As I can see, people still have not grasped the magnitude of the issue. The Army GSQR does not say that they want a heavy tank with a high silhouette. It is wrong to say that the GSQR was wrong.RayC wrote:Notwithstanding, if Arjun silhouette is too high, then it is an error in formulating the GSQR.
What does the GSQR state?chackojoseph wrote:As I can see, people still have not grasped the magnitude of the issue. The Army GSQR does not say that they want a heavy tank with a high silhouette. It is wrong to say that the GSQR was wrong.RayC wrote:Notwithstanding, if Arjun silhouette is too high, then it is an error in formulating the GSQR.
The entire issue as I highlighted before " the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.'
The annual reviews and the glossy magazine university graduate generals have recommended so much that "it lead to a product that had higher weight (baring a GSQR which wanted it) and high silhouette.
The generals who are on the ground are of the idea that its DRDO's fault.
On cost factor we need to wait till MOD puts a figure on Arjun and T-90 for 2010 , Ajai is quite reliable but we need some official numbers.a_kumar wrote:That would be wrong!
Arjun is Rs. 16.8 Crore and going down with scale.
T-90 is settling at Rs. 17.5 Crore, if it doesn't go higher.
From broadswordNo reasons were given for that delay. Nor did the Ministry of Defence (MoD) reveal the T-90’s ballooning cost, now a whopping Rs 17.5 crore. On November 30, 2006, the MoD told the Lok Sabha that the T-90 tank cost Rs 12 crore apiece. Parliament does not yet know about the 50 per cent rise in cost.The MoD did not mention that these prices would rise when the supplementary contracts were negotiated. Nor did it reveal that India’s pared-down T-90s barely matched the performance of the Pakistan Army’s recently acquired T-80 UD tank, which India had cited as the threat that demanded the T-90.
The wider points of the GSQR's that can be in the public has been already put up on the article History of Arjun Tank.RayC wrote: What does the GSQR state?
Are you privy to it? I am not. No specifications given?
The GSQR is vague on the specifications?
The GSQR my group had initiated in other weapons, mentioned the general parameters desirable.
No tank designer would not understand the terrain the tank is to operate in and the combat conditions.chackojoseph wrote: The wider points of the GSQR's that can be in the public has been already put up on the article History of Arjun Tank.
Arjun Tank GSQR is a pointed one. Please read the History of the Tank as wrote it. The first GSQR was also kept slippery.
The final laid down requirement was in 1994. It does not ask for a high weight and high high silhouette etc.
That is what I am trying to tell you.chackojoseph wrote:You have answered the maladies of this program by counter questioning me.
I have kept repeating that the left hand does not know what the right hand has been doing.
I understand your point. But, you are looking at the core issue here. You are from Army, you will know whom to ask. Why the goof ups have happened. Provided they tell the truth.RayC wrote:
That is what I am trying to tell you.
There is a procedure where the left hand meets the right hand periodically to review.
Yes, interaction does occur.chackojoseph wrote:I understand your point. But, you are looking at the core issue here. You are from Army, you will know whom to ask. Why the goof ups have happened. Provided they tell the truth.RayC wrote:
That is what I am trying to tell you.
There is a procedure where the left hand meets the right hand periodically to review.
At the same time, you have been admitting that Army men were actually involved in the project, it was not an DRDo project alone.
I will jog your memory. There are 2 generals known for rescuing the project. They have been responsible for entire setup, even vendor selection. One is a COAS, mind you.RayC wrote:Yes, interaction does occur.
But the work is of the DRDO.
Let me give you an example. The DRDO was reverse engineering a US rifle cleaning fluid called the Boreclap - a very elementary item.
This was to replace/augment the time consuming process of cleaning small arms with the 'chindi' (flannel piece) and the pull through.
They could not achieve the result since the Indian Boreclap left a yellow residue. Over time, it would it was surmised by some military men that it would be like 'plaque' on the human teeth and may reduce the barrel inner diameter and would lead to accidents. Yet, there was immense pressure that it should be accepted!
