Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Misraji
BRFite
Posts: 401
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Misraji » 02 May 2010 00:35

Austin wrote:HVF and the 60% component imported from Western Countries could benefit as well.

I gather this was a veiled attack on Arjun.
Sigh. Half-baked knowledge as usual.

Link.
The DRDO is of the firm opinion that the Army’s complaint of Arjun failing crucial trials does not reflect the ground reality. According to it, the failure occurred during extended trials. “Normally, a tank is supposed to operate for 3,000-kms before it goes for overhaul. The Army forced Arjun to do another 2,000-km and the reported failure happened after the tank went on for over 4000-kms trial. Nothing will progress if the Army keeps shifting its goal posts. Why don’t they do a comparative trial between Arjun-T-90 against a laid down set of parameters”, is the DRDO’s argument.
All said and done, Arjun is not a 100 per cent Indian product. Over half of the components in the first batch of 124 tanks are imported. However, DRDO points out that imported content in the tank will eventually be reduced in a phased manner. The goal is to reduce the imported component to less than 30 per cent after 500 tanks are produced.


Only if that 60% imported content was Russian in nature, we would have seen praises of
how Arjun was best thing next to sliced bread.

So, we expect that right from prototypes itself, everything should be indigenous.
Ala LCA where we have criticism of engine development not having been decoupled from the airframe development.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't, eh??

~Ashish.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 02 May 2010 02:08

Its amazing how far Rodina lovers can go

once tin crapola lay exposed they shifted to GOI\MOD as culprits

Then they discovered virtues of commonality in a certain direction

where will they go next :)

now another veiled attack on the Arjun

never mind the T 90 is fully imported.

and we thought Shankarosky was alone

Misraji
BRFite
Posts: 401
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Misraji » 02 May 2010 02:37

Surya wrote:Its amazing how far Rodina lovers can go
once tin crapola lay exposed they shifted to GOI\MOD as culprits
Then they discovered virtues of commonality in a certain direction
where will they go next :)
...

Dont worry, Surya Saar.
We will see that soon enough.

There are very specific ways of responding to the thorny issues called facts.
1. Don't respond. The post will fade away. Few pages later raise the same question again. And then round we go.
2. The article/blog is suspect. Vested interest.
3. There is no GOI document that says so.

Then some other newbie will raise some other point.
Pounce on that opportunity to deflect attention from the issue.

~Ashish.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19862
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 02 May 2010 02:55

The Arjun's import content is around 60% by cost and 40% by part contribution.

The local content is the other way around, 60 % by contribution(reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnpbEEzP9hw) and 40% by cost. I also suspect, the Indian contribution in terms of design, integration, and testing is not taken into account, whereupon the cost contribution of the Indian side would rise substantially.

India's procurement professionals usually use by cost as an easy metric to judge contribution. For instance, the DPP-2008 relies on cost estimations.

The Arjun's major imported parts are Gunners sight, Gun control, engine and transmission, tracks. Each of these items is available for license manufacture, provided India finds it economically feasible (production run of 500 tanks). There is nothing preventing India from replacing these systems with items of its own design either, since it owns the Arjun design and can incorporate whatever it wants. Compare to: http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/02/ ... ators.html

At any rate, it is far superior to the T-90 which is almost cent per cent, imported, operationally inferior in several respects and on top of it comes with significant problems in terms of transfer of technology.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7009
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Anujan » 02 May 2010 03:08

Dont ignore the most indigenous aspect of the Arjun.

Its design.

It is designed according to Indian requirements, to fit Indian operational scenarios and Indian conditions.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19862
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 02 May 2010 03:39

Absolutely, hence I wrote:

"I also suspect, the Indian contribution in terms of design, integration, and testing is not taken into account, whereupon the cost contribution of the Indian side would rise substantially."

It is near farce how the T-90 is not judged similarly.

BTW, for all the claims of T-90 superiority, whatever Burlak or whatever, here is what my Russian friend has replied to answer my questions:

"Can you specify if there are new systems such as

1. New autoloader in turret for longer anti tank projectile ammunition?

No, there is not

"2. New firecontrol or electronic systems

Yes, is possible - the SOSNA-U

3. Any other changes for improving the protection of the tank?

Relikt and Nakidka"

Relikt is apparently a new ERA package, and Nakidka is some sort of thermal/RF protective covering (fabric).

