Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

dipak · Post by **dipak** » 20 Apr 2010 13:38

But coming back to the question , yes if IA did formulate the GSQR and persisted with it and DRDO did built a superior tank and IA now says it does not need it ( again its a unsubstantiated claim ) , then who is responsible for fixing all this mess ? ( if there is indeed a mess lot of assumption on my part )

GOI, you want to say? And in the mean time, IA should comfortably bask in the glory of the world-class GSQR it formulated? And it should shoulder no responsibility, is this the way IA wants us to believe in their professional competence? (in GSQR, not on war-front!)

As we are discussing it - lets keep GOI and IA aside for a moment.

I ask you - do you agree with IA conduct on this GSQR saga or not?

And its quite obvious saar - there is no place for IF in your above statement, its so clear - IA flunked in GSQR episode.

* Either they should not have placed GSQR in the first place.
* If they did, they should have distanced themselves long back, if it didnt suit their requirements.
* Else, after the tank ready as per GSQR - they have got to accept it. Period.

The very fact that they failed in all above mentioned, removes IF beyond doubt.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 20 Apr 2010 13:39

Austin wrote:Isnt it then GOI responsibility to correct the aberration and do justice , So do we expect the GOI to do something about it and if so why are they not doing something about it or waited till now ?

lol ... I have seen reports where it is clearly said .... Army does not want Arjun and GoI forced it down to Army.

Something is wrong with IA (procurement department) accept it nor not. I am quite sure GoI will order more Arjuns ...how many and when that is a big question for me.

Will it convert striking units to Arjun now or in 5/7 years? The more delay... bad for India not for Arjun.

At the same time I dont like T-90's to be called as Tin-cans/plastic cans .... but I understand that Natasha lobby is too strong and it is the only way to go ahead.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Apr 2010 13:58

dipak and R_Kumar, the problem is that while X Y or Z may have an opinion of whether IA did the right thing or did not, currently the GoI which is looking into the whole saga, does not find fault with IA.

You may like it or you may not but that is how things stand, officially in black and white, and the rest is all speculation.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Apr 2010 14:30

Indeed and GOI is the final word and final arbitrator on this matter , we may like it , we may not but we will have to live with it.

If GOI endorses Arjun after this trial and gives the go ahead in big numbers then that is something every one has to abide by.

For the people who do not agree with GOI and have doubts about IA intention , why not file a PIL/RTI with what ever data you have and try to find out if it has any merits , if you are indeed passionate about Arjun and feel GOI/IA has committed impropriety that is the only way out for tax paying citizen of the country who is keen to know the truth.

I dont know this is just a suggestion , is there are better ways to figure out GOI views , else we will keep speculating on this topic forever.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 20 Apr 2010 14:43

Austin, the debate here is about the reluctance of the IA to order more Arjuns and stick with T-90 as main MBT while paying lip service to Arjun programme. Of how IA has used double standards and has pampered the T-90 in IA Service while making Arjun jump around as if in a circus.

There is not denying the fact that IA has, by virtue of organization inertia and entrenched mindset, been opposed to Arjun for a long time now. The last good thing that happened to the Arjun programme was then COAS, General SR Choudhary. Post that, very effort was made to show Arjun in bad light.

In your blind desire to somehow wriggle the IA out of it's responsibility for this, you've tried every possible argument. First, it was about the nature and quantum of information about the T-90 and Arjun. And how IA can only make judgement as it is privy to some 'classified information'. When that got thrashed, you shifted to the nonsense of GOI+MOD angle to spread the blame around. That since there is no documented proof of opposition to T-90 induction from MOD and GOI, IA was right in ordering the same and hence, when same logic is applied to Arjun induction, IA is again right in not ordering more Arjun tanks. Thereafter, the debate has all along been on the central role of IA in the induction of weapon systems in general and MBT in particular.

All you have done with these antics is to pull the debate down to the pits....You're neither informed on the subject nor want to open your eyes to see what are the facts.

You've twisted the debate to merit or otherwise of T-90 induction. Go through this thread and please tell me, if anyone, who is informed on the subject of armor wrt Indian Army, questioned the induction of T-90? Everyone and his aunt knows the circumstances when T-90 was ordered for...who is debating that? But at the same time, to say that IA is the innocence personified when it comes to Arjun, is to make mockery of the facts at hand...

Really are you privy to the recommendation of IA , are you privy to DRDO views on the recommendation , are you privy to CCSA meeting and mom and what let GOI to approve this big purchase , are you privy to the trials of T-90 and merits of trials and the demerits of T-90 as submitted by IA.

And do you leave your common sense at home when you post on this topic? Who is talking about the merit or otherwise of T-90 induction into the Indian Army? Is it hard to fathom that inspite of de-merits of T-XX design, there was merit in the induction of T-90 into Indian Army? That talking about the former is not denouncing the latter?

The reason I posted the excerpt from the PSD Report was to highlight the role of IA and not pass comments on the merits or otherwise of T-90 induction. Was that very hard to figure out? And can you stop asking the stupid questions about me being privy to proceedings of CCSA and other BS? What has that got to do with role of IA in the decision making loop?

Most here have a single minded agenda IA did not order Arjun blame the IA

That is not anyone's agenda...that is what the actions of IA scream loud and clear. That having committed to T-90..it is caught in the bind and does not want to order more Arjun. But time is not on it's side.

All flaws rest with IA because it recommended T-90 , do not blame any one except the IA , why because they are incompetent to understand what they need and manipulated the trials.

Did anyone say that IA was wrong in ordering T-90? And again, the merit of T-90 induction are different from demerits of its inherent weakness....is that too complicated to understand? And who said they manipulated the trials? But the same time, they did reccommend the induction of T-90 based on trials in Russia....

Unfortunately the debate on Arjun has degenerated to blaming IA and this is something unfair and unwise

The authority to reccommend induction of Arjun lies firmly with IA.....unless, like the last time, GOI shoves couple of them down its throat ( which I really wish)

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 20 Apr 2010 14:55

Austin wrote:....For the people who do not agree with GOI and have doubts about IA intention , why not file a PIL/RTI with what ever data you have and try to find out if it has any merits , if you are indeed passionate about Arjun and feel GOI/IA has committed impropriety that is the only way out for tax paying citizen of the country who is keen to know the truth............

Sure, till someone files the RTI, we can ask the webmasters to shut down the forum, leave our brains at home, not use common sence and wait for Kalki to appear.....

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Apr 2010 14:56

A small and tiny correction (IMVHO)

rohitvats wrote: The authority to reccommend induction of Arjun lies firmly with IA.....unless, like the last time, GOI shoves couple of them down its throat ( which I really wish)

IA can not recommend "induction" of ANY weapon system. It can only give a request based on due diligence of how the weapon system is necessary for IAs threat perception and its given task. The matter ends there from IAs perspective, pretty much.

The services play a very small role in decision making from that point onwards.

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

PS> The above is a comment on system not limited only to Arjun (but yes IA has to give a go ahead, GoI cant proceed till IA gives a go ahead. Although GoI can ask some tough questions to IA which it has)

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Apr 2010 15:01

Rohit for the blind love you have for your favorite toy of DRDO you and many people out here has resorted to character assassination of IA which is very clear from yours and statement from others

You can call me what ever you want , but one thing I understand is no matter how passionately one argues for or against Arjun or T-90 , there is nothing much we can do but accept ( grudgingly ) GOI/IA decision.

So relax and pray your favorite tank wins this time around and in the numbers that you want

Well what ever it is it will be interesting days ahead with tempers and pitch going high

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Apr 2010 15:02

rohitvats wrote:Sure, till someone files the RTI, we can ask the webmasters to shut down the forum, leave our brains at home, not use common sence and wait for Kalki to appear.....

An innocent suggestion saaaar

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 20 Apr 2010 15:03

Sanku wrote:A small and tiny correction (IMVHO)

rohitvats wrote: The authority to reccommend induction of Arjun lies firmly with IA.....unless, like the last time, GOI shoves couple of them down its throat ( which I really wish)
IA can not recommend "induction" of ANY weapon system. It can only give a request based on due diligence of how the weapon system is necessary for IAs threat perception and its given task. The matter ends there from IAs perspective, pretty much.

The services play a very small role in decision making from that point onwards.

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

PS> The above is a comment on system not limited only to Arjun (but yes IA has to give a go ahead, GoI cant proceed till IA gives a go ahead. Although GoI can ask some tough questions to IA which it has)

Sanku, the PSD very clearly uses the word reccommended, when speaking about the induction of T-90.

From my own post earlier:

In reply to a question the Ministry of Defence stated that the T-90S Tanks were offered by Russia in December, 1997. A technical delegation was deputed to Russia in 1998 for conducting evaluation of the Tank. The delegation evaluated the Tank in Russian conditions and recommended its acquisition. In December 1998, the Cabinet Committee on Security approved the proposal for acquisition of 124 fully formed Tanks and 186 Semi Knocked Down (SKD) and Completely Knocked Down (CKD) Tanks.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Apr 2010 15:11

rohitvats wrote:
In reply to a question the Ministry of Defence stated that the T-90S Tanks were offered by Russia in December, 1997. A technical delegation was deputed to Russia in 1998 for conducting evaluation of the Tank. The delegation evaluated the Tank in Russian conditions and recommended its acquisition. In December 1998, the Cabinet Committee on Security approved the proposal for acquisition of 124 fully formed Tanks and 186 Semi Knocked Down (SKD) and Completely Knocked Down (CKD) Tanks.

The bold and underlined part is what matters , IA recommends, GOI in its wise judgment accepts that recommendation , open and shut case.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 20 Apr 2010 15:16

Austin wrote:The bold and underlined part is what matters , IA recommends, GOI in its wise judgment accepts that recommendation , open and shut case.

So, you accept that IA reccomends. That is a good start. The debate all this while has been on the "IA Reccomends" part and how it has not been doing the same for Arjun....Now let us see IA reccomend Arjun for induction.

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 20 Apr 2010 15:22

Austin wrote:for the blind love you have for your favorite toy of DRDO you and many people out here has resorted to character assassination of IA which is very clear from yours and statement from others

Austin sar,
The thing you are calling TOY has proved to be better than the tin cans.
I just don't understand why are you so reluctant to believe that Arjuns have outgunned and outperformed the t-90 formations.

If something is good we should call it good, if its bad we should call it bad.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Apr 2010 15:29

My views or views of any one here does not count , its just an academic exercise.

What matters is what do the professional from IA have to say on this matter and what GOI thinks and then decides upon , I would rather trust IA views and GOI decision than some fanboy assessment.

How long will this trial go , outlook claims its till june link

"During the summer trials of the two tanks in June, they will be subjected to various other comparative tests in the following months and it is likely to be completed by June 2010," the source said.

After the trials, the army and the DRDO would carry out a detailed analysis of the tests to determine which of the two tanks was better, sources said.

Its good to know DRDO is involved deeply with the test , atleast we wont have any complains on that front.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Apr 2010 15:34

rohitvats wrote:
Sanku wrote:A small and tiny correction (IMVHO)

IA can not recommend "induction" of ANY weapon system. It can only give a request based on due diligence of how the weapon system is necessary for IAs threat perception and its given task. The matter ends there from IAs perspective, pretty much.

The services play a very small role in decision making from that point onwards.

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

PS> The above is a comment on system not limited only to Arjun (but yes IA has to give a go ahead, GoI cant proceed till IA gives a go ahead. Although GoI can ask some tough questions to IA which it has)
Sanku, the PSD very clearly uses the word reccommended, when speaking about the induction of T-90.

From my own post earlier:

In reply to a question the Ministry of Defence stated that the T-90S Tanks were offered by Russia in December, 1997. A technical delegation was deputed to Russia in 1998 for conducting evaluation of the Tank. The delegation evaluated the Tank in Russian conditions and recommended its acquisition. In December 1998, the Cabinet Committee on Security approved the proposal for acquisition of 124 fully formed Tanks and 186 Semi Knocked Down (SKD) and Completely Knocked Down (CKD) Tanks.

And I completely agree Sir, please note

The delegation evaluated the Tank in Russian conditions and recommended its acquisition.

Recommending an acquisition (what I called a request) is not the same as recommending induction.

You may quite justifiably say that I am being painful about the word. But in the world of GoI and babudom, the single word makes a whole host of difference.

Please note after the recommendation, a whole host of due diligence was still carried out in forms of multiple tests in India. A recommendation is ONLY a high level go ahead so to say. No numbers, no final fitments nothing.

Meanwhile -- as far as Arjun is concerned, it is my understanding that IA has always recommended the acquisition of Arjun under the conditions that X Y Z is fulfilled, that document is GSQR.

So the Arjun troubles start post the recommendation of "lets have a tank as per the following GSQR"

The two routes are necessarily different since in one route the IA is also a partner.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Apr 2010 15:38

Austin wrote:
Its good to know DRDO is involved deeply with the test , atleast we wont have any complains on that front.

Austin, DRDO has been involved with every test, including the ill fated AUCRT. The DRDO people were present too and the test was under predecided parameters and results shared.

They made it to the parliamentary committee report too.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Apr 2010 15:43

sameer_shelavale wrote:Austin sar,
The thing you are calling TOY has proved to be better than the tin cans.

Really ? And that is the reason GOI approved 1600 Tincans over the better TOY so far ?

I just don't understand why are you so reluctant to believe that Arjuns have outgunned and outperformed the t-90 formations.

If something is good we should call it good, if its bad we should call it bad.

Arjun is a good tank and so is T-90 Bishma , lets hope the latest round of test changes the fortune for Arjun.

Why cant they do a 1:1 replacement of T-72 with Arjun ? Is this an expensive and logistically a pain to operate two different type of tank for IA ?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Apr 2010 16:05

I think one reason why the IN appears to be far better off with their programmes is,apart from finer planning and better coordination and working together with Indian shipyards,is that the IN has indigenisation as its holy grail,preferring to build as many ships and subs as it can in the country and works towars that goal.The IA and IAF on the other hand have been too used to "buying from brochures" and have in general looked down upon desi alternatives.Had they also jumped into the indigenous "pool",perhaps we would've had many more success for their needs.Another factor is that the IN are incontrol of their projects.They are not designed by the "DRDO" and then shoved down the IN's throats,but specifically designed for the IN's requirements,though some of the systems from the DRDO never made it like Trishul,whose failure delayed induction of the "B" class FFGs by at least 5 years.

But let's not go back too much into time.It is abundantly clear that the T-90 was ordered to take on Pak's T-89s and Arjun was not mature enough then.Naturally large follow on orders of the T-90 were made and it is now,at the tail end of the T-90 orders,when Arjun has arrived in style.The IA/GOI will now have to reassess their entire roadmap for the armoured corps if Arjun is to be inducted in large numbers.Apart from production,financial,logistical and doctrinal issues,the increase in personnel to man 4-man Arjuns is another added requirement.It would be very interesting to see how many 4-man Vijayanta tanks are still operational,if at all and use these crews and those of older T-72s to man Arjuns in the future.The IA must quickly undergo the financial and entire logistic exercise to add Arjun to its armoured corps and take a decision on extra numbers based upon the findings.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 20 Apr 2010 16:13

It maybe wrong but this is my understanding:
1.Porkis buy T 80s and Arjun is still not satisfactory so Army recommends buying SOME T90s to GoI. GoI sends a committee to Russia and some kind of trials are done IN RUSSIA ITSELF and IA nods their satisfaction of T90s performance to GoI. GoI goes ahead and buys certain numbers.
Meanwhile Arjun goes through the rigorous tests and army keeps on pointing out the weaknesses which DRDO keeps on correcting one by one, for example the components are made stronger to stand the temp of 60 Degrees.

2. At certain point T90s arrive and they are also put in Rajasthan resulting in showing their weaknesses which IA doesn't condemn in loud voice as they do Arjun's, while accepting Russia's pathetic offers of inserting an ac to improve the performance.

3. Contradicting comments keep coming from Army on one hand leaking out shortcomings of Arjun while on the other hand on General commenting "why buy a mercedes[Arjun]

when Maruti 800[T 90]

can do the job?"

Though I never followed Arjun tank passionately as I spent all the time hunting news regarding Tejas, Agnis and Nuke subs only last few days I have started reading this thread but Rohit's pointing out the fact of "IA approving T90 by just watching it perform in Russia while "making Arjun jump around as if in a circus." (To steal his comment) seems to finish the debate in Arjun's favour.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 20 Apr 2010 16:14

Austin wrote: Why cant they do a 1:1 replacement of T-72 with Arjun ? Is this an expensive and logistically a pain to operate two different type of tank for IA ?

I have full faith in our three services but sorry to say it...

lets sit and wait untill China/pak attack and clear our existing inventory then may be we can start fresh and will not have the pain to operate two different types of tanks.

oh GOD please save us

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Apr 2010 16:26

I don't think a 1:1 T-72 replacement by Arjun is possible financially and logistically (extra crew),but since a large number of T-72s are going to be upgraded and Avadi has a huge amount of work on its hands,the numbers of upgrades can be cut down in favour of extra Arjuns.Financially this might impose an extra burden upon the IA,but the GOI/MOD must find the extra moolah if only to promote a desi alternative.If nedd be then,extra T-90s planned but not ordered (indigenous production of the same) could make room for extra Arjuns.If the tank has met the IA's stringent requirements,it should be supported with more orders and production specially geared up for rapid production.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 20 Apr 2010 16:30

Sanku wrote:
Austin wrote:
Its good to know DRDO is involved deeply with the test , atleast we wont have any complains on that front.
Austin, DRDO has been involved with every test, including the ill fated AUCRT. The DRDO people were present too and the test was under predecided parameters and results shared.

They made it to the parliamentary committee report too.

I dont know understand why this ill fated AUCRT test were made so famous... why it not favous that our 80% MBT's are night blind????

It is from pib.nic.in, can not have more authentic source
Army gets its first armoured regiment of MBT Arjun

Initially 12 prototypes were developed during 1983 to 1990 and they were subjected to field trials of more than 20,000 kms and 1100 rounds. Based on user feedback 15 pre-production vehicles were developed during 1990 to 1995 and they were subjected to field trials of more than 70,000 kms and 8000 rounds. After the satisfactory trials, army placed an indent initially for 15 limited series production in Nov 1997 and cumulatively 124 in Mar 2000. The development of Arjun was carried out in a number of stages and evaluation through extensive field trials. After satisfactory performance, Army placed an indent for the full compliment of 124 nos. of MBT Arjun in Mar 2000.

The outcome of AUCRT trials raised the confidence levels of the users over the reliability and endurance of MBT Arjun and they confirmed that the overall performance of the MBT Arjun during the stringent AUCRT trials was satisfactory and cleared the production tanks with minor modifications suggested during AUCRT, for induction. Both CVRDE and HVF along with DGQA agencies worked out methodologies to introduce all AUCRT modifications within shortest time frame and the next batch of 17 tanks were handed over to Army by 3rd March 2009.

As suggested by Army after AUCRT trials, Arjun tanks were subjected to rigorous trials and assessment by a third party audit (an internationally reputed tank manufacturer). After the extensive evaluation, the reputed tank manufacturer confirmed that the MBT Arjun is an excellent tank with very good mobility and fire power characteristics suitable for Indian desert. They also added inputs such as quality auditing, production procedures and refined calibration procedures for further enhancing the performance of MBT Arjun. DRDO, will be incorporating all these inputs in the next regiment of 62 tanks for handing over to Army before Mar 2010 as desired by the Army.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Apr 2010 16:34

Manish_Sharma wrote: GoI sends a committee to Russia and some kind of trials are done IN RUSSIA ITSELF and IA nods their satisfaction of T90s performance to GoI.

Not correct, the first level of trials were done in Russia, followed by detailed trials in India followed by price negotiation followed by the order.

IA never accepted the Russian shotra and TI (rejected it since it did not meet specs) and instead Russian agreed to integrate the French Catherine.

The only known problem so far as been with the same french TI konking out in heat. No other problems are seen with T 90.

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

Also note that it is not fair to compare Arjun trials with T 90 (to DRDO that is) T 90 comes from manufacture which has built tanks since 70 years or more, gradually improving itself. Arjun is the first tank from the other.

Imagine the amount of testing followed by iterative redevelopment that would be needed if T 90 was the first tank Russia ever made.

This is the nature of the beast of engineering such product and it is frustrating for everyone.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Apr 2010 16:36

RKumar wrote:You have to keep in mind, these were the tests of MBT that has just completed first development cycle. That I dont know understand why this ill fated AUCRT test were made so famous... why it not favous that our 80% MBT's are night blind????

Ask Shri Pallam Raju, of he and his big mouth fame.

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 20 Apr 2010 16:40

Really ? And that is the reason GOI approved 1600 Tincans over the better TOY so far ?

if GOI now orders 1600 t-55, will those make them better than t-90 or Arjuns?

Why cant they do a 1:1 replacement of T-72 with Arjun ? Is this an expensive and logistically a pain to operate two different type of tank for IA ?

Saar personally I think T-90 should be used as t-72 replacements.
And Arjuns formations backed up with mobile SRSAM Batteries should play offensive roles.

RKumar wrote: lets sit and wait untill China/pak attack and clear our existing inventory

Yeh the existing NIGHT-BLIND, HANDICAPPED inventory of cans will surely get cleared off in that case.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Apr 2010 16:44

Sanku thanks for the info , what is that V slab one can see on the turret , ERA ? K-5 ?

The only known problem so far as been with the same french TI konking out in heat. No other problems are seen with T 90.

So besides the Catherine-FC TI over heating issue , the current production ready T-90 has no known issues ?

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 20 Apr 2010 16:48

sameer_shelavale wrote:Yeh the existing NIGHT-BLIND, HANDICAPPED inventory of cans will surely get cleared off in that case.

Yeah but at what cost .... loss of war, loss of our brave and strong army men

forget about everything else.... i feel sad even at the thought of it.

I hope you remember kargil, where our army men fought against all odds...

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Apr 2010 16:55

Austin wrote:Sanku thanks for the info , what is that V slab one can see on the turret , ERA ? K-5 ?

It is probably an ERA but I do not know which one.

So besides the Catherine-FC TI over heating issue , the current production ready T-90 has no known issues ?

Not as per any official and public records sir and as far as I know not in any blog etc either.

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 20 Apr 2010 17:22

Austin wrote:So besides the Catherine-FC TI over heating issue , the current production ready T-90 has no known issues ?

saar
1. the maneuverability has been a problem too :d It took them more time to cross dunes
2. and saar the AC Units(Which Army calls 'Environment Control System' and resisted to install on Arjuns) are yet to be ordered
3. the INVAR missiles didn't work there is no news if they are rectified or not.
4. The active protection System, saar that is missing as well. It will be very very necessary as the tank don't have good armor nor can it be fast enough.

btw.
Catherine TI makes up 1/6 th of the t-90 cost

The TI cameras are the crucial "eyes" of the tank’s systems. At Rs 2 crores each, the Catherine TI system comprises almost one-sixth of each T-90’s total cost of Rs 11.75 crores.

http://www.india-defence.com/reports/2081

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 20 Apr 2010 18:52

Rohit for the blind love you have for your favorite toy of DRDO you and many people out here has resorted to character assassination of IA which is very clear from yours and statement from others

Being critic of a decision taken by the Indian Army is not same as undertaking 'character assasination'. And mind you, while it is the DGMF along the way who have aired the opposition, I refer to the Army as a whole - for it has to answer as a single entity. Toeing IA line on every thing and considering it the holy cow is not how I intend to prove my credentials. Having said that, it is not about Arjun - it is about the bad policy and conduct of IA when it comes to Arjun.

I fully understand the compulsions which could have motivated the IA to go for T-90 and not for upgraded the T-72, as many wanted at that time. I'm also with IA on importing a 'cheaper' version of T-90 and then going for the bells and whistles - for the bean counters would have raised hue and cry and we would have been stuck. I also know that it is the GOI which is reactionary and won't move their bu**# unless someone points gun on their head - and hence, the wait till PA acquired the T-80UD.

You can call me what ever you want , but one thing I understand is no matter how passionately one argues for or against Arjun or T-90 , there is nothing much we can do but accept ( grudgingly ) GOI/IA decision.

Austin, I'm no fanboy or a techno-geek who drools on minute technological details....But I do have some common sense and I can read.....and that reading tells me that Arjun is better tank than T-90. Not only that - induction of Arjun in IA in sustantial numbers will do to Armoured Vehicle segment what LCA has done for aviation.

And as for being not able to do something about IA's obstinate behaviour wrt Arjun - you forget, we've BR to pent our frustrations.......

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 20 Apr 2010 19:15

And I completely agree Sir, please note

The delegation evaluated the Tank in Russian conditions and recommended its acquisition.

Recommending an acquisition (what I called a request) is not the same as recommending induction.

You may quite justifiably say that I am being painful about the word. But in the world of GoI and babudom, the single word makes a whole host of difference.

Please note after the recommendation, a whole host of due diligence was still carried out in forms of multiple tests in India. A recommendation is ONLY a high level go ahead so to say. No numbers, no final fitments nothing.

Sanku maharaj, to begin with..my fellow poster that trouble even in accepting that IA has a prominent role in the whole acquisition process. That aside, you need to see the whole reply of MOD in PSCD in context:

In reply to a question the Ministry of Defence stated that the T-90S Tanks were offered by Russia in December, 1997. A technical delegation was deputed to Russia in 1998 for conducting evaluation of the Tank. The delegation evaluated the Tank in Russian conditions and recommended its acquisition. In December 1998, the Cabinet Committee on Security approved the proposal for acquisition of 124 fully formed Tanks and 186 Semi Knocked Down (SKD) and Completely Knocked Down (CKD) Tanks.

The Price Negotiation Committee (PNC) recommended that the Tanks should be tried in Peak summer conditions in India. Three T-90S Tanks were tried in Rajasthan during May-July 1999. Protection trial of the Tanks were also held in Russia during October-November 1999 which were witnessed by technical delegation from India. Based on these trials the Army headquafters prepared a General Staff Evaluation Report and recommended the induction of T-90S Tank into the service. At present PNC is continuing its negotiations with the supplier M/s RVZ of Russia.

So, two things that emerge from above - (a) IA reccomended the acquisition and CCSA based on the same approved. So, the semantics does not hold. (b) Army carried out the evaluation, prepared the GSER and reccommended the induction - Again, IA shows that IA played a central role in the whole exercise and it's position is not exactly as weak as you'd make it out to be.

While there are instances that GOI has gone against the professional judgement of IA - Bofors is an example of that, the same is an aberration and not a norm. Can anyone remember any weapon system shoved down the throat of IA in recent past?

Meanwhile -- as far as Arjun is concerned, it is my understanding that IA has always recommended the acquisition of Arjun under the conditions that X Y Z is fulfilled, that document is GSQR.

Sir, it has gone beyond the GSQR stage now....the Army has been nitpicking about Arjun for very long time now. Would LRF going bonkers because of wrong temprature setting (55 deg instead of 60 deg) by OEM be considered as violation of GSQR and grave shortcoming? Or the TI concking off in Indian Summer?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 20 Apr 2010 19:18

Austin wrote: Really ? And that is the reason GOI approved 1600 Tincans over the better TOY so far ?

Please read this very slowly and repeat to yourself:

"Merits of acquisition of T-90 in 1999-2000 and de-merits of T-90 due to inherent weakness, are not the same thing"

Don't confuse the two again...

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 20 Apr 2010 19:19

Admins - is attacking members by accusing them of indulgin in character assassination allowed?

Rohit Austin is using the favourite trick of the procurement mafia - when you can't have it your way use the shield of patriotism to have everyone fall in line. And BTW accusations that IA's procurement division of something does not imply character assasination of the poor fighting soldier who lives, fights and dies for his country.

Why is Austin persisting with this line even now? That is baffling. A respected BRFite going rogue? Did he read Sarah Palin's book on the subject?

Pushing a domestic product that is good, that will provide jobs to Indians, that will promote self-reliance in a key weapon system cannot be character assassination. Please take the blinders off and you will see who is actually doing character assassination by allowing the DGMF to make a wrong decision and kill a local effort.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 20 Apr 2010 19:26

I think one reason why the IN appears to be far better off with their programmes is,apart from finer planning and better coordination and working together with Indian shipyards,is that the IN has indigenisation as its holy grail,preferring to build as many ships and subs as it can in the country and works towars that goal.The IA and IAF on the other hand have been too used to "buying from brochures" and have in general looked down upon desi alternatives.Had they also jumped into the indigenous "pool",perhaps we would've had many more success for their needs.Another factor is that the IN are incontrol of their projects.They are not designed by the "DRDO" and then shoved down the IN's throats,but specifically designed for the IN's requirements, though some of the systems from the DRDO never made it like Trishul,whose failure delayed induction of the "B" class FFGs by at least 5 years.

Totaly agree on this part. No less a person than General Shankar Roy Choudhary has said so and he even praises Navy for it's outlook. He was the one who also made an effort to rectify the same. It was his decision and initiative to convert a Squadron in 43rd Armored Regiment to Arjun...this when the Regiment was on War establishment and not some training or experimental unit. He considered it necessary to ensure continous user feedback to the developer.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 20 Apr 2010 19:30

Philip wrote:I don't think a 1:1 T-72 replacement by Arjun is possible financially and logistically (extra crew),but since a large number of T-72s are going to be upgraded and Avadi has a huge amount of work on its hands,the numbers of upgrades can be cut down in favour of extra Arjuns.Financially this might impose an extra burden upon the IA,but the GOI/MOD must find the extra moolah if only to promote a desi alternative.If nedd be then,extra T-90s planned but not ordered (indigenous production of the same) could make room for extra Arjuns.If the tank has met the IA's stringent requirements,it should be supported with more orders and production specially geared up for rapid production.

I never knew I'd read such a post from Philip.....my eyes are moist with 'khooshee ke asoon'

..some one get me tissues please..no,make that a towel....

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 20 Apr 2010 19:39

Austin wrote:So besides the Catherine-FC TI over heating issue , the current production ready T-90 has no known issues ?

That single issue is enough to ensure that T-90 sans the TI-FCS is piece of metal under the hot sun..you might as well use it as a museum piece...and oh! by the way, Arjun's electronics work perfectly fine in the same temprature and area. You see what happened was, when Arjun faced this problem the first time, IA asked DRDO to ensure that Arjun has 'hardened' electronics to withstand the temprature of Thar. While in the case of T-90, it is looking for Environment Control System - euphemism for aircon - to maintain the optimum temprature inside the T-90 to allow Catherine TI-FCS to perform....Strange, is it not?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 20 Apr 2010 19:48

Not correct, the first level of trials were done in Russia, followed by detailed trials in India followed by price negotiation followed by the order.

Well sir, the above statement would have been acceptable if the IA had trialled the tanks in Russia and India and then made recco for acquisition. It was the PNC which got the Army to conduct trials in India....when IA should have done that in the first place.

Also note that it is not fair to compare Arjun trials with T 90 (to DRDO that is) T 90 comes from manufacture which has built tanks since 70 years or more, gradually improving itself. Arjun is the first tank from the other.

By the extension of same logic, MRCA trials should not be held in India - that too in Humid (Bangalore),Hot(Nagpur) and High(Leh) environment. Not only are all the fighters from stables of established aircraft manufacturers, some of them have been in service for donkey years with multiple air forces or NAA around the world. Why ask for MiG-35 trials in India when we've used the base version of the aircraft for decades now?

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 20 Apr 2010 20:26

I don't know if this has been posted here before...came across this at Keypubs

NOVO-OGARYOVO April 7

"Russia is modernizing its T-90 tank and will finish the project before the end of 2010, a deputy defense minister said.

“There is comprehensive work under way to modernize the T-90 tank, increasing its combat potential, fitting it with a night vision system, placing the ammunition compartment outside the crew section, and the armor, including the active armor, is being improved,” Vladimir Popovkin told reporters.

The organization that is modernizing the tank is promising to finish the work by the end of the year, he said."

Source: Interfax-AVN

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpo ... stcount=15

So the Russians in their post-soviet era has stopped considering their crew 'expendable' and are actually building in some safety systems into their tanks. Moreover the biggest issue with exploding turrets in T-72s/90s are being addressed. I hope we do the same to our T-90s.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Apr 2010 20:47

johnny_m wrote: "Russia is modernizing its T-90 tank and will finish the project before the end of 2010, a deputy defense minister said.

“There is comprehensive work under way to modernize the T-90 tank, increasing its combat potential, fitting it with a night vision system, placing the ammunition compartment outside the crew section, and the armor, including the active armor, is being improved,” Vladimir Popovkin told reporters

Good News , what ever modernization they incorporate , we should make the same changes where desired and induct in batches , with more than 1000 tanks to come we will see some joint effort between India and Russia in modernizing the T-90 tank.

If safety if crew is improved that is good enough reason to make those changes in our Bishma.

What is active armor never heard of it ? ERA ?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 20 Apr 2010 20:53

Austin wrote: What is active armor never heard of it ? ERA ?

Translated from Russian. Probably meant reactive armor.