rahul M on 08 Mar 2010 23:44, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: unsubstantiated info, hence not acceptable.
alexis
BRFite
Posts: 469
Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by alexis »

Sanku wrote: Not a question of your agreement or disagreement, this is not about a PoV, this is about how organizations are structured.

In India it is not like what you say. The responsibility lies with MoD. The forces ask for equipment with justifications for the same; the MoD provides them with what it can using its own set of logic.

This has to do with the primacy of Civilian control in decision making in all (including military) role -- the final head of MoD is a civilian politician

Read this for details if you are interested.

http://mod.nic.in/aboutus/body.htm

MoD would act upon the advice of the defence forces. Atleast defence forces need to be enthusiastic. That enthusiasm seems to be missing. That is my only complaint about the army. Whether Arjun is better/worse than T-90 is not the main issue. The issue is whether the Army is willing to work with mil-ind complex an help in the development of indigenous weapons. I would understand if MoD prevents army in this process; but it seems army itself is reluctant.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by chackojoseph »

Buying issues crop up in Imports. Its then the Babu machinery kicks in. In Arjuns case, the resistance is not from babus.
alexis
BRFite
Posts: 469
Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by alexis »

chackojoseph wrote:Buying issues crop up in Imports. Its then the Babu machinery kicks in. In Arjuns case, the resistance is not from babus.
Exactly the issue i am pointing out.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Sanku »

alexis wrote:MoD would act upon the advice of the defence forces.
You wish. :evil:

No the IAs enthusiasm or the lack of it is rarely the issue; IA's word is usually only heard when there is
1) A clear crises which even the babu-neta combo can see
2) A charged up non status-quoist head; a la Rajiv Gandhi in first few years, or like NDA govt was.

Meanwhile; if the only charge against IA is that they have not been enthusiastic about Arjun; quite frankly they yet have to demonstrate what IA could have done more.

Irrespective of the emotion of enthusaism or the personal views of some officers, the IA has by and large give Arjun all the chance that it can at clearing its requirements and helping the Mil-Ind with a dedicated regiment and providing feedback.

Its pretty much up to MoD now to look at the various feedbacks (including the latest +ve ones from IA) to make a call for purchase based on money and various other factors.

"IA decides to order" is usually a very misleading title, IA never orders MoD does for IA.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Vivek K »

Strange isn't it that Russians supply defective tanks, renege on the TOT contract and they get a repeat order of 1,000 tanks? And the DRDO works with the IA, rectifies the problems, faces sabotage and still does not get a similar order for a superior tank?

Hmmm! I wonder what the motives could have been?
ASPuar
BRFite
Posts: 1536
Joined: 07 Feb 2001 12:31
Location: Republic of India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by ASPuar »

chetak wrote:
ASPuar ji,

There are crumbs from the table too.

Many years ago, at an air show, I personally saw the complimentary watch that was given to a worthy with a number of shiny stars.

It could, in those days, have been exchanged for a fully loaded late model Mercedes 300 with a lot of change left over.

Not to mention khana peena & what not.

But still its only crumbs from the high table. :)
This thread seems to consist of heresay, and conjecture, with a liberal dose of tar and feathers issued by all those who feel that the armed forces are not conforming to what they want.

Chetak, what is the average kickback value in a medium sized defence deal today? 5% of 1000 crores is? 50 crores. That is the average middle man/politicos take. And they do these deals 3-4 times a year. So, how many S-300 mercedes is that?

And do you really have so low an opinion of our forces officers that you think that "Khaana peena" is sufficient to influence their decision making process? Are you sure that even you believe what you are saying?

Who makes the decisions in the MoD? The army? No. The bureaucrat? Yes. The politician? Yes. Who gets the money? Obviously, he who makes the decisions.

Even your post, dubious though it is, says it all. You justify your rants against the forces with "still, there are crumbs from the table". First of all, this is unlikely. Secondly, Big deal. Those crumbs count for nothing if someones paid the political heirarchy a 100 crores to get their work done. What the politician says, goes.

Again and again I will say this. The money goes to the politician and the bureaucrat. And the orders come from them too.

Any army man who toes the line, simply does so to keep his job!

To Vivek K's post, yes it is strange. But it is childish to keep insisting that its the armys fault, when you know full well that it isnt the army's decision in the first place. Who does the middleman arms dealer pay off? The DGMF? Nope. The bureaucrat, and the politico.

To Alexis: It is not the Army's brief to nurture a military industrial complex. It is not within its power to do so. And thats all. That is how the government of India has ordained things to be. The army cant be blamed for not doing something that the democratically elected representatives of the people do not give them the power to do. The army has no power over how the budget is spent, except the very limited financial powers with army commanders and the chief. This is within a couple of crores. Not enough to nurture 10 flower gardens nowadays, let alone a military industrial complex. All spending for defence is done by the ministry of defence FOR the armed forces. The ministry "provides" the forces with wherewithal to do their job.

The quality of the reasoning behind the anti military posts here convinces me that the majority of posters providing their 2 cents on the subject know very little about it, and have ignored facts in their search for a scapegoat.

Where excoriation is required, fine, issue it. But dont forget, the people you are badmouthing are people who have given a lifetime of service to this country. Think about the truth and correctness of what you are saying before you say it.
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by negi »

I see this topic has been derailed for there is nothing to defend the indefensible :lol: .

Firstly T-90 vs Arjun saga is not like any other typical defense deal , there was no multi vendor tender , no comparative trials(before placing the order ) , and more importantly different set of yardsticks for the two platforms in question specially when IA rejected the Arjun on grounds of not meeting the GSQR .

For a user which claims it only buys the 'BEST' and be adamant and non compromising on its 'GSQR' as far as Arjun is concerned a large order for a unproven and untested product without even floating a multi vendor tender blows away its case about being FAIR or UPRIGHT as far as induction of MBT is concerned .

For the uninitiated the argument is not as to why IA did not induct Arjun ; the argument is why T-90 (given the issues it has faced and are in public domain ) and not Arjun ?
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Sanku »

Because there was no Arjun and there was T 90

period.

Now there appears to be a tank, we shall see.

----

Guess folks are not satisfied with NOT having the Artillery guns, they also want that IA NOT have any tanks better than T 72 as long as Arjun can not be manufactured.

Yawn and
:roll:
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5030
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Surya »

There was an Arjun but they kept finding problems with it while the problems they found with the T 90 were never made public.

You keep blowing it over as if the T 90 breezed through the trials with nary a problem.

Some time back we saw Aroor post the trial comparisons of the arty.

will be interesting to see the T 90s AUCRT report :twisted:


And what prevented the Army for upgrading all its T 72s (and many of upgrade areas are Arjun spinoffs )

After all they may have to face the T 80s and AK-Is
Last edited by Surya on 08 Mar 2010 22:12, edited 2 times in total.
ASPuar
BRFite
Posts: 1536
Joined: 07 Feb 2001 12:31
Location: Republic of India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by ASPuar »

negi wrote:I see this topic has been derailed for there is nothing to defend the indefensible :lol: .

Firstly T-90 vs Arjun saga is not like any other typical defense deal , there was no multi vendor tender , no comparative trials(before placing the order ) , and more importantly different set of yardsticks for the two platforms in question specially when IA rejected the Arjun on grounds of not meeting the GSQR .

For a user which claims it only buys the 'BEST' and be adamant and non compromising on its 'GSQR' as far as Arjun is concerned a large order for a unproven and untested product without even floating a multi vendor tender blows away its case about being FAIR or UPRIGHT as far as induction of MBT is concerned .

For the uninitiated the argument is not as to why IA did not induct Arjun ; the argument is why T-90 (given the issues it has faced and are in public domain ) and not Arjun ?
To cry "derailed!" everytime someone disagrees with the popular 'hulla' on this forum does not make it so. Who issues tenders? Army? or MoD PNC? Who controls procurement in the ministry? Army? Or Bureaucrat? Who has the final say? Soldier? Bureaucrat? Or Politician? If these fundamental issues are not of relevance before we go off biffing the army leadership in the eye, for throwing water all over every jingos wet dreams, I dont know what is!
Last edited by ASPuar on 08 Mar 2010 22:16, edited 1 time in total.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Sanku »

negi wrote: Firstly T-90 vs Arjun saga?
Dear Negi, there is no Arjun vs T 90 there has never been.

Actually its Arjun vs T 72/T 55 (if folks want to go anti IA there is much greater chance of painting MoD black by saying at least change the T 55 but you wont even do that) and that too me is frankly a sad commentary on state of affairs in general.

-------

Meanwhile

The GSQRs that the Arjun did not meet were the GSQRs that the Arjun did not meet.

If folks feel that GSQRs could be diluted feel free to be specific "which GSQR could be diluted"

I notice that yet no one has a specific complaint than

Arjuns should be inducted even if they dont meet the criteria since there are some problems with T 90 too.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Sanku »

Surya wrote:There was an Arjun but they kept finding problems with it while the problems they found with the T 90 were never made public.
But of course since you are not public ; you know.

Lets all spare ourselves this please.

-------------

Actually AUCRT is not made public for any tank; what is public is CAG report and reports of the parliamentary committee.

------------

Meanwhile compare apples to apples, the Arjun issues which delayed it were BASIC relibality issues, compare T 90 for those issues.

An Arjun can not be inducted only because of Kanchan if it is not sufficiently mobile.

The basics have to be cleared before it can even be considered for comparisons of other aspects.
Last edited by Sanku on 08 Mar 2010 22:15, edited 1 time in total.
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by negi »

Sanku wrote:Because there was no Arjun and there was T 90
FALSE ;

Arjun was very much there albit with reports of unreliable hydro pneumatic suspension (T-90 faced issues with its T-bar in proving grounds ) , Arjun was reported for its electronic malfunctioning in the desert heat (T-90's thermal imager too was cooked in Rajasthan ), Arjun was reported for its transmission (T-90's engine too does not give as much power as OEM claims ) . It is sheer irony that the same DRDO which is being kicked here was asked to fine tune the T-90's ballistic computer so that the latter could fire the ammo in Indian inventory . The Army afsar who claimed that MBTs need not have AC is no where to be seen for now IA wants T-90 to have a AC (they already have some sort of climate control ordered for Catherine and other electronics ).

Guess folks are not satisfied with NOT having the Artillery guns, they also want that IA NOT have any tanks better than T 72 as long as Arjun can not be manufactured.
T-90 production line is already behind schedule and RU has already clinched an order for additional 300 something T-90s for Avadi was unable to ramp up production , BDL is unable to produce the Refleks as of now . They say issue with barrel bursts is resolved (I wonder if they opted to import the darn thing) .
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5030
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Surya »

Well lets put aside what I know :twisted:

What has been shown on reports posted in this thread indicate there were issues.

How about answers for that??

eg. The so called 1000 HP output of its engine.

later - I see Negi has been more elaborate - thanks Negi
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5030
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Surya »

Meanwhile compare apples to apples, the Arjun issues which delayed it were BASIC relibality issues, compare T 90 for those issues.
Hmmm

Now would the AUCRT be the same for both tanks??

So if a breakdown occurs in either case - would you agree that its basic reliability issues
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by negi »

ASPuar wrote: To cry "derailed!" everytime someone disagrees with the popular 'hulla' on this forum does not make it so. Who issues tenders? Army? or MoD PNC? Who controls procurement in the ministry? Army? Or Bureaucrat? Who has the final say? Soldier? Bureaucrat? Or Politician? If these fundamental issues are not of relevance before we go off biffing the army leadership in the eye, I dont know what is!
ASPuar the same IA had enough say and authority to not accept Arjun on grounds of not meeting the GSQRs and when we list down the issues reported by IA for Arjun and tabulate them for the T-90 I am afraid the latter did not fair any better the only difference being the latter was ordered long before it was tested in Indian conditions how is that you cry IA helpless when it comes to T-90 procurement ?
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by negi »

Sanku wrote:
Meanwhile compare apples to apples, the Arjun issues which delayed it were BASIC relibality issues, compare T 90 for those issues..
I have listed the issues and I can do it zillion times over and over and every time the list is longer for the T-90 . :wink:
Please re-read my post .
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17167
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Rahul M »

ASPuar sahab, please, no one is blaming the army. it's a strawman argument at best.
people are blaming the decision and the people (from army) who are defending it with spurious logic. they are NOT blaming the force as a whole.


let me put it this way :

a) army's tank acquisition follows a pattern that is not justifiable to most informed people and that includes ex-IA people.

b) an inferior foreign tank is repeatedly given decidedly unfair advantage and preferential treatment over a much superior designed in India system.

c) some people from DGMF onwards regularly come out in public to defend this saga with peculiar statements. to my knowledge, as of now no one else from MOD has made similar statements. in fact, from MoS pallam raju's statements and others from the parliamentary standing committee's, it appears that they are quite mystified by IA's continued insistance that
a) T-90 is the better choice (no reason given and all conventional wisdom says otherwise.)
b) when they do give reasons it goes like : a tank made to the IA's exacting specifications at much effort and public expenditure has no role in IA. I wonder what that says about IA's own ability to create relevant GSQR's.


you tell me, why should these people not be questioned ? from whatever public information we have, it is opposition from inside the army and that alone that has and continues to stall the arjun project. in fact it was the MOD that forced the initial 124 arjuns down the throat of a reluctant IA couple of years ago.
we have no knowledge that it is otherwise, or that the IA is forced to accept the T-90 by MOD or some other player. not a single report/rumour claims so. so why should we not continue the discussion based upon publicly available information ?
Sanku wrote: Because there was no Arjun and there was T 90

period.
may we please know why this misleading perception is forwarded even after it has been knocked down again and again ?

>> no one is questioning the initial deal for 310 tanks when this statement was true. (which was a knee-jerk reaction to PA's T-80 buy and can be considered simply a stop-gap deal to get a few upgraded T-72, which after all what the T-90 is)

>> when the follow-on order was given in late 2006, the arjun was without any doubt ready to be inducted, in fact it was ready even before that. at that time the order for further 1300 T-90 tanks had no justification.
Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2145
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Bala Vignesh »

Sanku wrote:Because there was no Arjun and there was T 90

period.

Now there appears to be a tank, we shall see.

----

Guess folks are not satisfied with NOT having the Artillery guns, they also want that IA NOT have any tanks better than T 72 as long as Arjun can not be manufactured.

Yawn and
:roll:
Sanku sir, if i am not mistaken, people here are furious why the army has not bought the badly required field artillery guns, but is buying up tanks that were originally planned as a stop gap measure...
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17167
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Rahul M »

and please, if you want a general discussion on defence deals in India (which was what your post was about, it had nothing about armoured forces and was thus OT to this thread), feel free to use the thread for that specific purpose, not this one.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Sanku »

negi wrote: FALSE ;

Arjun was very much there albit with reports of unreliable hydro pneumatic suspension
Well thats like saying I can win the Olympic finals if I am allowed to get in through the heats without test.

There was no Arjun as a product which met the specs. Period.

And no the suspension was ONE OF MANY ISSUES. (read the parliamentary report)
(T-90 faced issues with its T-bar in proving grounds ) ,
Just what issues? And says who?
T 90 issues
Proof please, and I am looking for official reports?

Finally compare the issues, DID Arjun and T 90 have the same number of breakdowns before running a disance?

In 1997

Remember you have to compare the 1997-2000 specs of Arjun and T 90.

You cant compare todays Arjun because hey its been 10 years and they have FINALLY managed to fix the basic issues as track wearing out.

Guess folks are not satisfied with NOT having the Artillery guns, they also want that IA NOT have any tanks better than T 72 as long as Arjun can not be manufactured.
T-90 production line is already behind schedule and RU has already clinched an order for additional 300 something T-90s for Avadi was unable to ramp up production , BDL is unable to produce the Refleks as of now . They say issue with barrel bursts is resolved (I wonder if they opted to import the darn thing) .
And that is relevant how? The decision was taken in hmmmm 2000 and there abouts?
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by negi »

Rahul M wrote:
Sanku wrote: Because there was no Arjun and there was T 90

period.
may we please know why this misleading perception is forwarded even after it has been knocked down again and again ?

>> no one is questioning the initial deal for 310 tanks when this statement was true. (which was a knee-jerk reaction to PA's T-80 buy and can be considered simply a stop-gap deal to get a few upgraded T-72, which after all what the T-90 is)

>> when the follow-on order was given in late 2006, the arjun was without any doubt ready to be inducted, in fact it was ready even before that. at that time the order for further 1300 T-90 tanks had no justification.
For re-iterating . :wink:
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Sanku »

Look boss ad hominen attacks against IA or T 90 are not going to cut it.

Show
1) How the issues reported with Arjun in 2000 were irrelevant to its induction
2) Show how Arjun could have been ordered in 2007 while failing AUCRT.
3) Show that T 90 had as basic issues as Arjun in AUCRT.

And Col Shukla; journalistic endeavors are not going to cut it. Show some govt proof; till then these are insinuations.

Finally Rahul M; YOU should know better than to use instances of IA officers to take the official stand of IA -- the official stand of IA is clearly captured in the parliamentary debate -- and the MoD shows NO mystification (Pallam Raju may be mystified because the part that he was in charge of underperformed and he must have been got hauled up by RM because of that)

The parliamentary reports are clear; DRDO accepts reliability issues, have promised that they are fixed. The past is clearly transparent -- the question is of future.
ASPuar
BRFite
Posts: 1536
Joined: 07 Feb 2001 12:31
Location: Republic of India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by ASPuar »

RahulM, you know my opinion on this sort of talk. 90% of it is uninformed BS, and blaming the army is a habit that comes easy, but is not always correct.

Everyone here knows that the MOD is the final authority in these matters. Everyone knows that the money from Russian eqpt contracts doesnt go to service members (but it does go to some others).

If this thread, like so many other threads pertaining to DRDO equipment is concerned, is filled with service baiters who want to ignore facts, then so be it. It doesnt change how procurement is dealt with.

The Arjun tank failed to deliver, time and time again. The extraordinary delay in its development and induction cannot be blamed on GSQR's alone. The DRDO too must take its share of the blame. When development takes so long that the entire industry standard changes, then the scientists need to get with the program and change with the times. Science does not happen in isolation from reality, and that has often been DRDOs achilles heel.

People over here make tall claims of Arjuns ready to roll across the desert in an hours time, back in 1999, when T-90s were considered. There were none. The guns couldnt be made to stay in one piece, the suspension didnt work, the ESR was non existent, and the FCS was unreliable. Meanwhile, Pakistan had acquired armoured hardware in the hundreds, ala T-80.

War doesnt forgive those who wait for OFB to get its act together, and the DRDO to finally finish designing a tank. In the event of war, our soldiers would have been at a disadvantage! Its their lives on the line, not ours, and this is why we shouldnt second guess procurement.

Im all for the Arjun if it works, and so, surprise, surprise, gentlemen, are most army men. But after 30 years in development, I think its time to shine has passed.
Last edited by ASPuar on 08 Mar 2010 22:32, edited 1 time in total.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Sanku »

negi wrote:
Rahul M wrote: >> when the follow-on order was given in late 2006, the arjun was without any doubt ready to be inducted, in fact it was ready even before that. at that time the order for further 1300 T-90 tanks had no justification.
For re-iterating . :wink:
To be given to a entity which had till then not delieverd on the 124 tank order placed in 2000 because they could not manufacture enough tanks with needed QC?????

In fact if MoD would have asked Avadi to make the 124 tanks before it could demonstrate that it can make 15 working tanks -- that would be treason.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Kanson »

ASPuar wrote: This thread seems to consist of heresay, and conjecture, with a liberal dose of tar and feathers issued by all those who feel that the armed forces are not conforming to what they want.

......

The quality of the reasoning behind the anti military posts here convinces me that the majority of posters providing their 2 cents on the subject know very little about it, and have ignored facts in their search for a scapegoat
I see. Yes, you may be right, it is full of heresay and conjecture. By pointing a fingure at that, do you like to state that your points are based on facts ? If yes, we will be very much inclined to know how you comes to the conclusion you stated below, i.e, only politician and bureaucrat take money but the army officer go with them only to keep the job. As you are not spreading conjecture[yourself mentioned], have you really involved and seen the cases where Army officers didnt accept money ? How you know that and what are the deals you are talking about as you are not here for conjecture...pls state the facts to buttress your arguments as your's are not heresay.
Again and again I will say this. The money goes to the politician and the bureaucrat. And the orders come from them too.

Any army man who toes the line, simply does so to keep his job!

To Vivek K's post, yes it is strange. But it is childish to keep insisting that its the armys fault, when you know full well that it isnt the army's decision in the first place. Who does the middleman arms dealer pay off? The DGMF? Nope. The bureaucrat, and the politico.
Where excoriation is required, fine, issue it. But dont forget, the people you are badmouthing are people who have given a lifetime of service to this country. Think about the truth and correctness of what you are saying before you say it.
I guess, even bureaucrat can claim they serviced this country for their lifetime...and politicians are already making such statements as they say, they have "sacrificed" their life for the public service..
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by negi »

ASPuar wrote: People over here make tall claims of Arjuns ready to roll across the desert in an hours time, back in 1999, when T-90s were considered. There were none. The guns couldnt be made to stay in one piece, the suspension didnt work, the ESR was non existent, and the FCS was unreliable. Meanwhile, Pakistan had acquired armoured hardware in the hundreds, ala T-80.
Jeeyo

And world's second largest army keeping in line with its traditions decided to order a Tank which was found to be deficient in the exact same areas despite being a upgrade of a 3 decade old design .
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17167
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Rahul M »

And no the suspension was ONE OF MANY ISSUES. (read the parliamentary report)
sanku ji, could you please post them ? or if it has been posted before on BRF then the links ?
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Sanku »

negi wrote:
ASPuar wrote: People over here make tall claims of Arjuns ready to roll across the desert in an hours time, back in 1999, when T-90s were considered. There were none. The guns couldnt be made to stay in one piece, the suspension didnt work, the ESR was non existent, and the FCS was unreliable. Meanwhile, Pakistan had acquired armoured hardware in the hundreds, ala T-80.
Jeeyo

And world's second largest army keeping in line with its traditions decided to order a Tank which was found to be deficient in the exact same areas despite being a upgrade of a 3 decade old design .
Not backed up by any remote shred of publicly available evidence.

Purely a Yellow journalist fantasy purveyed in general media
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Kanson »

ASPuar wrote:Or, if you want a real life example, think Adm Sureesh Mehta trashing the Gorshkov, and demanding that the Russians play fair. See the consternation that caused. After a lot of CYA actions, the government finally packed the good Admiral off as Ambassador to NZ after retirement, to keep him far away, and quiet! (Which is not to say that he didnt deserve the honour... he has far and away been the best service chief in terms of caring for his personnel, for years now).
Ah..this is irony...quoting the naval officer for the debate on IA and the tank procurement deal when the example is closer at home.

Sir, you should really talked abt the Gen.Panag incident involving Northern command, COAS Kapoor, Panag request for meeting with the then def. minister and subsequent transfer of Panag from Nothern command, antecedents of Northern command..etc..
Last edited by Kanson on 08 Mar 2010 22:38, edited 1 time in total.
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by negi »

Lets do this , Sanku ji post the issues reported for Arjun and we shall do it for T-90 it is gonna be far more objective as compared to speculating as to what was the chanakian reason behind buying the T-90 .
Locked