Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Apr 2010 21:34

Vivek K keep your head cool and think before you write , its quite clear that there are two school of thoughts at BR one who tends to agree with the decision taken by GOI and IA and the other who disagrees with it.

I for one do not have problems with the T-90 deal since both IA and GOI under different administration and leadership have approved the deal for reasons best known to GOI.

If the current trials of Arjun yealds similar results and GOI approves Arjun in the numbers they think fit then its really good news.

But if it is within your reach and control to change the so called wrong decision as you say by DGMF go ahead and do it you are always welcome to change the wrongs done by IA

Every thing is within the control of GOI , if they want to make the change and promote indigenous system they can always do that , no one can stop or question them , its entirely their prerogative to take decision which they think is in the best interest of country and national security

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Apr 2010 22:00

rohitvats wrote: 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:

Sir, as I said I was merely being exact, my point has been and remains, that IA has as a prominent role, but is under massive checks and balances by other parts of GoI for nearly any step.

IA can not make a judgment and get away with it, they can be and are challenged, often enough.

So for Arjun, getting IA into the picture and IA alone is misleading, very very misleading.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Apr 2010 22:04

rohitvats wrote:
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.

Well Sir, the above protocol was decided by GoI, they sent IA to carry out initial expoloration followed by PNC which was done with next tests.

Surely IA did not send its people on its own and then went to MoD? If MoD has decided that something should be done in a particular manner why is it IAs fault?

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?

I do not know why you would seek to make that sort of extension? There is nothing in the statement which merits extending. Merely a point that India (which includes OFB+DRDO+IA) were all learning to make a tank ab initio. Of course multiple trials are expected. Many many many many many more compared to other tanks.

Compare the tests of LCA and tests of MRCA. Would you say they are same? Of course not. That is all that is meant.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Apr 2010 22:06

rohitvats wrote:
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.

Rohit we have been over this, it is NOT a matter of outlook, or something as fuzzy and touchy feely as that. There are distinct difference in organizational setup and approach as dictated by MoD which as resulted in the difference. They stem for many reasons including different nature of machines they use and operation requirements.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 20 Apr 2010 22:07

Austin, some of us here would repeat the same advice to you. You and one or two others seem to be fighting a lone battle against the Arjun and for the T-90 when most here would be agreeable to seeing both Tanks in service with the Army. And 124 tanks does not constitute service in an Army with a total Tank strength of 4,000.

There are fortunately others that matter that have fought hard to prove the Arjun despite public announcements by the DGMF denouncing the Arjun. And so we sit happy with the current situation except for your jarring comments which most of us are finding hard to reconcile with your past on BRF.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 20 Apr 2010 22:08

And Austin, while you're cooling down, please stop accusing people of character assasinations etc as well.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Apr 2010 22:11

Sanku wrote:So for Arjun, getting IA into the picture and IA alone is misleading, very very misleading.

Sanku why just IA , many article written by ex Defence Service chief ( Arun Prakash and all ) have been whining on how GOI ,MOD and DRDO wala run the show and how the defence wala tend to get swept away in Delhi power struggle.

People who complain how defence people can get their favourite toy in by hook or crook , really do not understand how defence procurement works nor do they have a desire to understand it , but find a easy way out to blame defence wala for all the problems.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Apr 2010 22:13

sameer_shelavale wrote:....

Sameer there are no known problems beyond TI issues seen in some circumstances.

There are NO maneuverability issues If Arjun is better at it, it does not mean that T 90 has issues?

If you use that sort of metric then Arjun has weight issues (which is obviously not the case merely pointing out how meaningless that sort of thing is)

The rest of the points you raise have either been DDM or have long been rectified. If you disagree please post OFFICIAL links for the same.

As far active protection system is concerned currently no Indian tank has it. It is not a T 90 issue.

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

Austin wrote:
Sanku wrote:So for Arjun, getting IA into the picture and IA alone is misleading, very very misleading.
Sanku why just IA , many article written by ex Defence Service chief ( Arun Prakash and all ) have been whining on how GOI ,MOD and DRDO wala run the show and how the defence wala tend to get swept away in Delhi power struggle.

People who complain how defence people can get their favourite toy in by hook or crook , really do not understand how defence procurement works nor do they have a desire to understand it , but find a easy way out to blame defence wala for all the problems.

I completely agree. If IA was being pig headed about the Arjun without a sufficient reason the other departments had more than ample time to complain and sort the matter out.

They haven't even raised one chirp. Funnily the strongest critics of IA have been IA officers themselves (a case of self correction and wanting more)

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

Vivek K, since you have nothing to contribute other than one line flame baits of how IA is

I would sincerely advise you to stay out of any and all charged discussions.

There are other threads where nothing much is happening and such one liners are useful spices.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Apr 2010 22:22

this thread reminds me of this clip, but stretched by 1000 times

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf3uDgGK ... re=related

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Apr 2010 22:23

Vivek K wrote:Austin, some of us here would repeat the same advice to you. You and one or two others seem to be fighting a lone battle against the Arjun and for the T-90 when most here would be agreeable to seeing both Tanks in service with the Army. And 124 tanks does not constitute service in an Army with a total Tank strength of 4,000.

It is within GOI control to do justice to Arjun project , so if GOI wants to do justice they can do so by ordering 1000 plus Arjun , And I for one will be happier to see if that happens if it does justice to IA and DRDO

There are fortunately others that matter that have fought hard to prove the Arjun despite public announcements by the DGMF denouncing the Arjun. And so we sit happy with the current situation except for your jarring comments which most of us are finding hard to reconcile with your past on BRF.

I for one have my own views on this and I am not anti-Arjun , i would let the people in GOI and IA decide on what is best for the country.

I have my own grievance against GOI on TN bum issue and I think what they are propagating on it is bold "LIE" , and I think the TN issue is of far more strategic importance , but I have to live with GOI decision on this and the magic the duo created

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 20 Apr 2010 22:34

What happened to RayC? I have not heard from him since the trolling got out of hand on this thread before the Arjun trials were concluded.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Apr 2010 22:36

Sanku wrote:They haven't even raised one chirp. Funnily the strongest critics of IA have been IA officers themselves (a case of self correction and wanting more)

Atleast one thing on Arjun we know the DRDO wala have informed the GOI ( via livefist ) link

In July 2008, the DRDO had told the government in a note, "If the army does not place further orders for Arjun we cannot even amortize the infrastructural investments made by the government for its productionisation, thereby resulting in wasteful expenditure. The Army should place orders for additional 300 tanks before we can break even."

I see special significance in that number 300 , I think if GOI goes ahead with Arjun in Mark2 variant which is likely the case then it will be in and around that figure. ( ~ 450 - 500 Arjun Mark1 and 2 in total before project is closed )

and again

VK Saraswat said at his recent press conference about how the trials currently on in Rajasthan are not true comparative trials, but rather "to identify the optimum placement, positioning and deployment of Arjun MBT taking into account its capabilities and logistical signature." He explained that there was no longer any question of testing the Arjun's capabilities. "User trials have been carried out extensively and the tank has been accepted as a proven platform. But the Army feels it is a dated design, though the Army also observes that it is an excellent platform for further development indigenously," he added.

Optimum placement in the Deserts of Rajasthan ?

The Army finds the design dated but sees it as excellent platform further development , an indication of FMBT with new Turret and Bhim like development ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Apr 2010 22:37

Hitesh wrote:What happened to RayC? I have not heard from him since the trolling got out of hand on this thread before the Arjun trials were concluded.

Last I read he was banned by mod for a month , even I miss his inputs here. Hope he is back soon.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Apr 2010 23:11

Singha wrote:this thread reminds me of this clip, but stretched by 1000 times

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf3uDgGK ... re=related

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 20 Apr 2010 23:21

Singha wrote:this thread reminds me of this clip, but stretched by 1000 times

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf3uDgGK ... re=related

But which side is Rocky and which is Clubber Lang here?

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 20 Apr 2010 23:43

The Army finds the design dated but sees it as excellent platform further development , an indication of FMBT with new Turret and Bhim like development ?

Saar what is your opinion about the t-90 design ?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 21 Apr 2010 00:11

Sanku wrote: Well Sir, the above protocol was decided by GoI, they sent IA to carry out initial expoloration followed by PNC which was done with next tests. Surely IA did not send its people on its own and then went to MoD? If MoD has decided that something should be done in a particular manner why is it IAs fault?

And how did you arrive at the comfortable conclusion that GOI decided on the schedule of the evaluation? That report categoricaly states that PNC asked for trials in India. Why stopped IA to do that? Does MOD tell the IA how to trial various weapon systems? Did MOD tell IAF to ask MRCA candidates to come to India for testing?

I do not know why you would seek to make that sort of extension? There is nothing in the statement which merits extending. Merely a point that India (which includes OFB+DRDO+IA) were all learning to make a tank ab initio. Of course multiple trials are expected. Many many many many many more compared to other tanks.

Many more tests to prove what? The proving apart was over way before they took those tanks for AUCRT...So, what more is left to trial now?

Compare the tests of LCA and tests of MRCA. Would you say they are same? Of course not. That is all that is meant.

And how is IOC of LCA related to trials of T-90 in Russia and recco based on these trials? It would be relevant only if IAF asks for the moon from LCA and lets other go with much less. Please don't bring unrelated topics here...

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 21 Apr 2010 00:26

Sanku wrote:Rohit we have been over this, it is NOT a matter of outlook, or something as fuzzy and touchy feely as that. There are distinct difference in organizational setup and approach as dictated by MoD which as resulted in the difference. They stem for many reasons including different nature of machines they use and operation requirements.

Why the sudden proclivity to bring MOD every where? Is that the silver bullet for all your arguments? Is MOD preventing IA to be more proactive wrt involvement in domestic product development? Or IN worked better because MOD asked them to?

Somehow, the COAS of the very army had something else to say and I qoute (General SR Choudhary):

The R&D process depended on the close mutual networking of users and development agencies, especially during the trial stage, for which the immediate remedial action was to set-up interaction between the two. This was easier said than done.

Amongst the Services however, it was the Navy which over the years had developed a relatively satisfactory interaction with the DRDO in their warship development programmes, and perhaps that was the way forward. The Army was oranized differently, but some organizational as well as attitudinal changes within the system were certainly necessary. I began by designating some active units of the Army to associate with DRDO on specific projects as trial units to bridge development, production and intriduction into service. These units would receive the first consignment of the new equipment when it was ultimately inducted into service. I hoped this would help develop a proprietary interest in the development process within the Army, because I frankly did not see another alternative if we were serious about any progress on these long overdue plans.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 21 Apr 2010 00:39

Austin wrote:<SNIP> People who complain how defence people can get their favourite toy in by hook or crook , really do not understand how defence procurement works nor do they have a desire to understand it , but find a easy way out to blame defence wala for all the problems.

Dude, I've had enough of your nonsense on the topic....I've been patient and tried to reason with you. However, you've been tilting at the wind mills and creating strawmans with out any recourse to logic or documentation.

You've taken the one argument about the lack of documented opposition by DRDO to T-90 induction and repeated the same ad nauseum....till it stinks to high heavens. You think every one here is daft to buy the stupid argument of MOD approval to non-induction of Arjun? Is it MOD which is crying from every roof top about de-merits of Arjun or IA? Is such a small thing also lost on you? Is MOD making Arjuns jump around in the name of tests and trials? Is MOD conducting comparative trials between Arjun and T-90?

MODS: If this is not trolling, then what is? The whole debate has been derailed by repeatation of one argument ad nauseum - where lack of evidence is proof of the argument? Are we expected to keep up with this?

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 21 Apr 2010 01:12

Sanku wrote:I completely agree. If IA was being pig headed about the Arjun without a sufficient reason the other departments had more than ample time to complain and sort the matter out.

They haven't even raised one chirp. Funnily the strongest critics of IA have been IA officers themselves (a case of self correction and wanting more)

Sanku sahab, aren't you going overboard? To me,coming from none other than the minister, it seemed like shouting from rooftops.

Does this count as a chirp?
Arjun tanks may have been sabotaged, says govt, April 24, 2008

The defence ministry on Thursday said a conspiracy could be in play to “sabotage” the main battle tank (MBT) Arjun project, even as Indian Army chief Gen Deepak Kapoor visited the production unit to inspect the tanks after they failed the just-concluded winter trials.

“The possibility of sabotage needs to be examined,” Minister of State for Defence (Production) Rao Inderjit Singh told reporters here.

“The engines fitted in the tanks were German and were performing well for the past 15 years. I wonder what has happened to them overnight,” Singh said, talking about the reported failures of the tank.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 21 Apr 2010 01:47

It's called selected amnesia! You remember what you want and put the burden of truth on the other person.

shyamv · Post by **shyamv** » 21 Apr 2010 01:57

My first post....please be gentle

Ok, for arguments sake, let's agree that the GoI/MoD can order 500/1000 Arjuns and force them upon the IA.
But the fact that GoI/MoD hasn't done so does NOT mean that it may not happen. That decision hasn't yet been made. So the argument that it is GoI/MoD 's fault (for not inducting Arjun in more numbers) is moot. The argument is based on something that may/may not happen and we are already assigning the blame to the party in question.

Now let us look at the decisions that have already been made or indications of decisions favoring one tank over the other, i.e., IA has already made it's decision regarding which tank it favors.
IA's decision is what people (most of them anyways) are arguing about. Let's first tackle that issue and then discuss, separately, about the GoI/MoD's decisions, if and when they are made.

Coming back to the issue of T-90 vs Arjun, the following arguments have been made( by IA) against Arjun's induction as our MBT:
1) It is heavier/bigger tank - current infrastructure cannot handle.
2) Current Doctrine favours smaller tanks (Eastern philosophy).
3) Production - Avadhi is cannot handle production in large numbers.

Let's discuss each issue:

1) Regarding infrastructure, I'm assuming that most of the infrastructure would have to be upgraded (bridges etc). Aren't they due for upgrade anyways? If the new infrastructure is designed to handle Arjun or heavier vehicles, then, T-90s will have not problems using the same. Please feel free to add all the pertinent issues that a heavier and bigger tank will have (with regards to infrastructure)

2) Doctrine: I have no idea about the details of our doctrine. But my assumption is that where T-90 can go, Arjun can. And just as fast, if not more. So why not use Arjun? Now I understand, that the tanks need support (logistics/arty etc). What exactly prevents Arjun from using the same support/logistics? Please feel free to add more info and correct me if I have made any incorrect assumptions.

3) Production: I think this is can be made a non-issue by increasing capacity/starting new plants/privatize. This can happen only when more orders, to justify the increase in capacity, come in. Otherwise this becomes self fulfilling prophecy

No new orders because of slow production rates because of not enough capacity because of no new/large orders..

Gurus, the question was asked previously by members regarding the difference between the Western tank philosophy and Eastern tank philosophy. What exactly are the differences? And why would Arjun not fit the Eastern tank philosophy (and please don't say its a bigger tank... an explaination of why a bigger tank will not work is what I'm looking for).

Thanks.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 21 Apr 2010 02:50

I'm a little confused here. Like many if not most members on the forum, I am an ardent supporter of the MBT Arjun, but I see no reason why the IA should be ordering another 500 tanks. IMHO, all that's needed is enough orders to keep the production line running till the Arjun MkII is ready. And from what I've gathered so far orders for another two to three regiments will suffice. Seeing as we have a fleet of 4000 tanks to replace - 1600 T-90s, still leaves the Arjun and its later variants with potential orders of over 2000 units.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Apr 2010 03:05

They can order another 500 and forward base them to aovid the transportation issue. Call them defensive tanks for the holding corps or something like that.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 21 Apr 2010 03:20

When there is not any additional order of 5 more tanks and instead more than enough motivated leaks of army mindset how there won't be any more order of Arjun, I do not know whether to lough or cry reading the 500 number.

At this point, what is required is not even 5 more tank but to fix the ownership issue. Huge amount of tax payer money were spent on Arjun development. It is a scam of Bofors proportion if that money is allowed to go to waste when Arjun is working unlike trishul. So, some heads need to roll from IA for imcompetence and set up as example. That will do a whole lot more benefit to the nation than ordering some more tanks.

Even though IA is behaving just like any other trade union in a PSU, the GOI does not have the option of "selling to private sector". So the only viable option is what Jayalalitha took in a similar situation.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 21 Apr 2010 04:32

Austin wrote:
Hitesh wrote:What happened to RayC? I have not heard from him since the trolling got out of hand on this thread before the Arjun trials were concluded.
Last I read he was banned by mod for a month , even I miss his inputs here. Hope he is back soon.

That is weird. He was a moderator. I am surprised that the mods would ban such a combat decorated veteran officer, especially a brigadier. The fact that he was banned by this forum, if true, does certainly speaks volume about this forum and not in a good light.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 21 Apr 2010 05:05

The delegation evaluated the Tank in Russian conditions and recommended its acquisition.[/b]

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.

I'm trying to envisage scenarios under which a technical committee would recommend 'acquiring' a tank (meaning - please buy the Tank, it is technically sound so as long as the beancounters at MoD / MoF can agree on the contractual aspects on pricing, technology transfers, supply chain logistics and other ancilliaries, this is a great piece of equipment) but would leave open the question of 'inducting' the Tank in it armoured formations (meaning - after the 'operators' have had adequate training on the equipment, the Tank would have a role in India's defence strategy).

Scenario 1: Somebody in the technical evaluation team had a sense of humour. They recommended 'acquiring' the tank - but for replacing the rusting shells of burnt out paki tanks at assal uttar so that future generations of tourists would have some photo opportunities.

Scenario 2: After acquiring the tank, it was found that the operators lacked the technical skills to operate the equipment and lacked the intelligence to be trained in using the equipment.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 21 Apr 2010 05:07

army is moving away from its staunch opposition to the Arjun

Business Standard had reported (Arjun tank outruns, outguns T-90, March 25, 2010) that the Arjun tank had conclusively outperformed the Russian T-90 — the army’s current frontline MBT — in trials conducted in early March by the Bikaner-based 180 Armoured Brigade.

The army is still evaluating that trial report to decide how many additional Arjuns it should order, over and above the existing order of 124 tanks. But, the question before the army is no longer whether to order more Arjuns; rather, it is how many to order? Highly placed Ministry of Defence (MoD) sources confirm that the army is moving away from its staunch opposition to the Arjun.

The current order of 124 Arjuns will occupy the production line until end-2011. Since the Arjun’s assembly takes 12-18 months, a fresh order of Arjuns will start being delivered 30-36 months after the order is placed. Thereafter, HVF (Heavy Vehicles Factory near Chennai) will deliver 30 Arjuns per year if it operates with just one shift of workers; 50 tanks per year with two shifts.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Apr 2010 07:17

a_kumar wrote:Does this count as a chirp?
Arjun tanks may have been sabotaged, says govt, April 24, 2008

The defence ministry on Thursday said a conspiracy could be in play to “sabotage” the main battle tank (MBT) Arjun project, even as Indian Army chief Gen Deepak Kapoor visited the production unit to inspect the tanks after they failed the just-concluded winter trials.

“The possibility of sabotage needs to be examined,” Minister of State for Defence (Production) Rao Inderjit Singh told reporters here.

“The engines fitted in the tanks were German and were performing well for the past 15 years. I wonder what has happened to them overnight,” Singh said, talking about the reported failures of the tank.

GOI denies any sabotage later link

But on Dec 11, 2008 Indian Defence Minister AK Antony informed Rajya Sabha that the Main Battle Tank (MBT) Arjun was not tampered during any trials.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 21 Apr 2010 07:34

Err you asked for the chirp

In typical Yes minister fashion the babus throw a counter chirp designed to calm things down else a part of the olive green comes of looking terrible

and we know from Yes minister - who wins

so how much more nonsense is this tag team going to spew.

.

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 21 Apr 2010 08:36

^^^
Surya Saar, making up for the lost week, huh ....

~Ashish.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Apr 2010 11:19

rohitvats wrote: Why the sudden proclivity to bring MOD every where? Is that the silver bullet for all your arguments? Is MOD preventing IA to be more proactive wrt involvement in domestic product development? Or IN worked better because MOD asked them to?

Because its there.

The elephant in the room, which people do not see, some because they have no clue on how things work, and some just wont.

Somehow, the COAS of the very army had something else to say and I qoute (General SR Choudhary):

I am totally lost, what bearing does Gen C's comments have to do with mine? He is right of course, and I have myself talked about different organizational stuff between IA and IN.

My point was on how MoD is also involved in the picture.

And how did you arrive at the comfortable conclusion that GOI decided on the schedule of the evaluation? That report categoricaly states that PNC asked for trials in India. Why stopped IA to do that? Does MOD tell the IA how to trial various weapon systems? Did MOD tell IAF to ask MRCA candidates to come to India for testing?

Yes, the evaluation schedules for arm systems are done by MoD, and not IA or IAF. They only execute and provide technical feedback.

That is how the system is. Period. There is nothing to conclude here.

And how is IOC of LCA related to trials of T-90 in Russia and recco based on these trials? It would be relevant only if IAF asks for the moon from LCA and lets other go with much less. Please don't bring unrelated topics here...

Because you are confused between development trials and user level trials. Most of the Arjun trials have been development level trials (barring the AUCRT which was done on a LSP) I was trying to show that with a example where there is relatively lesser controversy about.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Apr 2010 11:23

arnab wrote: I'm trying to envisage scenarios under which a technical committee would recommend 'acquiring' a tank (meaning - please buy the Tank, it is technically sound so as long as the beancounters at MoD / MoF can agree on the contractual aspects on pricing, technology transfers, supply chain logistics and other ancilliaries, this is a great piece of equipment) but would leave open the question of 'inducting' the Tank in it armoured formations (meaning - after the 'operators' have had adequate training on the equipment, the Tank would have a role in India's defence strategy).

Dear Arnab, you have to envisage the scenarios because you the lack the fundamental understanding of the difference between induction and acquisition in the given context.

Induction would mean, final pricing, weapons fit, support model, use model, numbers needed, which in turn would impact all the above three. The time frames, whether other alternatives exist, should DRDO make it instead etc etc and what not.

This is the standard methodology IA recommends a piece of equipment and justifies what role it thinks for it. The other decisions are done by MoD committee which has all the arms under MoD working on it.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Apr 2010 11:25

Surya wrote:Err you asked for the chirp

In typical Yes minister fashion the babus throw a counter chirp designed to calm things down else a part of the olive green comes of looking terrible

and we know from Yes minister - who wins

so how much more nonsense is this tag team going to spew.

.

And the moon is made of green cheese.

And since when have Babu's supported the forces over other civvies?

And since when babus let go of a single opportunity to humiliate the olive green?

You should retract unfounded allegations, seriously.

Pallam raju is a politician he can make stupid statements without hurting his credibility, perks of job, why get caught in the same IED?

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 21 Apr 2010 11:32

On the latest fad of "where the buck stops"!

When IA says the following, how can GoI react to it?

(1) "We have no other alternative to T-90. This is one an only option right now" (1998).
- At around that time, it is true.
- And nobody faults GoI/MoD for allowing that particular initial purchase.

(2) "Here is the evaluation of two tanks: T-90 - 7/10, Arjun - 1/10" (2005)
- Even though it was not a comparison (IA ensured that for almost 5 years), IA made every effort to undermine Arjun.
- Again, GoI's hands are tied. Its almost impossible to force on IA what IA rates at 1/10, no matter how much DRDO pushes for it.
- Infact, after seeing through the smoke, it must have taken immense pressure for GoI to make IA take the 124 tanks
- Several on this thread were mad at DRDO and GoI for that.
- Now, shockingly, its again GoI/MoD/DRDO's failure that more Arjuns weren't ordered. Hm..!!!!

(3) "Here is the evaluation of two tanks : T-90 - 7/10, Arjun - 6/10"
- Still in progress, but this change of heart of IA was not voluntary by any means
- It happened after sustained campaign by media and parliamentarians
- But finally, this change of stance from IA will give GoI/MoD some room to manoeuvre and push for Arjun.

(4) "Here is the evaluation of two tanks : T-90 - 7/10, Arjun - 8/10"
- This makes it a nobrainer for GoI.

Nobody blames IA for (1).

IA's role in (2) is pathetic.

IA is finally moving to (3) kicking and screaming.

Hopefully, we will soon see IA accepting (4) and we can all sing Kumbaya.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Apr 2010 11:44

This should all be in the newbie thread but what the hello

a_kumar wrote: When IA says the following, how can GoI react to it?

(2) "Here is the evaluation of two tanks: T-90 - 7/10, Arjun - 1/10" (2005)
- Even though it was not a comparison (IA ensured that for almost 5 years),

The comparison could happen only when enough LSP were available to IA, which was in 2005, which by the way was the date by which ALL the 124 were supposed to be made.

And that part is NOT with IA at all.

IA made every effort to undermine Arjun.

Because you say so.

- Again, GoI's hands are tied. They can't force on IA what IA rates at 1/10, no matter how much DRDO pushes for it.

Absolutely, except that IA did not rate it as 1/10 or any such nonsense that is being spewed on BRF by less than informed folks. IA only gave a list of specific issues raised in AUCRT which were then fixed.

- Infact, after seeing through the smoke, it must have taken immense pressure to make IA take the 124 tanks

Yes the tanks were taken by IA in 1998. IA must have been pushed very hard in 2005 for that.

- Several on this thread were mad at DRDO and GoI for that.

DRDO?

There are always mad people in the world. That is not MoDs problem, they should contact the public health ministry.

- Now, shockingly, its again GoI/MoD's failure that they haven't ordered more than 124 !!

Failure? No not failure. Responsibility. Not failure. GoI looked at the data and made the decision they could have consulting everyone.

(3) "Here is the evaluation of two tanks : T-90 - 7/10, Arjun - 6/10"
- This will give GoI/MoD some room to manoeuvre push for Arjun.

IAs job is not to provide reports which give room for MoD to maneuver, their job is to give factual reports which they do. These reports are IN PARTNERSHIP with DRDO and OFBs and are signed on by all.

All the 1, 2, 3 4 is nice imagination but is not anywhere close to reality.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 21 Apr 2010 11:54

Sanku wrote: Because its there.

The elephant in the room, which people do not see, some because they have no clue on how things work, and some just wont.

Nobody underestimates the role and position of MOD in the whole set-up...but that is not an execuse to absolve IA of its inherent short-comings especially with respect to the outlook towards R&D.

I am totally lost, what bearing does Gen C's comments have to do with mine? He is right of course, and I have myself talked about different organizational stuff between IA and IN.

Oh!!! It does...why are you acting so surprise here? You laid the blame on the foot steps of MOD? The good General amply clarifies that the problem is with IA and does not stem from outside parameters.

My point was on how MoD is also involved in the picture.

And oh! how is MOD involved?

Yes, the evaluation schedules for arm systems are done by MoD, and not IA or IAF. They only execute and provide technical feedback. That is how the system is. Period. There is nothing to conclude here.

Because your highness says so? How about subjecting yourself to exacting standard of providing proof of MOD deciding how the trials are to be conducted and scheduled? Or am I supposed to believe this like the other argument of MOD+GOI responsible for lack of Arjun induction - because there is no proof to contrary?

Because you are confused between development trials and user level trials. Most of the Arjun trials have been development level trials (barring the AUCRT which was done on a LSP) I was trying to show that with a example where there is relatively lesser controversy about

Do you know what AUCRT is? Before Arjun could have been subjected to AUCRT, it would have cleared all the parameters of evaluation? So, what gives? And how does that negate the fact that IA recco the acquisition of T-90 without trialing them in India?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 21 Apr 2010 11:57

ramana wrote:They can order another 500 and forward base them to aovid the transportation issue. Call them defensive tanks for the holding corps or something like that.

Equipping only the two Independent Armoured Brigades of 12 and 10 Corps respectively, will require 372 tanks...