So all you are saying is making money for Corporate India or PSU is better then making Dassult or Rosobornexport richer because it helps us.
Does not make sense Armed forces are customers and PSU/Dassult/Rosboronexport/Lockheed Martin/Boeing/IAI are service providers , who so ever sells it cheaper and better to Armed forces should be the one who should win the day , as it helps the armed forces in the end and induces competition in the system.
Else you end up subsidising corruption in PSU and Corporate india at the cost of Indian Armed Forces and Tax Payers money.
Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Armed Forces are not the GoI's customer.
Once again you are painting all PSUs as corrupt.
Corruption in some PSUs is a drop in the pond of the corruption of GoI. Do you disagree with that? [Yes/No]
No PSU is manufacturing the AgustaWestland in India. Do you disagree with that? [Yes/No]
Some Indians have already made money on the AgustaWestland deal. If not the PSU then it must be the GoI [Yes/No]
Once again you are painting all PSUs as corrupt.
Corruption in some PSUs is a drop in the pond of the corruption of GoI. Do you disagree with that? [Yes/No]
No PSU is manufacturing the AgustaWestland in India. Do you disagree with that? [Yes/No]
Some Indians have already made money on the AgustaWestland deal. If not the PSU then it must be the GoI [Yes/No]
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Umm no, MoD is the customer, and MoD is not just a dumb customer, they need to look at the holistic picture.Austin wrote: Does not make sense Armed forces are customers .
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
GOI is mother of all corruption but that does not make PSU being corrupt and ripping off Armed Forces look better or for that matter the corruption in armed forces.
The only way to reduce corruption is to induce competition , Armed Forces being the end customer is entitled to buy spares equipment if the local produced system ends up being costly , why on earth would you buy Assembled in india stuff if you have to pay more for it becuase its the right thing to support PSU and Corporate india even if you have to pay more for it , if that is the right approach then you keep paying more as there is little incentive to reduce cost as PSU/Indian companies are sole providers and competing with OEM , Foreign Private players are not allowed.
That approach is subsidising corruption in Indian Companies and PSU because as some one would say its the right thing to do.
Never Mind my last word on this topic we have strayed too far and I dont subscribe to that kind of logic that prevents competition at the cost of armed forces getting the best.
The only way to reduce corruption is to induce competition , Armed Forces being the end customer is entitled to buy spares equipment if the local produced system ends up being costly , why on earth would you buy Assembled in india stuff if you have to pay more for it becuase its the right thing to support PSU and Corporate india even if you have to pay more for it , if that is the right approach then you keep paying more as there is little incentive to reduce cost as PSU/Indian companies are sole providers and competing with OEM , Foreign Private players are not allowed.
That approach is subsidising corruption in Indian Companies and PSU because as some one would say its the right thing to do.
Never Mind my last word on this topic we have strayed too far and I dont subscribe to that kind of logic that prevents competition at the cost of armed forces getting the best.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
LOL,Austin wrote:The point is they PSU simply import stuff and screw driver it here and sell it to armed forces at higher cost in the name of indiginous stuff as TATRA deal clearly showed year on year , they made higher profit at armed forces cost.
It can not be done without Armed Forces turning a blind eye to it.
What a great love for foreign maal. Keep importing, screw the whole economy and then Army may have to fight with sticks and stones.Austin wrote:You simply keep shifting the goal post because you have not much to argue.
It is quite clear that the reason armed forces prefer to import over lic built system is because they end up paying more ..so either they keep paying more to PSU which end up bringing less equipment year on year or they import it ....sadly they have not much choice but to import as it helps them get more from less.
Don't know after how many posts your shukla fever will be overSanku wrote:But since your attempts at FUD need to be countered, the OBVIOUS is -- DRDO is incidental to Shukla, he is grinding a different axe, DRDO just happens to be the stone which finds his pleasure. Shukla gives a damn for India in anycase, that would be at bottom of his priority heap.
Most of the BRF members don't agree with his opinions on boeing, f35 and track2 for sure.
But if there had been no people like shukla, shiv, chacko etc. Mango Indian like me would have believed the lies TinCanLobby was peddling about Arjun and that it is a failed tank.
At least shukla has done one right thing.
please give some flak to sanku ji as well for this.. he was also proudly boasting that t90 is indigenous etc etc few threads ago.Austin wrote:The point is they PSU simply import stuff and screw driver it here and sell it to armed forces at higher cost in the name of indiginous stuff as TATRA deal clearly showed year on year , they made higher profit at armed forces cost.
Also, you missed that to lower cost IA needs to increase order quantity. No businessman desi/videsi will charge less for producing piecemeal orders.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
This link points out that we are still importing components from Russia for MKI which is in contradiction with your assertion that HAL was doing all the manufacturing. Was it not clear?Sanku wrote:Its fine to post a link. It is also important to say what is the point you are making with the link.alexis wrote: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/com ... ef=wl_home
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Oh I see --> It appears that you did not read the HAL press statement at all. HAL statement expressly covered the point, IAF shrunk the time lines for the delivery of complete orders from 2017-18 to 2015, as a result HAL is now looking at outsourcing some components, which is right now from Russia, but HAL is looking to get it done in India through pvt suppliers where HAL will teach them how to.alexis wrote: This link points out that we are still importing components from Russia for MKI which is in contradiction with your assertion that HAL was doing all the manufacturing. Was it not clear?
This is for capacity extension. This hardly means that HAL is not manufacturing Su 30s end to end. It is.
In any case I am baffled why some amount of outsourcing of components means that HAL is not doing all the manufacturing, going by your definition, Arjun is not manufactured in Avadi, since it directly imports 30-50% of components.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
First things first - the malaise in our DPSUs is not the reason behind the piddly number of Arjuns in service till date or being ordered by the Army. This is amongst the many canards which have been floated on this thread to somehow make a wiggle room for perfidy of the IA when it comes to their role in the Arjun saga.
Having said above - we really need to look into the protectionism racket being run by the MOD by giving preferential treatment to the DPSU. People have spoken about the 'Indian Tax Money -> Services -> DPSU -> Indian GOI' being the holy grail and better than Indian Tax Money going into foreign coffers. But I don't think this is such a simple issue. There is a deep structural flaw here and a serious -ve consequences to Services, Indian MIC and economy.
1. Whether one likes it or not, DPSUs work as a commercial entity engaged in the exercise of profit making for its shareholder(s). Now it so happens that the major shareholder is the MOD - which also controls what the Customer (and at times the only customer) can buy. Can you see the incestuous relationship at play here?
2. In order to enrich itself, the MOD routinely and openly plays favorite when it comes to giving out contracts for new products. The biggest negative consequence of this is stunting the growth of private players in the defense field. The planned contract of construction of P-75I submarines to MOD yards is a simple case in point. Another is of MOD giving the contract of tracked EW Components to one of the DPSUs. HAL not having invested in production line for HAL or HAL not having established ROH facility for ALH can, IMO, be put down to a commercial entity putting away the CAPEX which can negatively effect the bottom line - and the payout to the MOD.
The threat by GCF, Jabalpur to go on strike when they heard that TATA Powers is also showcasing a 155mm gun shows the nature of the beast. These fellow relented only when they were told that TATA is developing the mounted gun system.
3. This protectionism racket stems from two facts - (a) the dividend bonus received by the MOD every year from these 'profit making enterprises'. A government hell bent on spending more than it earns to feed some stupid social welfare schemes cannot/will not let go of this gravy train. The babus and their chelas need something to justify their existence.(b) Enormous opportunity for corruption - TATRA deal along with those of WZ-10 ARV from Poland are two simple cases in point.Both of the above are seriously detrimental to our security and long term development plan.
4. For a given requirement by Services, MOD creates a situation for involvement by DPSU with foreign player.The famous screw-drivergiri in name of TOT here creates various problems for the end-user and the development of technology in house. All that a DPSU does is assemble the product in India with a 'Made-in-India' tab. Services, which could have got a product at X price from OEM directly, has to pay X+Delta to cater for margins of the DPSU. On top of it, since the DPSU knows nothing about the product, Services end up running after the OEM for each and every request. The biggest tragedy here is that there is no increment in the capability of the DPSU in terms of learning/absorbing new technologies so that next iteration of development can happen in house.
5. Austin raised a valid point about how much a certain amount can buy - if I have 100 units to spend and each item @OEM costs 10 units, then I get 10 items. However, if you involve margins (as happens when a DPSU simply fronts for a foreign player), the per item cost is 12 units. In this case, for the same amount, Services get lesser number of items. While the money going back into the GOI offers is all right, it all comes at a serious expense.
We really need to address above issues if there has to be synergy between Services and
Having said above - we really need to look into the protectionism racket being run by the MOD by giving preferential treatment to the DPSU. People have spoken about the 'Indian Tax Money -> Services -> DPSU -> Indian GOI' being the holy grail and better than Indian Tax Money going into foreign coffers. But I don't think this is such a simple issue. There is a deep structural flaw here and a serious -ve consequences to Services, Indian MIC and economy.
1. Whether one likes it or not, DPSUs work as a commercial entity engaged in the exercise of profit making for its shareholder(s). Now it so happens that the major shareholder is the MOD - which also controls what the Customer (and at times the only customer) can buy. Can you see the incestuous relationship at play here?
2. In order to enrich itself, the MOD routinely and openly plays favorite when it comes to giving out contracts for new products. The biggest negative consequence of this is stunting the growth of private players in the defense field. The planned contract of construction of P-75I submarines to MOD yards is a simple case in point. Another is of MOD giving the contract of tracked EW Components to one of the DPSUs. HAL not having invested in production line for HAL or HAL not having established ROH facility for ALH can, IMO, be put down to a commercial entity putting away the CAPEX which can negatively effect the bottom line - and the payout to the MOD.
The threat by GCF, Jabalpur to go on strike when they heard that TATA Powers is also showcasing a 155mm gun shows the nature of the beast. These fellow relented only when they were told that TATA is developing the mounted gun system.
3. This protectionism racket stems from two facts - (a) the dividend bonus received by the MOD every year from these 'profit making enterprises'. A government hell bent on spending more than it earns to feed some stupid social welfare schemes cannot/will not let go of this gravy train. The babus and their chelas need something to justify their existence.(b) Enormous opportunity for corruption - TATRA deal along with those of WZ-10 ARV from Poland are two simple cases in point.Both of the above are seriously detrimental to our security and long term development plan.
4. For a given requirement by Services, MOD creates a situation for involvement by DPSU with foreign player.The famous screw-drivergiri in name of TOT here creates various problems for the end-user and the development of technology in house. All that a DPSU does is assemble the product in India with a 'Made-in-India' tab. Services, which could have got a product at X price from OEM directly, has to pay X+Delta to cater for margins of the DPSU. On top of it, since the DPSU knows nothing about the product, Services end up running after the OEM for each and every request. The biggest tragedy here is that there is no increment in the capability of the DPSU in terms of learning/absorbing new technologies so that next iteration of development can happen in house.
5. Austin raised a valid point about how much a certain amount can buy - if I have 100 units to spend and each item @OEM costs 10 units, then I get 10 items. However, if you involve margins (as happens when a DPSU simply fronts for a foreign player), the per item cost is 12 units. In this case, for the same amount, Services get lesser number of items. While the money going back into the GOI offers is all right, it all comes at a serious expense.
We really need to address above issues if there has to be synergy between Services and
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Rohit; I am a little bemused. Your entire write up (clipped in the quote above) is about MoD and DPSUs. Yet in the opening you accuse the services. I agree with some generic characterization of MoD and DPSU relationship, but even your own statements do not create the linkages between services and DPSUs so to say.rohitvats wrote:First things first - the malaise in our DPSUs is not the reason behind the piddly number of Arjuns in service till date or being ordered by the Army. This is amongst the many canards which have been floated on this thread to somehow make a wiggle room for perfidy of the IA when it comes to their role in the Arjun saga.
MoD+DPSUs
However -- I hold that there is no need to extend the Arjun saga to all DPSUs, the case that Avadi has not been able to make 50 Arjuns per year can be made or not made on data available from Avadi. A generic picture can be true, and yet each situation may have its specific flavors.
There is no need to take a ideological stance on the issue.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012There
As opposed to the flexible position you take ??There is no need to take a ideological stance on the issue
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Surya wrote:As opposed to the flexible position you take ??There is no need to take a ideological stance on the issue
....Oh, boy ... And I thought I had heard it all .....
--Ashish
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
I am informed that there is something called transference.As opposed to the flexible position you take ??There is no need to take a ideological stance on the issue
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
shiv wrote:The reason why Indian idiotic policy tries to avoid nuclear weapons is because we think we can win wars by importing weapons from "friendly" nations and that nukes can simply be stored away unused. This allows friendly nations to screw us at will.
The way to avoid using nukes is to stop exposing our asses to be sodomized by "friendly nations" by constantly importing. Industry and economy and national science and technology are powerful weapons. India is constantly supporting foreign factories and foreign tech and then lamenting "Hey we have not caught up". How can we catch up if we don't accept failures? Nukes are the weapons that we must use if conventional weapons fail, If our nukes can work then give industry a chance to make conventional weapons in house and stop funding foreign factories who screw us at every opportunity. Bribes to the corrupt, EULA and conditions for use (no weapons on Pilatus trainer), wartime sanctions, expensive spares, delayed spares, brochure specs not met. You name it and you find that all that is done to us by foreign suppliers. Britain. France. USA. Russia. Israel and we still slobber after foreign suppliers whom we cannot hold to account.
+1000000000
This post should be evolved into alternative strategic thinking paper, me thinks!
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
They (international sellers) know pretty much that India will go flat with brochure and corruptions. What is so alarming here.. and even a billion votes to accept with a nod, but will not give a vote to a person like shiv if he stands on the correction path. Sad is our culture, and so are our systems and procedures.
There is nothing new.
There is nothing new.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Saint Anthony dragged his feet both on TATRA as well as Agustawestland scam. He kept DRDO budget low and created massive dependency on imports seen for the first time after independence. He did his job for "the family" just ignored interest of India.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
rohitvats , Good post on 'Indian Tax Money -> Services -> DPSU -> Indian GOI' nexus , couldnt have explained it better.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Do anyone have that Discovery Arjun video? If yes pls upload.
The Syrian war gives a lot of information about the working of T series tanks especially the T-72. The initial stages when the RPGs were not used as used today. Initially the T series ruled. Today the situation is very different. Armed with RPGs they are taking on the T-72s with ease.
In the Indian context the T series of tanks is going to be a catastrophe in a war with well armed Pakistan or China with lot of RGPs and ATGMs. The Army must change its mind and go for better tanks like the Arjun. Only Arjun can give better protection and better capability interms of sensors and firepower. Earlier we used to debate in length about the Merkava getting hit multiple times and the crew getting enough time to come out atleast.
With T-series there is no such hope. Its very late, but still the Army must ditch the T-series and go in for the Arjun and its variants. That's the future not outdated tank designs like the T-Series.
The Syrian war gives a lot of information about the working of T series tanks especially the T-72. The initial stages when the RPGs were not used as used today. Initially the T series ruled. Today the situation is very different. Armed with RPGs they are taking on the T-72s with ease.
In the Indian context the T series of tanks is going to be a catastrophe in a war with well armed Pakistan or China with lot of RGPs and ATGMs. The Army must change its mind and go for better tanks like the Arjun. Only Arjun can give better protection and better capability interms of sensors and firepower. Earlier we used to debate in length about the Merkava getting hit multiple times and the crew getting enough time to come out atleast.
With T-series there is no such hope. Its very late, but still the Army must ditch the T-series and go in for the Arjun and its variants. That's the future not outdated tank designs like the T-Series.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
I like this video of the Merkava in which the RPG can be seen bouncing off the armour.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
If Assad had Arjun tanks, he will still be holding all the cities and not let go even one. He choose the wrong tank for his army.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
[quote="Sanku]
does it matter what Shukla's ostensible reasons are? some people on the forum have been claiming to be batting for India, while defending Russia's perfidy all the while
(So how does that make you different from shukla? At least he has the honour of being a part of IA. What is your claim to fame exactly? )
The issue we are concerned with are the facts. Youu have been claiming that the 124 mk1 Arjuns have not been handed over. Shukla has written that DRDO has handed 124 mk1s to the army.
I'm not sure why the forum should believe you over Shukla. You can of course choose not to believe him, but the debate does not get you anywhere - because you are unable to provide us with any evidence (your vouching for yourself is not much use
:[/quote]But since your attempts at FUD need to be countered, the OBVIOUS is -- DRDO is incidental to Shukla, he is grinding a different axe, DRDO just happens to be the stone which finds his pleasure. Shukla gives a damn for India in anycase, that would be at bottom of his priority heap.
This is a common phenomena, some people ostensibly supporting NaMo are basically using his shoulder to fire on others in another thread. Again here some posters ostensibly supporting Arjun, clearly dont give a rats ass about Arjun (remotely interested in real engineering issues and such about Arjun and tanks), but basically are on a trip to snipe at IA.
It may be a clever strategy according to some, but fails on a place like BRF. :mrgreen
does it matter what Shukla's ostensible reasons are? some people on the forum have been claiming to be batting for India, while defending Russia's perfidy all the while
(So how does that make you different from shukla? At least he has the honour of being a part of IA. What is your claim to fame exactly? )The issue we are concerned with are the facts. Youu have been claiming that the 124 mk1 Arjuns have not been handed over. Shukla has written that DRDO has handed 124 mk1s to the army.
I'm not sure why the forum should believe you over Shukla. You can of course choose not to believe him, but the debate does not get you anywhere - because you are unable to provide us with any evidence (your vouching for yourself is not much use
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
arnab wrote:
I'm not sure why the forum should believe you over Shukla. You can of course choose not to believe him, but the debate does not get you anywhere - because you are unable to provide us with any evidence (your vouching for yourself is not much use
Despite your pathetic attempts to personalize the issue, it is not about me.
The forum should believe, believable evidence. Things such as multiple open source accreditation of statements.
Your third rate spinning not withstanding.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012There
Surya-ji. You should be careful, what both I and you know as good natured ribbing is useful for any number of losers who prefer to use personal attacks by losers who cant debate on data.Surya wrote:As opposed to the flexible position you take ??There is no need to take a ideological stance on the issue
Yes I am fully flexible though.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Sure and it is not about Shukla either. Like I said a person providing factual information under his own name, prima facie, is more believable than anonymous posters spitting and running (like bringing in opinions about Track II and Boeing issues in a quote about numbers)Sanku wrote:[
Despite your pathetic attempts to personalize the issue, it is not about me.
The forum should believe, believable evidence. Things such as multiple open source accreditation of statements.
Your third rate spinning not withstanding.
p.s I find it funny that you take umbrage regarding 'personalising' issues when directed at you, but you seem to have no qualms about doing the same to others (as you saw - a moderator noticed it too)
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012There
Yes Surya Sir ... No more "good-natured ribbing" ... That one really hurt ...Sanku wrote:Surya-ji. You should be careful, what both I and you know as good natured ribbing is useful for any number of losers who prefer to use personal attacks by losers who cant debate on data.... SNIP..Surya wrote: As opposed to the flexible position you take ??
--Ashish
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
arnab wrote: Sure and it is not about Shukla either. Like I said a person providing factual information [/u]under his own name, prima facie, is more believable than anonymous posters spitting and running (like bringing in opinions about Track II and Boeing issues in a quote about numbers)
Yes, and there was Zero loss in 2G.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Dear Sanku,Sanku wrote:Oh I see --> It appears that you did not read the HAL press statement at all. HAL statement expressly covered the point, IAF shrunk the time lines for the delivery of complete orders from 2017-18 to 2015, as a result HAL is now looking at outsourcing some components, which is right now from Russia, but HAL is looking to get it done in India through pvt suppliers where HAL will teach them how to.alexis wrote: This link points out that we are still importing components from Russia for MKI which is in contradiction with your assertion that HAL was doing all the manufacturing. Was it not clear?
This is for capacity extension. This hardly means that HAL is not manufacturing Su 30s end to end. It is.
In any case I am baffled why some amount of outsourcing of components means that HAL is not doing all the manufacturing, going by your definition, Arjun is not manufactured in Avadi, since it directly imports 30-50% of components.
Pls see the post in context. You said that HAL is now manufacturing Su-30 MKI which i contested saying that we still depend on Russia for a lot of parts. The link confirms that a lot of components are still supplied from Russia. That is all.
My point is that we still dont know whether we have the know how to manufacture those components imported from Russia. We are supposed to get them. Do we have them? If Indian companies make them, then we are sure. Otherwise, I am not convinced.
U are still arguing on a side point. The main point is IA (MOD in your opinion, which a lot of people incl me dont subscribe) not ordering Arjun inspite of it being better than all other tanks in our force and keeping the line idle. But they are ok with procuring T-90 while ironing out its flaws one by one in service. Whatever spin you or IA gives for this decision, doesnt cut it.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Syrian tankman gives his opinion on the T-72AV (both pro and con)
I rather be sitting in a heavily armored Arjun. T-72 may be lighter and mobile but looks weak.
I rather be sitting in a heavily armored Arjun. T-72 may be lighter and mobile but looks weak.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Yes Sir we do, the HAL press release is specific. We are importing some parts (not lot of parts) only because of capacity extension. That was the question asked in parliament "why is HAL importing some parts if it is the manufacturer" to which HAL replied "because we need to now finish our order by 2015 instead of earlier plan of 2017 and need extra capacity"alexis wrote: My point is that we still dont know whether we have the know how to manufacture those components imported from Russia.
This one is a clear case Sir.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
I think Sanku ji is saying that there will be no more imports (MKI related) from Russia (maintenence or otherwise) after 2015 because HAL has said soSanku wrote:Yes Sir we do, the HAL press release is specific. We are importing some parts (not lot of parts) only because of capacity extension. That was the question asked in parliament "why is HAL importing some parts if it is the manufacturer" to which HAL replied "because we need to now finish our order by 2015 instead of earlier plan of 2017 and need extra capacity"
This one is a clear case Sir.
Though these are rather strange capacity constraints that HAL faces that requires it to import 'maintenence' parts (all 350-400 parts that a SU-30 mki requires) because it is too "busy" speeding up 'manufacturing' SU-30 mki
Last edited by arnab on 19 Mar 2013 09:02, edited 4 times in total.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Or that T-90 tanks had "no issues"Sanku wrote:Yes, and there was Zero loss in 2G.
(This is more pertinent in the context of what Shukla has written.)Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Looks like a c_i_a sponsored trip by the reporter to unveil weakness of syrian tanks.Neshant wrote:Syrian tankman gives his opinion on the T-72AV (both pro and con)
I rather be sitting in a heavily armored Arjun. T-72 may be lighter and mobile but looks weak.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
As per Agustawestland scam the going rate for cut-bribe on spare parts is 15%
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
No Sir ji I am saying that you cant speak one sentence without deliberately mis attributing my statements, you also do it for creating FUD, trolling and also because you have nothing that you can yourself say.arnab wrote: I think Sanku ji is saying that there will be no more imports (MKI related) from Russia (maintenence or otherwise) after 2015 because HAL has said so
I wonder if you can get that or whether you will want to restate that as well.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
In which case he found remarkably little, only such a thing as that the main danger is from mines (which I think they know amply well from loosing a large number of their super duper M1s to IEDs), and the side skirt attachment is weak (I can imagine the Sunni Jihadi's trying to aim their RPGs at the hingesBoreas wrote: Looks like a c_i_a sponsored trip by the reporter to unveil weakness of syrian tanks.
)Going by what the tank man was saying, it seems that his tanks are really working out well for them.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
As opposed to being in a tin-can?I rather be sitting in a heavily armored Arjun.
No brainer.
Besides for the Indian requirements the Arjun cannot be beat. May need to tweak it a wee bit, but it is certainly better than any Russian tank.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
A far better source would be the Israelis!Looks like a c_i_a sponsored trip by the reporter to unveil weakness of syrian tanks.
They should have some upgraded Ts.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
If this is the state of things to come ... 
India wants to produce T-90C tanks
--Ashish
India wants to produce T-90C tanks
They are working on next-gen while they want us to buy tin-crap ...India is interested in continuing the licensed production of Russian T-90C tanks. This came in a statement by Chief Executive of the Russian-Indian tank contract, General Director of "Uralvagonzavod" scientific industrial corporation Oleg Siyenko at the IDEX-2013 arms fair. On Monday, a Russian T-90C tank participated in a dynamic demonstration of technical equipment at the exhibition in Abu-Dhabi, and earned a lot of praise from experts.
On the basis of total characteristics, today the T-90C tank is the best tank on the international market. According to Siyenko, "there are hundreds of already manufactured tanks". This tank is produced on the base of the Russian license at a tank factory in the city of Avadi, in the state of Tamil Nadu. Today, the T-90C tank is the main striking force of the Indian army. India is interested in transition from the currently existing large-unit assembly to complete localization of production and subsequent modernization of the previously jointly manufactured machines. According to estimations of experts, in 2014-2019, India can additionally purchase about 600 new, modernized T-90C tanks and start their complete licensed production on the spot.
Today, India sticks to the same pattern at other enterprises producing various military equipment under Russian licenses. Indian Corporation "Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd" produces one of the world's best fighters Su-30 MKI under the Russian license. Today, together with India we manufacture a prospective fifth generation fighter - FGFA (Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft). It is for several years now that the Russian-Indian BrahMos joint venture, named in honor of the Russian Moscow River and the Indian Brahmaputra, produces the fastest BrahMos cruise missiles.
Meanwhile, Russian designers are working at a new tank of the fifth generation. It requires radically different engineering and technical solutions, editor-in-chief of the National Defense magazine Igor Korotchenko says.
“This tank will be controlled remotely. This project will be the first step on the way to a fully «unmanned» weapon, to so-called combat robots, about which science fiction authors wrote last century”.
And who knows, maybe, this tank can also be created by a joint effort of Russian and Indian gunsmiths.
--Ashish
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
How else can they fund the next-gen?They are working on next-gen while they want us to buy tin-crap
That article is so slanted. Bringing in the MKI and the FGFA into the picture to make the T series look good.
which experts?According to estimations of experts, in 2014-2019, India can additionally purchase about 600 new, modernized T-90C tanks and start their complete licensed production on the spot
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
I thought what I've been implying was pretty clear i.e. Political hacks shouldn't muscle in on technical discussions (fine to do so in the hot air forum though). Wouldn't have happened in the older days of brf - but now you are a 'protected specie', I imagineSanku wrote:No Sir ji I am saying that you cant speak one sentence without deliberately mis attributing my statements, you also do it for creating FUD, trolling and also because you have nothing that you can yourself say.
I wonder if you can get that or whether you will want to restate that as well.
Afterall you want to leave yourself some wriggle room for 'imports' even after claiming that HAL is 'only' importing 'some' parts to speed up the manufacturing process to complete the manufacture by 2015. And your only 'defence' against Shukla has been that he did Track 2 and praise C-17! This is the kind of 'debate' the military forum has sunk to after your entry ('trolling' as others have called it)
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Or the US veterans of the Iraq warNRao wrote:A far better source would be the Israelis!Looks like a c_i_a sponsored trip by the reporter to unveil weakness of syrian tanks.