# Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
 It is currently 20 May 2013 04:47

 All times are UTC + 5:30 hours

 Page 17 of 84 [ 3345 posts ] Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 ... 84  Next
Author Message
 Posted: 15 May 2012 05:02
 BRFite

Joined: 31 Mar 2008 04:47
Posts: 773
Quote:
Being deeply involved in the UK MoD's original developments of tank-bourne Muzzle Reference Systems (or....MRS, as it is commonly referred to), I can answer this with some experience.
As tank barrels became, through evolution and the need to shoot further and more accurately, basically longer and longer in length, there became inherent difficulties in maintaining accuracy of these long barrels. Believe it or not, how ever sturdy tank barrels appear, they bend, frequently in use. Tank barrels bend especially as they gain heat from repeated firing and/or through differential cooling due to, say, winds, snow, rain, etc. [More normally a combination of those former factors]. Accepted that the last metre or so of the pointing direction of the end (or muzzle) of a tank barrel determines the direction of the projectile fired, it is easy to see that the aiming device of a tank, ie the tank sights (or more modernly the tank's fire control system) must keep as accurate as possible harmonisation [or co-alignment] with the pointing direction of the muzzle end of the barrel as it goes through these deformations during firing.
In order to maintain accuracy of fire and compensate for this thermally-induced inaccuracy in modern tank barrels, a system was developed around ,simply put, a light projector (mounted at the tank's turret) which bounced light off a mirror at the muzzle end of the barrel and back into the gunner's sight. In use, the system would be initially accurately aligned with the gun muzzle (by 'boresighting'....I'll keep that a separate subject) and, as the thermal deformations in the barrel occurred during use, the deflections at the muzzle could be checked by the movements in the reflected light spot back into the gunner's sights and the gunner could alter his sight co-alignment with the barrel end by adjustment of 'x' & 'y' of his zero aiming point. Therefore the system was termed a 'reference' system, in that it takes account of inaccuracies induced after first accurate alignment, or reference, of the sights to the gun muzzle.
Formally, I said 'simply put', because the technical difficulties in developing and producing accurate and stable devices to allow such a system to succeed in arduous tank battle conditions are massive. I believe I cannot, to this day, divulge the technical details of what the systems comprise, save to say that they are and have been developments of complex opto-mechanical, precision technologies working in some of the most violent conditions and environments man can produce for such equipment.
I was involved in the initial developments of the system, up to its acceptance into service, as a 'manually adjusted' system, ie the tank gunner had to check his Muzzle Reference System and manually adjust his zero on the tank's sights. However, as I moved on from by involvements, fully-Automatic Muzzle Reference Systems were being discussed and that is where the technology has progressed to today; fully automatic compensation and constant accurate alignment between the firing controls of the tank gunner and the aiming direction of that critical last metre or so of the end of the modern-day tank's long barrel.

A pretty decent explanation of what MRS is. I do not know how soon barrel deformation occurs.

Top

 Posted: 15 May 2012 06:22
 BRFite

Joined: 14 Feb 2010 21:21
Posts: 424
Location: Troposphere
nachiket wrote:
^^The 1500hp German engine must be DDM. We never got the 1500hp MTU 873 powerplant. A DRDO(Cummins ?) 1500hp engine was supposed to be under development. It is highly unlikely that it is already ready. The speed reduction is probably due to the 3t weight increase with the engine remaining same. This is probably the only remaining issue with an otherwise superb tank. Keep in mind though, that the P:W ratio of the original Arjun Mk1 was greater than that of the T-90. So even with the weight increase the P:W ratios should remain roughly the same.

Also one must consider the fact that the 1.5 ton plough will not be carried by all the tanks. So, the weight increase will only be 1.5 tons (mostly ERA) for majority of tanks.

Plus in an earlier article on Mk2 (from broadsword IIRC), it was mentioned that the transmission has been tweaked to provide better acceleration even with the increased weight.

Top

 Posted: 15 May 2012 18:34
 BRFite

Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Posts: 304
Location: Jhonesburg
tejas wrote:

A pretty decent explanation of what MRS is. I do not know how soon barrel deformation occurs.

http://ofb.gov.in/products/data/optical/23.htm

The above bore-sighting(MRS) device is used for T-90 in India.
Now to say T-90 does not have a MRS would be incorrect. Would you agree ?

Top

 Posted: 15 May 2012 19:17
 BRFite

Joined: 31 Mar 2008 04:47
Posts: 773
d_berwal the device you list seems to perform a similar function. However the deformation of the barrel occurs at its far end and that seems to be where a component of the MRS is situated on the Abrams, Challenger, Leopard, Merkava, LeClerc, K2 (S.Korean), Type 90 (Japanese), C1 Ariete(Italian) and Arjun tanks.

Why is this set up different on the T-90? An uber tank so good the Russian army doesn't want it. After the Arjun mk I out perrformed the T-90 in trials the IA graciously orders another 124 Arjuns after requesting 100+ upgrades. This makes the Tatra deal look clean in comparison.

Top

 Posted: 15 May 2012 19:22
 BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 17 Jan 2001 12:31
Posts: 29
d_berwal wrote:
tejas wrote:

A pretty decent explanation of what MRS is. I do not know how soon barrel deformation occurs.

http://ofb.gov.in/products/data/optical/23.htm

The above bore-sighting(MRS) device is used for T-90 in India.
Now to say T-90 does not have a MRS would be incorrect. Would you agree ?

That is a bore sighting device which would be used for initial alignment. MRS, on the other hand, is used for correction on the go. The inputs of the MRS are coupled directly to the FCS and the droop or other deformations in the barrel are included in the computation of the "firing solution".

Top

 Posted: 15 May 2012 20:51
 BRFite

Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Posts: 304
Location: Jhonesburg
tejas wrote:
d_berwal the device you list seems to perform a similar function. However the deformation of the barrel occurs at its far end and that seems to be where a component of the MRS is situated on the Abrams, Challenger, Leopard, Merkava, LeClerc, K2 (S.Korean), Type 90 (Japanese), C1 Ariete(Italian) and Arjun tanks.

Why is this set up different on the T-90? An uber tank so good the Russian army doesn't want it. After the Arjun mk I out perrformed the T-90 in trials the IA graciously orders another 124 Arjuns after requesting 100+ upgrades. This makes the Tatra deal look clean in comparison.

The definition of MRS you posted does not say it has to be Automated to qualify for being MRS, actually 95% of what you copy pasted actually talks about what i have given you as a link.

Its a Manual MRS and not an automated MRS thats it. If IA wanted MRS (Automated) it can be added as a LRU upgrade anytime. It was not included in initial purchase because of same reason as why Shtora was not included or other equipment was not added

The correction is not needed after every round not even after every 50 rounds.

And to why does the setup has to be different because of difference in western vs east school of MBT design thoughts/principals.

And this notion that boresight will be used for initial alignment is wrong every tank uses it even Abrams
http://graflex.com/graflex-company-and- ... arget.html
boresighting is the only way to be certain that gun is zeroed 100% thats why every one depends on it.

And why bring in Tatra and 100+ upgrades in a discussion which does have any thing to do with them ?

Top

 Posted: 16 May 2012 01:12
 BRFite

Joined: 31 Mar 2008 04:47
Posts: 773
My point about Tatra is that the Tin can-90 deal stinks to high heaven as much as the Tatra scam. The Arjun was admitted by the IA itself to be more accurate than the T-90. Many things were left out on the initial T-90 purchase requirements so that Parliament could be purposely misled with a cheaper purchase price. My point about the IA asking for 100+ upgrades to the Arjun before making an additional token purchase, is that they were willing to order 1600 tin cans despite that tank being inferior to the unmodified Arjun in every respect Not a single more of these tin cans should be purchased.

Top

 Posted: 16 May 2012 03:46
 BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 7497
Location: India
Tejas,go through the chronology of the tank acquisitions.There was an article in a recent Vayu (?) about the armoured vehicles acquisitions.According to that article,the bulk of the T-90s were ordered before Arjun made the grade.The current problem is production capabilities.HVF has so much on its hands (T-72 upgrades,T-90 production and Arjun production,plus specialist vehicles) that perhaps we should examine whether we need another PSU sharing the work.The TOI report shows how small annual Arjun MK-2 production will initially be.Russian tank production is at least 100+ tanks per year and given its past track record could easily surpass that figure.

I came across this 2009 speculative feature on a so-called "T-95".Whether it is paper concept or actually something in the works is open to Q,but the diagrams and cut-away sections of this turretless tank are most interesting.Apols. if it was posted earlier.

http://www.newaustralia.net/T-95%20Tank.pdf

Found this report too,where the "T-95" has been shelved! Interesting analysis though.

Quote:
theT-90 was a yesterday's vehicle;...Participation in a global modern warfare will require a fundamentally different approach to development of new weapons and equipment. The former policy - the one who has thicker armor and more powerful gun will be the winner - is no longer on the agenda. Without air defense being integrated in the battle management system, the most advanced tank turns into an easy mark for the sophisticated enemy. Therefore the industrialized countries put an emphasis on the systems that can protect fighting vehicles from homing missiles.

Rusbiznews.com
12.05.2010 — Analysis

The Corporation "Uralvagonzavod" intends to feature the new T-95 tank at the Russian Expo Arms -2010 Exhibition. The plans can be thwarted by the RF Ministry of Defence whose representatives announced winding up R&D efforts in this field. Instead of the T-95 that had become obsolete before it saw the light, the military offer to focus on the further upgrading of the T-90 production model. Experts see such an approach, to say the least, as questionable. However, as the RusBusinessNews observer has found it out, the debates are nothing but squaring the circle, as the debts of Uralvagonzavod, in ruble terms, amount to dozens of billions and the production is hopelessly outdated.

The State Armaments Program for 2007-2015 sets out the plans for delivery of 630 upgraded tanks and 770 breakthrough tanks to the Armed Forces of Russia. The rearmament is scheduled to start in 2011. By this very time, OJSC "Ural Transport Engineering Design Bureau" (a member of OJSC "Research and Production Corporation "Uralvagonzavod") promised to bring in the fourth-generation main battle tank T-95 and an improved version of the T-90 with a new turret, gun and enhanced fire-control system.

In April 2010, it became clear that the program was going to fall short. Vladimir Popovkin, Deputy Minister of Defence, told journalists that it was decided to cease T-95 development, as over the twenty years spent on its design the tank became hopelessly outdated. The question about whether any funds will be allocated for development of a state-of the-art fighting vehicle remained unanswered. The representatives of the developer state that they have no funds for R&D.

Manufacturers have also missed the target to supply the army with upgraded tanks: the improved version of the T-90 will not be ready until late 2010. It means that at its best, Uralvagonzavod will be able to manufacture 630 tanks in six years - provided that all export contracts are cancelled. Export deliveries are unlikely to be discontinued, since there are countries that are willing to buy the Ò-90. However, manufacturing capacities are insufficient to sustain tank deliveries both to the Russian Army and to foreign customers.

The decision to wind up the "project 195" (Ò-95) came to the expert community out of the blue. Just one month before, Vladimir Goncharov, a representative of the RF Ministry of Defence, made a statement at the meeting of the Sverdlovsk Union of Defence Industries that the T-90 was a yesterday's vehicle; and not to be left empty-handed, Uralvagonzavod should without further delay go ahead with a design of a new generation tank. The impossibility to upgrade basic combat qualities of the military equipment developed in the 70s was noted by other top-rank officers of the Russian Army.

Alexander Khramchikhin, head of the Analytical Department of the Institute for Political and Military Analysis, assumes that the Ò-95 could happen to be a victim of intrigues - big-business, rather than politics. The bottom line of these back-door maneuvers, however, is totally unclear, as the T-90 has undoubtedly had its day.

Andrei Frolov, a research associate of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, suggests that General Popovkin might have meant: the T-95 project is not being shut down; it will be suspended until the development of a 1,500 hp engine and number of other components has been completed. The 1,000 hp engine used for the T-90 is obviously not powerful enough for the new tank. However, the expert thinks that even if the Deputy Minister of Defence meant exactly what he said, his statements should be perceived with great care: another general will come over, and the attitude may change.

According to A. Frolov, there is another problem: Russia is still unable to decide what kind of war it must be ready for. The expert reckons that local conflicts can be handled with the upgraded T-90; that is the reason for its stable demand in a number of Asian countries. The export potential of this tank has not been exhausted: Libya, Turkmenistan and a number of other countries show interest in it. Participation in a global modern warfare will require a fundamentally different approach to development of new weapons and equipment. The former policy - the one who has thicker armor and more powerful gun will be the winner - is no longer on the agenda. Without air defense being integrated in the battle management system, the most advanced tank turns into an easy mark for the sophisticated enemy. Therefore the industrialized countries put an emphasis on the systems that can protect fighting vehicles from homing missiles.

Russia cannot boast that it succeeded in computing and destroying detection and guidance systems of antitank weapons. Thus, it is not ready for a global warfare. However, the desire to join the ranks of highly developed countries exists - at least, to be on the world armament market. Insufficient funds for R&D, however, drive the Russian military to the bottleneck of continuous choice between preparation for a local or a global war. Lack of military strategy makes it extremely difficult to answer the question: what tank the Russian Army needs. It adds to the problems and troubled times Uralvagonzavod is going through.

The enterprise that used to manufacture up to 1,200 tanks a year in the Soviet Union times keeps living today mainly on civilian industry products. When the crisis broke out, the construction machinery manufactured at the factory encountered lack of market demand, and Russian Railways JSC set strict requirements to railcar quality. At the end of 2008, the factory delivered 284 gondola cars equipped with new trucks. In 2009, Russian Railways ordered 1.5 thousand gondola cars; however, according to the press service of Uralvagonzavod, the crises put off their purchases. Only 305 gondola cars were manufactured. The traditional rolling equipment was not selling well. Uralvagonzavod faced acute shortage of orders. In 2009, the company debt reached 66 billion rubles, making the company lose 30 million rubles a day to service the debt and accrued interest. In April 2010, as Oleg Sienko, General Director of Uralvagonzavod, states, the debt shrank to 26 billion rubles, but the problem with orders still exists - including orders for military products.

Sergei Perestoronin, head of the Rosoboronzakaz representative office in the Ural Region, said that within the first two years, Uralvagonzavod fulfilled almost all its obligations under the three-year contract for delivery of 189 tanks to the Russian Army scheduled for the 2008-2010 period. The new contract that is also most likely to be scheduled for three years has not yet been submitted to the representative office. Consequently, money has also not come, though the Russian government promised to transfer up to 80% of funds required to fulfill the state defense order in the first quarter of the year.

Andrei Frolov believes that the money, in one form or another, will come to Uralvagonzavod, and the factory will make 100-120 tanks in 2010. This quantity will not in any way change the situation in the Russian Army. Alexander Khramchikhin has no doubt that nobody is going to implement the State Armaments Program for 2007-2015; thus, it is absolutely impossible to say what kind of a state defense order Uralvagonzavod will receive.

The position of Uralvagonzavod became even fuzzier after the RF Ministry of Defence had required reducing the cost of weapons and military equipment by 15%. At the same time, steel-makers announced an overall average 20% increase in the prices for their products. Oleg Sienko told journalists that the factory would have to lay off the personnel to cut costs.

Today, the factory has to pay 8 billion rubles a year under its loan obligations; thus, implementation of investment projects has become extremely complicated. The Uralvagonzavod production facilities are totally outdated: even painting operations are done manually. At the moment, Uralvagonzavod "is grinding out" the installation of a new painting line and is replacing individual machine-tools where it is imperative. The General Director of the factory claims that the "band-aid" approach is not sufficient to remedy the situation: the entire production must be built on a new concept.

At present, the focus is shifted to projects for profound modernization and expansion of the existing metallurgical facilities. The green-field project to build facilities from the ground up is considered an option, as the poor quality casting results in sizeable expenses and lost markets for the factory. However, the problem is lack of money required for the project. The government money is slow-paced: 10 billion rubles promised by Russian Premier Vladimir Putin back in September 2009 arrived at the Uralvagonzavod account just recently.

Interestingly, but it was ill-timed financing of R&D that overextended the development of the new generation tank and made the T-95 no longer required.

...and here is the latest news on the Russian FMBT from Asian Defence,quoting Izvestia.
http://www.asian-defence.net/2012/04/fu ... rmata.html

Quote:
Apr 27, 2012
Future Russian Main Battle Tank (Armata) To Have Remotely Controlled Gun

Russia’s future main battle tank (MBT) will be equipped with a remotely controlled gun, the Izvestia newspaper said on Monday citing a defense industry source.
The gun will be digitally controlled by a crewmember located in a separate compartment, which would be made from composite materials and protected by multi-layered armor. The crew compartment will be also isolated from the motor compartment to increase survivability on the battlefield.
The secret project, dubbed Armata, has been approved by the Russian Defense Ministry. It is being implemented by the tank manufacturer Uralvagonzavod in Russia’s Urals region.
Work from other projects, including Object 195 and Black Eagle, will be incorporated in Armata's design.
The prototype of Armata MBT is expected to be ready by 2013. The first deliveries to the Russian Armed Forces are scheduled for 2015.
http://en.ria.ru/

Last edited by Philip on 16 May 2012 04:12, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Posted: 16 May 2012 03:57
 BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31
Posts: 4272
Quote:
According to that article,the bulk of the T-90s were ordered before Arjun made the grade

Its a lie - the second tranche was ordered after Arjun had been cleared by the oh so scupulous DGMF

Top

 Posted: 16 May 2012 04:05
 BRFite

Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25
Posts: 377
A bore sight performs the same function as an MRS..?? How will a bore sight be used to compensate the small deviations/distortions that will change the barrel after every shot? Will the gunner, after firing 10 shots, say, I need to figure out the distortion in my barrel, hang on while I boresight it, Ill continue firing after that.. A bore sight is a bore sight, and MRS is an MRS.. Saying one is the same as the other, is like saying walking is the same as cycling, as both "will get you there".

Top

 Posted: 16 May 2012 04:14
 BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 7497
Location: India
Surya,take it up with the author of the article!

Top

 Posted: 16 May 2012 05:20
 BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Posts: 3821
Philip wrote:
According to that article,the bulk of the T-90s were ordered before Arjun made the grade

Even if that had been completely true (it is not) that would still mean that the Army deemed that the T-90 had "made the grade" at the time. Which begs the question about how they made that assessment when remarkably difficult to solve problems like the TI system overheating were still outstanding. So if someone says that the T-90 deal stinks, that is not very unreasonable.

Top

 Posted: 16 May 2012 09:13
 BRFite

Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31
Posts: 931
d_berwal wrote:

Its a Manual MRS and not an automated MRS thats it. If IA wanted MRS (Automated) it can be added as a LRU upgrade anytime. It was not included in initial purchase because of same reason as why Shtora was not included or other equipment was not added.

Was this done to hide the true cost of the T-90 and make it appear to be cheaper than the Arjun?

Top

 Posted: 16 May 2012 10:11
 BRFite

Joined: 07 Oct 2006 19:59
Posts: 299
Location: Sukhoi/Sukhoi (Jaguars gone :( )Gali, pune
CJ 12/13 May passed...where is the article? AAnkhen taras gayi.

Did you'll read about the WZT3 spares fiasco! I sometimes feel we need a monitor to monitor the monitors.

Top

 Posted: 16 May 2012 10:22
 BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 4818
Location: Jatland
d_berwal wrote:
tejas wrote:

A pretty decent explanation of what MRS is. I do not know how soon barrel deformation occurs.

http://ofb.gov.in/products/data/optical/23.htm

The above bore-sighting(MRS) device is used for T-90 in India.
Now to say T-90 does not have a MRS would be incorrect. Would you agree ?

Comparing apples and oranges here, are we?

What you've listed is a boresight, or Collimator be more exact and not MRS. T-90 does not have a MRS. The "new" T-90AM comes with MRS on its Rapira Main Gun.

Check the bore sight being used on M1 Abrams. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DA-SD-06-06814.jpg
In the same pic, you can see the MRS on top of the barrel

Top

 Posted: 17 May 2012 01:37
 BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 7497
Location: India
No defence guys for any poss./suspected backhanders for the aqcuisitions of T-90s,but almost all reports indicate that it started off as a knee-jerk response to Pak's surprise acquisition of T-80UDs from Ukraine.In the Vayu article "IA's MBTs:The indigenous thrust",the dates given are as follows:
310 customised T-90S MBTs signed for in Feb. 2001,reported in July 2006 that the OFB was awarded a $2.5B deal to produce 1000 customised T-90S tanks,with another 330 in Oct,same year.First 124 Arjun ordered in 2004,full rgt. strength in 2009,more ordered in May 2010 for 124 MK-1s and after performance against the T-90 in 2010,another 124 MK-2s. Top  Posted: 17 May 2012 07:52  BRFite Joined: 08 May 2012 06:43 Posts: 396 Sample of a hybrid military truck equivalent to a Tatra, it has a diesel engine driving an 200KW electric generator which then powers electric motors driving the wheels, has 20% fuel savings, optionally, if an energy storage system like batteries is included the fuel savings could be higher so will be the increase in capital cost http://www.4x4offroads.com/oshkosh-hemtt-a3.html since the engine doubles as a generator, can the power supply box below could be entirely replaced? http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/AeroIndia2007/Display_Stalls/Brahmos/brahmos-land.jpg.html Between CVRDE and the Army, the latter wants both an Active protection system and a passive armor but with the same weight budget on future versions of Arjun, CVRDE retorts that its not possible atleast within the same weight budget, with a diesel electric hybrid arrangement like the above, the transmission could be done away with and its weights savings help in having both APS and improved Kanchan Top  Posted: 17 May 2012 19:46  BRFite Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04 Posts: 290 Location: New Delhi BMP replacement is no where in sight last time we discuss, which is all about stryker IFV from US. During Defexpo i found few good IFV one is Stryker(Genral dunamics) other is Rosomak (Bumar) from Poland IMHO Evan though Rosomak is License produce by Poland it has good advantage for Indian to purchase from Poland as we already dealing with them with good no. of ARV also license producing them. + Rosomak has good repo in Polish armored force operating under NATO in Afghanistan, its RPG net also "I posted photo of same net with metal object" actually very good concept adopted by Bumar Stryker is also beast but American costing may prohibit India going toward it although local company like TATA Ashok Leyland and Mahindra also trying to put thing together for IFV tender yet they are ar away from actual offer. Any body can throw light on costing of per IFV worldwide Top  Posted: 17 May 2012 23:30  BRFite Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08 Posts: 304 Location: Jhonesburg sudeepj wrote: A bore sight performs the same function as an MRS..?? How will a bore sight be used to compensate the small deviations/distortions that will change the barrel after every shot? Will the gunner, after firing 10 shots, say, I need to figure out the distortion in my barrel, hang on while I boresight it, Ill continue firing after that.. A bore sight is a bore sight, and MRS is an MRS.. Saying one is the same as the other, is like saying walking is the same as cycling, as both "will get you there". This comment is wort a reply of all Q) What is MRS? Any one ? Ans: Muzzle Reference System - Patent 7124676 http://www.docstoc.com/docs/55956133/Mu ... nt-7124676 Now how does MRS function on any MBT? a) does it automatically update the FCS or a gunner needs to initiate the process of FCS update ? Ans: Gunner needs to initiate. (correct me if i am wrong) b) What is the bare minimum time required to update an FCS one MRS update initiated by gunner ? Ans: 30-40 sec +/- 20% depending on make and model. (correct me if i am wrong) c) why 30 sec ? Ans: any one wanna answer that? (almost every FCS takes that much time for an update) d) Real life scenario? d1.1) MBT firing @ 15 rounds in 3 minutes. d1.2) MBT firing @ 15 rounds in 15 minutes. Q) now in which (d1.1 or d1.2) is MRS updated effective? To understand MBT gunnery bore-sighting and MRS needs to be understood and experienced not just googled? In my Opinion an ARJUN with MRS or without one does not make 0.05% difference in gunnery capabilities. Top  Posted: 18 May 2012 01:22  BRFite Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25 Posts: 377 >> To understand MBT gunnery bore-sighting and MRS needs to be understood and experienced not just googled? Am I talking to an IA tank gunner? Please let us know, so we can all get enriched by your hands on experience firing the main guns on tanks. Top  Posted: 18 May 2012 02:36  BRF Oldie Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31 Posts: 4272 Quote: without one does not make 0.05% difference in gunnery capabilities. correct either way its better than Tin Can Top  Posted: 18 May 2012 05:26  BRFite Joined: 14 Jan 2012 18:00 Posts: 421 Surya wrote: correct either way its better than Tin Can +1 Indeed Top  Posted: 18 May 2012 08:27  BRFite Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31 Posts: 931 d_berwal wrote: In my Opinion an ARJUN with MRS or without one does not make 0.05% difference in gunnery capabilities. This would only have become an issue if the T-90 had it and Arjun did not. Top  Posted: 18 May 2012 10:05  BRF Oldie Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42 Posts: 3591 Location: Frontier India : Nemo me impune lacessit tejas wrote: My point about Tatra is that the Tin can-90 deal stinks to high heaven as much as the Tatra scam. You are bang on the point. Top  Posted: 18 May 2012 10:08  BRF Oldie Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42 Posts: 3591 Location: Frontier India : Nemo me impune lacessit nikhil_p wrote: CJ 12/13 May passed...where is the article? AAnkhen taras gayi. Sirji, already posted chackojoseph wrote: Top  Posted: 18 May 2012 10:32  BRFite Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00 Posts: 1310 Vivek K wrote: d_berwal wrote: In my Opinion an ARJUN with MRS or without one does not make 0.05% difference in gunnery capabilities. This would only have become an issue if the T-90 had it and Arjun did not. Top  Posted: 20 May 2012 18:05  BRFite Joined: 21 Feb 2012 15:54 Posts: 220 http://livefist.blogspot.in/2012/05/reloaded-arjun-killed-at-birth.html Quote: The Army wants the DRDO to get on with the FMBT programme. Quote: I can now confirm that a Russian delegation, which included officials from Uralvagonzavod and Rosoboronexport met with the a team from the Army's Mechanised Forces at Sena Bhawan in the second week of March this year. The scheduled meeting was to present information about the T-90MS that was to be unveiled at the Defexpo show a fortnight later. Quote: It is a fact that the Army has already told the Department of Defence Production that it will not expand its existing indent for 124 Arjun Mk.2s, as it does not need more heavy tanks. Quote: The DRDO has said that any order below 500 tanks (in a mix of Mk.1 and Mk.2) makes Project Arjun a dead loss. This is precisely what it is likely to be, which is why products based on the Arjun chassis (bridge-layer tank, self-propelled artillery) or Arjun turret (Tank-X) are being pushed too. A total of 248 Arjun Mk.1/2 tanks in Army service is the maximum the programme can hope for. CJ, can you check on this and share what your sources say about the future of Arjun Mk2? Top  Posted: 20 May 2012 20:46  BRF Oldie Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31 Posts: 17466 Location: NowHere I think this time I have to serious look at no error aroor point of views.. there is an inherent obsession with t90s, besides whatever business deals it lands to.. the case here is IA can by no means be negotiating and getting offered on T90s, rather focus on what the guns and vehicles are need for the nation. It is DRDO's job, and gov's job to look after the business offers.. and IA can't be moved by russkie offers. my p0v.. atleast that is what I am going to think after reading aroor. It is important that we as a nation to look at arjun to success.. unless we all think DRDO venture is totally not required, and waste of money. I think either justice have to be made for the sake of investment and saving public money.. IA should keep in their minds (if true), that if economy goes down.. their security setup also go down.. we would not be able to fund T90s., and perhaps everything is down for them. It is important for IA to realize, that they can't be singled out in terms of owing to the nation a responsible decision making that keeps our men and machine in top gear, and form and at the same time, not compromise on indigenous goals. As of now, all fishbone points is that IA--, just by their support for T90s after Arjun has cleanly proved that it is better. Top  Posted: 20 May 2012 20:55  BRFite Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00 Posts: 1310 As per Vayu, Order for 124 + 124 Arjun Mark-2 have already been placed, so this livefist article may just be motivated plant Top  Posted: 20 May 2012 21:06  BRFite Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53 Posts: 635 i remember reading about 124 Arjun MK-1 (Already Inducted) and 124 Arjun MK-2 and rumors of another 124 Arjun MK-2 once delivery starts Top  Posted: 20 May 2012 21:10  BRFite Joined: 08 May 2012 06:43 Posts: 396 if the Army once again does a videshi to protect swadesh even when not necessary, lets revisit the plan to phase out the old T series tanks, and as it was done with trucks recently by gifting them to Afganistan, we could have supplied the Afgan army with these T tanks, instead we should now supply them with Arjun series tanks in their export version using a govt-to-govt barter (minerals instead of money) deal what would one do with MBTs in counter insurgency? here is a relevant article and Afgan infantry could use them http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/tanks-to-afghanistan-analysis/ and if and when TSP acts up we don't need to ship or airlift these for opening a 2nd front on TSP just commandeer them Top  Posted: 20 May 2012 21:31  BRFite Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53 Posts: 355 Location: USA Ajay Sharma wrote: While I hate sensationalism (which is exactly what that article is and nothing more), in this case, its for the better, imho. Of late, the Army has been in the news for all the wrong reasons and this should keep up the pressure. There must NOT be one more Tin-can import or licensed production. On a different note: Do the Rodina guys expect us to believe that they are going to WAIVER any tech-transfer cost? That probably means either one or all of the following: 1. Nobody wants to buy that piece of$hit.
2. They want us to iron out all its troubles again.
3. There is no ADDITIONAL TECHNOLOGY in reality.

--Ashish

Last edited by Misraji on 20 May 2012 21:35, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Posted: 20 May 2012 21:35
 BRFite

Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Posts: 304
Location: Jhonesburg
karan_mc wrote:
i remember reading about 124 Arjun MK-1 (Already Inducted) and 124 Arjun MK-2 and rumors of another 124 Arjun MK-2 once delivery starts

and this is exactly what the state is, aroor is a big mouth.... my POV.

as of now next 5yrs or so no major MBT purchase is even in pipeline.

- Russians are presenting T-90 AM as IA T-90 are now almost 10yr old config and up for an upgrade very soon, so upgrade deal will be in pipeline in about 2-3yrs time (no wants to repeat T-72 upgrade story) (IA will only pick and choose LRU items for upgrade)

- As for Arjun Mk2 is ordered even before trials so strong educated guess another 124 Mk3 will be ordered if DRDO delivers what they promised even if 90% capabilities delivered. My POV based on my interaction

- AROOR wants another 124 ordered before trials, thats not possible. (who is planting the story?)

- Now what ARJUN line can deliver is after next 124 orders comes is 248 upgrades to mk3 level that is substantial work for OFB and what is what is HOPED for.

- The only BIG MBT purchase will actually come in next 6-7 yrs time-frame and it will be FMBT.

- And if DRDO does not gear up to it IA will be inclined to go FICV way bare minimum.

- ARJUN is not FMBT but it should lead to it, that's what IA hopes DRDO Will deliver in FMBT

MY 2 cents

Last edited by d_berwal on 20 May 2012 22:45, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Posted: 20 May 2012 22:09
 BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31
Posts: 4272
and what is requirements\def for the FMBT

am still waiting to hear it from the enlightened souls at DGMF

Top

 Posted: 21 May 2012 06:08
 BRFite

Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Posts: 355
Location: USA
Surya wrote:
am still waiting to hear it from the enlightened souls at DGMF

Expect something like Rs +14 crore ...

--Ashish

Top

 Posted: 21 May 2012 08:24
 BRFite

Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41
Posts: 325
i second ashish, vic.

Quote:
First, the trials in June will test the following performance parameters of the tank: acceleration, turning radius, stab performance, ergonomics, static fuel consumption, cruising fuel consumption, tilt driving. The trials will also involve firing of primary and secondary ammunition, consistency and rate of fire, firing at night using thermal imagers, and of all new equipment. The prototype does not have the mine plough as depicted in the CAD image above.

the army itself asked for 93 improvements after the last trial - when they had to accept that Arjun was superior even without those. if they have made up their mind on T-90, why will they ask for those?? and have to oversee the fresh trials happening now??

Quote:
The Army wants the DRDO to get on with the FMBT programme. Legacy opposition to Project Arjun has boiled down to abject disregard for anything pertaining to the programme -- and perceptions that transacting on a programme that was commissioned just after the 1971 war is plainly foolish.

FMBT is something even army itself is not clear and yet to finalise their GSQR. how would they ask DRDO to concentrate on it??

Quote:
My sources tell me that it was conveyed at the meeting that if India chose to license-build more T-90s, the cost of transferring any additional technology would be waivered.

T-90MS means a whole new turret with an additional autoloader in the bustle for longer rods. when the russians did not even honour the original T-90S TOT on the gun barrel and armour, how are they going to offer full tot on a whole new turret?? that too free?? it is naive to even expect it.

Quote:
It is a fact that the Army has already told the Department of Defence Production that it will not expand its existing indent for 124 Arjun Mk.2s, as it does not need more heavy tanks.

the second order of 124 came after the last trial where Arjun outgunned and outran the T-90.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... s-research

even russians consider T-90 as obsolete and do not want it. why should we??

this report belies logic and ground reality. seems to be a plant by the lobbies.

Top

 Posted: 21 May 2012 09:31
 BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 7497
Location: India
Going by reports of existing orders placed,etc.,we will roughly possess about 1600+ T-90s,approx 250-350 Arjuns and another 700-1000 T-72s upgraded by the end of the decade.The number of "T" series was placed a few years ago.The system has been geared up for the same,and since the entire qty of these tanks are to be produced by HVF,there is going to be little room for induction of a new tank by 2020,unless it is a foreign acquisition.Since the bulk of the tanks used by the IA are currently 3-man crewed tanks,which the IA is more familiar with,the hints earlier ( a few months ago there was a statement by the DRDO chief?) by even the DRDO itself,was that an FMBT of the future should have a 3-man crew,turretless profile,larger main gun,more powerful engine,blah,blah,etc.,appear to mean that the DRDO has realised that the IA 's mindset on the size of the tank has to be met by any future desi design.Therefore the best way forward if that is the case,is for the IA and DRDO to work together on the establishing the ideal performance parameters and evolve concepts.Whether this needs to involve any foreign collaborators is a moot point as certainly we still do not possess cutting engine design and manufacturing skills,needing to import a German engine for the Arjun series.

However,if the money is available,and another batch of Arjun needs to be manufactured to recover R&D costs,ordering another batch of 124 Arjuns (whether MK-2 or 3) at least as a gap-filler,while reducing the number of upgrades of older T-72s,using these chassis for various armoured vehicle variants,needs to be seriously examined.This is because in the case of Arjun,it is already in service unlike the LCA,and certainly can be used in the terrain which suits it best,as it has bested the T-90S in trials.It is also regrettable that the DRDO/IA have for decades not thought of designing a desi ICV to replace the BMP series of ICVs of Soviet origin.This smacks of a culture which wants to design a top-of-the-line product before it can even manufacture a less sophisticated product (MBT before an ICV and LCA before an IJT/AJT/basic trainer!)

Top

 Posted: 21 May 2012 10:37
 BRFite

Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53
Posts: 635
first of all , 1000 T-90s manufactured in India has not been delivered , so we can factor in some T-90S to be upgraded to T-90MS and Second thing is that we are still using T-72 Gun barrel into T-90 and TOT issue has still not been resolved yet , unless we can sort that out no further commitment , last heard about 300 First batch T-90 imported from Russia is that they are all fried and will be phased out soon

Top

 Posted: 23 May 2012 11:34
 BRFite

Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Posts: 1031
karan_mc wrote:
i remember reading about 124 Arjun MK-1 (Already Inducted) and 124 Arjun MK-2 and rumors of another 124 Arjun MK-2 once delivery starts

The lead time required is approximately 2.5 to 3 years from what we have seen from the first batch order. This means if the IA places firm order for 124 Arjun MBT Mk.2 beginning of 2013, the first delivery will begin after mid-2015.

Since the current 124 Arjun Mk.2 order would take around 2.5 years (2013-2015) to complete at 50 tanks/year production rate, a follow-on order of 124 needs to be placed almost immediately at the beginning of Mk.2 1st batch production delivery (which is planned for mid-2013). Any delays in placing orders for the follow-on batch would mean production facilities will remain idle between the two orders.

The other way to avoid such scenario is for the IA to order in bigger bulks (say 248+ units), which would allow follow-on orders to be spaced out (5 years @50 units/year) and yet continuously keep the production humming.

Top

 Posted: 23 May 2012 16:59
 BRFite

Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53
Posts: 635
Integrated Fire Suppression System for MBT Arjun (SORRY IF POSTED EARLIER )

Fuel-fire-explosion (before and after suppression)

The integrated fire and explosion suppression system developed for MBT Arjun is based on state-of-the-art technology. The indigenous development of this system is considered to be a breakthrough in the field of fire protection engineering. It is capable of suppressing hydrocarbon fuel fire/explosion resulting from an enemy hit on the tank or due to any malfunctioning of the engine, transmission or any electrical short circuiting.

The system is based on infra-red detectors for the detection of fire/explosion in the crew compartment of the battle tank and a continuous type of linear thermal detector popularly known as fire-wire

for the engine compartment. Halon-1301 has been employed as a fire extinguishing medium. The system is capable of detection and suppression of hydrocarbon fuel fire/explosion in the crew compartment within 200 milliseconds and in the engine compartment within 15 s thereby enhancing the chances of survivability of the crew and battle effectiveness of the tank.

Top

 Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending
 Page 17 of 84 [ 3345 posts ] Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 ... 84  Next

 All times are UTC + 5:30 hours

#### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 11 guests

 You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
 Jump to:  Select a forum ------------------ Discussion Forums    Military Issues & History Forum    Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum    Technology & Economic Forum BR Archives    Trash Can Archive    Mil-Tech Archive    The Kargil Archive    BR Nostalgia Archive    News Folders Archive    Military Issues Archive    Nuclear Issues Archive    Military History Archive    Military Exercises Archive    Military Scenarios Archive    Religion Discussion Archive    Military Expositions Archive    History & Current Affairs Archive    Strategic & Security Issues Archive    Terrorism Archive