Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Apr 2010 12:06

rohitvats wrote: 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.

IA has never been tasked to have a outlook towards R&D. You want it have a outlook, fine good, maybe personally I agree but what of it?

They are not responsible to me or you. They are responsible to MoD. What does MoD want from them?

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.

I do not think what the good general says supports your claim. He mentions ways in which IA and IN are different and IN has different approach.

Yes we know and agree. We also know why and how.

The good general wants it solved by upgrading IAs role and adding IN level features (in context of R&D) that decision however has been and will be MoDs (and I have discussed that before in other thread) -- basically I dont think what the good general wants will happen, the solution has to be slightly different.

And oh! how is MOD involved?

If you want IA to have R&D directorates like IN has, it has to be a MoD decision. Without those, IA can not do what you want them to do.

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?

You can look up the MoD website which I am tired of posting which lays out the relative responsibilities etc. Also because I have known how MoD works in these matters first hand.

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?

That would be fine too.

Do you know what AUCRT is? Before Arjun could have been subjected to AUCRT, it would have cleared all the parameters of evaluation?

If it has cleared why do the AUCRT? Of course it did not clear all parameters of evaluation.

It only cleared development trials.

So, what gives? And how does that negate the fact that IA recco the acquisition of T-90 without trialing them in India?

No IA only gave initial clearance and the purchase was taken after AUCRT.

In contrast 124 Arjuns were purchase before AUCRT. The IA had to order 124 otherwise AUCRT could not happen.

That is called partnership which IA has shown.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Apr 2010 12:11

I BEG eveyone, please read this PLEASE
http://mod.nic.in/aboutus/body.htm

Defence Acquisition Council : The Government has set up a Defence Acquisition Council headed by the Raksha Mantri for decision making in regard to the totality of the new planning process, which inter-alia involves according ‘in principle' approval of capital acquisitions in the long term perspective plan and according ‘in principle' approval for each capital acquisition programme. The decisions flowing from the Defence Acquisition Council are to be implemented by the following three Boards:-

(i) Defence Procurement Board headed by the Defence Secretary;

(ii) Defence Production Board headed by the Secretary, Defence Production and

(iii) Defence Research & Development Board headed by Secretary Defence Research & Development.

These Boards have been entrusted with specific functions. A Defence Acquisition Wing headed by Special Secretary (Acquisition) has also been created to assist the Defence Procurement Board in its functioning.

The new structures are intended to facilitate expeditious decision-making in an integrated manner in areas relating to acquisitions for the three Services while at the same time imparting a higher degree of transparency and cost effectiveness to the process of acquisition of equipment, weapon and weapon systems. For Defence Procurement Organisation and Defence Procurement Procedures-02 (June 03 version ) please see ‘NEW ADDITIONS'.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 21 Apr 2010 12:16

Sanku wrote: 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.

Does he lack the understanding of induction and acquisition or are you deliberately trying to create strawman here?

Read these thing again:

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.

In the context, It seems that CCS approved the final numbers for acquisition based on recco of IA before any of the above parameters qouted by you kicked in....

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

Again, IA reccomended induction of the tank and PNC was in process of finalizing the price for the same. So, IA decided on the numbers, were approved by the CCS and final price discussion was in progress as this report was published.

From 10th PSCD report-2001:

The Ministry have further stated that in the General Staff (GS) Evaluation report T-90s Tank has been found to be suitable for introduction in the Army to meet its present and future operations needs. A Price Negotiation Committee (PNC) is currently negotiating with the Russians for prices and other details. Only after the PNC conclude its negotiations with the Russians and submits its final report on the financial aspects, a final decision will be taken considering all aspects for induction of these tanks into Indian Army. On completion of negotiations necessary approval of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) will be obtained before entering into a contract.

Can you tell me where does the report excerpt provides distinction between acquisition and induction, in the context.

It is only you who is trying to play with word here and spewing nonsense and nothing else...

kvraghav · Post by **kvraghav** » 21 Apr 2010 12:17

I BEG eveyone, please read this PLEASE
http://mod.nic.in/aboutus/body.htm

Could you please also try to find when this comitee was formed and WHAT the function of the research organisations here?
I am sure this was formed very recently and i have read this.If you are quoting this article for the T-90 case,i dont think its relevant because i am sure it was formed after that.How convinently things are quoted,and since long that i am following this discussion,things have moved from Arjun non performance to Avaidi non quality and now that research organisations themself have approved the imports...

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 21 Apr 2010 12:22

Sanku wrote:[

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.

err ok - not sure I understand how MoD could negotiate weapons fit, use model (what does this mean?). Wouldn't IA have evaluated these items and made its recommendations based on the user trials? I think the basic issue that rohitvats is pointing out is that the IA evaluation and subsequent induction has effectively been a fait accompli for T-90.

It evaluated and recommended acquisition under Russian conditions. MoD at the time concluded that since Arjun was not in sight, so purchase an initial tranche of T-90.

However, since then the role of IA ( or DGMF) has been dubious to say the least. Initially it said that Arjun has technical problems. DRDO rectified. Then it said that it is too heavy. DRDO pointed to GSQRs. IA said - fine we will take 124 Arjuns but it does not fit our doctrine so T-90 will be our MBT. DRDO asks why? IA - it is a great tank. DRDO says - let us do comparitive trials. IA says - not fair T-90 are a different class of tanks. DRDO adamant. Trials happen Reports say Arjun outperforms in every sphere. IA says ok Arjun is great but will soon be obsolete we are looking at FMBT. Russia cancels FMBT program. IA says ok we will take some more Arjun Mk2s. So I'm afraid IA has to shoulder a lot of the blame in this fiasco.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Apr 2010 12:24

kvraghav wrote:
I BEG eveyone, please read this PLEASE
http://mod.nic.in/aboutus/body.htm
Could you please also try to find when this comitee was formed and WHAT the function of the research organisations here?
I am sure this was formed very recently and i have read this.If you are quoting this article for the T-90 case,i dont think its relevant because i am sure it was formed after that.How convinently things are quoted,and since long that i am following this discussion,things have moved from Arjun non performance to Avaidi non quality and now that research organisations themself have approved the imports...

No Sir you tell me. I have been providing too many answers to too many people who have not the first clue about the matter.

And the discussion has covered all the grounds because all those issues exist.

People are trying to solve MoD structure + Avadi non performance + lack of expertise by DRDO by cursing IA for not accepting Arjuns.

Sorry boys, this is how India is today. And thats why the parliamentary committee DOES NOT blame IA for the Arjun saga.

It could but it did not.

You dont like it? Your problem.

vonkabra · Post by **vonkabra** » 21 Apr 2010 12:26

To discuss a different perspective, can the Arjun and T-90 operate together in a mutually supportive manner? I know it hasn't been done in the last 50 years, but the Germans did use Tigers to spearhead armoured offensives with lighter Panzer IVs or Panthers as flank support quite effectively. Of course we're a long way from WWII and I really don't expect the IA to come up with such a doctrine, but it's something which might be interesting to discuss in the forum purely as an intellectual exercise.

I couldn't find this topic in the archives, so apologies if it has already been discussed.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Apr 2010 12:31

arnab wrote: err ok - not sure I understand how MoD could negotiate weapons fit, use model (what does this mean?).

Please read the part I quoted from the MoD site. MoD takes the decision based on feedback from three of its arms.

Wouldn't IA have evaluated these items and made its recommendations based on the user trials?

IA provides the test data and conclusions, correct, the test schedule etc is decided by MoD which seeks technical inputs. By the way there are engineers and scientists directly with MoD (not under DRDO, OFB etc) too who provide inputs.

MoD DOES NOT take IAs word for everything.

I think the basic issue that rohitvats is pointing out is that the IA evaluation and subsequent induction has effectively been a fait accompli for T-90.

Which is one word, WRONG. He is not correct.
It evaluated and recommended acquisition under Russian conditions. MoD at the time concluded that since Arjun was not in sight, so purchase an initial tranche of T-90.

However, since then the role of IA ( or DGMF) has been dubious to say the least. Initially it said that Arjun has technical problems. DRDO rectified. Then it said that it is too heavy. DRDO pointed to GSQRs. IA said - fine we will take 124 Arjuns but it does not fit our doctrine so T-90 will be our MBT. DRDO asks why? IA - it is a great tank. DRDO says - let us do comparitive trials. IA says - not fair T-90 are a different class of tanks. DRDO adamant. Trials happen Reports say Arjun outperforms in every sphere. IA says ok Arjun is great but will soon be obsolete we are looking at FMBT. Russia cancels FMBT program. IA says ok we will take some more Arjun Mk2s. So I'm afraid IA has to shoulder a lot of the blame in this fiasco.

Please note IA has NEVER placed on record saying that we wont order Arjuns due to weight or doctrine issues, IA carried out AUCRT as soon as it had enough tanks for the same.

A lot of it is DDM speculation quoting "informed sources".

The simple fact is IA ordered 124 Arjuns in 2000. They are NOT DELIVERED still. Let that happen with due quality.

The next steps will happen.

As simple as that.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Apr 2010 12:32

vonkabra wrote:To discuss a different perspective, can the Arjun and T-90 operate together in a mutually supportive manner?

Yes it can be, in different theaters of war different tanks can be used. Please read Dr Saraswats statements on the same above. posted by Austin.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 21 Apr 2010 12:32

kvraghav wrote:
I BEG eveyone, please read this PLEASE
http://mod.nic.in/aboutus/body.htm
Could you please also try to find when this comitee was formed and WHAT the function of the research organisations here?
I am sure this was formed very recently and i have read this.If you are quoting this article for the T-90 case,i dont think its relevant because i am sure it was formed after that.How convinently things are quoted,and since long that i am following this discussion,things have moved from Arjun non performance to Avaidi non quality and now that research organisations themself have approved the imports...

Consequent upon the Group of Ministers recommendations on 'Reforming the National Security System', Ministry of Defence vide its order dated 11 Oct 2001 had set up broad structures and systems to deal with acquisitions on the Capital Account.
An overarching structure, the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) under the Defence Minister was constituted for overall guidance of the defence procurement planning process. The composition of the DAC is as follows

Defence Acquisition Council
(a) Defence Minister Chairperson
(b) Minister of State for Defence Member
(c) Chief of Army Staff Member
(d) Chief of Naval Staff Member
(e) Chief of Air Staff Member
(f) Defence Secretary Member
(g) Secretary Defence Research & Development Member
(h) Secretary Defence Production Member
(i) Chief of Integrated Staff Committees HQ IDS Member
(j) Director General (Acquisition) Member
(k) Dy. Chief of Integrated Defence Staff Member Secretary

http://www.india-defence.com/reports/2729

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Apr 2010 12:37

rohitvats wrote:
It is only you who is trying to play with word here and spewing nonsense and nothing else...

Actually Rohit it seems that since you are shown be incorrect in your accusation you are resorting to personal attacks against me.

Kindly avoid.

The induction can ONLY happen AFTER purchase which can happen only after PNC which can happen only after in principle decision to purchase.

This entire set of events is choreographed by MoD (Not IA)

So my point about induction and acquisition is correct. Basic simple things.

These basic simple things are the key for understanding how the system functions.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Apr 2010 12:46

I echo Ramanna's idea.Perfect strategy to accomplish "Cold Start" ,"Hot Finish" whatever! Keep the tanks in an advanced posture where the tank makes a diference,in the deserts or terrain fronts if proven superior here.They could be cleverly dispersed,along with dummy tanks, to prevent initial attacks against them.The neccessity to transport them where infrastructure is wanting thwem does not arise,except for across the border! This is perhaps what the IA cannot say,which are its prime targets for our ground forces in another spat with the Porkis.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 21 Apr 2010 12:46

Sanku wrote:[
Wouldn't IA have evaluated these items and made its recommendations based on the user trials?
IA provides the test data and conclusions, correct, the test schedule etc is decided by MoD which seeks technical inputs. By the way there are engineers and scientists directly with MoD (not under DRDO, OFB etc) too who provide inputs.

MoD DOES NOT take IAs word for everything.

Sure - The MoD is the final arbitrater. But do note that it can only proceed if IA certifies the quality of the product as the end user. IOW, it can REJECT a product which IA says is very good, but it cannot ACCEPT a product that IA says is bad. Herein lies the crux of the Arjun saga.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Apr 2010 12:47

On a different note cross posting from TSP thread, a nightwatch post by Ramana

The second reason this is significant is that Shakargarh is the site of a battle that ended the India-Pakistan War in 1971. Indian multiple round rocket launcher units destroyed two Pakistan Army armored brigade in a strike division without ever engaging the tanks in direct fire in a matter of hours. The next day or so, Pakistan sued for peace. Firing in this location always is a reminder of December 1971. The timing suggests this incident is related to the next.

This sort of stuff tell us why IA decides on what it does.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 21 Apr 2010 12:48

IA has never been tasked to have a outlook towards R&D. You want it have a outlook, fine good, maybe personally I agree but what of it?They are not responsible to me or you. They are responsible to MoD. What does MoD want from them?

What has the presence of R&D establishment with IA got to do with 'Outlook' towards R&D? Did it require MOD approval or prodding for General SR Choudhary to designate 43rd Armored Regiment for induction of a Squadron worth of Arjun -to give user feedback to the DRDO? How is lack of R&D establishment related to lack of appreciation of complexities related to new product development or lack of sense of proprietor ship?

I do not think what the good general says supports your claim. He mentions ways in which IA and IN are different and IN has different approach.

He says IN has better aprproach which IA did not have....and which he was trying to rectify.

If it has cleared why do the AUCRT? Of course it did not clear all parameters of evaluation. It only cleared development

Dude, you're so full of bluff and bluster....AUCRT refers to Accelerated Usage cum Reliability trials. Trials for evaluating the engineering and spare parts support of the tank. It is done after the tank is inducted into the service - which Arjun was before it went for AUCRT.

Read this:

The ongoing trials in Pokhran that the army is citing are Accelerated Usage cum Reliability Trials (AUCRT). In these, two Arjun tanks were run almost non-stop for 3000 kilometers, not to judge performance, but to evaluate the tank’s requirement of spare parts, fuel and lubricants during its entire service life. In fact, it is the Arjun’s developer, the Central Vehicle R&D Laboratory (CVRDE), Avadi, that has long demanded comparative trials, where the performance of five Arjuns would be gauged against five Russian T-90s and T-72s. The army has consistently sidestepped that invitation.

The army has also testified incorrectly to the Standing Committee about four engine failures during the recent AUCRT. In fact, sources closely associated with the trials say, the problems were with four gearboxes, manufactured by German company, Renk AG. A world leader in transmission systems, Renk representatives are already in Pokhran and Avadi, analysing and resolving the problem.

The army does not mention, but problems were also experienced with four hydro-pneumatic suspension units (HSUs), which leaked after the Arjuns had run 2000 kilometers. But the Arjun’s makers say 2000 kilometers is the service life of the suspension; normally they would have been replaced before the point at which they leaked.

No IA only gave initial clearance and the purchase was taken after AUCRT.

And btw, AUCRT of T-90 was done after it was inducted....

In contrast 124 Arjuns were purchase before AUCRT. The IA had to order 124 otherwise AUCRT could not happen.

All tanks are purchased before AUCRT.....

go, read up first and then give us gyaan

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 21 Apr 2010 12:55

Please note IA has NEVER placed on record saying that we wont order Arjuns due to weight or doctrine issues, IA carried out AUCRT as soon as it had enough tanks for the same.

- it needed grand total of 2 tanks.....

You don't know jack shit about the subject at hand and come with 'I-know-it-all' attitude......

kvraghav · Post by **kvraghav** » 21 Apr 2010 13:03

self delete

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 21 Apr 2010 13:13

Sanku wrote: 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.

Except they were used to discredit the product instead of providing positive feedback. Now you will probably ask for proof of that, nevermind how the trials were cancelled and dragged

I couldn't make any sense of this article, but since you sir are an Oldie and far advanced in your comprehension, you may be in a better position to grasp content of this.. Broadsword - April 2008
Enlighten us please!

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

Exactly!!!! So how much is it GoI's fault if data is being used to discredit the product in front of GoI instead of improving the product with DRDO. Before you answer that, just think about how IA's stance changed since last few years and what major changes did Arjun go through to warrant that?

IAs job is not to provide reports which give room for MoD to maneuver, their job is to give factual reports which they do.

Nobody said otherwise on former. And the latter may be accurate in the letter, but not spirit. Contrast with T-90!!

This is probably Nth time these snippets are being posted on this thread.. but what the hell.. as long as it makes people happy going

, I am happy.

"The Arjun cannot mature any further. The Army needs a futuristic tank that can serve its needs well beyond the next three decades. MBT Arjun does not come even close to fulfilling that.”

Business Standard has learned from three different members of the Standing Committee on Defence that it is more than “startled”; it is frankly disbelieving of the army’s deposition. In its last annual report for 2007-08, the committee was told by the MoD that the Arjun tank was:

* “A product unique in its class”, and “an improved system over the T-72.”
* “Rs 6-8 crores cheaper than its contemporary system in the West”.
* “Far superior (in firing accuracy) to the other two tanks (T-72 and T-90)”.
* “Driven for over 60,000 kms and fired more than 8,000 rounds. There was no problem.”

After the army representative slammed the Arjun, the Standing Committee chairman, Balasaheb Vikhe Patil, as well as the Defence Secretary, and several other members agreed that the committee would formulate a clear policy on India’s tank of the future. Underlying this decision is the belief amongst most members of the Standing Committee that the army is biased against the Arjun tank, and in favour of continuing to use Russian T-72 and T-90 tanks.

There were clear factual inaccuracies in the army’s deposition before the Standing Committee. The most glaring of them is the army’s suggestion that it is carrying out trials on the Arjun’s performance. In fact, the army has already accepted the Arjun for introduction into service, based upon its driving and firing performance over years. After firing trials in summer 2006, the trial report (written by the army) said, “The accuracy and consistency of the Arjun has been proved beyond doubt.”

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Apr 2010 13:41

arnab wrote: Sure - The MoD is the final arbitrater. But do note that it can only proceed if IA certifies the quality of the product as the end user. IOW, it can REJECT a product which IA says is very good, but it cannot ACCEPT a product that IA says is bad. Herein lies the crux of the Arjun saga.

I completely agree Sir with a minor modification. All tests of Arjun so far are not IA alone tests. They have been held in conjugation with other arms of MoD. So anything IA says, the arms (OFB+DRDO) have signed on too.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Apr 2010 13:44

rohitvats wrote:
Please note IA has NEVER placed on record saying that we wont order Arjuns due to weight or doctrine issues, IA carried out AUCRT as soon as it had enough tanks for the same.

- it needed grand total of 2 tanks.....

You don't know jack shit about the subject at hand and come with 'I-know-it-all' attitude......

Rohit it is you who does not know the basics of the system, and are covering that up with random attacks.

I expected better.

vonkabra · Post by **vonkabra** » 21 Apr 2010 13:46

Sanku wrote:
vonkabra wrote:To discuss a different perspective, can the Arjun and T-90 operate together in a mutually supportive manner?
Yes it can be, in different theaters of war different tanks can be used. Please read Dr Saraswats statements on the same above. posted by Austin.

Um, am aware of that, however was actually thinking of them being used together in the same war theater. The normal German practice was to allot some Tiger units to the sector where a breakthrough was being planned. These Tiger units would then be supported by the other armoured units taking part in the offensive. The other practice was to integrate a Tiger unit as part of the basic component of elite armoured divisions to act as armoured spearheads while the bulk of the divisions would still be equipped with PzKpfw IV/ Panthers.

In the Indian context this would translate into either keeping independent Arjun units which would be allocated to frontal areas where major offensives are being planned to act as the armoured spearheads or to have the a few Arjun regiments included in the basic structure of armoured/ mechanised infantry divisions along with the T-90s. In both cases the Arjuns would be operating with T-90s or T-72s acting in supporting roles in the same operation.

As mentioned, this is going to be highly unlikely to be ever put into practice, but would be interesting to discuss as a theory. It's just a coincidence that the Arjun's weight is close to that of a Tiger 1 while the T-90s weight is close to that of a Panther.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Apr 2010 13:46

Do we anticipate PA to procure equal number of M1A2 Abrams via FMS when IA inducts Arjun ?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 21 Apr 2010 13:51

Sanku wrote:
Please note IA has NEVER placed on record saying that we wont order Arjuns due to weight or doctrine issues, IA carried out AUCRT as soon as it had enough tanks for the same.

- it needed grand total of 2 tanks.....

You don't know jack shit about the subject at hand and come with 'I-know-it-all' attitude......

Rohit it is you who does not know the basics of the system, and are covering that up with random attacks.

I expected better.

First, you make wrong assumptions (without bothering to read and verify the information), then base an argument on the wrong assumption and one corrects the same, you call the other person not knowing the basic?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Apr 2010 13:52

a_kumar wrote:
Sanku wrote: 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.
Except they were used to discredit the product instead of providing positive feedback. Now you will probably ask for proof of that, nevermind how the trials were cancelled and dragged

That in a essence is the difference between DDM and BRF.

In DDM any one who can get print space can air any inanity but on BRF they get challenged.

Exactly!!!! So how much is it GoI's fault if data is being used to discredit the product in front of GoI instead of improving the product with DRDO. Before you answer that, just think about how IA's stance changed since last few years and what major changes did Arjun go through to warrant that?

Because Duh, the tests are not some black boxes held by IA in some dark room. It has a clear paper trail, tests are predefined and data shared with DRDO and OFB along with MoD babus (who include engineers)

IAs stance has changed due to some minor things
1) The tank actually getting made for a change. Big change.
2) The tank passing the tests, finally.
3) Quality control issues tackled.

It is as simple as that.

BS from BS wrote:Business Standard has learned from three different members of the Standing Committee on Defence that it is more than “startled”; it is frankly disbelieving of the army’s deposition. In its last annual report for 2007-08, the committee was told by the MoD that the Arjun tank was:

Yet the 2007-8 standing committee report severely castigates Avadi for QC issues and does not talk about issues in army's deposition.

SO what happened, of course IA got them to hide their views that must be it.

So IA is the dark lord which has power not only over OFB but the entire DRDO, Scientific advisor to RM, the RM and assorted members of parliament too?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Apr 2010 13:55

rohitvats wrote: First, you make wrong assumptions (without bothering to read and verify the information), then base an argument on the wrong assumption and one corrects the same, you call the other person not knowing the basic?

Give it a miss Rohit, the blame IA for Arjun is flawed period. Too many stake holders of which IA is only one. Being upset at me or questioning my basics does not change a thing.

All my data is completely accurate. Please show with conclusive proofs of a single thing I said which is incorrect.

I have posted far too many official links far too many times to need to do this.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Apr 2010 13:56

Sanku , I suggest you stop responding and lets wait what decision GOI takes on Arjun fate.
EDIT.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 21 Apr 2010 14:01

Austin wrote:Sanku , I suggest you stop responding and lets wait what decision GOI takes on Arjun fate.

Cant wait to see what happens to fanboys when GOI takes that decision , I mean their faces

Of course the T-90 fanboys will be celebrating if and when the IA rejects an indigenous product for a Russian one forcing the GOI to do the same. What's there to

about in that?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Apr 2010 14:07

vonkabra wrote: As mentioned, this is going to be highly unlikely to be ever put into practice, but would be interesting to discuss as a theory. It's just a coincidence that the Arjun's weight is close to that of a Tiger 1 while the T-90s weight is close to that of a Panther.

Well it certainly is a possibility, but the issue will be logistics and terrain.

To operate a tank needs a large support train, which is even more important in case of Arjun (for various reasons) so splitting them and spreading them thin does not make sense to me

T 90s are more than good enough to break through pretty much anything the Paki's have, unlike the Germans, who were numerically inferior, IA is not going to be either numerically or qualitatively inferior, hence the need for German tactics may not exist.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 21 Apr 2010 14:24

Sanku wrote:T 90s are more than good enough to break through pretty much anything the Paki's have, unlike the Germans, who were numerically inferior, IA is not going to be either numerically or qualitatively inferior, hence the need for German tactics may not exist.

We donot improve ourselfs until we are kicked in ass .... and who is saying throw away all the T-90. Question here is to replace T-72's and slowly build infrastructure for next iteration then sit and wait until China/pak get something better and then buy new solution in hurry .... saying lion is coming.... take cover. Why dont we get better tanks in less number with more crew then too many old tanks with less crew. Solution could be melt the old tanks and place the crew on new tanks. So poor crew is in battel field, not for canon fodder but to kick the enemy ass.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Apr 2010 14:30

RKumar wrote:
Sanku wrote:T 90s are more than good enough to break through pretty much anything the Paki's have, unlike the Germans, who were numerically inferior, IA is not going to be either numerically or qualitatively inferior, hence the need for German tactics may not exist.
We donot improve ourselfs until we are kicked in ass .... and who is saying throw away all the T-90. Question here is to replace T-72's and slowly build infrastructure for next iteration then sit and wait until China/pak get something better and then buy new solution in hurry .... saying lion is coming.... take cover. Why dont we get better tanks in less number with more crew then too many old tanks with less crew. Solution could be melt the old tanks and place the crew on new tanks. So poor crew is in battel field, not for canon fodder but to kick the enemy ass.

I am lost? I made that statement in a very specific context, of the need to mix Arjun and T 90 in a single action, for the next 10 years, I dont see that happening (assuming a 500 tank force level for Arjun), that is all.

I am a MAJOR proponent of build in India thought process. I would love nothing more if Arjun's and its derivatives form 2000+ numbers.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 21 Apr 2010 14:33

I am a MAJOR proponent of build in India process. <missing thought>

I am also not suggesting put 50-50% of T-90 and Arjun in one tank formation. But have clearly defined tank formations.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 21 Apr 2010 16:12

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

Dear Sanku

read again the Yes minister part of it. Babus assist for their pound of flesh.

Behind the scene a rocket was sent to the DGMF - maybe one day it will come out.

Since some people wanted chirps

Shukla posted the biggest chirp on the erstwhile DGMF attempts to run over the honest men from 43 AR.

And NOT A CHIRP from DGMF or anyone. Wisely of course because Shukla probably has more, waiting to spring if they do.

And in all this there was no involvement of MOD -

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Apr 2010 16:20

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

Dear Sanku

read again the Yes minister part of it. Babus assist for their pound of flesh.

Sir I have both volumes, but all said and done, that is in Britain. Here the Indian babus have the added trait of pathological hatred for Olive green, inculcated in them by Nehru et al. But that is OT.

Since some people wanted chirps

Sir we can quote all sort of other chirps from outside too. By Chirp I mean a specific from the official sources chirp. A DRDO or a OFB or a MoD statement.

Note in its latest avatar the Arjun saga has already seen 10+ years (since 1998 tests) 4 GoIs, three defence ministers, many Chiefs, many DRDO heads and what not.

And clearly this is a important issue, as seen by the intrest of parliamentary standing committee in the matter.

Yet -- officially -- no chirps.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Apr 2010 16:38

Will there be apprehension in IA mind if India inducts Arjun in large number , PA may opt for M1A2 Abrams from US as counter response. I would expect the PA to react in some ways to Arjun induction and FMS is just a call away.

niran · Post by **niran** » 21 Apr 2010 16:58

Austin wrote:Will there be apprehension in IA mind if India inducts Arjun in large number , PA may opt for M1A2 Abrams from US as counter response. I would expect the PA to react in some ways to Arjun induction and FMS is just a call away.

Sir, where would TFPA get the moolah to buy them. certainly not IMF or WB, no?
uptil now onlee farin sale of Abrams have been to Mexico, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Asstralia, and co-production
with Ayegipt. The list clearly is biased towards mucho chummy countries with Unkil, i.e. Chummy with moolah
to spend, not chummy with a katoora to beg.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 21 Apr 2010 17:00

Austin wrote:Will there be apprehension in IA mind if India inducts Arjun in large number , PA may opt for M1A2 Abrams from US as counter response. I would expect the PA to react in some ways to Arjun induction and FMS is just a call away.

Why should we worry about what will be Pak's reaction... so IA is happy to compete with pak only .... when 3 services are talking about 2 front war. We need the capacity to wipe PA quick then concenrate on other front. If keep our all energy wasted on PA then we will loss most of the North east and all east states to China.

I am having difficult time to understand high level IA doctrine, planning, training and procurement.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Apr 2010 17:03

niran wrote:Sir, where would TFPA get the moolah to buy them. certainly not IMF or WB, no?
uptil now onlee farin sale of Abrams have been to Mexico, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Asstralia, and co-production
with Ayegipt. The list clearly is biased towards mucho chummy countries with Unkil, i.e. Chummy with moolah to spend, not chummy with a katoora to beg.

Well who has been supplying arms to Pakistan for past 50 years , they have their god fathers who can supply them arms on easy credit or better free to fight jihadi's and tactically it would be the easiest way to get a heavy tank

RKumar , major Tank warfare will be limited to Paki only theater , did you say wipe Pak ......thats not going to happen with Nuclear weapons in their hand.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 21 Apr 2010 17:06

Austin wrote:RKumar , major Tank warfare will be limited to Paki only theater , did you say wipe Pak ......thats not going to happen with Nuclear weapons in their hand.

Sir with due respect ... I am not blood thrusty...

We need the capacity to wipe PA quick then concenrate on other front

Edited : it was not my intention to add religion/color ...etc.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 21 Apr 2010 17:12

Austin wrote:
niran wrote:Sir, where would TFPA get the moolah to buy them. certainly not IMF or WB, no?
uptil now onlee farin sale of Abrams have been to Mexico, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Asstralia, and co-production
with Ayegipt. The list clearly is biased towards mucho chummy countries with Unkil, i.e. Chummy with moolah to spend, not chummy with a katoora to beg.
Well who has been supplying arms to Pakistan for past 50 years , they have their god fathers who can supply them arms on easy credit or better free to fight jihadi's and tactically it would be the easiest way to get a heavy tank

RKumar , major Tank warfare will be limited to Paki only theater , did you say wipe Pak ......thats not going to happen with Nuclear weapons in their hand.

The US is relying on Pakistani support for its campaign in Afghanistan(though its now switching to central asian 'tan states), but they no intention of pumping up the Pakistani military machine anymore than they have to. Its one thing to gift unarmed drones and another to gift a fleet of $7 million tanks. It took two decades of whining before the PAF got it beloved embargoed F-16s.

On a different note, the PA did evaluate the M1 in the 'glory days' of Zia and friends, but rejected it. Probably too expensive, not mention it would sink like a stone in the soft sands of the Thar(high ground pressure).

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 21 Apr 2010 17:13

RKumar wrote:
Austin wrote:RKumar , major Tank warfare will be limited to Paki only theater , did you say wipe Pak ......thats not going to happen with Nuclear weapons in their hand.
EDITED.

Lets not have religious slurs on the forum.