Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_26622 » 13 Sep 2014 03:03

Karan M wrote:Fantastic writeup on the origins of Kanchan armor from the horses mouth, its creator.

http://www.inae.in/newsletter/artmar1.pdf

My Tryst with Indigenous Armour Development
Dr T. Balakrishna Bhat

Jai Hind


These are the folks who really 'give' up their lives by forgoing $$$ rosier opportunities - every minute, hour and day for years. Least we could do to reward millions of man hours of hard work is order more Arjuns - but Tincan tamasha ruled mighty in prior administration.

It is ironic that our much beloved Delhi decision makers (now out of power) were an exact mirror image - willing to give up everything for $$$. Wonder when we will decide to go for a refund ?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18837
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 13 Sep 2014 03:30

I met a Bengali gentleman at a public event, from DMRL (coincidentally) who almost lost his life when working on some esoteric alloy, he stepped out of his lab and seconds later, it blew up. That apart, every third statement he made was about how he hoped "Mother India" would be helped by x, or y. That sort of patriotism is so deep it cannot be matched. Least of all by all the gasbags who constantly decry such folks as useless etc. VK Saraswat, reports in the early 2000's noted, was offered a huge package to take his expertise abroad & move out. He didn't and today we have Prithvi, Program AD etc. There are many many such people across all Indian professions who work passionately out of their own conviction (there is a report on Yasin Bhatkals capture on how the Intel folks paid out of their own pocket to run the op).

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 240
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby agupta » 13 Sep 2014 03:51

Karan

Next time you meet such a gent ( and I know many many such people), ask him how he feels about his bosses lying to the public about state of technologies and choices being made:
XYZ will be "completed" in 6 months, it has been "tested successfully", awards handed out for "successes" purely for political reasons, glamorous projects chosen over more substantive and useful projects, "high tech" Padma-XX award winning, headline making projects being prioritized over more useful ones to the Armed Services etc.

There's a huge difference between decrying a system where there is no accountability for actions/choices because of lack of transparency vs. questioning the patriotism of people working in it. The worst hatred of the former is in the hearts of the latter... and we on the outside, if we are not willing to spread some sunshine into this world to protect and encourage them are not doing them any favors. The reality is, these people are still in a minority, and the only way to transform the system is to kill the "other crabs" who pull these people down because they are shown in a bad light by the high performers... its far more comfortable if everyone does less, and awards go to the politically connected, or to those belonging to the right clique, or to the right village in Tamil Nadu/Punjab/Bengal/take-your-pick, or to the right college.

Praise the good - but equally, very quickly and harshly, weed out the bad - if you don't do that, the whole garden goes to seed... There are no absolutes in anything - and a wholesale "pass" for the weeds is just as bad as a wholesale fail for the garden

Ranjani Brow

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Ranjani Brow » 13 Sep 2014 14:28

125 mm APFSDS for T-90:
    Mk I - Defeat NATO triple target @2.5Km

    Mk II - Defeat NATO triple target @3.5Km (500mm RHA @2Km)

This is the 120mm Mk I APFSDS for Arjun (Mk II is supposed to go in production in 2015):
"Capable of defeating single, double and triple heavy NATO target @5Km". So how much this value corresponds to 'mm RHA' ?
Any details on MkII round?
How these rounds compare to the state-of-the-art APFSDS of other countries ? How behind are we ?
Are these rounds enough to defeat the Armour with our adversary (Al-Khalid, T-80, T-84) ?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18837
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 13 Sep 2014 15:41

agupta wrote:Karan

Next time you meet such a gent ( and I know many many such people), ask him how he feels about his bosses lying to the public about state of technologies and choices being made:
XYZ will be "completed" in 6 months, it has been "tested successfully", awards handed out for "successes" purely for political reasons, glamorous projects chosen over more substantive and useful projects, "high tech" Padma-XX award winning, headline making projects being prioritized over more useful ones to the Armed Services etc.

There's a huge difference between decrying a system where there is no accountability for actions/choices because of lack of transparency vs. questioning the patriotism of people working in it. The worst hatred of the former is in the hearts of the latter... and we on the outside, if we are not willing to spread some sunshine into this world to protect and encourage them are not doing them any favors. The reality is, these people are still in a minority, and the only way to transform the system is to kill the "other crabs" who pull these people down because they are shown in a bad light by the high performers... its far more comfortable if everyone does less, and awards go to the politically connected, or to those belonging to the right clique, or to the right village in Tamil Nadu/Punjab/Bengal/take-your-pick, or to the right college.

Praise the good - but equally, very quickly and harshly, weed out the bad - if you don't do that, the whole garden goes to seed... There are no absolutes in anything - and a wholesale "pass" for the weeds is just as bad as a wholesale fail for the garden


Agupta ji, there are good and bad folks across the board in India and its pretty irrelevant to todays situation, if I may say so, that you have to respond to a post pointing out how patriotic some people are with the working assumption that this man would be working with crooks & that most of the folks in that organization would be crooks.

First, it would be churlish beyond measure, for instance, if I were to meet somebody from the Army, I should start asking them about how they feel about "ketchup colonels" and "torturing Col Purohit" or how for the past several years political connections have led to some really dodgy decisions?

Or is the average jawan or the line officer deployed at the LOC responsible for these occasional travesties and should he be harangued for such stuff? You think they'd appreciate these efforts to spread "sunshine" or wouldn't they be offended and angry at my insolence?

If I meet somebody from AIIMS, I should say "so how do you feel about crooked doctors and political connections getting you to the top"? It would be petty of me.

Or do I acknowledge the fact that the vast majority of folks in many of these orgs do yeoman work & to little public knowledge, irrespective of the bad apples or choices at some positions?

Second, and this is the crux of the issue, in your viewpoint: "The reality is, these people are still in a minority, and the only way to transform the system is to kill the "other crabs" who pull these people down because they are shown in a bad light by the high performers".. where is the evidence that this is the "reality"?

Perhaps it was so in your time in a place or two, but I'd submit its not so *today* and has not been so for quite some time, wherein the vast majority of people who are working in these orgs are patriotic, do their job & are committed. I fear you are very badly mistaken about both these organizations & the people working in them, for what drives them is pride in their work & their organizations.

Its not that hard to look through folks & understand what makes them tick either when one meets them.

Over the past decade or so, I have had the opportunity to meet folks across a host of electronics, materials science & other labs. They were dedicated, committed & were promoted, selected on the basis of far more stringent norms than is the norm in many so called elite private sector places (where BTW, the stories of "jugaad" and "connections" are equally legion).

That they managed successful programs pointed to the fact that there respective orgs did what was right as well.

They don't need our patronizing comments about their organization being "xyz" and "that I am spreading sunshine" on their behalf.

What they do need, from time to time, is the occasional comment that the average person in India appreciates their work, understands that its not easy and that they should remain at it & get it done.

These folks are the high performers, they are rising within the system, getting things done & they don't need us to tell them how to manage their lives when PRIDE in their work and their organizations is what keeps them going.

As matter of fact, the most objective criteria, to determine that the majority of people in these organizations are delivering, is very simply product based. In the past decade or thereabouts, LRDE has put in around ten radars into service, has another bunch in trials, DARE has churned out many iterations of electronic gear, RCI/DRDL/ASL have managed to get out missile after missile into service, DMRL has managed to get several breakthroughs in basic metallurgy to get our ships etc made of local stuff.... the list goes on and on..

There are several high profile programs which are still yet to get out of the woods (e.g. LCA) but then these typify what is the problem.

In a nutshell. Our basic challenges with timelines & so forth are not some cabal of crooks conspiring to keep others down & garnering all the great accolades. Logically, since those so called accolades are worth peanuts, compared to private remuneration - ask around as to what a typical Scientist F/G/H, today can command in many orgs for sitting at the top & merely giving high level gyaan and recommendations.

The problem is pure and simple dysfunctional program management structures where folks are sitting in silos and the left hand doesn't care what the right does, because of ego clashes.

In far too many programs, there was a split between program management, to production to user involvement.

This has been addressed to some extent by embedding service personnel into the programs themselves (eg fighter pilots at DARE for EW) but there is a continued lack of institutionalization (what happens to these people after they move back to the parent org, what happens to the experience) and the conflict of interest inherent in DPSUs committing to such programs. Why would a HAL spend heavily on LCA when it can get equal profit or more from assembling..err...making a Rafale.

These are the primary issues which lead to lack of transparency & missed timelines *today*. Completely messed up structural setups with no clear ownership of what should be national programs. HAL running around with an IJT over the LCA. Army going around with T-90 over Arjun, OFB managing neither & Russia making money, shamelessly gypping us seeing our desparation, files being pushed around on Scorpene till it comes in with far more escalated cost & even when it does, indigenization goes for a toss incidentally when IAF tries to play hardball on Mirage 2000 spares..

These are the fundamental problems that dog our establishment. And to some extent they are deliberate. An open competition for lower priced trucks for instance would have killed a line of "profitable" east European imports that benefited some folks in the previous dispensation.

I expect, in the coming years, the new dispensation to take these sort of decisions and not being tied to the nice gravy strings of imports to take the relatively simple measures of setting up a proper control mechanism for many of these large programs. That in itself will tie everyone together & all these debates over transparency, accountability etc will go for a toss because everyone will be in the same cooking pot looking outwards, as versus everyone becoming a food critic & the cook engaging in revising the ingredients every two minutes & saying yes, yes - almost ready.
Last edited by Karan M on 13 Sep 2014 16:18, edited 2 times in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18837
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 13 Sep 2014 15:47

hecky wrote:125 mm APFSDS for T-90:
    Mk I - Defeat NATO triple target @2.5Km

    Mk II - Defeat NATO triple target @3.5Km (500mm RHA @2Km)

This is the 120mm Mk I APFSDS for Arjun (Mk II is supposed to go in production in 2015):
"Capable of defeating single, double and triple heavy NATO target @5Km". So how much this value corresponds to 'mm RHA' ?


Simple answer it doesn't. NATO single/double/triple heavy targets at x km only give a basic idea of capabilities and not proper details about what the round is truly capable of. Even that 125mm round you mention is being developed further beyond the original MK2.

Any details on MkII round?
How these rounds compare to the state-of-the-art APFSDS of other countries ? How behind are we ?
Are these rounds enough to defeat the Armour with our adversary (Al-Khalid, T-80, T-84) ?


The working assumption based on objective reports is that the new APFSDS under trials (125mm MK3 etc) and under development/trials (120mm MK2) are being developed with exact requirement of addressing likely adversary threat profiles (tanks you mention).

IA is also using missiles as a backup - Refleks/Lahat for both T-90 and Arjun are basically to ensure the "overkill" and which is why they are being procured in such number.

member_28108
BRFite
Posts: 1852
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_28108 » 13 Sep 2014 19:15

agupta wrote:Karan

Next time you meet such a gent ( and I know many many such people), ask him how he feels about his bosses lying to the public about state of technologies and choices being made:
XYZ will be "completed" in 6 months, it has been "tested successfully", awards handed out for "successes" purely for political reasons, glamorous projects chosen over more substantive and useful projects, "high tech" Padma-XX award winning, headline making projects being prioritized over more useful ones to the Armed Services etc.

There's a huge difference between decrying a system where there is no accountability for actions/choices because of lack of transparency vs. questioning the patriotism of people working in it. The worst hatred of the former is in the hearts of the latter... and we on the outside, if we are not willing to spread some sunshine into this world to protect and encourage them are not doing them any favors. The reality is, these people are still in a minority, and the only way to transform the system is to kill the "other crabs" who pull these people down because they are shown in a bad light by the high performers... its far more comfortable if everyone does less, and awards go to the politically connected, or to those belonging to the right clique, or to the right village in Tamil Nadu/Punjab/Bengal/take-your-pick, or to the right college.

Praise the good - but equally, very quickly and harshly, weed out the bad - if you don't do that, the whole garden goes to seed... There are no absolutes in anything - and a wholesale "pass" for the weeds is just as bad as a wholesale fail for the garden


Actually they are very well aware of the true time lines. I talked to such people and they know very well the real reasons behind these.Typically not any of their own people (right from the top) but because of political compulsions which force them to make such statements to preserve their programs. Sometimes they have to stoop to conquer.

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby pragnya » 14 Sep 2014 10:15

kudos for a fine post above Karan.

Karan M wrote:
hecky wrote:IA is also using missiles as a backup - Refleks/Lahat for both T-90 and Arjun are basically to ensure the "overkill" and which is why they are being procured in such number.


i have seen a picture of Arjun firing Lahat but have not seen T-90 firing Refleks. are there any?

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 » 14 Sep 2014 11:07

Me neither. Just think another scandal under the rug.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4400
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 16 Sep 2014 20:01

Israeli Hand in India's New Tank
20/2/2014

The Arjun Mk II tank, India's Future Main Battle Tank (FMBT), is currently under development, and is expected to include a number of Israeli systems, including the ALWACS system by Elbit Systems and "LAHAT" missile by the IAI (source).

The Arjun Mk II will undergo five phases of user trials, out of which three have been completed, and the fourth is scheduled for May 2014, according to a publication on newindianexpress.

The new tank will include an advanced laser warning and countermeasures system (ALWACS) and commander’s open-architecture panoramic sight (COAPS) - both developed by Elbit Systems.

According to online sources, The ALWACS will include four E-LWS sensors that can detect, categorize and pinpoint laser sources, including rangefinders, designators, beam-riders, and infra-red illuminators. E-LWS also enables direction indication for all threats, as well as audio and visual warnings.

The system is immune to reflection, gunfire, lightning, fire and self-electro-optical operations. The other two components of ALWACS are an IR jammer, and two 8-launcher aerosol smoke screening systems. According to foreign sources, Elbit Systems has previously supplied the Indian Army with these systems for the Arjun Mk1A main battle tanks (MBT) in January 2012 (source).

Another Israeli company that helped India to develop the new tank is IMI. The company helped to improve the overall design of the tank, specifically its turret and hull for more accurate and reliable firepower, and assisted in optimizing the production line processes (source).

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby negi » 16 Sep 2014 21:07

Well we didn't see T-90 firing INVARs partly because BDL was being 'helped' by the Ru and again the MBT itself had sight issues so a televised demo was obviously ruled out and hence there is no video clip as evidence. :)

Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Shrinivasan » 18 Sep 2014 10:46

srai wrote:Here is a list:
1. Missile firing capability
2. Commander’s TI panoramic sight Mk II
...

This is impressive... the fact that DRDO has accomplished this and HVF Avadi has successfully built these is commendable. Hopefully Jet-Li would approve an order of 300+ Arjuns over and above the 118 sanctioned.

At the same time, DRDO should continue with improving the MBT, moving on to MKIII and so on...

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_28700 » 18 Sep 2014 14:42

Well as long as Arjun's weight issues are not resolved, IA will keep coming back with 'logistic issues' and order only piecemeal orders. Arjun Mk-3 should concentrate on lowering the weight of the tank by some re-designing (easier said than done) :(

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8125
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 18 Sep 2014 15:33

Arjun cannot lose any weight.

Is it not interesting that post improvements, a 60 ton tank goes up to 70 tons. And still the ground pressure exerted by the Mk2 is only == to that of the tin can. That is nearly 25 tons lighter.

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby d_berwal » 18 Sep 2014 21:14

negi wrote:Well we didn't see T-90 firing INVARs partly because BDL was being 'helped' by the Ru and again the MBT itself had sight issues so a televised demo was obviously ruled out and hence there is no video clip as evidence. :)


may be because 100% of our media TV crews cant distinguish between Heat Vs ATGM Vs APFSDS fire hence no video clip

or no need to have such a televised demo as enough videos of ATGM firing from T-90 main gun available in public domain and no one in India media or IA PR cell though of it as a brownie point

well if we have YouTube videos of T-90 night fire the i guess sight is working irrespective of disinformation about it not working.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18837
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 18 Sep 2014 21:49

The sight fails in daylight not night at peak heat conditions.

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby d_berwal » 18 Sep 2014 22:07

Karan M wrote:The sight fails in daylight not night at peak heat conditions.


does it still fail in extreme day conditions? (even if you stand in 55 degree C without protection you will fail in 1-2 hrs)

there are enough day time youtube videos of T-90 firing.

even Arjun Sight failed at that peak conditions, it started failing at 45 degree C (before the time period when we had reports of some French Sight of Russian MBT to have failed in 50-55 degree c continuous usage)

infant every sight of any weapon fail at 55 degree C before we INDIANS made it a requirement and made sure a workaround or solution is found.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18837
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 19 Sep 2014 08:05

You make illogical claims then go onto dig holes further coming up with weirder claims.

First you noted nightfire proved the sight was working. Completely ignoring the reports that the issue was never about working at night at all.

The issue with extreme heat occurs inside the tank. Not because we are "Indians" but because a metal can aka a tank, soaks up heat and generates even more heat thanks to onboard electronics and equipment. The solution to that is to either ruggedize the equipment from day 1 or put an ECS/AC. Neither of which the T90 has.

And yes, the T90 continues to face the issue. The IA is still looking around for ECS/APU even, which it would be least bothered about if the issue had been resolved.

Youtube videos of T90 firing..yeah so? Day only sight, plain optics channel without TI can be used in the day, says nothing about the TI.

Now, you say "everything fails" at 55 deg centigrade. And say the Arjun sight failed. Where, when, where is the evidence? As matter of fact, Arjun faced heat issues , when the OEM provided electronics for the stabilizer were calibrated for lower setting (Europe) and were fixed when reset for Indian use. The Sagem sight has been designed for India and is ruggedized.

Fact of the matter is T-90 sight was not ruggedized, and overall FCS/TI integration was poorly engineered - jugaad fix into the T90 architecture and existing GMS hence it failed.

The only jugaad that has been done is to replace the monitors on which the detector image was displayed with locally sourced ones. Even that by itself doesn't resolve the whole challenge. It merely pointed out that there were multiple points of failure, displays+TI both.

Your denial is not going to change the fact that the issues occurred and its India which is running around to fix it by trying to put air conditioning into the tank.

Ever thought why we are not desperate to put ACs into Arjun but only crew cooling garments are sufficient? T-90 in contrast, for many years now, the search for an ECS continues with focus on electronics and not crew!!

The evidence speaks for itself.

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby d_berwal » 19 Sep 2014 09:38

Karan M wrote:You make illogical claims then go onto dig holes further coming up with weirder claims.
same can be said for your claims.

First you noted nightfire proved the sight was working. Completely ignoring the reports that the issue was never about working at night at all.

The issue with extreme heat occurs inside the tank. Not because we are "Indians" but because a metal can aka a tank, soaks up heat and generates even more heat thanks to onboard electronics and equipment. The solution to that is to either ruggedize the equipment from day 1 or put an ECS/AC. Neither of which the T90 has.

And yes, the T90 continues to face the issue. The IA is still looking around for ECS/APU even, which it would be least bothered about if the issue had been resolved.

Youtube videos of T90 firing..yeah so? Day only sight, plain optics channel without TI can be used in the day, says nothing about the TI.


how was the day only sight was working when the monitor itself was not working as per you? or you mean to say stand alone day sight (1G46 day sighting system)?

The cmdr monitor or the gunner monitor was an issue or both?

Are you sure the The sight problem was only with Thermal channel and not day channel, if so can we say it was only a partial failure? (i am not sure as am not aware of all the technical jugaad)

Now, you say "everything fails" at 55 deg centigrade. And say the Arjun sight failed. Where, when, where is the evidence? As matter of fact, Arjun faced heat issues , when the OEM provided electronics for the stabilizer were calibrated for lower setting (Europe) and were fixed when reset for Indian use. The Sagem sight has been designed for India and is ruggedized.

Fact of the matter is T-90 sight was not ruggedized, and overall FCS/TI integration was poorly engineered - jugaad fix into the T90 architecture and existing GMS hence it failed.


do you understand what happens to a piece of electronic equipment inside any MBT if it is not ruggedized?

how long can a piece of non ruggedized electronic equipment sustain the vibrations and shock :
- when a MBT is moving?
- when an MBT is firing?
- even when you start the engine?

The only jugaad that has been done is to replace the monitors on which the detector image was displayed with locally sourced ones. Even that by itself doesn't resolve the whole challenge. It merely pointed out that there were multiple points of failure, displays+TI both.


how come its a jugaad, locally sourced monitors are of same specification as OEM supplied or are the different

Your denial is not going to change the fact that the issues occurred and its India which is running around to fix it by trying to put air conditioning into the tank.

Ever thought why we are not desperate to put ACs into Arjun but only crew cooling garments are sufficient? T-90 in contrast, for many years now, the search for an ECS continues with focus on electronics and not crew!!

The evidence speaks for itself.


well who is in denial and what is the evidence itself is doubtful.

Point that the issue has been resolved and we are not in a desperate condition that's why ECS/AC might be part of Mid-Life upgrade and are not introduced as of yet.

Arjun MK1 in service crew does not have any cooling garments

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby pragnya » 19 Sep 2014 10:31

Karan M wrote:You make illogical claims then go onto dig holes further coming up with weirder claims.

First you noted nightfire proved the sight was working. Completely ignoring the reports that the issue was never about working at night at all.

The issue with extreme heat occurs inside the tank. Not because we are "Indians" but because a metal can aka a tank, soaks up heat and generates even more heat thanks to onboard electronics and equipment. The solution to that is to either ruggedize the equipment from day 1 or put an ECS/AC. Neither of which the T90 has.

And yes, the T90 continues to face the issue. The IA is still looking around for ECS/APU even, which it would be least bothered about if the issue had been resolved.

Youtube videos of T90 firing..yeah so? Day only sight, plain optics channel without TI can be used in the day, says nothing about the TI.

Now, you say "everything fails" at 55 deg centigrade. And say the Arjun sight failed. Where, when, where is the evidence? As matter of fact, Arjun faced heat issues , when the OEM provided electronics for the stabilizer were calibrated for lower setting (Europe) and were fixed when reset for Indian use. The Sagem sight has been designed for India and is ruggedized.

Fact of the matter is T-90 sight was not ruggedized, and overall FCS/TI integration was poorly engineered - jugaad fix into the T90 architecture and existing GMS hence it failed.

The only jugaad that has been done is to replace the monitors on which the detector image was displayed with locally sourced ones. Even that by itself doesn't resolve the whole challenge. It merely pointed out that there were multiple points of failure, displays+TI both.

Your denial is not going to change the fact that the issues occurred and its India which is running around to fix it by trying to put air conditioning into the tank.

Ever thought why we are not desperate to put ACs into Arjun but only crew cooling garments are sufficient? T-90 in contrast, for many years now, the search for an ECS continues with focus on electronics and not crew!!

The evidence speaks for itself.


the evidence indeed speaks for itself. IA knows these issues are not going to be easily surmounted without hoards of money and loads of time. the fact that they have inducted the Arjuns in the 'deserts' and not anywhere else speaks volumes of their folly of inducting a tank designed for cooler/normal climates and 'not' extreme indian tropical conditions.

AdityaM
BRFite
Posts: 1932
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby AdityaM » 19 Sep 2014 10:39

Pratyush wrote:Arjun cannot lose any weight.

Is it not interesting that post improvements, a 60 ton tank goes up to 70 tons. And still the ground pressure exerted by the Mk2 is only == to that of the tin can. That is nearly 25 tons lighter.


Is ground pressure a function of track width and length ?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8125
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 19 Sep 2014 12:52

:(( I don't know the answer to that :((

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby negi » 19 Sep 2014 13:27

AdityaM wrote:Is ground pressure a function of track width and length ?

I would think so, I mean logically it should be governed by the area of track in contact with ground . Arjun has a longer track for sure so if the aspect ratio is the same it might even have a slightly wider track than T-90.

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby d_berwal » 19 Sep 2014 15:37

Some good stuff :)

http://www.ijrdet.com/files/Volume1Issu ... 213_07.pdf

Design and Analysis of Axle Arm for ARJUN MBT Track Tensioner

ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby ArmenT » 20 Sep 2014 09:23

AdityaM wrote:
Pratyush wrote:Arjun cannot lose any weight.

Is it not interesting that post improvements, a 60 ton tank goes up to 70 tons. And still the ground pressure exerted by the Mk2 is only == to that of the tin can. That is nearly 25 tons lighter.


Is ground pressure a function of track width and length ?

Physics definition of pressure is Force / Area.
Force = Weight of the tank
Area = Area of contact with the ground, which is the tank tracks.

Therefore, the ground pressure depends on the weight of the tank and area of the tank treads (i.e. width and length of tank treads).

Or, in other terms, pressure is directly proportional to the weight of the tank and inversely proportional to the area of the tank treads.

Simple fizziks onlee :).

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 » 20 Sep 2014 11:10

So, Arjun MK 2 has bigger tracks than MK 1 ?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Austin » 20 Sep 2014 11:13

jamwal wrote:So, Arjun MK 2 has bigger tracks than MK 1 ?


Yes http://www.livefistdefence.com/2012/08/ ... ealed.html

We have increased the track width, to ensure that the ground pressure remains the same in spite of the increased weight.

VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1781
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby VikramS » 20 Sep 2014 22:08

Rudradev:

Ideally all armies would be robotized clones. No humans. Technologically we are there, but in reality it will be a sad day for humanity if machines gain control over weapons.

Same hold true for tanks. When compared to other capital equipment, tanks are not that expensive. They can be bought in numbers.

Remember a single MANPAAD can bring down an aircraft costing 100s of Millions. That does not make the aircraft meaningless.

The same way, ATGM or attack helo do not make Tanks redundant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala shows how even the world's best attack helo forced could be ambushed.

"The casualties sustained by the Apaches induced a change of tactics by placing significant restrictions on their use.[10] Attack helicopters would now be used to reveal the location of enemy troops, allowing them to be destroyed by artillery and air strikes"

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2230
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby John » 21 Sep 2014 08:17

VikramS wrote:Remember a single MANPAAD can bring down an aircraft costing 100s of Millions. That does not make the aircraft meaningless.


Thats not true most combat aircraft operate at altitude safely above Manpad threat thanks to precision guided munitions and it is mainly CAS aircraft that are vulnerable to MANPADs. Not to mention armed with proper EW/ECM it is not that easy to bring an modern AC down with a MANPAD (Ukr Rebels shot half dozen Igla at Mig-29 and finally brought it down using AAA).

In other hand tanks cannot out-range Anti tank weapons and RPG squads are being used to devastating effectiveness in places like Iraq. When handful of IS fighters can take out more than dozen M1A1, APC that shows how deadly these weapons truly are. IMO a tank without APS is obsolete in 21st century warfare.

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby koti » 14 Oct 2014 21:02


Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8125
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 15 Oct 2014 10:56

The CLGM Is coming along nicely. The scrapping of the LAHAT should not have any impact on the induction of the tank. As the main gun ammo ids good enough for most applications. When the CLGM is developed, it will be added to the vehicle.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20329
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 15 Oct 2014 13:47

"Within 3 years".I'd love to see a statistic list of indigenous weapon systems and the number of times the schedule was recast! But never the mind,the A-2 without a gun fired ATGM isn't impotent by any means.By the way,has anyone seen the specs,details of the latest avatar of the Carl Gustav? Is there any info whether the IA is considering acquiring the same?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18837
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 16 Oct 2014 01:08

d_berwal wrote: same can be said for your claims.


nope. i am not the one coming up with convoluted explanations for a flawed deal for a flawed item.

how was the day only sight was working when the monitor itself was not working as per you? or you mean to say stand alone day sight (1G46 day sighting system)?

The cmdr monitor or the gunner monitor was an issue or both?

Are you sure the The sight problem was only with Thermal channel and not day channel, if so can we say it was only a partial failure? (i am not sure as am not aware of all the technical jugaad)


so, if you dont know or are not aware of the issue, then why are you arguing?

the thermal imager fails. so do the internal systems such as the monitor. due to the heat. you quote night ops videos as a laughable explanation for the TI working when the issue is about it failing in the day, until and unless per your desire IA only goes to war in the night.

do you understand what happens to a piece of electronic equipment inside any MBT if it is not ruggedized?


i do, but do you? the difference is the arjun items were ruggedized, the t90s were not. go figure why.

how long can a piece of non ruggedized electronic equipment sustain the vibrations and shock :
- when a MBT is moving?
- when an MBT is firing?
- even when you start the engine?


what misleading convoluted claims. these items are meant to withstand a certain amount of environmental & system constraints both (op conditions) and the t-90s couldnt. plain and simple.

how come its a jugaad, locally sourced monitors are of same specification as OEM supplied or are the different


its a jugaad because the OEM didn't fix it and the army base workshops had to find a workaround. oem doesnt certify them either. in a proper purchase these items would be sourced from the OEM and certified and not have to be replaced by some local items procured by ABW because original items kept failing

well who is in denial and what is the evidence itself is doubtful


you are in clear denial because the evidence exists in spades, and you refuse to acknowledge it

Point that the issue has been resolved and we are not in a desperate condition that's why ECS/AC might be part of Mid-Life upgrade and are not introduced as of yet.


lol, so its not been introduced so we are not in a desparate condition. what wonderful logic. so if the say, army didnt have enough ammo, on account of various issues, its own or elsewhere, so since army didnt have it. its not a desparate condition. or if army doesnt have anything, then its fine because they dont have it, so its fine so they wont need it either. circular logic 101

ECS/AC are not inducted because so far they havent found a single system which could be procured quickly off the shelf and fit into the tank quickly. its become a mess since the powerful ACs soak up enough horsepower (never mind the increased weight of the ERA panels) to demand an uprated engine, which if run continuously will kill the fuel range profile, hence an APU is also required.

all this because the tanks electronics can't operate reliably in the heat since the gents at UVZ never tested the Catherine extensively in desert/heat conditions or its overall FCS and folks chose it even whilst decrying the Arjun and ignoring the heat issue which the Arjun team painstakingly addressed.


Arjun MK1 in service crew does not have any cooling garments


yes, because its a "nice to have feature" as is an ECS .. not essential (for now). until IA deploys for months again and discovers a need as they did for ice vests as in 2001-02. for T-90 ECS/AC+APU are anyhow essential for electronics. crew cooling is secondary.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Austin » 17 Oct 2014 23:43

India releases RfP for BMP-1 engine upgrades

http://www.janes.com/article/44546/indi ... e-upgrades

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1555
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 18 Oct 2014 17:26

Austin wrote:India releases RfP for BMP-1 engine upgrades

http://www.janes.com/article/44546/indi ... e-upgrades


There was some news a few days back that the BMP-1 upgrade will involve a 400 Hp indigenous engine. IIRC, a 400 Hp powerpack was developed with Cummins under the Abhay TD project and the same will be available off the shelf for FICV contenders.

member_28454
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 16
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_28454 » 22 Oct 2014 03:20

India Gives In to Russia's Terms For High-Priced Tank Ammunition
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141021/DEFREG03/310210050/India-Gives-Russia-s-Terms-High-Priced-Tank-Ammunition
The MoD reluctantly agreed to the deal last month, despite the fact that Russia hiked the price by 20 percent and refused to accept offset obligations.

Issue is linked with the fact that the code for the fire-control computer is with the Russians and if DRDO tries to tweak it, they will cry foul quoting IPR. And we give in to this. Wonder if they even try arguing that with the Chinese...or with anyone else for that matter.
Imagine an actual, even a small-scale, conflict when the demand for ammunition is much higher.
Domestic is best

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9632
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Yagnasri » 22 Oct 2014 04:11

But who cares. Babu log only want malai.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8125
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 22 Oct 2014 05:23

Death to the Arjun. We want more Than 90. So that every 5 years, the Russians rob us blind over one or the other issue. What of the TOT.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16489
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 22 Oct 2014 06:13

:twisted:

A diplomat from the Russian Embassy merely said the sale of T-90 ammunition was on agreed-upon terms, and refused to give details.


What do you guys know?

Besides it is a problem with OFB.

India was forced to agree to the terms because OFB’s efforts at making the ammunition failed, an Indian Army official said.

“India bought T-90 tanks from Russia without transfer of technology for ammunition, which has resulted in perpetual shortages for the ammunition,” the official said.


Of course:

“The way out of the ammunition crisis is the need to tie up with overseas original equipment manufactures [OEMs],” said defense analyst Nitin Mehta. The rise in demand for T-90 ammunition as the fleet strength increases will be an attraction for OEMs to come forward to partner with Indian companies in producing the required ammunition, Mehta said.

The Indian Army operates more than 500 T-90 tanks, and plans to increase the strength to more than 1,300 by 2020 through license-production at Indian facilities.


Perpetual shortage.

It is this failure that has cost India $197 mil.
Last edited by NRao on 22 Oct 2014 06:17, edited 2 times in total.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_26622 » 22 Oct 2014 06:14

So Russia want to milk us for every last bit, as long as it lasts. Serves us right to claim Arjun better than Tin can.

It's obvious that T-90 is the last dumb mistake we will be making, or for that matter any more armor from Russia. Unless we vote dear Rahulji@Congress in to power - who will sell us out to the highest bidder - bit by bit.

What a Fu**ing shame - 1200 Billion Indians vs. 140 million Russians - can't say anything further!. We have to import ammunition for our imported MBT - not engine or other main component after paying top dollars for TOT - basic basic ammunition.

And why in the go**am world do we still keep making more Tin cans ?

Now forget about holding back China - unless can pay a million $ for every shell.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests