Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9877
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Yagnasri » 03 Feb 2015 14:54

Skirts are there also to prevent raise of dust? I hear Challenger2 has such things. Am i wrong?

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4008
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby deejay » 03 Feb 2015 15:03

:D . Darshhan ji is in form today.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21063
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 03 Feb 2015 15:44

Darshaen,I missed seeing the Agni missiles and Arjun Mk-2 while watching the parade.There was a singular lack of desi wares. The IN float could've also had the P-28 ASW corvette,Akula,etc. I think that this year's parade was shortened deliberately to protect the precious backside of our VVVIP guest who cannot be in the open long enough even for a "pit stop"!

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8311
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 03 Feb 2015 16:02

Philip, you will not accept it but, if the T 90 was to have the same capability, as Mk 2 it will cross 50 crs.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1177
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 03 Feb 2015 18:19

@philip
you are quoting figures , selectively for a tank which the army wants with all bells and whistles, when Mr chander told Mk2 will cost 50cr, he have considered active APS system for it, which actually will escalate the cost.

2009-10 figure shows Arjun MK1 costs 21 cr ( IF ORDERED IN QUANTITY COST WILL COME DOWN ) please stop misleading people.
Last edited by shaun on 04 Feb 2015 07:24, edited 1 time in total.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2511
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby John » 03 Feb 2015 19:08

We discussed this topic to death what is point of trashing T-90 in order to promote Arjun both are fine tanks. For IA induct Arjun in thousands it would require great deal of $$ in order to procure and establish new equipment for logistics and maintenance. Yes in a ideal world with infinite budget that can easily happen but I think there are bigger priorities like procuring 155 mm Howitzers and self propelled artillery.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1177
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 03 Feb 2015 19:11

People who are in favor of T-90 always argued that as 90s are the advance version of 72s , and India already have production line and technology of 72's , it will be prudent to go for 90s

The reality is tabled below
Image
Image
Last edited by shaun on 03 Feb 2015 19:23, edited 1 time in total.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1177
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 03 Feb 2015 19:12

John wrote:We discussed this topic to death what is point of trashing T-90 in order to promote Arjun both are fine tanks. For IA induct Arjun in thousands it would require great deal of $$ in order to procure and establish new equipment for logistics and maintenance. Yes in a ideal world with infinite budget that can easily happen but I think there are bigger priorities like procuring 155 mm Howitzers and self propelled artillery.


With such argument of yours in place we will be in the perpetual circle of importing.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1177
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 03 Feb 2015 19:37

Time have come to retrospect about MBT Arjun development , though i don't prescribe to each and every word of the author , it gives a general view about the challenges that MBT Arjun went through.
http://frontierindia.net/passion-of-the-arjun-tank

Some comments

1."The Arjun tank has no future. It still cannot fire straight. The T-90, a far superior tank, can kill the Arjun. We would not cross any border with these tanks"
Strong words, from Brigadier D K Babbar, the Army's pointsman for the Main Battle Tank (MBT) Arjun project at the Mechanised Forces directorate until he retired last year from the 94th Armoured Brigade. Babbar, who spoke to The Indian Express.

2. In an ‘Know Your Army’ exhibition, when asked by a reporter on Arjun tank, Brig (Retd) Prabir Goswami replied “it’s a highly-sophisticated tank with several state-of-the-art components and a ”very high first round hit capability,” Brig (Retd) Prabir Goswami who commanded 16 Independent Armoured Brigade during Operation Vijay the Kargil conflict is also awarded with Vishisht Seva Medal.

3.Dr. K. Santhanam of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) in a panel discussion for indigenization of equipment in Indian armed forces famously quoted “The first point is I would like to talk about is the process of General Staff Qualitative Requirement (GSQR) itself. It has been characterized in very simple terms for a layman to understand. It is called BBC - Best of Brochure Claims. The answer comes back from Indian R&D is that UDIPI - you demand and I produce immediately.”

Agni-pariksha or parikshas !!

After Passing AUCRT As suggested by Army , Arjun tanks were subjected to rigorous trials and assessment by a third party audit (an internationally reputed tank manufacturer). After the extensive evaluation, the reputed tank manufacturer confirmed that the MBT Arjun is an excellent tank with very good mobility and fire power characteristics suitable for Indian desert. They also added inputs such as quality auditing, production procedures and refined calibration procedures for further enhancing the performance of MBT Arjun.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4702
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 03 Feb 2015 21:32

Shaun wrote:Time have come to retrospect about MBT Arjun development , though i don't prescribe to each and every word of the author , it gives a general view about the challenges that MBT Arjun went through.
http://frontierindia.net/passion-of-the-arjun-tank

Some comments

1."The Arjun tank has no future. It still cannot fire straight. The T-90, a far superior tank, can kill the Arjun. We would not cross any border with these tanks"
Strong words, from Brigadier D K Babbar, the Army's pointsman for the Main Battle Tank (MBT) Arjun project at the Mechanised Forces directorate until he retired last year from the 94th Armoured Brigade. Babbar, who spoke to The Indian Express.

...


Now that the Brigadier has retired, ask him the same question. He will have changed his tune and will provide lip-service on how good the Arjun MBT is. If you search for quotes of former generals, you will see this "positive change"; yet, while in office it would seem they chose not to.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1177
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 03 Feb 2015 22:03

^^^^^
I guess you are getting me wrong , i am not here to malign IA .

Its a retrospect to the things that have gone wrong so that it don't happen in future and also a message to those persons who were and are riding on the waves of misinformation.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19842
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 04 Feb 2015 00:42

srai wrote:
Shaun wrote:Time have come to retrospect about MBT Arjun development , though i don't prescribe to each and every word of the author , it gives a general view about the challenges that MBT Arjun went through.
http://frontierindia.net/passion-of-the-arjun-tank

Some comments

1."The Arjun tank has no future. It still cannot fire straight. The T-90, a far superior tank, can kill the Arjun. We would not cross any border with these tanks"
Strong words, from Brigadier D K Babbar, the Army's pointsman for the Main Battle Tank (MBT) Arjun project at the Mechanised Forces directorate until he retired last year from the 94th Armoured Brigade. Babbar, who spoke to The Indian Express.

...


Now that the Brigadier has retired, ask him the same question. He will have changed his tune and will provide lip-service on how good the Arjun MBT is. If you search for quotes of former generals, you will see this "positive change"; yet, while in office it would seem they chose not to.


Sir, this guy was the Armys pointsman for the Arjun program. He clearly knew which had the better FCS and the issues plaguing the T-90 vs the minor glitches with Arjun whose system was far superior. Yet, his comments.
Why do you think he was appointed as the IA pointsman and where do you think all those extra trials for Arjun, hence the delays and hence more T-90 orders, came from? It was a well thought out game and the Arjun can become a hovercraft but a Brig XXX will appear as the pointsman and say Arjun cant go supersonic and T-1000 is a better tank and so forth.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4702
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 04 Feb 2015 04:59

Agreed! This Brigadier's statement is pretty extreme. AFAIK, Mechanised Forces directorate/Military Operations (MO) Directorate are the ones vehemently against Arjun MBT.

Note: Armoured Corps chaps seem to talk positively about Arjun MBT on the other hand.
Last edited by srai on 04 Feb 2015 05:08, edited 1 time in total.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby RoyG » 04 Feb 2015 05:06

I'm not sure how t-crap fanboys live with themselves knowing that the rust bucket they're peddling will be a coffin for our troops. All of a sudden money becomes an issue for them even though we've paid more for ToT, defective parts, etc. They'll come up with any excuse despite all of the comparative trials.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2495
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 04 Feb 2015 08:01

I think it was shown that the T-90 costs more. The true cost was hidden as items were imported separately. So the cost comparison is also a negative for the T-90.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21063
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 04 Feb 2015 10:49

Let me summarise the situ and what I would say to the chief and generals if one was the DM,going by the assumption that A-2 has made the grade.

"Gentlemen,after decades of effort we have now succeeded with the Arjun,the Mk-2 which you asked for with all the 70+ changes from the MK-1.The tank has passed its rigorous tests with flying colours.The time has now come to induct it into the IA with as many as CVRDE can produce to spur the goal of indigenization and act as a morale booster for our dedicated scientists of the DRDO and further the national goal of achieving 70% of our def. eqpt. indigenously.

The T-90 which you have acquired and operate in large number and which is also being built at CVRDE ,forms the backbone of the armoured corps. That programme was meant to equip the IA with the required number of MBTs at a reasonable cost to counter the Paki acquisition of T-80s.Upgrading old T-72s was also part of the plan so that the IA had the requisite number of MBTs superior to those in Paki colours in both quantity and quality.

However,the time has now come to induct the excellent A-2 and given the budget that the MOD has fixed for capital acquisitions for the IA for MBTs,as there is a huge amt. required for the arty needs,it is upto you to determine the composition of your future tank fleet of A-2s,T-90s and upgraded T-72s. The A-2 may be costlier than the T-90 (* here we do not know the actual costs which will be classified, but assume that the smaller T-90 weighing 15t less will be cheaper than the A-2),but we have to induct it,recoup our capital investment and preserve our R&D capabilities to develop a future FMBT. The DRDO says that at least 400 are needed for the same. Curtailing several hundred old T-72s for upgrades would be one way of using the saved money for A-2s. These T-72s can be modified for use as support armoured vehicles/variants. Pl. give me your final fleet composition asap and remember that our goal is to achieve maximum indigenization as possible .Tx."

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Viv S » 04 Feb 2015 11:30

Philip wrote:The A-2 may be costlier than the T-90, but we have to induct it,recoup our capital investment and preserve our R&D capabilities to develop a future FMBT.

I was wondering how long it would take for the Arjun to be presented as a doormat stepping-stone to the paper project called the FMBT.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8311
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 04 Feb 2015 11:52

"All of you who enter here, abandon your sanity". , The first post on this thread, should state this disclaimer. :P

In the Arjun vs T90, discussion, any attempt to preserve sanity is an exercise in futility.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1177
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 04 Feb 2015 11:59

Philip wrote:Let me summarise the situ and what I would say to the chief and generals if one was the DM,going by the assumption that A-2 has made the grade.

"Gentlemen,after decades of effort we have now succeeded with the Arjun,the Mk-2 which you asked for with all the 70+ changes from the MK-1.The tank has passed its rigorous tests with flying colours.The time has now come to induct it into the IA with as many as CVRDE can produce to spur the goal of indigenization and act as a morale booster for our dedicated scientists of the DRDO and further the national goal of achieving 70% of our def. eqpt. indigenously.

The T-90 which you have acquired and operate in large number and which is also being built at CVRDE ,forms the backbone of the armoured corps. That programme was meant to equip the IA with the required number of MBTs at a reasonable cost to counter the Paki acquisition of T-80s.Upgrading old T-72s was also part of the plan so that the IA had the requisite number of MBTs superior to those in Paki colours in both quantity and quality.

However,the time has now come to induct the excellent A-2 and given the budget that the MOD has fixed for capital acquisitions for the IA for MBTs,as there is a huge amt. required for the arty needs,it is upto you to determine the composition of your future tank fleet of A-2s,T-90s and upgraded T-72s. The A-2 may be costlier than the T-90 (* here we do not know the actual costs which will be classified, but assume that the smaller T-90 weighing 15t less will be cheaper than the A-2),but we have to induct it,recoup our capital investment and preserve our R&D capabilities to develop a future FMBT. The DRDO says that at least 400 are needed for the same. Curtailing several hundred old T-72s for upgrades would be one way of using the saved money for A-2s. These T-72s can be modified for use as support armoured vehicles/variants. Pl. give me your final fleet composition asap and remember that our goal is to achieve maximum indigenization as possible .Tx."


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21063
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 04 Feb 2015 14:31

No :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: matter this! .......One is serious. He!He!

An FMBT programme is needed for the next decade. I still feel that a smaller 3-man crewed tank with greater automation ,larger main gun,missile capabilities,better armour,sensors,passive and active anti-missile defences,engine,commns,etc.,are needed for the next decade when the T-72s will start being retired.The Arjun tech developed can be utilized in significant measure and a benchmark to emulate. A future FMBT could like aircraft today through new commns tech command and control several tanks through networking and get a more panoramic view of the entire battlefield. Robotic tanks could also be a future development just like UCAVs.

CVRDE production according to one report posted is "100 tanks .yr".Assuming that from 2015 A-2s start rolling out of Avadi,at least 50/yr to start with,by 2025 the lot of 400+ tanks could be completed.If an FMBT programme is begun now ,since the A-2 has passed its tests,in adecade's time the tank could easily enter production. In fcat a prototype could be rolled out by 2020,5 years from now. We cannot assume that china and other nations will sit still in tank development.Russia is supposed to be rolling out its latest tank sometime this year.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9877
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Yagnasri » 04 Feb 2015 14:50

No western nation is developing any fresh tank as of now. Of course Chipanda and others always do such things. But there is no serious new kind of tank threat is being emerged from Pakilands or chipanda nation. So my question is why we need a now FMBT ??

mody
BRFite
Posts: 771
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby mody » 04 Feb 2015 14:53

Dreams for Indian Army Armour and Mechanized forces:

1). RM orders 590 Arjun MK-II Tanks, to equip 10 regiments.
Avadi to Produce 60 tanks per year for 2 years and then increase production to 100 per year.
Engine to be MTU -893 series, upgraded to 1,600 HP. Tanks to have air conditioning.
2). All 124 Arjun MKI to be upgraded gradually to be as close to Arjun MKII as possible.
3). T-90 Bhishma Orders capped at 1,200 tanks.
All T-90 tanks to be upgraded. Additional Kanchan armour and top protection, would likely increase weight of tank to be 49-50 tons. Change engine to MTU 893 series derivative, generating 1,200 HP. The engine to be smaller and lighter then existing Russian engine. The tanks to have air conditioning. The FCS and ballistic computer to be changed to DRDO/Tata developed solution. Indigenous FSAPDS rounds to replace Russian Mango rounds. Invar and CLGM both missiles to be used with tank.
4). 1,500 T-72 tanks to be upgraded using Kanchan Armour plates and FCS and Ballistic computer tech as per above. Engine to be changed to MTU 893 series derived 1000-1200 HP engine. Tanks to have air conditioning. Other upgrades as deemed necessary.

Balance inventory of T-72 tanks, to be relegated to reserves role. All Vijayanta and T-55 from reserves to be scrapped/sold.

5). DRDO to start development of ARJUN MKIII/FMBT project, with a 3 man crew with Autoloader in the turret. The weight of the Tank to be upto 55 tons approx. Active protection system to be developed for the tank.
Once developed, 1,500 nos. to be produced. Engine to be MTU 1,600 HP engine.
The tanks would replace the T-72 tanks as they keep getting inducted. The tank to be ready, by the time the Arjun MK-II production and MKI upgrade completes.
Active protection system developed to be used to upgrade Arjun MKI/MKII and T-90 tanks in future.

6). All BMP-2 to be upgraded using DRDO tech. Engine to be upgraded to 400-450 HP MTU engine. If possible the ATGM to be two launchers of NAG missile and maybe also 2 launchers of CLGM.

BEML to be re-tooled for this purpose. Screwdriver production of Tatra and other trucks to be stopped at BEML. T-72 upgrade and BMP-2 upgrade projetcs to be run at BEML.
Avadi to run production and upgrade for Arjun MKI/II/III and T-90s.

7). 4,000-5,000 nos. of FICV to be produced by Indian private sector companies.

MTU to be asked to set up shop in India, to produce the engines, with a mandate to have upto 80-90% indigenous content within 5 years. All clearances and land for setup to be provided easily.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1289
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby RKumar » 04 Feb 2015 15:37

+1

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1177
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 04 Feb 2015 18:18

You want to upgrade tincans aka t-90 ?? where is the space for upgradation . Purchased only some years ago and it needs upgradation in
1. thermal imaging sights
2. navigation systems
3. fire control systems
4. armor protection systems
5. new air conditioning


The tank that some of the people here is trying hard to promote were actually being criticized in Russia , people who criticize their own product in Russia are shown "Exit" !!!

In summer 2011, Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov announced a five-year moratorium on state orders for the T-90.
And in November 2011, General Nikolai Makarov, the chief of general staff, publicly called the T-90 ‘out of date’, claiming that its gun had barely half the range of the comparable Israeli Merkava MK4.

Following the subsequent dismissal, in November 2012, of both Mr Serdyukov and General Makarov, the airing of open criticism of Russian weapons has ceased.

link http://www.worldreview.info/content/russias-t-90-tank-winner-or-loser

Substantiated by the below report

Armata instead of T-90

According to Sienko, Uralvagonzavod and military experts are running trials of the new tank’s main units and components. No other details about the new machine have yet been reported. As of today, the Defence Ministry has a contract with Uralvagonzavod for upgrading of 170 T-72 main battle tanks, to a cost of more than 6 billion roubles.

The Russian Defence Ministry has thus given up on its original plans to purchase T-90 tanks, which were previously criticised by high-ranking ministry and general staff officials for being too expensive ( Not because they are expensive but 'out dated ')

http://in.rbth.com/articles/2012/02/29/armata_instead_of_t-90_15001.html

To be precise the Russians are not too happy about T-90 ( they have several versions ) and going for some T-XYZ


India is the only country where, Indigenous product are blamed to have foreign components where as foreign product bought at thrice the price are re-worked- re- spend and equipped with Indigenous components ..!!

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4702
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 05 Feb 2015 06:08

Shaun wrote:...
India is the only country where, Indigenous product are blamed to have foreign components where as foreign product bought at thrice the price are re-worked- re- spend and equipped with Indigenous components ..!!

True!

There are a whole bunch of desi reporters who tend to highlight X percentage (by cost since that is more favourable to their argument) of indigenous product is imported but fail to do the same with 100% imported maal.

The other is masking of major import deals, like that of the T-90S. The cost of initial deal was artificially "lowered" by removing various subsystems from the original contract, only to be bought later in separate series of deals. But who is aggregating all those deals and re-calculating the real cost as it stands today? Most people, 10-15 years later, tend to only remember the initial deal and come up with a way lower "cost per unit" figure. This seems to get ingrained in their minds in perpetuity. They fail to account for subsequent costs.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby SaiK » 05 Feb 2015 06:31

mody, link?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rohitvats » 05 Feb 2015 08:59

Shaun wrote:<SNIP>


MODERATOR NOTE: Go easy on the highlighting part.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21063
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 05 Feb 2015 10:01

We have to look at the chronology of our defence acquisitions,including the T-90,first bought in 2001 when Pak surprised us by buying from the UKR T-80s,superior to our T-72s. Arjun was then a decade away from induction.Large orders were given,which we are now seeing completed.The Q is what do we need for the future? To imagine that Pak and China will remain stagnant with their upgrades of existing tanks and will not develop new designs is unrealistic.China surprised everyone with its unveiling of two (not just one), new stealth fighters. It is building several classes of subs and new 65K t carriers too. The current western MBTs are all in excess of 60t,have 4 man crews are large and expensive. Even Israeli Merkavas suffered losses against the Hiz during the last spat. A-2 belongs to the current trend of heavy MBTs.Over a year ago the general parameters for an Indian FMBT were spelt out.If we begin right now,it will take at least 10 years before the tank enters production,a perfect time for the T-72s ,of which we have hundreds,to be pensioned off .By then the 400-500 A-2s would've also been built,supplanting T-90 production. Of course upgrades can be made to the T-90s too with better active/passive anti-missile eqpt.,a better engine perhaps,etc. so that the IA has enough numbers of MBTs.Also remember that every Arjun ordered means an extra crew member and we are short on manpower in all 3 services.

If the new Russian Armata with its supposed new features is unveiled this year as hinted,does anyone think that the western manufacturers will not start their own FMBTs to meet the new challenge? The Leopard-7 variant is now entering German service. There is probably very little left in that design for further upgrades.We have an opportunity to overtake many other nations in MBT design and not stop with the successful achievement of A-2 by continuing the good work by the CVRDE/DRDO but continuing our R&D.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8311
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 05 Feb 2015 10:14

Philip,

I have a few questions for you.

Would the T 90 survive against the Hizb. With the same tactics that were used by the Isrealies initially with the Merk. Also, would the crew of the T90 survive if the fighting compartment was penetrated by an ATGM.

The other question that I have for you is.

If the PRC sells a hypothetical T 1000, to the RATS.

a) Should India give up the Mk2 and buy 1000s of hypothetical T 1001 & only a token numbers of Mk2?

b) India should continue to develop the Mk2 into Mk 3 & more and build them in the numbers needed?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Viv S » 05 Feb 2015 11:22

Philip wrote:If the new Russian Armata with its supposed new features is unveiled this year as hinted,does anyone think that the western manufacturers will not start their own FMBTs to meet the new challenge? The Leopard-7 variant is now entering German service. There is probably very little left in that design for further upgrades.We have an opportunity to overtake many other nations in MBT design and not stop with the successful achievement of A-2 by continuing the good work by the CVRDE/DRDO but continuing our R&D.


The US Army's FMBT is called the Abrams M1A3. The German Army started taking deliveries of the Leopard 2A7 just two months ago. The Russians in contrast are junking the T-90 platform in favour of a new clean sheet design. We have no similar limitations.

The baseline Arjun already outperforms the T-90. The Arjun Mk2 will be far superior. Invest in a third iteration and we'll have an Arjun Mk3 (with an autoloader, smoothbore cannon, improved drivetrain, MMI and whatever else the Army requires), a design that can be produced on the existing production lines, share logistics with the Mk2 simplifying production and more than hold its own against whatever the Chinese can field. And the Arjun Mk1/Mk2 could possibly be upgraded later to the same standard (read: M1 rebuild).

The T-90 production line needs to be rolled up ASAP, the facilities converted to Arjun production (the expenditure incurred is worth it) and Army required (under MoD diktat) to standardize around the Arjun platform. War is too important a matter to be left to the generals. So's planning for war, and the DM ought to start twisting arms (and investigating foreign bank accounts). If you're views weren't coloured by a longing for yet more Russian gear in the Indian military, you'd see it too.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9877
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Yagnasri » 05 Feb 2015 15:15

Is smooth bore needed??? I mean we had some specific things in mind when we have opted for Rifle bore gun. So why change it? Is there any specific advantage. Not when we are able to fire missiles also from the rifle bore gun.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 771
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby mody » 05 Feb 2015 15:25

SaiK wrote:mody, link?


There is no link, what I have written is my dream for the Indian Armoured and Mechanized force.

Shaun, with regards to upgrading T-90 tanks, there is no option. We already have them and are producing more. I would like it, if we can cap the production at about 1,200 tanks.
Upgrade the tanks using technology developed for the Arjun, including the FCS, ballistic computer(so that we can use our own or any other FSAPDS rounds with the tanks), armour, ERA (DRDO developed has given same results as russian ones), Thermal Sights, Engine (get MTU 893 derived 1,200 HP engine. Hopefully it will be smaller and lighter then the existing russian 1,000 HP engine), add air conditioning etc etc.

With regards to MTU engines, these are proven engines and very good at that. Currently we do not have the engines in the 1000-1600 HP range. For us whether Cummins manufactures them in India or MTU manufactures them in India, it makes no difference. For producing Arjun MK-II, we cannot wait for engines to be developed in India and it doesn't make any sense to continue to use the old 1,400 HP MTU 838 engines. If we can offer sufficient quantity, which as per my dream, we can, then MTU would be more then willing to setup manufacturing in India. We have to mandate that 80-90% indigenous content would be achieved within 5 years.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 771
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby mody » 05 Feb 2015 15:29

Yagnasri wrote:Is smooth bore needed??? I mean we had some specific things in mind when we have opted for Rifle bore gun. So why change it? Is there any specific advantage. Not when we are able to fire missiles also from the rifle bore gun.


Smooth Bore offers slightly higher velocity for FSAPDS rounds. Rifled bore, offers us the possibility to use the HESH round, which is very good to take on bunkers etc.
We can increase the length of the gun to L55 for the Arjun rifled gun and get getter penetration power for the FSAPDS rounds. Its still a trade off. Now that we can fire missiles through a rifled gun, the advantages of smooth bore have narrowed and if we want the HESH round, then rifled is the way to go.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9877
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Yagnasri » 05 Feb 2015 16:02

HASH can seriously damage any tank as per the reports. Right? So higher velocity of penetration rounds by smooth bore may not offer much advantage. Further Bunker attack thought HASH will not be there. Further just like Engine, we have a very good gun and for a smooth bore one we need to develop one. It may take long time and money which is better spent else where. Of course these are mango man views.

Are we not already developing a 1500 HP engine?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Viv S » 05 Feb 2015 17:20

Yagnasri wrote:HASH can seriously damage any tank as per the reports. Right? So higher velocity of penetration rounds by smooth bore may not offer much advantage. Further Bunker attack thought HASH will not be there. Further just like Engine, we have a very good gun and for a smooth bore one we need to develop one. It may take long time and money which is better spent else where. Of course these are mango man views.


HESH is practically useless against any modern tank (i.e. with sloped spaced/composite armour). Might have some utility against the Type 59/Al Zarrars in the PA's inventory but not much else, and in general its good at 'stripping out' ERA. It is however exceptionally effective against layered steel-concrete structures; the infantry-centric armies on the IB have invested in cheap but extensive static defences to 'soak up' an armoured thrust (take a look at the DCB border defences).

Also keep in mind, in addition to slightly higher muzzle velocities smooth bore guns have a longer service life and HE rounds with delayed fuses are fairly useful against bunkers. As in most things it's a matter of give and take. A decade from now you may have newer and even more effective rounds available.

Developing a new smooth bore gun is not an exceptional challenge (take a look at the providence of the HFV built T-90's main gun). If the IAF wants it, it can get it.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19842
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 05 Feb 2015 17:53

A HESH round on the top of any tank or on its turret near the mantlet, will strip out all sights, possibly wreck critical assemblies, and generally mission kill it.

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 Feb 2015 18:56

Don't just think tanks and bunkers. Hesh should be able to kill buildings and apc ifv as well.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Mihir » 05 Feb 2015 19:20

No point discussing HESH anymore. We're doing away with HESH for the Arjun Mk-II and switching to thermobaric blast-cum-penetration rounds instead.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1177
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 05 Feb 2015 19:39

Both rifled and smoothbore have its pros and cons ...the metallurgy of the gun and propellant matter most.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19842
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 06 Feb 2015 18:30

Mihir wrote:No point discussing HESH anymore. We're doing away with HESH for the Arjun Mk-II and switching to thermobaric blast-cum-penetration rounds instead.


Haven't seen reports of that.. we are adding TBC rounds for bunkers but havent seen reports we are stopping HESH. Similar purposes perhaps but HESH would work against light infantry & light IFVs too.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests