Indian Army wants futuristic vehicle for its Armoured corps

[ersakthivel]

Just FO.. Indian Army is is too proud and too big for your useless existence and miserable thoughts.

But too brainless to select a multi cal rifle after seven years of evaluation and bribe scandal,neither did they buy bullet proof jackets after years of evaluation!!!

1And set 30 minute hover time for a helo(the most a helo can do is 7 minutes , that too one from US), which led to the cancellation as well, making IA a laughing stock in global weapons market, where they couldn't even buy the right thing!!!

Now they are going to build world's best FRCV!!!

No wonder you are an expert on DODOs,,,,

 

[Bhadra]

@ersakthivel

If DRDO / Army can not design and commit to production a tank from 1974 to 2000, the nation is not going to sit under your banana tree.. after having a warlike tension in 1986, 1998-99 the again OP PARAKRAM and so many times in between, you think GoI is your ****************** property ............... which is required to be run as per requirements of DRDO or OFBs. ??

The GoI imported what ever it deemed fit, cheap and good and it is not Indian Army /// you fool.. you mean to say DGMF could have decided for Israeli tanks to be imported and GoI would listen to DGDRDO or DGMF... do not make an ass of yourself and be an insensible and irresponsible member here in the forum..

DGMF or any other DG or even SA to RM are too little pawns in the process.. Why are you after the ass of DGMF or Indian Army ... or the IA itself.

National Defence is much above your head , DRDO or IA.... the earlier you understand that the better for you..

And stop belittling appointments of GoI under internet freedom ... Not that you can be taken to task for that being a govt servant and required to follow a code of conduct ..

 

[su35]

Dear Bhadra Sir, I had read about your mobility vs protection comment, this is indeed a hot debate around world armed forces regarding APC and IFV not about tank. APC and IFV require mobility more than protection.

Regarding Lahore and other cities, In urban warfare You require more protection and agility not mobility. You will be needing armor in side and rear of tank for that US has special kit for their M1. Whey enemy will be firing at close range you cannot escape through speed.
What are your views about vikir missile of russian fired against your Medium concept tank

 

[Rowdy]

Dear Bhadra Sir, I had read about your mobility vs protection comment, this is indeed a hot debate around world armed forces regarding APC and IFV not about tank. APC and IFV require mobility more than protection.

Regarding Lahore and other cities, In urban warfare You require more protection and agility not mobility. You will be needing armor in side and rear of tank for that US has special kit for their M1. Whey enemy will be firing at close range you cannot escape through speed.
What are your views about vikir missile of russian fired against your Medium concept tank

LOL
The Indian army's Marvell Comics division will cover our backs bro.
Don't be a rudaali chaap DRDO Fanboi

 

[Bhadra]

Dear Bhadra Sir, I had read about your mobility vs protection comment, this is indeed a hot debate around world armed forces regarding APC and IFV not about tank. APC and IFV require mobility more than protection.

Regarding Lahore and other cities, In urban warfare You require more protection and agility not mobility. You will be needing armor in side and rear of tank for that US has special kit for their M1. Whey enemy will be firing at close range you cannot escape through speed.
What are your views about vikir missile of russian fired against your Medium concept tank

Sir, there are only two or rather three armour philosophies in the world over - The German - now spread over to the western world and USA and the Russian. One emphasises on protection and fire power and the other over mass, speed, agility and mobility. The third independent armour philosophy or concepts are Israelis who developed those for themselves and to cater for their needs and conditions.

So far as APC and IFV is concerned both are somewhat diagonally opposite and western Vs Russian concepts. The Westerns believe that Infantry is required to be carried near to the objective following armour hence it requires light protection of the vehicles and more numbers of troops per vehicle so that infantry dismounts before the objective and then captures is in a dismounted actions. But Russians believe that the Infantry along with armour is supposed to destroy the objective by shock action and fire power and by running over it in mass thereby causing its destruction. Hence both need to reach the objective simultaneously.

One is infantry classical operations and the other for combined armour infantry actions in same time and space.

These ideas and philosophies gave birth to the concept called APC - Armoured Personal Carrier - take infantry as near the objective as possible and ICV - Infantry Fighting Vehicles wherein infantry could bring in fire power and offensive actions on the objective by dismounted action remaining inside the vehicles and moving on the objective along with armour. Hence heavier protection for the infantry troops, more fire power and lesser troop strength per vehicle.

Now a days most of the armies follow ICV concept and US is contemplating major changes to their Bradleys APCs or shifting over to IFVs.

 

[Rowdy]

I see another multi caliber rifel import circus in the making

 

[pmaitra]

I agree with you. Had Lieutenant-General Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov who had initial job in mechanics at a tractor station and subsequently enlisted in the Red Army and assigned as a tank mechanic was a poetry lover, continued to write poetry all of his life. Had he been a BSc he would have never designed a rifle so famous after his name - Avtomat Kalashnikova model 1947.... AK -47...

I see your logic. So Thomas A. Edison was kicked out of school and he became one of the greatest inventors of history. This proves, everyone who is kicked out of school will be an inventor, and everyone who gets a science degree will be sitting at a computer in a DRDO office and trolling, and posting videos of Dimple Kapadia.

To hell with you all BScs who can not even design a Rifle for our Armed Forces... (though I also happen to be MSc M Phil) perusing my doctorate on DODOs...

An Argumentative Indian ... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You probably did not even have science at the +2 level, going by your arguments.

Just FO..

Keep your language clean, or your posts will be summarily deleted.

Indian Army is is too proud and too big for your useless existence and miserable thoughts.

Who gave you the authority to represent the Indian Army here?

Looking at your comments, I can say, it is not your (singular) "pride," rather "arrogance."

Learn some humility, and have some respect for the scientists working in DRDO. They are far more learned and qualified that you might be in a position to appreciate.

Today's warfare is not fought like a Knight in Shining Armour. Our soldiers are not meant to ride a horse with a sword and charge at Pakistan. Our soldiers are meant to win wars without losing their own lives (Learn warfare from Gen. George S. Patton Jr., not from some silly Bollywood slogans), and for that technology is required. It is not optional.

Of course, you don't care. You are defending the T-72 and T-90, and thereby defending the Soviet doctrine that soldiers are expendable, and you don't care if our soldiers die. Yet, shamelessly, you continue to act as if you are the spokesperson of the Army. You are not.

 

[Bhadra]

I see another multi caliber rifel import circus in the making

I do not see that in this thread. Do not spoil this thread if you have nothing to contribute. Open another thread and vent frustration there . Name that as Rudali ....:bs:

 

[pmaitra]

Sir, there are only two or rather three armour philosophies in the world over - The German - now spread over to the western world and USA and the Russian. One emphasises on protection and fire power and the other over mass, speed, agility and mobility. The third independent armour philosophy or concepts are Israelis who developed those for themselves and to cater for their needs and conditions.

So far as APC and IFV is concerned both are somewhat diagonally opposite and western Vs Russian concepts. The Westerns believe that Infantry is required to be carried near to the objective following armour hence it requires light protection of the vehicles and more numbers of troops per vehicle so that infantry dismounts before the objective and then captures is in a dismounted actions. But Russians believe that the Infantry along with armour is supposed to destroy the objective by shock action and fire power and by running over it in mass thereby causing its destruction. Hence both need to reach the objective simultaneously.

One is infantry classical operations and the other for combined armour infantry actions in same time and space.

These ideas and philosophies gave birth to the concept called APC - Armoured Personal Carrier - take infantry as near the objective as possible and ICV - Infantry Fighting Vehicles wherein infantry could bring in fire power and offensive actions on the objective by dismounted action remaining inside the vehicles and moving on the objective along with armour. Hence heavier protection for the infantry troops, more fire power and lesser troop strength per vehicle.

Now a days most of the armies follow ICV concept and US is contemplating major changes to their Bradleys APCs or shifting over to IFVs.

• US, German, and Israeli doctrines are crew protection first. Proof is German Leopard, US M1A1 with Uranium armour and Israeli Merkava with emphasis on rear door and slow speed.
• Russian doctrine is also crew protection first. Proof is with the T-14 Armata.
• Soviet doctrine was soldiers are expendable. Proof is T-55, T-72, T-90.

You are probably using the term "Russian" to imply "Soviet." The world has moved on. T-14 Armata reflects Russian doctrine, not T-72 or T-55.

 

[Bhadra]

I see your logic. So Thomas A. Edison was kicked out of school and he became one of the greatest inventors of history. This proves, everyone who is kicked out of school will be inventors, and everyone who gets a science degree will be sitting at a computer in a DRDO office and trolling, and posting videos of Dimple Kapadia.


You probably did not even have science at the +2 level, going by your arguments.


Keep your language clean, or your posts will be summarily deleted.


Who gave you the authority to represent the Indian Army here?

Looking at your comments, I can say, it is not your (singular) "pride," rather "arrogance."

Learn some humility, and have some respect for the scientists working in DRDO. They are far more learned and qualified that you might be in a position to appreciate.

Today's warfare is not fought like a Knight in Shining Armour. Our soldiers are not meant to ride a horse with a sword and charge at Pakistan. Our soldiers are meant to win wars without losing their own lives (Learn warfare from Gen. George S. Patton Jr., not from some silly Bollywood slogans), and for that technology is required. It is not optional.

Of course, you don't care. You are defending the T-72 and T-90, and thereby defending the Soviet doctrine that soldiers are expendable, and you don't care if our soldiers die. Yet, shamelessly, you continue to act as if you are the spokesperson of the Army. You are not.

Oh Yah ! I am indeed sick of your personal attacks which you always use to hijack any topic.

 

[pmaitra]

Oh Yah ! I am indeed sick of your personal attacks which you always use to hijack any topic.

Where is the personal attack? Did say "FO" to you? Did I accuse you of being on the payroll of foreign arms vendors and sitting at your office and posting stuff?

Moreover, did I post a video of Dimple Kapadia? Did I ramble about some extinct bird for weeks?

Discipline yourself first, before you point your fingers are someone for mentioning the multi-calibre rifle.

 

[Bhadra]

• US, German, and Israeli doctrines are crew protection first. Proof is German Leopard, US M1A1 with Uranium armour and Israeli Merkava with emphasis on rear door and slow speed.
• Russian doctrine is also crew protection first. Proof is with the T-14 Armata.
• Soviet doctrine was soldiers are expendable. Proof is T-55, T-72, T-90.

You are probably using the term "Russian" to imply "Soviet." The world has moved on. T-14 Armata reflects Russian doctrine, not T-72 or T-55.

So what ? You mean to imply there is only one armour philosophy in the world and all other things are bunkum?
What is IAV Stryker then ?

And from where have you learnt that expandable philosophy ?

 

[pmaitra]

@Bhadra

Armour philosophy is one generic thing, and philosophy behind battle tanks is a more specific thing.

I am not debating all armour. I am debating a very specific type of armour.

Your Stryker example is a distraction or deflection. When you resort to such tactics, I know you have nothing to offer in return.

 

[Bhadra]

@Bhadra

Armour philosophy is one generic thing, and philosophy behind battle tanks is a more specific thing.

I am not debating all armour. I am debating a very specific type of armour.

Your Stryker example is a distraction or deflection. When you resort to such tactics, I know you have nothing to offer in return.

Armour philosophy is not generic but related to resources ( material and technology), time and space and objects of war. Tank is an essential instrument of that philosophy and closely related to Armour Philosophy. The shape, size, speed, guns etc all are to be derived from that philosophy or doctrine.

The Russians / Soviets developed their philosophy of Deep Battles in 1920s and 1930 adequately backed by their economic and social condition ( availability of human reserves and industrial capacities) and envisaged how they are going to win wars and fight battles. They always had availability of enormous space with them inside their country as also enormous space in front of them to reach France and entire Europe.

For them speed and simultaneity of operation was of prime importance to cover such vast space rather than winning wars only with attrition. Hence they focused on mobility and mass firepower so much so that their main Arm was their artillery. Thereby their tanks were light, agile, more mobile, more rugged and less sophisticated. They lay emphasis more on offensive actions and less on defensive actions. Their tanks therefore were product of a operational philosophy.

On the other hand US and NATO and particularly Germany focused more on defending Europe and Germany before they could think of entering Soviet Union. They envisaged facing the mass and multitude of Soviet Armour. Therefore their tanks were to be heavy, more protection, very accurate and more fire power so that one tank could take on many Soviet tanks. It was a share situation of facing numbers in Comparative strength. They had no choice but to focus on winning war in Europe by attrition by might of good. superior and advanced technology in all fields and with the combined might of all arms. Subsequently this thought process became crystallised in the concept of air land battles where the Western forces thought of engaging Soviet forces at every echelon.

Conditions have changed the world over. USA and Russia are no more faced with old situations. Therefore USA has gone for Stryker's and Russians for Armata. Russia no longer has that reserve manpower, That industrial capacity and that industrial base.

___________________________________

now about bringing in Stryker's - the question was what is the difference between ICV and IFV. As general backgrounder I answered with armour philosophies but you chose to deride that.

But I am glad because it would help us developing our future tank. If at all we are able to decide what we want tanks for ?

 

[pmaitra]

@Bhadra, the Stryker is appropriate in a discussion involving the BTR, or even the BMP and Bradley; but not appropriate when discussing T-90, Arjun, Merkava, M1A1 etc.. At least that is how I see it.

You can present your own classification of battle tanks.

I have made my point that Germany, US, Israel, and Russia, are all prioritizing crew survival.

 

[Bhadra]

In our context the armour experts must answer following questions ?

1. What does the environment scan say ? In the context of both India and Pakistan having nuclear weapons, what is the window and scope of conventional operations less than a nuclear war ?. What are the likely limits and durations of such operations and what are the likely aims and end state?

2. What is likely or suitable operational doctrine for employment of armour in such limitations or under such conditions? Is CSD the only option or one of the options?

3. What is the role, objectives and aims of employment of armour in a Nuclear war between India and Pakistan? I think India should address this concern more than anything else .

4. What are the physical or material conditions or say terrain friction, weather, time, etc on both sides of Western border? What tank would suit it best ?

5. Does India require tanks only for western borders or on other borders also?

6. What is futuristic perspective of employment of armour in maintaining internal cohesion of the country keeping in view the spreading urbanisation in India and urban areas becoming resistance centres for a Naxilites like AAP or Gurdaspur or Moradabad requiring employment of tanks ? What if tanks are required to be employed in Jaffna again ? ( no offence meant in naming cities and parties etc)

7. What kind or armour systems would be required for India to safeguard her island territories and employment out of the country?

5. Do we need a general tank capable of use everywhere or can we afford sector specific, terrain specific and task specific tanks?

6. And lastly what kind of armour opposition we face? This a variable factor as USA and China / western world can give anything to Pakistan as they deem fit.

These are the basic questions to start with which need to be clearly answered before one touts his tank ?

 

[ersakthivel]

@ersakthivel

If DRDO / Army can not design and commit to production a tank from 1974 to 2000, the nation is not going to sit under your banana tree.. after having a warlike tension in 1986, 1998-99 the again OP PARAKRAM and so many times in between, you think GoI is your ****************** property ............... which is required to be run as per requirements of DRDO or OFBs. ??

The GoI imported what ever it deemed fit, cheap and good and it is not Indian Army /// you fool.. you mean to say DGMF could have decided for Israeli tanks to be imported and GoI would listen to DGDRDO or DGMF... do not make an ass of yourself and be an insensible and irresponsible member here in the forum..

DGMF or any other DG or even SA to RM are too little pawns in the process.. Why are you after the ass of DGMF or Indian Army ... or the IA itself.

National Defence is much above your head , DRDO or IA.... the earlier you understand that the better for you..

And stop belittling appointments of GoI under internet freedom ... Not that you can be taken to task for that being a govt servant and required to follow a code of conduct ..

The future of Indian mechanized forces is neither the grand father's property of the present lot in DGMF or fake argument peddler like you.

The country has every right to know what the present lot did in DGMF for the past 5 years , with endless consultation with technical persons of its arm and DRDO personnel in the garb of ,"formulating PSQR for FMBT".



Every informed tax payer has got the right to question , because it concerns the future of the country as one unit. We are a democracy not a tin pot dictatorship.Got it?

Repeating a Goebbels lie a thousand times wont make it truth in today;s digital world. 1971 GSQR was for a 40 ton 1055 dia gun tank, that was discarded. Arjun design freeze ACCEPTED by army in 1998 and 14 years after IA accepted the design they are delaying the induction , which was highlighted in CAG report.

You are trying deceptively mislead every one here using totally spurious argument, again and again.

You are using personal attacks to cover for your inability to answer pointed questions.

Only mentally sick guys invoke this line of debate, not guys who are supposed to Phd.

For example you have said that tanks dont slug it out like wrestlers. When battle of khemkharan where IA tanks and PAF tanks met was posted by me you are maintaining a deceitful silence on this!!!

You have no head for cool headed rational argument.So you can never become Phd material until you change this . Phd is a quest for truth, not dishing out personal attacks after being caught pants down with lie based arguments.

I draw no government salary, I have scored a near centum in 12th std maths and gained entry into one of the top ten Eng colleges of the time in TN(Coimbatore Institute of Technology ) and finished mech eng with first class.

And when it comes to technical matters , you dont even measure upto my knee length.

Professors who have multi Phds to their name and written book on technical matters taught me first hand. And I am still in awe of their cool temperament. From seeing them , and seeing your gutter language I know pretty damn well that your temperament and quest for truth is light years away from the real Phds.

So you can shove your arguments like,"And stop belittling appointments of GoI under internet freedom ... Not that you can be taken to task for that being a govt servant and required to follow a code of conduct ", somewhere else,

Because years before Manohar parrikar used the term,"marvel comics stuff " to comment on IA GSQR, I used the same term in a thread here. SO will you also recommend the prosecution of present DM for using that term?

many fake "egggsperts " used the same arguments you used with me and ended up with tons of egg on their face and quit this forum for good unable to stand the truth by indulging in endless personal attacks on me and the mods here which led to their banning here.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/combat-aircraft-technology-and-evolution.47398/page-12
read from post 233 onwards. It is a compilation of a week long argument I had with a guy named decklander here in another name sake forum. he said he was a naval pilot and unloaded tons of crapon tejas like you are doing here on this fake blanket , announce your prize money yourself RFI for FRCV.

, When I caught him pants down with arguments based on credible sources, he started to contradict himself in every second post and quit.Since then he is also maintaining complete radio silence on tejas!!!

.Whenever I post stuff I also cite an authentic source to back it, not like your totally fake line ,"tanks wont slug it out like wrestlers", got it?

You can go to ADA tejas thread ,combat aircraft technology & evaluation thread and Arjun thread on this forum to know this,

If you continue to call DRDO DODO , they too can contemplate legal action on you, Did such a thought ever cross your mind?

Got it?

 

[ersakthivel]

In our context the armour experts must answer following questions ?

1.What does the environment scan say ? In the context of both India and Pakistan having nuclear weapons, what is the window and scope of conventional operations less than a nuclear war ?. What are the likely limits and durations of such operations and what are the likely aims and end state?

Do you know what is Cold start doctrine? It envisages deployment of tanks close to the border for effective and fast strike on enemy which will lead to gaining some territory before international pressure kicks in.So a heavy tank like arjun will neatly fit into it . because it will be closer to the theater of action all the time and no so called logistics of transport is going to slow it down.Also battle of Khemkaran simply illustrates that IA had already fielded 52 tons heavy centurians and conclusively won the battle.

because light 46 ton advanced patton tanks were routed by heavier centurians , any battle between al kahlid and Arjun will result in the same result.

2. What is likely or suitable operational doctrine for employment of armour in such limitations or under such conditions? Is CSD the only option or one of the options?

Only according those doctrine IA GSQR for Arjun uprated to produce the present mk2 version. To give IA a sufficiently protected tank to stand ground.

CSD was not prepared by dummies or DODos you should know. And upward revision of crew safety safe ammo with canisterized , blow off panel ammo and armor protection for mk2 was borne out of CSD needs for sure win in quick thrusts. And thats why Arjun was designed to operate its crew and all its state of the art electronics in searing dessert heats , which is not the case with T-90.


3. What is the role, objectives and aims of employment of armour in a Nuclear war between India and Pakistan? I think India should address this concern more than anything else .

IA should have the best protected battle win tank, thats for what tax payer money should be spent. Crystal gazing about n war can wait. Grand N powers like russia, US are going for 55 to 65 ton heavy armor tanks with safe ammo storage only

4. What are the physical or material conditions or say terrain friction, weather, time, etc on both sides of Western border? What tank would suit it best ?

terrain friction? what crap is this? There is only one parameter that is terrain ground pressure.
Any tank with fording and low ground pressure along with decent power to weight ratio for gradient climbing will win, no matter what its weight is.

DO you expect retreating PA to leave its all bridges intact for the flying horse medium FRCV to roll along? So bridging equipment is a must for any tanks in offensive.

Go and read Hitler's instruction in Is Paris Burning?

5. Does India require tanks only for western borders or on other borders also?

tanks for Himalayas should have a separate design. You can not use the same design for both.

6. What is futuristic perspective of employment of armour in maintaining internal cohesion of the country keeping in view the spreading urbanisation in India and urban areas becoming resistance centres for a Naxilites like AAP or Gurdaspur or Moradabad requiring employment of tanks ? What if tanks are required to be employed in Jaffna again ? ( no offence meant in naming cities and parties etc)

he, He, he. Only Arjun like tanks that have safe ammo storage preventing turret blow offs can be deployed in urban centers and jaffna, not Diwali firecracked "medium 40 ton FRCV"

7. What kind or armour systems would be required for India to safeguard her island territories and employment out of the country?

It was already researched and thats why GSQR of Arjun was uprated for decades. Now DGMF once again wants to start from zero Thats why we need to employ technically qualifed people in DGMF.

5. Do we need a general tank capable of use everywhere or can we afford sector specific, terrain specific and task specific tanks?

That tank runs only in Mars. Himalayan borders and western borders are different, they need armaments of differenet specs right from soldiers clothing.

6. And lastly what kind of armour opposition we face? This a variable factor as USA and China / western world can give anything to Pakistan as they deem fit.

It is nobody's job to crystal gaze what armor will we face in 2030. Commonsense demands our new FMBT should have enough space and weight bearing capacity to adapt any future armor we may face anywhere in the world.

 

[Kharavela]

Goli maro thread ko, you have mercy on us.

Why must you act like the Knight in Shining Armour for them. How did this come about hain bhai. How did you reach the conclusion - Men In Uniform is a quality Uniformly In Men. You just want to give a free pass to the so called Succession Path.... that has fed on the sweat and blood of those who are not even remembered.

I am not doubting your intent. Only your intellect .


_________________________________________________________________________________




Lie - On the one hand the critics allege that most of the tank is imported and on the other they allege technical issues and missing spare parts.
Reality - So called technical issues and missing spare parts are direct result of inadequate spares planning and incompetence of the Armour leadership to think ahead. They sat on their lazy asses after giving an order of only 124. Either that was a mistake which is hard to believe or they did it deliberately because their interests were elsewhere. Notice this is the same tactic that the IAF has used for LCA. Suppliers DGMF ke nauker nahi hain ke jab khan-bahudur darbar lagayenge tub spares mil jayenge.




Lie - The design did not move fast for much the same reasons that LCA was sabotaged. Birds of a feather.

Lie again - Compared to its peer group (Challenger-2 and M-1A1 etc.) Arjun Mk-1 itself is overpowered. The only versions of the peer group that were overpowered compared to Arjun Mk-1 are the ones with 105 mm guns.

Reality - Arjun Mk-1 carries the same western technology (guns, engine, tranmission) that the Armour leaders ostensibly swear by. This is not even a criticism of Arjun to say that it is inadequate. If Arjun is inadequate then the world's armies are riding inadequate MBTs. Inadequacy is in the Armour leadership.




Lies again & again - 90 are not technical issues. These are technical improvements to reach a completely different Mark/Version of Arjun. The Arjun Mk-2.

Reality - Arjun Mk-1 itself has beaten the best tanks Indian Army could throw at it in a many-on-many-scenario and that were selected by a wrongful process by people entrenched in the Indian Army. People who will be taken out in due course.




Habitual lying - Rahul Bhonsle or the Army do not have the understanding of designing. They are talking out of their collective musharaffs. Notice the Armour Leadership went to the DRDO for pulling the IA out of their stupid decision on earlier acquisitions. And these were never even called as issues/deficiencies. Why was this missed out by the DGMF. Why did he not refer to the T-90 changes and T-72 changes as technical issues. Why, O why Mr. DGMF?

Reality - Notice again they have ordered only 118 of the Mk-2 Arjuns and made out a retirement plan cum RFI for FRCV.

These spurious reports always quoting the "all authentic unnamed officers" are just paid news by import lobby , I myself have blasted many such paid news in my posts in tejas and arjun thread.

For example the stupid Prasoon sengupths guy 's thamasha piece called aeroindia2015 , in which he dispensed gyan like "it doesn't matter if tejas mk1 completes a vertical loop in 19 seconds in aeroinda 2013, "

Some one like you, who is defining the way DGMF should give specs for FICV or FMBT should know better than to rely on such crap.

MRF set up a track factory anticipating higher orders for arjun mk1 tracks, after the DGMF sabotaged Arjun by stopping orders with just 124 the factory was shut down.

next DRDO-Ashok leyland JV for Arjun engine was proposed. that too wound up after order was capped.

And same goes with MRO facilities for imported parts of 124 arjun mk1s. The low order quantity makes it unviable to set up them here to provide prompt services and support.

But these paid news guys twist and turn these inconvenient facts into "Arjun mk1s are grounded " sensational report.

Much the same way like rafale lobby kept tearing into the poor availability rates of su-30 MKI. Then a HAL official leaked the fact that IAF kept lowest possible spares in their depot and refused an overall maintenance contract with HAL.

Then DM came to know of this and he declared it openly, presto the availability rate of Su-30 MKI shot up by ten percent in no time.

Those T-34 , AK 47 examples are so out of place in this modern world. Those were the times when enemy had much worser weapon , so anything produced with any number of defects were par for the course. Not so today when world is flooded with designer weapons.

Coming to not giving specs "and learning from Arjun fiasco" part, How many global firms participated in the "three part design build produce " type tender for Armata or the coming Leo upgrades, or the Abrams ?

Now lets have a case study.

Five firms compete and firm A wins the design -prototype phase , but gives a deceptively lesser price to win the prize money and simply walks away from competition.

Then when Army announces a grand tender during production phase , all firms which come forward to produce it quote an exorbitant price(not an unlikey scenario, just refer to the open ended cost no bar MMRCA fiasco!!!).

And most importantly all of them will say that no indian agency has the tech capacity to absorb the super tech of the super FICV just like the fabled MMRCA winner famously said!!!

Then it transpires that it becomes financially unviable to produce the tank in needed numbers just like MMRCA.

Can the by then retired and deceased "uniforms " come back from the grave to produce a Magic FICV just by saying presto?

End result- A decade of wasted time and hasty import from another MNC critically laying open our countries most prestegious offensive arm to dependencies from abroad for ever!!!

No self respecting nation can its let devious DGMF play the "import forever" games critically wounding the core national strength and for ever expose its critical defence services to the whims and fancies of supplier nations heeding the worthless advice of few senile generals who will retire any time, Got it?

Arming a nation is the art of leveraging the existing tech into usable weapons which make atleast 50 percent of its fighting forces to make sure the country does not become a prisoner of supplier nations.

Leo has a smooth bore gun, Arjun a fully indian developed highly accurate rifled gun which has much better accuracy than T-90. And Arjun is much shorter and wider than Leo catering to DGMF requirement of low shiloute critically needed in indian operating theater where the engagement ranges were around 2 kms . Also ARJUN HAS A MUCH LOWER GROUND PRESSURE PER SQUARE INCH THAN LEO CATERING TO THE DGMF REQUIREMENT OF OPERATIONS IN INDIAN RIVERINE PUNJAB REGION. nO LEO CAN GO WHERE ARJUN PRESNTLY GOES THER. IN FACT THE FABLED LESSER WEIGHT t SERIES TANKS OF IA CANT OPERATE THERE ALSO.

The same DGMF is begging DRDO to put Ac in T-90 because the tank is unfit for prolonged desert operation due to conking out of electronics and crew fainting heat, whose invar missiles were found to be crap during testing and whole lots returned. Where were these "nationalistic journos" when all these were happening?

Also were the T-34 orders were stopped by brandishing a "brand new requirement of having lower target range for its missile like the stalled arjun mk2 /

No they were all produced continuously and improvements were made in batches. Why "these global best practices" which are suddenly appearing in FICV were forgotten then?

Which global best practice was adopted in ordering T-90 in thousands (stalling arjun citing spurious requirements) which were found out to be not suitable for prolonged periods of operation indian deseret? leading to the wise men of DGMF coming to the doors of DRDO with a begging bowl for Ac, that too after the russians and all other global firms they consulted refused help?

Which global quality control practice was adopted in accepting thousands of spurious Invar missiles for T-90s?(what is even more interesting is DGMF scuttled a perfectly working CLGM on arjun mk2 citing requirement of lesser min range while wasting tax payer money on not working Invars in thousands of crores? )

Another white lie, the T-90 cost was projected to be less in a devious contract negotiation by leaving out gun, armor and many other critical TOTs. ANd only GOd knows whether the new batch of Invar missiles were in working condition or not.

And later when T-90 landed in indian shores its electronics were shitty and useless and we paid a fortune for french to set that right,

now we have a T-90 which is fainting its own crew instead of killing the enemy in desert!!! And IA called global tender to set Ac in T-90, Every one including Rusians refused, And now DRDO is being approached!!!

So what is the total cost of T-90(which is still in a perfectly non working condition for prolonged operations in indian deserts?)

Not even DGMF and God combined can calculate,

mean while all measure to reduce the price of Arjun mk1 by giving orders in 500 numbers were sabotaged by DGMF leading to its high cost due to unviability of producing many things than can be produced here!!!

Just by reading these three posts, even a civilian like me can understand the sabotage done to Arjun program. I wonder, what must be the lure for some of our own who are keen to destroy indigenous capability & force India to depend on foreign suppliers for ever ??

 

[Bhadra]

Do you know what is Cold start doctrine? It envisages deployment of tanks close to the border for effective and fast strike on enemy which will lead to gaining some territory before international pressure kicks in.So a heavy tank like arjun will neatly fit into it . because it will be closer to the theater of action all the time and no so called logistics of transport is going to slow it down.Also battle of Khemkaran simply illustrates that IA had already fielded 52 tons heavy centurians and conclusively won the battle.

No I do not know what Cold start is. You know it? Give me a link, preferably an official one!
And Cold Start is meant for heavy tank like Arjun? OR rather IA designed Cold Start for heavy tanks, to be kept near the border? This is your understanding?

Secondly, I deliberately did not reply to your Khemkaran rants which you keep making time and again. If that is your ideal of armour battles then I do not have to wonder any further. Khemkaran and Asal Uttar are bad examples of employment of Armour by Pakistan and no one considers those what you claim - great tank battles. In khemkaran the leading tank columns of Pakistani armour got bogged down in inundated fields and about 100 of those were sitting ducks in there. If any thing you can learn from Khemkaran is that even a 45 ton tanks like Patton could become liability in obstacle ridden terrain. what to talk of 68 ton Arjun. It will simply sink !

because light 46 ton advanced patton tanks were routed by heavier centurians , any battle between al kahlid and Arjun will result in the same result.

Pakistani tank rout was because of their immobility and not because of wrestling with heavy tanks. Take your theory to some basic school on Republic day and give a patriotic lecture there on utility of heavy tanks.

Only according those doctrine IA GSQR for Arjun uprated to produce the present mk2 version. To give IA a sufficiently protected tank to stand ground.CSD was not prepared by dummies or DODos you should know. And upward revision of crew safety safe ammo with canisterized , blow off panel ammo and armor protection for mk2 was borne out of CSD needs for sure win in quick thrusts. And thats why Arjun was designed to operate its crew and all its state of the art electronics in searing dessert heats , which is not the case with T-90.

CSD by dummies ? who says that it was prepared AK Antony ? You mean to say CSD existed in 1974 when first GSQR was given ? Or Arjun became 68 kg only after Mumbay attack and before that it was slim? You also seem to suggest all the features you listed are CSD specific and are not suitable for other types of operational doctrines and operational manuevers such as deep thrusts, turning moves or envelopments etc? You seem to imply right thing !!

Now I understand where DRDO and DGMF got bogged down !

IA should have the best protected battle win tank, thats for what tax payer money should be spent. Crystal gazing about n war can wait. Grand N powers like russia, US are going for 55 to 65 ton heavy armor tanks with safe ammo storage only

When both nuclear power are having 200 warhead each and all conciable system of delivery, that scenario can weight --- let every thing wait but Arjun. You have very good arguments to my serious question! And what has safe storage of ammunition to do with nuclear war? Due to radiation, blast or shock waves tank ammunition will have sympathetic blast or cook of? Good scientist you are ?:blah:

terrain friction? what crap is this? There is only one parameter that is terrain ground pressure.
Any tank with fording and low ground pressure along with decent power to weight ratio for gradient climbing will win, no matter what its weight is.


DO you expect retreating PA to leave its all bridges intact for the flying horse medium FRCV to roll along? So bridging equipment is a must for any tanks in offensive.

Go and read Hitler's instruction in Is Paris Burning?

Terrain may include crap because tank crew is required to crap unless you have provided a shit pot inside Arjun. It also includes water which makes Arjun bog down. It includes heat which leads to cook of. It includes wind and sound and gradients to go up and come down. Everything - high time for you to learn.

Bridges - you mean Sarvatra made by DRDO which buckles down ?

tanks for Himalayas should have a separate design. You can not use the same design for both.

Yes, the shops of DRDO, OFB, foreign companies from which import more than 60 percent components and that of DGMF should be kept overloaded- running. Different types of Tanks for deserts, tanks for punjab, tanks for Ladakh, tanks for Kuch, Tank for air portability, tanks for sea portability, tanks for Jharkhand - mauja hi maujan... bale bale ... that is what exactly someone like you would want then you talk of taxpayer !!

he, He, he. Only Arjun like tanks that have safe ammo storage preventing turret blow offs can be deployed in urban centers and jaffna, not Diwali firecracked "medium 40 ton FRCV"

ARJUN PROTECTED BY A PLATOON OF INFANTRY ??

It was already researched and thats why GSQR of Arjun was uprated for decades. Now DGMF once again wants to start from zero Thats why we need to employ technically qualifed people in DGMF.

You mean to say DGMF uprated Arjun to 68 tons for easier sea portability and air portability ? You must be kidding.

And yes, DGMF have many technically qualified people with M Tech from DIAT - PG in Tank Technology - that is why their standards are good !

That tank runs only in Mars. Himalayan borders and western borders are different, they need armaments of differenet specs right from soldiers clothing.

But Mars also has different types of terrain and one needs to crap there also.... . again the answer shows you want tank shops - specially Arjun shop to proliferate.

It is nobody's job to crystal gaze what armor will we face in 2030. Commonsense demands our new FMBT should have enough space and weight bearing capacity to adapt any future armor we may face anywhere in the world.

It is the job of DGMF and your job is to make what they want. Simple. The problem in this country is that everyone wants to do others job but not his