The point is indigenous equipment must be encouraged and even accepted, but not at the cost of lives!
would it ? consider that the quoted price is that of an incomplete T-90 without much of its essential add-ons. there is little chance that tech for those components will be ever supplied. SKD will be as much as it gets.Austin wrote:Wont the cost go down when the 1000 odd T-90 starts getting churning out of Avadi and indigenous content rises ?
you don't need to put faith in ajai shukla, both T-90 and T-80's armours are well documented as are their records. check up fofanov's site.So did Ajai Shukla did a run down between T-80UD and T-90 Bishma to come to that conclusion that T-90 barely matches competition ? Chances are we will never find such things out unless we meet face to face with T-80UD on some ideal battle grounds
that is the very point, tank vs tank is but one component, the current tin-can series is plain unsurvivable against infantry-based ATGMs as well.But better tactics , training , logistics and over all anti-armour superiority ( not just tank vs tank ) will win the day for IA , if we ever see a great Tank vs Tank battle in a nuclear environment.
Yes I was in the Army. Guess what? I was an officer. Thank you for discovering that; maybe you felt that I could not be one! Maybe you are right. I, however, am satisfied with my Army life and even as an officer, since not only I did good for my country in wars and also be recognised for my contribution. Quite a satisfying experience. I would not trade it for any other profession or calling.chackojoseph wrote:
I will jog your memory. There are 2 generals known for rescuing the project. They have been responsible for entire setup, even vendor selection. One is a COAS, mind you.
I understand about the lives being lost. Its because of shoddy equipment from DPSU's. Why blame DRDO? DRDO has had hits and misses. I understand that. I have examples when the synergy between army and DRDO has worked (besides being not being enough). I am talking specific about Arjun project. Lets stick to that.
You are an ex Army man and that too an officer. You have resources to fid what went wrong. Ask, infer. I also realise that am debating with someone who has the means to verify.
Also ask your comrades why the weight and other issues are being addressed now? And how much success they have got trying to reduce? Why did they sleep when they were laying final requirements in 1994? why was PPS 1 accepted as production standard?
I still have kept the mail sent to you and the reply you sent to me when I admired the literary skills, almost 1.5 years back. So, there is no discovery.RayC wrote: Yes I was in the Army. Guess what? I was an officer. Thank you for discovering that; maybe you felt that I could not be one! Maybe you are right. I, however, am satisfied with my Army life and even as an officer, since not only I did good for my country in wars and also be recognised for my contribution. Quite a satisfying experience. I would not trade it for any other profession or calling.
I live in Kolkata. It is the Thar desert as far as military information is involved. It is a moribund area to keep abreast with the latest of defence. Therefore, to ask me to ask anyone is asking me to step on the Moon without astronaut training!
That is the reason why I visit BRF. It educates me of the latest.
On the Arjun, I did ask an ex COAS because of the raging controversy here. He was cryptic. He said Arjun is a good tank, but it is Mark I (whatever that means). Since it was a social gathering I did not want to ask more, which anyway he would have done a hop skip and jump!
I am not blaming DRDO. I have interacted with them and visited their establishments. There are excellent brains out there, but the bureaucracy overwhelms the talent. My own cousin was a Chief Scientist and I know his heartbreaks.
Keep a project hanging and more funds come you way. Got the drift?
Send me an email so that I can renew contact.chackojoseph wrote:
I still have kept the mail sent to you and the reply you sent to me when I admired the literary skills, almost 1.5 years back. So, there is no discovery.
The project hanging for more funds is a point which I find it hard to believe? India would have shut down CVRDE after Arjun induction?
Join the gravy train to realise it!chackojoseph wrote: The project hanging for more funds is a point which I find it hard to believe? India would have shut down CVRDE after Arjun induction?
We are soldiers and not chocolate cream soldiers. (GB Shaw Arms and the Man).Surya wrote:the question is what happened to the crews of the Merkava
And what happens to the crew of T series when the same firepower is rained on them
Moon may be not , But do you want more Arjun ?RayC wrote:Actually, we want the Moon. Can you give it? If so, good!
That is for the Govt to decide.Austin wrote:Moon may be not , But do you want more Arjun ?RayC wrote:Actually, we want the Moon. Can you give it? If so, good!
I have heard from the services that. DRDO has different explanation. So, I do not want to get into that.RayC wrote:Join the gravy train to realise it!
Just visit their establishment and enjoy their hospitality.chackojoseph wrote:I have heard from the services that. DRDO has different explanation. So, I do not want to get into that.RayC wrote:Join the gravy train to realise it!
EDITEDIn case you feel that someone is short-changing on the Arjun, become Mamta Bannerjee instead of spewing bile over all and sundry under the protection of incognito of the cyberspace, be it the Army or the DRDO.
RayC wrote: In the Army they make you pay. DRDO, it is as good as being a son in law, UP style!
We are on the armour thread. I lived in Army and visited DRDO. Will mail you.but also the ability of its computer-controlled gun to consistently blow away suitcase-sized targets placed more than a kilometre away.
So yeah T 90 chaiwallah keep hoping for your smaller silhoutte to save you.Business Standard has evidence of many more such incidents. On 29th June 2006, the commander of the elite 31 Armoured Division, Major General BS Grewal, visited the Mahajan Ranges along with a colleague, Major General Shiv Jaswal. Both drove and fired the Arjun for the first time that day; the two rounds that each fired punched holes through targets almost two kilometres away. (see picture)
Awaiting you mail.chackojoseph wrote:
Quoted price ? Did we have GOI confirming on that or is that Ajai information which may be true but cannot be verified .Can any one provide GOI sourced price of T-90 and Arjun for 2010 or previous year if such info is available ?Rahul M wrote:would it ? consider that the quoted price is that of an incomplete T-90 without much of its essential add-ons. there is little chance that tech for those components will be ever supplied. SKD will be as much as it gets
Did the Indian Army knew about this websiteyou don't need to put faith in ajai shukla, both T-90 and T-80's armours are well documented as are their records. check up fofanov's site.
Again this is just speculation about its advantage or horrible disadvantage.even with all the tactics and logistics backing up, the tank still has to fight doesn't it, whether against tanks of the adversary or his ATGM armed troops ?
in neither case T-90 gives an advantage, in fact in the second case it is at a horrible disadvantage.
I'm talking about the price of the T-90 that was provided to the parliamentary standing committee on defence. it should be in the MOD report or the PSC report. that the T-90 comes without many of its must-have features (shtora for example) is also well known. do you think the price of the T-90 will come down as all those new features are added ?Quoted price ? Did we have GOI confirming on that or is that Ajai information which may be true but cannot be verified .Can any one provide GOI sourced price of T-90 and Arjun for 2010 or previous year if such info is available ?
I sure hope so !Did the Indian Army knew about this website
we can always argue that unless manmohan singh himself states the exact information on the parliaments floor to the 4th decimal place it is somehow "not official enough".Unless the IA conducts a fair trial between these two tanks and GOI makes the result public to the extent it does not revel any sensitive information,we will never know the truth and it will be speculative in nature.
to say that this is speculation is also a kind of speculation. the information is widely availabe. at the end of the day, numbers do not lie and till date we haven't had a single case where the detractors from IA's side put forward a fact based rebuttal. and it isn't the case that the army is particularly media-shy by any stretch of imagination.Again this is just speculation about its advantage or horrible disadvantage.
Why would GOI release this information if it goes against the decision to procure the T-90. So far Shuklas data bears out what is available from public sources and plain logic. As far as we recall, original price of tank T-90 was based on certain assumptions, including then year price of material plus belief that TOT would allow for smooth manufacture. Inflationary costs in Russia and materials are now to be factored in, plus issue that the Russians have been stalling on TOT.Quoted price ? Did we have GOI confirming on that or is that Ajai information which may be true but cannot be verified .Can any one provide GOI sourced price of T-90 and Arjun for 2010 or previous year if such info is available ?
Why not we stick to the facts about what is known about the T-90 versus trying to debate about DRDO or the Army? It is irrelevant to the facts of the matter which is about the tank itself. That the Indian forces do not accept DRDO equipment which is subpar is also a fact, but that is irrelevant right now as the issue is of the T-90 itself.Again this is just speculation about its advantage or horrible disadvantage.
Since the IA is going to fight the next great tank battle if that happens and knows what it wants let GOI/IA decide how many Arjun and T-90 do they need , if IA needs more Arjun the GOI will certainly oblige , if they do not need any more Arjun there is no point shoving off their throat for all we know they will just end up rotting in some maintenance depot.
There is this mysterious sympathy for DRDO at BR the general view seems to be , if they develop something and defense forces do not accept it then there must be something wrong with the defense force , if they do then DRDO develops world class product because defense forces have accepted it.
If DRDO chief says some thing he must be proclaiming gospel truth , if the defence service do not accept with DRDO view then they must be corrupt or anti-DRDO
Again, see virtually identical issues with T-90 versus Arjun:The CAG report No 4 of 2007, which minutely examines 37 separate defence acquisitions between the period 2003 and 2006, is particularly critical about the way the army takes the very first step towards buying military equipment: deciding exactly what it needs.
Any householder buying an expensive item first decides what she needs. If the purchase is a refrigerator, she chooses a size that fits the number of family members and the space she has to install the refrigerator. Functions like frost-free and bottle space depend on household usage. And, importantly, there's the element of opportunity cost; choosing a fancy model with an ice dispenser means having to go without that blender she also needs.
The military's Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) is supposed to start with an identical process, identifying precise requirements for the equipment proposed to be purchased. Laying down those requirements in the form of General Staff Qualitative Requirements (GSQR) is the first, and the most vital, part of any procurement. According to the CAG, the army goes wrong from this very first step.
The CAG report, in unusually blunt terms, points out that GSQRs have been wrongly formulated, reflecting neither the army's own requirements, nor the reality of the market. In the GSQRs for 11 purchases that were scrutinised, the CAG found that four spelt out requirements that were unavailable anywhere in the world. In four cases, the requirements "were unrealistic with respect to the actual requirements on the ground," which means that they did not meet the army's operational needs. And in seven cases, there was no way of testing whether the equipment met the parameters specified in the GSQRs.
The CAB observed that unrealistic GSQRs meant that, "in 66% of the cases, only a single vendor was pre-qualified." In "single-vendor" cases, the vendor's monopoly means that he can virtually dictate his own price. Even more serious was the CAG's observation that GSQRs were formulated "sometimes merely on the basis of manufacturer's brochure." Global vendors, admittedly with vested interests, have long alleged that Indian GSQRs are formulated to favour particular vendors. The CAG comes close to confirming that.
The MoD admits that its procurement regulations lay down that in single-vendor situations, the GSQRs are supposed to be reformulated and fresh tenders issued. This procedure, however, was not observed in a single case under audit.
The CAG's report also illustrates that GSQRs did not differentiate between essential and inessential requirements in a piece of equipment. Amongst several examples provided by the CAG is the purchase of High Resolution (HR) Binoculars, procured to keep a watch on Pakistani and militant activities across the LoC. Indian suppliers, Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) and Ordnance Factories Board (OFB), lost out to a foreign vendor, despite their HR Binoculars meeting all the GSQRs during user trials, and having proved themselves superior to the foreign suppliers in the three vital aspects of clarity, resolution, and magnification. Ignoring those important aspects, (and, in fact, incorrectly citing "good resolution and clarity" and "better magnification" as reasons for buying the foreign binoculars) the contract was awarded to the foreign company on the grounds of extraneous reasons like "eye-piece movement" and "minimum focusing distance", which barely figured in the GSQRs.
This was just one of many such cases in which, "parameters were specified which were unimportant, unverifiable and non-measurable. There was no grading of the parameters as critical and non-critical and nor was there an inter-se priority or weightage of the parameters."
The CAG also criticises the army's tendency to place orders piece-meal, without first determining the quantities it needs, disqualifying itself from economies of scale. In one example cited in the report, the army's 9th Plan included the procurement of 4700 rocket launchers (RL Mk III). The army eventually bought rocket launchers in three separate contracts for smaller amounts, in a space of just ten months, incurring a loss of almost Rs 10 crores.
The Russian T80 was never meant for export, it had the status of a secret weapon, unlike the T72 series (T90 included) derived Tanks that were meant for export from day 1. For a very long time after the tanks development, Russia never exported the T80 to any country. The T80s in service around the world are exported by Ukraine, not Russia.Austin wrote:
So did Ajai Shukla did a run down between T-80UD and T-90 Bishma to come to that conclusion that T-90 barely matches competition ? Chances are we will never find such things out unless we meet face to face with T-80UD on some ideal battle grounds
Most probably Ajai did not do that, but inferring the same conclusion is not difficult from publicly available details.
Sure, and if not that the redoubtable Indian diplomatic core will surely pull things in our favour! Even if against all odds, we manage to pull such a great victory off, we will still be left with Avadi as our source for cutting edge armor technology.Austin wrote:But better tactics , training , logistics and over all anti-armour superiority ( not just tank vs tank ) will win the day for IA , if we ever see a great Tank vs Tank battle in a nuclear environment.
Again considering that even if the contract was cancelled, it is either Sagem or Thales imagers on Pak tanks, not really inferior to Indian ones. And likely that they are not conking out either given Al Khalid boxy interior has more space than T-90.A source from the Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) told KDR that the production of AL-Khalid MBT has been going on very smoothly. Apart from Pakistan, there are a number of other countries also interested in this MBT, including Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Iraq and Indonesia. Other sources from the Pakistani Army disclosed to KDR that the Pakistani Army ordered an initial batch of 300 Al-Khalid MBTs, and a total of 200 have already been produced.
There is a plan to further enlarge the production line to the scale of manufacturing 100 Al-Khalid every year. The Saudi Arabian delegations paid field visit twice to HIT and tested Al-Khalid. Saudi Arabia plans to have an Al-Khalid delivered in 2007 for further testing. A source from the Pakistani Army confirmed that China has participated in the promotion of Al-Khalid MBT to Saudi Arabia.
A source from French THALES told KDR that Pakistan has signed the contract of importing 900 sets of Catherine-FC thermal imaging systems to be fitted on the Al-Khalid MBTs of the Pakistani Army. Delivery of these thermal imaging systems is expected to start in March 2007. As an integrated plan, the same type of thermal imaging systems will also be used to upgrade the T85IIAP MBTs currently in service. A source from HIT told KDR that the reason they did not choose the Chinese-made thermal imaging systems was that they did not meet the demands of the Pakistani Army. Kanwa has learned that even the latest upgraded 99G MBTs use mechanical scanning thermal imaging system. Catherine-FC thermal imaging system works at 8-12μm band, weight smaller than 5.5kg, image resolution 754X576, wide field of view (WFOV) 9ºX6.7º, and narrow field of view (NFOV) 3ºX2.2º. Catherine-FC has a detection range of 10,000m for tanks, recognition range 4,500m, and identification range 2,300m.
In order to promote Al-Khalid MBTs to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan has also used Matis thermal imaging system produced by French SAGEM for testing purpose, mainly because the armored forces of the Saudi Arabian Army are currently using Sagem’s thermal imaging systems. The third generation Matis thermal imaging system works at 3-5μm band, weight smaller than 4.5kg, WFOV 12ºX8º, NFOV 2.5ºX1.7º, detection range for tanks 11,000m, recognition range 5,300m. The identification range of the system is not yet revealed.
The Chinese tank experts told KDR that Pakistan has made rapid progress in tank design. The Chinese side is also very impressed by the new Integrated Battlefield Management System (IBMS) fitted on Al-Khalid. This IBMS is designed and produced by the Pakistani Integrated Defense Systems, and the system is already installed on some Al-Khalid command MBTs in effective service. With this IBMS, the battlefield situations between the two sides of confrontation can be transmitted through the video camera and unmanned aerial vehicle. This transmission system is capable of processing data and transmitting command orders as well as displaying different 3D topographical images and maps. The designer of the system stressed that they have also planned to connect the IBMS with satellite in the future.
An upgrading plan for Al-Khalid MBT is in the making. The first step will be replacing the engine system. Experts from HIT say that they are right now considering using the German-made 1,500hp engines to replace the Ukraine-made 6TD2 engines. For this purpose, Al-Khalid’s engine compartment has reserved a 1m space for the installation of greater power engine. Meanwhile, Pakistan has decided to outfit active protection system on Al-Khalid, similar to the Russian Shtora system. Pakistan has obtained at least one such system respectively from Ukraine and China for testing purpose. The Ukrainian version Shtora has already been tested on one Al-Khalid MBT. This system is composed of the laser detection and IR detection subsystems. In addition, Pakistan has also designed independently a laser detection system for Al-Halid for exercises and training. This system can perform laser beam detection and is composed of 8 units of laser detectors which are fitted on the two sides of Al-Khalid turret and on the front as well, providing a 180 deg forward-coverage.
Pakistan does not have a plan to fit gun launched ATMs on Al-Khalid MBT at the moment. The source also said that the plan of installing new engines and gun launched ATMs will be determined by the demands of respective clients, and Pakistan has the capability to undertake such upgrading for the clients.
Other sources from the Pakistani Army say that the plan of installing gun launched ATMs on the tanks of the Pakistani Army will be first tested on T80UD. Nonetheless, the Pakistani Army has much greater expectation for Al-Khalid MBTs than for T80UD. General Ehsan-ul-Haq, Chairman of Joint Staff of the Pakistani Military, says that Al-Khalid’s performance is much better than T80UD.
As it was mentioned above, the upgrading plan of T85IIAP is related to the installation of Catherine-FC thermal imaging system produced by Thales Company on Al-Halid MBTs. A source from the Pakistani Army stresses that in addition to outfitting thermal imaging system on T85IIAP, there are no other major upgrading plans. Pakistan once considered using the T serial tank upgraded thermal imaging system produced by the British Maconi Company. Since 2001, Pakistan has conducted winter and summer tests of the above two systems and Maconi eventually lost to Thales.
The upgrading of Al-Zarrar MBT has been going on very smoothly. A source from the Pakistani Army says that up to the present, they have finished upgrading 300 of them. The Army plans to upgrade a total of 611 T59 tanks so that they can reach the standard of Al-Zarrar. The direction of future upgrading of these T59 tanks will be the same as that for T85IIAP and Al-Khalid MBTs, i.e. to further upgrade the fire control system. For the A1-Zarrar upgrading project, Pakistan has chosen the THETIS thermal imaging system produced by Italian Galileo Avionica Company. A source from Galileo Avionica told KDR that THETIS thermal imaging system originated from ARES gunner sight system, but THETIS did not include the laser range finder. The fire control system of Al-Zarrar is still made by China in order to lower cost, and Pakistan has only selected the Italian thermal imaging system. As a 2nd generation thermal imaging system, THETIS works at 8-12μm band and uses digital signal processing system. Other technical details of this system have not been revealed. The source told KDR that Galileo Avionica has delivered to Pakistan 10 sets of THETIS thermal imaging systems for testing purpose, a total of 200 such systems will be delivered, indicating that not all Al-Zarrar tanks will be fitted with THETIS. The full upgrading plan will start in 2007.
As for the engine system, Al-Zarrar is powered by the 730hp diesel engines. This 730hp engine can give a power to weight ratio of 18.3hp/t and a maximum speed of 55km.
In summary, the basic technologies of the Pakistani tank industry indeed came from China, but in the course of constant upgrading, Pakistan is now enjoying much greater independence. More western fire control systems have been fitted on the Pakistani tanks
I must also point out this is also related to another Army procurement failure. In 2001, when Indian Army mobilized to borders for a long period, again there were issues with tank crews having heat related problems. Has Indian Army fixed this? No it has not, in fact it rushed to import icepacks for troops then at last moment. Also even if you are now putting air conditioners what will happen to fuel consumption and mobility of vehicle? No APU also.Meanwhile, the 310 T-90s, which have been delivered by Russia and introduced into service, are far from battle worthy. The crucial tank Fire Control System (FCS), especially the Thermal Imaging Sight, through which the crew aims and fires at the enemy, has failed to function in Indian summers. An obliging Russian industry body, Rosoboronexport, offered to sell India “tank air conditioners”, even though no other tank in our inventory needs or uses air-conditioning.
The Russian air-conditioners were put through trials, which were a miserable failure. The driver of the trial tank fainted from heatstroke. Now the MoD has floated a global tender for air-conditioning the T-90s, as well as the T-72s which have functioned without air-conditioners for the last 29 years.
If Army doesn't want to bother with new tank and new doctrinal requirements, just stick with Russian armor, with whatever comes up after T-90. Maybe they will maintain commonality. Else the army will come up asking for all features of western tanks in a T-90 sized tank. Better get it done through Russian companies. They will also not have to worry about logistics thensomnath wrote:...
In which case, why bother with a brand new tank with new doctrinal requirements and an unreliable supplier.
...
DRDO should pronto get into a discussion on the FMBT with the Army...Get someone like Ashok Leyland or Tata Motors as partners on day 1 - preferably keep Avadi out completely to build credibility with the Army...
...
