Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 51112131415
Results 421 to 447 of 447

Thread: Indian Air Force Thread 21

  1. #421
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,343
    JM255 was the first Jaguar to be upgraded to DARIN III standard


  2. #422
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,343
    As always, news from Indian media sources must be verified before being accepted as true. A lot of planted news stories make the rounds, especially targeting locally developed products. This time, RAC MiG officially responded to the news on MiG-29Ks of the Indian Navy suffering from a lot of reliability issues. Of course, there is no smoke without fire, but the extent of the problems that the news media has reported may be exaggerated. Only the IN can clear this up.

    RAC MiG refutes claim India unhappy with MiG-29K fighters

    Russia has repudiated media claims that India is dissatisfied with the reliability and serviceability of its MiG-29K 'Fulcrum' naval strike fighters, with a strongly worded statement sent to Jane's on 9 August.

    Russian Aircraft Corporation (RAC) said that claims made in a recent US article on acute maintenance problems being experienced by the Indian Navy (IN) with its 45 carrier-based MiG-29Ks are "simply not true".

    "We would like to flatly refute all negative allegations in the article concerning the … MiG-29K aircraft, which are the sole fighters on the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya . Neither we, nor our partners have received any official claims about operational problems with the Russian MiG aircraft," RAC said in its statement, adding: "It should be mentioned that the [INS] Vikramaditya and [INS] Vikrant aircraft carriers are tailored for carrying Russian-designed aircrafts including MiG-29K/KUB. All technical systems of the ship, radars, and other deck-based systems were produced in Russia, and were designed to be operated only with MiG aircraft."

    In the original article that prompted RAC's forceful defence of its MiG-29K, an unnamed IN official said that the aircraft are suffering from the wear-and-tear of carrier operations, compounded by the fact that all of the major components must be repaired by Russia as a consequence of how the procurement deal was structured.
    posted on BRF, courtesy Austin


  3. #423
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,398
    "F18 fighters, two-thirds of which are "grounded waiting for repairs"...
    Those are not new fighters just recently introduced that haven't seen any combat deployments...

  4. #424
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,343
    FWIW, India seems to be going ahead with the Su-57 PAK-FA based FGFA. The number that may be inked is being given as 108.

    This particular writer Vivek Raghuvanshi quotes a lot of unnamed sources and gets a lot of quotes from defence analysts, but really, the articles lack any in-depth info or substance. Hence, take it with a pinch of salt.

    India to finalize 5th gen fighter deal

    NEW DELHI — India is going ahead with the acquisition of a fifth-generation fighter aircraft with Russia after an internal committee of the Ministry of Defence recommended that the purchase of the aircraft will duplicate India’s plan to develop a homegrown advanced medium combat aircraft, according to an MoD official.

    “The internal committee, headed by retired Indian Air Force Air Marshal Simhakutty Varthaman, after studying technical parameters, has recommended India to acquire the Indo-Russian FGFA,” the MoD official said, referring to the fifth-generation fighter aircraft.

    On the road ahead, the official said, a final agreement between India and Russia will be prepared that will pave the way for the release of over $5 billion toward India’s share to develop the FGFA.

    A preliminary development agreement was signed in 2010 between Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation and India’s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, or HAL, when India paid its 50 percent share of $250 million toward initial development cost.

    “A firm order of 108 will be put in the final draft of the agreement being prepared,” said an IAF official.

    India and Russia have yet to finalize the work share for the production and technology transfer.

    “Defence Research and Development Organization has been involved regarding the work share and transfer of technology, whereas the IAF is involved in finalizing the operational requirements and the number of fighters,” said Daljit Singh, retired Indian Air Force air marshal and defense analyst.

    “The involvement [of both Russia and India] is huge in the FGFA program, wherein HAL will be doing many systems like flight controls, avionics with inputs of DRDO and other establishments,” said the MoD official.

    The level of transfer of technology by the Russians to India has been a sticky point between the two countries.

    “Stealth design technology, sensor data fusion, systems integration and modern manufacturing technology would be the good areas for consideration for transfer of technology,” said Singh.

    Vijainder Thakur, retired Indian Air Force wing commander and defense analyst, said, “India and Russia would jointly own the intellectual property rights and technology transfer would take place on an as required basis.”

    After the final agreement is inked, Russia will supply three prototypes of India-specific FGFA in another three years, the Indian Air Force official said.

    However the “The FGFA could take minimum 8 to 10 years before getting inducted,” the Indian Air Force official added.

    Russia is already doing very well with its Air Force’s FGFA called PAK-FA, which had its first flight in 2010 and will likely be inducted this year.

    “IAF will want FGFA to be powered by the Stage 2 engine as compared to the AL-41F1 Stage 1 engine, which currently powers the PAK-FA, the new engine,” Thakur said. “The India specific FGFA would also feature improved stealth and advanced electronics.”

    India opted for the Russian FGFA because “Russia is a better option with the country willing to co-develop on agreed terms apart from comprehensive technology transfer,” the MoD official added.

    On other options for an FGFA Singh said, “Looking at other FGFA project would mean very large timelines and long discussions on transfer of technology.”

  5. #425
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,343
    A much better article on the green-light for the FGFA program with Russia, by Ajai Shukla. This article appeared earlier than Vivek Raghuvanshi's and is much better framed.

    Indo-Russian Gen-5 fighter gets green light; experts find “no conflict with indigenous AMCA fighter”

  6. #426
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    19
    Does anyone know whether retired admiral Arun Prakash has an axe to grind with the current military or whether this retired officer might be saying things on behalf of current officers who are forbidden from speaking publicly?

  7. #427
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    5,776
    Only the Rtd Admiral can answer that question no one can second guess him.

    As a matter of code of ethics I stop reading any report written by Vivek Raghuvanshi , Rahul Bedi , Reuben F Johnson and their likes any thing quoted as "unnamed sources" or "military expert" are simply their personal unverified views and have an axe to grind or paid news .....these guys have enough reporting done in past to bad mouth Indian Defence Fores or Indian Indiginous product quoting the same unnamed sources.

    The only reliable Indian Defence Writer who have been consistent and true to their story are Vishnu Som , Saurav Jha , Sandeep Unnithan and to good extent Ajai Shukla all these folks have been fairly reliable most of the times.
    "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

  8. #428
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    65
    Ajai Shukla? Good and reliable?

    I'm sorry, but that is an absurd statement, you and I both remember his tirade against the T-90A, and his laughable claims of how the Arjun "beat" the T-90A in trials, despite publicly released results by CAG. Mindstorm(whom I am sure you know of) wrote a great deal about this.

  9. #429
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,568
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackArcher
    As always, news from Indian media sources must be verified before being accepted as true. A lot of planted news stories make the rounds, especially targeting locally developed products. This time, RAC MiG officially responded to the news on MiG-29Ks of the Indian Navy suffering from a lot of reliability issues. Of course, there is no smoke without fire, but the extent of the problems that the news media has reported may be exaggerated. Only the IN can clear this up.
    The bit about the airframe suffering excessive shock on carrier landings, making it a very serious problem, was also mentioned by Indranil. Between him, the Admiral and the CAG, there isn't a lot of ambiguity in the issue.

    The MiG reps contention that "neither we, nor our partners have received any official claims about operational problems with the Russian MiG aircrafts" is just plain nonsense unless the Navy has been communicating with MiG through Whatsapp or Skype.

    From the CAG report -

    Last edited by Vnomad; 13th August 2017 at 15:42.

  10. #430
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,568
    Quote Originally Posted by Sab3r329
    I'm sorry, but that is an absurd statement, you and I both remember his tirade against the T-90A, and his laughable claims of how the Arjun "beat" the T-90A in trials, despite publicly released results by CAG. Mindstorm(whom I am sure you know of) wrote a great deal about this.
    Well 'Mindstorm' has apparently not read the actual CAG report on the comparative trials. To quote from it -

    Medium fording was one of the eight instances we noticed, where Army placed benchmark of parameters on MBT Arjun which were more stringent in comparison to those placed on T-90 tanks. These are detailed in Annexure XIX.
    As per the trial report, MBT Arjun performed marginally better than the T-90 tank in accuracy and consistency of firepower. However, T-90 tank performed better in lethality and missile firing capability. The Army concluded (April 2010) that “Arjun had performed creditably and it could be employed both for offensive and defensive tasks with same efficacy of T-90 tank.”

    We found that the MBT Arjun and T-90 tank were not exactly comparable in missile firing ability; the higher score of T-90 tank was mainly due to missile firing ability which was not in the design of MBT Arjun. Barring missile firing ability, the scores of MBT Arjun and T-90 tank would be 25.77 and 24.50 respectively in firepower. In the overall comparative score, T-90 tank scored 75.01, marginally higher than MBT Arjun which scored 72.46, mainly because of higher score on missile firing ability of T-90 tank.
    Last edited by Vnomad; 13th August 2017 at 15:44.

  11. #431
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    65
    Very interesting Vnomad, tell me, why do you not link the actual CAG report? Is it because you do not want me or others to actually read it and find out the truth?

    Unfortunately for you, I have already since read the report some years ago.

    Here is the link to the actual report so that others may also read it and come to their own conclusions.

    http://www.saiindia.gov.in/sites/def...es_35_2014.pdf

    For your first quote, about medium fording requirement and others that were, in comparison more stringent for Arjun than the T-90S, I noticed that you left out this part.

    The most significant setback to production of MBT Arjun was the change in
    requirements put forth by the Army in February 2007. The tanks produced by
    HVF, Avadi were to be issued to the Army after inspection at the factory site
    in the Joint Receipt Inspection by the representatives of HVF, DRDO and
    Army. The issued tanks were put through two trials - the Field Trial and the
    Accelerated usage-cum-reliability trials (AUCRT), by the Army. Joint Receipt
    Inspection was conducted (March 2005) for first five MBT Arjun
    manufactured (2003-04) in the pilot phase150, one year after production. The
    inspection of the second lot of nine pilot MBT Arjun, took place in February
    2007, two years after production. By 2007, 53 MBT151 had already been
    produced by HVF, Avadi. It was during this inspection in February 2007 that
    Army reported water ingress in the fighting compartment of tank while
    crossing shallow parts of a river and raised two additional requirements in the
    design of the MBT Arjun viz. zero level ingress of water in the fighting
    compartment and lead time for fording (time from tank’s entry into water to
    exit from water) to be minimised to 30 minutes.
    To put the above paragraph(which can be found on page 162 of the above linked document) in simple summary, this new fording requirement was put in place at 2007, it and the latter benchmarks listed in Annexure XIX have nothing to do with the 2010 trials.

    The 2010 trials were in fact very much "fair"(actually rather biased in favor of Arjun IMHO), and resulted in the overall victory of the T-90S over the Arjun.

  12. #432
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,592
    Is this prediction correct that IAF fighter squadron numbers are heading down to 24?

    https://iadnews.in/2017/04/indias-ae.../#.WY8eX7JK3nI

    How many squadrons of Rafale will 36 units represent - 2 or 3? When will Tejas Mk1 deliveries suffice to form 2 squadrons? If there are currently 33 fighter squadrons with 9 squadrons equipped with MiG fighters to be retired very soon, will the number of active squadrons drop to 24 for a time?
    Sum ergo cogito

  13. #433
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    5,776
    Officially we have 33 squad but unofficially the active fleet is down to nearly 28-29 squad , So yes there is acute shortage of fighter in numbers but qualitative we now have better fighter in MKI , Upgraded M2k and 29 & Jaguar and soon to be inducted Rafale not to mention the Mig-21 are upgrade to Bison standards and have couple of squad there , The Tejas when inducted would add teeth to the numbers.

    IF the Single engine fighter sees the light of the day then we could have the F-16 or Gripen to add to that but thats another long story like any indian purchase program.
    "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

  14. #434
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,568
    Quote Originally Posted by Sab3r329
    To put the above paragraph(which can be found on page 162 of the above linked document) in simple summary, this new fording requirement was put in place at 2007, it and the latter benchmarks listed in Annexure XIX have nothing to do with the 2010 trials.
    First rate detective work. +1. Although I'd have thought that was pretty obvious from the content of the Annexure (eg. the automotive trials for each were conducted at two different places).

    Quote Originally Posted by Sab3r329
    The 2010 trials were in fact very much "fair"(actually rather biased in favor of Arjun IMHO), and resulted in the overall victory of the T-90S over the Arjun.
    You weren't there so your HO doesn't really count for much. The content of the Annexure however does have significant evidentiary value of bias.

    The CAG report is crystal clear - the marginally higher score (75-72) of the T-90 was down to T-90's missile firing capability. "Arjun had performed creditably and it could be employed both for offensive and defensive tasks with same efficacy of T-90 tank" - according to the Army report referenced in the CAG report.

    Of course, the only reason the Arjun wasn't allowed to field an ATGM was because the IA arbitrarily introduced a min. engagement range of less than 1,200m (while the Arjun's LAHAT was only certified for 1,500m and beyond). Further indication of which way the wind was blowing.
    Last edited by Vnomad; 14th August 2017 at 17:01.

  15. #435
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,402
    How many squadrons of Rafale will 36 units represent - 2 or 3? When will Tejas Mk1 deliveries suffice to form 2 squadrons? If there are currently 33 fighter squadrons with 9 squadrons equipped with MiG fighters to be retired very soon, will the number of active squadrons drop to 24 for a time?
    I feel its more likely to be 3 squadrons. This will help in setting up three new squadrons and putting in place the required personal and infrastructure.

    I don't think any more huge order for Rafales is going to be there, unless someone at high places is really "advised/consulted"..... So in the years ahead, we are more likely to see Rafales being bought in 1 or 2 batches consisting of 10 or 12 a/c to top up these three squadrons to the 18-24 a/c per squadron strength.

  16. #436
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,402
    Here is the link to the actual report so that others may also read it and come to their own conclusions.

    http://www.saiindia.gov.in/sites/def...es_35_2014.pdf
    Even the CAG report is a half baked report which is primarily based on the understanding and bias of those who make these reports. What we need is a proper detailed MoD report on the systems and on such comparative trials thats carried out. But we never get it. Its the same for CAGs report on MiG-29K/KUB. No specific details.

    Consider the below ridiculous table from the CAG report on comparative trail posted earlier.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5kbqZLCQAIo_V2.png:large

    Taking one example... T-90 is considered to be given a favourable treatment according to these experts bcoz for obstacle performace, Arjun MBT was suppose to do a 35deg gradient compared to 30deg gradient for T-90.

    These so called experts and the morons who take it at face value completely lack the basic sense to understand what it is....... to put it in the most simplest form. Arjun is specified for 35deg gradient as per its designers where as T-90 is specified for 30deg gradient, so thats what both MBTs were tasked to show.

    Its the same for the water ingress, Arjun MBT guys might have claimed that their machine is rated for zero ingress and hence that was set as its paramater. Where as T-90 and the earlier T-72s have a permissible water ingress limit during fording.


    As far as I'm concerned, Indian Army is not happy and reluctant to share its combat inventory of T-90 for the sake of furthering the development testing of Arjun MBT and to massage the ego of the guys involved.
    AND, this is perfectly understandable!
    Because, Indian army does not want to waste 100s of precious hours of its Main Battle Tank on comparative tests which is of no use to them.

    If the guys really want to have comparative trials with Indian Army spec'ed T-90S Bhishma, let HVF/DRDO/CVRDE/etc sponsor an extra 2 x T-90S from there own funds (!!!) to be kept under the control of the army so that these two units are always at the disposal of the needy guys to quench their comparative thirsts. But pulling out in-service combat assets of the army, paid from Indian army's fund, for development related comparative trials should stop. Its not as if IA is blessed with an inventory surplus.

    Over the years there has been unending expertise propagated by morons on how much Arjun has been tested compared to T-90 Bhishma. Its almost boring to explain even the basics, so here is a good and simple explanation from a poster on Kids Corner who tried to explain some basic differences. Someone should repost this in the tanks/armour related thread, coz the idiocity is at an incredibly high level that the morons will fail to understand that whats said below is true for T-90 as well.

    you need to understand the difference between development testing and user acceptance testing.

    Indian systems undergo long development testing and thereafter user evaluation/acceptance testing, the sum of which appears long. Any deficiencies found during development testing are rectified and re-tested. BR members do not segregate between development and user testing.

    Foreign systems TOO undergo long development trials IN THEIR HOME COUNTRIES and thereafter user evaluation/acceptance trials in India.

    Since the BR members only read about the user testing, they incorrectly end up thinking the testing of foreign systems is shorter and lesser, completely ignoring the development trials already having taken place in home country and whose data is shared during user testing that can be validated in a few tests rather than whole cycle of original test.

    When Edison developed a light bulb, he did 1000 iterations of development testing. When we buy light bulb, we test once at the shop. We don't need to do the full set of development trials that Edison did. However, when we develop Tejas, then we need to do 1000 iterations of development testing.

    For development testing of Tejas AoA, ITR & STR, the aircraft envelope is gradually expanded over, say, 10 development flights. For Rafale AoA, ITR & STR, it too required the same number of development flights - in France. When IAF tests a certified Rafale, it has certification data and can verify AoA, ITR and STR in a single flight.

    BR members reading the testing incorrectly think, Rafale 1 flight Tejas 10 flights not nderstanding the difference between development testing and user acceptance testing and not accounting for development testing time & effort in home country. Going by this Lahori Logic, BR members should do all 1000 development tests that do into developing a light bulb when buying a light bulb

  17. #437
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,402
    The bit about the airframe suffering excessive shock on carrier landings, making it a very serious problem, was also mentioned by Indranil. Between him, the Admiral and the CAG, there isn't a lot of ambiguity in the issue.

    The MiG reps contention that "neither we, nor our partners have received any official claims about operational problems with the Russian MiG aircrafts" is just plain nonsense unless the Navy has been communicating with MiG through Whatsapp or Skype.
    Last I checked Indian DM or PM's name doesn't go by the name you provided..... so not sure if Indian Navy directly reports to the person you mentioned.

    Regardless of that, if there is a problem with the 29K/KUB, the navy should be raising the matter with the supplier, coz its them who are suppose to do the needful under the contract not an ex-chief or a reporter or any other propaganda outlet.

    As per the OEM press release, Indian navy has not yet raised such an issue with them which was explicitly mentioned in the article.


    But, I will only put the blame on the OEM, coz those bloody idiots do not have a proper public relation office and did not utter any word on the whole matter until that well known Twitter poster specifically raised the issue with them.

    I would like to get from them few more info including.... how much time those aircrafts have flown and how much spares was stocked up/contracted for Indian Navy's 29K/KUB.



    Does anyone know whether retired admiral Arun Prakash has an axe to grind with the current military or whether this retired officer might be saying things on behalf of current officers who are forbidden from speaking publicly?
    He knows best what his agenda was w.r.t those comments....
    ....well, he was/is a very media savvy person unlike any of the earlier Indian Navy chiefs...he had many first to him unlike any of the former navy chiefs or his successors, couple of them are written below...
    He likes to brag and on few big/critical occasions he farted really good. In short, he has a recorded history of pulling stuff out of his rear end.

    1) INS Vikramaditya
    We all read and saw that comedy which unfolded when the word finally came out that INS Vikramaditya will not be delivered by Russia in 2008 as per original contract. The funny and surprising fact was not about the delay, but an asinine navy chief claiming that it will arrive on time. Indian Navy since the start of the work had an overseeing team at Sevmash who send report on the progress/issues of the work to the Naval HQ/related dept. And yet as a navy chief he pulled stuffs from his rearside.

    2) Scorpene delays.
    Well, all of the persons who atleast was interested in the induction of the submarine was aware that Scorpene porject was delayed greatly. But he farted real good in support saying the Scorpenes will arrive in few months, even surprising his hardcore fans (mostly murican fanbvoys).

    Q. How long will it take for the Navy to get the replacement Submarine ?? Asked by: sundar1950in
    A. Six submarines of the Scorpene class are under construction in Mazagon Docks Mumbai.The first of these is due for delivery in a few months time, and the sixth by 2020. In addition, a project for construction of 6-12 more subs is being taken up by the navy.

    http://www.news18.com/news/india/sin...sh-631330.html
    Updated:August 14, 2013
    His term as chief - 31 July 2004 to 31 October 2006
    The single largest, of that period, single vendor contract which was fast tracked during his term was for Scorpene submarines, which finally got inked in October 2005. This was also the deal which was linked to the navy war room leak and his nephew-in-law was accused. As usual the investigation did not find any evidence...

    He is a very clever person and always likes to stay in the public domain and affect the decision making process and the masses through media. So it was no surprise when (almost immediately) after his retirement he started writing for magazines/media. No Indian chief in my memory have been into this kind of stuff and always preferred to stay out of self publicity after retirement.
    The only other person that I can remember who has been into another job/pay package almost immediately after his retirement is the former ISRO chief Madhavan nair, who showed his class (rather very low class!) accusing then serving ISRO chief Radhakrishnan for his own wrong doing in spectrum case.

  18. #438
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    .de
    Posts
    2,625
    Taking one example... T-90 is considered to be given a favourable treatment according to these experts bcoz for obstacle performace, Arjun MBT was suppose to do a 35deg gradient compared to 30deg gradient for T-90.

    These so called experts and the morons who take it at face value completely lack the basic sense to understand what it is....... to put it in the most simplest form. Arjun is specified for 35deg gradient as per its designers where as T-90 is specified for 30deg gradient, so thats what both MBTs were tasked to show.

    Its the same for the water ingress, Arjun MBT guys might have claimed that their machine is rated for zero ingress and hence that was set as its paramater. Where as T-90 and the earlier T-72s have a permissible water ingress limit during fording.
    Well, exactly.

    Each tank should be able achieve the performance and fulfill the tasks demanded from them - if both tanks can do what they were specified and expected to do - why the complaints? Which brings us to the next question: what was the point of focusing on the Arjun's inability to fire guided missiles from its main gun, when it was never specified or required that it should be able to do so? Most tank designs can't fire missiles from their main gun.

  19. #439
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,568
    Quote Originally Posted by JangBoGo
    Last I checked Indian DM or PM's name doesn't go by the name you provided..... so not sure if Indian Navy directly reports to the person you mentioned.
    The DM & PM may or may not about the problems faced by the MiG-29K fleet, but the naval officers assigned to the Vikramaditya and Naval Aviation most certainly do.

    BlackArcher knows who I'm referring to and what his credibility is.

    Regardless of that, if there is a problem with the 29K/KUB, the navy should be raising the matter with the supplier, coz its them who are suppose to do the needful under the contract not an ex-chief or a reporter or any other propaganda outlet.
    The supplier's position apparently is that there is no problem at all. The ex-chief is a private citizen who's entitled to express his own views.

    As per the OEM press release, Indian navy has not yet raised such an issue with them which was explicitly mentioned in the article.

    But, I will only put the blame on the OEM, coz those bloody idiots do not have a proper public relation office and did not utter any word on the whole matter until that well known Twitter poster specifically raised the issue with them.
    OEM claims that the Indian Navy has not raised ANY operational issues (not just the problems 'explicitely mentioned' in some article). To quote them again -

    "neither we, nor our partners have received any official claims about operational problems with the Russian MiG aircrafts"

    Meanwhile, the CAG report references multiple instances of the Navy & MoD raising the issue of operational problems with the Russian side.

    So either the PR dept is lying. Or the CAG is lying for some reason. Or official records examined by CAG during its audit were fabricated and everything is actually hunky dory.
    Last edited by Vnomad; 14th August 2017 at 21:10.

  20. #440
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,343
    Pic of the first flight of DARIN III upgraded Jaguar JM255 with Elta 2052 AESA radar and the HAL team


  21. #441
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,196
    Taking one example... T-90 is considered to be given a favourable treatment according to these experts bcoz for obstacle performace, Arjun MBT was suppose to do a 35deg gradient compared to 30deg gradient for T-90.

    These so called experts and the morons who take it at face value completely lack the basic sense to understand what it is....... to put it in the most simplest form. Arjun is specified for 35deg gradient as per its designers where as T-90 is specified for 30deg gradient, so thats what both MBTs were tasked to show.

    Its the same for the water ingress, Arjun MBT guys might have claimed that their machine is rated for zero ingress and hence that was set as its paramater. Where as T-90 and the earlier T-72s have a permissible water ingress limit during fording.
    Exactly Jang. Might as well make a point- Crew of 3. Well, we know who wins that one outright.

    What it comes down to, is are the cumulative design choices in both tanks sensible- and if one takes a quick look at the atrocious turret armor layout on the Arjun, without even bringing up the dubious gun, engine, munition, etc etc choices, it is no surprise it has had a hard time getting anywhere. And mind you, this is in a comparison with an older T-90 variant, not something up to date, such as the T-90MS which India in any case ended up buying (or just about to buy).

    what was the point of focusing on the Arjun's inability to fire guided missiles from its main gun, when it was never specified or required that it should be able to do so? Most tank designs can't fire missiles from their main gun.
    Because it is a serious disadvantage when comparing two complete weapon systems? One is available (almost) entirely from one source, is produced en-masse and has been trialed and bought all over the world, the other is a hodgepodge of foreign parts.
    Since we are talking munitions, the disparity is huge. If India coughs up for better rounds than ancient Mango, it can go far beyond the anemic rounds they produce domestically to date. Maybe Russia is to blame for export restrictions, but newer rounds have been export approved since (and India is a special customer in any case). T-90 is available with a modified auto loader for years allowing longer rounds. And missile capability. And Ainet fused HE-FRAG rounds.

    Other countries (including India) are going for GLATGMs, its not a niche capability.
    Last edited by TR1; 16th August 2017 at 04:54.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  22. #442
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,196
    A much better article on the green-light for the FGFA program with Russia, by Ajai Shukla. This article appeared earlier than Vivek Raghuvanshi's and is much better framed.

    Indo-Russian Gen-5 fighter gets green light; experts find “no conflict with indigenous AMCA fighter”
    Black Archer (and others):

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2787703.html

    Talks about these internal committees as well- how important are they towards an official procurement process?

    IAF will hopefully be getting the nicest @$$ among all active fighters among its ranks (relatively) soon
    https://russianplanes.net/images/to216000/215504.jpg
    Last edited by TR1; 16th August 2017 at 04:55.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  23. #443
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    5,776
    That news of 108 number was mentioned by Defense News/Vivek Raghuvanshi and he is as unreliable as one can get , If you dont hear from IAF or MOD official sources dont rely on this numbers it keeps floating around like 108 ,200 ,50 etc.

    Oh please lets cut the tank thing and post something on IAF.
    "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

  24. #444
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,568
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1
    What it comes down to, is are the cumulative design choices in both tanks sensible- and if one takes a quick look at the atrocious turret armor layout on the Arjun, without even bringing up the dubious gun, engine, munition, etc etc choices, it is no surprise it has had a hard time getting anywhere. And mind you, this is in a comparison with an older T-90 variant, not something up to date, such as the T-90MS which India in any case ended up buying (or just about to buy).
    The armour layout on the Arjun is similar to the Leopard 2A4. Engine's from MTU, transmission's Renk. And a GATGM capability had been demonstrated as well (though it was nixed on min. range grounds).

    Because it is a serious disadvantage when comparing two complete weapon systems? One is available (almost) entirely from one source, is produced en-masse and has been trialed and bought all over the world, the other is a hodgepodge of foreign parts.
    Makes sense from the perspective of those hawking the weapons systems. For those concerned about the larger national interest, its a prescription for perpetual foreign dependency paid for with foreign exchange. The IA's artillery acquisition saga is an apt example, where the expedient solution would have been to import and/or assemble a 'proven' solution, but where the failure of import efforts allowed indigenous programs to mature.

  25. #445
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,196
    It is not similar at all, past looking boxy.

    The Leopard2 has proper armor behind its main sight, and has more extensive side protection. The Arjun's side armor turret array does not protrude anywhere near long enough to protect the tank in most frontal arc engagements.
    Even on the hull, the Arjun manages to have random weakspots:
    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEP...06f-768543.jpg


    For engine they took essentially a Leopard 1 engine offshoot and roided the hell out of it. I don't understand why......
    I'll be fair and say that the T-90 hardly has a modern power compartment, and in terms of swapping out the engine it is outdated, and also has a poor reverse speed.
    But, it is an upgrade of an older line, while the Arjun is comparatively clean-sheet. And yet they go for weird solutions.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  26. #446
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,568
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1
    It is not similar at all, past looking boxy.

    The Leopard2 has proper armor behind its main sight, and has more extensive side protection. The Arjun's side armor turret array does not protrude anywhere near long enough to protect the tank in most frontal arc engagements.
    That's one theory. I've trawled through endless pages of discussions, MS paint diagrams, and am yet to find a cross-sectional drawing by the makers. Besides, its not exactly going to being pit against the Abrams on the battlefield.

    For engine they took essentially a Leopard 1 engine offshoot and roided the hell out of it. I don't understand why......
    I'll be fair and say that the T-90 hardly has a modern power compartment, and in terms of swapping out the engine it is outdated, and also has a poor reverse speed.
    The 1500HP wasn't available for export at the time IIRC. On the other hand the T-90, according to the CAG, needs an AC which is a complication in terms of power & space but in absence of which electronics have been conking out. Don't know if they found a working solution for that, as I recall the OEM & Israeli units didn't clear the trials.
    Last edited by Vnomad; 16th August 2017 at 06:07.

  27. #447
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,343
    Remarkable flying! Saved a Mirage-2000TH from being lost due to a bird hit that incapacitated the pilot and shattered the canopy.


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES