Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

sarang · Post by **sarang** » 10 Jun 2011 15:18

Actually its Type-10 not Type-90.
6 ton lighter than 90.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_10

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 13 Jun 2011 02:18

SaiK wrote:Trials begin ..
no pics yet!

In all this discussion about the 66T weight we missed a significant nugget of Info..

The army has ordered 248 Arjun Mark-I tanks for induction into its armoured regiments. The first lot of 124 tanks, for which the orders were placed on the Avadi-based Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) in 2004 at a cost of Rs.170 million ($4 million) each, have been handed over to the army.

The army is now operating the 124 Arjuns as part of two regiments in the western sector and last May placed an order for an additional 124 tanks, primarily to keep the HVF production line running before the Mark-II version was ready for manufacturing.

Is this true? If true then it is a great news as the production line would be running for couple more years and who knows, IA might order more Arjuns as it keeps changing the requirement for Arjun Mark II.
What do you guys think?

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 13 Jun 2011 04:09

Whats the break up of tanks per regt including reserves ?
I remember seeing a very nice schematic somewhere.... an orbat site or something ///anyone remember ?

ManojM · Post by **ManojM** » 13 Jun 2011 06:07

Vipul wrote:Arjun Mark II tank to be tested from June 11.

...
"We have made some recommendations on the MBT and it will be tested. The turret related tests will start from June 11 and that of chassis automotive system (lower part of the tank) will start from June 25 extending for a month. This is a DRDO exercise and the user (Army) will be observers. This is the first time Arjun Mark II is going for testing," the official told PTI.
...

Any info on whether the trials have started?

Turret related tests - does this include firing or validation of fcs/turret-motion integration ?

Curious to know - who will operate the tanks in the trials? Does DRDO/HVF have drivers & gunners or does IA provide them? If the latter, then can IA say they are observers only?

Can't wait to know the results

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 13 Jun 2011 17:04

chackojoseph wrote: There is no 1500 hp indigenous engine. DRDO works on National Mission for developing AFV engines and DRDO creating a roadmap "Defence technology Vision 2050": Dr VK Saraswat : My two recent articles on the 1500 hp engine issue.

exactly. that is what i was wondering. i am greedy though.

Trial's have not begun. It is scheduled mid June though.

this is confusing. even India Strategic is also reporting that the trials started on june 9!!

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 13 Jun 2011 17:14

They are just copy and pasting them from IANS. The trials As I know began on 11th or are scheduled to be in Mid June.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 14 Jun 2011 12:03

ManojM wrote: Any info on whether the trials have started?

Turret related tests - does this include firing or validation of fcs/turret-motion integration ?

Curious to know - who will operate the tanks in the trials? Does DRDO/HVF have drivers & gunners or does IA provide them? If the latter, then can IA say they are observers only?

Can't wait to know the results

Turret related tests would be to validate the new stabilization and gun drive systems. (Manual and auto modes)

Automotive tests would be to validate the changes to engine and transmission.

In trails MBTS are crewed by IA personnel's, these personnel's would have been part of this project since its beginning.

Most of the DRDO based labs have detachments of IA personals posted out there as part of project team members.

Present trials are not user trials.

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 19 Jun 2011 15:25

is there any chaiwallah panwallah newj about arjun mk2 trials?
i am eagerly wating to hear about it.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 20 Jun 2011 20:11

We wont hear much now. As the army is just an observer. Its more like pre-test before being handed over the user who will then carry out countless test.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jun 2011 20:29

around 2004, the army base workshop delhi had developed 6- and 4- seater vehicles named Hunky and Tuffy.

were these ever taken up for mass production? what chassis and engine were they based on? specs?

one of them looked a bit like hummer.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 20 Jun 2011 20:37

sameer_shelavale wrote:is there any chaiwallah panwallah newj about arjun mk2 trials?
i am eagerly wating to hear about it.

The torision bar broke. Arjun mak 2 is a failure.

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 20 Jun 2011 21:05

^^^ LOL if you did what i think you did

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 21 Jun 2011 11:42

chackojoseph wrote:
sameer_shelavale wrote:is there any chaiwallah panwallah newj about arjun mk2 trials?
i am eagerly wating to hear about it.
The torision bar broke. Arjun mak 2 is a failure.

that means more delays

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Jun 2011 12:12

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 21 Jun 2011 14:10

sameer_shelavale wrote: that means more delays

I knew someone will bite that. Sameer mate, Arjun Dosen't use torssion bar. It's a old joke.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 21 Jun 2011 14:13

chackojoseph wrote:
sameer_shelavale wrote: that means more delays
I knew someone will bite that. Sameer mate, Arjun Dosen't use torssion bar. It's a old joke.

It also shows that even after so much discussion about Arjun their are some BRFites who still lack knowledge about it.

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 21 Jun 2011 14:21

Sagar G wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:
I knew someone will bite that. Sameer mate, Arjun Dosen't use torssion bar. It's a old joke.
It also shows that even after so much discussion about Arjun their are some BRFites who still lack knowledge about it.

heeheehee

damn it was so disheartening

i forgot that it has hydro-pneumatic suspensions

but then is there any news ?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 21 Jun 2011 16:40

The Mk2 disappeared in the Gamma quadrent after getting the Vedren slipstream drive

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 21 Jun 2011 18:40

chackojoseph wrote:
sameer_shelavale wrote: that means more delays
I knew someone will bite that. Sameer mate, Arjun Dosen't use torssion bar. It's a old joke.

Actually there is/was one Arjun prototype with torsion bar. Must have been used just to test out certain things or to find out how a torsion bar Arjun behaves.

sombhat · Post by **sombhat** » 21 Jun 2011 18:53

chackojoseph wrote:
sameer_shelavale wrote: that means more delays
I knew someone will bite that. Sameer mate, Arjun Dosen't use torssion bar. It's a old joke.

This is not a joke. Remember even for MK 1, there was no torsion bars, but the DDM reported broken torsion bar in one of the tests. History may very well repeat itself.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Jun 2011 18:54

merlin sahab, army forced DRDO to make a t-bar version because the thinking was that it must be the best since the abrams had it. this was in 93-94. it was part of 10-11 size limited series production.

vic · Post by **vic** » 22 Jun 2011 10:14

Mark-2 declared a failure after it failed to take off even after 1000km run!

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 22 Jun 2011 10:44

vic wrote:Mark-2 declared a failure after it failed to take off even after 1000km run!

hmm
so we can conclude that
the torsion bar in Arjun Mk2 is not generating enough power hence very low t/w ratio.
we need to make a JV with snecma so that they provide their t-bar core to empower arjun t-bar to generate more wet n dry thrust.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 22 Jun 2011 10:54

IMO, there were two prototypes with T bar. I am not sure though.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 22 Jun 2011 11:47

Arjun is a failure as it cannot Launch Brahmos Missile from the Main gun. Arjun is a project which has sufferred 30000% cost over run and running for 30 years. Russia has suggested that it can make T-90S fire the Brahmos if we make some changes. it has suggested two changes which are both cheap and easily doable.

1) Reduce the weight of Brahmos to 3Kilos from 3 tonnes and makes its diameter 295mm (to be as per MTCR regulations)
2) Modify T-90s main gun barrel to a 300mm barrel.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 22 Jun 2011 12:31

Enough of these lame jokes already

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 22 Jun 2011 12:47

Craig Alpert wrote:......

PHEWWW man that's a LOONG wish list.. Based on my experience, it is VERY DOABLE with EXISTING technologies, however some bottlenecks might occur in terms of hybrid suspensions and tramsmissions, but other than that Stealth technoliges can be borrowed/modified from IAF with respect to data sharing and camofluge!!

To Sum Up

1) materials and paits: avaliable.
2) Signature managment: its already been there on Arjun via SAAB affiliate. Infact, Army wants it on T-90 based on what was achieved on Arjun.
3) IFF : good.
4) Com equipment: Good, the tech is already there. expect a lot of weight edition here.
5) Engine: Hyperbar already in consideration.
6) APS: IMo. mark to of what Arjun mk 2 has, will be developed.
7) Electronic guns, sensors, APS etc will require FCS.
8 ) High KE missiles. IMO, doable considering the expertice with ground tests of SAM, AAM and Nag.
9) Simulators.

So, just 9 wish lists? Expect it to be 60 + tons. Forget a 40 ton tank. How much an AWACS weigh?

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 22 Jun 2011 22:55

chackojoseph wrote:So, just 9 wish lists? Expect it to be 60 + tons. Forget a 40 ton tank. How much an AWACS weigh?

CJ, why are you talking about AWACS here? also the post was very confusing? maybe you need to edit it / explain

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 22 Jun 2011 23:58

^^^^ There was a post with the FMBT details. I guess it will have same weight as an awacs and FMBT cannot be 40 tone.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Jun 2011 08:43

is there a advantage to electrically operated turret (merkava style) vs traditional hydraulic systems? does it mean less risk of leaking fluid mission-killing a tank?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 23 Jun 2011 08:58

Auto/electric aiming = engine power being used or APU or batteries. less work for the gunner. Probably, what they might try to do is take off the gunner. Auto-loader + electric turret means single man operation.
manual means =less accuracy (probably), extra man etc.

They could have had an autoloader in Arjun, but, IA wanted a manual loader.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 23 Jun 2011 09:08

cheenum wrote:..... Russia has suggested that it can make T-90S fire the Brahmos if we make some changes. it has suggested two changes which are both cheap and easily doable.

1) Reduce the weight of Brahmos to 3Kilos from 3 tonnes and makes its diameter 295mm (to be as per MTCR regulations)
2) Modify T-90s main gun barrel to a 300mm barrel.

AND

pay a few million / billion $$$$$s

vic · Post by **vic** » 23 Jun 2011 09:25

chackojoseph wrote:Auto/electric aiming = engine power being used or APU or batteries. less work for the gunner. Probably, what they might try to do is take off the gunner. Auto-loader + electric turret means single man operation.
manual means =less accuracy (probably), extra man etc.

You are wrong on all counts above

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 23 Jun 2011 09:49

vic wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:Auto/electric aiming = engine power being used or APU or batteries. less work for the gunner. Probably, what they might try to do is take off the gunner. Auto-loader + electric turret means single man operation.
manual means =less accuracy (probably), extra man etc.

You are wrong on all counts above

Possible. Can you please explain.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Jun 2011 09:52

I meant the turrent traverse and gun laying mechanism being driven by electrical motors rather than some electro-hydraulic system which have cylinders of fluid.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 23 Jun 2011 09:58

Singha,

Interesting discussion here:

How does a hydraulic gun turret works

Basically the same principle as the electric powered turret. A hydaulic motor is attached to the turret ring with gears. When hyraulic fluid flows through the pump/gearbox, it turns the gears one way or the other to move the turret. Valves control which wat the fluid flows to control the movement of the turret.
For pros and cons:
Pros: hhydraulics are usually more reliable than electric motors. Also, you draw a huge amount of amps to power an electric motor large enough to turn the turret.
Cons: The vehicle engine has to be running to keep up hydraulic pressure to operate the turret. Hydraulic fluid is very flamable if the vehicle is hit and catches fire, bad news for the crew.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Jun 2011 10:16

the same thread says hydraulic fluid is non-flammable now and abrams has some kinda battery UPS to rotate the turret (maybe for limited time and rotational speed) when engine is off.

Hydraulic motor attached to the turret ring? - Let's take the M1 Abrams for an example. The Hydraulic pump (which draws non-flammable hydraulic fluid from a 17 gallon reservoir) is attached to the turbine engine through an accessory gearbox. Two lines (feed and return) feed a distribution manifold on the hull floor under the basket. From here fluid is driven into the slipring (below the main gun) and fed at about 1500psi to the traverse gearbox and the elevation mechanisms. The gearboxes are regulated with solenoids which open/close a variety of valves. The gunner or TC input through thier "Cadillac" controls. The turret traverse and elevation are backed up by an accumulator which through the use of inert gas, keeps fluid from bleeding back into the Hydraulic reservoir. When the engine is off, an electrically powered aux pump takes over. The performance is not as good, but it gets the job done.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Jun 2011 10:18

I think they would use the battery backup mode when doing repairs and turret needs to rotate to expose certain areas of the hull or put something on turret within reach of crewmen. engine change also needs a turret traverse to perpendicular direction as might a gun barrel change or repairs to bustle area from ground.

chandanus · Post by **chandanus** » 24 Jun 2011 08:26

Cant composites be used on ARJUN to reduce it weight ???

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 24 Jun 2011 08:37

chandanus wrote:Cant composites be used on ARJUN to reduce it weight ???

Composites have been used in Kanchan to keep the weight down and increase the volume. However, the metal part being replaced by composites is something the makers around the world not comfortable about. theoritically, it can be done, practically its not seen to be done.