Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Apr 2010 21:13

Austin, arent shaped charges decades old concept?

did you tandem warhead design? that is used to detonate the ERA layer and the 2nd
warhead strikes the main armour, thus defeating the ERA protection against unitary charge.

none of the western heavies use ERA, they rely on composite armour whose equivalent in steel thickness is said to be 1 meter on frontal and side aspects of
turret and front of hull.

israel uses NERA (non explosive reactive armour) layer on merkava thats claimed to
have same effect as ERA without the danger. they probably went for this because
merkavas operate a lot in urban and semi-urban with lots of foot soldiers around.

Russia is lagging in ballistics and their rounds cannot seem to be able to
penetrate 1000mm of steel at 2km when arriving at velocity of 1400m/sec because
thats the equivalent of hitting a western heavy from frontal aspect.

as for TI, the russians themselves decided to buy french and not rely on their own
kit. fine for them due to being cooler weather up there.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/a-c ... nks-03696/

imho we should work more with israel for hot weather optronics because conditions
in the negev in summer cannot be pleasant and there's plenty of sand and dust.
and unlike france which has no real use for its tanks, the israelis do maintain a good
fighting core that needs stuff to work in the field, not just in parades.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Apr 2010 21:50

Singha wrote:did you tandem warhead design? that is used to detonate the ERA layer and the 2nd
warhead strikes the main armour, thus defeating the ERA protection against unitary charge.

Yes I mean tandem warhead design the kind used on Nag and Trigat , even if a single hit from Nag and Trigat with Top Attack Capability can disable or kill western heavies like Abrams then tank is really at a big disadvantage , the only option is then to rely on Active Defence like Trophy or Arena but its still a big disadvantage if what they claim about tandem warhead is true specially when backed by nimble choppers.

none of the western heavies use ERA, they rely on composite armour whose equivalent in steel thickness is said to be 1 meter on frontal and side aspects of
turret and front of hull.

Composites armour is used on all modern tank including T-90 , but yes the thickness can vary between Eastern and Western system , but we never know if qualitatively there is a marked difference between Eastern , Western and Indian composites armour.

Russia is lagging in ballistics and their rounds cannot seem to be able to
penetrate 1000mm of steel at 2km when arriving at velocity of 1400m/sec because
thats the equivalent of hitting a western heavy from frontal aspect.

Interesting where did you get this from ? Didnt one of the member claimed that long rod FSAPDS was in the make similar to western penetration

as for TI, the russians themselves decided to buy french and not rely on their own
kit. fine for them due to being cooler weather up there.

Yes true they lag in development of modern TI and their french connection and tested by India makes their life easier , Ruskies should pay us royalty for every T-90 tank they manage to export , Ruskies may be bragging to their customer how IA is using in different terrain and must be one of their selling point.

imho we should work more with israel for hot weather optronics because conditions
in the negev in summer cannot be pleasant and there's plenty of sand and dust.
and unlike france which has no real use for its tanks, the israelis do maintain a good
fighting core that needs stuff to work in the field, not just in parades.

Yep , some one long time back on this thread was claiming quite a few Israel connection with Arjun

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Apr 2010 22:10

that must have been denil. no one knows if he was a indic teenager or a israeli youth scientist smoking cannabis in rishikesh. had a great run he did. put more paki undies in a knot than a entire squad of BR vets.

wrt to the russian rounds, there has not been a test with latest russian ones vs western composite armour. the ones in iraq-1 scored numerous hits on western tanks but didnt break the frontal protection mostly (western armour was also of 80s vintage). in iraq-2 there was no significant tank vs tank battle. the Kornet missiles are pretty good, but generally jeep/dismounted ATGM shooters do not stand any chance if helicopter gunships and scout IFVs are providing cover to tanks...most these "uday fidayeen" got taken out by cobra gunships and IFV cannons before they could unleash major volleys. us army also has a huge amt of 155mm SP guns and
MLRS and doesnt hesitate to "call in" and use them super liberally.

from our POV, Pakis can be assumed to have the best that ukraine and china can
drum up together. this a bar thats constantly being raised. we need the best in the world to have a decisive superiority, rather than something at the ukraineish level.

instead of importing 1000 T90, if import is a fetish, I would support 500 Leo2A6 instead, with the new L55 cannon - probably the best tank cannon in the world at present ..very chi chi and tfta

and that would get us the latest MTU
engine for Arjun which would function as the "second string" and number 1500

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Apr 2010 22:31

From what I have read the rule of the game during Soviet times ( due to security and being paranoid society they were ) were 3 grades of weapon system were available , one for Soviet Army which was best of breed ,so soviet will keep say best of T-72 model with Armour and weapons , the second grade were for Warsaw nation where by an large the weapons were of same type but some crucial systems like cypher or latest and greatest type of ammo or ERA were avoided , so that they do not fall into Western hand incase something worse happens.

The 3rd type were certainly the downgraded types available for exports , so even if these were compromised they would not affect significantly similar soviet or warsaw systems , it can be anybody guess where did we fell and what equipment we got from the three categories.

But it will not come as a surprise if the Iraqi T-72 did not manage to do any thing except dent the Abrams which were the latest and best the americans had and T-72 exactly were a generation older compared to what SU operated then which were T-80.

No wonder US made a mince meat of T-72 , the fight was no match as it was with best of western system versus degraded exported T-72's and I am not sure how well trained the iraqis were , but no amount of training could have saved them when faced with Abrams.

Singha indeed Denil , where did he dissapeared ?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Apr 2010 22:47

Austin, the reports consistently say that other than National guards and the Fidayeen types, most Iraqi's quickly gave up once the lead few tanks were destroyed.

En mass surrender and everything.

It was not even Tank vs Tank in most cases. The first wave to go in was air, second was tank, often supported by air borne spotters, AND backed by MLRS and 155 mm guns.

I feel sorry for the Iraqi's.

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

w.r.t. Soviet caste system in def production--

And where did India fit in?

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 22 Apr 2010 23:47

Sanku wrote:
Misraji wrote:....
Why are you jumping from one end to another.
I made a specific statement -- there are no known issues with T 90 barring the TI konking some times in Summer heat.
A modicum of sense and logic will go a long way in not wasting time.

Oye oye. Am I the jumping??

This whole bloody mess started with me quoting you on how "SOME" TI's cooked off when Vina spoke of
reports about 25% TI's not working.
I gave a link saying that 80-90 Catherine TI's conked off. This was from a batch of 347 tanks
How is that some??

Since you discredited that citing dubious sources and how the problems were in Indian made T-90,
Ajai Shukla's link was given which again talked about how the Catherine TI conked off in operation Parakram.
I acknowledge that he reported the additional problems of ammunition and missiles was there.

But I am NOT focussing on that
While I have been giving various links giving host of problems of T-90, the focus was always
on the Catherine TI.

The other poster Pankaj seemed to have understood that because he asked you if the problem was with
Indian made equipment then was Catherine TI made in India too??

Try reading what I have written. I have said very clearly twice that I am talking only about TI.
All this singing and dancing about Indian problems in T-90, Indian ammunition and flogging dead horses
are your posts.

Then you wanna shift the focus away from the main argument by say barring the main point of argument
tell me other problems with T-90.

and use that wonderful statistic to conclude that a TI is bad because the American TI worked at Iraq in Feb night whereas French TI failed a few times in THAR in JUNE afternoon.

All that was being said was the TI was the decisive factor in that battle with the desert storms raging
And we may not have that with Catherine TI's conking off.

Simmbbly amazing way of arguing. You have either a serious problem with comprehension or
you are a master at FUD.

Regards,
Ashish.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Apr 2010 23:47

Austin wrote:^^^ Its 2006 news , do those flaws still exists or has been rectified , As per Sanku post presently there are no known flaws in T-90's except for the rare TI issue due to extreme heat.

Creating straw man again, are we?

This is from February 2010 article from Ajai Shukla’s Blog:

The TI sights remain a problem. The army has decided to fit each T-90 with an Environment Control System, to cool the delicate electronics with a stream of chilled air. None of the world’s current tanks, other than France’s LeClerc, has such a system. The American Abrams and the British Challenger tanks fought in the Iraq desert without air-conditioning. India’s Arjun tank, too, has “hardened” electronics that function perfectly even in the Rajasthan summer

This is 26th July 2008 report on Ajai Shukla’s blog:

Meanwhile, the 310 T-90s, which have been delivered by Russia and introduced into service, are far from battle worthy. The crucial tank Fire Control System (FCS), especially the Thermal Imaging Sight, through which the crew aims and fires at the enemy, has failed to function in Indian summers. An obliging Russian industry body, Rosoboronexport, offered to sell India “tank air conditioners”, even though no other tank in our inventory needs or uses air-conditioning.

The Russian air-conditioners were put through trials, which were a miserable failure. The driver of the trial tank fainted from heatstroke. Now the MoD has floated a global tender for air-conditioning the T-90s, as well as the T-72s which have functioned without air-conditioners for the last 29 years.

This is 8th July 2008 news article on NDTV:

With the Army’s T-90 Main Battle Tanks (MBT) facing heat due to failure of fire control systems at very high temperatures, the government has floated Request for Information (RFI) for integrating air-conditioning system along with additional power source in its entire fleet of the Russian tanks.
”A large fleet of T-90 tanks would require to be fitted with environment control system with Auxillary Power Unit (APU), following Indian Army’s decision to upgrade the T-90 equipment,” top Army sources said.

The failure of fire control systems and its computerized sensors and sophisticated panels were noticed during T-90 trials in Rajasthan deserts, where systems conked off while operating in temperatures over 45 degree Celsius, sources said.

Indian Army’s major armoured forces concentration was in Rajasthan deserts and Punjab’s plains, facing western frontiers with Pakistan, where temperatures during summer are usually quite high.

From DNA India – 6th July 2008:

NEW DELHI: With the Army's T-90 Main Battle Tanks (MBT) facing heat due to failure of fire control systems at very high temperatures, the government has floated Request for Information (RFI) for integrating air-conditioning system along with additional power source in its entire fleet of the Russian tanks.

"A large fleet of T-90 tanks would require to be fitted with environment control system with Auxillary Power Unit (APU), following Indian Army's decision to upgrade the T-90 equipment," top Army sources said.

The failure of fire control systems and its computerized sensors and sophisticated panels were noticed during T-90 trials in Rajasthan deserts, where systems conked off while operating in temperatures over 45 degree Celsius, sources said.
Indian Army's major armoured forces concentration was in Rajasthan deserts and Punjab's plains, facing western frontiers with Pakistan, where temperatures during summer are usually quite high.

India had contracted to purchase 310 T-90 tanks from Russia in February 2001 in a USD 795 million deal. The first lot of 124 T-90s was picked off the shelf and another 186 imported in a semi knocked down condition for assembling in Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) in Avadhi near Chennai.

In 2006, India also decided to produce nearly 1,000 T-90s till 2020 to make it the backbone of its Army's armoured vehicles strength. Last year, India placed an add-on order for additional 330 T-90 tanks, indicating it would be its MBT for the next decade or so.

Though Defence Ministry (MOD) was keen that the environment control system was integrated within India, it would not be averse to the idea of foreign companies participating in the upgrade programme, but would have to conform to the new off-set clause in its Defence Procurement Policy announced in 2006 aimed at energising Indian defence industry.

Through RFI, India wanted interested companies to state if they were willing to provide the equipment for trials at 'No Cost No Commitment' basis, and the level of technology they would transfer to a firm nominated by MOD for the equipment's integration into the entire fleet of T-90s.

The RFI asked private companies, interested in the upgrade programme and integration of cooling systems, to declare their Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) status or authorisation from OEMs to deal with MOD.

"It is going to be a major task to integrate the environment control system along with APU in the first lot of 310 T-90s, and later in future lots of 1,000 and 330 tanks," sources said.

The Defense Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) would be roped in for the project that would require some hardcore re-engineering work, as the tank was already jam-packed with equipment and had no more space for an air-condition unit

What a wasteful way of dealing with one-off problem of TI conking off....

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 23 Apr 2010 00:24

Sanku wrote: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?

IA was hardly the "dark lord". What is obvious to most is that it played the role of a partisan evaluator and you must know what mischief a biased evaluator can do!!

Sanku wrote: The need to bring up T 90 every time Arjun is mentioned is as misplaced as deciding IA is single handedly driving Arjun's destiny.

Both are misplaced statements.

You say that now because it is convenient. But didn't IA use T-90 to sideline Arjun? You need sources for that too??

Putting words in others mouths like likening IA's role to "controlling GoI or OFB or DRDO or Scientific advisor to RM.. blah.. blah" OR "single-handadly driving arjun's desity", is melodrama and is amusing.

I thought we can do better than that, but hey post count is hardly a barometer for that.. so fireaway!!

Sanku wrote:These are not T 90 problems but teething problems in establishing its in house manufacture and ToT.

Can you explain what is meant by ToT? Comparing "apple to apple", what would be called ToT in Arjun's context and what problems might we have there?

Sanku wrote:To compare apple to apple Arjun had issues in 2007 (AUCRT) that T 90 passed before 2000.

Since you say apple to apple, can you please provide sources pointing to how T-90 came out with flying colors (2000) on aspects that Arjun succeeded and failed (2007) with respect to respective GSQRs!

Just so you know, if IA/GoI had to cut corners in 1999, that is fine given the conditions of the time. But if the same courtesy is not extended to Arjun in its nascent stage, then most would call it step-motherly treatment.

--Added later.

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.

That is encouraging. But big part of being MAJOR proponent, is to support nurturing the product.

If the product is world class already, then there won't be any need for anybody to be a proponent of it, because its an obvious choice to users. But getting there takes a lot of user feedback and unwavering support, there are no two ways about it.

Now, Arjun is there, but it made it there "in spite of IA's resistance" rather than "because of IAs support" to it. Sad really!

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 23 Apr 2010 01:16

Austin wrote:If GOI report does not show serious flaw on equipment purchased then we should give more credibility to GOI report than to any blog-wlog ,Janes Wanes, agera wagera.

What should we do "If GoI report shows flaw", should we then "NOT give more credibility to GoI report"? Wow!! lengths we are going to!!!!

You might want to disregard that and not respond to so that you can bring in a new strawman when that happens.

Austin wrote:Irrespective of the merits of news from Janes ( could be the infamous Rahul Bedi ) , Tropicalisation of imported equipment has always been a challange for Indian Defence Force.

Wouldnt any Russian tanks have issue with extreme heat ( like Thar ) , though I am not aware but I think Russian climate tend to be on the opposite side which is extreme cold and most likely their tanks are throughly tested in those climate that they face or likely to face then our.
So any system procured from russia has to be get the appropriate change done ( minor or major ) to meet Indian requirement.

Very interesting and amusing.

If you do this to justify IA's role in 1999, then its overdoing. All you have to say is that "In 1999-2000, we didn't have an alternative, so we did what we had to and cut corners". period.

But, if you use all this to support continuous support of T-90 against Arjun, then it is hypocritical to say both the below ones.

T-90 : Fancy phrases like giving time for "Tropicalization of imported equipment" & "need appropriate change done (minor or major)". All this 5-7 years after the trials.
Arjun : Lets beat up makers of Arjun.. DRDO made IA wait for so long, so whats the hurry, even if they have a good tank now!!!

It seemed like IA wanted to do Window shopping in 2005. Its all fine and dandy, but if the store belongs to your own family, then one would think you would go "beyond window-shopping", get in there and try to see how to make it successful.

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 23 Apr 2010 02:22

If GOI report does not show serious flaw on equipment purchased then we should give more credibility to GOI report than to any blog-wlog ,Janes Wanes, agera wagera.

Interesting. That was not your viewpoint viz-a-viz Dr Santhanam and thermonuclear fizzle issue.
Did this change of heart happen because of involvement of IA/DGMF?

~Ashish

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 23 Apr 2010 04:13

Misraji wrote:
Did this change of heart happen because of involvement of IA/DGMF?

No! But because it is a Russian product.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Apr 2010 07:54

Misraji wrote:
If GOI report does not show serious flaw on equipment purchased then we should give more credibility to GOI report than to any blog-wlog ,Janes Wanes, agera wagera.
Interesting. That was not your viewpoint viz-a-viz Dr Santhanam and thermonuclear fizzle issue.
Did this change of heart happen because of involvement of IA/DGMF?

~Ashish

OT but Santy was a whistle blower , DRDO/Santy gave reports which did not agree with BARC assesment on this matter ( Instrumentation failure blah blah ) , GOI in its wisdom decided to go with with BARC assesment on TN issue and that TN was a success etc etc.

My personal and many in BR believed that GOI LIED on this , but we all understand that GOI takes its own decision and there is nothing we can do accept whine.

These two are entirely different issue and strategically its far more important issue to the nation then some tank wank debate , BRF has discussed enough on TN issue and BR had its own casulty.

It is in no way connected with T-90 or Arjun debate , apple and orange comparison

So Please do not bring my views on TN issue and then try to create confusion or call me pro-russian if I have a certain view on T-90.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Apr 2010 08:06

Sanku wrote:Austin, the reports consistently say that other than National guards and the Fidayeen types, most Iraqi's quickly gave up once the lead few tanks were destroyed.

En mass surrender and everything.

It was not even Tank vs Tank in most cases. The first wave to go in was air, second was tank, often supported by air borne spotters, AND backed by MLRS and 155 mm guns.

I feel sorry for the Iraqi's.

----------------------------
Yeah the result would have been no different even if Iraqi had been operating M1A2 , they were simbly outclassed , outmatched and outnumbered

w.r.t. Soviet caste system in def production--

And where did India fit in?

The general opinion is we got what the Warsaw got for most defense equipment.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Apr 2010 08:26

a_kumar wrote: What should we do "If GoI report shows flaw", should we then "NOT give more credibility to GoI report"? Wow!! lengths we are going to!!!!

GOI report pointing issues in Arjun or T-90 or any system has far more credibility then any blog wlog , these blog wlog have their own agenda to drive on and have their own rabid fanboy audience that they have to cater to on some issues.

So if Mr Ajai Shukla says "Arjun is a World Beater Tank Army wants more test" his blog hits will soar , compared to topic likes "IA accepts T-90 after rectifying Flaws" , Ajai shukla is a very respected and reliable blogger but is not infallible

I am fairly certain opinions on IA will change overnight if GOI approves 1000 Arjun Mk2 purchase after this trial, then the men in olive will be the darling of every BRF'ite and the blame will fall on Natasha lobby for misleading the IA and bribing the GOI into huge purchase of T-90's

Fancy phrases like giving time for "Tropicalization of imported equipment" & "need appropriate change done (minor or major)". All this 5-7 years after the trials.

The IN took nearly ~ 12 - 15 years to make their Kilo work well in the tropical climate of Arabian Sea after lot of persistent and painstaking effort by Navy and Indian Industry to rectify the battery , cooling and sensor issue of Kilo all after commissioning the sub.

Similarly Jags engine derating issue due to extreme heat wont dissapear till IAF gets the new engine that can give desired performance in Hot and High climate.

So if T-90 faced the same issue in Indian conditions and got rectified over a period of time it doesn't come as a surprise.

Tropicalization is no fancy issue for Defence Forces but a fact of life to live ,deal and overcome it.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 23 Apr 2010 08:27

well the problem is even in the cases where the Iraqis fired at M1s, rounds did not do any damage or fell short.

So lets look for something more equal equal

T 72 vs Merkava 1 in Lebanon 82.

Barring the Russians everyone will agree that the T 72s got blown up. The tank crews are pretty evenly matched and there were swarms of saggers and rpgs. Essentially the same thing as 73 with the previous tin cans.

The merkavas like the Centurions etc before out ranged and out gunned the tin cans

Lets now resume comparing a ship to a tank

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 23 Apr 2010 08:30

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Apr 2010 09:14

I recall reading one magazine as a kid where a IDF pilot commented unfavourably about the arab T72 tendency to blow up
when hit. he said it was a 'tinderbox' iirc.

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 23 Apr 2010 09:20

Austin wrote: OT but Santy was a whistle blower , DRDO/Santy gave reports which did not agree with BARC assesment on this matter ( Instrumentation failure blah blah ) , GOI in its wisdom decided to go with with BARC assesment on TN issue and that TN was a success etc etc.

My personal and many in BR believed that GOI LIED on this , but we all understand that GOI takes its own decision and there is nothing we can do accept whine.

These two are entirely different issue and strategically its far more important issue to the nation then some tank wank debate , BRF has discussed enough on TN issue and BR had its own casulty.

It is in no way connected with T-90 or Arjun debate , apple and orange comparison

So Please do not bring my views on TN issue and then try to create confusion or call me pro-russian if I have a certain view on T-90.

Everybody appreciates the nature of the thermonuclear issue, Sir.
I personally agree with the view of Santhanam, you and others on this too.
And I have had healthy respect for your posts on naval affairs.

But I completely disagree that these two issues are apples and oranges
only as far as your conduct is concerned.

And there we can abstract out the gravity of the situation being discussed
Both issues pertain to the credibility of GOI.
And you choose arbitrarily to accept GOI's version of things in one case
and not in the other.

And my view is that this arbitrariness is being hidden behind all the flowery
language and blame-game shifting.

Santy was a whistle blower but Ajai-Shukla is not.
Why? Ajai Shukla is just as professionally qualified to give an opinion on tanks.

So, Ajai-Shukla has an agenda, but as far as all your posts in the
armored thread go, so do you. In fact without even adequate knowledge
of the subject while he at-least makes cogent arguments.

Rohitvats saar has systematically demolished each and every excuse you created.
The latest one being "rare" (and hence inconsequential) TI cookoffs for which
he conclusively proved the graveness of the situation.

Thereby you withdrew to comparison with Kilo class subs, Jaguar aircraft blah blah blah.

So no. I don't believe there is any confusion of any sort for anyone who
has been following the posts.

It is you who has the agenda and I write this post so that it might as well be clear
to you what at least one observer thinks of all the posts that have been made on this
thread.

Given a_kumar, Manish_sharma, Surya sir (with your permission of course) and other
senior member's responses, there are more than one members who think the same.

Your call whether you should continue to post on a subject you have woefully inadequate
knowledge of.

~Ashish

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Apr 2010 09:21

rohitvats wrote:
Austin wrote:^^^ Its 2006 news , do those flaws still exists or has been rectified , As per Sanku post presently there are no known flaws in T-90's except for the rare TI issue due to extreme heat.
.....

Rohit so you made a VERY long post to show that IA was taking steps to ensure that TI does not konk off in high heat.

Ok so?

How does it take away from the above statement by Austin?

a_kumar wrote:IA was hardly the "dark lord". What is obvious to most is that it played the role of a partisan evaluator and you must know what mischief a biased evaluator can do!!

Sir tell me IA was the partisan evaluator over how many years? 10 years? Consistently? In a evaluation system where the evaluation was also participated in by DRDO + Avadi + MoD?

The results of which were looked into by a parliamentary committee, who also interviewed other MoD arms who all agreed with the results?

If that is the standard of debate you want. Where all the basic truths are going to be thrown out of window since they go against the harsh truth that the Arjun was just not ready?

You guys are making claims which DRDO+Avadai does not to the parliament. Even in their defence when they are getting their ass whupped by the Parliamentary board WoW Hats off. True devotion.

Since you say apple to apple, can you please provide sources pointing to how T-90 came out with flying colors (2000) on aspects that Arjun succeeded and failed (2007) with respect to respective GSQRs!

Hello why does T 90 need to pass Arjun GSQRs?

Arent you like very confused?

T 90 needed to pass T 90 GSQRs which it did.

Now as to why T 90 had T 90 GSQRs and not Arjun GSQRs I have listed hazarr factors and clearly since I have too much time on my hands to muck about, I will again if you dont know.

Now, Arjun is there, but it made it there "in spite of IA's resistance" rather than "because of IAs support" to it. Sad really!

Boss if IA did not support it. It would have died like 20 years back. IA has done a lot it could to support it.

THAT is the fact.

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

THE REAL FACT IS THAT THE MIL_IND COMPLEX IS NOT SET UP TO SUCCEED QUICKLY.

Blaming IA is short-cut "lose 15 kilos in 10 days" scheme and not the solution.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Apr 2010 09:24

Misraji, why dont you go and find out the difference between a TANK and TN device to begin with before you come here making those comparisons.

Santy was one of the three top people involved in the test.

Col Shukla is a journalist who left IA like 10 years back and since has no visibility in the program.

And that is one of like 1001 massive difference is two cases.

Can you cut out these really inane comparisons please?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Apr 2010 09:27

Misraji wrote: Rohitvats saar has systematically demolished each and every excuse you created.
The latest one being "rare" (and hence inconsequential) TI cookoffs for which
he conclusively proved the graveness of the situation.

~Ashish

Boss Rohitvats has done NOTHING of the sort.

He has made one point of TI konking off on which NO one was disagreeing with by making 10 identical blog posts.

WHAT NONE OF YOU HAVE DONE

1) A single official number around the extent of the problem
2) So bloody what?

So TI konked off in summer heat -- ok fix it. What does that show anyway?

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 23 Apr 2010 09:40

Sanku wrote:Misraji, why dont you go and find out the difference between a TANK and TN device to begin with before you come here making those comparisons.

Gee, I am so lost.
Why don't you point to me some official GOI document which lists the differences?? ...

~Ashish.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Apr 2010 09:44

since there is no such document from either the MOD or the GOI, will I be forgiven if I conclude that a tank and a TN device are de facto (insert your favourite latin phrase here) the same thing ?

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 23 Apr 2010 09:49

Rahul M wrote:since there is no such document from either the MOD or the GOI, will I be forgiven if I conclude that a tank and a TN device are de facto (insert your favourite latin phrase here) the same thing ?

TaNk = TN ...

~Ashish.

vina · Post by **vina** » 23 Apr 2010 10:35

Hello why does T 90 need to pass Arjun GSQRs?

Because the Indian GSQR is what the Indian conditions are and what will be operatinally needed by the Army ? Unless of course, you are suggesting that the Indian Army is largely going to fight in Russian / Eastern European like conditions.

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

vina wrote:
Hello why does T 90 need to pass Arjun GSQRs?
Because the Indian GSQR is what the Indian conditions are and what will be operatinally needed by the Army ? Unless of course, you are suggesting that the Indian Army is largely going to fight in Russian / Eastern European like conditions.

Indian GSQR for T 90 != Indian GSQR for Arjun.

Clearly the need for the two was driven by two very different requirements.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 23 Apr 2010 11:27

Sanku,

You've actually outdone yourself in posting nonsense on the topic. Time and again you post incorrect stuff with out bothering to read up a bit on the subject. For your own sake, please stop making fool of yourself.

First you make series of post underplaying the seriousnes of problem at hand. Allow me to jog your memory and for sake of reference for people who visit this forum:

The TI conking off in THAR SUMMER AFTERNOON is hardly a benchmark for systems; it is probably THE most extreme condition possible.

The reason that Arjun does well their is also because the Army GSQRs (much maligned copy pasted) were irritatingly obsessed about Tank performance in Thar in summer afternoon, no doubt a result of their fascination with Jane's and the European tank warfare doctrines along the lines of battle of Kursk in Russian winters

Benchmark for systems and benchmark for Indian systems are two very different things are they not?

The TI does not always conk off in the summer afternoons either -- only some times.

Misraji;

Thats a Indian defence review quoting unnamed sources and this problem and that problem and what not. Why refer to such dubious sources when the official GoI reports have been posted time and again? And BTW many issues there were simply poor T 90 manufacture in Avadi due to a bunch of issues (which have since then been rectified)

I made a specific statement -- there are no known issues with T 90 barring the TI conking some times in summer heat.

......and use that wonderful statistic to conclude that a TI is bad because the American TI worked at Iraq in Feb night whereas French TI failed a few times in THAR in JUNE afternoon

When someone calls your bluff and that of your tag team partner regarding the seriousness of the problem - such that IA has to issue RFI for air-cons for fleet wide installment and that too 6-7 years after inducting the system...all you have to say is this:

Rohit so you made a VERY long post to show that IA was taking steps to ensure that TI does not konk off in high heat. Ok so? How does it take away from the above statement by Austin?

How more dishonest can you get. First, you make statements without bothering to read up on the subject and then when others call your bluff, you make inane statements ike above?

On top of it, you go ahead and make this statement and claim that others are confused:

Hello why does T 90 need to pass Arjun GSQRs? Arent you like very confused? T 90 needed to pass T 90 GSQRs which it did. Now as to why T 90 had T 90 GSQRs and not Arjun GSQRs I have listed hazarr factors and clearly since I have too much time on my hands to muck about, I will again if you dont know.

Do you even know what is GSQR. It stands for General Stafff Qualitative Requirement. Read this slowly if you have to:

QRs are evolved to specify essential parameters of military equipment needed in a specified time period to counter a threat, fulfill other operational needs, or fill an equipment void. They spell out the users’ requirements in terms of functional characteristics in a comprehensive, structured and concrete manner.1 In other words, they define minimum performance attributes, corresponding to the task or tasks to be performed by the system.

As QRs form the basis of equipment philosophy, they are need based. They apprise the vendors about what is being sought and provide a wellset benchmark for subsequent inter-se appraisal of equipment tendered for evaluation by different vendors.

So, was T-90 supposed to fulfill GSQR or was GSQR written to qualify T-90? And considering that the role of both Arjun and T-90 were/are to be the MAIN BATTLE TANK of Indian Army, why should the GSQR be different? Or, does IA expect foreign equipment to be of lesser capability? Why was it important for Arjun to have APU in 1995 and T-90 can do without? If it ws important for Arjun, why is not for T-90?

These are some common sensical questions which I'm sure you'll overlook....or better give some weird answer to...But then I don't expect more....

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 23 Apr 2010 11:33

For the fun of it, here is a take on how the GSQR is formulated in India:

After the inclusion of a projection in the acquisition plan, the sponsoring directorate is asked to finalise its QRs. All available books on the equipment and catalogues of the manufacturers are collected. The best characteristics of all known equipment are compiled as requirements. There is a general tendency to include as many features as possible to demonstrate the enormity and exhaustiveness of the work done.

Thereafter, the draft is circulated to various concerned agencies, other possible user directorates and maintenance directorate for obtaining their views/comments. Staff Equipment Policy Committee (SEPC), as constituted by the Services Headquarters, finally approves the QRs. In cases where commonality of equipment exists and standardisation of QRs is merited, a Joint Staff Equipment Policy Committee is constituted, with representatives of all the three services to formulate Joint Services Qualitative Requirements.

A review of the Indian system reveals the following weaknesses:

QR formulation is a highly specialised task which calls for staff with flair, talent and a thorough knowledge of competing technologies. However, in several cases, Staff tasked to evolve QRs is not selected for any demonstrated competence. Thus, they remain untrained and ill-equipped for the task.

There is a tendency to seek irrelevant, non-essential, unverifiable and unusable capabilities without reference to available stabilized technologies. No one questions the need of a parameter.

There is a total lack of cost-consciousness. Cost, vis-à-vis minimum inescapable parameters, is never considered.
Staff is unable to translate the required parameters into established universally accepted standards. This leads to multiple interpretations.

QRs are spelt out in imprecise and indeterminate language.

Services tend to make QRs ‘futuristic’ fearing rapid obsolescence during the protracted procurement drill. Moreover, as the life of any major military equipment is 15-20 years, users are wary of equipment becoming outdated during their long military life. Therefore, QRs generally take the shape of a well-compiled ‘wish list’ of utopian dimensions.
At times, upgraded versions of existing equipment are sought on the basis of presentations by vendors.

Cost Efficiency Considerations

While pitching a parameter at a specific level, it has to be borne in mind that for every rise in level, there is an associated cost. Cost is a function of performance and the relationship between the two is not linear. As a matter of fact, cost increases in a geometric progression. Therefore, while fixing parameters, it is prudent to examine cost penalty since a minor acceptable moderation of a parameter may bring about huge savings. Every parameter must be judged for its inescapability.

There is need to resist the proclivity for demanding custom-made equipment as per own QRs in the very first instance since this is a costly option. Due to economies of scale, all efforts should be made to make do with equipment available off-the-shelf in the indigenous or world market. Similarly, all efforts should be made to utilise dual-use technology for defraying the cost of acquisition.

The Services should provide the range of performance parameters, with clearly specified minimum acceptable standards. Additional credit, through a system of multipliers, should be assigned for better performance. As it may not be possible to provide an acceptable range for all parameters, a well-considered mix of specifics and matrix is the best option.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 23 Apr 2010 11:37

Sanku wrote: Indian GSQR for T 90 != Indian GSQR for Arjun.

Clearly the need for the two was driven by two very different requirements.

Pray, do educate the lesser mortals, how can the GSQR for MBT be different? And what could have been the different requirements? And I'm not even asking for any 'official source'.....give me your take on the subject.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Apr 2010 11:59

Rohitvats wrote:You've actually outdone yourself in posting nonsense on the topic. Time and again you post incorrect stuff with out bothering to read up a bit on the subject. For your own sake, please stop making fool of yourself.

Actually I can see where the pressing need for "stop dont tell the truth my ears are shut" type of whine is coming from.

Since nothing I have said can be disputed. It is fact cast iron based on Govt reports.

I am still waiting for you to cut your hyperventilation and show proof.

I am still waiting for official numbers of T 90 TI breakdowns and in what conditions. Perhaps you can send a mail to your local MP to raise it in the parliament? I know that this route works with many MPs?

And other than that what else do you have to offer? Platitudes?

People think that coming and repeating "I think this must be so" a 100 times will change the fundamental truths?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Apr 2010 12:00

Misraji wrote:
Rahul M wrote:since there is no such document from either the MOD or the GOI, will I be forgiven if I conclude that a tank and a TN device are de facto (insert your favourite latin phrase here) the same thing ?
TaNk = TN ...

~Ashish.

I accept the surrender with good grace gentlemen.

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 23 Apr 2010 12:04

Austin wrote:
Fancy phrases like giving time for "Tropicalization of imported equipment" & "need appropriate change done (minor or major)". All this 5-7 years after the trials.
The IN took nearly ~ 12 - 15 years to make their Kilo work well in the tropical climate of Arabian Sea after lot of persistent and painstaking effort by Navy and Indian Industry to rectify the battery , cooling and sensor issue of Kilo all after commissioning the sub.

Similarly Jags engine derating issue due to extreme heat wont dissapear till IAF gets the new engine that can give desired performance in Hot and High climate.

So if T-90 faced the same issue in Indian conditions and got rectified over a period of time it doesn't come as a surprise.

Tropicalization is no fancy issue for Defence Forces but a fact of life to live ,deal and overcome it.

I am not sure if its helping your case wrt IA's treatment of Arjun.

Sanku says the T-90 trials of 2000 (he probably meant 1999) are equivalent to 2007 AUCRT trails of Arjun.

You say
- It took 12-15 years for tropicalizing Kilo (can I assume it was after commissioning)?
- We know there have been issues with T-90 as recent as 2008. So after 10 years, T-90 is still not Tropicalized completely. (Refer for pointers from Rohit

But that did not stop IN or IA from integrating them into their armory, for a good reason.

Arjun's trials took place in 2007 (AUCRT) or 2005 if you count the first ones. How many years was Arjun given since then before trashing it as having no place in armory or for trashing it based on issues that were easily fixed in short time. It was to the credit of the desperate plea of DRDO and certain members of media that Arjun lived past this.

So, Austin, why didn't IA allow Arjun its equivalent of "tropicalization" after the AUCRT trials? Is it because it cannot be called "Tropicalization"?

amit · Post by **amit** » 23 Apr 2010 12:18

Sanku wrote:Indian GSQR for T 90 != Indian GSQR for Arjun.

Clearly the need for the two was driven by two very different requirements.

I've been following the very interesting discussion on this thread and I've noted that GoI can be trusted only in matters which suits one's point of view. Very convenient onlee.

Also, while it takes a lot of courage (a sadly lacking trait in this SDRE Bengali Babu

) to take issue with Sanku ji, I'm quite intrigued by what the above statement is supposed to mean?

Two different requirements? My non-engineering oriented brain can't really understand what this is supposed to mean?

Does it mean that IA bought T90 to fight a war with one particular enemy and framed the GSQR for Arjun to fight a another enemy? Do we have two different Armies facing us over the Rajasthan Desert and hence we need two GSQRs for two contemporary tanks which could potentially see theatre action together?

Really all this thinking is giving me a headache.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Apr 2010 12:20

a_kumar I must say that IT IS possible to have a discussion when a civil post like the one you made below is made, thanks.

a_kumar wrote: Sanku says the T-90 trials of 2000 (he probably meant 1999) are equivalent to 2007 AUCRT trails of Arjun.

A clarification -- the T 90s appear to have been on trials up-to 2000 with most of the trials done in 98-99.

- We know there have been issues with T-90 as recent as 2008. So after 10 years, T-90 is still not Tropicalized completely. (Refer for pointers from Rohit

I must say that the TI issue with T-90 are there but lots of ill-founded allegations have also been made. Just stating it for record.

Arjun's trials took place in 2007 (AUCRT) or 2005 if you count the first ones. How many years was Arjun given since then before trashing it as having no place in armory or for trashing it based on issues that were easily fixed in short time.

Its a valid question to ask -- there are many answers
1) The so called trashing by IA was mostly DDM sensationalizing IAs fairly straightforward feedback on data points.
2) Currently Avadi+CVRDE DO take time to turn around issues.
3) The FIRST order made in 2000 is still NOT completely made.

These are issues outside the ambit of IA.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 23 Apr 2010 12:23

amit wrote:.....<SNIP>

Does it mean that IA bought T90 to fight a war with one particular enemy and framed the GSQR for Arjun to fight a another enemy? Do we have two different Armies facing us over the Rajasthan Desert and hence we need two GSQRs for two contemporary tanks which could potentially see theatre action together?

Really all this thinking is giving me a headache.

amit babu, the beauty of the situation is, the Russians who designed T-90, are to use it as MBT for one purpose onleeee...fight the godamm heavy MBT of bhestern bhorld.....

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Apr 2010 12:25

amit wrote:
Sanku wrote:Indian GSQR for T 90 != Indian GSQR for Arjun.

Clearly the need for the two was driven by two very different requirements.
I've been following the very interesting discussion on this thread and I've noted that GoI can be trusted only in matters which suits one's point of view. Very convenient onlee.

That is nothing but a cheap flame bait.

Given that this thread is already heated (completely unnecessarily) it is not a good idea to start off on this note.

The reason for different GSQRs are already much debated. In fact the difference goes beyond GSQR (that is Army requirements) the directives come from MoD directly even before GSQRs are made.

They include a whole host of factors including a deal to obtain ToT.

I fail to see why the basics spelt out even 1000 times are IGNORED by posters who should no better.

amit · Post by **amit** » 23 Apr 2010 12:28

Sorry to say this but this comparing T90 with issues with Kilo and Jaguar is a very sophisticated Strawman.

The Indian Armed forces had to desperately do what ever it took as well as whatever $$$ it took to get these systems adapted to local conditions? Why? Because there were no indigenous alternatives available.

However, why should the same time and effort be needed for T90 when there is a local product available which (less discount for the moment the obvious fact Arjun is a better MBT that T90) could be made into a better product by utilising the resources. I mean if you can spend $$$ to make a home grown defence system better why the heck do you want to spend the $$$ on a foreign system?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Apr 2010 12:31

amit wrote:I mean if you can spend $$$ to make a home grown defence system better why the heck do you want to spend the $$$ on a foreign system?

That is the source of the problem, MoD does not release enough money in time and/or take quick decisions. The result is that 10 years later forces are forced (pun intended) to look for import substitution.

The reason for a import is actually 10 years in the past. Nearly every time with every product.

This "we will make a world class product by throwing 1/10 resources (not money but engineers, test beds etc) and expect it in 1/10 time" is the source of the problem.

Eventually the timelines go for a total toss.

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

Meanwhile let me repeat, at the time, the LAST T 90 order was given, THERE was no Arjun present as an alternative.

In pipeline yes. Available as practical deploy-able product? NO!

amit · Post by **amit** » 23 Apr 2010 12:35

Sanku wrote: In fact the difference goes beyond GSQR (that is Army requirements) the directives come from MoD directly even before GSQRs are made.

They include a whole host of factors including a deal to obtain ToT.

Source please? And please no Urban legends that it's been posted before - if it indeed has, please point to the post.

But I see that you've very skilfully sidestepped the actual question. Let me repeat it for you and for Austin. Are the T90s and Arjuns supposed to fight two different wars, with two different armies on two different types of terrains? If not why the hell should the GSQRs for two MBTs be different?

Why for example, does the IAF have one set of GSQRs which are being applied for all six MRCA contenders?

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 23 Apr 2010 12:39

I don't think MoD has a role in determining waiver of GSQR, it has to be from SHQ. Infact once MoD has agreed to 'Acceptance of Necessity' the 'technical side' is pretty much IA's (SHQ) baby.

From Defence Procurement Procedure (Capital) 2006

http://mod.nic.in/dpm/welcome.html

ACQUISITION PROCESS
General

The acquisition process for schemes catgorised as ‘BUY’ and ‘BUY and MAKE with
ToT’, will involve the following functions: -

I Services Qualitative Requirements (SQRs).
II Acceptance of Necessity (AoN).
III Solicitation of offers.
IV Evaluation of Technical offers by Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC).
V Field Evaluation.
VI Staff Evaluation.
VII Oversight by Technical Oversight Committee (TOC) for Acquisitions above
Rs 300 Crs.
VIII Commercial negotiations by Contract Negotiation Committee (CNC).
IX Approval of Competent Financial Authority (CFA).
X Award of contract / Supply Order (SO).
XI Contract Administration and Post-Contract Management.

All Capital Acquisitions shall be based on Services Qualitative Requirements (SQRs).
The SQRs should lay down the user’s requirements in a comprehensive, structured and
concrete manner. The SQRs must express the user’s requirements in terms of functional characteristics and its formulation must not prejudice the technical choicesby being narrow and tailor made.

The QRs of the equipment to be procured should be of a contemporary technology
widely available in the world /indigenous market. The performance parameters given in the
SQR should be verifiable and classified as ‘Essential Parameters’.

Waiver of SQR Parameters. Waiver/amendment to parameters of SQR may be
accorded by the SHQ concerned before issue of Request for Proposal (RFP). Thereafter no
waiver of parameters would be granted.

A TEC will be constituted by the SHQ for evaluation of the technical bids received in
response to RFPs, with reference to the QRs, under an officer from the SHQ. It will include,
apart from the representatives of the user service and maintenance agency, representatives of
QA. In addition, in cases where TOT is involved, TEC will also include representatives of PA (Production Agency) and DRDO, as deemed necessary.

The TEC will examine the extent of variations/ differences, if any, in the technical characteristics of the equipment offered by various vendors with reference to the QRs and prepare a ‘Compliance Statement’ short listing the equipment for trials/ induction into service, as applicable

Field Evaluation (Trials)

37.. Field Evaluations (Trials), will be conducted by the User Service on the basis of
Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) evolved by them. The manufacturers of the short listed
equipment shall be asked to send the desired number of units of the equipment/weapon system
to India for Field Evaluation. SHQ will formulate the Trial Directive and constitute the Trial
Team. The trial directive must specify the fundamental points that need to be addressed for
validating the ‘Essential’ parameters. The SQRs of the equipment would be a part of the trial
directive. Parameters not mentioned in the RFP should not be considered for field evaluation.
The validation of the support system and maintainability trials, integral to and complimenting
the trial programme of the weapon system should be held simultaneously, wherever feasible.
Representatives of DRDO, QA agency may also be part of the field evaluation, on as required
basis.

Staff Evaluation

Based on the field evaluation carried out as described in paragraph 37 onwards, the
SHQ will carry out a staff evaluation, which gives out the compliance of the demonstrated
performance of the equipment vis-à-vis the SQR. The staff evaluation will analyse the field
evaluation results and shortlist the equipment recommended for introduction into service. The staff evaluation report will be approved by the Service HQ and forwarded to the Acquisition
Wing for acceptance. The Technical Manager would receive the Staff Evaluation Report, and
after due examination, submit the report to the Director General (Acquisition) with his
recommendations for acceptance or otherwise.