So there is no confirmation whatsoever, that the so called T-90 improvement actually has any turret mounted autoloader or any other substantial redesign..

Misraji
BRFite
Posts: 401
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Misraji » 02 May 2010 10:37

Mrinal wrote:...

"Can you specify if there are new systems such as
1. New autoloader in turret for longer anti tank projectile ammunition?
No, there is not
...
So there is no confirmation whatsoever, that the so called T-90 improvement actually has any turret mounted autoloader or any other substantial redesign..


Mrinal Saar, that is even better than expected.
See, SINCE autoloader is NOT being updated, ammunition will BE COMPATIBLE with existing T-90s.
THEREFORE, we must buy T-90M.

:mrgreen:

~Ashish.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21166
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 02 May 2010 11:21

As I mentioned in an earlier post,the IDR-Janes March 2010 issue, quoted Gen.Deepak Kapoor extensively on the inability of Indian tanks to fight at night,when Chinese (100%) and Paki (89%) tanks could.Other than the T-90s,the 1800 T-72M1s could not,which were to be upgraded under Project Rhino (programme stalled) at a cost of $1.1m.The TISAS thermal imaging sights which would give the tank night fighting capabilites were being acquired form Israel's EL-OP at a cost of $120,000 each (300+ 300 being acquired).Even this upgrade "would take a few years".Therefore,the IA cannot carry out in practice its much touted "Cold Strike" doctrine according to many Indian experts.This might explain why extra T-90s,which supposedly can fight at night are being acquired,Lt.Gen.VK Kapoor (retd.),former armoured corps commander, was quoted as saying that the IA lacked "vision" and the MOD was staffed with "generalists" who could not comprehend the technical challenges in procurement.The IA and MOD could not work together constructively which was why the IA's MBTs were handicapped and :nightblind".There was no mention about Arjun in the article.Arjun has taken 25+ years to fructify and its slow development has clearly gvien the IA no option but to import tanks (T-90s) ,especially when pak obtained T-80UDs from Ukraine.We have to accept this past history and current conundrum.

So how do we rectify matters for the current and future requirements of the IA? Arjun has now proven itself and it would be prudent to see numbers brought upto at least 500,as some have said in order that the HVF/DRDO recover their investment cost and be a shot in the arm for indigenisation.Clearly,the Arjun can fight on may fronts on our borders,even if logistics of transporting it to some areas might prove v.difficult.In the Himalayan heights,the new Russian light tanks with a 125mm main gun would be ideal as its small size enables it to be carried by military aircraft,easier than T-72s which have the same gun.We have also yet to replace the PT-76 whichs erved us so well in '71 in B'Desh.We have also forgotten that we need larger numbers of troops for fighting in the littorals (a fledgling Marine Corps),as our island territories,the Maldives,Mauritius,Sri Lanka,and even Burma and the Paki coast could be future spheres of operations launched form the sea.These tanks being lighter yet packing a powerful punch could be more easily carried by our amphibious forces,LHPDs/LPDs,LSTs and LCTs.BY producing more Arjuns we can reduce the number of T-72s to be upgraded If production can be achieved within a tight timeframe and if we have sufficient numbers of tanks to counter both Pak and China and meet any other IOR challenges.At the same time,since several IA generals have gone on recod that Arjun MK-1 is NOT the tank for the future,thanks to its old design,then a call for futuristic tank designs must be made v.soon so that the tempo of tank design and manufacture in India and with foreign JVs,is not halted.

The IA now has to get realistic and determine how many T-90s are needed and in what capability,how many T-72s to be upgraded and how many Arjuns to order and the timeframe in which they must be produced.At the moment,the DRDO/HVF have to uograde T-72s,asemble/build new T-90s and produce Arjuns.It is a v.tall order.Why "Tank-X" is being pursued when the IA supposedly vehemently does not want it is a mystery.It is here that the divide between our DPSUs and services is clearly seen.Ultimately the services are going to be the end users and fight with the weaponry on hand.As far as possible it should be to their specs and satisfaction.The MOD should ensure that there is "collaboration" and not confrontation" between the DRDO/DPSUs and the services.The IN's warship designs ,even if production is slow,is a shining example of how to achieve the goal of indigenisation.

For the future,the IA/DRDO and any other international tank manufacturer,as is being done with the 5th-gen fighter,collaborate in designing and delivering an FMBT which will serve us from around 2020 in full production.This would be the fastest and most cost-effective way forward,as if we examine the amount of "Indigenous" components in Arjun itself,we cans ee that many key critical components are of foreign origin.We cannot take another 25+ years in dsigning and producing soley by ourselves an FMBT.
Last edited by Philip on 02 May 2010 11:36, edited 1 time in total.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 02 May 2010 11:22

Mrinal wrote:<SNIP>

1. New autoloader in turret for longer anti tank projectile ammunition?

No, there is not

<SNIP>

So there is no confirmation whatsoever, that the so called T-90 improvement actually has any turret mounted autoloader or any other substantial redesign..


Mrinal, while the T-90M that was displayed during the Putin visit clearly did not have any aft/bustle auto-loader, there are many schematic drawings of T-90M/Burlak floating around with aft auto-loader. Having said that, there is no prototype around (at least in public) of such a version of T-90M or Burlak. Nor are the timelines clear on the when these upgrades will be incorporated and mature version available.

Aslo, the number of upgrades parameters suggested are so deep, that it will change the very nature of T-90S in our service. Something like the Hornet and Super Hornet. Here again, like the USN, IA might use semantics to push the deep upgrade. Might as well buy new tanks than subject T-90S to these upgrades.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 02 May 2010 11:31

As for the indigenous development for the Arjun, BEL already has the Indigenous Gunners Main Sight (IGMS). IIRC, the same was to be installed on follow-on orders after the intial 124 tanks.

This is what the BEL site says (http://bel-india.com/index.aspx?q=&sectionid=315):

The IGMS is a state of the art Fire Control System jointly developed by BEL and IRDE, for the MBT-Arjun tank, providing high first-round hit probability during day & night in all weather conditions, as well as in all terrain / tank conditions

System comprises of the following major sub-systems:

GUNNER'S SIGHT

Two Axis Stabilized Head Mirror Unit
Thermal Imager Module
Day sight
Laser Range Finder
System and Fire Control Electronics
Gunner's Control & Display Unit
Commander's Control & Display Unit
Tandem Gun Resolver

Features

Provides Stabilized line of sight for engaging moving targets from moving tank
Reduces engagement time for the crew.
Uses second generation Thermal Imager for Night observation & firing
Online BITE facility for self diagnostics.


As for the cost aspect, the engines as of now are imported ones. License production in India requires orders for at least 300 units. Doing so, will further bring down the cost.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7556
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Prasad » 02 May 2010 11:36

Philip,
The arjun has 40% by parts and 60% by cost of foreign parts. Is 100% even a goal for the tank? And is it reasonable given our jv based approach of late?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21166
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 02 May 2010 11:45

TSri,as some have said,the main achievement of Arjun is in the design,tailormade for India.I posted in the IN thread a comparison of the P-17 and an RN "C-1" concept ,both vessels of similar tonnage.The P-17 appears to be at face value at least,a much superior design.Even in warship production,the main weaponry and sensors are all foreign,barring most sonars where we have made significant progress to develop specialised sonars given our peculiar littoral sea conditions.Therefore,Arjun is a success because it is a complete weapon system that has finally made the grade.A few years ago,one could've called it a "turkey'",but not now when it has "passed the test".

However,the critical systems and weaponry are still imported.The engine,TI sensors,AT barrel fired missiles,etc. are foreign.Soft and hard kill anti-missile/projectile systems must also be developed.So there is some way to go before the A-MK-2/FMBT arrives.This should not deter us from producing A-MK1 in significant number.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vina » 02 May 2010 13:54

Having said that, there is no prototype around (at least in public) of such a version of T-90M or Burlak. Nor are the timelines clear on the when these upgrades will be incorporated and mature version available


Hush.. In short you are saying that the T-90M/Burlak which can fire long rods are as of now mere paperware / vaporware? But didn't our resident tank expert and "useful ignoramuses" claim that "it can" (and so it must of course) and therefore we should for the sake of "commonality" build a 125mm smoothbore (to fire an Ammo that MAY exist in future and be fielded ?). Sure "upgrades will be incorporated and mature version available", after the IA buys the paper product, hands the Rodina a 500 tank order and then it will get fielded , be found to be crap in service with inital teething troubles, there will be massive toil an sweat to get it working and maybe after 10 years after the contract is signed, things will start stabilizing and something workable will emerge.

