Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7774
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Indranil » 04 Sep 2014 09:52

Chacko sahab, no more derailment. This is not pertinent to the thread. Let's move on.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby chackojoseph » 04 Sep 2014 09:53

Right. Sure.

ashi
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 19 Feb 2009 13:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby ashi » 05 Sep 2014 20:50

China gives a demo of exported version of armor vehicles and military trucks to potential customers

http://v.qq.com/page/t/v/d/t0136ozppvd.html

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16417
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 05 Sep 2014 21:13

ashi wrote:China gives a demo of exported version of armor vehicles and military trucks to potential customers

http://v.qq.com/page/t/v/d/t0136ozppvd.html


Nice!!!!

India should be able to sell to their opponents.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20177
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 07 Sep 2014 08:02

There was a report a couple of months ago that the order for a batch of Arjun Mk-2 ,around the same number of earlier Mk-1s would cost 36 cr.,up from 20cr. for MK-1. Now that's al;most double the cost of a Mk-1.How affordable is it now when compared with MBTs around the globe? Annual production was just 30 /yr.If this is accurate,even if upped to 50 a yr.,how on earth are we going to manufacture an indigenous MBT in large number when in a decade we will be able to manufacture just around 3-00-500 tanks?!

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 987
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 07 Sep 2014 08:23

^^^^ again the same "concern" (pun intended) .let army order arjun in numbers, production will ramp up and cost will come down .simple economics, why complicate it. and we dont need to compare our arj un with any other tank atleast in terms of cost . this is universal truth we dont make costly products.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1815
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srin » 07 Sep 2014 10:24

Philip wrote:There was a report a couple of months ago that the order for a batch of Arjun Mk-2 ,around the same number of earlier Mk-1s would cost 36 cr.,up from 20cr. for MK-1. Now that's al;most double the cost of a Mk-1.How affordable is it now when compared with MBTs around the globe? Annual production was just 30 /yr.If this is accurate,even if upped to 50 a yr.,how on earth are we going to manufacture an indigenous MBT in large number when in a decade we will be able to manufacture just around 3-00-500 tanks?!


Of course, less affordable than T-90 without useful thermal sight or gun barrel made from Arjun technology.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13118
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby UlanBatori » 08 Sep 2014 06:00

Cross-posted from Yookraine dhaga: East Yookraine villagers report on 3 UkBapZi tanks rushing in, parking at kindergarten school ground: 2 wiped out instantly by pin-point direct hits, the 3rd crew gets the message and gets out in a hurry and runs for it.
"The tanks came in about six in the morning," said one villager who did not want to give his name. "As soon as they set up position there, you could hear the booms come in from that direction,"


Drones. Also, when 2 became toast with totally accurate shots, the crew of #3 got the idea and ran: and the drone saw that and passed on the Bojitive Neuj and the artillery ceased fire. So one more Ukrainian tank captured intact. Very interesting MO - this is how they are convincing the UkBapZis to get out and run.

This is modern warfare. Tanks and APCs are only good for terrorizing civilians and those who don't have air cover (or little UAVs sitting in the trees, tweeting like birds).

Hope Indian Army is watching. Investment in massive armored divisions is sheer folly. One $300 mijjile, one $3M tank + 3 crew + all their guns and ammo and radar and mijjiles are toast.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 987
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 08 Sep 2014 06:24

^^^^ its nothing new and happened before with ruskis vs its former republics. The above situ is for built up areas not the same likes the plains and deserts warfare we might face. The situ you have painted is like you need only missiles and anti missiles , the rest are anyway missile's harms way !

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 08 Sep 2014 07:19

UlanBatori wrote:Cross-posted from Yookraine dhaga: East Yookraine villagers report on 3 UkBapZi tanks rushing in, parking at kindergarten school ground: 2 wiped out instantly by pin-point direct hits, the 3rd crew gets the message and gets out in a hurry and runs for it.
"The tanks came in about six in the morning," said one villager who did not want to give his name. "As soon as they set up position there, you could hear the booms come in from that direction,"


Drones. Also, when 2 became toast with totally accurate shots, the crew of #3 got the idea and ran: and the drone saw that and passed on the Bojitive Neuj and the artillery ceased fire. So one more Ukrainian tank captured intact. Very interesting MO - this is how they are convincing the UkBapZis to get out and run.

This is modern warfare. Tanks and APCs are only good for terrorizing civilians and those who don't have air cover (or little UAVs sitting in the trees, tweeting like birds).

Hope Indian Army is watching. Investment in massive armored divisions is sheer folly. One $300 mijjile, one $3M tank + 3 crew + all their guns and ammo and radar and mijjiles are toast.



Funny how people missed the news of Hamas anti-tank rockets/missiles being ineffective against the new Trophy active defense system of the Israelis in all the mess that took place. Its the beginning of a new era, rendering missiles and even cannon fired projectiles (according to DRDO) useless. Yet we have people glorifying drones, helicopters, fighters, and ATGMs regardless, all the while dissing Tanks as useless (even though armies find them indispensable when they get boots on the ground) . Prejudices are hard to let go.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16417
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 08 Sep 2014 07:50

^^^^^^^

In addition,

One $300 mijjile, one $3M tank + 3 crew + all their guns and ammo and radar and mijjiles are toast.


The tanks obviously did not carry anti-UAV missiles, which they should have been able to fire from the tank's gun!!!

Well, some Pundits take time to learn.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 987
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 08 Sep 2014 08:15

menonji , heard about RPG-30 ? I dont know how much effective it will be against trophy like system which itself can handle multiple targets but a concept have come in the way of RPG-30 , which may neutrilze active protection system of tanks

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 08 Sep 2014 08:33

^The active protection systems will adapt and advance. Let there be no doubt, this is a new age and the missile has lost most of its potency. If two rockets can be fired with a fraction of a delay, then two or more anti-measures can be fired with the same kind of delay. It does not take whole lot of intelligence to figure that out.

In 2012, Israel Defense reported that the Rafael weapons development authority has developed a defense system, the "Trench Coat", against the RPG-30. The report noted that "Trench Coat" consists of a 360-degree radar that detects all threats and launches 17 projectiles, of which one will strike the incoming missile in addition to the precursor.


Hope that satisfies your doubts (which it would if they are reasonable doubts).

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 987
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 08 Sep 2014 08:35

mobility , armour, endurance and tactical situation awareness where it can see first and shoot first will add to a tanks survivility and punch offence. throwing a projectile against a projectile wont suffice in a built up or urban area. Can gurus here discuss Arjun's battle field management system and compare it with other contemporary tanks .

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 987
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 08 Sep 2014 08:44

well trench coat will fire 17 projectiles for neutrilizing 1 rpg ! how about colateral damage ? your APS is actually making you heavy which goes against your mobility. if you are sitting infront of an enemy which mostly throws rpgs at you it does not glorify trophy at all.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 08 Sep 2014 09:02

An APS is nowhere nearly as heavy as adding more armor. In fact, it will also allow taking off some armor, making the tank lighter (as is planned for most future tank programs).

As for collateral damage to friendly forces, it has already been taken care of in the Trophy system and will be carried forward into the new system.

Regarding moving into urban jungles infested by the enemy, ANYTHING would be a juicy target, save the infantry (relatively). Even the much vaunted missile carrying helicopters/drones will be prey. That said, these APS systems have reaction times in the milliseconds, and they are only becoming faster and soon even an attack from a few feet away will be useless. This was demonstrated in that video showing the Hamas attack, was was made from seemingly talking distance.

Also, the projectiles these APS systems fire are not huge warheads, but more akin to big shotgun shells. So, all this collateral damage and weight concerns are more or less misplaced.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 987
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 08 Sep 2014 09:28

thats a very valid scenario. how about beam weapon used as APS . some thing like that i guess americans are already testing what is its future? Tactical situational awareness like for avoiding fracticides, robust battle field management system is required with inbuilt sensors and data links for tanks so that it can get clear picture from multiple assets , how is Arjun fairing in this field ?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 08 Sep 2014 09:41

I think beam based APS systems are the logical evolution, as they are emerging in ship point defense, replacing/supplementing missile and projectile based defenses. This will take time though. By that time the primary armament of tanks might have shifted to railguns or beam weapons, considering how both a beam-based APS and the new primary weapons system will both have the same prerequisite, a substantial electrical power source.

As far as Arjun is concerned, it already uses Israeli threat detection and passive defense systems. It is also heard that they are eying the trophy defense system for use in Arjun. But given how our primary threat is from enemy states and their tanks, the primary defense has to be against tank projectiles. It is to this end DRDO has envisioned an APS that can not only defeat missiles/rockets, but also tank rounds (sabot).

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 987
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 08 Sep 2014 10:02

trophy i think can take on SABOT rounds. but my query for Arjun battle field management system is more precise like it have gps navigation system and tactical comm with other group of tanks but does it have the ability to get live data feeds from say UAV , battle field radars etc and IFF with sensor fusion where both the driver and commander gets a complete picture about threat perceptions . a poster earlier mentioned about installing man portable survillance radar on arjun how fesable is it ?
Last edited by shaun on 08 Sep 2014 10:09, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 08 Sep 2014 10:06

I have no idea if the current crop of improvements involve all of the above, but I am pretty sure that they can plug in these systems in the Arjun if they desire so, but all this stuff is going to cost. The question is what price are they willing to pay for the enhanced Arjun? Maybe most of these will be addressed in a future Mk. III Arjun.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8118
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 08 Sep 2014 10:12

The best part about the Arjun is that because we own the IP for the vehicle. We can make the modifications to it based on the requirements that we have. Without needing to take approval from any one.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 987
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 08 Sep 2014 10:37

thank you menonji for your efforts , gurus here can shed more light on BFMS of arjun with relevent or ir-relevent to the technology i wrote above .

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 08 Sep 2014 11:05

Shaun wrote:thank you menonji for your efforts , gurus here can shed more light on BFMS of arjun with relevent or ir-relevent to the technology i wrote above .


You are most welcome. The capacity to listen and understand something is in itself a great thing, something which I aspire to, though not always successfully. :)

member_27164
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_27164 » 08 Sep 2014 12:35

@Arun Menon
Err.. Arjun Mk 3? Requesting you to switch on the bulb.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 08 Sep 2014 12:55

From wikipedia:
FMBT was originally a new tank design that was to be developed from scratch for induction in 2025 and beyond. The FMBT and the programme would have focused on weight reduction in the design and was to be a lighter tank of 50 tons,.[94][95] However, the idea was dropped as no major breakthrough technology was realised in tank design that needed a complete design from scratch. As such it was decided to take the Arjun Mk II and upgrade the tank with new upgrades (suggested and followed by Israel's Merkava tanks). Future tanks are expected to be based on the Arjun and will incorporate new technologies just as most other tanks.


I have read passing mentions about FMBT being Arjun Mk. III or based on Arjun etc. in some other articles/interviews as well. Nothing official yet I think, but some of these mentions seem to be coming from DRDO itself, so I guess there must be some truth to it.

Just per my layman understanding. I am happy to be corrected. :)

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 08 Sep 2014 12:59

From the former Army Chief V. K. Singh himself:
He also indicated the upgraded Arjuns could go up to Mark III version too.

"We found certain faults and these have been rectified in Arjun Mk II and it will become Arjun Mk III," he said.


Arjun, Dhruv Get Thumbs Up From Indian Army Chief
http://www.defencenow.com/news/476/arjun-dhruv-get-thumbs-up-from-indian-army-chief.html


This one finds no mention of FMBT, but it does mention Arjun Mk. III. Altogether, a confusing picture is being painted.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5095
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby jamwal » 08 Sep 2014 13:37

UlanBatori wrote:Cross-posted from Yookraine dhaga: East Yookraine villagers report on 3 UkBapZi tanks rushing in, parking at kindergarten school ground: 2 wiped out instantly by pin-point direct hits, the 3rd crew gets the message and gets out in a hurry and runs for it.
"The tanks came in about six in the morning," said one villager who did not want to give his name. "As soon as they set up position there, you could hear the booms come in from that direction,"


Drones. Also, when 2 became toast with totally accurate shots, the crew of #3 got the idea and ran: and the drone saw that and passed on the Bojitive Neuj and the artillery ceased fire. So one more Ukrainian tank captured intact. Very interesting MO - this is how they are convincing the UkBapZis to get out and run.

This is modern warfare. Tanks and APCs are only good for terrorizing civilians and those who don't have air cover (or little UAVs sitting in the trees, tweeting like birds).

Hope Indian Army is watching. Investment in massive armored divisions is sheer folly. One $300 mijjile, one $3M tank + 3 crew + all their guns and ammo and radar and mijjiles are toast.



Is it possible not to use pinglish in these threads please ? Gets very confusing. What is UkBapZi ?
BTW, tanks without adequate infantry support are very vulnerable to such tactics, specially in urban areas. On the other hand, used properly, they are worth their weight in gold. If anybody has followed operation of NATO forces in Iraq, than he will not bad mouth tanks in this manner. Thickly armoured vehicles like tanks and infantry combat vehicles have been used extensively and provide invaluable heavy caliber fire as well, cover, transport and much safer transport. Do the detractors have any replacement for these in mind ? These talks about efficacy of armoured vehicles is getting boring and repetitive though.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3888
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby deejay » 08 Sep 2014 15:30

Obituaries for tank war fare have been written before. Some also wrote obituaries for front gun dog fights in fighters. Cruise Missiles won't replace fighters. Cars haven't replaced all the bullock carts in more than a century. The IA still uses mules. And the list goes on...

Everything is useful as long as we have the ingenuity to use them. Superior systems will keep coming over time and even tanks will evolve to adjust to modern warfare in jungles or urban centers. Effective usage will always be a function of good training and how good the General is.

Better Armoured vehicles are required for the Infantry. Loss of life as in WW1 & WW2 is not going to be acceptable any more.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1815
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srin » 08 Sep 2014 17:12

The fact remains that the modern tanks have been designed to fight other tanks and from a distance. Not for close-quarter battle.

Most of the protection is at the front. The turret, belly and sides are vulnerable, and this can be taken advantage of by RPGs, mines etc. The huge barrel is a disadvantage.

Someone should design a tank for CQB: smaller tank with crew of 2, with V-hull, remote turret with a 30mm gun (instead of 120mm) and armor on all sides and slat armor.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4332
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 08 Sep 2014 18:07

Arun Menon wrote:I think beam based APS systems are the logical evolution, as they are emerging in ship point defense, replacing/supplementing missile and projectile based defenses. This will take time though. By that time the primary armament of tanks might have shifted to railguns or beam weapons, considering how both a beam-based APS and the new primary weapons system will both have the same prerequisite, a substantial electrical power source.

As far as Arjun is concerned, it already uses Israeli threat detection and passive defense systems. It is also heard that they are eying the trophy defense system for use in Arjun. But given how our primary threat is from enemy states and their tanks, the primary defense has to be against tank projectiles. It is to this end DRDO has envisioned an APS that can not only defeat missiles/rockets, but also tank rounds (sabot).


Once the APS is perfected, Arjun MBT could shed a lot of its armour making a 50t tank design feasible. Future of MBT is modular armour with defensive suits that include APS type systems.

member_28700
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_28700 » 08 Sep 2014 18:32

Well, the IA keeps asking for uber-cool stuff to be put into Arjun which obviously increases the costs and then come order a measly 118 which obviously would not allow costs to come down. Arjun will always be in the perpetual cycle of development with little practical use this way. All efforts of 2 generations of R&D wasted with just newer and more capable variants ordered in small batches :(

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 987
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 08 Sep 2014 18:54

@srin a small tank for CQB ! Why call it tank ? ICV is more appropriate i guess and as jammwal saab said tanks works with infantry in dense urban warfare. coming to the point , Arjuns new aavatar have ERA and gun that can fire missile and its getting trophy like system but what remains to be seen is its network centric data fusion battle management system. look first and shoot first , how much work have been completed or need to be done in this direction for Arjun ?

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 987
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 08 Sep 2014 19:00

@ vaibhav_kumar what are these uber cool stuffs anyway ? can you please list them.

member_28700
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_28700 » 08 Sep 2014 19:19

Well Arjun has a number of firsts for an Indian tank. IA wants stuff that we do not have even in the phoren maal tanks.
Uncooled thermal imager which was later used in T-90 as theirs was not working.
Missile firing, Active protection, mine plougher (of all things), mobile camouflage (ever heard of such requirements for Ruskie tanks?), remote controlled weapon system (as per wiki)

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4332
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 08 Sep 2014 19:47

Arun Menon wrote:From wikipedia:
FMBT was originally a new tank design that was to be developed from scratch for induction in 2025 and beyond. The FMBT and the programme would have focused on weight reduction in the design and was to be a lighter tank of 50 tons,.[94][95] However, the idea was dropped as no major breakthrough technology was realised in tank design that needed a complete design from scratch. As such it was decided to take the Arjun Mk II and upgrade the tank with new upgrades (suggested and followed by Israel's Merkava tanks). Future tanks are expected to be based on the Arjun and will incorporate new technologies just as most other tanks.


I have read passing mentions about FMBT being Arjun Mk. III or based on Arjun etc. in some other articles/interviews as well. Nothing official yet I think, but some of these mentions seem to be coming from DRDO itself, so I guess there must be some truth to it.

Just per my layman understanding. I am happy to be corrected. :)


Here is what was written by Ajai Shukla on 27th Nov 12:

Army proposes to scrap Future Main Battle Tank: instead build successive models of the Arjun
The indigenous project to build a Future Main Battle Tank (FMBT) is being quietly buried by the army. Instead, the army’s tank directorate has proposed keeping faith with the home grown Arjun tank, while incrementally improving it into the future backbone of the army’s strike forces.

Senior army sources tell Business Standard that the Directorate General of Mechanised Forces (DGMF), which oversees the army’s tank force, has formally proposed that the Arjun be gradually improved through successive models --- Mark II, Mark III, Mark IV and so on --- rather than attempting a major technological leap into the unknown, which is what the FMBT would be.
...

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4332
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 08 Sep 2014 19:51

vaibhav_kumar wrote:
Shaun wrote:@ vaibhav_kumar what are these uber cool stuffs anyway ? can you please list them.
Well Arjun has a number of firsts for an Indian tank. IA wants stuff that we do not have even in the phoren maal tanks.
Uncooled thermal imager which was later used in T-90 as theirs was not working.
Missile firing, Active protection, mine plougher (of all things), mobile camouflage (ever heard of such requirements for Ruskie tanks?), remote controlled weapon system (as per wiki)


Here is a list:
Upcoming modifications on the Arjun Mark II
1. Missile firing capability
2. Commander’s TI panoramic sight Mk II
3. Driver’s uncooled thermal imaging night sight
4. Additional ammunition (don’t ask… won’t tell!)
5. Enhanced ammunition penetrator
6. Effective alternative to muzzle reference sight (MRS)
7. Resin-based CCC
8. Ten-round containerised bin
9. Explosive reactive armour panels
10. Infra-red/Thermal imaging resistant paint
11. Air defence weapon remote firing
12. ALWCS (advanced laser warning and countermeasure system)
13. Roof mounted driver’s seat
14. ATT in GMS (gunner’s main sight)
15. Advanced land navigation system
16. New final drive with increased reduction ratio
17. Advanced running gear system
18. New track system
19. Mine plough

In addition, there are 74 “minor” improvements (adding up to 93 improvements in all) that are not really that minor. For example:

1. An improved sprocket wheel that modifies the manufacturing process from rolled homogenous armour (which required gas cutting and machining) to a forged sprocket which is 50% the cost, 50% easier to build and gives a longer life.

2. Another minor modification is the incorporation of stainless steel fuel tanks. The painting required for the insides of the earlier mild steel tanks was creating residue that clogged the fuel lines and filters. But stainless steel requires no painting.

3. Internal electrical wiring has been comprehensively re-laid, incorporating the dozens of modifications that have been incrementally carried out over the years. The wiring has now been laid systematically, making it easier to track and repair.

4. The radio harness has been modified, and internal communications are now digital. That makes it easier to integrate audio alarms and provides an SMS facility between the crew (how ‘bout sum chai?). It is totally noise free… now the crew can communicate easily.

5. Another improvement is the incorporation of a new compact Auxillary Power Unit (APU), which provides 8 KW of electrical power (uprated from the existing 4.5 KW APU). This requirement is based on fresh load budgeting calculations, allowing the tank to operate in “silent mode” with the additional electronics… also keeping a cushion for future electronic enhancements.

...

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 987
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 08 Sep 2014 20:42

@srai aah you missed air conditioning ! thank you very much for the reply but dont you think these are actually needed for a moder tank? IA prefering tin cans is different topic though the placement of ERA bricks is almost identical with t90. this exhaustive list dont mention about the network centric BMS i was looking for anyway i am still waiting for some satisfactory reply

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4332
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 08 Sep 2014 21:30

Shaun wrote:@srai aah you missed air conditioning ! thank you very much for the reply but dont you think these are actually needed for a moder tank? IA prefering tin cans is different topic though the placement of ERA bricks is almost identical with t90. this exhaustive list dont mention about the network centric BMS i was looking for anyway i am still waiting for some satisfactory reply


What are you looking for exactly other than the air conditioning?

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1815
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srin » 08 Sep 2014 22:13

Shaun wrote:@srin a small tank for CQB ! Why call it tank ? ICV is more appropriate i guess and as jammwal saab said tanks works with infantry in dense urban warfare. coming to the point , Arjuns new aavatar have ERA and gun that can fire missile and its getting trophy like system but what remains to be seen is its network centric data fusion battle management system. look first and shoot first , how much work have been completed or need to be done in this direction for Arjun ?


A smaller but better armoured ICV ...

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Shalav » 08 Sep 2014 22:28

How do you get better armour by getting smaller?


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests