Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21231
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 02 May 2015 13:37

This is not about the new T-14. That is a future FMBT requirement issue,where the DRDO and IA are not in agreement yet as to the concept,specs,etc. of an indigenous FMBT,specs,etc.,which have yet to be provided by the IA. The T-14 has however arrived being touted as the world's first 3/4th gen tank with a crewless turret.we'll see what it is fully like on May 9th.

This is about the Arjun production line lying idle (CAG report) and possible extra buy outright (not local production) of another 300T-90s.The GOI must take some quick decisions about A-2 production (and numbers/yr as well) otherwise the entire effort of an indigenous MBT will meet an inglorious fate. At just 50/yr of Arjun production,it will take us a decade to build 500 A-1/2s. If from the reports in the td. about it (Mk-1) being vastly superior to the T-72s,then it brings into question the number of T-72s that we should upgrade,when a superior tank (A-1) is available.

It would be worth knowing what the IA's MBT requirements are/yr,both new and upgraded tanks,and what is its planned strength/composition by 2020.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 02 May 2015 18:22

Disgusting!!

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 02 May 2015 18:58

^+1. Mere words seem inadequate. :D

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3995
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby arshyam » 02 May 2015 22:14

Philip wrote:they should choose an impartial expert team to lay bare the facts,performance,costs,etc. of the two tanks in Q,and provide the extra effort needed for a large order of Arjun Mk-2 to be placed .Especially so as the Mk-1 is already in service,whatever its teething flaws may be.

Philip sir, with all due respect, why would the IA necessarily accept the results of an impartial observer, when going by reports, they are not accepting reports of their own people? What is an external team going to bring to the table except to serve as another round to delay and bash the Arjun? Also, such an event will be accompanied by a slew of paid media articles running down the Arjun, and raise questions about the impartiality of this team, leading to discrediting whatever they may find. It is a useless endavour at best, and a positively harmful one (to our domestic MIC) at worst.

Anyway, this 'impartial' trial seems to have happened already:
The Army wanted a third party to assess the tanks and called in experts from Israel. They subjected the tanks to more tests at the Mahajan range and were so impressed that they called it “a desert Ferrari”.
Source: ‘Desert Ferrari' and more - T.S. Subramanian, Frontline, Volume 28 - Issue 05 :: Feb. 26-Mar. 11, 2011


Also, regarding the Army's own evaluations, please see what's already in the public domain. Quoting from Col Shukla again:
A week of comparative trials, conducted by the army at the Mahajan Ranges, near Bikaner in Rajasthan, has ended; the results are still officially secret.

The trial pitted one squadron (14 tanks) of Arjuns against an equal number of T-90s. Each squadron was given three tactical tasks; each involved driving across 50 kilometers of desert terrain and then shooting at a set of targets. Each tank had to fire at least ten rounds, stationary and on the move, with each hit being carefully logged. In total, each tank drove 150 kilometres and fired between 30-50 rounds. The trials also checked the tanks’ ability to drive through a water channel 5-6 feet deep.

The Arjun tanks, the observers all agreed, performed superbly. Whether driving cross-country over rugged sand-dunes; detecting, observing and quickly engaging targets; or accurately hitting targets, both stationery and moving, with pinpoint gunnery; the Arjun demonstrated a clear superiority over the vaunted T-90.

The importance of this comparative trial can be gauged from a list of those who attended. Witnessing the Arjun in action were most of the army’s senior tank generals, including the Director General of Mechanised Forces, Lt Gen D Bhardwaj; strike corps commander, Lt Gen Anil Chait; Army Commander South, Lt Gen Pradeep Khanna; and Deputy Chief of the Army Staff, Lt Gen JP Singh. The Director General of Military Operations, Lt Gen AS Sekhon also attended the trials.
source: http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2010/03/a ... -t-90.html
Also keep in mind that the parameters were relaxed for the T-90s. source: CAG report posted on this thread, viewtopic.php?p=1789326#p1789326)

Okay, so the trials went well, but results are not public. This was in 2010.