Oh well.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vina » 02 May 2010 13:59

Philip wrote:However,the critical systems and weaponry are still imported.The engine,TI sensors,AT barrel fired missiles,etc. are foreign.Soft and hard kill anti-missile/projectile systems must also be developed.So there is some way to go before the A-MK-2/FMBT arrives.This should not deter us from producing A-MK1 in significant number.


Yes. That is true. However, none of those are "technical problems" in the sense that those are proven systems. They are presently imported because the lack of volumes makes it uneconomical to do so. If we do have an economically significant order, we can license produce them in India.

Oh, but that will get the Natashas crawling out of the woodwork .. The Arjun is not "indigenous" because the Engine , Thermal Imager, Missile and some sensors are of "foreign" origin.. Like the old Raj Kapoor song, Joota hai Japani, Patloon Inglistani, Laal Topi Roosi, only the "dil" is Hindustani... And so, we should import T_XX which is 100% foreign and build it in India. However by magic, when you license produce T-XX and build it in India, it becomes 100% "indigenous", but when you license produce some subsystems in the Arjun, it remains "foreign". :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 02 May 2010 14:26

vina wrote:
Hush.. In short you are saying that the T-90M/Burlak which can fire long rods are as of now mere paperware / vaporware? But didn't our resident tank expert and "useful ignoramuses" claim that "it can" (and so it must of course) and therefore we should for the sake of "commonality" build a 125mm smoothbore (to fire an Ammo that MAY exist in future and be fielded ?). Sure "upgrades will be incorporated and mature version available", after the IA buys the paper product, hands the Rodina a 500 tank order and then it will get fielded , be found to be crap in service with inital teething troubles, there will be massive toil an sweat to get it working and maybe after 10 years after the contract is signed, things will start stabilizing and something workable will emerge.

Oh well.


:P :P :P

Misraji
BRFite
Posts: 401
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Misraji » 03 May 2010 09:58

Has any one heard anything on Arjun front? Even Chaiwala info would be nice.

It would be a shame if this opportunity for Arjun is missed, when this T-90
Arjun event is fresh in everyone's mind.

~Ashish

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 04 May 2010 11:15

US is developing the M1A3 and their next gen tank , one of the key reason T-95 should be pursued.

M1A3 Abrams II Main Battle Tank

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17062
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 04 May 2010 11:25

do you realise that is an online political simulation game ?! :twisted:
Units are now available for sale on the international market to stable, established nations pending approval from the Federation of Rechart.

The United Kingdom of Telvira would like to purchase 10 M1A3s for testing, with the possibility of purchasing more or negotiating a license for producing the MBT in Telvira.
:rotfl:

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 04 May 2010 11:28

Rahul M wrote:do you realise that is an online political simulation game ?! :twisted:


You mean sort of like BRF?
:P

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 04 May 2010 11:28

The longer rod ammo for T-90M is confirmed by Igor one of BRF'ite on his blog , may be he can reply here if he is following this thread

T-90M

- New additional autoloader, placed on the aft part of the turret and able using the new longer sub-caliber rods.


Plus 'Burlak' program is confirmed one but a classified project so not much is known , but the picture of turret displayed shows the direction it may take Turret Pics

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 04 May 2010 11:32

Rahul wiki confirms the existence of M1A3 program

The M1A3 Abrams is in the early design period with the U.S. Army.[17][18] The Army aims to build prototypes by 2014 and to begin to field the first combat-ready M1A3s by 2017.

Check this as well link

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 04 May 2010 11:35

From what I have read on Russian forums the need for long rod ammo for T-90 sprung from the fact the the APFSDS round of T-90 cannot penetrate the frontal armour of M1A2 and can only do that in case of M1A1.

The longer rod is designed to penetrate the frontal armor of M1A2.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17062
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 04 May 2010 11:38

Sanku wrote:
Rahul M wrote:do you realise that is an online political simulation game ?! :twisted:


You mean sort of like BRF?
:P

yes but for kids. :wink:

Austin, I do know that the M1A3 exists, just that that was not a good source. :P

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 04 May 2010 12:24

Austin wrote:The longer rod ammo for T-90M is confirmed by Igor one of BRF'ite on his blog , may be he can reply here if he is following this thread

T-90M

- New additional autoloader, placed on the aft part of the turret and able using the new longer sub-caliber rods.


Plus 'Burlak' program is confirmed one but a classified project so not much is known , but the picture of turret displayed shows the direction it may take Turret Pics


Austin, the latest 'known' long rod penetrator from Russian stable is 740mm long. And it is 'reported' that T-90 auto-loader underwent upgrade to allow for use of this round. However, even Vasiliy from russianarmor.info is not sure of how widespread it's usage is. And there is no word of it in Indian service.

So, this begs a question - what long rod is Iggor talking about which the aft auto-loader will be able to take care of? Apart from the safety related issues which the aft auto-loader will be able to address to some extent, what additional use will this have? Unless, the Russians are coming up with Long Rods like their western counterparts. And import the same from our Russian freinds..... :roll:

But look at the beauty of it - Russians have to heavily modify the existing "Main Battle Tank" to add features which the Arjun already has or can be added to easily. I really hopes the pukis get M1A2.....

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 04 May 2010 12:31

Austin wrote:US is developing the M1A3 and their next gen tank , one of the key reason T-95 should be pursued.

M1A3 Abrams II Main Battle Tank


Why should we pursue T-95 if M1A3 is being developed? The Russians don't seem to be perturbed this development or they would not have cancelled the T-95 project. So, why us?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17062
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 04 May 2010 12:31

and we are still using israeli ammo for russian tanks ?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 04 May 2010 12:34

Rahul M wrote:and we are still using israeli ammo for russian tanks ?


From some basic reading, I guess there was some ToT from Israelis for the T-72 ammo...but need to read up a bit more. DRDO does display domestic ammo for T-72 and Arjun....no idea about the which ammo is used for T-90. But we do have desi products.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17062
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 04 May 2010 12:35

but not russian ammo ? :wink:

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 04 May 2010 13:11

An Armoured Corps chap had explained me the 125 mm ammo issue when it was hot news (remember the barrel bursting days?). The info isn’t gospel; take it for what it’s worth.

I googled for images to substantiate the points below.

This is the original Russian design round produced by OFB. They added some hybrid features and the hybrid round was a disaster.

http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/am ... /lc/26.htm

Visual identifiers – shorter sabot length, shorter penetrator length than Mk1 & Mk2, when they are placed side by side.

This is the Mk1 produced by OFB. It’s the Israeli round.

http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/am ... /lc/37.htm
http://www.sibat.mod.gov.il/NR/rdonlyre ... od_imi.pdf

Visual identifiers – different sabot design

This is the Mk2 developed by DRDO and produced by OFB

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Def ... 5.JPG.html

Visual identifiers – longer sabot, longer penetrator than original one.

T-90 uses Mk1 and is supposed to use Mk2 (it probably wasnt in production when we discussed). Some Russian ammunition was imported.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 04 May 2010 13:24

rohitvats wrote:Why should we pursue T-95 if M1A3 is being developed? The Russians don't seem to be perturbed this development or they would not have cancelled the T-95 project. So, why us?


Not pursued by us but by them so that they can keep up with new technologies. We can look into it in future if need be.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 04 May 2010 14:20

tsarkar wrote:An Armoured Corps chap had explained me the 125 mm ammo issue when it was hot news (remember the barrel bursting days?). The info isn’t gospel; take it for what it’s worth.

I googled for images to substantiate the points below.

This is the original Russian design round produced by OFB. They added some hybrid features and the hybrid round was a disaster.

http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/am ... /lc/26.htm

Visual identifiers – shorter sabot length, shorter penetrator length than Mk1 & Mk2, when they are placed side by side.

This is the Mk1 produced by OFB. It’s the Israeli round.

http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/am ... /lc/37.htm
http://www.sibat.mod.gov.il/NR/rdonlyre ... od_imi.pdf

Visual identifiers – different sabot design

This is the Mk2 developed by DRDO and produced by OFB

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Def ... 5.JPG.html

Visual identifiers – longer sabot, longer penetrator than original one.

T-90 uses Mk1 and is supposed to use Mk2 (it probably wasnt in production when we discussed). Some Russian ammunition was imported.


Sir, from what I gather, the T1 Mk1 is DRDO Round. T1Mk2 is the better version with superior propellant. T2 is the designation for 120mm round for Arjun. India got APFSDS rounds from Israel (IMI - may be M711) in 1999 as part of emergency purchase plus ToT later on. This ToT could have been for earlier (1999) purchase or some newer stuff.

BTW, did this discussion happen in 2003-04?

Added later:

The OFB Product section details two types of 125mm APFSDS Rounds -

(a) Cartridge 125mm - APFSDS: http://www.ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/ammunition/lc/26.htm
(b) Cartridge 125mm - APFSDS/T - Mk1: http://www.ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/ammunition/lc/37.htm

(a) can be the T1 Mk1 APFSDS round developed DRDO while (b) may be the APFSDS round developed with Israeli ToT - India got ToT for the round shown in the PDF by tsarkar (and not M711). Mk2 is the follow on version of Indian T1 Mk1 which, as per internet chatter, has been discontinued. It is said that IA was very impressed with Israeli round.

As per MOD report, DRDO was working on 'newer' rounds with higher L/D Ratio - IMO, the target was for L/D Ratio of 30. The Mk2 pic by tsarkar, with longer projectile, may well have L/D Ratio in this range.

Some of the pics from earlier expositions covering OFB stalls are missing. Anyone has them?
Last edited by rohitvats on 04 May 2010 15:46, edited 4 times in total.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 04 May 2010 14:54

I like the idea of future tank carrying MMW radar that can be extended if required to deal with clutter etc once few sweeps are done say for ~ 10 km range and targets identified as hostile , one can fire supersonic antitank F&F rounds from the MG in the general direction of target ( LOAL ) or even with LOBL via MMW , quite doable with the present technology.

I wonder if warheads carried by Nag,Trigat etc are indeed capable to defeating a tank and if Active Defence on tanks can neutralize Top Attack missile more easily.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 04 May 2010 15:42

Rohit,

We had discussed in 2006. One small correction – there was never any Indian Mk1.

1. The 125 mm initially produced was the standard Russian APFSDS round. At the turn of the century, it was found to be lacking in range & penetration.

2. DRDO/OFB developed a hybrid round that kept the same penetrator but used a hybrid propellant. This was tested 2003-05 and was a disaster. The propellant layout was improperly designed and manufactured. Visually it is very similar to the original round and difficult to make out, except for markings.

http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/am ... /lc/26.htm is the original round referred in above two points. It is not the Israeli round you refer to.

3. Thereafter in 2005, emergency purchases and thereafter manufacture was done for the Israeli Mk1 rounds. They are delivered 2006-07. The IMI press release clearly explains that the Mk1 is fully Israeli http://www.sibat.mod.gov.il/NR/rdonlyre ... od_imi.pdf

The image shown in the IMI press release and the round shown in OFB website as Mk1 exactly correspond. There was no Indian Mk1 ever under development. OFB has the habit of branding purchases as development.

4. Mk2 development started 2006. The Mk2 is clearly labeled as Mk2. You are correct on the greater L/D ratio than Mk1.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 04 May 2010 16:05

tsarkar wrote:Rohit,

We had discussed in 2006. One small correction – there was never any Indian Mk1.

1. The 125 mm initially produced was the standard Russian APFSDS round. At the turn of the century, it was found to be lacking in range & penetration.

2. DRDO/OFB developed a hybrid round that kept the same penetrator but used a hybrid propellant. This was tested 2003-05 and was a disaster. The propellant layout was improperly designed and manufactured. Visually it is very similar to the original round and difficult to make out, except for markings.

http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/am ... /lc/26.htm is the original round referred in above two points. It is not the Israeli round you refer to.

3. Thereafter in 2005, emergency purchases and thereafter manufacture was done for the Israeli Mk1 rounds. They are delivered 2006-07. The IMI press release clearly explains that the Mk1 is fully Israeli http://www.sibat.mod.gov.il/NR/rdonlyre ... od_imi.pdf

The image shown in the IMI press release and the round shown in OFB website as Mk1 exactly correspond. There was no Indian Mk1 ever under development. OFB has the habit of branding purchases as development.

4. Mk2 development started 2006. The Mk2 is clearly labeled as Mk2. You are correct on the greater L/D ratio than Mk1.


Sir,

I've modified my post quite a bit after I came acorss newer information. Have you seen the same?

I'm aware of the hybrid rounds and the wastage of some 80,000 of those.

From reading of discussion on this topic on some other forums, I came to conclusion that (a) is the first round developed by DRDO after ab intio R&D. Please see the details of the same here :http://www.drdo.org/products/fsapds.htm. The details and design of sabot are same as in OFB website. IIRC, the production of same has been stopped.

The DRDO round linked above by me was referred to T1 Mk1 in internet chatter that I picked up and hence, the nomenclature.

As for (b), it is the Israeli round that you referred to. What is not clear if the same round was purchased during emergency and ToT obtained or have we obtained ToT for a different round (which may be superior)

It is interesting to note that Heavy Allow Penetrator Project (HAPP) of OFB, manufactures the shot for 125mm ammo for IMI and domestic rounds.

PS: Can you identify which Russian ammo was imported?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 04 May 2010 16:13

Performance
Accuracy <0.3 miles
Penetration Can defeat all NATO targets at a range of 2500m and beyond
Range Effective lethal range up to 3000m


Interesting they say it can defeat all NATO targets at ~ 2500m from T-72 , since it is FSAPDS I assume they mean all NATO Tanks ( Leopard , Challenger ) , how do they know that it can defeat NATO targets since the composition of Tank Armour and penetration is a closely guarded secret ?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 04 May 2010 16:17

Austin wrote:
Performance
Accuracy <0.3 miles
Penetration Can defeat all NATO targets at a range of 2500m and beyond
Range Effective lethal range up to 3000m


Interesting they say it can defeat all NATO targets at ~ 2500m from T-72 , since it is FSAPDS I assume they mean all NATO Tanks ( Leopard , Challenger ) , how do they know that it can defeat NATO targets since the composition of Tank Armour and penetration is a closely guarded secret ?


These refer to benchmarks for testing. Please see here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_targets

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 04 May 2010 16:24

So actually it does not mean it will penetrate a Western Tank but meets certain NATO benchmark/standards ?

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 04 May 2010 16:53

Rohit,

The import and ToT were of the same Israeli round. You are correct that HAPP Trichy manufactures 120, 125 and 105 mm FSAPDS rounds.

Mk2 was supposed to bring advances from the Arjun round to the 125 mm round. It is supposed to be even better than the Israeli round. I am using the word “supposed”, because I don’t know how well the round performed in the field.

I am a sailor and clueless on the Russian rounds. My good friend referred ammunition only as Russian, Indian and Israeli. I doubt it whether he too knows the specific designation. These chaps arent too good with nomenclature.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1302
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RKumar » 04 May 2010 17:03

tsarkar wrote:I am a sailor and clueless on the Russian rounds. My good friend referred ammunition only as Russian, Indian and Israeli. I doubt it whether he too knows the specific designation. These chaps arent too good with nomenclature.


May be Austin/Sanku can get some info on Russian rounds...

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 04 May 2010 17:06

RKumar wrote:
tsarkar wrote:I am a sailor and clueless on the Russian rounds. My good friend referred ammunition only as Russian, Indian and Israeli. I doubt it whether he too knows the specific designation. These chaps arent too good with nomenclature.


May be Austin/Sanku can get some info on Russian rounds...


Actually d_berwal is the one which has the closet ears to the ground. Wonder if he around and if he can comment.

Paging d_berwal, are you there? Any info on rounds in service with IA?


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests