The comparison of the political example with a military requisite is misplaced.
And it is also a rare affair if the GSQR is met in all parameters in any equipment and even more surprising if it surpasses the parameters.
Neither the Arjun nor the T 90 is perfect.
However, what one would want to know as to why an equipment has failed.
Sir equipment failures in developmental trials are quite common.And thats why they are called developmental trials.What is the point here is arjun's transmission and engine were from reputed vendors in germany GTu and RENK if I am right.
They had years of experience in designing tank suspension and engine.After the installation of black boxes by the maker the failures suddenly stopped.May be in trials it was driven in a way and load for which it was not calibrated at that time.Or it may be the issues like ball bearing which was mentioned in the thread on arjun.They are easily resolvable.
That's why CVRDE went to the extent of 3rd party audit for the tank.And it's acceptance now is a proof that there is no insurmountable problem with the tank.
I am afraid no one in his right senses will give the details in the open space and so speculations and controversy theories will continue and give grist to the rumour mill.
Take the Chief letter to the PM on the state of the Army. It raised issues that were known in informed circles but in general terms. The actual nitty gritties were never disclosed in the open since that would be material for those who are inimical to the Nation's interest.
Nonetheless, there was a hue and cry over just the generalities and all posed as experts to comment.
So, none is an expert in their comments in the open media.
Take the example of LCA and the speed met as you have mentioned. That is not adequate for declaring the LCA fit at such speed and altitude.
Sir the LCA's original specs were for a 12 ton mtow with 1.5 mach at high altitude and 17 degree str when the first asr was issued in the 80s according to air marshal MSD WOOLEN.the funding was initiated in 1993.
Tech demo1 flew on 2001 and until 2004 only two tech demos flew ,their purpose was to demonstrate the FBW software for the relaxed stability platform ,composite tech, and general aerodynamic design of cranked delta design.Then when the LSPs were being built in the middle of the last decade the specs were increased to 14 ton mtow.with three pylons for 1200 kg rating and two pylons for 800 kg ratings along with a centerline pylon ,which is more of a multi role fighter in place of the original point defence mig replacement.
now it has already crosses mach 1.6 at just 7km height.far in excess of the original asr which mandated 1.5 mach at 15 km.So the original engine was not enough and a higher powered engine from Ge with about 15 percent more thrust than the LSP engines in serial production (SP to be inducted into IAF)version will give it much higher topspeed at high altitude.the IAF technical people know that and thats why it is being inducted.Because the airframe design is good enough to reach more than mach 2 in higher altitude.
http://sniperz11.blogspot.in/2008/03/real-lca-story.html
At that point, apart from the weaponisation requirements the project had to undergo extensive redesign to accommodate an air-to-air missile chosen by the IAF, which was considerably heavier and longer than what had been specified till 2000. The IAF had again changed its mind. This necessitated the complete redesign of the wing structure, using only composite materials in order to keep the weight within limits. The period of this redesign was also utilised to upgrade the avionics, to a completely open architecture.
Consequently, in "generational terms" the LCA is a fourth generation-plus aircraft with full networking capabilities. This made it more than comparable to anything the IAF had, and possibly would have, even after it acquires the 126 Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MRCA) now on tender, with first deliveries due eight years hence.
this above link will give you more info on lca program
TEJAS mk-2 even as per the ACM naik's remarks it will be just short of grippen NG.So products evolve over time and if new requirements are added delays in development are unavoidable.That is why timely freezing of the ASR or GSQR are important.Unfortunately this cant be done as the needs of army and IAF too are evolving resulting in new need for new armaments.The vital difference is home grown programs can be flexible in incorporating the service's need.But imported arms manufacturers wont do that citing inviolable already negotiated contracts .
For example whatever new requirements needed for the T-90 has to be done by ourselves.
Also if you have signed a contract with a foreign firm for mig-21 replacement ,can we ask them to evolve it to the level of grippen NG after a while.No they will stand by the contract clause. My be they would have delivered the fighter five years earlier but for the next 30 years IAf is saddled with a fighter that will be sub optimal in performance.
Are you aware of what was the effect on the airframe, the engine, the wear and tear percentage and other technical parameters?
So superficiality is not the answer to feel that things are not going as per one's desires.
Take the issue raised by Shekhar Gupta where he claimed that the two battalions on manoeuvre were actually aiming to take over the country. The uninformed were out with their knives and having a field day. However, those who have worked in the military and that too the Army was aghast as to how silly these so called 'educated' and 'informed' editors can spook the Nation!
Imagine two battalions to organise a mutiny?
And that too with a larger force already there as Brigades in Delhi, a large part of the Army with all types of weaponry with the Army ready for the Army Day and Republic Day parade and a whole Division lying there in Meerut.
So, that is how the pennies fall.
