Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

vic · Post by **vic** » 07 Nov 2010 10:17

The sad news from the above articles is that - it seems - that 2010 to 2020 will see production of only 124 more Mark-2 (apart from some remaining Mark-1) before DRDO is supposed to go for 50 tons FMBT. The article does not talk about 124+124=248 mark-1 and then Mark-2 but timeline seems to indicate only 124 Mark-1 and then mark2. So it is the death by delay of Arjun in current form.

Now coming to FMBT, The uber latest tank developed most recently in the world is Korean K-2 (with French, German, US, Israeli help & no sanctions) which is still 55 tons inspite of latest German engine 893 series (Indian engine specifications are less & size is more than this German engine) and auto loader. Hence, 50 tons target is unachievable by current standards unless Indians as usual want to go where no man has gone before while continuing to import T-90s alias T-72s. Even Turkish tank under development is said to be heavier at around 55 tons. 50 tons can only and only be achieved if we go for unmanned turret which is altogether different kettle of fish. The best thing would be copy the "concept" of latest tank around which is Turkish Altay based on Korean K2 series in turn based on French Leclerc. US concept of FMBT is cancelled and Russians are trying to unload its concept on India.

Now to engines. German 893 power pack series in extremely costly, and may run around US$ 1.5 Million for the power pack. Hence we must/can license produce. Most of the potential orders for 893 series have failed and hence Germans will be interested. Traditionally Euros have been ready to sell technology per se easily for money. But the corruption in Indian system is that they are normally advised by Indians themselves to leverage their negotiating power and go for phased manufacturing, where we get only screw driver technology. Shakti engine is a prime example and Kaveri-JV is the coming disaster. Be as it may, Indigenous engine was launched in 1970s and it is important to collect and collate the languishing work for indigenous work horse. A 12V tank engine will have many variants for AFV, Genset and Naval engines which can run into thousands. I think that is equally important to develop indigenous upgrade package for T-72/90s like indigenous power pack to replace Russian ones, as all these tanks (around 4000) will require massive upgrades as I don’t think FMBT will succeed as specifications have been made to fail the tank.

Incidentally IIRC 893 series German engine is 1/3rd the Size of current Arjun engine and can be uprated to 2000hp. Indigenous powerpack is supposed to have 90% of the specifications of 893 series.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 07 Nov 2010 10:31

vic wrote:The sad news from the above articles is that - it seems - that 2010 to 2020 will see production of only 124 more Mark-2 (apart from some remaining Mark-1) before DRDO is supposed to go for 50 tons FMBT. The article does not talk about 124+124=248 mark-1 and then Mark-2 but timeline seems to indicate only 124 Mark-1 and then mark2. So it is the death by delay of Arjun in current form.

You know, you have arrived at a calculation which I have been saying that Arjun in Mk1 or mk2 will have more orders.

vic · Post by **vic** » 07 Nov 2010 17:13

RE CJ

I would be very glad if I am wrong but "at present" there are no "more" orders.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 07 Nov 2010 18:35

Why does the 50 tonne FMBT need 1500 HP?

Why? As per current standards, thrust to weight equation for the tanks that is more than or say around 60 tons is powered by 1500 hp engine. Now what could be the standard equation at the time of FMBT induction, say in another 8 to 10 yrs and then later? Definitely, from the trends, the power packs are shrinking and the power value is going higher. So the standard equation(weight of tank/power) either remains same or increase towards packing more power for the same weight. 50 tonne/1500hp probably can be the norm at that time.

So i think, in my calculation - irrespective of whatever might be IA's reason behind this - it is a correct move.

By making 1500 hp engine compact & light enough to target the Euro pack standards, it makes your engine tech contemporary if not latest. This will fill another demand of fielding indigenous 1500 hp engine for the Arjun promised for Mk2. So two mangoes in one stroke.

Whatever may be the reason behind this, during Arjun saga, IA demanded indigenous engine to place more orders. Infact, at that time, we were denied the 1500 hp euro pack.

So, is there anyone like to bet on IA placing more orders with the indigenous engine?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 07 Nov 2010 20:46

vic wrote:RE CJ

I would be very glad if I am wrong but "at present" there are no "more" orders.

You are right. I am only saying that you have arrived at a conclusion that had made me said that there would be more of orders.

rahulm · Post by **rahulm** » 07 Nov 2010 22:43

I am heading to the Ahmednagar Tank museum in a few days. I don't know if photography is permitted but any requests?

Its also the Mech. Inf regimental Centre. Lets see what luck throws my way.

Admins, I will delete this post by the end of the week.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 07 Nov 2010 22:50

Any info on Mech inf in IPKF etc.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Nov 2010 23:01

If photography is allowed take as many pics and we can have a dedicated page to it!

Please pick up brochures and descriptions for captions.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 07 Nov 2010 23:06

If am not wrong the Arjun has a V10 version of the Leopard 2's 48 liter so has a displacement of ~40 liters. Therefore 2/3 rds size implies an engine displacement of around 27 liters, same as the MTU 880 'euro pack' series (producing 1500 hp, 55hp/l) which MTU has been hawking since 1990's and has been used in a few tanks. Although the latest versions of this engine pump out a mind boggling 2740hp(100 hp/l)! Of course the latest MTU 890 series have a displacement of only 12 liters only 1/4th of the leopard's producing the same 1500 hp(125 hp/l) output!
I agree with Vina et al, this is simply a wasteful endeavor. Firstly we our automotive and related "industry" have absolutely no experience in large high performance engines at all. Secondly if you are looking for an an engine for an advanced "future" tank that is also light weight then must you then also not look to us a small light weight low capacity engine? If I understand the Hindu article right then DRDO simply wants to use the same engine that is in development for the Arjun Mk1 in the FMBT(which is supposed to be as much as 10 tonnes lighter). Thirdly and most importantly the engines used in tanks are the same as used in heavy machinery, yachts, trawlers etc. they are not exclusively military equipments . DRDO will never be able to match or even come anywhere close(especially with no prior experience) to in making engines for a niche application to companies like MTU which churn out tens of thousands such high capacity engines and probably invest 3-digit million dollars in R&D.
They want to use an engine with the same specs as the MTU 'euro pack' an engine that has been around for close to 2 decades in a tank that will enter service 10 years from now. That extra weight in a lighter weight is surely going to come at the cost of armor.And I have a feeling some body is going to start crying about reliability real soon.

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 08 Nov 2010 00:58

^^^ The indian industry may not have the experience to make large high performance engines, but the design capability is surely present with Private Players like Tata, Mahindra, Leyland etc.

If you recall, these had been manufacturing only low tech mechanical diesel engines, but after 2000 they have been able to design and produce decent quality CRDI engines (in which they had no prior experience). The reason they donot make large engines is because there is not projected need. The private industry cannot afford to just develop a product (without order guarantees) only to hear the "Why did you do it when we didn't ask" reply from IA as was the case with DRDO and it's Tank EX. With a concrete proposal, I am sure any of these private players would be able to churn out an engine much faster than DRDO (Since people here correctly compared the engine being built to be of same specs as the 893 we are talking about technology that has been present for a considerable time now).

Look at Samtel, from license making displays for Thales, they have been able to come up with good quality ones for MKI and hopefully will also supply for LCA or even arjun.

DRDO was right in going alone in the 80's and early 90's as the private industry was close to nonexistent (and PSU's like HMT ruled the manufacturing arena), but it is almost criminal to not give the private industry a leading role in these times. IMHO, if DRDO had given the contract to make such an engine to a private industry a decade ago then we would have a fully functioning engine by now.

Going slightly OT but, all this just reflects the lack of decision making that Indian establishments (mainly gov owned) are suffering from. It's like above a certain level in the hierarchy people are just afraid to make bold decisions. I mean the Army always knew that Arjun will be a close to 60 T tank and still they agreed to freeze the requirements in 95, then why cry now. Still they do not know exactly what the FMBT should have ( and how it should be better than Arjun Mk2) apart from weight (which looks unrealistic to achieve).
The case of Sarvatra Bridge also proves this point as here we have something that no one in the world has developed, something that the Army wants, something that DRDO is happy to sell with L&T as the nodal agency, but Mr. Anthony does not have balls to over rule the ridiculous demand by BEML "the TATRA assembler" to be the nodal agency.
Same is the case with Pipavav despite having a high tech shipyard, L&T despite having expertise in making the hull of the indigenous sub are still kept out while Mazagon Dock (doing a decent job, but are overloaded)/ some international shipyard gets to make more.
IAF/Mod have been prudent enough to include every fighter that they could find in the MMRCA trial. One just thinks (and hopes) that they at least know what they are looking for in the plane.
If BAE had a tie-up with BEML or so then IA would have a lots of FH77B's by now as the gun has been performing in all the trials it has been through. GOI can even go single vendor through FMS, but the are not balsy enough to buy from Mahindras (who do own a larger part of the JV even is the gun comes from BAE). Atleast this will get the Mahindras to think about designing howitzers and maybe 10 - 15 year from now we will have our own.

Again sorry for going OT.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 Nov 2010 01:13

^^The article does not say the DRDO is going it alone. The article says:

“For engine development, we have formed a national team comprising members from the academia, the user, industry and the DRDO. We have also gone in for an international consultant,” said S. Sundaresh, Chief Controller (Armaments and Combat Engineering), DRDO.

The private sector is also going to be involved, if we go by past record of what the "industry" term means - companies like L&T, Tata etc. One hopes they will be the producers as well, as mentioned in the statements above.

Also, a general point, license producing is all fine and dandy, but not having your own engine is a huge bother when it comes to developing any vehicle, air, land or sea. The lack of a suitable 1500 hp class powerplant means India is forever dependent on what MTU or XTU or LMU will share with India, and that too, with limited assembly rights and a hefty package in fees. India will always be one generation behind what others have. No country will hand over its engine manufacturer either. Germany has a law that prevents acquisition of strategic companies by foreign firms.

Its best to start today, then complain another ten years from now that we have no engine or that foreign engine makers are charging an arm and a leg. All the claims that xyz would "gladly license their engine" do not bear out in the real world for Indian programs which suffer significant delays and problems due to the lack of locally available engines.

See:
ALH engine:
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/07/ ... light.html

HJT-36 engine:
http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... in/326855/

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 08 Nov 2010 01:37

^^^ What i said was that the industry should have a go alone (or they should be the project leader in terms of setting up goals and dividing work).

I have had not so pleasant experience of working on projects wherein there is a committee which is headed by a gov agency that decides the goals and divides the work load. In once case when my lab at IISc was (is) collaborating with IITM, a private company and a gov agency with the funding being provided by DST through this gov agency. Now this gov agency ended up being a bottleneck as they would not release the required funds and also started lagging behind in their deliverables (probably due to their apathy or incompetence) but the 2 year project is now delayed by 1.5 years (and that too after my prof had to wrestle away some of the powers of this gov agency through DST). We could literally see the frustration that the poor private guy showed as his boss would take him to task for delays (even though they were due to lack of money).

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 Nov 2010 02:24

^^^^^ What i said was that the industry should have a go alone (or they should be the project leader in terms of setting up goals and dividing work).
---

That will only happen if the industry puts up the money and goes its own way. If the other guy has the money, then he calls the decisions.

BTW, on an related note, what you said is typical about funding challenges when it comes to GOI. Ideally, GOI should have a strategic plan and allocate money to performers.

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 08 Nov 2010 02:54

Karan M wrote:^^^^^ What i said was that the industry should have a go alone (or they should be the project leader in terms of setting up goals and dividing work).
---

That will only happen if the industry puts up the money and goes its own way. If the other guy has the money, then he calls the decisions.

BTW, on an related note, what you said is typical about funding challenges when it comes to GOI. Ideally, GOI should have a strategic plan and allocate money to performers.

GOI can directly interact with the industry by floating tenders for engine design without channeling the money through a third party (DRDO). The industry directly answers to overseeing committee but has the freedom to play with deeper technical details as long as they meet the required specs and functionality. Something along the lines of what happens in the US.

For example, I worked on a MNRE project wherein we directly recieved funds from MNRE and were given freedom on the how to test as long as we tested the required parameters. Now our life would have been much harder if there were some who controlled the funding (and thus controlled how we work) and wanted us to work in a specific way.

In India money is not a problem, but how and where it is used is a big problem.

vic · Post by **vic** » 08 Nov 2010 09:38

abhik wrote:If am not wrong the Arjun has a V10 version of the Leopard 2's 48 liter so has a displacement of ~40 liters. Therefore 2/3 rds size implies an engine displacement of around 27 liters, same as the MTU 880 'euro pack' series (producing 1500 hp, 55hp/l) which MTU has been hawking since 1990's and has been used in a few tanks. Although the latest versions of this engine pump out a mind boggling 2740hp(100 hp/l)! Of course the latest MTU 890 series have a displacement of only 12 liters only 1/4th of the leopard's producing the same 1500 hp(125 hp/l) output!

I personally feel that indigenous engine is essential but it should be produced by pvt sector. On another point, it has been well publicised that MTU 893 "engine" is 1/4th the size of MTU 838 and has almost 75% more reserve power but the issue is what is the size difference between the two "powerpacks" as the engine size may have decreased rapidly but the other ancilliary attachments like transmission, cooling pack may not decreased that much in size (??).

rahulm · Post by **rahulm** » 10 Nov 2010 00:14

Ramana & rohitvats, please may I have your e-khat pata at rahulm20^gmale (please correct my typo). I want to send you some information. Thank you

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Nov 2010 10:48

I hope to god that CVRDE delivers on what it has signed on deliver in the necessary period. We have had enough muck of over commitment and delays and plans going haywire.

They should make sure that the two critical pieces

1) Engine
2) Transmission

that they aim to do with these projects are indeed done.

This just like Kaveri for LCA is the final frontier for CVRDE in the tank development domain -- so far they have tried hard and have had limited success, too limited to be productized.

This time hopefully they would have learned from the past to execute (by beg borrow steal) in a manner that it actually happens.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 10 Nov 2010 11:24

See Sanku,

In most cases in west, these private companies have taken help of a concept from Univ or other places and merged it into its own. If a prof comes out with a new theory and invention, they are absorbed or funded for further research by companies or DRAPA or similar organisations.

In India, it happens in limited way. The best is brain drain.

When we began, we tried to cut through the sanctions. Today, all sanctions have been lifted. So, things can happen much faster.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Nov 2010 11:34

chackojoseph wrote: So, things can happen much faster.

Chacko, let me say clearly, I believe the goals are reasonable technologically and can be done by India today (in collaboration if needed)

However, my worry, perpetual worry is the "project management" aspect of DRDO. DRDO has in the past shown a tendency to project a best case estimate rather confidently, without accounting for issues like (which by now should be expected) manpower attrition (just like you said), possible time lag in technology acquisition and transfer when needed, buffers for simple overflow, extra time taken by MoD babu's in giving basic fund clearances.

If you note, none of the above is DRDO's fault, they are externalities which impact them, what I hope that they have a proactive plan which already factors in possible issues outside their control, delays due to internal reasons.

I hope they ask for a lot of money to partner with others as and when needed too and freedom to use the money at local project head levels. Not drip-drip funding, with money needed for a consultant (say) being released 2 years after the need is seen.

They should ask for empowerment as well as better project management.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 10 Nov 2010 11:57

All know products which we see now has come in increments. You cannot expect a perfect product. Even MTU's engine for Arjun was initially a failure. It took both CVRDE abd MTU to sit up and discuss a way to make it perfect.

So, to say, perfect things in particular time is a flawed concept.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Nov 2010 15:59

So, to say, perfect things in particular time is a flawed concept.

Absolutely, however in terms of real life Engineering project development, you do not promise perfection.

All that is expected is that you deliver what you signed up for in the previously agreed time frame -- that extremely simple but extra-ordinary difficult task is project management in nutshell.

A concept which I find generally to be not understood well in India (let alone DRDO/CVRDE) -- we take this aspect very lightly, "ho jayega, if we try" No it does not work that way, a systematic approach needs be followed, all eventualities that you can think of, factored, all buffers taken care of, etc etc.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 10 Nov 2010 17:38

You are going by some flawed articles in media that we take chalta hai attitude in DRDO. They have begun from scratch every time. Once, they have mastered some things they seem to be churning out products. Avionics, Radar, Missiles of certain class etc. Some have been misses and some have been mid way.

They had even made an engine, jut that it was not suited for the purpose.

Now, they can collaborate, like most free world companies which have been producing stuff taking learning's from outside.

I am not in agreement with you in your statements you have passed in the past replies.

also on the time frame, its by now very well documented that even the frozen approved parameters by users have been disregarded and user has been incrementally adding specs.

kuntal.saha · Post by **kuntal.saha** » 10 Nov 2010 18:32

chackojoseph wrote:You are going by some flawed articles in media that we take chalta hai attitude in DRDO. They have begun from scratch every time. Once, they have mastered some things they seem to be churning out products. Avionics, Radar, Missiles of certain class etc. Some have been misses and some have been mid way.

They had even made an engine, jut that it was not suited for the purpose.

Now, they can collaborate, like most free world companies which have been producing stuff taking learning's from outside.

I am not in agreement with you in your statements you have passed in the past replies.

also on the time frame, its by now very well documented that even the frozen approved parameters by users have been disregarded and user has been incrementally adding specs.

I agree with you...

I am in software R&D for last 7 years, what I have seen... only 30% pass the prototype version and less that 5 percent reaches the implementation stage. R&D anywhere is most exciting because it is pure gamble when you start with just the concept. Time and logistics need to be provided without a single question asked. Sometimes geo-political senario is such that you cannot afford to spend money and time against it... so thaere comes the collaboration. thats what DRDO is doing

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 10 Nov 2010 18:34

Time and logistics need to be provided without a single question asked.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Nov 2010 19:09

chackojoseph wrote:I am not in agreement with you in your statements you have passed in the past replies.

With all due respects I do not think you have understood what I have been trying to say. Thus your disagreement at this point is moot.

I think the "project management" issues in Indian Mil-Ind complex are well documented, in a myriad of places, and this includes missteps by the forces too.

Neither did I say, "chalta hai" I only said that their estimation of times and ensuring that projects go according to time have remained issues. They need to take a hard line if they feel change of a parameter will impact the timelines and stand up to the forces too. This is also expected.

In the end after they sign on the dotted line committing for a particular project in a particular timeline, they must try and ensure that both the project reqs and timelines are met.

All that is needed for that should be done.

rahulm · Post by **rahulm** » 10 Nov 2010 23:10

I visited the Cavalry Tank museum at MIRC, Ahmednagar recently. It claims to be the only kind of its type in Asia.

I have uloaded the photos

Higher resolutions are available but challenging to upload. It took me more than an 1 hour to upload these from a Cyber cafe.

Highlighting some links

Partial inventory,Cavalry Tank Museum

Rolls Royce Armoured car, The earliest exhibit in the museum

German WW2 Gun, the famous FLAK 18 Anti aircraft gun, a type of was used by Rommel as an Anti tank gin in direct fire mode to very good effect in Africa

The museum has a LCA model :
http://picasaweb.google.com/11335378136 ... 7299061074
http://picasaweb.google.com/11335378136 ... 7975921186
http://picasaweb.google.com/11335378136 ... 1100649762
http://picasaweb.google.com/11335378136 ... 0766736802 and
http://picasaweb.google.com/11335378136 ... 0116053906

A captured TSP Patton tank http://picasaweb.google.com/11335378136 ... 8379418386 and http://picasaweb.google.com/11335378136 ... 7201966114

and plenty more.

I also visited the MIRC Museum and will upload photos in a few days, one of which is Gen. Sundarji's preserved uniform.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 10 Nov 2010 23:29

kuntal.saha,

Correct sir.

Sanku wrote:With all due respects I do not think you have understood what I have been trying to say. Thus your disagreement at this point is moot.

I think the "project mana.....e dotted line committing for a particular project in a particular timeline, they must try and ensure that both the project reqs and timelines are met.

All that is needed for that should be done.

Thanks. Time lines should be definitely met. Just that either you or me and both of us are looking at this from past experiences. We must be looking is without blinkers.

lets hope that both the DRDO and Forces also look at it without blinkers.

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 10 Nov 2010 23:35

Development of technology and product development should be separated. If you don't have the technology and tries to develop a product, no matter what management skills you have there is a higher chance of failure. In India technology development starts with product development so don't be surprised to see missed dead lines and unsatisfactory products.

JMT

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 11 Nov 2010 00:23

Rahul

first class pictures- very comprehensive coverage - these are great.

I saw your email, will be posting them on the BR main site as well

Jagan

shanksinha · Post by **shanksinha** » 11 Nov 2010 01:12

^^Very Nice Photos rahulm. Thanks for the effort.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 11 Nov 2010 06:08

I am suffering from sensory overload going through the tank museum pictures...

rakeshkumar · Post by **rakeshkumar** » 11 Nov 2010 06:38

really nice pics awesome

vic · Post by **vic** » 11 Nov 2010 09:54

Assigining a target weight of 50 tons means that Army wants the FMBT to be failure. As I pointed out that super latest tanks have not achieved that weight except Russian inaccurate tin cans. So army will say forget FMBT, let order 2000 more T-90s. The orders for upgrade and purchase of T-72/90s is US$ 6 Billion while for Arjun less than 1/10th.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 11 Nov 2010 10:04

"By accepting a 50 tonne target DRDO is basically doing a CYA analysis in the future, so that they can come out after they fail (as they always do) and blame the very very difficult targets set by evil Indian Army."

Yes, I know, idiotic statement, but sometimes there is no way to counter general rants floating about without trying the same method on them.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 11 Nov 2010 10:08

JimmyJ wrote:In India technology development starts with product development so don't be surprised to see missed dead lines and unsatisfactory products.

You are right to a fair extent, in India ALL three aspects happened in parallel, viz (1) tech development, (2) project development, (3) management exp of large engineering projects.

However note the word "happened".

After 25 years of Arjun experience, India can not claim the above caveat any more. They now posses enough experience to realize how to manage the tech dependence and product development in parallel. Further they can also asses the time cost due to any existing linkages between the two and then give final time lines.

We can not keep telling the same story again and again. Once is understandable, twice IS NOT.

vic · Post by **vic** » 11 Nov 2010 10:09

Katare wrote:Project for developing 1500HP engine for Arjun was sanctioned several years back. Someone even posted the approved project proposal and it was so crude that we had some heated discussion with Jcage defending. The proposal said all they need is Rs50corer and a particular combustion modeling software for making an engine. It also seemed that they have a prototype/tech demo in testing and had inhouse testing facilities too.

So more DRDO changes more it remains the same was argument at that time. They should have asked for at least 10x of the budget they asked for and a lot more modeling and CFD facilities and testing infrastructure for multiple prototypes and design choices.

Any indigenous tank engine and its variants will have a production run of around US$ 10 Billion, so a budget of around US$ 500-1000 million is reasonable. Now let me predict that any engine being developed for around Rs. 50 crores will be failiure as it is impossible to build labs and test stands for that amount. Long live the idiot babu!

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 11 Nov 2010 11:27

Rahulm

Very nice pictures sir. Where is this MIRC, Ahmednagar ?

Seems like a place worth visiting at least once.

I've been thinking of visiting Air Force Museum in Palam for months now but never could. Only if wishes were horses

dnivas · Post by **dnivas** » 12 Nov 2010 03:35

rahulm wrote:I visited the Cavalry Tank museum at MIRC, Ahmednagar recently. It claims to be the only kind of its type in Asia.

I also visited the MIRC Museum and will upload photos in a few days, one of which is Gen. Sundarji's preserved uniform.

Thanks those were great pics.

rahulm · Post by **rahulm** » 12 Nov 2010 21:10

Here are the photos from the MIRC Museum.

I am highlighting a few from the album

Gen. K. Sundarji's uniform

The first flag hoisted at the quarter guard

Nazi flag captured by 4 Gwalior Inf. (2 Mech Inf)

MIRC is in Ahmednagar, about 140 kms from Pune.

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 13 Nov 2010 00:04

Shri Lakshmi Defence Solutions Ltd.

Apologies if posted earlier.