Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
LOL.
The designers designed to the specifications and achieved a weight of 55 MT. Was that excessive?
T-90: 46 or 48 tonnes (depends on model, variant); 3 person crew
Abrams: 60 (M1); 72 (M1A2) (from original to current variation); 4 person crew
Arjun: 55 (Mk 1); 68 (Mk 2) (modifications done to Army requirements after initial trials); 4 person crew
The Army had a 55 MT tonne tank, and asked for changes that specifically brought up the weight. There was NO requirement for reducing weight; that was an afterthought.
Now, get your brain around this one; it nearly made me fall off my chair laughing:
While the DRDO gets busy trying to redesign the Arjun Mk.II’s hull/turret structures and use new materials, the Army has already written off the exercise. In fact, at the very same September 2016 meeting where the DRDO committed to a 3 ton weight reduction, the Army stated, ‘There are no major advantages from tactical and operational point of view with 65 t weight reduction also. It is felt that even weight reduction to 62 tons (equal to that of Arjun MBT Mk-I) may not provide any significant tactical/ operational advantages.’
In other words, the Army believes the weight reduction exercise is fundamentally useless. Worse, the Army projects that the ‘cycle time for 65 ton weight reductions of Arjun MBT Mk-II and validation will take about four to six years for successful acceptance by user after trials/procedures.’
More:
"...the DRDO is also wondering why the Army is averse to a proposal to operationally compare the Arjun Mk.II with the T-90 (a comparison that was conducted over a decade ago on the Mk.I). According to the DRDO, “As directed by Hon’ble RM (Defence Minister), DRDO requested Army for mobility comparative trials with the Arjun MBT Mk-II even with 68.6 t’ along with T-90 to prove its tactical and operational mobility aspects in all envisaged terrains (including developed and semi developed terrains) for its future employability. However, Army intimated that Arjun MBT Mk-II and T90 are of different class & weight classification and their deployment is as per assigned operational roles. Arjun MBT has operational employment restrictions to specific sectors (desert/semi desert) being heavy tank. Therefore, Army intimated that the conduct of comparative mobility trials is not required.”
In other words, "....we TOLD you we wanted to import; now why are you dragging facts into this?"
I don't know about European and American, I do know about Russian: the Arjun is better than the T-90. The Mk 2 is even better; the changes the Army wanted were put in with collaboration from the Israelis. The original independent trial of the Mk 1 was done by the Israelis and the Germans; both gave it top marks. Far from 'starting somewhere', this would have landed us in the middle of the pack, behind the Abrams and the Leopard, perhaps neck and neck with the Merkava, far ahead of anything else.
But money talks....
The Tejas? Two points, specs and production-worthy design.
Except for the engine, that was fucked up by a bunch of unholy assassins called GTRE (my people had the misfortune of auditing the engine they made by putting it through a CAD re-assembly to check clearances and engagement of parts), and the AESA, ready for installation, it is fine. It works better than the MiG 21.
Now the Air Force is working hard at screwing it as it is, by insisting on a ground attack role, and hanging more and more ordnance onto what was designed from the outset as a light interceptor with a relatively limited range. Period. As a light interceptor with a limited range, it is right up there with everything else.
It was difficult to produce because of its composition; a significant portion of composites goes into it, far more than earlier, assembled models of imported aircraft. An industry used to metal-working was lamentably ill-equipped to substitute composite parts; naturally, no one had bothered to build up an indigenous capacity for these parts while the designing was going on. So HAL started by producing 4 a year; when everyone around looking at this started passing out, they added another line, to make it 8 a year. The number can easily be increased to 16 a year, but that takes will-power, and that takes the know-how to over-rule twits.
The trouble with Indian defence is that the Defence Minister has more or often than not been completely unable to comprehend the issues involved, and all too ready to sit back in his (her?) chair and order phoren.
Didn't get the point; there were twenty years of neglect. Someone, somewhere needs to make up, and that means a lumping together of projects and costs. It's all bunched up together. I'm not a BJP fan, quite the contrary, but in this case, I don't know what else could have been done.
If you say so. Have you even looked at the issues involved?
Absolutely pathetic, isn't it?
You need to stop swallowing whatever someone shoves at you at the end of a spoon. Look it up for yourself. Compare weights, compare crew size.
They are now ringing, delhi call center to help them resolve this problem.
If your arse is on fire, aim an extinguisher at it; no need to come on line.