Now, since 2014 they are:

Quoting Viv S saar's post on the CAG report: viewtopic.php?p=1769735#p1769735 (page 9 of this very thread)
As per the trial report, MBT Arjun performed marginally better than the T-90 tank in accuracy and consistency of firepower. However, T-90 tank performed better in lethality and missile firing capability. The Army concluded (April 2010) that “Arjun had performed creditably and it could be employed both for offensive and defensive tasks with same efficacy of T-90 tank.”

We found that the MBT Arjun and T-90 tank were not exactly comparable in missile firing ability; the higher score of T-90 tank was mainly due to missile firing ability which was not in the design of MBT Arjun. Barring missile firing ability, the scores of MBT Arjun and T-90 tank would be 25.77 and 24.50 respectively in firepower. In the overall comparative score, T-90 tank scored 75.01, marginally higher than MBT Arjun which scored 72.46, mainly because of higher score on missile firing ability of T-90 tank.

Saurav Jha says the same:
The missile firing capability requirement grew out of the fact that though the Arjun Mk-I with a score of 25.77 beat the T-90S with a score of 24.50 in the firepower criteria during the 2010 comparative trials if the T-90S's missile firing capability were to be kept aside, the T-90 fared marginally better in the overall final score primarily on account of its Invar missile firing capability. The comparative trials were on four parameters viz. fire power, survivability, reliability and miscellaneous issues of the tank with weightages of 40, 35, 15 and 10 respectively. As per the trial report, MBT Arjun performed better than the T-90 tank in accuracy and consistency of firepower. However, the T-90S seems to have performed better in lethality and missile firing capability. Importantly, the IA concluded (April 2010) that "Arjun had performed creditably and it could be employed both for offensive and defensive tasks with same efficacy of T-90 tank'.

Source: http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/sauravjha/2 ... grams.html


Okay, so the tank is technically capable, and is equal to the T-90, if not better. What about maintenance?

Going back to Ajai Shukla:
Talk to the crewmen, the drivers, gunners, operators… and you’ll get an even clearer endorsement. They all love the modular construction of the Arjun, which makes maintenance so easy. Changing a T-72 engine takes a full day; changing an Arjun engine takes a couple of hours.

Minister of State for Defence Production, Rao Inderjeet Singh recounts, “I’ve spoken, off the record, to officers who have gone through the trials. Even the crews (from 43 Armoured Regiment)… who have been testing the tank… I forced them to choose between the Russian tanks and the Arjun. I said, you’ve driven this tank and you’ve driven that tank (the T-90). Now mark them out of ten, which tank is better? And I’ve found that the Arjun tank was given more numbers than the T-90 tank.”

Source: http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2008/07/n ... about.html


Also, the Army ran an AUCRT. What came of it?
In the Accelerated Usage cum Reliability Trials (AUCRT), which was held in five phases over the first half of this year, the Arjun had problems in the transmission system (not the MTU engine as widely reported, but the Renk transmission) during the first three phases. Engineers from Renk GMbH, Germany came and fixed that and in the last two phases, which were the really tough, heavy desert, hot weather phases, the Arjun performed flawlessly.

Source: http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2008/07/n ... about.html


While the actual details from the AUCRT are not public (at least to my knowledge), if it revealed that the Arjun's components did not last as long as the T-90's, I am sure that would have been made public. Not talking about this aspect is telling, in its own way.

While this has been discussed on this thread ad-nauseam, but let me take a moment to mention the benefit of having local kit:
The process of turning the corner has been a slow one, but it symbolises exactly why one should go for an Indian tank: each drawback was analysed by our engineers, fixed according to the users’ instructions, and then delivered back to the users without charging them a penny. Contrast that with the problems with the T-90’s electronics. Nobody is fixing that problem; instead, the Russians are trying to sell us air-conditioners. Added expense, and an inefficient solution compared to heat-hardening the electronics, the way the CVRDE did.

Source: http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2008/07/n ... about.html
In contrast:
The T-90S's domestic production at HVF after all has been a difficult process with the Russian OEM refusing to transfer technology for vital assemblies such as the gun system (including the barrel) and turret armour plates. For the first 175 T-90s produced at Avadi, the gun system had to be imported off the shelf from Russia. However starting 2012, an indigenous 125 mm smooth bore gun developed by DRDO with a 'modified chemistry barrel' of the existing T-72 gun has gone into production having completed trials in 2010.This modified chemistry barrel has also successfully completed a life cycle test conducted at Armoured Corps Centre & School Ahmednagar. The last two years have also seen the indigenization of the T-90S's commander hatch control unit, indigenous production of 50 types of critical optical components of the T-90Sand indigenously developed cable harnesses for the same. Overall the latest batches of T-90Ss will be between 80-90 percent indigenous by value.

Source: http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/sauravjha/2 ... grams.html

The point being, while Arjun is more than equal to the T-90s capability, the fact that it is locally designed and developed needs weightage, but that was never taken into consideration. Truth is, local design and development means we can customize it as needed when needed, and during times of war not have to worry about supplies being withheld. I know Arjun has imported components, but we could build a spare bank for those, which would be much smaller when compared to the T-90's spare banks. If such a weightage had been given on top of the 4 below, the Arjun would have easily surpassed the T-90 or any other T out there. And if we can indeginize the T-90s to such an extent over a production run of 900, surely doing so for Arjun is possible if sufficient orders are given?
The comparative trials were on four parameters viz. fire power, survivability, reliability and miscellaneous issues of the tank with weightages of 40, 35, 15 and 10 respectively.
(What are these miscellaneous issues?)

Finally, the kicker that should lay to rest all requests for 'impartial' evaluations:
Even the Russians are not buying into the myth of the T-90. That tank entered service with the Russian Army around 1996 and, till today, there are barely 250 T-90s defending Mother Russia! India has more T-90s in service than the Russian Army… and once we implement the full contract, we will have 6 times more T-90s than the Russian Army.

I wonder why the Russian Army isn’t accepting such a blue-blooded tank with such a fine pedigree??? The Russian Army prefers to use: 2144 numbers of T-72s, 3044 numbers of T-80s, 689 numbers of T-62s (plus 3000 more in storage), and even 1000 rickety old T-55s.

Source: http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2008/07/n ... about.html
If the Russians themselves aren't buying, why the hell are we?

Philip wrote:In any case,until another decade is past,the T-90s are going to be the backbone of the armoured corps because of the large numbers in service and those already ordered for local manufacture. However,what should be attempted in the Mk-2 is raising the indigenous content as much as poss.,we are still dependent upon a firang engine and other key components.
Yes, is it a fait accompli, so let's look at replacing the T-72 at least.

Philip wrote:During the Cold War,we were unable to get the best from the West and had to make do only with Russian arms,though less sophisticated than Western wares served our purposes v.well.
True, but is this why we have bought the T-90 when Russia's Army itself is not interested? Is this past help justification for continuously running down our own efforts, starting right from the HF-24?

The only thing left to consider is, if the Arjun Mk-I was more or less equal to the T-90, it is axiomatic that it is definitely way better than the older gen T-72s. We still have 2000+ :?: of those. Why not start replacing them at least? Yes, there are logistical limitations about bridge weight, 3 or 4 man crew, rail wagon width (which, incidentally, can take the Arjun without issues), but these are solvable.

As of now, the MoD has given an indent of 124 MK-2s. As the production ramps up, they should increase the orders to start replacing our older T-72s at least, given that T-90s are newer and cannot be replaced in the foreseeable future.

Luxtor
BRFite
Posts: 200
Joined: 28 Sep 2003 11:31
Location: Earth ... but in a parallel universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Luxtor » 03 May 2015 00:24

^^^^^

Yes, Let's replace each and every T-72's with Arjun one by one until all T-72's are retired. No point in upgrading the T-72's if Arjun is much superior. I would like Arjun to be a replacement for T-90s or at least co-exist side by side with the T-90's and exploit the best of both tanks. But if IA is not too comfortable doing that then let's replace the T-72 fleet with the Arjuns. This is the best solution as we continuously improve, upgrade and increase the indigenous content of the Arjun. There will come a point (like right now) where the Gov't has to step in and tell the IA that this is the marching order and now MARCH! Same applies to IAF and IN.

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vipul » 03 May 2015 03:58

^^^^ Why Luxtor you dont like Natasha or Valentina or Lyudmilla? :)

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 03 May 2015 04:24

Arjun not come with bribes! Obsolete onlee!

Seriously though if Arjun production was privatized, foreign trips and mithais could have been given. That would have removed all IA takleef.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1841
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 03 May 2015 08:56

Kersi D wrote:I am very surprised that Russia has NOT YET convinced MOD / IA to opt for 152 mm artillery in lieu of the 155 mm guns.

Does one remember that several years ago one Ms Renuka Choudhary rasied a query in LS/RS as to why the Russsian guns are not being considered for IA's arty requirements ?


The Russians have tied up with OFB to provide 155 mm 52 cal versions of their guns, both mounted and tracked. Last time around for tracked guns, it was russians vs koreans.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21231
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 03 May 2015 17:31

Finally,there is some clearer understanding of my points. Why keep on upgrading all obsolete T-72s,even if they have life in them-use them for specialized variants or export/gift them after "reconditioning" to Afghanistan,etc. Ideally order/build more A-2s as the prod. line of Arjuns is idle. Mix of A-2s and already ordered/ paid for T-90s to be built locally only,depending upon cost factors. Start looking at a futuristic FMBT design.

Tx Arsh. for the "3rd party" observer trials already done.

Just for the record,we initially bought T-90s in 2001 a knee-jerk response to Pak's buy of T-80UDs from Ukraine on the cheap in the late '90s.At that time a decade+ or so ago,Arjun Mk-1 hadn't been fully developed and/or near series production. The tests Arjun vs T-90 were conducted in 2010/11.
Indian Army's T-90 Bhishma tanks take part in a military training exercise in the Thar Desert, Rajasthan. The tanks have two different turret armour arrays.
In 2001, India bought 310 T-90S tanks from Russia, of which 120 were delivered complete, 90 in semi-knocked down kits, and 100 in completely knocked down kits. The T-90 was selected because it is a direct development of the T-72 that India already employs with 60% logistics commonality with T-90 simplifying training and maintenance. India bought the T-90 after the delay in production of the domestically developed Arjun main battle tank, and to counter Pakistani deployment of the Ukrainian T-80UD in 1995–97.


However,it is on record by the CAG that the IA and MOD were responsible for the delay in induction of the Arjun around 2007 onwards,by repeated design changes,etc.

[quote]The CAG has revealed what was restricted to the corridors of MoD and hidden behind secrecy of ‘national interest’. An order was placed for additional T-90 tanks in November 2007 even as Army kept on adding its requirements for the Arjun, said the CAG. The CAG also did not spare the Ministry of Defence, saying the “decision for import was taken by the Cabinet Committee on Security based on a note submitted by the ministry”.[/quote]

*CCS means none other than a decision at the very top,vetted by the PMO. Therefore,the CAG has pointed the finger clearly at Snake-Oil Singh and AKA.

As an interim measure to meet the shortfall of howitzers, a qty of Russian 130mm field guns were upgraded Soltam to 155mm std. I think that the GOI/MOD have already as reported made a decision for acquisition of various types of tracked and towed guns,along with the OFB developed improved Bofors.The Q still remains as to what type the IA requires in the Himalayan heights to counter the PLA as the BAe light howitzer offer was rejected?

member_22019
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 27
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22019 » 03 May 2015 22:57

Zee news showed a program on t14 armata 5 min back in typical ddm style. Cannot understand the relevance of the subject! Is it some kind of background preparation!!!

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Gyan » 03 May 2015 23:44

The Defense Minister is an IIT guy and would be well aware of Arjun and T-90 controversy. Any decision taken will be well thought out at the highest level, though what will be priorities I cannot say.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 04 May 2015 06:09

Priorities will be mithai, nice vacations and of course the failing torsion bars of the Arjun

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21231
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 04 May 2015 10:03

There is a lot of eager global anticipation of the unveiling of the T-14 Armata,as it is not just a new tank with a crewless turret,but a family of AVs based upon the Armata design,chassis,tech,whatever. Its radar is supposed to be able to detect airborne threats out to 40-60km,say some western reports,blah,blah.,so one can expect news channels to follow the story.

I would give the benefit of the doubt to the new DM,let's not judge him too quickly,its much less than a year since he took over the mantle from "Jet Li",who was minding the store initially,and several major defence decisions have been made,far more in his term of months than AKA's during a decade!

One interesting fact unearthed about the T-90,is that during the spat in Chechenya,a T-90 took 7 hits from RPGs and was nor seriously damaged,indicating the capability of its armour.No knowledge whether that tank had ERA as well,probably did. That may explain the extra heavy layered side slab and slat armour on the new Russian AVs

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8434
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 04 May 2015 10:05

The plug for T 14 has begun.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21231
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 04 May 2015 11:11

BRF always ahead of the curve what? :rotfl:

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Gyan » 04 May 2015 11:56

If Army likes Armata then it should immediately order DRDO to produce simlar prototypes using manufactering base of T-90 and Arjun rather delaying FMBT & then ordering Armata as emergency purchase.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8434
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 04 May 2015 12:31

Why is the demand for the Armatas in the first place. Why not keep on building the Arjun and improve it in its various iterations.

But no, the we will see a demand for a Mk 3, with 100 odd orders while the Armata will be ordered by the 1000s.

Long live the Imported Tanks. Death to any Indian efforts to design tanks at home.

VibhavS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 64
Joined: 04 Jan 2011 16:56
Location: Classified

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby VibhavS » 04 May 2015 21:52

My 2 cents of Sooth Saying,
Armata MKI CAG Report :
1) Armor - Composite armor of worse quality than Kanchan MK3. Inadequate protection and worse ERA than Indian ERA.
2) Targeting systems - Cannot fire Indian and Israeli 125mm rounds. Army spent 200 Cr developing new software and hardware to replace Russian System.
3) IR and Night Vision - French Night Vision systems fail in the Desert Heat. Need cooling system addition, which was not included in the original scope. $X (put a random number here) BN required to fix problem.
4) Firepower - Same as T90, no improvement in real terms.
5) Active protection system - Imported from Sweden - $500MN.
6) Weight - Promised weight of 55 tons never realized. Current weight 65 tons with 1000HP engine, Worse mobility than Arjun Mk2.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Mihir » 04 May 2015 22:26

A couple of pictures of the T-14 with the turret revealed.

http://i.imgur.com/M37ZW9r.jpg

https://pp.vk.me/c621428/v621428893/219 ... HQFI6Q.jpg

No 30-mm cannon, as was speculated earlier, and the machine gun appears to be a puny 7.62mm taken straight off the T-90MS. Disappointing.

Also, what's that I see on the left side on the gun? Is it a massive gaping hole in the front of the turret housing some sort of sight? The kind that Russian fanbois loudly proclaimed was a major deficiency on the Arjun? :mrgreen:

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8434
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 05 May 2015 04:59

It looks more like a gi Joe toy than an actual fighting vehicle. But it's russian so better than the Arjun.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1885
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby uddu » 05 May 2015 06:28

More like T-90 Turret on Arjun chassis. :)
Anway i dont think that there is option for any more import of Armoured fighting vehicles.

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease. ... lid=118644
DRDO is presently engaged in the development of MBT Arjun Mk-II with 73 improvements (including 15 major improvements) over MBT Arjun Mk-I. Out of these 73 improvements, 53 have been found successful based on User trials. No time line for induction into Army can be fixed at this stage.

We waiting for the remaining 20 more improvements?

The MK-1 needs to be upgraded to MK-II.

Also there is a need for CV-90 type of vehicle based on Arjun Chassis.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1709
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Khalsa » 05 May 2015 06:41

Mihir wrote:A couple of pictures of the T-14 with the turret revealed.
Also, what's that I see on the left side on the gun? Is it a massive gaping hole in the front of the turret housing some sort of sight? The kind that Russian fanbois loudly proclaimed was a major deficiency on the Arjun? :mrgreen:


No no you get it wrong sir... this Russian Model has invisible Explosive Reactive Armour on it so any round heading towards will be blown away to smithereens. Any follow up rounds will be electo-magneto-optically deflected at ranges of 40 Kilometres so please don't worry about that gaping hole.

Nothing will ever go there .... okay comrade you stop worrying now Da

NOW
Jokes aside

Its looks flimsy and not much of a gen leap at all. Still a massive target to be hit.
I expected a thinner turret.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1709
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Khalsa » 05 May 2015 06:54

I have loved this artist's impression of the evolution of the Arjun Series. I love it how he changed the so dreaded flat face the front by elongating the turret. Now this would be an awesome candidate for an unmanned turret too. However it is missing a strong anti personnel and anti aircraft weaponry on the turret.

I am sure you have all seen this before

ARJUN MK III

Image

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Mihir » 05 May 2015 07:16

TBH, the T-14 looks fine to me. Fit and finish seems to be better than what you usually see on the T-72 and T-90. I would even go so far as to say that the design is revolutionary (Unmanned turret? Crew placed in the hull? Newer-gen composite armour? APS? All great stuff).

But it's not reason enough to replace a tried-and-tested, locally developed Arjun.


Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Mihir » 05 May 2015 07:52

Interesting how they have provided only two hatches to access the crew compartment.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1709
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Khalsa » 05 May 2015 08:00

what's with the racer boy stripes this year on all the tanks ?
even the historical ones ...

jeez ... these russians are going all persian on me .. YO !!

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Austin » 05 May 2015 08:08

Mihir wrote:Interesting how they have provided only two hatches to access the crew compartment.


From comment I saw on tanknet the 3rd hatch for driver is just below the turret you can see the persiscope sight and the access to it is via commander hatch or gunner

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Mihir » 05 May 2015 08:10

Khalsa, those are Victory Day dacals. The black and orange comes from St. George's ribbon. It's a well-known symbol of bravery and patriotism in Russia, and goes back more than two hundred years. The star is the new Russian military emblem.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Mihir » 05 May 2015 08:13

Austin, wouldn't that be the gunner's hatch? The driver should be the chap sitting under the hatch on the left. The gunner wouldn't need to stick his head out of the hull; but the driver would, from time to time.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Singha » 05 May 2015 08:54

I really do not see where the gunner is located - no sign of a third hatch on the front chassis for sure and the chassis is very narrow compared to western heavies. there is no room in front even if the gunner were to crawl in first via the commanders hatch and take a fwd position semi-reclined.

could it be a flush hatch on the turret and gunner sits inside turret only? turret looks big enough to accomodate a autoloader on one side or in the bustle and a gunner on other side. it would make sense to have the gunner rotate with the main gun imo.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Austin » 05 May 2015 08:57

Mihir wrote:Austin, wouldn't that be the gunner's hatch? The driver should be the chap sitting under the hatch on the left. The gunner wouldn't need to stick his head out of the hull; but the driver would, from time to time.


Yes could well be the case but the third chap is there in the hull though not as visible as the other two

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 05 May 2015 09:05

^The overhead view is best for that. There are clearly three hatches. One for the commander, then to his side that for the driver and behind the driver, almost in tandem, the gunner.

Build quality looks better, but the vaunted low-profile of Russian armor has been abandoned.

Also, what are those holes in the turret for? I think the pair of holes on the extreme left and right side of the turret are for 4 anti-tank missiles. Don't know what the big left hand side hole is for on the turret, but its size and facing reminds me of the counter measure panel left unprotected on the right hand side of Arjun MkII, maybe the same?

On the whole, it seems to be a mishmash of western and russian ideas, and not necessarily for the better. Also, they could have gone with a lower profile with an automated turret, but sadly wasted that opportunity. I guess thats good for the Arjun and its descendants :D

PS: The smoke counter measure dispenser has been recessed into the turret I think. There also seems to be slewable counter measure dispensers towards each side on the top, active defenses?

The automated machine gun turret has been slaved to the CITV, to save money? I think that is going to cost them in urban warfare, where as many quick eyes as possible is an asset.

Also, the fuel tanks seem to be at both sides of the engine at the back, are they the extern kind? Another fuel tank out of view?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Singha » 05 May 2015 09:12

the gunner seems to sit in another hatch behind the driver and partially obscured by the turret as noted above.

whatever be the merits or demerits of the design, its the first leap forward for a production MBT in decades to house the entire crew in the hull and unmanned turret with a raft of decoy and self defence measures (some kinda VL system, big tubes under the turret along the ring)

so full marks to russia for finally abandoning the venerable t-series template and going with a bold design.

europe has no money to develop any future MBTs and dutch have even retired all their tanks.

amrika for now can lick its chops behind its rampart of abrams but might be forced to respond if they start selling a 40-rd version with a 125mm L55 gun that can defeat the abrams armour.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Austin » 05 May 2015 09:30

The concept of Armata was already perfected in T-95 program which was abondoned in 90's due to fund and lack of need so they didnt had to go back to the drawing board for a fresh design.

Recently declassified photos of T-95 by MOD shows the similarities except Armata opted for a low 125 mm Gun over the massive 152 mm of T-95 but the bigger 7 wheel chassis remains

T-95 Pics http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fei09dtwW3c/V ... %A2-95.jpg

The APC Wheeled and Track are newer clean sheet design

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21231
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 05 May 2015 10:33

From the Armata family of AVs,the designers have responded to earlier criticism about crew protetction very vigorously.The multiple side slab/slat armour and their widths draws lessons from the recent ME and Chechenya spats. Yes,it does look like that the gunner is seated behind the driver and has his own hatch.Though the main gun is the same 125mm gun,the turret size looks as if it is designed to accomodate a larger gun. Even the turret has considerable armour to protect the main gun,rounds,auto-loader,etc.

Scaling off the size of the crew compartment from the commander's exposed figure,it appears that there is at least 5' 6" ht. inside the compartment,about a foot of extra height over the seated crew members. There may even be more space than in a T-90 which was restrained to the size of the turret.The size may be approx. 8'X8'. The width would extends to the sides of the tank/tracks. It would be very interesting to see what kind of displays/controls are fitted inside the crew compartment,possibly sev. aircraft style glass cockpit displays given that there are many new sensors/defensive systems.
There also appears to be some missing eqpt. on the turret,sensors,weaponry,etc. which may arrive later on,keeping viewers guessing. Those visible are neatly integrated flush with the turret and not sticking out as in earlier T-series.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Singha » 05 May 2015 11:25

might need to add extra top attack protection armour as man portable ATGMs are all copying javelin.

and all aircraft delivered munitions & artillery shells are by nature top attack.

mobility and protection look good if the crew are encased in a tub of the thickest possible armour with secondary ERA/slat panel outside the tracks and anti mine armour below the hull.

rest is all upto the accuracy and reliability of the FCS and gun.


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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Singha » 05 May 2015 17:25

I wonder if the brochure has reached india?

we should hang our heads why kit like the tulpar is not yet there in 100s for Nag ATGMs and the army has nothing like the pars4x4 for scout roles.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Austin » 06 May 2015 08:56

Turkish armored vehicles at IDEF-2015 exhibition. Part 1

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1291290.html

New Gen Armour seems to have plastic like finish


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest