Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Ashutosh
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 04 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Ashutosh » 11 Jul 2002 22:40

Originally posted by livingzodiac:
The suspension being the best part of the tank no doubt.
I remember that the first prototypes had hydro-pneumatic suspension, and the army complained about it for some reason. (I guess it was about firing on the move). Then 2 models were built/converted to use torsion-bar suspension. Any news on which is the preferred one for the production grade Arjun?

Vinay J
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 10
Joined: 06 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Vinay J » 11 Jul 2002 22:50

Originally posted by harryvandeusan:
i think it was an F-16 which destroyed 23 T-72's better check up.In dug in position there was no way they could have been destroyed.But main thing is armour.And better thermal imagers which T-72 did not have.
Harry another problem that handicapped the Iraqi T-72s was that their air force did not fight!!! I don't think that the Indian Airforce suffers from that problem. So TSPs F-16s will not be able to destroy T-72s unchallenged. In fact in 1971 the reverse happened when 4 of IAFs hunters destroyed 100 (??) TSP Patton Tanks in the Rajasthan desert!!!

I remember reading a comment by an Israeli General in India Today (????) in the 80s on the T-72: (he said something like.. not actual quote) "In our experience the T-72 has been a bad performer but in Indian hands it is an entirely different weapon"

Harry Van
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 73
Joined: 14 Jun 2002 11:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Harry Van » 11 Jul 2002 22:54

In one post you say the Abrams destroyed the T-72s, and in the other you say F-16s.

I mean both happened.Dug in T-72's were taken out from the air , and the ones on the move were destroyed by the M1A1.

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Vick » 11 Jul 2002 23:49

A recent Defense News article says that about $1 billion was diverted around late 90's from the T-72 upgrade program to the Arjun program. What was the primary use of this money in the Arjun program? FCS fine tuning? Infrastructure development at Avadi? Getting the final set of glitches out?

Also, the same article (which I will be emailing you nitin within a couple of days) mentions that the 124 Arjuns ordered by the IA last year will be completed by 2004. Is that correct? I thought that is when the production will be starting.

Added later: The diversion of a significant sum of money ($1 billion) from the T-72 upg program to the Arjun program shows that the future of the IA is the Arjun and the IA has come to grips with it, reluctantly. The biggest question in my mind is: Is the serial production of the 124 Arjun Mk1 going on as we speak?

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Rangudu » 12 Jul 2002 00:32

Cross posted with IA news.

India might buy 300 additional T-90s

Rudra
BRFite
Posts: 599
Joined: 28 May 2001 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Rudra » 12 Jul 2002 00:51

just a I had expected. we shall have minimum of
600 t90s at end of day. I wish I were a marble
dealer at Chattarpur or Mehrauli.

There is no sign of arjun production starting
coz we have to import more T90 kits to face the
al-khalids!

long live indigenisation.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby JCage » 12 Jul 2002 02:07

Vick,
Thanks!If 109(15 or so LSP were to be done for trials) by 2004 that is indeed significant.If so,it confirms the data that ARjun has indeed cleared the agni pariksha and MK1 is cleared instead of more dithering for wartsila etc.
If a commitment is made then we may yet have a MK2(after above) with APU,advanced armor(ERA was the original desire for Mk2 even tho it was ready by 99..but tandem warheads may have affected ERA plans)etctec.

One billion sounds way too high.Whats surprising is that even retd Army folks who write articles in media (Mehta et al) havent mentioned anything of the sort.So i am inclined to take the figure with a lump of salt.But it may be true that some money may have been diverted.

Also defensenews is more reliable than Dorkus Janus ie Rahul Bedi who gives more seminars on defence PSU's etc and rehashes CAG reports.

Rudra,
The defensenews report Vick is talking about may hold some clues.Janes has also finally accepted that Arjun production has commenced but not much more.In fact our efforts on BR are more comprehensive than Janes!(rehashing of CAG et al indicates that Bedi has ****ed off people and they aint telling him anything).So defense news may hold clues to our questions.Perhaps the IA does listen to Rudra and they are ready to accept both T90 and ARjun.Dekhte hain.
__________________________

Also BR drive is working.Latest JoMo(journal of Military Ordnance) has an article on Tank ex that is(horror of horrors :p ) not negative but cautiously optimistic.

