Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

John · Post by **John** » 21 Apr 2011 03:45

Pratyush wrote: I ask again, since you have greater insightes on the IA compared to the others, why hasn't the IA asked the NAG to be a Jeep mounted system? Or even asked for this capability to be developed.

The MPNAG is a seperate discussion. That requirement will be met by an import and that is a seperate issue.

As pointed our earlier a 45 kg missile is not practical for a vehicle mounted system reloading it manually won't be easy. Plus also has it been tested to hit soft targets? which is primarily what TOW was used in during current wars.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Apr 2011 03:51

Guys,

This decision only reiterates (once again) how unstructured, fickle & customer driven (as versus partner driven) the Army's attitude towards local R&D is.

Having said that, there is no point in squibbling over spilt milk. The Namica modifications asked for, should be achievable by DRDO & its industry partners. They do have an array of expertise when it comes to such capabilities, including ab-initio subsystem design, modification and integration. At the end of the day, the modifications the Army has asked for - at least what we know of being the Thermal Imaging Panoramic sight, will be a big boost to the Namica's capabilities & enhance its hunter killer capabilities. Somebody said that the Army has so far not asked for anything similar on its tanks - thats incorrect. The Army has indeed asked for a panoramic thermal imager for its T-72, T-90 and Arjun fleet. The Arjun MK-II will come with a new TI sight for this purpose. A DRDO developed sight is currently in trials for the T-series tanks.

The one thing to evaluate the Army by, after this latest last moment add this, add that, would be how they treat the Nag & Namica after the system is developed. Hopefully, we'll have another coming of age significant order for yet another Indian missile system.

Hobbes · Post by **Hobbes** » 21 Apr 2011 06:53

I closely followed rohitvats' spirited and well reasoned arguments in defence of the Arjun last year on the armour thread against our "useful idiots" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot) who went out of their way to passionately defend the indefensible aka the T90, and believe that he generally knows what he is talking about in this context. Thus, I am surprised that he is picking at straws in an effort to derail the arguments of people aghast at the Army's casual dismissal of a proven and mature product by simply moving the goalposts. I am no supporter of ad hominem attacks against anyone let alone the military, which is one of the last public institutions worthy of respect in today's India, and support his desire to avoid personal attacks on the Army and its people, but believe a little leeway must be given to those distressed by what seems to be prima facie another attempt to bury a successful indigenous product.

That said, the cause of the trouble is a single report from a newspaper, perhaps not the best source to be taken at face value. While the Hindu has a better track record than some other broadsheets in defence reporting, the facts on the ground may be different; there may be more to this than meets the eye. It is possible that the order may in fact be split into a smaller Mark 1 version, followed by a redesigned Mark 2 with dual panoramic sights. I also question the report's claim that "the Namica is being totally redesigned". This is sheer impossibility given that the new version is expected to be ready for trials next year, i.e. the summer of 2012. The putative upgrades will probably involve additional instrumentation (the sights and associated electronics) and redesign of the commander's console to accommodate the new sight.

Another noteworthy point is that the new Namica will not be single sourced, but rather be the result of a comparative trial between BEL and L&T. I quote from the report:

Two systems would be made — one by Bharath Electronics Limited (BEL) and the other by Larsen & Toubro.

Following a comparative evaluation of the two carriers in the summer of 2012, the configuration of the production version would be selected.

Several BRFites have been vocal in calling for the private sector to be involved in defence production. This may well be an early effort to get away from the stranglehold of the DPSUs and the OFB. It is entirely possible that the Army does not trust the capability of BEL to deliver in time and to spec, and so they're trying to go with a supplier of proven capabilities.

Just my 2p....

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Apr 2011 07:50

imo if the idea is to surveil the battlefield in all conditions from a hidden position, a telescoping LORROS type system rather than a tank style TI is the best bet. that way firing could be done from a defilade position too. we already have LORROS on trucks for border surveillance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORROS

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 21 Apr 2011 11:34

LORROS

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Apr 2011 12:53

the kit pictured above being designed for law enforcement/border surveilance kind of duty is not as a shock hardened and rugged as a TI MBT sight , but it can made rugged for sure with vendor participation and it must already be weather sealed. MTBF is likely good being used for unmanned towers too here and there.

the lorros kit could actually be mounted on a slightly telescoping assembly atop the Nag launch cansisters or just bolted there libya rebel style if a mast for raising is not viable.

its a cheapish readily available soln which we already use and the trained IA manpower and OEM repair chain will be there already.

but I am sure we will ask a global RFI and RFP for gen5 TI thermals from thales, atlas electronic, peleng, samsung, nikon, canon, fujifilm, zeiss, leica, mamiya et al and spend five years deciding which one.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 21 Apr 2011 13:34

^^^

Singha,

You missed, that, if the item is selected after 5 years, it will be tested for another 5 years both in summers and the winters. When the time comes for a mass order of the item, you will have Renuka Chaudhary shouting kurruption. Cancelling the entire deal, by which time the army will have ordered a russi system, to meet an urgent requirement. Killing the NAMICA system.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Apr 2011 17:37

even a trained monkey equipped with a canon 400mm-L is a workable option.

spinning our wheels is not a good thing.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 21 Apr 2011 19:06

^^^

But that's not 3 axis established TI system. The IA cannot accept any thing less then that. Also it has to be imported onlee. No desi maal for the IA.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 21 Apr 2011 22:44

Hobbes wrote: <SNIP> Thus, I am surprised that he is picking at straws in an effort to derail the arguments of people aghast at the Army's casual dismissal of a proven and mature product by simply moving the goalposts. <SNIP>

My dear Hobbes, can you please point to my post(s) where I'm derailing the argument wrt IA's decision to move the goal post? Or where I have argued in favor of the army wrt this decision? I'd be most glad if you could do so.

If pointing out stupidities on part of part of poster(s) to scream CT and then use the Javelin/Kornet/konkur in the same context is called clutching at the straws, then I guess, you and I have been exposed to different meaning of the term. Yes, one thing that I have constantly argued against is the en masse derision of the Services because of their stupidities, perceived or otherwise.And something I will continue to do. Being critical of the Services does not mean spouting nonsense on everyone wearing the uniform and behaving and posting like an idiot. There is far better and civilized way of doing and saying things.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 22 Apr 2011 09:58

ranjithnath wrote:LIG Nex1 submits bid to sell portable missiles to India
SEOUL, April 20 (Yonhap) -- LIG Nex1 Co., a South Korean weapons maker, has submitted a preliminary bid to sell portable anti-aircraft missiles to India, a military official said Wednesday.

Will post a story next week.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 22 Apr 2011 11:52

Karan M wrote: The one thing to evaluate the Army by, after this latest last moment add this, add that, would be how they treat the Nag & Namica after the system is developed. Hopefully, we'll have another coming of age significant order for yet another Indian missile system.

The Army will treat it like how one would expect a system conceptualized in the 80s, operationalized on a 80s platform to be treated - poorly. I doubt the NAMICA will be as big a hit in the Indian Army considering it carries only 12 missiles and its armor is really minimal that any "abdul" with a modern RPG can take out. The system is antiquated in 'concept' at a time when most of the worlds conventional military leaders are moving away from large scale armor engagements, when most anti-tank vehicles today have at the very least ERA, when most tanks can comfortably take out targets 8kms away. IMO, the entire concept of a dedicated ATGM carrier is moribund this late in the day so the minutia about a partial(/full ?) redesign is a moot point.

The greatest prospect for the NAG would be the HELINA. Let's hope that the DRDO doesn't arrive late to that party as well.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Apr 2011 12:05

> when most tanks can comfortably take out targets 8kms away

the farthest I have heard is around 5km. but thats stationary on stationary in open desert. for moving on moving, the best around are said limited to around 2km. tanks have no way to fire other than direct LOS even if a inclined barrel would impart more range.

in any case, the LOS in the punjab jammu border is unlikely to be more than 2km given the prevalance of cropland, groves of trees, embankments, marshy tall grass etc. in the Rajasthan and Kutch area maybe it is 3-4km , there again terrain features mean its probably not the super flat iraqi desert. from hidden positions at elevations in ladakh, shooters could command a good vantage position for many kms.

so any form of ATGM shooter whether its NAMICA or BMP-with-konkurs or dismounted infantry will have a decent shot - in our contexts.

> The system is antiquated in 'concept' at a time when most of the worlds conventional military leaders are moving away
> from large scale armor engagements

Sher khan is not focussing on it at present while still retaining 1000s of abrams tanks and the logistics needed to move entire divisions across the sea - their wars have changed, none of the other Munnas have money to keep more than 200 tanks each...they cannot deploy more than a single armour regiment without half killing themselves, so by necessity they think small these days.

our problem is China and Pak - can you pls post any references to indicate that they are moving away from large scale armour? if anything, my reading is they are continuously inducting and improving their tank force....and chinese have a good place in table flat tibet to bring in heavy armour and overwhelm light and isolated forces.

12 missiles is a good load. most of western IFVs seem to carry only around 4 laser/wire guided ones fixed outside the turret. a troop of 4 Namicas unleashing 48 missiles on the frontage of a tank regiment attack should be able to score 15-20 hits and attrit 30% of tanks before the Milan/Javelin shooters & supporting tanks even get to fire

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 22 Apr 2011 12:17

Brando wrote: The Army will treat it like how one would expect a system conceptualized in the 80s, operationalized on a 80s platform to be treated - poorly. I doubt the NAMICA will be as big a hit in the Indian Army considering it carries only 12 missiles and its armor is really minimal that any "abdul" with a modern RPG can take out. The system is antiquated in 'concept' at a time when most of the worlds conventional military leaders are moving away from large scale armor engagements, when most anti-tank vehicles today have at the very least ERA, when most tanks can comfortably take out targets 8kms away. IMO, the entire concept of a dedicated ATGM carrier is moribund this late in the day so the minutia about a partial(/full ?) redesign is a moot point.

The greatest prospect for the NAG would be the HELINA. Let's hope that the DRDO doesn't arrive late to that party as well.

NAG can be modified to be fired from the existing BMPs and the Future planned ICVs, its future need not be dependent on the NAMICA only. I hope that the IA will think in terms of doing this. In addition it can also be modified as a jeep mounted system. This will have the same employment strategy that the Kornet and other systems jeep mounted systems have. The survivability will be greater as the system is fire and forget the launcher can relocate immediately after launch. As they need not worry about guiding the Missile to the target.

HELINA is the next step, but I fear the IA may order the HELLFIRE or some other comparable imported system as an emergency measure and thereby kill it.

^^^

Singha,

The NAG has a published PK rato of .70 / shot. Source wiki page of nag. So you are looking an the destruction of the regiment as a combat force onlee.

Having said so, will love to see digital Data link and hope that the system can see service as a land based equvilent of the assault chopper.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Apr 2011 12:26

Brando wrote:

The Army will treat it like how one would expect a system conceptualized in the 80s, operationalized on a 80s platform to be treated - poorly. I doubt the NAMICA will be as big a hit in the Indian Army considering it carries only 12 missiles and its armor is really minimal that any "abdul" with a modern RPG can take out. The system is antiquated in 'concept' at a time when most of the worlds conventional military leaders are moving away from large scale armor engagements, when most anti-tank vehicles today have at the very least ERA, when most tanks can comfortably take out targets 8kms away. IMO, the entire concept of a dedicated ATGM carrier is moribund this late in the day so the minutia about a partial(/full ?) redesign is a moot point.

The greatest prospect for the NAG would be the HELINA. Let's hope that the DRDO doesn't arrive late to that party as well.

Aha! Herr General Brando Von Manstein again graces the BRF Staff College with his deep insight on armor warfare.......Truly Sir, you're the epitome of the art of mechanized warfare. However, this Leutnant zur See has some question and I hope you will indulge my ignorance of these complicated matters.

First, how does one define a large scale armor engagement? Large as in how large? Please to quantify this complex point. By making armor warfare redundant, as you propose it is happening, them slavs can be put into their place. No more nasty surprises like T-34. Secondly, how does one get into shooting range with an RPG against a system like NAMICA....my calculation shows that something like NAMICA would well be 2-3kms+ behind the frontline.....so, how do you move in to reach these systems? If you explain this, we can teach this to our Stoßtruppen to engage the enemy....ha! the 4th Reich is round the corner.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Apr 2011 12:42

Pratyush wrote: NAG can be modified to be fired from the existing BMPs and the Future planned ICVs, its future need not be dependent on the NAMICA only. I hope that the IA will think in terms of doing this. In addition it can also be modified as a jeep mounted system. This will have the same employment strategy that the Kornet and other systems jeep mounted systems have. The survivability will be greater as the system is fire and forget the launcher can relocate immediately after launch. As they need not worry about guiding the Missile to the target.

<SNIP>

Pratyush, I, along with someone else, tried to explain why Nag does not fit the bill wrt to Jeep mounted role.

Pick-up any snap of ATGM of IA and you'll find these are the manportable version. What you're asking by way of modification is as good as designing a new missle. And with the seeker tech being still imported for Nag, I don't know how easy or quick this development can be. As for BMP launched Nag, the missile will have to meet the design requirement of storing inside the BMP-2; whether the two requirements (manportable/ jeep mounted and BMP-2 launched) coalesce is a different ball-game.

As for Kornet purchase, I have no idea why that missile was bought in the first place. But I have not seen any Jeep mounted Kornet so far. But a ATGM spin-off from Nag on the lines of Javelin will the most desirable thing.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 22 Apr 2011 13:47

>the farthest I have heard is around 5km. but thats stationary on stationary in open desert. for moving on moving, the best around are said limited to around 2km. tanks have no way to fire other than direct LOS even if a inclined barrel would impart more range.

The 9K119M Refleks-M / AT-14 Sniper -B , the LAHAT, the US MRM-CE/XM1111 all can target and kill targets from a tank beyond 5km. Of course these are not ballistic projectiles but use chemical energy to take out their targets but still they are all gun fired. This is the future of armor engagements (if any).
(Link: US MRM-CE system takes out moving T-72 at 5.4 miles (8.7 kms).
http://www.deagel.com/news/MRM-CE-Score ... 00937.aspx

>in any case, the LOS in the punjab jammu border is unlikely to be more than 2km given the prevalance of cropland, groves of trees, embankments, marshy tall grass >etc. in the Rajasthan and Kutch area maybe it is 3-4km , there again terrain features mean its probably not the super flat iraqi desert. from hidden positions at >elevations in ladakh, shooters could command a good vantage position for many kms.

In an age of real-time active electronic battlefield surveillance these obstacles are meaningless. You can have a J-STARS/ASTOR type of asset paint the entire battlespace for you - tanks, vehicles, men, etc. You can get information on other obstacles that would be hard to distinguish with the naked eye like minefields and mined roads and canals, bunkers and secret tunnels etc with their SAR. The Americans have even started using the J-STARS in Afghanistan to paint terrorists hiding out in the villages and hills so that the Reapers can take them out.
There is no reason in the world that in today's battlefield a tank commander cannot know the exact position of his enemies miles before they come withing range of his "NLOS" weapons.

>so any form of ATGM shooter whether its NAMICA or BMP-with-konkurs or dismounted infantry will have a decent shot - in our contexts.

Only if you assume that your enemies are going to be less technologically networked and less sophisticated than you are and will always use conventional tactics against your conventional force deployment.

>none of the other Munnas have money to keep more than 200 tanks each...they cannot deploy more than a single armour regiment without half killing themselves, so >by necessity they think small these days.

It's not that they "can't afford" more than 200 tanks, it is that they don't consider having more than 200 or so tanks worth the cost or of any significant tactical benefit to them in this day and age with all the "other" weapons they have at their disposal. If tanks were really such a valuable and potent tactical advantage they would cut other areas and fund their tank battalions. But the costs don't justify the rewards of so much armor.

>chinese have a good place in table flat tibet to bring in heavy armour and overwhelm light and isolated forces.

While Tibet is a nice flat top but the Himalayas make a nice wall that will create a lot of choke points for moving armor. Even with the prodigious Chinese ability to build massive infrastructure projects, they will not be able to surmount the Himalayan obstacle in a war with India. The idea that India might have to fight massive tank battles with the PLA is highly implausible given the terrain. I think we have past history to demonstrate how the Chinese have used superior infantry and artillery to their advantage against India.

>12 missiles is a good load. most of western IFVs seem to carry only around 4 laser/wire guided ones fixed outside the turret

It's unfair to compare Western IFV's to the NAMICA which is essentially an ATGM carrier. Also, the NAMICA can't carry out the tasks of a regular BMP either so such a comparison isnt really appropriate. It's better to compare it with the 9P157-2 Khrizantema-S tank destroyer (carries 15) or the Kornet 9P163M-1 tank destroyer (carries 16). I think most people would agree that it's fair to compare the NAMICA with its Russian cousins in terms of specs.

BTW, the Chinese have chosen to go in another direction with their third generation ATGM, the HJ-9 and the HJ-9A, their ATGM is rapidly dis-mountable and jeep/APC mounted ATGM.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Apr 2011 14:36

er not sure why you say a 37kg missile is man portable for dismounted infantry etc. the Nag is around 45kg iirc.

the javelin and its launcher weigh 18kg total. milan around 10kg....

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 22 Apr 2011 14:39

Singha wrote:er not sure why you say a 37kg missile is man portable for dismounted infantry etc. the Nag is around 45kg iirc.

the javelin and its launcher weigh 18kg total. milan around 10kg....

How is "dis-mountable" equal to "man-portable" ?

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 22 Apr 2011 14:42

rohitvats wrote: Aha! Herr General Brando Von Manstein again graces the BRF Staff College with his deep insight on armor warfare.......Truly Sir, you're the epitome of the art of mechanized warfare. However, this Leutnant zur See has some question and I hope you will indulge my ignorance of these complicated matters.

Yes, yes we all bow before you - India's armchair Generlaoberst Von Clausewitz+Heinz Guderian+Curtis LeMay+Darth Vader+Param Vir Chakra recipient in last life.

How can we even approach the lofty heights which your massive armchair has put you at ??

rohitvats wrote: First, how does one define a large scale armor engagement? Large as in how large?

Large is large when it is no longer small! Now the question become how do you define "small" ? How small do you think small is ?

Two can play at semantics. But I think we can suffice by considering armor divisions facing off against each other as "large". Let's not dwell now on the minutia of how "large" or "small" a division is in each different army shall we !

rohitvats wrote: By making armor warfare redundant, as you propose it is happening, them slavs can be put into their place. No more nasty surprises like T-34.

Excuse mein GeneralOberst, but this is 2011, we have helicopter mounted ATGMs and tanks that can fire ATGMs, and man portable ATGMs all mixed together in the same battle space. Also mein GeneralOberst, our neighbors and us have a numerous nuclear devices that makes such large scale battles extremely unlikely without destroying civilization as we know it in an all out nuclear war before the need to mobilize for "large" armor battles. The fact that you consider some large scale armor engagements ala WW2 without it going nuclear is absolutely absurd. I mean why send hundreds of tanks and support personnel in harms way if you can just nuke the enemy tank divisions and waltz in ? BTW Mein GeneralOberst, deploying entire tank divisions against your enemy is in this day and age = total war and everything goes, therefore I'd rather have a missile division armed with nukes over a tank division any day of the week.

rohitvats wrote: ...my calculation shows that something like NAMICA would well be 2-3kms+ behind the frontline.....so, how do you move in to reach these systems? If you explain this, we can teach this to our Stoßtruppen to engage the enemy....ha! the 4th Reich is round the corner.

2-3 kms in the modern battlefield is the "frontline". In the modern integrated battlefield with mixed battle units, do you really think it is "hard" or even "impossible" for a soldier with an RPG to be present 2-3 kms behind a highly fluid line in the sand ? Hell even Patton's 5th army had numerous infantry "bazooka" elements. With the proliferation of third + gen ATGMs and UAVs in a highly fluid battlespace is it so hard to see how the NAMICA could be faced with the risk of encountering an ATGM of its own ?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 22 Apr 2011 15:27

Rohit,

The Kornet may have been acquired to replace the AT4 / 5. WRT, the NAG on BMP modification, it seems that the launch length of 6.3 feet will make the storage in a BMP a major issue.

WRT, the Kornet and Jeep mounted application, I seem to recall seeing a SPEC OPS Jeep / Gypsy in 26 Jan parade adapted with an MMG and the Kornet with a crew of 4. The Nag if adapted to 4X4 configuateion can easily be deployed on the future LSV of the IA As it 5 of the missile will have a weight of about 215 kgs and the launcher and the mount will have a weight of less then 100 kgs. a crew of 4 will add another 300 KG of weight @ 75 Kg per man. Plus the standard gear of the IA man will be another 200 KG @ 50 kg gear per person.

The weigth add on is as follows.

43 Kg *5 NAG = 215 KG
4 men @ 75 Kgs = 300 KG
TI and the LRF mount(Control unit) = 30 KG max
Tripod for dismounted application = 50 KG max
Personal gear for the 4 men = 200 @ 50 kg per man
Total weight carried = 795 KG

This is well within the capabilities of the vehicle sought by the IA for the LSV role. So it seems to be doable when considered this way.

Jeep mounted AT 4 / 5 was a standard feature of 26 Jan parade till the mid 90s.

Which brings to mind another question, what is the IA expecting form the NAG, they conduct trails on NAG for ten years and then at the last moment pull a requirement which will add a delay to the product.

Now slightly Digressing from the topic.

Going by memory onlee, it seems that the IA initialy wanted the TOW with its night sight and was planning to induct it in the early 80s. But the US refused to part with the Clipon TI sight for the system. Which resulted in the deal being scrapped. (Source IDSA paper of the late 90s describing the Indo-us defence relations over the past 50 years. )

Why was the HOT not considered for the role by the IA is unknown to me. Considering the BDL was already making MILAN under licence.

Shortly, thereafter the IGDMP is launched and the NAG is a part of the programme. This could be a coincidence or an independent decision. I really don't know.

When designing an ATGM, the common sense approach would have been to have a single weapon which in turn could be adapted to multiple platforms, like the TOW or the HOT, the weapon for the different application is identicle, only the launch platform differs.

Fully agree with you when it comes to MP nag, but it seems ATM that the requirement is destined to be filled by imports.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 22 Apr 2011 18:26

[quote="Pratyush"]Rohit,

Which brings to mind another question, what is the IA expecting form the NAG, they conduct trails on NAG for ten years and then at the last moment pull a requirement which will add a delay to the product.

[quote]

As far as Certain IA men, MOD babus, Politicans receiving arms comminsions, agents, foreign arms manufactures. basically nothing, they dont want any NAG to reduce the foreign purchase values.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 22 Apr 2011 18:53

Same thing happened in 1996, when Arjun Tank completed trials, but, the induction was delayed in order to order T-90s. Hindi picture stuff, same story, different casts.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 24 Apr 2011 19:37

Military Debris Threaten Oceans

India’s armed forces have also destroyed fragile marine habitat and coral ecosystems. In the Bay of Bengal, India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) conducts missile tests in the middle of a turtle-nesting site within the Gahirmatha Marine Sanctuary.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Apr 2011 20:05

> How is "dis-mountable" equal to "man-portable" ?

if its not man portable which I think is what you want to say (?) then what does the PLA intend to do by dismounting it off the vehicle? its unclear to me atleast what is the advantage of the red arrow being 37kg over Nag that is 45kg if the red arrow cannot be carried around by 2-4 man fire teams. can you clarify this?

anything is dismountable using the right amts of human labour or cranes.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 24 Apr 2011 20:58

IA is clearly showing that they do not wantg to be world leaders - their hankering for phoren maal shows their slavish mentality! All this natak wrt Arjun, Nag, and even Akash makes this clear. I would not be surprised if we are never able to build up infrstructure to counter China in NE with this slavish mentality. It seems that we are waiting for some phoren company to come and build the infrastructure for us!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Apr 2011 21:32

like "great wall construction co" of xian perhaps

- lowest competitve bidder for global RFQ onree.

Avik · Post by **Avik** » 24 Apr 2011 22:47

IA is clearly showing that they do not wantg to be world leaders - their hankering for phoren maal shows their slavish mentality!

So....I guess, MTNL, BSNL, Airtel etc. should not buy stuff from Ericsson, Alcatel etc, and only from C-DoT and ITI; and if C-DoT and ITI dont have the capability, wait till they develop the capacity...

And, Reliance should be put in the doghouse coz they buy their equipment from China...

And we should forego Bombardier, Alsthom, Rotem metro cars coz Perambur and BEML can build them..just check Kolkata metro...

Finally, Jet, Indigo , KFA should be penalized for spending thousands and thousands of crores on phoren maal...why not invest them to build domestic capacity..after all HAL has been building Avros and Dorniers..and with a little encouragement can build jetliners..no??

Do people even think before mouthing off; or is mental capacity too addled by prejudice and malevolence against the IA

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 24 Apr 2011 22:55

Avik wrote: Do people even think before mouthing off; or is mental capacity too addled by prejudice and malevolence against the IA

Well, after years of trials, successful demos being labelled as "torsion bar failures of the Arjun", and now the lack of a second panoramic sight, one does loose the capacity to think!

John · Post by **John** » 25 Apr 2011 04:10

Vivek K wrote:IA is clearly showing that they do not wantg to be world leaders - their hankering for phoren maal shows their slavish mentality! All this natak wrt Arjun, Nag, and even Akash makes this clear. I would not be surprised if we are never able to build up infrstructure to counter China in NE with this slavish mentality. It seems that we are waiting for some phoren company to come and build the infrastructure for us!

Would you have IA do, as i said before NAG due to its size is very limited on what platform it can be fitted in.

jai · Post by **jai** » 25 Apr 2011 05:44

Vivek K wrote: It seems that we are waiting for some phoren company to come and build the infrastructure for us!

Well, if IA/MOD get the roads and the necessary infrastructure made quickly in all border areas and to good quality through foreign companies, I don't in the least mind it - at least it is getting done !!

Left to BRO's own devices, both completion and quality seems to be suspect !!

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 25 Apr 2011 06:30

Avik wrote: So....I guess, MTNL, BSNL, Airtel etc. should not buy stuff from Ericsson, Alcatel etc, and only from C-DoT and ITI; and if C-DoT and ITI dont have the capability, wait till they develop the capacity...

And, Reliance should be put in the doghouse coz they buy their equipment from China...

The way indigenous telecom capability was neglected is sad. The US experience is that Chinese telecom equipment comes with embedded Trojans (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/science/27trojan.html). I am sure western companies are no better.

We should assume that all imported systems with radar or communications features are already compromised.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 25 Apr 2011 09:09

John wrote:
Vivek K wrote:IA is clearly showing that they do not wantg to be world leaders - their hankering for phoren maal shows their slavish mentality! All this natak wrt Arjun, Nag, and even Akash makes this clear. I would not be surprised if we are never able to build up infrstructure to counter China in NE with this slavish mentality. It seems that we are waiting for some phoren company to come and build the infrastructure for us!
Would you have IA do, as i said before NAG due to its size is very limited on what platform it can be fitted in.

Nag's size is comparable to TOW, which btw can be fired from even a jonga (i.e. smallest road mobile vehicle in any military). For Nag you will only need a TI sight as it's a fire and forget missile.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 25 Apr 2011 09:34

jai wrote:
Vivek K wrote: It seems that we are waiting for some phoren company to come and build the infrastructure for us!
Well, if IA/MOD get the roads and the necessary infrastructure made quickly in all border areas and to good quality through foreign companies, I don't in the least mind it - at least it is getting done !!

Left to BRO's own devices, both completion and quality seems to be suspect !!

GREF (notwitstanding Govt Ration Eating Force) and BRO I have watched them in action. They build and maintain roads where no private company will go. Unfortunately their enemies are inhospitable nature and militants. Even worse, their major customer is Aarrrmeee (by now you know my love for the Aarrrmeee descision takers). Their money giver are govt who don't care about the border roads.

I have personally travelled via what they have made as a kid and as an adult. I have lived among them as a kid. Their families are never safe or they need to be left back in the village.

I have some great love for Para Military and forces on the border (its the delhi based I have issues with).

jai · Post by **jai** » 25 Apr 2011 11:31

chackojoseph wrote: I have some great love for Para Military and forces on the border (its the delhi based I have issues with).

Reply cross posted in the Indian Army news and discussion thread

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Apr 2011 14:02

Sid wrote:<SNIP> Nag's size is comparable to TOW, which btw can be fired from even a jonga (i.e. smallest road mobile vehicle in any military). For Nag you will only need a TI sight as it's a fire and forget missile. <SNIP>

Did you look up the stats for TOW and Nag before posting the above gem? This is what google uncles says:

missile/length/weight/warhead
---TOW (BGM-71F) - 1.168mtrs/22.6kgs/5.9kgs
---Nag - 1.9mtrs/42kgs/8kgs

Do they seem 'similar' on any account?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Apr 2011 14:07

chackojoseph wrote: <SNIP> Even worse, their major customer is Aarrrmeee (by now you know my love for the Aarrrmeee descision takers). <SNIP>

Can you tell me what problem is it with IA being their customer? Or is that line just for the heck of it?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Apr 2011 14:10

Aditya_V wrote: <SNIP> As far as Certain IA men, MOD babus, Politicans receiving arms comminsions, agents, foreign arms manufactures. basically nothing, they dont want any NAG to reduce the foreign purchase values.

I was looking for a specific answer and not some wisecrack. If you did not know the answer, reaming silent is a good option.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 25 Apr 2011 14:48

rohitvats wrote:
chackojoseph wrote: <SNIP> Even worse, their major customer is Aarrrmeee (by now you know my love for the Aarrrmeee descision takers). <SNIP>
Can you tell me what problem is it with IA being their customer? Or is that line just for the heck of it?

IMHO, IA is a bad customer to desi's. But knowing your Q's and my A's, I want to give the argument a rest.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Apr 2011 16:09

chackojoseph wrote: <SNIP> IMHO, IA is a bad customer to desi's. But knowing your Q's and my A's, I want to give the argument a rest.

The point is, you don't have answers, apart from usual rants.

How does the IA become bad customer of BRO which is manned by IA officer cadre from Sappers? and same for GREF - which is managed by the IA?