Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3010
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Kanson » 07 Jan 2012 11:55

chackojoseph wrote:Your concept of "Tank matured" needs to be defined. Tank was mature each time. But, each time, it was asked to be taken back for newer features. If you know the history of T-72 purchase, the decision was to keep Arjun in r&d for newer features, meanwhile inducting T-72.


Rahul M wrote:
Philip saar, let me p..there was very little logic in the panic 310 T-90 buy and absolutely none for consequent deals. the question we need to ask is who approved the massive T-90 buy while stalling the arjun and why ?


There are conflicting accounts of Arjun's trial results in 2006. In 2007, Major General H.M. Singh, a director in charge of trial and evaluation, said that the last year's user field trial report had certified that the accuracy and consistency of the weapon system was proved beyond doubt."[51][52] However, the 2006 army trial results showed that "the decade-old problems of overheating persist" and that "tank’s main subsystems, the fire control system (FCS) and integrated gunner’s main sight, which includes a thermal imager and laser range-finder, are rendered erratic and useless by the Arjun’s abnormally high peak internal temperature, which moves well beyond 55 degrees Celsius. This is in testimony to the Parliamentary committee."[53]

In 2007 the Arjun tank was fielded during the Ashwamedha exercise in the deserts of Rajasthan.[54] The army was extremely unhappy with the tank, citing 14 defects that included "deficient fire control system", "inaccuracy of its guns", "low speeds in tactical areas" and "inability to operate over 50 degrees Celsius".[55] "The Army is now faced with a troubling prospect: inducting a lumbering, misfiring, vintage design tank like the Arjun, and that, too, in large numbers".[53] This, after DRDO over-shot Arjun’s project deadline by 16 years — from 1984 to 1995, finally closing the project only in 2000 — and the cost over-run is almost 20 times the original estimate. This is the highest percentage over-run for any DRDO project.[53]

With the September 2007 winter trials, the Indian army deemed Arjun's performance unsatisfactory, including at least four engine failures.[56] DRDO, on the other hand, insisted the tank was a viable choice for adoption and suggested the unsatisfactory performance of the engine during the winter trials was due to sabotage.[10]


Usually, as exemplified by the above para, Arjun trials are marked by DRDO team claiming, Arjun did well and at the same time Army official report claiming Arjun done poorly in those trials. This led to a scientist of DRDO Team openly criticizing Army's step motherly treatment to Arjun and how the same Army accepted products from Foreign Vendors without any strict evaluations as applied to Arjun in a Magazine. Don't we heard so many cases of CAG pulling Armed forces of accepting products not meeting its own GSQR or twisted GSQR?

Normally, when such discrepancy appeared between two versions, usually it is assumed being the user of the product Army has more say in telling exactly what is wants, until Army indulged in Sabotaging Renk sub system in Arjun. Renk officials who examined the tank mentioned their systems were tampered and that's why it failed in the trials. This leads to the installation of tamper proof systems. Since it was Renk product, no way Army can term it as failure of DRDO and since Renk products are 'proven', Army caught itself in a cookie-jar. Then MoS (Defence) called it as sabotage and later everything was pushed under carpet and nothing ever came about the incident after that. It cast a shadow on past such 'failures', becoz many times things that failed in those trials actually worked at other times.

For outsiders it may be a surprise, to hear if Army could do such thing. For those who are tempered with scandals after scandals and frauds that happened in Army, one question that comes to mind is Why?



Only possible reason is to postpone Arjun acceptance so that they can go for further orders for T-90 from the initial ~300. Acceptance of Arjun leads to inducting Arjun in numbers which negates any further T-90 purchase as it was initially stated to be only stop-gap purchase. Army finally relented to DRDO pressure for comparative trials only after all its orders for T-90 were placed, just like the way with T-72 as mentioned by Chacko.

Army's game plan is to perpetually postpone Arjun induction stating one reason or other or at worst induct Arjun in min. quantity only for training. Here, years back, i cited as many open quotes and documents to present that Army has no plans for Arjun at all. T-90 purchase is one of the biggest scam & scandal in recent days.

On the price of T-90 tank, SAAG paper and Broadsword exposes how it was manipulated to show the audience/public that the price quoted for tank was low and acceptable.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 07 Jan 2012 12:23

Kanson , the tampering news of Arjun etc are just spread by vested interest to discredit the Army and fairness of trial process.

Check the MOD statements.

Tampering of equipment of MBT Arjun during trial

The Main Battle Tank (MBT) Arjun were not tampered during any trials. This information was given by Defence Minister Shri AK Antony in a written reply to Shri Krishan Lal Balmiki and Shri Lalit Kishore Chaturvedi in Rajya Sabha today. Reliability trials have been carried out systematically by the army with successful results, he added. Shri Antony said the DRDO has not proposed any enquiry into the matter.


Also Arjun was accepted in the Indian Army when it was ready.

Note some of MOD Documented issue observed during Arjun trials and their time lines and only when these were resolved did the IA accepted it.

Defects in Arjun Tank
Arjun Battle Tank
Army gets its first armoured regiment of MBT Arjun

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3010
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Kanson » 07 Jan 2012 12:31

^ Ha ha ha ha...... As if everything Antony said were true. Check yourself how many times Antony has given false information.

As I said, everything was blackened post that. Why would Renk/DRDO has to take extra effort to install tamper proof system?

Have you thought why first of all such questions were raised in parliament? Why it has to mentioned DRDO not asking further enquiry? There is no smoke without fire.
Last edited by Kanson on 07 Jan 2012 12:35, edited 1 time in total.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7726
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 07 Jan 2012 12:35

^^^Austin, either you don't know what AUCRT is or are playing dumb. AUCRT is meant to find out the limits of each system so that the replacements and associated logistics can be worked out. If anyone says that x system "failed" the AUCRT and hence, there is a problem, well, ask him to go see a shrink. The system are pushed to limit to see when they "fail".

And mind you, AUCRT happens after induction and not before that. And compare this with T-90 engine going belly up during USER TRIALS...and we have people talking about IA giving long rope to Arjun. BS.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 07 Jan 2012 12:50

rohitvats , i am aware of AUCRT trials were conducted to test limits of each system and if i am not wrong long time back Sanku has posted similar AUCRT result for T-90 that was held in early 2000 and where some system failed even for T-90 tanks. I posted those since it was documented by MOD.

Kanson , I do see any reason to disbelief MOD on that , many questions are asked in parliament based on what people hear see on newspaper telivision channel etc , MOD clearly states no tampering and neither has DRDO asked for any inquiry on those. So lets put the CT on tampering etc to rest.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 07 Jan 2012 13:02

Philip wrote:Tx. Chacko.I thought that the "sabotage slur" was by the DRDO which supposedly fitted a black box to prove itself? (tank matures-with regard to specified failures,such as engine/transmission "mismatch",leading to "hull bulges" in PAC reports)


The matter was hushed. official statements were releases about no sabotage. But, after that incident, the Arjun got a black box and then failure tag disappeared.

Philip, I have given my definition, you have yours. I am not arguing on comments. I am only trying to bring in facts. I will never ask you to change your opinion. It is up to make yours after you read the other side of the story.

Added Later...

The sabotage slur was not by DRDO, its was from a minister. You can google for that.
Last edited by chackojoseph on 07 Jan 2012 13:10, edited 1 time in total.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 07 Jan 2012 13:04

AUCRT trials of Arjun Tank from December 2007

AUCRT is an internal test procedure for army after induction of a armored vehicle for engineering and logistical performance.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 07 Jan 2012 14:07

From Army Chief interview to FORCE source

What is the status on armour? Is T-90s the MBT now? What is being done about the large numbers of T-72 tanks which lack a night fighting capability? How many Arjun regiment will the army have, and are there plans to upgrade Arjun tanks?

By terming the T-90 tank as the main battle tank (MBT), the Indian Army implies that this tank is the future mainstay of the Indian Army, and is indicative of the volumes of this tank comprising the backbone of the mechanised forces. T-90 is a state of the art and highly capable weapon system, capable of survival in the most challenging environments.

The Indian Army has already addressed the issue of night blindness of T-72 tanks. A large number of tanks are now night-enabled. Measures are already in place to ensure speedy night enablement of the balance numbers. With this, we have ensured that the erstwhile issue of night blindness is addressed holistically, with our entire tank fleet capable of operations at night.

As far as Arjun tank is concerned, the Indian Army is looking at inducting a few additional numbers of MBT Arjun regiments in the future. The tank finally produced by DRDO is quite competitive and has come a long way. Upgradations and improvements to the MBT Arjun as a Mark- II version are underway. On successful completion of these improvements, the tank will meet the requirements of the Indian Army.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2958
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 07 Jan 2012 14:31

I'm not sure why most members are discussing X is stealing Y's lunch. Lets avoid such Pakistani line of thinking, wherein Pakistan's economy is in shit shape because India has Kashmir.

Firstly, there is the concept of mature platform. Example - F22 - the world greatest fighter. The best technology discovered/invented by man went into it. Despite US Govt/Industry/USAF efforts, has it matured? No. Because of which, has it been operationally deployed? No. Finally decision was taken to foreclose its production. Even earlier Blocks will not be upgraded to later Block standards. Had the platform showed some degree of maturity, then its roadmap would have been different.

Arjun before 2005 had not matured. There was no conspiracy against it. Some of the defects listed in Austin's post, while trivial, significantly affect usability.

Imagine a fully swadeshi car that keeps stopping because of air filter gets clogged, cylinder piston breaks, tyres shed, etc. The car stops while going to work in peak traffic. You'll need to manually push it to the side of the road, call for a tow, take it to service station, spend time & money. And call boss saying you cant come or will be late for work. Repeat the same experience at night with your wife and kids onboard.

How many BRF members will spend their money to buy such a car, and go through such hassles, because it appeals to their patriotism?

There is more to it. Instead of spending time at work, honing skills, and getting posted to the marquee US/European client project that will earn dollars and enhance CV, the car owner will be stuck in a rut between car and service station. Similarly, Army folks wanted to avoid posting to such regiment for the same reason - operational skills - both individually and unit wise will suffer. So would growth and promotion prospects. After all, older but-reliable-T-72 rider smoothly participates in combat exercises and hones warfare skills while newer-but-not-mature-Arjun rider is busy beside the road with this stuck car or the service station.

I remember when Tata Indica was launched more than a decade back. Users went through hassles described earlier. The fan belt screeched like Mamta Banerjee or Mayawati. (OT - I am reminded of that fan belt whenever I see our good CMs on TV.)

Then I noticed one thing at Concorde Motors, Fort, Mumbai. Most Indica owners were faujis, driven by their deep-in-their-heart-love-for-everying-Indian, despite the pan stains on the wall. Most civvies purchased reliable Hyundai Santro or Maruti Alto, that were relatively cheaper as well. Yet fauji Indica owners went through the hassle stoically.

Once maturity is reached, there will be more user acceptance.

T-90 is a completely different story, purchased to counter 300 odd Chinese Khalids and 300 odd T80s. Hence the Indian 310 + 347 purchase. It too had similar teething troubles, but user confidence was more in Thales & UVZ, because of user familiarity with previous products over last three decades. User confidence was lacking in CVRDE + its German/Dutch suppliers. This is human behavior. And the premature success LCA-will-fly-day-after-tomorrow type feedback-to-MoD/public-interviews/press-releases further antagonized users.

Thereafter the ToT shafting happened. We have been shafted previously, but we still had a reliable product after the shafting vis-a-vis nothing domestically. But now, we will not be let ourselves be taken for granted. Hence migration of user sentiment from T-90 to Arjun.

Arjun & T90 isnt a zero sum game where winner gets all. India always had 3600 odd tanks, so there is space for 1800 odd Arjuns and 1800 odd T90.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7726
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 07 Jan 2012 14:53

Austin wrote:rohitvats , i am aware of AUCRT trials were conducted to test limits of each system and if i am not wrong long time back Sanku has posted similar AUCRT result for T-90 that was held in early 2000 and where some system failed even for T-90 tanks. I posted those since it was documented by MOD. <SNIP>


Ah! there in lies the beauty, my dear freind.

How can AUCRT be done in 2000 when the deal was inked in 2001 and the tank entered in IA service later?

There is no public info on T-90 AUCRT. What is public (or, was public till the article from CDM website was pulled down) is the story of T-90 USER TRIAL BEFORE INDUCTION. And in which one engine seized and other also had problems. Plus, the Indian contingent (the technical officers) were not allowed to inspect any of the electronics. But it did comment that available power of engine was good 10%-15% less than advertised power with further derating in the That Summer. Enjoy!!!

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7648
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby nachiket » 07 Jan 2012 15:13

rohitvats wrote: But it did comment that available power of engine was good 10%-15% less than advertised power with further derating in the That Summer. Enjoy!!!

Fantastic. And this in a tank which would be underpowered even if the engine was capable of generating the advertised power of 1000hp.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 07 Jan 2012 16:18

The problem is that some folks are bringing out problems faced in the timeline and exhibiting it as a persisting problem. And now they claim it to be "matured." At the same time, Israeli's called it Merkava MK 1.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2958
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 07 Jan 2012 16:33

nachiket wrote:
rohitvats wrote: But it did comment that available power of engine was good 10%-15% less than advertised power with further derating in the That Summer. Enjoy!!!
Fantastic. And this in a tank which would be underpowered even if the engine was capable of generating the advertised power of 1000hp.

From my understanding, most engine manufacturers rate power at International Standard Atmosphere that is +15ºC. Now US, Europe & Russia typically have those temperatures, so get the rated hp. Rated power falls with temperature. So power falls for engines operating in the tropics.

Eg. DS-71 gas turbines generate 8830 kW at ISA and 6620 kW at + 34ºC. GE LM2500 GT generates 24,000 kW at ISA and 18,000 kW at higher temperatures.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 07 Jan 2012 16:40

rohitvats wrote:How can AUCRT be done in 2000 when the deal was inked in 2001 and the tank entered in IA service later?


I just faintly remember AUCRT discussion we had was it last year when Sanku posted the data .... i could be wrong on the time lines.

As far as T-90 goes , you dont have to take my or any body word here and I cant get you a better person then the current army chief say

"Indian Army implies that this tank is the future mainstay of the Indian Army, and is indicative of the volumes of this tank comprising the backbone of the mechanised forces. T-90 is a state of the art and highly capable weapon system, capable of survival in the most challenging environments."


If you read the synopsis i had posted he is equally praise about Arjun Mk1 calling it competitive and upbeat about Mk2 saying thats what the army needs.
Last edited by Austin on 07 Jan 2012 16:42, edited 1 time in total.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby harbans » 07 Jan 2012 16:41

Eg. DS-71 gas turbines generate 8830 kW at ISA and 6620 kW at + 34ºC.


That's a very large drop..am not sure if it's correct. IC engines rated power only drops marginally with rise in ambient temperature.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2958
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 07 Jan 2012 16:51

chackojoseph wrote:The problem is that some folks are bringing out problems faced in the timeline and exhibiting it as a persisting problem. And now they claim it to be "matured." At the same time, Israeli's called it Merkava MK 1.
CJ, Capability and Maturity are two different things. Capability can be reduced like Tejas revised IOC1, IOC2 etc specs, and called Merkava MK 1. Maturity is Merkava MK 1 not shedding tracks in Lebanon in 1982.

But yes, agree, T-90 was a hasty purchase. We do make mistakes despite honest intentions, Seacat missile was one I remember.

Anyways, I dont wish to get drawn in this extremely time consuming discussion :-) Everyone have a good weekend!

@Rohit - Isnt AUCRT done after induction? Even Arjun's AUCRT was done from the inducted batch. No manufacturer gives hardware to run them down, and no one sells in 1-2. That is also the reason why initial purchases are relatively smaller batches.

@Harbans - This came from a Ukrainian brochure in my old emails. It may be wrong. But I quickly did a google search, GE LM 2500 fluctuates from 24MW to 18MW.

@Pratyush - Ofcourse, with the blackmail happening on Product T, and Product A having sufficiently evolved and matured, the decision is tilted towards Product A.
Last edited by tsarkar on 07 Jan 2012 17:13, edited 1 time in total.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8213
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 07 Jan 2012 16:57

Interesting example of the desi car. Point taken. Having said that.if the imported car also gives me similar problems an is in capable of doing the job i need it to do. Then why should i buy it after it becomes a known quantity to me.

Why not buy a car that will do the job?

Why stick to a defective import, which is not meeting my need.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby SaiK » 07 Jan 2012 19:45

If my respects to "IA" was "X" before the Arjun tampering report.. and after the report it became "x". One can't accept it the forces such things to happen. Again, there is no emphatic proof to all these on open to public. So, one has to be careful when saying things.. and I don't expect DRDO to complain without some facts... and at the same time, IA could have always come up with improvement requirements rather approach this in a negative way. There are 101 ways to not buy Arjun, just by weight alone they could have said it fails GSQR... one liner is enough for them not to buy.. and I guess they can't substantiate such requirements.


bottom line..see the coherency in my thought?

--

PS: Philip saar is taking way too much time to answer a one line now to my earlier question?

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 07 Jan 2012 21:11

As for the army chief :eek: well what can we say - we also had a DGMF who said ..... . I am sure he is also a wonderful reference point.


and he said this about Arjun

The tank finally produced by DRDO is quite competitive and has come a long way.


Huh - it spanks the your so called mainstay tank and you call it quite competitive. Come from the philip school of defintions.

basically the army chief (he is a good man unlike the one before ) is trying to stay out of the factional war of the Armour group. Ask them about SF and Paras and he will give you a equally silly answer

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 07 Jan 2012 21:22

regarding imported car analogy here is the kicker

it really should be changed to a fleet of cars

now imagine if buying a fleet of cars you are told the manuals are not available yet - be assured we will send it in some time (and in Russian). oh you cannot open those components to check No way jose. sorry - just be assured it will all be fine when you get the 300 you asked for.

now how the eff do you go and accept that???
Thats what the IA did.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3010
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Kanson » 07 Jan 2012 21:31

Austin wrote:Kanson , I do see any reason to disbelief MOD on that , many questions are asked in parliament based on what people hear see on newspaper telivision channel etc , MOD clearly states no tampering and neither has DRDO asked for any inquiry on those. So lets put the CT on tampering etc to rest.


Conspiracy theories? Lets leave DRDO ,you don't have any good opinion, as i see, but, do you think Renk work on conspiracy theories? Or the then MoS(Defence) opens his mouth to term that as sabotage based on conspiracy theory?

I say, lets preserve your statement on your unshaken belief in MoD and let's see how long that statement has its life, shall we?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 07 Jan 2012 21:59

Kanson , I dont know why Renk did this or that ( if it actually did ) there could be many reasons which may be unrelated we really do not know .....what we know for certain is there was no Sabotage and neither did DRDO ask for any inquiry on this as DM said in the house , if there was indeed a sabotage DRDO would have good reason to inquire this out which it didn't. Thats the only factual point we know from MOD.

So lets keep the CT theory out of this , it only benefits people who want to discredit the Army and question the fairness of the trial process. This is my last word on this topic

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9799
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 07 Jan 2012 22:03

May be IA and IAF are not " Indian" when it comes their tastes. We find their total lack of interest in security related issues. Hardly any ex army top boss speaks anything on security conditions or trys to do anything about any bad things. They are simply retire and move on. Just like police there is some sort of detached mind from the national interests in army mind. We now hear lot of people speaking about army boss age issue. I hear nothing much is spoken by army bosses on say other security related issues say Arty procurement or infra of lack of it in NE. We do not even have a decent memorial for our dead army men and I do not see any of the top bosses speaking about it. The relationship of our army seems to be the same now as above our independence.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3010
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Kanson » 07 Jan 2012 22:13

Austin wrote:Kanson , I dont know why Renk did this or that ( if it actually did ) there could be many reasons which may be unrelated we really do not know.....


Dear Austin, everybody is not willing to believe blindly everything put out by MoD as you willingly and blindly like to believe. The matter was reported at that time. Discussed at length. MoS gave a statement in public. DRDO reported of fixing tamper proof system. All these can't happen out of thin air. There is definitely strong reason behind that.

So lets keep the CT theory out of this , it only benefits people who want to discredit the Army and question the fairness of the trial process.


Not only me, many people, even Govt bodies like CAG questioned many times the fairness Army trial process. Who are actually benefiting by not discussing such practices are really the scamsters.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 07 Jan 2012 22:39

Kanson you have your own views on this and i respect that ,As for me I wont comment on it further as i dont want to give any more credit to those people/blog/website that takes immense pleasure in discrediting the Indian Army , so lets agree to disagree on this and move on.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 07 Jan 2012 23:11

Austin
nice sentiment however it would have been better if by the same yardstick you had not posted your buddy Unnithan's drivel on the Army chief DOB - it is an obnoxious hatchet job

As for discrediting Army - the former DGMF who made stupid remarks have done more than any blog etc

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1816
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sudeepj » 07 Jan 2012 23:30

This is the most useless debate ever.. In most impartial observers minds, the debate is done and over with - the Arjun has won, with the army saying - you cant compare a BMW with a maruti! (referring to the T series as the maruti and Arjun as the BMW). Its only Army brats, who will defend the Army till their dying breath, who continue to claim that Arjun was not ready in 1999, 2005 and so on.

All of these were opportunities lost to induct desi designs, desi production and desi technology. The country continues to pay a price for these..

Since Shuklas reportage, what arguments have the Tin can wallahs brought forth? same old vague handwaving "product is not mature" (and the T90 is?), "its heavy" (name any modern tanks not in 60 ton class), "its not desi enough" (order a large enough number, and itll be cent percent desi)..

Its time for Arjun critics to shut up, or bring out official statements from DGMF about why they are not inducting Arjun as the MBT. Vague handwaving that the product is not mature will not do.. The nation is owed an explanation.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17002
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 07 Jan 2012 23:36

>> Its only Army brats, who will defend the Army till their dying breath, who continue to claim that Arjun was not ready in 1999, 2005 and so on.

sudeep, that's a most unfounded accusation. some of the most vocal participants in favour of arjun are army brats and people with friends and relatives there. remember they are the ones most sensitive to armymen getting substandard arms (which tin cans certainly are)

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1816
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sudeepj » 07 Jan 2012 23:53

Yes. I did not mean to say all Army brats were defending the T-90, only that the ones who defend the T90 in the face of all evidence are Army brats. *
*other than the Russia Rakshaks.
*perhaps my words were poorly phrased here. Apologies.

Misraji
BRFite
Posts: 401
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Misraji » 08 Jan 2012 00:05

Most debates have a turning point.
For me, w.r.t Arjun vs T-90 debate, the turning point was roughly in 2007, when after years of delaying comparative trials, we suddenly had the BMW vs Maruti statement.

Are you kidding me?
That smacks of a scam right there.
Everything else becomes a matter of detail then.

--Ashish

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7726
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 08 Jan 2012 00:32

tsarkar wrote:<SNIP>Arjun before 2005 had not matured. There was no conspiracy against it. Some of the defects listed in Austin's post, while trivial, significantly affect usability.

tsarkar Sir, I am also of the opinion that till 2005 Arjun was not a matured product in complete sense. However, the deficiencies were not something which could have not been rectified - which they were ultimately done. For example, in the summer trials of 2005, the LRF was supposed to have gone bonkers. Why? Because the OEM had set the temperature setting to European standard. The problem I have is that IA has not shown the patience with Arjun that ihas shown (is forced to show, actually) with T-90. The T-90 TI issues are still outstanding. The 2A46M-2 gun issue is a story waiting to be told. While IAF turned corner with LCA, IMO, the IA did that very much late and too, very much late. It is one thing to raise aspersions on the product but to launch frontal assault against it is taking things to a different level.

tsarkar wrote:Imagine a fully swadeshi car that keeps stopping because of air filter gets clogged, cylinder piston breaks, tyres shed, etc. The car stops while going to work in peak traffic. You'll need to manually push it to the side of the road, call for a tow, take it to service station, spend time & money. And call boss saying you can’t come or will be late for work. Repeat the same experience at night with your wife and kids onboard.


Sir, the funny part is that IA is willing to do the above with a foreign car but not Indian one.

tsarkar wrote:I remember when Tata Indica was launched more than a decade back. Users went through hassles described earlier. The fan belt screeched like Mamta Banerjee or Mayawati. (OT - I am reminded of that fan belt whenever I see our good CMs on TV.)


Sir, again, the car portfolio of TATA Motors would not have become what it is today by waiting for the product to reach the level it has done today. Refinement and constant up gradation was the only way they could have reached here. Nowhere has IA shown the temperament to develop the mechanized segment in India; only recently in the IFV segment has it tried to rope in the private sector. Given the humungous requirement that we have for armored vehicles of all the shades, it would have been a natural step. But is not. It is happy importing the next mythical tank from Russia.

tsarkar wrote:Once maturity is reached, there will be more user acceptance.


That sir is like waiting for godot. From 2005 onwards, the Arjun tank has had all the features required of a modern tank. IA could have placed order of the tank and gone for incremental upgrade for further batches of Arjun. An order placed in 2005 after induction for 300-400 Arjun tanks would have not only helped to bring down the cost but kept the assembly line running. All the planned increments in Arjun Mk1-2 could have come in batches to be inducted in near future.

tsarkar wrote:T-90 is a completely different story, purchased to counter 300 odd Chinese Khalids and 300 odd T80s. Hence the Indian 310 + 347 purchase. It too had similar teething troubles, but user confidence was more in Thales & UVZ, because of user familiarity with previous products over last three decades. User confidence was lacking in CVRDE + its German/Dutch suppliers. This is human behavior. And the premature success LCA-will-fly-day-after-tomorrow type feedback-to-MoD/public-interviews/press-releases further antagonized users.


I hate to say this but IA should have taken the leaf out of PA’s acquisition of T-80UD. The reason PA went for T—80UD was because the Al-Khalid was not coming online. It wanted to fill in the gap and hence, T-80UD happened. Post these, it has stuck with Al-Khalid with all it warts and pimples. And courtesy this patience, Al-Khalid has turned out to be a decent tank – IMO reaching T-90 of today in IA service.

Post the initial purchase of 310 T—90 and to some extent second batch of 347, IA should have ordered the Arjun. Coming to human behavior, well, this is most sad part of the story. Apart from the Service-DRDO history, there is another angle to it. And General SR Choudhary covers that well in his autobiography. Basically, it has to do with a generation of officers brought up on T-series. The tragedy is that people in the IA have tried to put the system in bad-light. This is patently wrong. And IA has not given any opportunity for the confidence to develop. Arjun has really had to gate crash the party.

tsarkar wrote:Arjun & T90 isnt a zero sum game where winner gets all. India always had 3600 odd tanks, so there is space for 1800 odd Arjuns and 1800 odd T90.


Actually, Sir it has become a zero-sum game. With the planned induction of 1,600 odd T-90 plus planned upgrade of T-72 and Arjun always in incremental improvement, IA may try to limit the numbers of Arjun. We are yet to see any large scale order of Arjun.
Having equipped the 3xArmored Divisions with T-90, I would expect IA to equip the (I) Armored Bdes of these Strike Corps also to be equipped with T-90. That gives us 3x6=18 Regiment+3x3=9 Regiments = 27 Regiments of T-90 in all. @60 T-90/Regiment, we have 1,620 T-90 units. The balance units should come from mix of upgraded T-72 and Arjun. But for this to happen in timely manner, the IA needs to place order now.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7726
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 08 Jan 2012 00:33

sudeepj wrote:<SNIP> Its only Army brats, who will defend the Army till their dying breath, who continue to claim that Arjun was not ready in 1999, 2005 and so on <SNIP>


:evil: :evil: :evil:

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7726
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 08 Jan 2012 01:28

tsarkar wrote:<SNIP>@Rohit - Isnt AUCRT done after induction? Even Arjun's AUCRT was done from the inducted batch. No manufacturer gives hardware to run them down, and no one sells in 1-2. That is also the reason why initial purchases are relatively smaller batches.<SNIP>


Sir, there was an article (actually Case Study) hosted on College of Defence Management (CDM) website written by former CO of EME battalion of an Armd. Division. It mentioned that T-90 engine failed in user trials in Pokhran (at 20% of claimed mileage).

It also had limited data on AUCRT (2003) where it was mentioned that on two tanks (which took part in AUCRT) - one seized (at ~90% of claimed kms and mileage by OEM) and other had to be replaced at less than 50% of claimed mileage and hours of running.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby SaiK » 08 Jan 2012 01:49

I am not reading this BMW vs Maruti debate or which is the required vehicle for the requirement. That analogy is totally wrong.

The problem here is some one running a BMW without engine oil, and complaining it does not run like Maruti. That is the problem I am reading and that is where we need pay attention, and get to know the facts.

tejas
BRFite
Posts: 768
Joined: 31 Mar 2008 04:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby tejas » 08 Jan 2012 04:12

The real kick in the a$$ is paying BMW prices for Maruti quality. The figures for the tin can-90 were purposely massaged by the IA to convince parliament what a bargain it was over the Arjun. In fact when left out but required equipment was included the prices become comparable and the tin can-90 inferior in every tangible measure.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20706
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 08 Jan 2012 04:21

Going through the many posts,which cover a wide range of issues on the topic,and to put matters into perspective and sum up the debate thus far,a consensus is emerging that around 2005/2007 was the time when Arjun matured/became acceptable to the IA, after gruelling tests,face-off with the T-90,etc,which removed any objections from the IA in placing orders.Before that period, the IA was justified in going in for the T-90 to counter Paki armour acquisitions as Arjun a decade earlier was unacceptable.We have numerous PAC reports at that "26 yr." period of its defects for the record.Familiarity with the T-series was another compelling reason for it to do so.

The current situ is that after a 124X2 order,an improved Arjun Mk-2 is being developed to further improve with some "90+" improvements the tank expected to roll out by 2014,say some reports.A desi engine and transmission to replace the imported one is also on the cards.This is still a matter unresolved when one studies the original intention of the project,to meet the goal of indigenisation and to produce all the major tank components indigenously.The alleged refusal of Renk/MTU today to assist with engine development for the FMBT has forced the DRDO to look for other foreign/local partners for the same.

At the same time,the T-90 is also being "improved" with several new features,some which may also be on the Arjun Mk-2.I forsee a "healthy" competition here for further orders between the two.We are going to see claims and counterclaims in the future ! In a way,this competition between the two tanks is actually a very good thing for the IA,because unlike the situ which existed when we operated mainly T-72s,we had no other equiv. alternative and the IA had to live with the shortcomings of that tank.We now have two tanks,with a large planned inventory; a "room for two" situation as some say,each trying hard to refine the design incrementally.The end result will be that we will get two more capable tanks-take your pick after competitive trials as to which is superior,as the two belong to diff. schools of tank design,which will affect doctrine and tactics.One development in the interim will however will be the abandoning of planned upgrades of old T-72s and orders of Arjun to replace them,which is sensible and to salvage the chassis of the several hundreds left,by using them for aux. armoured vehicles.This way the existing assets will be innovatively maximised ,whilst acquiring as many new tanks in the inventory as possible.

After the improved T-90s/Arjun MK-2s enter service,the issue comes down to the FMBT.It is here that the IA needs to get its act together in formulating the parameters for the same.3 or 4 man crew.ro some reports their seems to be a debate goingon within the IA on this.AKS's comments indicate his line of thought and directive to the DRDO.Until the IA has operated the two,will it be able to assess it prameters or wish list for exotic future tech. which needs to be developed.

One last point.The issue of costs,naturaly a smaller,lighter tank (with the same gun as a 4 man tank),using less armour and thus a smaller engine too, should cost significantly less than a larger 4-man tank.When odered in the hundreds or thousands a substantial difference in costs will be seen ,not to mention that one crew member less eases the IA's manpower requirements by 25%.While the overall costs,including life-cyle costs are worked out,all nations support their own industry.They subsidise them to an extent so that they provide an industrial base,generate employment and less forex is spent on the product.In the case of an indgenous tank,this must be done to a reasonable extent . If as some CVRDE boffins have said that the IA's requirement to reduce the weight by 10-15t with all the addded/enhanced capabilities is "impossible",we may again end up with two,desi and imported designs being weighed in the balance in the future.Engaging local private industry (like Mahindras,Tatas,L&T,etc.) is perhaps the only way that we can bring down dev. time and costs,as the DRDO on its own will still face limitations,as it regualrly see an exodus of scientists to private industry.

PS:Are there any official comparisons,cost wise between "tin-can" T-90 and the Arjun to substantiate the claims that the cost of the two are actually equal?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby SaiK » 08 Jan 2012 05:05

A used BMW could be at similar cost matching a new Maruti cost too. No sane business entity will compare costs between BMW and Maruti.

So, by reducing costs, one can't compare features is what I am saying. And, what is more valuable per your requirements is what needs to be compared.

Now, that is not the argument here.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 08 Jan 2012 05:20

Before that period, the IA was justified in going in for the T-90 to counter Paki armour acquisitions as Arjun a decade earlier was unacceptable.


worse case the first 300 - no justification for the rest



You conveniently skipped past the fact that even by your calculation the army should have ordered a steady stream from 2005 -with tranche\batch improvements - we would have anywhere between 300 to 400 tanks already.

This is still a matter unresolved when one studies the original intention of the project,to meet the goal of indigenisation and to produce all the major tank components indigenously.The alleged refusal of Renk/MTU today to assist with engine development for the FMBT has forced the DRDO to look for other foreign/local partners for the same.


Red herring - as folks have pointed out - more advanced industrial bases do not get complete indigenisation. whoever let the kirloskar engine die

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 08 Jan 2012 05:24

One last point.The issue of costs,naturaly a smaller,lighter tank (with the same gun as a 4 man tank),using less armour and thus a smaller engine too, should cost significantly less than a larger 4-man tank.When odered in the hundreds or thousands a substantial difference in costs will be seen ,not to mention that one crew member less eases the IA's manpower requirements by 25%.While the overall costs,including life-cyle costs are worked out,all nations support their own industry.


Since when was manpower an issue??/ There are others who claim a 4 man team actually is better. and what is small - small , cramped , crap like tin can - or modular etc like the Japanese T 10?


At the same time,the T-90 is also being "improved" with several new features


Ha Ha you mean make up for the promised abilities which never worked from day 1??
else whats there to improve - its the perfect tank for the next X number of years according to the chief - :mrgreen:


Engaging local private industry (like Mahindras,Tatas,L&T,etc.) is perhaps the only way that we can bring down dev. time and costs,as the DRDO on its own will still face limitations,as it regualrly see an exodus of scientists to private industry.


Pvt industry is not obliged the Bs that the army and Mod deals out. You think the Kirloskars are going to waste money after their first disaster with Arjun engine??

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 08 Jan 2012 07:42

tsarkar wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:The problem is that some folks are bringing out problems faced in the timeline and exhibiting it as a persisting problem. And now they claim it to be "matured." At the same time, Israeli's called it Merkava MK 1.
CJ, Capability and Maturity are two different things. Capability can be reduced like Tejas revised IOC1, IOC2 etc specs, and called Merkava MK 1. Maturity is Merkava MK 1 not shedding tracks in Lebanon in 1982.

But yes, agree, T-90 was a hasty purchase. We do make mistakes despite honest intentions, Seacat missile was one I remember.

Anyways, I dont wish to get drawn in this extremely time consuming discussion :-) Everyone have a good weekend!


Looking forward when you are ready to....


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests