Design your own tank

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Dec 2010 00:55

^No. Unless it is generated by fuel cells, that can be part of logistics.

May be perhaps one day in the future like 3050s, where we can have them powered from a satellite beaming up the source., but it would be all un manned anyways then.

manish.rastogi · Post by **manish.rastogi** » 14 Dec 2010 01:02

whats the prblm with fuel cells...or lithium or whatever cells can also be used and charged by a generator.....with an extra generator not much big in the tank itself for emergency....and on a base if urgent then whole chemical in the battery could be changed....

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 14 Dec 2010 01:13

Pratyush wrote:Tanaji I think you are thinking avanger with ATGM capabilities. Instead of Air defense for the original vehicle.

Provide 4 of these to every company link them with data links and 32 enemy tanks will be gone when the force decideds to make its presence felt.

Yes.. actually imagine something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:152mm ... del_77.jpg

But only half the size, with more speed and much more maneuverability. Two pods of 3 or 4 each NAG on each side. These are just hunter killers, so we can borrow concepts from attack helicopters: a sensor that can be raised or lowered to allow targeting from hull down positions. As described earlier these are all networked, so one can provide the targeting for others. Or the images from individual units and a UAV can be fed to a command post that will assign optimal targets based on kill probabilities.

8 Nags per vehicle... that is serious firepower, if 4 to each company are given. Of course they are toast if they come head to head against anything, even infantry, but the idea is to attack fast and get out... These can be air dropped, air lifted in good numbers...

The other problem is IA or more accurately DGMF wont give it a second thought. Too radical for their tastes.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Dec 2010 01:14

What would power the generator? How are you planning to carry that as an additional overhead, why would you not think that tank engine itself the generator? logistic night mare.

manish.rastogi · Post by **manish.rastogi** » 14 Dec 2010 01:21

the normal fuel we use or any other thing giving more advantage...i plan to have a dedicated vehicle for that carrying fuel and generator i guess 4-5 vehicles for atleast 20 tanks would do....and i plan to have an additional small generator so that if there is an immediate emergency or if there is no generator vehicle around it can be used....we can still give 100l or so fuel to carry in tank.....

manish.rastogi · Post by **manish.rastogi** » 14 Dec 2010 01:24

also i just saw a nissan leaf electric car givin some 99 miles per gallon....i think with more research a 20kmpl looks quite achievable....would be very helpful....

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 14 Dec 2010 01:37

manish.rastogi wrote:the normal fuel we use or any other thing giving more advantage...i plan to have a dedicated vehicle for that carrying fuel and generator i guess 4-5 vehicles for atleast 20 tanks would do....and i plan to have an additional small generator so that if there is an immediate emergency or if there is no generator vehicle around it can be used....we can still give 100l or so fuel to carry in tank.....

that generator and the "additional small" generators will be the first vehicles which will be targetted. So incase they are out, your whole advance is out, the maneouvre is out.

You will miss out buddy to buddy refuelling, getting emergency fuel from trucks, IFVs, jeeps etc to tanks and vice versa.

Star wars

Forget environment, when your country is at stake, a little pollution means nothing.
What advantage do we get by moving from diesel to electric, can the parts be repaired by non-engineers to make it work(atleast 60%) with just minimal tools? What is the setup required for dealing with problems if the engine stops working? What is the time of charge? Can multiple vehicles be charged at the same time? Can we use captured enemy's supplies in emergencies?

manish.rastogi · Post by **manish.rastogi** » 14 Dec 2010 02:01

sir the additional generators would be inside tanks and the dedicated vehicles could have a machine gun and some protection systems which i would soon put here for tanks...wont add much to weight.....i guess buddy refueling feature could be added...will leave out on ifvs and jeeps though....the small generators could be used here....fuel cells easily have 99.999 percent reliability...the generator could use fuel captured from enemy, for personnels some training would do the trick.....the only disadvantage that i see is the time of charge....hope some tech would cover that up....
It was the advantage of weight reduction,reliability and mileage that would work for its benefit.....i hope i answered all your doubts....i really like constructive criticism....helps in refining further!!

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 14 Dec 2010 02:34

[quote="manish.rastogi"][/quote]
manish please no "sir" for me.

Manish,

list out the advantages and disadvantages for Indian Army (not environment) if we move to them.

The enemy in a long war will try to target electric power stations. So you dont have a electric grid anywhere to recharge? As of today, which engine will you bring to a desert, mountain roads to run?

Even in electric engine, what is the source of power? Electricity is how you are transferring the power, not the source. Battery is simply a storage of power, you will have to charge it.

In civilian life, you can possibly rely on infrastructure being there. Over here, the army has to chug along that source.

Advantages:
i) Weight reduction: How much? I am giving some unrealistic numbers, but is the saving 20% or even 30% with the auxillary IC engine. What is the weight of an electric engine with battery, which can produce around 1500 bhp. The present weight of IC engine is around 2-3 ton, i.e. so a saving of 500 kg. So this whole change of logistics and additional vehicles(generators) is for a total weight saving of 1%?
http://www.35pickup.com/mulligan/weight.txt
ii) Reliability as in not working 100% in a regular reliability. Take a hammer (it is a bomb sharpnel)and hit one part of IC engine and the electric engine. What are the safety features for the personnel inside the tank and outside? What is the work needed to repair that to "work at 50-60%" compared to fuel cell, to get it back from frontlines to engineering? Can it be done using simple tools like screwdriver, hammer, spanner?
So at the end of the day, you are saying you need IC engines in your tank. Why dont we make it the primary engine, instead of adding it anyway as an auxillary and lugging extra weight?
iii) mileage when you are lugging a 50-60 ton monster? By the way it is usually given in litres per Km - around 2-5.

Disadvantages
i) Cost
ii) Complexity - i.e. reliability and ease of maintainance
iii) Additional and different logistics for different vehicles
iv) Cannot use enemy's captured items

I dont see how the whole deal is good for the army.

manish.rastogi · Post by **manish.rastogi** » 14 Dec 2010 02:51

i am quite young in age...so please let me say sir only....i think you might have misunderstood, what i say is we develop electricity to charge the batteries by generators which use fuel to generate electricity....the weight reduction would also be in terms of fuel carried by tanks which is around one ton or something i guess....i will give the solutions to rest of the problems tomorrow....with little more pondering over them....also i wont be able to write a long post from mobile....

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 14 Dec 2010 02:57

manish.rastogi wrote:i am quite young in age...

manish, me too, though not a teenager. so sir is a big no-no.

manish.rastogi · Post by **manish.rastogi** » 14 Dec 2010 03:00

also could you please elaborate or rephrase or simplify your (ii) point in advantages...thanks

manish.rastogi · Post by **manish.rastogi** » 14 Dec 2010 03:03

i am goin to be 17 next jan..,..so i am a teen only....actually it feels kinda awkward if not called sir.....but still will try using comrade friend and mate instead of sir....lol

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Dec 2010 05:47

Tanaji wrote:These are just hunter killers, so we can borrow concepts from attack helicopters:

Exactly my thoughts. It you can have a 10 ton attack helicopter with armor in special areas why not try and make a 20 ton land vehicle whose power/fuel requirements are far lower?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Dec 2010 06:09

manish.rastogi wrote:can we have a fully electric engine,...!??please say why or why not too!!

Manish you have to look at a few things:

1) Name one electric vehicle that weighs 20 tons (not ~1 ton like a car) that has a range of 300 km on one charge.
2) If you use generators to generate fuel cells how long does it take to charge a vehicle? It is at least 2-4 hours. Compare that with the 10 minutes it takes to refuel a diesel vehicle. If you have a station where batteries are changed quickly - one bomb in that station and all your vehicles will be paralysed.
3) Right now we are carrying fuel up to the 5000 meter heights near Aksai Chin and that fuel is converted directly to energy to move a vehicle. What you are saying demands that we should carry fuel up (for generators) convert it to energy for batteries and then use those batteries - a two step process. Not only does this take more time, it is more inefficient and is a two-step process. Interruption of any one step is enough to cause problems.
4) Never forget the word "logistics". Never do anything that makes logistics more difficult and complicated. Always try and reduce the logistics problem by using reliable and known method where you are not introducing experimental techniques that very few people are familiar with. If an unexpected problem occurs in a diesel vehicle - there are 20 lakh Indians who can repair it. If it happens in an electric vehicle you will hardly find anyone who knows what to do. Especially in Aksai Chin. It is so difficult to breath at 5000 meters that a mechanic wil require special high altitude acclimatization to even go there and stay there. Aksai Chin is mostly above 5000 meters.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 14 Dec 2010 09:27

Shiv / Tanaji,

Just one reservation with a 20 ton vehicle it gets too large. Some thing at under 5 tons with the concerned capabilities is what I am looking at. Let it be shooter only. The sensor platforms can be diffrent from BFSR to UAVs and in exteram cases Satalites and Airborn ground survailence radar.

My idea will be reduce the costs to such a level that the vehicle becomes expendable and be distributed at company level. But OTOH, if I move in this direction then what is wrong with a plain vanila ATGM jeep fireing F&F missiles?

So am so confused onlee..........

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 14 Dec 2010 09:44

For light tank requirements, why not just use a helicopter instead of a tracked vehicle? After all, a helicopter is sort of like a tank with a few minor differences:
1. Instead of a main gun, it carries rockets.
2. Ability to fly

Other than that, a helo can do pretty much what a tank can (e.g.)
1. Invade and hold territory (unlike an airplane that can only bomb territory, but not hold it)
2. Carry infantry into position
3. Can be used to strafe enemy infantry positions
4. Travel over rough terrain etc.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Dec 2010 09:56

> a tank can carry 40-60 rounds and loiter all day. a helicopter can carry 8 rounds and fly 2 hrs before needing to head back. it cannot sit quietly and hide behind a rock for days.....it cannot replace ground forces.

there are multiple trends at play here:

- the shooter is simple/cheap/expendable and the weapon itself has all the smarts needed - like LOAL, top attack, radio link , IIR , onboard MMW . the "Jeep" 4x4 style vehicles distributed all over the place and firing say 6 of these weapons in ready format falls in this category. these are ofcourse very nasty places to be in when the next artillery barrage comes in or a pitched battle with infantry/armour takes place - their only safety is in hiding and firing from cover - mostly they will have some EO sensor to provide the initial fix for the weapon, for laser/wire guidance the shooter needs to keep the spot on target. there is nothing wrong with the vanilla jeep firing ATGM except that it has no protection and needs manual reload after firing a few rounds. it cannot put up a sustained fight and will get wiped off even by 120mm mortars if they do not relocate fast.

- the shooter is a more complex heavier vehicle (like my JITMV) , but x-country and capable of air deployment also. it packs a heavier firepower, better armour and C3I capability , can fire heavier weapons , but is more costly, cannot go into all places a "jeep" can (think 5 feet wide goat tracks) and needs a more dedicated unit of men to run, repair and reload the system. it can also have versions with 40/20/30 mm cannons for protection against infantry and IFV/light tank units. the proposed zoo of Stryker variants falls in this bucket too.

- there is a balance between self-contained and netcentric . netcentric sounds cool in PPTs and vision docs, but all these UAV/fighters feeding data and guiding in real time outbound short range weapons in the 100s at any given time isnt going to happen anytime soon. we need to work from the ground up in the sense we do not have a basic BMS to *display* (forget third party cueing) the tactical situation in every vehicle yet. the US army has a few 'digital' brigades having this but nowhere near all. it will be a long time before IA can afford such things in every vehicle. if the network gets knocked out by jamming or glitches or the UAV gets bagged by a gunship heli or SAM, all the smart netcentric weapons will have nowhere to go.

so I think for forseeable future we should invest in a display oriented BMS that provides a good tactical picture to "Command vehicles" in each unit and concentrate on making the weapons F&F in the sense of top attack, LOAL, MMW radar , IIR with programmable vehicle type and priority as targets just before firing to override preset (i.e. change tank > ifv > truck > jeep) if someone spots a HQ staff coming in his jeep - set that round to jeep > everything else. also seal them up in cansisters and reload the cansisters themselves for robust handing or reload multiple ready rounds using VL module concepts. this will reduce chances of missile damage in transit or handling like bent fins or knocked out delicate IIR/MMW seekers.

we need MMW radar + LORROS (EO) + anti personnel radar in a integrated raisable mast mounted pkg on recce vehicles and this to be fed into divisional network for pushing down the BMS feed. obviously the divisional wireless networks need beefing up and changes to handle so many broadband feeds. likewise divisional UAVs are needed with same sensors - perhaps a hi alt version of Nishant is ok rather than platinum bullets.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 14 Dec 2010 10:46

Based on the idea of Singha sir, how about having a squadron of 4x4 vehicle.

The squadron would consists of:
1. 6 vehicles armed with canisterized ATGM, maybe 6-8 each.
2. 4 vehicles having recoiless guns.
3. 2 vehicles armed with IR AAM, providing air cover ( like the avenger)
4. 1 dedicated vehicle for having a Nishant type UAV
5. 5 vehicles with 5 infantry each, thus providing upto 30 soldier prodiving screening and support.

Of course the numbers here are not something sacrosant, but something that just came out of my mind.

Thus a total of 18 4x4, air deployable squadron. Of course this does not provide heavy hitting power, but does provide enough skirmishing power to hit enemy where we want and when we want.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 14 Dec 2010 10:55

Intresting, not being an orbat guy don know how useful this force will be. But a larger numbers of units of this type networked within the battle net should create serious head ache to any opponent.

Also, this force is light enough to be easily transported accross mountain regions using the MTA it self and cheap enough that the capital requirements will not create huge drain on the Army.

The resource base required to support it will also be available within the motor pool of the IA.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 14 Dec 2010 12:48

bmallick wrote:Based on the idea of Singha sir, how about having a squadron of 4x4 vehicle.

The squadron would consists of:
1. 6 vehicles armed with canisterized ATGM, maybe 6-8 each.
2. 4 vehicles having recoiless guns.
3. 2 vehicles armed with IR AAM, providing air cover ( like the avenger)
4. 1 dedicated vehicle for having a Nishant type UAV
5. 5 vehicles with 5 infantry each, thus providing upto 30 soldier prodiving screening and support.

Of course the numbers here are not something sacrosant, but something that just came out of my mind.

Thus a total of 18 4x4, air deployable squadron. Of course this does not provide heavy hitting power, but does provide enough skirmishing power to hit enemy where we want and when we want.

bmallick,

What is the aim of this squadron? In which position do you see this squadron working. Which type of enemy can you overwhelm with your formation?

30 infantry is peanuts, any reasonable force will easily overwhelm it. So it cannot be in the frontlines. But the range of the recoil less guns is around 1 km and ATGM is around 4 km, means they are supposed in the frontlines.

make that 300 infantry, I see it as reasonable protection.

If you are thinking of this as an air deployable force, you dont need a UAV, infact I would go even less for AAM, as without air superiority, you cannot deploy them in the first place. just basic manpads should be good enough.

Why does this deployable force need an UAV? This force clearly need linking up within 72 hours or it is dead.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Dec 2010 13:07

ofcourse there will be more infantry in ICVs. it can deploy by any means necessary including air.

the role would perhaps be LRDG type of old
- recce in some strength (i.e. if you encounter a smaller enemy force - hammer them)
- ability to mount a strong stand against a superior enemy force until air cover comes onsite ..esp if blocking some pass or chokepoint like a vital bridge or river ford
- sabotage enemy rear area infra
- [key role imo] roam far and wide in the rear of the enemy after slipping through a gap and hit the MSRs at various places disrupting them and playing mind games, causing hardship to the enemy frontlines supply chain and need for additional covering forces to secure their supply line (which means less people actually shooting at us at the sharp end)
- [another key role] attach with infantry batallions as a AA/ATGM/fire support element - its strong enough to beat back tanks, gunship helis for a while and also go after enemy bunkers and fortifications, catch exposed 'soft skinned' enemy forces in the open and rout them...for instance if a infantry platoon wants to take a defended and build up village, this brick can go around and terrorize the razakars hiding in the woodwork

you probably need a strong element of man portable ATGM also - javelin/Milan2T shooters and you need ammo and fuel supply vehicles and a few repair / command vehicles for this small 'sub battlegroup'

Glue together 4-6 of these bricks and you'd have a bigger stick to face a heavier enemy force....esp if you add in 20 MBTs.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 14 Dec 2010 13:12

Singha ji,

it is no more air-transportable

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Dec 2010 13:16

Sir all the vehicles in my original post were designed as air transportable..some of what he said sounds even lighter than mine . the "shell" vehicle around 10-13t and each Module around 5-7t....so in MTA they'd pull out the modules and fly the shell and modules separately. in IL76 or larger they can together.

ofcourse you would need many aircraft to fly in the whole lot, but thats only one aspect. they can as well drive up from manali and kargil to leh and beyond. such forces will be prepositioned in theater as with everything IA uses. air transportable only means you can reinforce faster if the airbases are working.

and *drumroll* C17 will fly in T90 and Arjuns...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Dec 2010 13:19

btw everyone seems loading up on FLIR kit to the level of individual humvees
http://www.flir.com/vehicles/

note the mast mounted thing too.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 14 Dec 2010 13:47

shiv wrote:
Tanaji wrote:These are just hunter killers, so we can borrow concepts from attack helicopters:
Exactly my thoughts. It you can have a 10 ton attack helicopter with armor in special areas why not try and make a 20 ton land vehicle whose power/fuel requirements are far lower?

Pratyush wrote:Just one reservation with a 20 ton vehicle it gets too large. Some thing at under 5 tons with the concerned capabilities is what I am looking at. Let it be shooter only.

I think it boils down to if you require a main gun or not. If a main gun is required then it goes easily into 20 ton range. If no, then I agree with Pratyush's idea of a under 5 ton beast that is lightly armoured but packs a punch and is highly nimble.

The proposed use for this beast is in a defensive role, to stop precisely the attacks in Ladakh sector that Vivek Ahuja has described. These are air mobile, so should be able to be para dropped or air deployed quickly. They wont stop an advance on their own, but will definitely give added firepower and enough capability to give a bloody nose to any armoured advance.

There is nothing fancy in the above concept. Tata / Mahindra can easily make the base platform. Namica already exists, the issue is of mating the two, providing a good BMS as Singha has said, and producing it cheap in good numbers. I bet that this will come in far cheaper than any "light tank" that IA may import.

manish.rastogi · Post by **manish.rastogi** » 14 Dec 2010 13:48

shiv wrote:
manish.rastogi wrote:can we have a fully electric engine,...!??please say why or why not too!!
Manish you have to look at a few things:

1) Name one electric vehicle that weighs 20 tons (not ~1 ton like a car) that has a range of 300 km on one charge.
Sir there are buses and even planes running on fuel cells.....i don't say the tech is ready.....some more work needs to be done....but my thought seems pretty realistic!!!As the tank would be bigger so would be the fuel cells battery engine etc.....
2) If you use generators to generate fuel cells how long does it take to charge a vehicle? It is at least 2-4 hours. Compare that with the 10 minutes it takes to refuel a diesel vehicle. If you have a station where batteries are changed quickly - one bomb in that station and all your vehicles will be paralyzed.
That seems to be the only disadvantage to me....the time needed to recharge!!I don't have the technical knowledge so i believe somebody could suggest something for it!!!!Also the charging station would be moving....and 4-5 in no for about 20 tanks....with decent protection systems,so it wont be that easy to bomb them!!!Besides the tanks have inbuilt small generators for such an emergency!!!
3) Right now we are carrying fuel up to the 5000 meter heights near Aksai Chin and that fuel is converted directly to energy to move a vehicle. What you are saying demands that we should carry fuel up (for generators) convert it to energy for batteries and then use those batteries - a two step process. Not only does this take more time, it is more inefficient and is a two-step process. Interruption of any one step is enough to cause problems.
I guess i would be willing for that two step process cos an electrical engine would give greater mileage,reliability, less moving parts,less fuel consumption,would reduce the weight of tanks too etc!!!
4) Never forget the word "logistics". Never do anything that makes logistics more difficult and complicated. Always try and reduce the logistics problem by using reliable and known method where you are not introducing experimental techniques that very few people are familiar with. If an unexpected problem occurs in a diesel vehicle - there are 20 lakh Indians who can repair it. If it happens in an electric vehicle you will hardly find anyone who knows what to do. Especially in Aksai Chin. It is so difficult to breath at 5000 meters that a mechanic wil require special high altitude acclimatization to even go there and stay there. Aksai Chin is mostly above 5000 meters.
Sir i guess to get advantages and experience change is needed....if we won't experiment we would never get the first benefit of techniques.....also as i said before the army personnel could easily be given some training for repairing these!!!

Shiv sir

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Dec 2010 13:59

Manish your multicolored post is difficult to read. Please take the time to learn how to use quotes. It's easier than making fuel cells. Even a person like me who does not know how to make fuels cells know how to use the quote function.

I asked you a question and you reply was:

there are buses and even planes running on fuel cells.....i don't say the tech is ready.....some more work needs to be done....but my thought seems pretty realistic!!!As the tank would be bigger so would be the fuel cells battery engine etc...

May I ask the question again? Can you answer this question or not?

Name one electric vehicle that weighs 20 tons (not ~1 ton like a car) that has a range of 300 km on one charge.

If the tech is not ready we are going to be talking about developing technology. Developing technology is research. If you want to build something you can build it in two ways

1) Build it with available technology in a given timeframe
2) Try and develop some new technology first and then try and build it with new technology

If you choose option 2 - how long do you expect the technology to take for developing?
If the technology is delayed for some reason do we have any fall back options?

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 14 Dec 2010 14:18

Ravi sir, the squadron proposed, is for recce in force just as Singha sir said.

Please note that in the moutains and hills, this force would be able to move into places which is really difficult for tanks and heavy vehicles to go. Please note that the 30 infantry is not for attack, but for defensive screen around the force. This is what I envisage, this formation moves ahead, but the point if mainly taken by the infantry, stay behind ridge lines, do recon, and in case you see small formations ahead, beat it, is you see Chinese tanks rolling down the valley, inform the ATGM teams which are 100-200 ms behind you, they rain hell, from hidden behind the hills/ridges. They are not supposed to go and fight with enemy tanks. after raining hell for some time, just get the hell out of there. Now lets say four such teams are doing recce in a area. One detects enemy tanks, rains hell, gets the hell out of there, informs the other, which is perhaps a mile to the left, that fellow sneeks in and rains hell from another direction.

These are recon and skirmish troops. They are the front, delay enemy till actual force arrives and then leave the fighting to the big boys. And since they are the front, they need a few stingers to help them in case of air attack. Also integrated nishant or small UAV means that they do not need to depend on anyone else for providing recon of immediate surrounding, cause that UAV feed may come too late.

Please not that there are two ways to fight heavy cavalry, meet force with force, just as the europeans did in middle ages with there heavy cavalry, or use smaller faster nimble forces and harrass heavy cavalry, thats what the saracens did during the holy wars.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Dec 2010 14:21

and of all places on mother earth, tibet is one place where light LRDG groups have miles and miles of places to disappear into. there is no way in hell in such a depopulated wasteland anyone can cover every sq km of space and keep an eye on things.

manish.rastogi · Post by **manish.rastogi** » 14 Dec 2010 14:38

I am sorry....i would be careful next time with the quoting!!!

for your question i honestly don't know any names.....i have just seen on internet that there are buses and planes etc already in use with this current tech!!
Now i am not sure whether the technology is ready or not as i don't know the current status and the sophistication of this tech......
If its ready then all good......if not i seriously think that we should build upon the available technology!!
My guess would be that with decent budget it is achievable in a 5 -6 year time frame!!or else 3-4 if we do it in partnership with some european or american firm which are pretty ahead in this tech from us!!!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Dec 2010 15:01

electric vehicles are a non starter unless they can come back to camp/secure firebase everyday to recharge from generators/grid. they do provide some advantage in lower noise signature, very low IIR signature, smoother acceleration and low vibration, ability for topping up via solar panels....in future one would expect stealthy unmanned scoutfox vehicles looking like Lunar rovers to use it maybe...a bunch of these rats would be released out of a sack and will move forward and crawl into cracks and holes in the woodwork, sitting passively but springing into action on detecting programmed activity and reporting back to mother goose.

for routine predictable peacetime tasks like patrolling the DMZ in south korea it might be an option but not in a shooting war.

manish.rastogi · Post by **manish.rastogi** » 14 Dec 2010 15:05

Singha wrote:electric vehicles are a non starter unless they can come back to camp/secure firebase everyday to recharge from generators/grid. they do provide some advantage in lower noise signature, very low IIR signature, smoother acceleration and low vibration, ability for topping up via solar panels....in future one would expect stealthy unmanned scoutfox vehicles looking like Lunar rovers to use it maybe...a bunch of these rats would be released out of a sack and will move forward and crawl into cracks and holes in the woodwork, sitting passively but springing into action on detecting programmed activity and reporting back to mother goose.

for routine predictable peacetime tasks like patrolling the DMZ in south korea it might be an option but not in a shooting war.

Sir please read my all posts on how i would wish to use it....

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 14 Dec 2010 15:11

Singha sir, what Manish is driving at is having a bank of batteries to run silent and stealthy. Am I right Manish? At current tech levels means, the biggest drawback is recharge time i guess Manish.
Maybe having a hybrid like a submarine may do the trick. Main engine is diesel or better still a small GT ( they are smaller and charging a battery, which means constant load of the GT, which they are most efficient running on), which is essentially a generator. Charges batteries, which run motors, each wheel having its own motor, thus providing all wheel drive and redundancy in case of motor failure.

manish.rastogi · Post by **manish.rastogi** » 14 Dec 2010 15:18

bmallick wrote:Singha sir, what Manish is driving at is having a bank of batteries to run silent and stealthy. Am I right Manish? At current tech levels means, the biggest drawback is recharge time i guess Manish.
Maybe having a hybrid like a submarine may do the trick. Main engine is diesel or better still a small GT ( they are smaller and charging a battery, which means constant load of the GT, which they are most efficient running on), which is essentially a generator. Charges batteries, which run motors, each wheel having its own motor, thus providing all wheel drive and redundancy in case of motor failure.

Sir you are right but i don't want to have a hybrid as lot many advantages would be lost that is the massive weight that was to be reduced with just about some 100l or so to carry for the inbuilt generators!!!Then mileage....and then less complication than a hybrid and high reliability!!!

Even i agree that charging time seems to be the problem.....but i guess something could be done for it....any one knowledgeable bout this could suggest something for it!!!

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 14 Dec 2010 15:24

Manish,

The state of battery tech today makes it improbabale that the concept envisiged by you can see the light of day any time soon. However, I suggest that you read up on tea kettel nuke reactors anog with new generations of design from Westinghouse & Toshiba. I am sure subsequent to that you will come up with the necessary modifications to your concept and vehicle.

Happy reading.....

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 14 Dec 2010 15:38

Pratyush wrote:Manish,
However, I suggest that you read up on tea kettel nuke reactors anog with new generations of design from Westinghouse & Toshiba. I am sure subsequent to that you will come up with the necessary modifications to your concept and vehicle.

Pratyush sir, with all due respect, a tea kettle nuke reactor in a armoured vehicle, might be a bit overkill

. But if we do that the people in the land of the pure would sure shit around a lot and make the land impure....hehehe

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 14 Dec 2010 15:50

Use your imagination........

Think what's possible........

More importantly how it can be accomplished.......

It just one of the approaches that can be looked at...........

At the concept stage nothing ought to be off the table..............

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Dec 2010 15:52

troops on extended patrol in afghanistan are having trouble carrying enough batteries to power their NVG , radios and rugged laptops. the energy storage of batteries doesnt look so hot at this point. but Fujitsu was experimenting with a fuel cell battery for laptops...maybe you can read up on that see if anything promising via fuel cells.

manish.rastogi · Post by **manish.rastogi** » 14 Dec 2010 16:04

Pratyush Sir.....even i think that nuclear reactor would be too much.....the amount of miniaturization needed would be massive!!!But i would surely try to read them!!

Bmallick Sir.....if that happens even khans would also start shitting around!!!!haha....

Singha Sir.....i would like to read it soon sir!!But i don't really think energy storage would be a problem....even 70% efficiency is achieved(the rest being heat) in fuel cells!!!And i am surely looking towards fuel cells and lithium ion batteries!!!
A soldier would hardly carry 1-2 kg of battery!!But a tank could easily carry 200-300 kgs.....so capacity of batteries surely needs to be improved but i don't think its really that big a problem!!!

I am planning to present a radically new tank.....its a random thought i don't have much to back it with!!But i have tried to keep its weight between 35-40t and yes t has quite good armor and self protection capabilities.....would present it soon!!!!