Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 27 Feb 2011 20:21

It is hilarious to see a whole lot of people falling over themselves to badmouth a first class front line equipment of IA!! And to what end pray?

At least people can get their data points right!!

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 27 Feb 2011 20:36

--Deleted---

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 27 Feb 2011 20:37

Austin wrote: I think that is where they screwed up , they probably thought PA would get Abrams eventually and that it was just a question of time , SU did not have a heavy tank and Arjun was the only choice to match it.

So you are saying that any purchases by the IA should always be reactionary. If the PA decides to get Abrams 5-10 years down the line the Army will then reject the 50 ton FMBT because it doesn't stand a chance against the Abrams. What then? Issue new GSQRs?

The FACT that they want a 50 T tank for FMBT nullifies the big heavy debate and trades it off for mobility and smart tank. Finally they see why T's weight is just right for FMBT

Lets see. Despite being light (read as less protection for the crew), the T-90 is underpowered compared to the PA's Al-Khalid and has a higher ground pressure than even the heavy Arjun. How's that for mobility!
And what constitutes a "smart tank"? And why can't any of the systems that go into a "smart tank" not be fitted to the Arjun?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 27 Feb 2011 21:18

So you are saying that any purchases by the IA should always be reactionary. If the PA decides to get Abrams 5-10 years down the line the Army will then reject the 50 ton FMBT because it doesn't stand a chance against the Abrams. What then? Issue new GSQRs?

He just did plus with smiley to boot

Thats what goes for reasoning and interesting discussion points in that bunch

It will be interesting to remember the smiley.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 28 Feb 2011 01:28

Austin wrote: The FACT that they want a 50 T tank for FMBT nullifies the big heavy debate and trades it off for mobility and smart tank. Finally they see why T's weight is just right for FMBT

? For god sakes man the Arjun MKI is "mobile" and "smart" enough. It has proved itself in comparative trials and rigorous testing and it should've been inducted rather than 1000 of those hunk of junk T-72 BUFU123 aka 90 that you are so fond of.And what is it about the T's weight that is so amazingly orgasmic that it becomes somehow synonymous with FMBT weight logic? It's less mobile and armored than the Arjun and has more ground pressure. If anything FMBT should be modeled around the Arjun MKII which will be even more "mobile" and "smarter"!

As the worldwide MBT’s are getting network warfare friendly, Arjun MBT will have a logical improvement via a Battle Field Management System (BFMS). BFMS will provide information to tank commanders at different levels. This could network with helicopters or UAV’s too.

The BFMS will give the geographical location of the terrain, location of our own troops, location of enemy targets, illuminate targets, help navigation, display the health of tanks, status of ammunition holding in the tank, fuel stock etc.

As the imaging technology improves, Arjun MBT will feature an “Auto Tracker.” The auto tracker is a system based on image processing. As the gunner sight is fixed on a target, a picture analysis takes place. When the target moves, the Arjun Tank gun and the sight gets aligned with the target and move automatically keeping the target in focus. This is particularly good in cross country, when target is moving, Arjun Tank might go through bumps or twists or turns for maneuvering, but the auto tracker will not loose the sight of the target. In normal cases with T-55 and T-72, when the tanks try to negotiate an undulation or try a defensive move, the tank commander cupola is moving to acquire the target; the guns go off target. There is a crew disorientation that takes place in such conditions and the crew ends up pointing target at opposite direction. T-90S too has similar issues but is much better than the T-72 in this case. Another aspect is, the Arjun MBT turret is a heavy mass of approximately 16- 20 tons and gun mass is about approximately 2 tons. To stabilize the turret and gun is a difficult task. Currently Arjun Tank uses something called “director mode” .The top mirror of the gunner sight of Arjun Tank is independently stabilized. A computer evaluates the elevation of both top mirror and the gun as well as the angle of the turret. There is a continuous feeding of these parameters into the computer; the computer gives electronic instructions to the gun control system. Hence the Arjun Tank gunner sight is in the middle of the target even in the cross country environment. If momentarily the gun is misaligned, the firing circuit does not open and the gunner is not able to fire. Whether Arjun MBT is static, target is static or Arjun MBT is static, target is moving or Arjun MBT is moving, target is static or both Arjun MBT and target are moving; The Arjun Tank firing accuracy remains more or less the same, and achieves a very high level of accuracy.

http://frontierindia.net/arjun-mk2-the-futuristic-mbt

negi · Post by **negi** » 28 Feb 2011 01:29

I guess we need Lalchix in this dhaga too.

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 28 Feb 2011 04:03

RoyG wrote:
Austin wrote: The FACT that they want a 50 T tank for FMBT nullifies the big heavy debate and trades it off for mobility and smart tank. Finally they see why T's weight is just right for FMBT
? For god sakes man the Arjun MKI is "mobile" and "smart" enough. .....

[sarcasm]
RoyG ... Do you understand anything about armored combat ....
THE WHOLE POINT is about weight of the MBT ....

Its not about protection levels, not about mobility, not about electronics, not about crew comfort, not about gun-system-lethality, its ONLY about the weight ...

What is so tough to understand about that??
[/sarcasm]

~Ashish.

--edited-- chorry for blue-on-blue

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Feb 2011 04:55

Misraji wrote: RoyG ... Do you understand anything about armored combat ....

THE WHOLE POINT is about weight of the MBT ....
Its not about protection levels, not about mobility, not about electronics, not about crew comfort, not about gun-system-lethality, its ONLY about the weight ...

What is so tough to understand about that??

~Ashish.

Is this just within the Indian (and surrounding?) armies? Just curious.

There are articles from a month ago (DTI as an example) that seem (to me at least) that differ in this philosophy.

Thx.

sivabala · Post by **sivabala** » 28 Feb 2011 06:53

Misraji wrote:THE WHOLE POINT is about weight of the MBT ....

thanks Misraji educating us about the Russian tank strategy.
Take a light weight tin box and name it as the MBT. Then you have the formidable tank force.
For future upgrade rename it as f***** MBT.
The criteria is number for the weight should go down, number in the name should go up. If the tank has a "T"in front, it gets centum in evaluation.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 28 Feb 2011 07:04

I would like to be educated on how weight and protection are not related in todays technology??

Is a 50 ton tank going to give me the same protection and survivability of a 65 ton tank assuming both are hit by the same weapons in identical fashion??

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Feb 2011 07:48

Not even close to being educated on this topic, but reading recent articles, there is dramatic change in thinking.

For one tanks are being designed for urban warfare (which is why I was curious to know if IA has its own set of recs - to some extent they do I learnt from googling).

Newer tanks have protection suites that make "assuming both are hit by the same weapons in identical fashion??" ancient - it seems to me. With the success I would assume that such thinking would proliferate in the near future, to other tank designs.

Networking: Tanks are being provided with top notch real-time info on situational status. Each tank comes with a real high bandwidth networking capability. IFF down to a soldier, around the corner capability, smart munition - with call-back (do-not-explode instruction set after an ammo has been fired).

Tanks with two crew members!!!! Light as they get?

Indian Army recs - per articles - seem to include lasers to take care of incoming missiles/etc.

.........................

Gurinder P · Post by **Gurinder P** » 28 Feb 2011 09:19

Gentlemen, I am wondering about the development of high kinetic energy rounds and how those will fair against older tanks and not the newer tanks? This may seem an odd question but the newer rounds are designed to beat multiple layers of armor and not go through the opposite end but ping around inside the tank. However, the older tanks have less RHA thickness and no ERA or older model ERA, therefore these new rounds will just create through and through's, thus resulting in the enemy tanks being operational will holes in them. Any idea if modern tanks can identify older tanks and the computer can provide proper ammo for right targets?

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 28 Feb 2011 10:22

Anujan wrote:The wishlist in 50 ton FMBT

And most important: All of this in 50 ton weight

I propose the villian from the movie "Predator" -- Stealth, armor and deadly weapons.

And it should also double up as kajanchi and koi-hai boy for the armoured corps karnail who came up with the wishlist so that he can be served tea and crumpets every evening.

I don't get this logic of "Lets-aim-for-the-moon-before-we-even-have-the-ability-to-build-Sivakasi-rockets" type thinking. Probably the same mentality which requires the 0 to 60 in under 3 seconds.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Feb 2011 12:03

Some how I am not convinced that Arjun line is going to stay idle, after first 124. There has to be more to it. I am sure there will be more information soon about whats going to happen.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 28 Feb 2011 12:06

deleted.

don't try to pass off unauthenticated posts from another forum as authoritative info. I've asked you once to stop the BS'ing, you responded with a typical 'abuse of power' rant. this is the last time I'm going to let off this type of behaviour without a warning. you are skating on thin ice sir.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 28 Feb 2011 13:50

Surya wrote:I would like to be educated on how weight and protection are not related in todays technology??

Is a 50 ton tank going to give me the same protection and survivability of a 65 ton tank assuming both are hit by the same weapons in identical fashion??

You know what is interesting is that when it comes with debating Arjun vs T90, the supporters of the latter are "oh, cant we just get along, there is room for both tanks" "T90 problems will get sorted out (even if the TI sights dont work)" "the tanks are with differing philosophies, Army knows best what it wants" etc etc., when all the time, Arjun gets 124 orders and T90 order book is in 1000.

But when it comes to buying the C17, heaven forbid there should be room for both C17 and the Il76. In that case Air Force doesn't know its own requirements, there is no use for the C17, not even one should be bought. All this, when the C17 has no technical shortcomings like the T90...

The dual standards are just amazing.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 28 Feb 2011 14:00

d_berwal-ji

Are you the original poster in that forum? If not, did you just copy paste the entire post without giving credit to the person who posted it first?

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 28 Feb 2011 14:05

Anujan wrote:d_berwal-ji

Are you the original poster in that forum? If not, did you just copy paste the entire post without giving credit to the person who posted it first?

you can see the link to the forum below the post, that should satisfy you, hope so? I didnt add the link now.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 28 Feb 2011 14:15

Karan M wrote: With what accuracy? The Refleks accuracy dips substantially when tank is on the move, especially against moving targets. Nobody fires at max cross country speeds. Usual practise for proper range and otherwise is to move at a steady pace, keeping formation intact, and engage targets.

the accuracy depends on some one firing the missile!!! if some is going to loose the target from his sight why blame the missile ?

The general practice is that, the MBT Commander selects the firing solution based on his assessment of situation, if MBT commander thinks that he needs to fire the missile on the move, well its his call the solution provided is capable of doing so, how difficult it is or how well trained the gunner needs to be to achieve this is separate discussion.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Feb 2011 14:19

Tanaji wrote: You know what is interesting is that when it comes with debating Arjun vs T90, the supporters of the latter are "oh, cant we just get along, there is room for both tanks" "T90 problems will get sorted out (even if the TI sights dont work)" "the tanks are with differing philosophies, Army knows best what it wants" etc etc., when all the time, Arjun gets 124 orders and T90 order book is in 1000.

Tanaji -- T 90 AUCRT etc were in 98-99 time frame and a order for 310 tanks was placed in 2001-2.

Arjun passed its AUCRT in 2007-8 and already has a order of 124 + most prob another 124 (I am going by the majority of reports, not only Chacko's)

There is all the reason to expect Arjun to have a large run (1000+), either in MkI/II forms or evolved as FMBT.

But when it comes to buying the C17, heaven forbid there should be room for both C17 and the Il76.

No one has said that there is no room for large and small transports, in fact all non-fanboi's (who claim that only C 17 is necessary from 10-80 T) have consistently maintained that many different types of transports are necessary.

The issue with C 17 is ONLY that is is not selected through a Multi-vendor process.

Had the same systems existed in 1998-2001, I would have asked IA to carry out a Multi-vendor process and invite Ukranian Upg T-80 bids along with T-90 and Leopards and Merks et al.

The dual standards are just amazing.

I am afraid the only questionable standards that are on display are those who so seek to fling mud at others/IA, which deliberately conflate two issues nearly 15 years separated in time, despite by shown once a page how 15 years have passed between the first decision and the second.

Deliberate omission of facts just to make the case Sir? Please don't.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Feb 2011 14:23

d_berwal; I hope you do realize that relying on questionable sources greatly destroys the credibility of your posts and as well the credibility of the system in favor of which you make the statement.

This is nearly as bad as "Arjun is great because it beat the shitty tin can" type of self goals that abound.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 28 Feb 2011 14:28

Now for all of you who believe in the propaganda that T-90 TI sight is worthless and does not work, please keep on doing so:

- Impressed by the performance of TI on T-90, PA is trying its best to get the same model into their AKII. (assumption based on pak media reports)
- Plus i dont believe, that IA will relay on a defective equipment in its main Armoured div's. The almost complete conversion of all the 3 Div's to T-90 itself shows the confidence of IA.
- Most of it is propaganda against T-90 by DDM who have new found love for ARJUN and are trying to make it a ARJUN Vs T-90 issues. As it makes it easier to get headlines and get more hits on their blogs, Most of them just recycle the previous reports and lack the credibility.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Feb 2011 14:28

Anujan -- about the post you made in the other thread, yes I know it was in jest -- but what you said mockingly is nearly what, Company Qtr Master Abdul Hamid did atop a jeep with his RCL.

The point? There is a role for a wide variety of solutions to armor and armor busting.

Further, historically, Bulked up vs lighter and nimble always seem to have a see-saw battle, with a solution becoming "heavier" to prevail thich tech changes changing the shape the of battlefield bring in the lighter warrior.

We see this from Ironclad battleships on sea, to Heavily armored knights, to Tanks in urban battles a la Grozny and IDF.

I wonder if heavy tanks mean anything much in a world where top attack, tandem warhead fire and forget missiles are going to gain ground.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Feb 2011 14:28

Surya wrote:I would like to be educated on how weight and protection are not related in todays technology??

Is a 50 ton tank going to give me the same protection and survivability of a 65 ton tank assuming both are hit by the same weapons in identical fashion??

Probably it wont , unless you have some revolution in armour technology where says for argument sake a composite armour which would weigh half that of steel/metal armour still affords the same protection and then you add NERA or ERA to take care of other vulnerability.

Having said that most of the 3rg Gen ATGM do not try to rip through the most protected part of the armour but tries to get around it , much like you wont try to get through the shield of a warrior but try to get around it , that get around is Top Attack Capability. The top of the armour will not be more then few inches thick or would be most lightly protected of most areas of tank.

Keep a T-90,Arjun,Abrams,Leopard tank and fire a Nag at each of these , chances are the crew of all these tank will be dead and in worst case the tank will be out of reckoning , ofcourse there are active protection that would try to defeat Top Attack , but there are ATGM that would come with decoys to defeat those as well.

In the end each military would decide what weight/size/economic advantage would each design bring and what kind of logistic/transport medium is available to quickly transport these tanks , the IA atleast thinks a 50T tank is a better FMBT then a 65 T FMBT , granted the latter would afford better protection but that would be one key feature of any tank.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 28 Feb 2011 14:33

Sanku wrote:d_berwal; I hope you do realize that relying on questionable sources greatly destroys the credibility of your posts and as well the credibility of the system in favor of which you make the statement.

This is nearly as bad as "Arjun is great because it beat the shitty tin can" type of self goals that abound.

The source i provided is more credible and informative than the general claims of people here on BR.

It was with inside layout pictures of Leo 2 ammo storage and constructed on the basis of people who have operated these machines.

I dont want to go 1-1 with mods but if mods think that the info was not credible vs the source others members list out in favor of their argument than i am ok.

I think the source was more credible then members using wiki, livefist, ajaishukla's blog and other similar blogs to support their arguments.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 28 Feb 2011 14:40

Sanku wrote:Anujan -- about the post you made in the other thread, yes I know it was in jest -- but what you said mockingly is nearly what, Company Qtr Master Abdul Hamid did atop a jeep with his RCL.

The point? There is a role for a wide variety of solutions to armor and armor busting.

Further, historically, Bulked up vs lighter and nimble always seem to have a see-saw battle, with a solution becoming "heavier" to prevail thich tech changes changing the shape the of battlefield bring in the lighter warrior.

We see this from Ironclad battleships on sea, to Heavily armored knights, to Tanks in urban battles a la Grozny and IDF.

I wonder if heavy tanks mean anything much in a world where top attack, tandem warhead fire and forget missiles are going to gain ground.

Define "nimble" ? Faster? Lower ground pressure? Fording deeper? Crossing longer trenches? Climbing steeper gradient? Which is more "nimble" ? A bicycle or a motorbike? So this whole question of "bulked up" vs "light and nimble" is quite misleading.

You might question the very usefulness of tanks -- that discussion is pointless. The point is, IA has several thousands of T72s and worse tanks, for which it is seeking a replacement. The question is which way we will go. T90 or Arjun? I personally find it difficult to wrap my mind around "tank battles are relics of the past, ergo buy more T90 and not the Arjun" argument.

The only defense against top-attack tandem warheads are hard and soft-kill mechanisms -- active and passive protection. For which you need space. And engine power. And more protection.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Feb 2011 14:41

"tsarkar" wrote in LCA thread. The basic thought process applies here too.

Vina wrote:tsarkar et al. After looking at the final billboard figures of the MK1 empty weight, it is a great job that ADA have done.

Agreed, doesn’t matter whether machete or khukri, as long as it chops fine. The issue is what goes behind the Machete or Khukri. I’ll explain and answer that question a little later.

Vina wrote:So, I really don’t think there is any "under design/over design" whatever.

Unfortunately, quite contrary to published facts. We’ve the example of the naval version MLG being redesigned. And naval version design & sheet cutting was initiated much later than the AF version.

Vina wrote:Now from the initial 5500 kg to 6500kg, what could have accounted for the weight growth ? Well, my guess is that the initial 5500kg was for a Mig21 replacement.

Now, this is speculation and let me clarify the bolded parts. This is another BR myth that ASR’s were repeatedly changed, and the bar was raised.

Firstly, Staff Requirements typically specify performance criteria, like maneuverability, range, payload & speed. Empty weight and TWR are derived from these performance criteria by the designers. For example, with “x” engine to have range/endurance “y” with payload “z” at speed “w” will back-calculate in an indicative empty weight of “v”. There is no record or proof that ASR was changed by IAF increasing payload/speed/range/endurance.

The only improvement suggested by IAF was when it emerged around 2003-5 that outer pylons were rated to carry obsolete R-60 at max “g”, and the pylon rating was increased to carry R-73E, that is around 60 kg heavier. Surely this doesn’t result in ~1000 kg empty weight increase. Similarly, OBOGS development was initiated for Jaguar DARIN upgrades and incorporated for Tejas. It weighs much lesser than bottled oxygen.

Secondly, because MiG-21 were the oldest fighters on the IAF flight line, it was naturally assumed by everyone that Tejas will be the line replacement for MiG-21. In reality, Su-30 was the line replacement of MiG-21 series. However, nowhere and at no point of time did IAF cut-paste MiG-21 performance criteria while drafting Tejas ASR.

Vina wrote:It is highly probable that the IAF ASRs are much tougher than the Swedish ones for the Gripen C/D!

To the contrary, Tejas ASR corresponds to the earlier Marut! http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... arut1.html

The Marut was conceived to meet an Air Staff Requirement (ASR), that called for a multi-role aircraft suitable for both high-altitude interception and low-level ground attack. The specified performance attributes called for a speed of Mach 2.0 at altitude, a ceiling of 60,000 feet (18,290 m) and a combat radius of 500 miles (805 km). Furthermore, the ASR demanded that the basic design be suitable for adaptation as an advanced trainer, an all-weather fighter and for 'navalization' as a shipboard aircraft. It was directed that this aircraft be developed within the country. As an aside, it might be worth noting that the design philosophy and ASR for the current Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) is quite similar.

As you may note, no empty weight was specified. Also, please note ASR speed and altitude for Marut were higher than Tejas design specifications of Mach 1.8 and 16,000 meters respectively. Achieved Tejas performance is Mach 1.6 and 15,000 meters. IAF has not complained about this.

So to set the record straight, the IAF specified pretty normal and standard performance criteria for Tejas. Let’s lay the myth to rest that IAF ASR was initially MiG-21 specs midway upgraded by IAF to higher specs.

Now, to answer the question of why there is so much heartache about the Tejas project, I bring back the concept of simpler fighters. When anyone mentions simple fighters, most BR members wince thinking IAF loves Gnats, MiG-21 and bullock carts. Nothing is further from the truth. Simple fighters doesn’t mean lackluster performance.

Simpler fighters means using simpler means to achieve superior ends.. That is the challenge and the beauty of engineering. The present Tejas project is a classic example of complex means achieving standard ends.

At the end, we console ourselves that whether machete or khukri, it chops, but when one ends up using exotic materials and control laws to end up with standard ends, the question arises whether the means were worth the ends.

Simple-means-superior-capability projects are like the Godavari frigates, using the capable Leander hull-form, and broadening the beam for two helicopters. IN ships, as a standard practice, started carrying two helicopters for superior ASW capability before or at the same time as US Navy/Royal Navy/Soviet Navy. Simple-means-superior-capability projects are like the Arleigh Burke destroyers, that are still being built in 2011 for threats faced over next 30 years, based on proven 70’s Spurance hullform. Simple-means-superior-capability projects are like the Kolkata destroyers carrying Elta 2248 AESA and 48 Barak 8 missiles for area air dominance with Kashin design influences in its pedigree.

Complex-means-standard-capability projects are the Zumwalt destroyers carrying same VLS and Radars that the Kolkata does. Is the complex hullform worth the marginal incremental capability growth?

So, good engineers do the assessment on pros and cons of maneuverability of stable fighters vis-à-vis unstable fighters. Are not stable fighters maneuverable? What is the risk of developing complex control laws vis-à-vis the incremental maneuverability offered? What benefits do composites offer vis-à-vis metals? Can not the same performance be eked out by metal airframes?

Vina wrote:This IS a Gripen C/D class fighter with all the bells and whistles that go into it and has come out slightly LIGHTER than the Gripen.

And the Gripen is built mostly with “heavier” metal and Tejas with “lighter” composites. Good proof of the miracle of engineering using lighter composites and coming up with something slightly lighter than Gripen

Nothing against DRDO and nothing against composites, but the results don’t match the initial hype of composites. So maybe using metal wasn’t that bad of an idea after all?

Now, many praise the Navy for being more indigenous. But how many know the tight project governance exercised by Navy chaps that prevent the DRDO chaps from doing esoteric intellectual exercises not proportional with benefits realized?

Case in point – K series missiles – http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/11/ma ... ssile.html
K series missiles are DRDO staffed but Navy managed while Agni series are DRDO staffed and managed. Comparing the Navy run Shourya length 10.22 meters diameter 0.74 meters weight 6500 kg with DRDO run Agni 1 length 15 meters weight 12000 kg offering same throw weight and range (~700 km). Also, Shourya is built of maraging steel while Agni uses composites.

Yet despite everything there we still don’t learn. Dileep mentioned in some thread that the civil airliner RTA specs are higher than Boeing 787 Dreamliner. No IAF is drafting the ASR here. Whom will you blame there when such impractical specs won’t be met?

Anyways, in hindsight, all is well as long as the Tejas performs. And DRDO has learnt its lessons and is today focused on delivering capability rather than tom-tomming research hype. And outright inaccuracies need to stop that OBOGS & internal jammer added weight, or IAF initially had MiG-21 specs that they later enhanced.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 28 Feb 2011 14:42

Tanaji -- T 90 AUCRT etc were in 98-99 time frame and a order for 310 tanks was placed in 2001-2.

Arjun pass its AUCRT in 2007-8 and already has a order of 124 + most prob another 124 (I am going by the majority of reports, not only Chacko's)

There is all the reason to expect Arjun to have a large run, either in MkI/II forms or evolved as FMBT.

No one is quibbling about the initial 310 order. What is invariably not mentioned is that the T90 order has somehow morphed into a 1000 order and Arjun still remains at 124.

Dont you think that IA insists that all defects solved for Arjun before we order more and keeps its order book at 124 but does not follow the same logic for T90 and gives it a 1000 order?

Do you really think that with a 1000 T90s, we are going to get similar orders for the Arjun?

It is the lack of a consistent standard that is being bemoaned here.

I am afraid the only questionable standards that are on display are those who so seek to fling mud at others/IA, which deliberately conflate two issues nearly 15 years separated in time, despite by shown once a page how 15 years have passed between the first decision and the second.

The follow on order for T90 that bumped up its order book to 1000 was definitely not 15 years ago, its more recent. I dont have the exact date but cant be more than 5 years ago. Where was the competitive bidding then? Why the readiness to induct a 1000 of tanks that have a faulty TI sight, not being able to fire Indian rounds (at the time of decision), but no readiness to induct the Arjun when AUCRT was only around the corner?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Feb 2011 14:42

d_berwal wrote:I think the source was more credible that members using wiki, livefist, ajaishukla's blog and other similar blogs to support their arguments.

Ok I missed that part , can you atleast link the article/discussion ?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Feb 2011 14:43

d_berwal wrote:
Sanku wrote:d_berwal; I hope you do realize that relying on questionable sources greatly destroys the credibility of your posts and as well the credibility of the system in favor of which you make the statement.

This is nearly as bad as "Arjun is great because it beat the shitty tin can" type of self goals that abound.
The source i provided is more credible and informative than the general claims of people here on BR.
.

In which case you should send a mail to admins of the forum and put this matter up for collective consensus of all mods.

Kindly consider it seriously.

vina · Post by **vina** » 28 Feb 2011 14:44

The issue with C 17 is ONLY that is is not selected through a Multi-vendor process.

Yeah right! The T-90 was selected after a multi vendor process which made the best tanks in the world through it's paces in the Army test centers and the T-90 emerged as the best!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Feb 2011 14:49

Anujan wrote: Define "nimble" ? Faster? Lower ground pressure? Fording deeper? Crossing longer trenches? Climbing steeper gradient? Which is more "nimble" ? A bicycle or a motorbike? So this whole question of "bulked up" vs "light and nimble" is quite misleading.

I think we have defined nimble more than once, it is a system which meets its primary goals, with the lowest possible complexity of operation and logistical overhead. Quick to deploy and maintain, and takes punishment without ceasing to work.

You might question the very usefulness of tanks -- that discussion is pointless.

Oh no, saying that a wide variety of solutions can exist is NOT questioning the usefulness of tanks, merely saying
1) the biggest and heaviest tank you can build IS NOT the only armor/armor busting solution, tanks are but one of many solutions which are all needed.
2) There are multiple solutions even with tank design just as for any other mil/eng system.

The point is, IA has several thousands of T72s and worse tanks, for which it is seeking a replacement. The question is which way we will go. T90 or Arjun?

The formal answer from MOD has always been that the IA will standardize around 50:50 ratio for the fleet (tank families, if not exact tank). I dont see why this should change.

The only defense against top-attack tandem warheads are hard and soft-kill mechanisms -- active and passive protection. For which you need space. And engine power. And more protection.

Not necessarily, you can trade off, you can reduce front armor for example and add other stuff. All eng systems are trade-offs.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 28 Feb 2011 14:49

vina wrote:
The issue with C 17 is ONLY that is is not selected through a Multi-vendor process.
Yeah right! The T-90 was selected after a multi vendor process which made the best tanks in the world through it's paces in the Army test centers and the T-90 emerged as the best!

Ah, the response to this is that when T90 deal was signed the DPP did not mandate multi vendor process, when in fact, by Sanku's own admission, the policy gave much more latitude in selecting a vendor. So nothing prevented IA/MoD from having a multi vendor competition when the deal was signed.

The fact that they did not speaks volumes.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Feb 2011 14:52

vina wrote:
The issue with C 17 is ONLY that is is not selected through a Multi-vendor process.
Yeah right! The T-90 was selected after a multi vendor process which made the best tanks in the world through it's paces in the Army test centers and the T-90 emerged as the best!

Vina, I strongly suggest that you stick to the threads where you can actually read what is being posted before shooting your mouth off.

Sanku wrote:Had the same systems existed in 1998-2001, I would have asked IA to carry out a Multi-vendor process and invite Ukranian Upg T-80 bids along with T-90 and Leopards and Merks et al.

I am afraid the only questionable standards that are on display are those who so seek to fling mud at others/IA, which deliberately conflate two issues nearly 15 years separated in time, despite by shown once a page how 15 years have passed between the first decision and the second.

I must say that I have GREAT distaste for people trying to pick one part of the sentence from a post and going on a Jeehard with it.

kvraghav · Post by **kvraghav** » 28 Feb 2011 14:53

I think we also have to question the t-90 supporters attitude here.After reading pages,i notice that they just call others sources as not credible but use same sources.Also they take a point and move it to another point coming back to the same point again.Its like a merry go round every 5 pages,for some one like me who is trying to follow this.I think people better put some others to their ignore list since no amount of dicussions and point can clear a clouded mind.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Feb 2011 14:54

Tanaji wrote: Ah, the response to this is that when T90 deal was signed the DPP did not mandate multi vendor process, when in fact, by Sanku's own admission, the policy gave much more latitude in selecting a vendor. So nothing prevented IA/MoD from having a multi vendor competition when the deal was signed.

The fact that they did not speaks volumes.

What are you speaking about, pray what school of logic equates

Always always follow Multi-vendor (no I wont) === You may follow multi-vendor if necessary (no we dont find it necessary)

Kindly desist, murdering logic in quest for debate is really not funny.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 28 Feb 2011 14:58

^^ Did you not state that the initial DPP (when T-90 deal was signed) did not mandate multi vendor? Did it specifically forbid multi vendor tenders ?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 28 Feb 2011 14:58

Sanku wrote:
Tanaji -- T 90 AUCRT etc were in 98-99 time frame and a order for 310 tanks was placed in 2001-2.

Arjun passed its AUCRT in 2007-8 and already has a order of 124 + most prob another 124 (I am going by the majority of reports, not only Chacko's)

<SNIP>

May dear good sir, you're displaying your ignorance here.

AUCRT is for an inducted system - Accelerated Usage cum Reliability Trials -to understand the logistics requirement of the type. It is user trials which are conducted prior to induction of the tank. AUCRT is a different set of test all together which happens after the system is inducted.

However, T-90 was okayed for induction by the Indian Army before their trials in Indian conditions. It was asked to conduct trials in Indian conditions before taking a call...and guess what, it passed. All this is documented in the Parliamentary Standing Committe on Defense Reports. Tanks don't pass AUCRT before getting green signal for induction.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Feb 2011 14:58

Tanaji wrote: No one is quibbling about the initial 310 order. What is invariably not mentioned is that the T90 order has somehow morphed into a 1000 order and Arjun still remains at 124.

The follow on order for T90 that bumped up its order book to 1000 was definitely not 15 years ago, its more recent. I dont have the exact date but cant be more than 5 years ago.

So the first 310 in 2001, the second 1000 tank order (the total is 1300 odd T 90s actually) in 2006-7 time frame.

So 5 years from the first to the second. The second order was based on "follow on orders of same type" clause in DPP and contract. Exactly what is ALSO BEING DONE FOR SCORPENE.

No one cribs for more scorpenes do they. Ditto for T 90.

Arjun WILL get its follow on orders soon enough, there is already another 124 order talk, this should materialize in exactness soon, if it has not already. And there will be more.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Feb 2011 15:00

Tanaji wrote:^^ Did you not state that the initial DPP (when T-90 deal was signed) did not mandate multi vendor? Did it specifically forbid multi vendor tenders ?

Look

MUST ALWAYS DO MULTI_VENDOR != YOU ARE NOT STOPPED FROM MULTI_VENDOR.

The second was pre 2002 picture
The first is now.

I am sorry but those two are different, I can help it.

2002 DPP was a watershed event. The MoD itself says so. Why pretend otherwise? We have overhauled our rules.