Philip wrote:Chacko.Let's agree to disagree.MY assessment is that Arjun was a "bridge too far" for the DRDto develop,to meet the global standard that the IA wanted for obvious reasos.The PAC reports themselves say that the three main components were imnported.Barring Kanchan armour ad the HP suspension,vrtually eveything else is imported,"60%" says the DRDO itself.The test results are in the report with the IA poining out the flaws.
When you know little about any topic, it helps not to make such ridiculous statements openly. 60% refers to cost. Import content can be referenced either by cost or by items. For simplicity's sake, the % tracked in this case is by cost. That is what the GOI and assorted organizations often use.
All that means, if you use even basic statistics is that the Arjun could be 70% indigenized by parts, and that could only translate to 40% by cost whereas three systems from an expensive manufacturer (Germany, which happens to be amongst the most expensive engineering systems providers) could be 60% by cost!
Clearly, you have little idea of either when you say "virtually everything else is imported" - can you tell me what else goes into a main battle tank? There are THOUSANDS of items. Many of these are produced at HVF itself, and others sourced from many Indian companies. Things like the microprocessor assembly that controls the Gun Control Stabilization, from L&T. The Ballistic Computer from Tata developed & designed by TATA & DRDO.
The Gun assembly, the armour, the myriad power transfer, fuel system components, the vehicle electronics are all from within India.
Yet you know NOTHING of all of this. Your ignorance speaks for itself.
hese due to both design and prduction quality deficicncies.I mentioned "Mismatch" of the engine and transmision with the hull "bulges".Please study the PAC reports in detail..
More rubbish from out of date reports. Renk & MTU - which supply the powerpack, now need Philip to tell them about "mismatch of engine and transmission". The issue was resolved a long time back!
You cannot blame the Army for not acepting the tank,in fact one report says that the tank at that time failed to meet the "minimum performance requirements"
Where were these minimum performance requirements for the T-90? Whose engine seized up before it should have per OEM specs in the AUCRT, was replaced, and seized up again. Whose Thermal Imaging & Night sight assembly was not even permitted to be inspected by the Indian side when transferred to India.
Given such a long time ,at the report time ,"26 years",it is only to be expected that new performance parameters would be asked for with new developments.OK,that delay is not an issue,a couple of years maybe,but 3+ decades to mature?
The stuff that you write Philip, clearly shows one thing. You have no idea whatsoever of what system development is. One wonders what your "area of expertise" is - but its clearly not anywhere close to being associated with technology. Interior decoration, architecture, liberal arts, journalism or something. But not technology or even tracking technology.
The 26 years or whatever for the Arjun is peanuts, compared to what the program was envisaged as and what it became. The Arjun was a 40 ton Vijayanta class improvement when it was launched. It then transformed into an Abrams equivalent, the Abrams itself followed on from the MBT-70 program launched in the 1960's and was ultimately fielded in 1980, that too with a 105mm gun.
The Arjun in contrast, has been all about fielding a "ready from day one" tank and even that too, after beating the T-90 in trials, has only been ordered in 124 units with a MK2 now in development.
Why then has there bee committe after committe,with plans to restrcture the DRDO incluidng the latest during AKA's era?
Ridiculous strawman. So if the Army decides to implement a Cold Start doctrine, after it took too much time to mobilize during Parakram, a situation that showed that changing requirements meant the organization had to evolve in response, indicates the Army was not good at its job till then? All organizations evolve.
Again - all you have shown so far is you have very little understanding of any corporate with any sort of technology involved. One organization my colleague is in, has seen seven - yes seven - restructurings within a space of five years. All because leadership changed, some guys at the top thought it needed to be done etc. The amount of efficiency gain - has been marginal. In other words, this committee stuff is rigmarole.
What would help India far more than some committee 0-s is for the Armed forces to develop their own weapons technology cells and for the MOD & others to relinquish control over the DPSUs and permit more liberal policies.
Henceforth,as we have just seen,there shoudl be a timeframe for the IA also to draw up its requirements for its FMBT so that the DRDO can begin work on it,or at least R&D on key components,if it wants to wait and seee how Arjun Mk-2 and the T-90M square off before deciding upon its concept/parameters. As some have said,perhaps the IA needs two kinds of tanks.Let's wait and see.
There is no T-90M in India, please spare us Sengupta's rubbish. There is the T-90S/SK in production. And the Arjun has already trounced the former.
Karan,I am not an advocate for Russia or any supplier.I couldn't care less where our eqpt. came from,preferably home built,provided it worked. "Horses for courses" is what I've always said.As for "drinkng buddies" stories,I've posted reports from parliamentary PAC reports,etc. and not hearsay.And if they say that coordination was inadequate,better cooperation rq. between end user and the manufacturer,do you question those findings? Do you also question the test results and shortcomings mentioned in detail? The saga of Arjun is too well documented officially for a neutral observer to understand the root of the problem,e shortcomings of the DRDO to deliver given it inadequte techniclal base to meet its claims.True,some of the blame must be shared by the IA,but as said before,if the timeframe is not met,the demand for improvements will surface,it is inevitable.As the report say again and gain,the underestimation by the DRDO of the costs and effort involced was drawbck rom the start,leading to delays,shifting goalposts and the product had to go through the rack in tests before it was finally accepted.
Philip - you are an out and out advocate for Russia and Russian equipment and sorry, your excuses fail to pass muster. You routinely denigrate, disparage Indian efforts using the flimsiest of claims -"my drinking buddy happens to be associated with blah blah blah, he said everyone else in R&D were idiots, so and so and if he had been in charge" - you think the rest of us were born yesterday, and we haven't heard and learnt to differentiate between braggadacio and reality? Meanwhile whenever the topic of Russia comes up, objectivity goes out of the window and excuses galore pile up.
The manner in which you routinely attack and denigrate Indian efforts - in a pompous and high handed manner - while always ready to trot out excuses for Russian snafus which consume billions of dollars, far more than Indian efforts, speaks volumes.
Your posting of parliamentary PAC reports etc is also a distraction at best. Because you deliberately ignore how each and every issue raised in all the reports was resolved. Out of context claims, used to push your usual agenda.
Furthermore, that you claim these reports are something unique are also by themselves testament to the fact that complex engineering programs worldwide suffer from far more critical delays.
Whats amusing is that you take the reports provided by nations like India, UK, US etc those which are democratic and transparent in providing these sort of details - and then use them to attack those programs themselves. Whereas Russia of course can do no wrong.
Spare us the claims please of "underestimation" etc - when the reality is that if the Army had a proper technology cell which could audit Indian capability versus its own doctrine, it would not have asked for unobtainable specs to begin with. A T-72 with a FRHC of 60odd % at 1 km was fine, whereas the Arjun had to have a FRHC of 90% at 2.5Km and that too moving! Such ridiculous brochure bashing has been at the root of problems.
That of course, would require you to actually understand the topic - as versus regurgitating whatever AWST etc say. And that is where you totally lack. Like I said, liberal arts or some such thing but no serious evaluation of how hard and complex technology development is.
have misunderstood the "reinventing the wheel" context.If the DRDO did not know how to manufacture the "wheeL" ,then will any end user wait for aeons before getting a product which he needs within specified timeframes? The "import content" is mentioned because it is the PAC that has deplored the "26 years" of R&D,esclating costs, and the fact that at that time the DRDO still couldn't deliver the goods! Our goal has been all among for imprt substitution,indigenisation.NO one will dispute that that is what we need so that we ca develop the logistic/spres support infrastructure within the country and not depend upon imports,sanctions,etc. PLease read the recommendations.I didn't invent the reports or their content and the project is now well known history.If you don't like the message that these reports carried,try not to shoot the messenger!
Philip, less disingenuity please. Trying to use the PAC (a bunch of politicians used to quick fixes) as the source of your message, when you routinely badmouth politicians at every turn, only goes to show that you pick and choose sources as they feed your agenda. If they suit what you believe - oh, they are respectable sources.
Please don't assume that we are all idiots who'll buy into such rubbish.
Anyone who knows the Arjun program knows the DRDO did everything it could to seek technical assistance within its budget constraints and Indian manufacturing ability.
Hence the involvement of world class companies like MTU, Renk, Sagem and others.
Even so, sanctions played their part - even those DRDO overcame by rerouting suppliers for things like the Thermal Imagers.
And the piecemeal ordering by the Indian Army prevented indigenization of key items. A simple understanding of economics and logistics would clearly indicate that having two lines of spares and LRUs for subsystems spread out over 124 tanks is stupid. It makes far more sense to standardize on one & produce those. And even that, for instance with the engine, which would have lowered cost thanks to assembly at BEML - was not feasible as breakeven was for 300 odd units.
And you don't even know this....
PS: No disrespect to those armymen who wre connected wiht the project.They may have been fine tankers and engineers,but they were not the designers and manufacturers.It is their feedback whichb has been the basis for the reports of the PAC,et.
What dishonest rubbish. Here you have Army men who were involved with the design and development of the Arjun from day one & you deliberately choose to ignore their contribution.
Has HM Singh itself speaking about the tank. Check his designation. Maj Gen HM Singh (ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR ARJUN R&D). What spin, now?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSsN9zaKzRA
Philip you know NOTHING of Indian Arms development.
The Arjun was developed with Indian Army tankers part of the design and development process at every turn. There were army men who were involved in designing specific features, others deputed to the HVF and CVRDE to test them, with the 43AR taking more and more of the testing responsibility. There are many EME and IA Cavalry men who have been involved with the Arjun. After each stage, the Arjun would be wheeled out, sent to Rajasthan & elsewhere & tested - that feedback and critique was then used to finetune the tank even more. That forms the basis of "xyz not ready" - each issue of which was tackled and resolved.
That you don't even know this, speaks volumes.
Stick to being a PR man for Russian items please - at least there, you regurgitate whatever the magazines tell you. The rest, less said the better about your claims and statements.
PS: For those who'd actually want to learn something about the Arjun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnpbEEzP9hw
Has HM Singh poring over the Arjun design, the actual feedback of the Army crew working with the Arjun and even the myriad items made by HVF itself (at 8:00 min) onwards for a limited production run of just 124 units.
Unfortunately, you'll see incompetent Indians working on all this - not the perfect experts from Russia who make no mistake, and are so democratic and transparent that we can see all their development efforts detail by detail.
My apologies for Indian "incompetence" in being transparent.
Of course, Russian "successes" viz their T-tanks in ODS, Chechnya etc are to be ignored. They were all monkey models.