It notes that Tank ex may have Arjun FCS etc and other details.....which are derived from three sources.The details made me blink with deja vu' and then i see...including one Asian age report.The Asian age bugger ripped off yours truly's article on Tank -ex from BRM. :roll:

However,the saving grace-is that in a circular way-the non stop panning of Indian R and D efforts has received a minor dent.
Bloody hell,but the process is slow.

Ashutosh,
Present Arjun has hydropneumatic suspension.Indian.

Regards,
Nitin

Nandan D
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 45
Joined: 19 Jul 2001 11:31
Location: Austin, Tx

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Nandan D » 12 Jul 2002 02:14

Sorry if this has been covered before...
But the Arjun a lot of respects is very similar to teh Leapord 2 . Especially the turret...
Any reason for that ?

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby JCage » 12 Jul 2002 02:21

Originally posted by nandan:
Sorry if this has been covered before...
But the Arjun a lot of respects is very similar to teh Leapord 2 . Especially the turret...
Any reason for that ?
Kraus Maffie Wegman were consultants to DRDO in the early days.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Surya » 12 Jul 2002 02:32

Nick what is the link to JoMO

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Rangudu » 12 Jul 2002 02:47

Also BR drive is working.Latest JoMo(journal of Military Ordnance) has an article on Tank ex that is(horror of horrors ) not negative but cautiously optimistic
I have scanned the JoMO article on Tank Ex that was on their March 2002 issue. (2 JPEGs )

If anyone is interested, pls email me at rangudu@fastmail.fm

P Chupunkar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 30
Joined: 24 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby P Chupunkar » 12 Jul 2002 03:11

If arjun is finally into production, how come the MoD/DRDO has not released a photoop of a new tank rolling out of the assembly. After all this is a big win for the DRDO.
In any case if this news is true, its great news for the DRDO and the army. I do believe that arjun (in numbers of around 500-1000) will present a significant deterrent to any tank fielded by the pakistani armed force.
Hopefully Karan will get past the testing hurdles pretty soon and be in production.

BTW here are some official government links whjch talk about Arjun being in production since late 2001.

Arjun production begin: Jaswant Singh

Conference of General Managers - Fernandes Arjun production taking up in 2002 (Dec 2001)

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby JCage » 12 Jul 2002 03:39

Originally posted by P Chupunkar:
If arjun is finally into production, how come the MoD/DRDO has not released a photoop of a new tank rolling out of the assembly. .
A humble question...are you in India?If not,pls understand..we are like this only.Every dignitary..ie Prime Minister of Tutuland and the Regency(HH) of Dinggobbledegookwa will be given escorted tours of the HVF or Big Missile factory ( :p ) to be occupied by Miss Gulabo's spherical possessions.And how Laloo's dulare saalen are eating laddu's.

If you didnt think or know the above,saar..you are not an indian.Tsk tsk. :eek:

Regards,
Nitin

Muns
BRFite
Posts: 294
Joined: 02 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Muns » 12 Jul 2002 04:10

So our future tank army MIGHT look like something like this :

600 T-90's(with the speculated 300 aditional)

200 T-72 Rhino's with upgraded polish FCS

1800 T-72's upgraded to Karna standard....(when we say the production line exists...im assuming that this is not to produce more T-72's but to upgrade the existing T-72's to Karna standard)

124 Arjuns MK1(Of which im still not sure how many might be diverted to Bhim and if this is the version that passed the 2000 trials)

500 Arjuns MK2( NO reports as such...but speculation as to how many will be produced)

~1000 Retirement of all T-55 and Vijayanta MBT's

leading us to a grand total of ~3250 tanks.

However with the Karna upgrade that'll mean ~2450 Arjun 120mm rifled guns will have to be produced and with the same number of dutch FCS's. Possibly License manufacture?
License production or imports of ~650 trannys for Arjuns.

Maybe if the T72 production does start up producing more Karna's to keep us with our present total of approx 4000 tanks giving us enough fire power to scale down the himalyas if we wish.....
Timeline for all this....2015 when army makes request for MK3 to have turbo boost function (from Knight Rider) to jump over over various small hills and be able to forde to Andaman and Nicobar islands for amphibious assaults.....

Does this mean that we have some inclination as to whether the german 1400 MTU engine is still being provided for these 124 Arjuns? There was some talk before that it might be too expensive....

P Chupunkar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 30
Joined: 24 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby P Chupunkar » 12 Jul 2002 04:18

Here is a good site that provides decent information about the russian tanks. It talks about a new tank designated T-95 which is near production.
new russian tank

It also mentions that a newer variant of t-90 has been fielded by the russians which has welded turrets. The Indian variant has the original cast turrets but with an 1000 hp engine and advanced thermals.

davidn
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 82
Joined: 30 Jan 2001 12:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby davidn » 12 Jul 2002 04:22

Originally posted by Praneet_N:
Timeline for all this....2015 when army makes request for MK3 to have turbo boost function (from Knight Rider) to jump over over various small hills and be able to forde to Andaman and Nicobar islands for amphibious assaults.....

Mk4 will have the tanks driving themselves with a really cool dashboard, and a mass desertion of IA tank drivers who feel really stupid when faced by the tanks 'really really smart sounding' conversation :D :D

Ashutosh
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 04 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Ashutosh » 12 Jul 2002 04:25

Originally posted by Praneet_N:
124 Arjuns MK1(Of which im still not sure how many might be diverted to Bhim and if this is the version that passed the 2000 trials)

License production or imports of ~650 trannys for Arjuns.

Does this mean that we have some inclination as to whether the german 1400 MTU engine is still being provided for these 124 Arjuns? There was some talk before that it might be too expensive....
Might as well add, let's say another 1500 or so more engines for 500 or so Bhim/LIW-T6 SP pieces.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby JCage » 12 Jul 2002 04:31

Originally posted by P Chupunkar:
Here is a good site that provides decent information about the russian tanks. It talks about a new tank designated T-95 which is near production.
new russian tank

It also mentions that a newer variant of t-90 has been fielded by the russians which has welded turrets. The Indian variant has the original cast turrets but with an 1000 hp engine and advanced thermals.
The T95 is still under wraps.Even Vasiliy Fofanov,the tanknet doyen on all things russki and the site owner says its unclear for now.
Russians dont have enough money to fund the T95 to its conclusion...right now..will take a few years.As our 780 million dollahs get to work. :roll:

It also mentions that a newer variant of t-90 has been fielded by the russians which has welded turrets. The Indian variant has the original cast turrets but with an 1000 hp engine and advanced thermals
We should have acquired the Vladimir ourselves.Greater protection at any rate.

BTW,Vasiliy's excellent site.Main page.Enzoi!

http://armor.vif2.ru
____________________________________________

REALITY CHECK!!!

Dont mean to sound like a wet blanket..but the Mk2 is by no means confirmed.Why?

Cost.Weight considerations.(again partialy tied to cost)

It might well be that after 124 Arjuns the Karna carries on the legacy along with the T90.
All in the name of lightweight and cost.

So the hopes of huge numbers may never materialise.But the Karna may march on if the Arjun is struck down at 124.Hope not..but still.

Regards,
Nitin

P Chupunkar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 30
Joined: 24 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby P Chupunkar » 12 Jul 2002 04:46

Nitin
There is very little information on how the russian multi-spectral imagers compare with those of western origin. Is there any info on the above?
Are the russian's moving towards MMW viewers or these still hampered by tech limitations such as range, size etc.
BTW are T-72 (indian variants) thermals integrated with the FCS. If i recollect, these viewers are going to be integrated with the new Polish FCS (for the T-72 upgrade), does that imply that until now these were not integrated.

BTW changes in defense acquisition policy.
Changes in defense acquisition...

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby JCage » 12 Jul 2002 05:14

TI is still a bane for russia.Western ones are more capable.Presently apart from active defense systems-ie the Arena no Tank FCS utilises the MMW system as a primary sensor.It might see the light of the day as and when the T95 comes about.(if!)

T90S uses the Thales Catherine TI.
The FCS is russian..the designations and exact system names,specs etc are there at VFofanov's or Army tech site.

The T72 upg :Past discussions led us to believe that despite Polish claims a french TI might be selected.(that is..has been selected and the company would obviously be in coop with PCO-Cenzin manufacturers of the FCS)
Of course the FCS per se is the Drawa T.

Regards/.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4460
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby putnanja » 12 Jul 2002 05:24

Is T-90S the exclusive version of T-90 for India? Did India go in Isreali/French/Indian electronic package for T-90 or was it the standard Russian configuration that was purchased?

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby JCage » 12 Jul 2002 08:01

T90S is a general tank.Not for -only- India.

Umrao
BRFite
Posts: 547
Joined: 30 May 2001 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Umrao » 12 Jul 2002 08:24

doning the hat of George (Of Mice and Men), If we dont ever expect to cross the LOC, and the only WW II enacting of Battle of the Bulge like situation restricted to Rajasthan sector, do we need to spend time and energy of sleeping OFP giants to make Tanks? be it T-72 MkIIIII or T-90 MKIIII?

Why not just buy some and spend more or Helicopter gunships and Su-24/25 like tank hunter a/c (or better A-10)?

Shirish
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31
Location: India

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Shirish » 12 Jul 2002 11:03

To hold ground

Rudra
BRFite
Posts: 599
Joined: 28 May 2001 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Rudra » 12 Jul 2002 19:09

we must fund our own industry. its madness to
again get into the mode of being dependent on
russia for everything. the ONLY future we control
is ours. lets depend on it.

Div
BRFite
Posts: 327
Joined: 16 Aug 1999 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Div » 12 Jul 2002 20:50


Michael
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 78
Joined: 28 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Michael » 12 Jul 2002 23:33

Originally posted by nitin:
Yes!Do a google for Heavy Industries Taxila.
But I thought the Al-Zarrar upgrade was already well underway for Pakistan's T-59 fleet. Al-Zarrar includes a new FCS with thermal view for both gunner and tank commander. Also, aren't you forgetting that all T-85III and T-80U tanks have stabilized, thermal FCS? That means 600 Pak tanks have modern, fire-on-the-move, TI-equipped FCS while India possess only 100 such tanks (the recently delivered T-90's).

Originally posted by John Umrao:
doning the hat of George (Of Mice and Men), If we dont ever expect to cross the LOC, and the only WW II enacting of Battle of the Bulge like situation restricted to Rajasthan sector, do we need to spend time and energy of sleeping OFP giants to make Tanks? be it T-72 MkIIIII or T-90 MKIIII?

Why not just buy some and spend more or Helicopter gunships and Su-24/25 like tank hunter a/c (or better A-10)?
You make a good point which I'm sure you know I already agree with. I've been saying this for a long time myself. India spends too much money on tanks and AFV's. What the IA & paramilitary forces really need is better equipment & training for the infantry and security forces, not new tanks. Tanks should be a far lower priority compared to COIN and border control operations. Tanks also take a distant second place behind artillery in my opinion. Artillery, MLR's, and battlefield radars (both the ground surveillance and counterbattery types) are far more useful to the IA in real terms than new tanks are.

I also firmly believe that air and naval power should be given funding priority over the armored forces.

It's pretty clear that the only Indian forces that will ever do any actual fighting are the grunts, the artillery, and perhaps the air force and navy (perhaps). Indian tanks will never do anything but parade down the streets on Republic Day or sit parked under a shade tree near the Pak border whenever Delhi engages in an election ploy.

So I'm not too worried about Pakistan's qualitative superiority in tanks. For one thing, India will never start a war no matter what the provocation, and Pakistan won't either since terrorism is already working very well for them. Secondly, even if somehow there were a war, I'm convinced the IA would play a defensive role except in the northern sector where tank operations are severely limited by terrain. In a defensive fight (for example PA thrusts into Gujarat, Punjab, Rajasthan) it doesn't matter if Indian tanks are inferior since the IA will benefit from superior #'s and a home plate advantage, not to mention overwhelming support from arty and IAF.

