Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

munna · Post by **munna** » 10 Mar 2010 22:03

negi wrote:Sanku maharaaj T-90 issues are being reported after the DEAL has been signed .

Since you all the time reported issues about Arjun based on 1997 trials , it might help the discussion to know that legendary T-90 which IA received was not even in production in 1997 (Iirc appeared first in 1999). It is bewildering to note that suddenly IA found a TANK to suit its needs built by someone who was completely oblivious to IA's GSQRs and all this without any TRIALS before the deal was signed .

Summarizes the debate!

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 10 Mar 2010 22:13

Surya wrote:I meant main area for most of our push since all the DCBs and other fun stuff will slow down any massive armour movement in other areas.

But how come you did not voluntarily make a statement that yes its not 1000 HP under Xyz condition (which may also not be the case but we will give you more rope to hang yourself ) - you essentially scoffed at all of us - since your chaiwallas belonged to all T 90 regiments.

why should i, but i did not deny it, did I ? It is a know fact that every engine derates. (and if u did not know yhis fact, then whats the point of debate?)

my answer to the point raised 1000HP = 1000Hp (output) was is 1400HP =1400Hp (output) whis part of this answer means what u understood?

But how come you did not voluntarily make a statement that yes its not 1400 HP under Xyz condition (which may also not be the case but we will give you more rope to hang yourself

) - you essentially scoffed at all of us - since you are the expert and know all about the design, testing and manufacturing of MBT.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 10 Mar 2010 22:21

Because there was no allegation made against the MTU engines.

But there are against the T 90s.

And the engine forms the big diff for the mobility - which you touted for its awesome mobility and wanted UAVs to record it so we all be in awe of it

But we will let forumites decide where you come from. more wallah less chai

negi · Post by **negi** » 10 Mar 2010 22:23

D_berwal since we are talking about engines and derating in their performance, it would help to have some background on this.

Please check the power to weight ratio of T-90 in IA service vis a vis the Arjun (latter has higher P:W ratio with 1400HP powerpack ) , now consider the fact that a new climate control system/AC is being installed on T-90 along with ARENA it is obvious that while net power available to the transmission is going down the tank weight is only gonna increase with all the new stuff .

In comparasion as per Kanson's link MTU powerpack is already uprated to 1500HP and Arjun in its present form already offers better protection than ERA equipped T-90 .

Sanku saar please post a link supporting that 25%

derating of MTU powerpack .

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 10 Mar 2010 22:27

Surya wrote:Because there was no allegation made against the MTU engines.

But there are against the T 90s.

And the engine forms the big diff for the mobility - which you touted for its awesome mobility and wanted UAVs to record it so we all be in awe of it

But we will let forumites decide where you come from. more wallah less chai

u have away with words ...

when u mean allegations... who made these ?

pls google around and u may find more allegations on ARJUN that T-90...

I know where i come from sirji... and i dont need any one else/ forum to decide it... i am not looking for any kind acceptance form anyone.. i have a view and i am a member of a forum and i am posting my view... not a view based on DDM reports or what others say.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Mar 2010 22:29

Surya/Negi,
It is not about the derating of T-90S engine. The CDM report says Russians test certificate that engine as 846/910 hp. There is difference between derating and test certificate. There is no details of test conducted to issue the certificate from CDM report. Since its the russians which certified, we can expect that it was done in Russian conditions. Further reading the figure "846/910 suggests that, the peak power expected is only 910hp and this is not derating as i see. So the engine is test certificate to only provide a peak power of 910hp. Its derated power could be much less.

Futher, Appn F, from the CDM report...two tanks are put to test.
Tank 1 engine seized.
Tank 2 engine replaced.
In the remark section, if you see, they claim from seized and replaced engine, "no wastage pattern could be established" ; and probable life of engine for T-90S is stated as "as taught by Russians". So one can inccur that T-90S engine was not tested completely in Indian conditon.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 10 Mar 2010 22:33

negi wrote:D_berwal since we are talking about engines and derating in their performance, it would help to have some background on this.

Please check the power to weight ratio of T-90 in IA service vis a vis the Arjun (latter has higher P:W ratio with 1400HP powerpack ) , now consider the fact that a new climate control system/AC is being installed on T-90 along with ARENA it is obvious that while net power available to the transmission is going down the tank weight is only gonna increase with all the new stuff .

In comparasion as per Kanson's link MTU powerpack is already uprated to 1500HP and Arjun in its present form already offers better protection than ERA equipped T-90 .

Sanku saar please post a link supporting that 25% derating of MTU powerpack .

there are lot of assumptions u are tlking about...

let these system come on T-90 we all will get the answer

As far as ARJUN is conserned.. why was its engine uprated to 1500HP... ? what was the need ?

Negi sir... Powerpack issuesare know issues of ARJUN. Can you verify that ARJUN under induction have uprated 1500Hp engine or still 1400Hp... i believe its the second batch of 124 that will have this upgrade.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Mar 2010 22:38

negi wrote:Sanku maharaaj T-90 issues are being reported after the DEAL has been signed .

Since you all the time reported issues about Arjun based on 1997 trials , it might help the discussion to know that legendary T-90 which IA received was not even in production in 1997 (Iirc appeared first in 1999). It is bewildering to note that suddenly IA found a TANK to suit its needs built by someone who was completely oblivious to IA's GSQRs and all this without any TRIALS before the deal was signed .

negi et all...there is another brilliant twist to the whole T-90 story. In one of the posts, it has already been mentioned that IA Team visited Russia to evaluate the tank. Now it seems, IA okayed the induction of tank and made recommendation to the same based on trials in Russia. It was the PNC(Price Negotiation Committee) which insisted on trials of tanks under Indian conditions.....yes, yes..I know, we need authentic sources for such statements....here goes-from Parliamentary Standing Committee - 3rd Report-1999-2000:

30. In reply to a question the Ministry of Defense stated that the T-90S Tanks were offered by Russia in December, 1997. A technical delegation was deputed to Russia in 1998 for conducting evaluation of the Tank. The delegation evaluated the Tank in Russian conditions and recommended its acquisition. In December 1998, the Cabinet Committee on Security approved the proposal for acquisition of 124 fully formed Tanks and 186 Semi Knocked Down (SKD) and Completely Knocked Down (CKD) Tanks.

31. The Price Negotiation Committee (PNC) recommended that the Tanks should be tried in Peak summer conditions in India. Three T-90S Tanks were tried in Rajasthan during May-July 1999. Protection trial of the Tanks were also held in Russia during October-November 1999 which were witnessed by technical delegation from India. Based on these trials the Army headquarters prepared a General Staff Evaluation Report and recommended the induction of T-90S Tank into the service. At present PNC is continuing its negotiations with the supplier M/s RVZ of Russia.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 Mar 2010 22:44

Sorry Kanson, Arjun powerplant is still 1400 hp. From the manufacturer - http://www.mtu-online-shop.de/fileadmin ... E_0802.pdf

Check the last page

The 1500 info board might have referred to an upgrade path. JCage simply made a "IMHO" hypothesis based on GTRE capabilities. Vina made a logical correction. There's no record of any local improvement in any engine, T-72 or Arjun.

I can speak for ship engines, Russian gas turbines on Indian ships perform better in cold climates and performance drops under tropical conditions.

I dont have the information nor the experience to take sides in this discussion, but given our general dearth of hardware, shouldnt we procure the bird in hand? I mean, IN bought 4 + 4 Kukhri corvettes, when these werent the best possible design and GRSE messed up manufacture in every possible way it could, yet these ships are doing sterling service in ENC.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 10 Mar 2010 22:49

chackojoseph wrote:You can home make AK-47 and mot M-16. hence AK-47 proliferates.

I would not know.

I am no gunsmith.

I only know is that if an AK 47 can fire inspite of hard conditions, where the M 16 can't, that is a plus point and good enough for me.

I want something that can save me and not something which is a masterpiece in technology!

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 10 Mar 2010 22:50

Kanson wrote:
RayC wrote:Kanson,

If you understood why I posted the CDM link, then I would not have to explain to you. I am sure you can understand that it is not the UAV that is being highlighted, but the process. I posted that to indicate how things work since from the debate one got the feeling that quite a few of us are tilting at windmills. Just to indicate how things work.

I hope I have explained myself!
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 76#p836276
This is your first post on the link and you posted that with general remark. So i'm not bothered.

You came back with same link and talked abt 35 years and DRDO interaction...Previously the delays relating the GSQR were discussed as raised by you..and hope you should take notice of GSQR in related to delays in the development which was also cited as one of the reason for Arjun delay.

I did and I hope you did too.

I hope you also looked at the CDM project to understand the inner workings!

PNC headed by Lt Gen Mehta? News to me.

negi · Post by **negi** » 10 Mar 2010 22:53

Rohit I am aware of that , but if you see I emphasized on T-90 (in IA service) there was no T-90 Vladimir (welded turret and 1000HP V-92S2 engine appeared in the year 1999) in 1998 . And again was there Catherine TI on T-90 in the year 1999 ?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Mar 2010 22:57

OK....now the power de-rating business. Excel is your friend. Here goes -

T-90
Weight---BHP------BHP/Tonnes
46.5-----1000------21.5
------(De-rating)
---------5%--------20.4
---------10%-------19.4
---------15%-------18.3
---------20%-------17.2
---------25%-------16.1

ARJUN
Weight---BHP-----BHP/Tonnes
58.5----1400-------23.9
---------(De-rating)
---------5%-------- 22.7
---------10%------- 21.5
---------15%------- 20.3
---------20%------- 19.1
---------25%------- 17.9

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 10 Mar 2010 22:58

d_berwal wrote:
Surya wrote:err berwal

This was not about derating.

If it was then the Russians would have said under xyz conditions - and since the desert is our main area its meaningless to tout a 1000 HP engine which cannot produce that??
sirji with you logic, MTU/ DRDO says 1400HP engine... does it also give u hw much it gets derated in THAR... but actully on ground... in day time there will be 20% less power... soo why tout 1400HP engine ... its also meaningless.... which can only be produced under idel test conditions...

sir ji desert is not our main area.. where do u see desert in Punjab & J&K ?

That is so?

negi · Post by **negi** » 10 Mar 2010 22:59

tsarkar wrote: I dont have the information nor the experience to take sides in this discussion, but given our general dearth of hardware, shouldnt we procure the bird in hand?

Yes that is why argument is about if T-90 qualifies as a bird in hand at the time the deal was made . The arguments against Arjun i.e. it was not a finished product at the time of TRIALS holds true for the T-90 too (we have the list of issues out in open) .

I mean, IN bought 4 + 4 Kukhri corvettes, when these werent the best possible design and GRSE messed up manufacture in every possible way it could, yet these ships are doing sterling service in ENC.

I do not know about the Kukhris but once one has committed to a product/platform one will obviously have to live with it .

As COAS once said "We will fight with what we have" . All the issues with T-90 too will be resolved and god willing it will prove to be a successful tank and those reports about ARENA , AC and APU just point towards the continues upgrade path , point is why not the same yardstick for Arjun ? i.e. fix it in SERVICE ?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Mar 2010 23:02

tsarkar wrote:....<SNIP>..I dont have the information nor the experience to take sides in this discussion, but given our general dearth of hardware, shouldnt we procure the bird in hand? I mean, IN bought 4 + 4 Kukhri corvettes, when these werent the best possible design and GRSE messed up manufacture in every possible way it could, yet these ships are doing sterling service in ENC.

We're with you, sir...full agreement. The decision for 1st lot (310) plus the 1000 local manufacture and further 347 direct purchase...all is fine. IA needs tanks and needs the m as of now......but the million $$$ question is, why not ARJUN?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Mar 2010 23:08

tsarkar wrote:Sorry Kanson, Arjun powerplant is still 1400 hp. From the manufacturer - http://www.mtu-online-shop.de/fileadmin ... E_0802.pdf

Check the last page

The 1500 info board might have referred to an upgrade path. JCage simply made a "IMHO" hypothesis based on GTRE capabilities. Vina made a logical correction. There's no record of any local improvement in any engine, T-72 or Arjun.

Sirji, We are getting the same MB833 ka-501 engine, 1400hp power only. We tinkered to add a turbo to raise the figure to 1500hp. We already realised that figure. I only quoted the BR link to act as some support to my statement. Not otherwise. So official figure from MTU can quote only 1400hp.

negi · Post by **negi** » 10 Mar 2010 23:08

RayC wrote: I only know is that if an AK 47 can fire inspite of hard conditions, where the M 16 can't, that is a plus point and good enough for me.

IA enjoys this luxury because some other ARMY took the pain and effort to work with the designers and manufacturer to arrive at a final product which would fire despite taking a heavy beating . M-16 today is not the same gun as it was during the Vietnam conflict .

Quoting one off incident does not tell much about a platform else what should one think about T-72'2 in IA service whose barrel burst during trials ? or the T-90 whose engine seized during the AUCRT .

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 10 Mar 2010 23:10

negi wrote: Yes that is why argument is about if T-90 qualifies as a bird in hand at the time the deal was made . The arguments against Arjun i.e. it was not a finished product at the time of TRIALS holds true for the T-90 too (we have the list of issues out in open) .

I mean, IN bought 4 + 4 Kukhri corvettes, when these werent the best possible design and GRSE messed up manufacture in every possible way it could, yet these ships are doing sterling service in ENC.
I do not know about the Kukhris but once one has committed to a product/platform one will obviously have to live with it .

As COAS once said "We will fight with what we have" . All the issues with T-90 too will be resolved and god willing it will prove to be a successful tank and those reports about ARENA , AC and APU just point towards the continues upgrade path , point is why not the same yardstick for Arjun ? i.e. fix it in SERVICE ?

This is the main argument, that postors like Sanku and Berwal are refusing to acknowledge. T-90s had similar problems as Arjun ( engine needed to be repaired/replaced, issues with gun sights, etc etc). However, with all these faults, T-90s was inducted, and all these issues were not even raised prior to induction. The initial order itself was for 310 tanks with all these issues, which subsequently has been raised to more than 1500.

When Arjun encountered similar problems, all the issues were leaked to media and big issue was made on how Arjun is not upto the mark. Why is there double standards for arjun and t-90s? That is all people are asking here. If we can purchase an imported tank with known limitations and all, why is there a step-motherly treatment to an indigenous product? How come none of T-90 issues were made public prior to induction? 2 out of 3 tanks had major issues during AUCRT trials, and it was hushed up. However for Arjun, it was made a big issue and further orders ruled out.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Mar 2010 23:11

d_berwal wrote:..............sir ji desert is not our main area.. where do u see desert in Punjab & J&K ?

Given the constraint of discussing such a topic on public forum, can you explain the above? What ever little I understand about this topic, the above is contrary to popular wisdom.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 10 Mar 2010 23:15

Kanson

I already mentioned that this maybe nothing to do with derating.

But berwal will say it neither explicitly denies it. So for now

we have given him some rope

rajsunder · Post by **rajsunder** » 10 Mar 2010 23:17

bad news folks

Army Does Not Want More Than 124 Arjun Tanks. It Is Official

I've just spoken with a senior Defence Ministry source, who said that the DRDO would be formally told later this month that no further orders will be placed on the current configuration of the Arjun by the Army, and that further orders would be only possible on the Mark-2 or the FMBT as and when they are ready. So there it is: two regiments of the Arjun Mark-1. No more.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 10 Mar 2010 23:18

negi wrote:
RayC wrote: I only know is that if an AK 47 can fire inspite of hard conditions, where the M 16 can't, that is a plus point and good enough for me.
IA enjoys this luxury because some other ARMY took the pain and effort to work with the designers and manufacturer to arrive at a final product which would fire despite taking a heavy beating . M-16 today is not the same gun as it was during the Vietnam conflict .

and neither is the AK same as it was in the 40's. both their respective armies have worked with the manufacturers/designers and continuously improved the design.

we on the other hand are perfectly happy just to buy whatever they think is good for them, whether or not it is good for us.

the sad thing is if it was the abrams or any other western tank that was bought by the IA the same group of people who are singing paeans to the T-90 now would have been part of the abrams fan club singing "abrams is the best".

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Mar 2010 23:21

There is still no PROOF to show how T 90 had issues in 97 which were more serious than the ones seen by Arjun in 2007.

In any case the above comparisons givers a REALLLLYYYYYYY...... long rope to the discussion of T 90 baiters.

As I said before Arjun is not such a bad tank that it needs (misplaced) torn shirt open fly justifications to support it.

Those who are trying to show that Arjun should be inducted by bashing T 90 are doing great disservice to it -- not to mention are completely factually incorrect (with truly wild allegations like IA was involved in Arjun design and rotfl stuff like procurement is handled by Army)

Rahul M wrote:same group of people who are singing paeans to the T-90 now would have been part of the abrams fan club singing "abrams is the best".

No one is singing Paens to T 90 NO ONE. No is bashing Arjun either.

What is happening is to the contrary, it seems Arjun can be propped up only by bashing T 90.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Mar 2010 23:23

putnanja wrote: This is the main argument, that postors like Sanku and Berwal are refusing to acknowledge. T-90s had similar problems as Arjun ( engine needed to be repaired/replaced, issues with gun sights, etc etc).

The word similar is rather generous, Humans and monkeys have both 2 eyes? Are they similar for any real sense?

After how many Km does Arjun need a engine change in 2007 compared to T 90 in 1997?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Mar 2010 23:29

rajsunder wrote:bad news folks

Army Does Not Want More Than 124 Arjun Tanks. It Is Official

I've just spoken with a senior Defence Ministry source, who said that the DRDO would be formally told later this month that no further orders will be placed on the current configuration of the Arjun by the Army, and that further orders would be only possible on the Mark-2 or the FMBT as and when they are ready. So there it is: two regiments of the Arjun Mark-1. No more.

Expected results only. I was hearing such a flip flop from 2007. First it was 300+ and later 200+ and now from Saraswat, there was some hope for the repeat order of another 100+ and this saga will continue. Now the excuse is FMBT, while druing 2007/08 - implementation of recommendations from Israelis, before that, AUCRT-"engine" problem and later fording issues and before that firing accuracy - how many excuses, while T-90S will be all fine with all the reported problems .

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Mar 2010 23:32

rajsunder wrote:bad news folks

Army Does Not Want More Than 124 Arjun Tanks. It Is Official

I've just spoken with a senior Defence Ministry source, who said that the DRDO would be formally told later this month that no further orders will be placed on the current configuration of the Arjun by the Army, and that further orders would be only possible on the Mark-2 or the FMBT as and when they are ready. So there it is: two regiments of the Arjun Mark-1. No more.

Oh!!!Brilliant......expect more T-90 orders from Father Russia.....so much for objectivity, foresight and what have you from powers that be.......if all they had to do was induct 124 Arjuns.....why the whole drama and sham about AUCRT, medium fording, hardened Electronics......wither Mother India, hail Father land.................

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Mar 2010 23:36

--- confused Shiv Arror's blog with Col Shuklas ----

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 10 Mar 2010 23:36

If even one life is lost on the battlefield due to the inadequate protection of the T-90, the procurement agencies will have blood on their hands.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Mar 2010 23:39

Vivek K wrote:If even one life is lost on the battlefield due to the inadequate protection of the T-90, the procurement agencies will have blood on their hands.

Oh if you take those standards they already have huge amount of blood on their hands already, HUGE!!

And so does DRDO btw (WLR fiasco anyone? Barak ?)

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Mar 2010 23:39

Sanku wrote:Wasnt Ajay Shukla himself going to town during DEFEXPO saying that Arjun's WILL be ordered?

This guys flip-flops faster than a Pentium V clock register.

rohitvats, T 90s were the first MBTs ordered after 25 years of T 72. Have patience bhai, have you ever known MoD to move as fast as Shukla churns out reports?

Do you realize that the above link is from Shiv Aroor's blog and not AJ?

And it is the IA which has said no to the system and not MOD?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 10 Mar 2010 23:40

Sanku wrote:
putnanja wrote: This is the main argument, that postors like Sanku and Berwal are refusing to acknowledge. T-90s had similar problems as Arjun ( engine needed to be repaired/replaced, issues with gun sights, etc etc).
The word similar is rather generous, Humans and monkeys have both 2 eyes? Are they similar for any real sense?

After how many Km does Arjun need a engine change in 2007 compared to T 90 in 1997?

What percentage of tanks in the trial had issues? In case of T-90s, it was 2/3rds of the tanks tested. An engine break down is engine breakdown. If an engine needs to be replaced in a maruti 800 or corolla, it is still similar kind of problem. How long did it take to repair or replace the engine in both cases? For Arjun, it is shown that the engine can be replaced under an hour, which one can't on a T-90.

No one is bashing T-90 for the sake of bashing it. One is just pointing out that the army has double standards for evaluating the two tanks. One can be accepted with all its faults, with promise of rectification in future. another is rejected on the same grounds!

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 10 Mar 2010 23:41

1) This is NOT confirmed YET
2) They are reluctant to order more MARK 1, so IF Mark II will progress well, MORE Orders COULD be Expected

No need to Jump the gun, until offical annoucements are made!! Remeber Putin visit in town could also have something to do with this (political angle)!!!!

negi · Post by **negi** » 10 Mar 2010 23:42

Sanku wrote: The word similar is rather generous, Humans and monkeys have both 2 eyes? Are they similar for any real sense?

Ah semantics , so why don't you put numbers against words like 'reliability' , 'failure' or 'accuracy' yada yada with regards to Arjun's engine, transmission and the gun .

The T-90's engine 'siezed' during AUCRT I think in automotive terms one cannot be more clear or unambiguous as to what it means (I presume you are not gonna question it as it is from a report compiled by IA) , same with Catherine TI malfunctioning in desert heat or its inability to fire Indian ammo out of the box (until DRDO and Tat power tinkered with its ballistic computer) . The fact that its crew needs Ice vests and there are talks about incorporating AC and APU and all this after years of placing the orders are as unambiguous and objective as one can get.

After how many Km does Arjun need a engine change in 2007 compared to T 90 in 1997?

T-90 did not even have the 1000HP engine in 1997 . The Vladimir only came out in 1999 . The preliminary trials based on which orders were placed were undertaken in Russia in 1998 .

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Mar 2010 23:46

putnanja wrote: What percentage of tanks in the trial had issues? In case of T-90s, it was 2/3rds of the tanks tested. An engine break down is engine breakdown.

Clearly you have not read the report and are not clear about what AUCRT hopes to accomplish.

The goal of the AUCRT is to run the tank to death and find out how many fail when.

Please compare the numbers with Arjun

Specifically answer

After how many Kms is the engine change needed
After how many Kms is a track change needed
After how many Kms is oil change needed
After how many rounds is a barrel change needed
How many rounds had how much accuracy
What was the T 90 power to weight ratio after derating

There is absolutely ZERO specific comparison here, just words like "similar"; "also" etc?

People should compare with data; other wise its all BASELESS ALLEGATION

rohitvats; my mistake I acknowledge it -- so we have two contradictory chaiwallas on future of Arjun. Let us wait.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Mar 2010 23:49

negi wrote: T-90 did not even have the 1000HP engine in 1997 . The Vladimir only came out in 1999 . The preliminary trials based on which order were done in Russia in 1998 .

But the PNC made sure that there were trials in 1999 in India before the order was given; the preliminary trials were as the word says, preliminary to the PNC formation.

Prior to, before

the order being placed.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Mar 2010 23:51

Craig Alpert wrote:1) This is NOT confirmed YET
2) They are reluctant to order more MARK 1, so IF Mark II will progress well, MORE Orders COULD be Expected

No need to Jump the gun, until official announcement are made!! Remember Putin visit in town could also have something to do with this (political angle)!!!!

This is like a De javu moment.....couple of pages back I'd said exactly the same; IA will use the Mark II argument to stall the induction of Arjun Tank and send DRDO on another leather hunt......

So, MK1 Arjun is not all-right? But Tin Can-90 is best thing to have happened to Mechanized Forces? As for the Putin visit, well, what angle can there be to it? That one cans domestic product to humor a foreign dignitary? I guess the message we're sending out is, " Your Excellency, the Republic of India hereby solemnly pledges to buy T-XX tanks so that the great factory workers in Father land don't go without jobs. As a mark of commitment to our friendship, we've just capped our own product. You Sir, on the other hand, will have full privilege to screw us on price, TOT and what have you. Till death do us apart. Amen"

negi · Post by **negi** » 10 Mar 2010 23:57

Sanku wrote: People should compare with data; other wise its all BASELESS ALLEGATION.

Data yes

T-90 shares 67% of its parts with T-72 (upgraded T-72 )
T-90 hull with ERA was defeated by a RPG-29 (source Fofanov's site with necessary data)
Here Rahul_M's post again

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... start=1320

While Arjun was immune to the RU 3BM42 round.

As for your questions the onus is on you to prove that Arjun's specs are in any way inferior to T-90 in those areas . And please do provide a link .

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 11 Mar 2010 00:01

negi wrote:
Sanku wrote: People should compare with data; other wise its all BASELESS ALLEGATION.

As for your questions the onus is on you to prove that Arjun's specs are in any way inferior to T-90 in those areas . And please do provide a link .

Downhill skiing I see; so you agree that you have no data which shows that when IA says that AUCRT failed for Arjun and passed for T 90 (not my assertion IAs) it is not being correct?

Since you claimed double standards

(dont keep harping on the Armor, IA has accepted better Armor on Arjun ages back, heck it was IAs tests which showed that, so its IA own claim that you are quoting to show IA some how does not know)

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Mar 2010 00:01

Sanku wrote:
negi wrote: T-90 did not even have the 1000HP engine in 1997 . The Vladimir only came out in 1999 . The preliminary trials based on which order were done in Russia in 1998 .

But the PNC made sure that there were trials in 1999 in India before the order was given; the preliminary trials were as the word says, preliminary to the PNC formation.

Prior to, before

the order being placed.

Is it so innocuous as you portray it? The extract of the report I posted states that IA recommended the induction of T-90 based on trials in Russia in 1998 and CCS approved the same in 1998 December itself. Does IA induct an armament like a MBT based on preliminary trials? Why did it take the PNC to ask the IA to trial the T-90 in Indian conditions? Should not IA have asked for it in the first place? And why was same done 6-months after the recommendation and approval had already been made and given?So much for the objectivity and fair assessment....