Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Post Reply
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Pratyush »

Guys, it was propose at the time of launchig FICV that ,the winner of the compitition could use the production facility per existing at OFB Medak. Instead of building a brand new production line. So regardless of what brfites want the OFB will get a large slice of the pie. The only choice that was real was that we would have build up the indian design and development capability. With the BMP 3, we will have lost the opportunity to do so as well.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Austin »

Shrinivasan wrote:^^^Austin ji, reforming the OFB is the most difficult thing to do, enough vested interest all around to not let that happen.. Grantint FICV to a pvt player will be easier.. Incidentally OF Medak is one of the better run OFB... The one in UP and WB are the worst lot.
There are vested interest every where even in Pvt Sector , havent you seen how Pvt Players RIP off Pentagon year after year with exotic money paid to them.

Not reforming OFB is shying away from problem , Closing your eyes and pretending the problem will go away.

What about other programs or projects that OFB handles what about FMBT program , eventually the problem still remains even if you hand Pvt players some project it wont reform OFB.

Mahindra and TATA would start doing exactly what other good private players eventually do start ripping MOD and show year on year profit for their investors ...its not a crime but thats the way Pvt players work.

I believe Public Sector in Defence has huge potential which are grossly underutilised and underestimated and reforming it is the only way forward , Much like GOI has reformed other public sectors they can do the same with OFB even if it takes a decade it better to reform them rather then pretend involving private players will solve all problem with OFB , not that i am against Pvt players but its best utilised for specific programs.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

Austin wrote:
Shrinivasan wrote:^^^Austin ji, reforming the OFB is the most difficult thing to do, enough vested interest all around to not let that happen.. Grantint FICV to a pvt player will be easier.. Incidentally OF Medak is one of the better run OFB... The one in UP and WB are the worst lot.
There are vested interest every where even in Pvt Sector , havent you seen how Pvt Players RIP off Pentagon year after year with exotic money paid to them.
.
Austin-ji; I fully agree that Pvt players are not a silver bullet, and reforming OFBs is a critical need which is not going to go away -- in fact I am sure you have heard me say the same multiple times.

But at least for FICV, I hope that OFBs dont get it, why? OFBs need to have the fear of god put into them, and pvt industry making a foothold will be one sure fire way. It worked for BSNL etc substantially.

Also we want capacity addition in every way, both through OFB improvement AND pvt sector, this is not either or condition, FICV is one of the easiest way to get the Pvt industry to cut its teeth in the Mil space.

Not to mention of course that the overall confidence that M&M will have timely quality delivery meeting the needs is much higher as things stand now.
James B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2249
Joined: 08 Nov 2008 21:23
Location: Samjhautha Express with an IED

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by James B »

Schematic of Arjun's seat arrangement as per Dejawolf

Image

More discussion on this and Arjun armour here

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/defe ... post651242
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by NRao »

Here you have it, the final word:

FMBT to focus on weight reduction of battle tanks, says DRDO chief
MK-II variant of Main Battle Tank (MBT) Arjun has entered into the user trial phase and DRDO is looking at the Futuristic Main Battle Tank (FMBT) project aimed at reducing the weight of the battle tanks, said DRDO chief V K Saraswat, who was in the city to attend the valedictory function of Post Induction Training School (POINTS) - 17 at the Defence Institute of Advanced Technology (DIAT) at Girinagar in Khadakwasla.

Talking to the reporters Saraswat said, “The trials of MK-II variant MBT Arjun are expected to be complete within a year after which we will be in a position to produce 300 to 400 units for the Army.” On being asked about FMBT he said, “The idea is to reduce the weight of the tank. Developed nations such as the United States of America and Israel have been working on reducing the weights of battle tanks. Heavy weights of tanks affect their maneuverability. We are therefore looking to reduce the weight of FMBT to 50 tonnes each.”

Commenting on the Indian Operating System (OS), Saraswat said that Indian OS is relevant in the time of cyber warfare and the DRDO has set a time-frame of three years for the project to materialise. About 250 outstanding senior faculty members from important Institutions such as IITs, IISc, NITs, DIAT and other institutes of national importance along with scientist faculties from various DRDO labs/establishments and Armed Forces have delivered customised lectures during this POINTS - 17 programme, a press release issued by Press Information Bureau said.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by SaiK »

Perhaps DRDO can take a look at:
http://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/372906
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Vivek K »

DRDO needs to get a private player to "market" tanks to army. We must understand that we are corrupt onlee!!
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by SaiK »

mmm.. while many are contemplating on removing this evil, you want to make it as the core principle. thalia!
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by vivek_ahuja »

SaiK wrote:mmm.. while many are contemplating on removing this evil, you want to make it as the core principle. thalia!
Exactly. Go the other way. Nobody will even know what hit them! :mrgreen: :rotfl:
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Singha »

there is a version called CV-90-120 that perhaps qualifies as a light tank of around 35-40t. the polish Anders might have such a ver as well. but I doubt these can mount the new gen higher pressure L55 cannons. no doubt they will provide firepower and mobility, but in protection , unless I am mistaken nobody has found a way to give a 40t tank mounting a 120mm gun sized turret the same protection level as a 65t tank mounting the same.
http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/dat ... _120-T.JPG

it can at best be used in the areas where bigger tanks cannot operate and as light "raider tanks" in concert with recce vehicles (fennec) and IFVs (the base cv90, puma types)...
vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by vic »

The FMBT project of USA was cancelled after spending US$ 20 Billion. Indian Army is pushing DRDO towards same unrealistic Goals. USA is now looking at GCV which is supposed to 65-75 tons
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Vivek K »

SaiK wrote:mmm.. while many are contemplating on removing this evil, you want to make it as the core principle. thalia!
Contemplate all you want - we are deeply corrupt. So not taking this factor into a design strategy and then crying foul is hypocritical. We must acknowledge our ills and either have a national way forward on corruption or swim in it.

If DRDO had a Russian marketing front, they could have sold a 1000 Arjuns to IA.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Surya »

Basically DRDO succumbed to the pressure and is now going on a wild goose chase and squander public money over this 50 ton FMBT nonsense. If there was the mildest courage - DRDO should have washed its hands off, closed down the armor research and let the guys go - saving them heartburn. In fact i hope there is a wholesale exodus - too long they have wasted their time on this nonsense

let the army come up with its huffy version of the FMBT
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by vivek_ahuja »

Let's cut through the charade involving the DRDO FMBT project and what not.

So which Natasha-endorsed FMBT is Russia working on that will become our mainstay in the coming decades? :mrgreen:

I would like to go ahead and get started reading up about it.

:)
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Vivek K »

Jai Roosi-deshi!!!Forget Swadeshi - IA ishtyle!
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Singha »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_ ... tform_T-99

rus is working on kurganets-25 to replace bmp, boomerang to replace BTR and armata-type99 to replace tanks and also form a heavy ICV.
merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by merlin »

vivek_ahuja wrote: Its true as Rohit pointed out that the Mech-Infantry will make the call on this one and not the armored corps guys. So I am willing to give these guys a fresh chance.

But after having been burnt far too many times by those in service regarding the need for home-grown products, I am quite frankly exhausted and have mentally given up all hope for the better.
You are assuming that the pvt sector guys have a clue about how to go and build FICV. I'm not sure of that (even though my info is a few years old).
KBDagha
BRFite
Posts: 160
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 21:47
Location: Mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by KBDagha »

Pride Of India Expo in Kolkata has a very good picture of Arjun Mk II! Looks very neat than previous version.

Regards,
Khambat
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Singha »

just saw that pic in a un named blog. if its anywhere other there, could it be linked from here by a kind soul?

they should add more spaced armour panels on the turret sides rather than just add "tool boxes" there. maybe a heavy composite armour panel on outside of the "tool box" , then a gap of few inches, then then internal turrent armour visible at present. if the turret is rotated to one side to engage a tank, the sides will be exposed from other side and a shell could hurt it bad there

it looks like a challenger tank now.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Singha »

if that pic is real its a lot smoother than the hacked up crude wedge arrangement shown to ajai shukla here
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-l5bCtNUVarc/U ... arjun1.jpg
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

Singha wrote:if that pic is real its a lot smoother than the hacked up crude wedge arrangement shown to ajai shukla here
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-l5bCtNUVarc/U ... arjun1.jpg
Cant find that pic anywhere expect on that horrible place.

Maybe Khambat could comment, I assume he has seen the same at Kol?
KBDagha
BRFite
Posts: 160
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 21:47
Location: Mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by KBDagha »

Nope, I have only seen it on the blog that cannot be named! :cry:
I don't know why but that image looks familiar (old) and could belong to some early prototype :-?
P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by P Chitkara »

What happened to the talk of Army saying no to FMBT project?
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by vivek_ahuja »

merlin wrote:
vivek_ahuja wrote: Its true as Rohit pointed out that the Mech-Infantry will make the call on this one and not the armored corps guys. So I am willing to give these guys a fresh chance.

But after having been burnt far too many times by those in service regarding the need for home-grown products, I am quite frankly exhausted and have mentally given up all hope for the better.
You are assuming that the pvt sector guys have a clue about how to go and build FICV. I'm not sure of that (even though my info is a few years old).
I never said the pvt guys have a clue. All I said is we are going to buy a rooskie design and assemble it here in India.

As tradition demands.
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by vivek_ahuja »

Singha wrote:just saw that pic in a un named blog. if its anywhere other there, could it be linked from here by a kind soul?

they should add more spaced armour panels on the turret sides rather than just add "tool boxes" there. maybe a heavy composite armour panel on outside of the "tool box" , then a gap of few inches, then then internal turrent armour visible at present. if the turret is rotated to one side to engage a tank, the sides will be exposed from other side and a shell could hurt it bad there

it looks like a challenger tank now.
Supposedly its not the Mk II? Its an early design variant from the 1980s?
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Singha »

So why was it displayed in a drdo exhib showing ammo and a sectional diagram as the next placards ?

Ie unless he who cannot be named inserted them into the sequence of images lol
chiru
BRFite
Posts: 216
Joined: 17 Jun 2009 12:46
Location: mahishooru

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by chiru »

Singha wrote:it looks like a challenger tank now.
singha saar joo are mistaking it for the MKII prototype but its just sdre MK-1 prototype onlee, ajay shukla's pic is the latest one :P
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Singha »

I am mystified why they went from a better looking and better protected proto with higher gunner sight to the current one which lacks sloping fwd armour in mk1?

I am not disputing its a old pic...just trying to figure out the why of it...did we ever talk to the british for a chieftain mki as the starting basis of arjun. Iran shah regime was also doing some mbt stuff with the brits.
sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 348
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by sarabpal.s »

self delete it early post wrongly quote the picture.

i am Talking about Arjun Pic which exit on untamed blogger :-? .
that pic is early model Arjun under 50t and clerly remember that i read it on web it was drdo1985 model of Arjun with 105mm gun.

than army change the mind after learning that pak going for Abrams
Last edited by sarabpal.s on 07 Jan 2013 22:51, edited 1 time in total.
Boreas
BRFite
Posts: 315
Joined: 23 Jan 2011 11:24

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Boreas »

caption on pic says -> Early Arjun Mk1 Prototype!
Boreas
BRFite
Posts: 315
Joined: 23 Jan 2011 11:24

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Boreas »

*if i am seeing it on correct blog (one which is named after INS F43) :)
Ankit Desai
BRFite
Posts: 634
Joined: 05 May 2006 21:28
Location: Gujarat

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Ankit Desai »

Which pic are we talking about?

If it is below one than it says "Arjun MBT Mk-II P1" on left side above track ! if it is other than plz provide the link.
Singha wrote:if that pic is real its a lot smoother than the hacked up crude wedge arrangement shown to ajai shukla here
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-l5bCtNUVarc/U ... arjun1.jpg
-Ankit
Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 884
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Mihir »

vivek_ahuja wrote:
Singha wrote:just saw that pic in a un named blog. if its anywhere other there, could it be linked from here by a kind soul?

they should add more spaced armour panels on the turret sides rather than just add "tool boxes" there. maybe a heavy composite armour panel on outside of the "tool box" , then a gap of few inches, then then internal turrent armour visible at present. if the turret is rotated to one side to engage a tank, the sides will be exposed from other side and a shell could hurt it bad there

it looks like a challenger tank now.
Supposedly its not the Mk II? Its an early design variant from the 1980s?
Can't be. My careful analysis indicates that the tank in the picture has a sloped turret. DRDO does not have the sense to design sloped turrets. Therefore the tank is not an Arjun prototype. It's probably another wet dream that won't be ready for delivery until the next century :roll:
Gurneesh
BRFite
Posts: 465
Joined: 14 Feb 2010 21:21
Location: Troposphere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Gurneesh »

It could be mean that according to DRDO studies, Kanchan worked better with boxy turrets (like current Arjun, Leopard 2A4) than sloped turrets. A bit surprising as the initial tanks to use composite armor were Abrahams and Chally 1 (both used Chobham with mildly sloped turrets).

Also the sloped Arjun prototype turret has a fair resemblance with the turret of Challenger 1.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Singha »

looking at the ajai shukla pic, the sides of turret have become sloped now and the two tool boxes that used to be there moved to rear corner of turret using that grid frame. this would indicate the turret sides have gained additional sloped armour ...
Gurneesh
BRFite
Posts: 465
Joined: 14 Feb 2010 21:21
Location: Troposphere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Gurneesh »

^^^That is simply due to addition of sloped ERA tiles (similar tiles are installed on T90 also) on the previous boxy turret (i.e. Mk1 turret).

It can be clearly seen in this pic

Image
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Singha »

ok. I was misled by the bank of smoke dischargers in the rear and the watermark into thinking turret slides had become sloped..its still flat.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

Gurneesh wrote: It can be clearly seen in this pic
The other picture was similar, may be of the exact same tank.

Nevertheless it is definitely looking pretty, irrespective of whether the slope comes from the turret or ERA, also the build quality and finish look snappier.

All in all a great looking beast.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Singha »

the visible bolts give it a "israeli" merkavish look.
however I still feel the sides of the turret could use better protection like same wedges all the way to the end.
when turret is rotated, the sides get exposed to other hostile fire...no part of the turret except perhaps the dead rear can afford to have weaker protection these days.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

Singha wrote:the visible bolts give it a "israeli" merkavish look.
however I still feel the sides of the turret could use better protection like same wedges all the way to the end.
when turret is rotated, the sides get exposed to other hostile fire...no part of the turret except perhaps the dead rear can afford to have weaker protection these days
.
True that, may be follow up models?
Post Reply