So as you can see, tanks aren't very important in the Indo-Pak scenario.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby JCage » 13 Jul 2002 00:34

Mike,

The T85-II AP not T85-III has passive night vision eqpt.Please check up on the HIT website.
They are the darn manufacturer's(licence) for the T85 II AP.And they dont quote thermal imaging.
If you have anything else,pls feel free to add it.

They dont have anything called the T85III.
What they do have are the T85 IIAP,T59,T69MP.These being the more modern tanks in their inventory.Add in a few Alkhalids which dont factor in.

And what vintage thermals do the T84's have?
The T90 ones are the Thales catherine.So tell us which ones are on the T84?At any rate not superior/newer to the Catherine.Till the Khalid builds up numbers,the T84(T80UD Ukrainian version with welded turret) remains the sole tank with TI.This unless you have a cconfirmed source which points to the T85II AP having thermals and we can accept the same as *done*.

BTW,Al Zarrar even by Pak accounts is yet to take off(basically waiting for Norinco to complete development and ample supplies of green paint to arrive after that).The only orders in recent times has been for engines for the AlKhalid project.
285 1200 hp engine + transmission systems from the Malyshev plant.These to be delivered over 3 years from June 9 2002(date of announcement).

The IA tank fleet does need to be bolstered.When the balloons up,the IAF will have enough on its hands.You need a strike force which makes Mushy think thrice.Tanks are offensive weapons.
And as Shirish says,they have other uses too.

Regards/.

Abhaey
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 54
Joined: 02 Dec 2001 12:31
Location: Dubai/Mumbai
Contact:

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Abhaey » 13 Jul 2002 00:47

Originally posted by P Chupunkar:
Nitin
There is very little information on how the russian multi-spectral imagers compare with those of western origin. Is there any info on the above?
Are the russian's moving towards MMW viewers or these still hampered by tech limitations such as range, size etc.
BTW are T-72 (indian variants) thermals integrated with the FCS. If i recollect, these viewers are going to be integrated with the new Polish FCS (for the T-72 upgrade), does that imply that until now these were not integrated.

BTW changes in defense acquisition policy.
Changes in defense acquisition...
I don't know about the rest, but the thermal imagers on the T90s destined for India are subcontracted from Thales @ circa £150,000 per system per tank. It's arguably the best thermal imaging system in the world.

Ashutosh
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 04 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Ashutosh » 13 Jul 2002 00:49

Originally posted by Mike:
1) That means 600 Pak tanks have modern, fire-on-the-move, TI-equipped FCS while India possess only 100 such tanks (the recently delivered T-90's).

2) You make a good point which I'm sure you know I already agree with. I've been saying this for a long time myself. India spends too much money on tanks and AFV's. What the IA & paramilitary forces really need is better equipment & training for the infantry and security forces, not new tanks.

So as you can see, tanks aren't very important in the Indo-Pak scenario.
Mike, the above two points are sorta contradictory, aren't they?

Rudra
BRFite
Posts: 599
Joined: 28 May 2001 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Rudra » 13 Jul 2002 00:53

tanks firing HE shells are useful as SP arty
until some real SP arty comes along. Nothing in
the book which says a Pak post _has_ to be targeted with a fh77 or 130mm.

I am sure the old inventory of T55s and Viyanatas
is a good drain on funds all down the line.
manpower, repair crews, ARVs sucked up, ammo &
spares factory.....

I think we can manage with a 1500 force of really
moderized or modern tanks if the requisite beefing
up of WLR, SP,towed and IAF is done->this is
bound to happen soon enough.

600 - t90s
300 - arjun mk1 (125 mk1,40 refursbished prototypes, leaves room for about 120 mk2s with
welded leo2A5ish wedge shaped turret and wartsila
engine. later on the 200 older ones can be MLUed
to new turret, wartsila engine and perhaps new
sensors). these should be the "hammer force".
600 - karna!

I just glued together a hessel leo2A5 1:72 kit
and the parts for that famous wedge dont look
that complex or hot-s*** to me. the kit even
provided a A4 turret which I missed looking or
else could have had a arjun on my shelf :D .

an idea I have is that presently tanks do not
have any IFF system that a radar mounted on a
helo, plane or UAV can interrogate (atleast in
IA service) so we cannot really blind-fire
fire-n-forget IR/MMW ATGMS when tanks of both
sides are milling around. How about a helicopter
UAV that goes with each tank platoon..it has a
ground mapping radar that can pick up vehicles..
those that IFF says friendly can be sorted...it
hovers a few kilometers behind the lead echelon
and this terrain map with friendly and hostiles
marked in blue and red with some contour info
is wirelessly broadcast to all tanks ahead. its
like a radar display on a/c just that radar is
elsewhere. so every tank commander could have a
total picture of where his buddies and the enemy
is and will permit very advantageous engagements
with superior SA. is anyone doing it or thinking
about it ?

updated later:
GIAT has the FINDERS system on leclerc.
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/data_management/giat/
its based on winNT.

we gotta have something similar. this will help
keep lower inventory, similar to awacs as force
multiplier.

Ashutosh
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 04 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Ashutosh » 13 Jul 2002 00:59

Originally posted by Rangudu:
I have scanned the JoMO article on Tank Ex that was on their March 2002 issue. (2 JPEGs )

If anyone is interested, pls email me at rangudu@fastmail.fm
Guys, I might be wrong, but to my bare-naked eye, the turrent on the Tank-EX has a sloping frontal face, as against the upright one on the Arjun ....

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4460
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby putnanja » 13 Jul 2002 02:29

Originally posted by Abhaey:
I don't know about the rest, but the thermal imagers on the T90s destined for India are subcontracted from Thales @ circa £150,000 per system per tank. It's arguably the best thermal imaging system in the world.
Most of the sites show the TI on T-90S as TO1-KO1 thermal imaging sight . From the army-technology site T 90S MAIN BATTLE TANK, RUSSIA
The IFCS contains the gunner's 1A43 day fire control system, gunner's TO1-KO1 thermal imaging sight which has a target identification range of 1.2 km to 1.5 km and commander's PNK-S sight.
Can you please post the source which says that T-90 for India has Thales TI? I don't doubt your post, but I tried google-ing for it and the only site which showed that info turned out to be BR!!!

kamdev
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 13
Joined: 06 Jun 2002 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby kamdev » 13 Jul 2002 05:16

Ravikumar:

on your question about thales, you can send a question to the same company here>>>>>>http://www.thales-electrondevices.com/html-gb/Info/request.htm

Michael
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 78
Joined: 28 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Michael » 13 Jul 2002 05:53

Originally posted by nitin:
Mike,

The T85-II AP not T85-III has passive night vision eqpt.Please check up on the HIT website.
They are the darn manufacturer's(licence) for the T85 II AP.And they dont quote thermal imaging.
If you have anything else,pls feel free to add it.
On the Pakmilitary site it says of the T-85II: "commander and gunner have roof-mounted stabilised (in two planes) day/image intensification (second-generation) night sights and the computerised fire-control system allows stationary or moving targets to be engaged with a high first round hit probability when the vehicle is moving"

Second gen night sights? That sounds like IR to me. But now I suspect this is fluff and that in fact you are correct, because on FAS, on the specs for the T-85IIM (the one Pak has), it says the tank has an IR searchlight. Now, I can tell you from experience that the only reason you'd have IR searchlight is if you're using night vision (light enhancing, not thermal).

To overcome the inadequacy of night vision image intensifiers, a solution the Russians came up with was to equip their tanks with IR searchlights, which, though invisible to the naked eye, light up everything quite well when viewed through night vision goggles. Trouble is, it works both ways. When you turn on that IR searchlight, EVERYBODY can see you. Especially in today's battlefield where even NVG's are widespread even down to individual infantry squads. The use of IR searchlights might have been acceptable back in the 70's but it's suicide today.

The US's more elegant solution was to develop better passive night vision devices or equip vehicles with thermal sights instead. We don't use IR searchlights on any tanks, IFV's, or helos. Our head-mounted NVG's (that the infantry use) do have a low-power IR emitter to augment the passive image intensification, but in the field you are NEVER to switch it on unless safely buttoned up in a vehicle or tent.

So if the T-85IIM (or T-85III as it is sometimes called) uses an IR searchlight, then it definitely does NOT have thermal sights. Quite simply, thermal equipped units do not need IR searchlights nor would they ever want to use them.

Note that none of the modern Western tanks nor the T-90/80 have IR searchlights. They don't need them or want them because they use superior passive IR sights.

BTW,Al Zarrar even by Pak accounts is yet to take off(basically waiting for Norinco to complete development and ample supplies of green paint to arrive after that).
This I did not know. According to Pak military the project has been underway for some time. More fluff I guess.

Rudra
BRFite
Posts: 599
Joined: 28 May 2001 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Rudra » 13 Jul 2002 06:52

is the IR searchlight a glorified version of
the "nightshot mode" available in many Camcorders
these days ? pic comes out dark and green.

Ananth
BRFite
Posts: 346
Joined: 16 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Ananth » 13 Jul 2002 10:42

Being a novice, and since i wanted to know more about Journal of Military Ordinance, I did a google on it. While going over the search results i found this page of defencejournal about the induction of Al Khalid.

Some quotes from that page:

July 20th 2001 was an important and significant day in the history of Pakistan?s defence
effort when the first batch of 15 Al-Khalid main battle tanks after lengthy factory and
user trials were handed over to the Pakistan Army at a simple and dignified ceremony at
Taxila. The tanks were issued to the 31st Cavalry Regiment of Pakistan?s Armoured
Corps.
This is Paki description of the tank.

It has a combat weight of 46 tons and carries a crew of three. Fitted with a 1200 HP
water-cooled diesel engine, which gives it a maximum speed of 65 to 70 km an hour with
acceleration from 0-32km in 10 seconds. It has a 125mm smooth bore main gun equipped
with a dynamic muzzle reference system and supported by a 7.62mm co-axial machine
gun and a 12.7mm remote firing anti-aircraft gun. The power to weight ratio is 26
horsepower per ton, enhancing the tank?s agility. Al-Khalid?s combat range is 400
kilometres which expands its operational range with minimum logistic support. The
thermal night vision devices enable the tank crew to fight at night as well.
Review of journal of military Ordinance:

Foreign military journals of repute have given Al-Khalid tank good reviews. Journal of
Military Ordinance in its March 2001 issue writes. ?One of the highlights of the show was
the Al-Khalid main battle tank that is the result of co-operation between Pakistan and
China. Fairly lightweight by Western standards at 46-tons, the Al-Khalid carries a
125mm smoothbore main gun of Chinese design. The fire control system for the main
gun includes an image-stabilised dual magnification gunner?s sight, a panoramic
commander?s sight, and a thermal imager. The fire control system also employs an
autotracker. The vehicle carries 7.62mm co-axial and 12.7 anti-aircraft machine guns.
Additionally, it is equipped with grenade launchers on each side of the turret that carry
twelve smoke and four high explosive grenades.?

The journal goes on to say, ?The Al-Khalid is powered by the 1,200 horsepower Ukrainian
6TDF diesel engine that generates 26-horsepower per ton. This allows the tank to reach a
maximum speed of over sixty-five kilometers per hour and to accelerate from 0-32
kilometers per hour in less than ten seconds. The Al-Khalid has a maximum cruising
range of 400 kilometers. Six prototypes of the Al-Khalid have been tested over the last
ten years. From these six prototypes, four basic configurations have emerged.?
Review by Jane:
Jane?s Armour and Artillery journal edited by Christopher F. Foss describes the
Al-Khalid tank as follows: ?Layout of the tank is conventional, with the driver?s
compartment in the front, turret in the centre and the power pack at the rear. The turret
and hull are of all-welded steel armour construction and an additional layer of composite
armour has been added over the frontal arc, to which explosive reactive armour can be
added if required. Turret thickness at the front is estimated to be 600mm with the
glacis/nose estimated to be 450 to 470mm. The armour is of modular design enabling the
user to change the damaged modules or replace the existing models with new armour
packages as the threat evolves or as new technology becomes available.?

Jane?s goes on to say. ?Main armament is a 125mm smoothbore gun fitted with a thermal
sleeve and a fume extractor. This can fire APFSDS (muzzle velocity 1,760 m/s), HEAT
(muzzle velocity 850m/s) and HE-FRAG (muzzle velocity 950 m/s). It can also fire a
laser guided projectile fitted with a HEAT warhead. The gun is fed by an automatic loader
enabling the crew to be reduced to three - commander, gunner and driver.?

?The computerised fire-control system includes a bi-axis stabilised dual magnification
gunners sight, bi-axis stabilised commanders sight with hunter killer capability, computer,
commander?s control panel, laser range-finder, crosswind sensor, tilt sensor and angle
velocity sensor. This allows the Al-Khalid tank to engage moving targets under day and
night conditions. The complete power pack, which consists of the engine, transmission
and cooling system, can be removed from the vehicle in 30 minutes to facilitate field
replacement.
Read this review from Hindustan Times. I tried googling a lot but it seems HT doesnt keep the archievs. One thing to note is that it is an old artical. But the author claims that Al-Khalid meets Indian army's GSQR. Hows that? Who the hell wrote this crap? And which GSQR? Arjun is totally in a different class(in terms of weight).

he Hindustan Times newspaper of August 13 had this to say: ?Let me begin with the
Al-Khalid tank. Even a cursory look at its capabilities shows that it is an armoured corps
commander?s dream. In its offensive capabilities and speed on level ground, it meets
every requirement that the Indian army?s most up-to-date GSQR (General Staff Quality
Requirement) for India?s MBT (Main Battle Tank) project more than a decade ago (16
years). More important, it has a fire control system that enables it to acquire and shoot at
targets while moving at high speeds over rough terrain. This is something that India?s
mainstay, the T-72 tanks cannot do (some are being upgraded to have this capability). The
fact that all this capability has been packed in a tank with only a 1200 HP engine, means
that it has an overall weight of 40 tonnes or thereabout against the Arjun?s 55 tons
(Indian tank under development for the past 16 years). This will give it a lower profile
than the typical MBT and make it harder to hit
-Ananth

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 588
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Shalav » 13 Jul 2002 12:54

Originally posted by Rudra Singha:
is the IR searchlight a glorified version of
the "nightshot mode" available in many Camcorders
these days ? pic comes out dark and green.
IMO no. Nightshot works on the principle of slower frame rate on the camcorder to gather more light - at least on mine it does, maybe different on yours, I think the sony ones have that capability!

An IR searchlight as the name implies throws out light in the IR band of the spectrum, which makes it easier for NVG to operate. Analogous to using a searchlight for the mk 1 eyeball I suppose. Can somebody confirm this?

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 588
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Shalav » 13 Jul 2002 13:04

Originally posted by ananth_dev:
..., it meets every requirement that the Indian army?s most up-to-date GSQR (General Staff Quality
Requirement) for India?s MBT (Main Battle Tank) project more than a decade ago (16
years)....
Having written a lot of reports for management, and depending on the point of view to be conveyed one can use references to support or dismiss a position, simply based on the construction of ones sentence.

Re-reading the DDM reporters sentence one can also conclude the "al-khali" meets meets the requirements of the IA's GSQR submitted 16 years ago!!! :D

If It had been me I would have written

"The 'al-khali' is a dream tank of the PA. It meets every requirement the IA asked for 16 years ago; before upgrading the GSQR and asking for a better tank from the DRDO. So while the PA may have a tank which the IA had the foresight to ask for 16 years ago, the IA has moved on to better things and asks for a better and more capable tank for the battlefield of the future"

But I suppose the dork was too lazy to research any defence issues, and dissing the IA and the DRDO was easier for him/her than actually get off his/her butt and do some work for a change!!!

P Chupunkar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 30
Joined: 24 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby P Chupunkar » 13 Jul 2002 13:50

A side question. Whatever happened to the 1400 Hp indigenous engine ? Is it being uprated to the 1500 Hp requirement or is the development dead ?


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest