Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby SaiK » 25 Nov 2011 12:40

Is RoI on R&D that is added for 428 of them for 8m each? In that case, it would be more., cause we did take sometime to come up. But as more orders takes place, say 1000 tanks at the min, then it can come down to 4m/5m. But then again, who is me marketing this. Perhaps GoI has already lined up external customers for 8M, then it is a fair game.

pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 519
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby pralay » 25 Nov 2011 13:53

Upcoming modifications on the Arjun Mark II
here is the list of 19 major modifications that the Arjun Mark II will feature. The list was finalized after extensive user opinion canvassing and feedback from the DGQA, DGEME, OFB, other DRDO labs.

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
.....


colonel sahab has posted next article on Arjun MK2.
nice reading :)

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 25 Nov 2011 14:12

roof mounted drivers seat - is this for the jernails to take a ride?
the 10 rd ready use bin sounds like a merkava4 concept ported to arjuN
resin based CCC?

awesome list of mods....finally we are hitting full stride pattern on arjun...time for the deadly finishing 'kick mashallah...this thing will play football with the dead carcasses of 10 ztz99 :rotfl:
Last edited by Singha on 25 Nov 2011 14:16, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vina » 25 Nov 2011 14:16

roof mounted drivers seat - is this for the jernails to take a ride?
the 10 rd ready use bin sounds like a merkava4 concept ported to arjun.


To protect the driver in case of mine blasts I think. This kind of thing is standard design practice in mine proof vehicles . Sort of like driver's seat suspended from the roof, rather than bolted/welded to the floor.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 25 Nov 2011 14:17

oh ok...I thought it was a separate chair welded to the roof of the turret !

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 25 Nov 2011 14:41

Even some tin can series incorporated the suspended from roof drivers seat. Thsi way the mine blast shock wave will not crumple body.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10097
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sum » 25 Nov 2011 14:58

Singha wrote:oh ok...I thought it was a separate chair welded to the roof of the turret !

:rotfl: :rotfl:
Would be quite a sight that!!!

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 25 Nov 2011 15:19

someone had mentioned that jernails on review trips like to ride that way...the chair being temporary and tied by ropes on the top :oops:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 25 Nov 2011 15:28

Singha wrote:someone had mentioned that jernails on review trips like to ride that way...the chair being temporary and tied by ropes on the top :oops:


Must be a comical situation to watch that :lol:

But seriously IIRC when Arjun was first accepted in the army during PV Narasimha Rao time he was standing inside the commander seat and even Gen Shankar Chaudhary was similarly standing in gunner seat
Ok I found the picture
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... 3.jpg.html

neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 831
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby neerajb » 25 Nov 2011 15:33

Singha wrote:someone had mentioned that jernails on review trips like to ride that way...the chair being temporary and tied by ropes on the top :oops:


I thought the same :P i.e. a telescopic chair emerging out of the chasis onto the roof for better visibility :rotfl:

Cheers....

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 25 Nov 2011 15:49

Austin wrote: <SNIP> But seriously IIRC when Arjun was first accepted in the army during PV Narasimha Rao time he was standing inside the commander seat and even Gen Shankar Chaudhary was similarly standing in gunner seat
Ok I found the picture http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Galleries/Mod/MBT/Arjun/0143.jpg.html


Slight correction - General sahab is standing on the radio-operator's/loaders seat. The gunner sits ahead and at a level below the commander's position. You need to go down further from the commander's seat to reach gunners position.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8307
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 25 Nov 2011 16:25

rohitvats wrote:
The premise of that argument is incorrect. GSQR was written for a new product to be developed while in case of tincans, you buy what meets your requirement the best - given the constraints of finance and geo-politics.

SNIP.....



Rohit ji,

The counter arguments based on your explanation would be, Why have a GSQR to begin with? if an imported item is not bought because it meets the GSQR, but because it is the best available. I am sure their would have been products which met the GSQR, as spelled out by the IA, why not buy one of them.

Alternatively, if a product meeting GSQR is not available due to political reasons and the product available is not meeting the GSQR, then why not provide that opportunity to a domestic product. That is being provided to an imported product. As the way it is, IA requirements that have been spelled out for a particular product are not being met by an import.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 26 Nov 2011 00:48

sameer_shelavale wrote:Upcoming modifications on the Arjun Mark II
here is the list of 19 major modifications that the Arjun Mark II will feature. The list was finalized after extensive user opinion canvassing and feedback from the DGQA, DGEME, OFB, other DRDO labs.

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
.....


colonel sahab has posted next article on Arjun MK2.
nice reading :)


Talking about ammunition, AFAIK, DRDO had plans to develop/integrate the following types of rounds for Arjun MBT (DRDO Tech Focus 2002 - Ammunition System): (1) APFSDS, and (2) HESH. Then there were talks about additional rounds: (1) HEAT, (2) HE, (3) Anti-Helicopter Round, and (4) Israeli LAHAT missile. We know that LAHAT has been integrated, and possibly HEAT/HE rounds as well. Wondering what that "additional ammunition" is? It could be Israeli 120mm APAM-MP-T, M329 Cartridge (Anti-Personnel/Anti-Materiel, Multi-Purpose Tank Cartridge) since it serves as an anti-helo round as well.

What would a typical round types carried (totaling 39 rounds) on a Arjun MBT? Here's my guess:
  • 4 x LAHAT -> long-range (8km) anti-tank/anti-helo ammunition
  • 5 x HESH -> secondary ammunition against a variety of soft targets, tanks/LAVs, fortifications
  • 5 x HE/APAM -> secondary ammunition against infantry/anti-tank squads, soft targets, LAVs, fortifications
  • 25 x APFSDS -> primary anti-tank ammunition

Then on the new 10 round ready-to-fire bin, here is what the load out could be:
  • 1 x LAHAT
  • 1 x HESH
  • 1 x HE/APAM
  • 7 x APFSDS

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby SaiK » 26 Nov 2011 05:47

question on blast off panel and roof mounted driver seat.. do these features have some common goal in terms of modularity and protection/affordance?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Vipul » 26 Nov 2011 06:39

Large orders can make Arjun tank cheaper.

The army could clear the indigenous Arjun Mark II main battle tank (MBT) for frontline service after trials next year, but a question mark hangs over the Arjun’s prohibitive cost. Heavy Vehicle Factory, Avadi (HVF) has already built 124 Arjun Mark I tanks for the army at Rs 18 crore per tank. But on 29th August, Defence Minister AK Antony sprung a bombshell when he announced in Parliament that, “The likely estimated (sic) cost of each MBT Arjun Mark-II… will be approximately Rs 37 crore.”

This is twice the price of the Russian T-90 and not much cheaper than USA’s M1 Abrams, the world’s most advanced MBT. On 1st July 11, the US Congress was notified that Egypt would buy 125 Abrams tanks for $1.3 billion — i.e. $10.4 million, or Rs 54 crore, per tank.

During a visit to HVF and to the Central Vehicles R&D Establishment (CVRDE), which has developed the Arjun, Business Standard was explained that the cost of the Arjun is easily reduced. If the army places a larger order the price will drop by 30 per cent.

P Sivakumar, Director of CVRDE, explains that 50 per cent of the cost of the Arjun Mark I went on three imported components —the gunner’s main sight (GMS) from OIP Systems, Belgium; the gun control equipment (GCE) from Bosch, Germany; and the power pack (engine and transmission) from Renk, Germany — which together cost Rs 12 crore. Ordering just 124 pieces left little leeway to beat down that price.

“If you are talking just 124 tanks, there is a problem. Bring an order for 500 tanks. We will go for ToT (transfer of technology) for the foreign parts… The cost of labour in Germany is the highest in the world. We will build 70 per cent cheaper in India. If we buy the power pack of the Arjun for Rs 7.5 crore on Friday… I will produce it in India for just Rs 4-5 crore,” says Sivakumar.

For an army with more than 3,500 tanks, including 2,400 obsolescent T-72s that are crying out for replacement, ordering just 124 Arjun Mark IIs seems unduly cautious. But the army has little incentive to reduce cost. Though the generals are now willing to order more Arjuns, they are placing their orders piecemeal.

Since most of the Arjun’s 10,000 components are outsourced, the size of the order is a crucial determinant of what price they are supplied at. Says RK Jain, Additional DG of the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) who oversees HVF: “If the army’s indent is for just 124 tanks, the vendors charge higher prices. Besides, the amortisation cost of jigs, tools and equipment is reduced over a larger order. HVF and CVRDE have been jointly requesting the army to confirm an order of at least 250 Arjun Mark IIs so that we can negotiate from a stronger position,” says Jain.

Another reason for the Arjun Mark II’s rising cost becomes obvious at the Arjun production line at HVF, where the army is collecting the last of 124 Arjuns that were cleared for production in 2008. Just as the Rs 50 crore Arjun line has hit its stride, it must shut down for at least two years since another order can come only after the Arjun Mark II trials next year.

I walk through the giant workshop, now almost empty, with the HVF manager who oversees Arjun production, HR Dixit. “Even if the army clears the Arjun Mark II next summer, and indents for 124 more tanks by October 2012 (an optimistic time-frame), we require at least 12 months for obtaining the items that go into the Arjun. So end-2013 is the earliest that the Arjun assembly line can restart,” says Dixit.

The skilled workers on the Arjun line, who have developed invaluable expertise while building 124 Arjun tanks, will be distributed to other parts of HVF, Dixit tells me.

“We can send our workers to HVF’s other lines. But what can we do about the dislocation of our sub-contractors, many of them small enterprises around Chennai, who supply thousands of Arjun components like fuel pipes and bearings. They will seek other work because they know they will get no orders until an indent is placed for the Arjun Mk II. And, when we need them again, they might not be available,” says Ashutosh Kumar, works manager.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby SaiK » 26 Nov 2011 08:40

I think IA should bump up the order to 1000 tanks at $5-6M each. going by bharat pack, and 90% indigenous parts of mk 2.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 26 Nov 2011 09:28

Piece meal orders are meant to kill Arjun. Compare with Tin Box orders of 1600+

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8307
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 26 Nov 2011 10:09

We should be greatfull that the IA has at least given orders for 248 tanks.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 26 Nov 2011 10:41

Pratyush wrote:We should be greatfull that the IA has at least given orders for 248 tanks.


:rotfl: Ole habits die hard.

Vipul wrote:Though the generals are now willing to order more Arjuns, they are placing their orders piecemeal.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby SaiK » 26 Nov 2011 10:47

Pratyush wrote:We should be greatfull that the IA has at least given orders for 248 tanks.

All it needs is a name change.. call it with some TFTA name like Abarkava or Leoparda or T2020, they will place the orders in thousands.

I am sure once IA get to this feeling, they will start comparing features.. change their mental model and will be struggling to ignore such an import name that beats all other imports.

now who says Arjun is a local tank? .. order them in 1000s.

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Kersi D » 26 Nov 2011 10:55

SaiK wrote:
Pratyush wrote:We should be greatfull that the IA has at least given orders for 248 tanks.

All it needs is a name change.. call it with some TFTA name like Abarkava or Leoparda or T2020, they will place the orders in thousands.

I am sure once IA get to this feeling, they will start comparing features.. change their mental model and will be struggling to ignore such an import name that beats all other imports.

now who says Arjun is a local tank? .. order them in 1000s.


I think Leoprski or Ajrunski or Ivanarjunski would give better results.

What about Swisbankski or IvanKickbackass ? (Is it a bit below the belt?)

K

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21175
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Prem » 26 Nov 2011 11:00

Arajanowich Tankowky 420 !!
Now i am wondering if the same behind the scene powers are in tussle for Howitzer acquisition. No good Tank and no good Gun.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby SaiK » 26 Nov 2011 11:44

The problem is with MoD... once they say it is proven, then like it or not, the numbers are given to maintain the production standards, quality and cost. PERIOD. They can call it whatever they want.. They will never get a chance to call it kickback* etc. no chance here. The product itself should be a terror to chase away competition. Good Job Arjun! go for the kill!

now thinking about Ferrari idiom, I feel there is a link here.. may be the designer indirectly pointed that Arjun can kill those Ferrari seekers rather. correlation of tfta pedigree.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 26 Nov 2011 12:12

Generals would probably say it's too expensive and hence, justify not ordering more :idea:

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3048
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Kanson » 26 Nov 2011 14:15

srai wrote:Generals would probably say it's too expensive and hence, justify not ordering more :idea:

:D hmm.... It is only those who hadn't rode it likely to say too expensive and justify not ordering more. Mostly those who never going to see the battle from tank's commander sight.

What is our resident Arjun informant :P Chacho predicting on the numbers for Mk2? Last time it was some....what is that Chacko? It is time to hear from you. :)

And what is the final figure for Mk1?

And what is the status of 1600+ T-90 order? Will that going to be executed on the face of resurgent recalcitrant regent reinvigorated Arjun Mk2?

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3048
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Kanson » 26 Nov 2011 14:28

rohitvats wrote:
Pratyush wrote:RM Ji,

That much is clear, but the question remains, if a 60 ton tank needs 1.5 tons of extra ERA and blow off armour panels to meet the IA GSQR. Then, what does it says about the tin can and the fact that 1600 + of those have been ordered to be built. <SNIP>


The premise of that argument is incorrect. GSQR was written for a new product to be developed while in case of tincans, you buy what meets your requirement the best - given the constraints of finance and geo-politics.

On the ERA front - I have a feeling that we're going the western route in terms of their response to superiority of Soviets in numbers. Basically, heavy well guarded tanks which can take multiple hits and with overmatch in terms of sensors and electronics. Arjuns, after all, are going to spearhead the attack as part of IBG (my inference) and need to slog it out till the hammer of Strike Corps falls.


Just a :idea: blinked on reading your explanation. What is weight of ERA package in T-90s? I'm sure it is quite heavier than 1.5t. Arjun turret is much bigger in size compared to T-90. In case where it is not carrying mine plough, it can carry extra ERA panels, say on top?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 26 Nov 2011 14:57

Kanson wrote:
srai wrote:Generals would probably say it's too expensive and hence, justify not ordering more :idea:
----you. :)

And what is the final figure for Mk1?

And what is the status of 1600+ T-90 order? Will that going to be executed on the face of resurgent recalcitrant regent reinvigorated Arjun Mk2?


Errr.. Sounds like Resident Evil :rotfl:

I predict 1200 Arjuns (124 Mk 1). estimate is that it will reach MK 5. Rest will be a mix of T-90 and probably a lighter tank.

akimalik
BRFite
Posts: 133
Joined: 14 Apr 2010 11:27

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby akimalik » 26 Nov 2011 16:12

chackojoseph wrote:I predict 1200 Arjuns (124 Mk 1). estimate is that it will reach MK 5.


Ample helpings of "Ghee 'n Shakkar" in thy mouth Sire :-)

edited once.

AdityaM
BRFite
Posts: 1980
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby AdityaM » 26 Nov 2011 17:15

why dont they leak the video of arjun surviving a hit from T90
& if there was 1 of arjun blowing t90 to bits

that shud be a good psy war

Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2400
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Yogi_G » 26 Nov 2011 17:58

AdityaM wrote:why dont they leak the video of arjun surviving a hit from T90
& if there was 1 of arjun blowing t90 to bits

that shud be a good psy war


I am sure such a video will do great damage to the IA. Many afsars will most probably be sacked for their choice of tin can and especially its ordering in such large numbers. The IA will be jolted for sure. The psy war tactic you recommend may become advantageous to the Cheenis and the Pakis.

vasu_ray
BRFite
Posts: 550
Joined: 30 Nov 2008 01:06

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vasu_ray » 26 Nov 2011 19:12

chackojoseph wrote:I predict 1200 Arjuns (124 Mk 1). estimate is that it will reach MK 5. Rest will be a mix of T-90 and probably a lighter tank.


The Mk2 is a welcome development and looks like they will be following an evolutionary path to the FMBT, and an Arjun Mk6 is simply called FMBT like they did with the A2P renamed as A4, so between Mk3 and Mk6, all the requirements of a FMBT are realized?

On a different development path, there was news about collaboration with poland on a ultra light tank transportable by heli, probably heavy lift choppers, anyways since weight is at a premium, would they be adding a Ti based turret and gun a la M777 (4 tons), a gas turbine engine say the engine meant for LUH (1 ton) and finally an all composite hull (?)

On the howitzers, why don't they mothball the T-72's while they have some life left and when a local howitzer is ready, they could retrofit them onto these hulls on the lines of Bhim, the mothballed T-72's could be replaced by Arjun in quick time

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3048
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Kanson » 26 Nov 2011 20:51

chackojoseph wrote:Errr.. Sounds like Resident Evil :rotfl:
:D

I predict 1200 Arjuns (124 Mk 1). estimate is that it will reach MK 5. Rest will be a mix of T-90 and probably a lighter tank.
Ah, Thanks! Thats a steeeep expectation considering what was on the anvil for Arjun few years before. Kind of novelist you tempted us by mentioning Mk 5. Is that a reference to FMBT? Hope you don't keep us waiting on what you meant by Mk 5 or I don't have to tell you with so many ardent fans around, you will meet the same treatment as that of Ajai Shukla. :D

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3048
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Kanson » 26 Nov 2011 20:57

But the army has little incentive to reduce cost. Though the generals are now willing to order more Arjuns, they are placing their orders piecemeal.
What is meant by "little incentive" here.

3. Driver’s uncooled thermal imaging night sight
Thats a third gen TI.
One can go throu various drdo publication to see progress made and contributions from gents. Current newsletter credits Negi for his contribution in EO sensor for tank warfare.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 26 Nov 2011 21:08

akimalik wrote:Ample helpings of "Ghee 'n Shakkar" in thy mouth Sire :-).


Want to kill me with cholesterol :rotfl:

AdityaM wrote:why dont they leak the video of arjun surviving a hit from T90
& if there was 1 of arjun blowing t90 to bits

that shud be a good psy war


That will blow Indo-Russian bonhomie.

pandyan wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:I predict 1200 Arjuns (124 Mk 1). estimate is that it will reach MK 5. Rest will be a mix of T-90 and probably a lighter tank.

cj saar, MK5? BTW, according to your assessment, how much of the MKII capability can be retrofitted to MK1?


Not much. IMO, MK-1 will not be drastically unchanged. It will be equivalent to LCA MK-I status, eg, training, logistics, familiarity etc.

vasu_ray wrote:The Mk2 is a welcome development and looks like they will be following an evolutionary path to the FMBT, and an Arjun Mk6 is simply called FMBT like they did with the A2P renamed as A4, so between Mk3 and Mk6, all the requirements of a FMBT are realized?



Your Analogy of Agni 2P is correct when explaining the Mark - 1 - mark -5 I am estimating.

Kanson wrote: Ah, Thanks! Thats a steeeep expectation considering what was on the anvil for Arjun few years before. Kind of novelist you tempted us by mentioning Mk 5. Is that a reference to FMBT? Hope you don't keep us waiting on what you meant by Mk 5 or I don't have to tell you with so many ardent fans around, you will meet the same treatment as that of Ajai Shukla. :D


Answered above on mark's. Even with mark-2 deployment, there will be incremental refinements as user uses is and FMBT shapes. We might see FMBT tech incrementally being used. When they were trying to push MK-1, mk-2 was already being incrementally tested. Some of you can work on exact figure that can be rounded to 1200 tanks based on the number of a tanks in a unit/brigade etc.

I firmly believe that DRDO's aim of 500 tanks (for Mk-2) for break even will be outpaced.

On the AS style treatment.... I have been there, done that..... :rotfl:

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 26 Nov 2011 23:29

chackojoseph wrote:...

I predict 1200 Arjuns (124 Mk 1). estimate is that it will reach MK 5. Rest will be a mix of T-90 and probably a lighter tank.


True insight! Most of the tech developed for the Arjun series will eventually find its way onto the FMBT, albiet in more advanced versions.

Looking at the timeline, IA is looking to field the first FMBT between 2020 and 2025 timeframe. That gives another 10 to 15 years to develop Arjun MBT further. IMO, Arjun Mk.3/4/5 will realize these technologies:

  • indigenous power pack (1500hp engine and transmission)
  • indigenous gunner’s main sight (GMS)
  • indigenous gun control equipment (GCE)
  • improved integrated defensive sub-systems
  • improved battle management system (BMS) and communications that are linked to the larger network and other tanks in formation
  • improved sensors and situational awareness for the commander, gunner and driver
  • improved protection through new generation of Kanchan armor and ERA/NERA add on armor
  • reduction in overall weight using lighter weight composite armor in selected areas
  • improved crew comfort for operating in high desert temperatures
  • improved ammunition - APFSDS, HESH, HE/HEAT, etc. ... maybe an indigenous AT missile replacing LAHAT


Possible quantities ordered to reach CJ's predicted numbers:
.124 x Arjun Mk.1 (2 regiments)
..............................124 x Arjun Mk.2 (2 regiments)
.....................................248 x Arjun Mk.2 (4 regiments)
....................................................................744 x Arjun Mk.3/4/5 (12 regiments)

Totals: 1,240 Arjun MBTs in 20 armored regiments

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3287
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Kakkaji » 27 Nov 2011 05:12

sameer_shelavale wrote:Upcoming modifications on the Arjun Mark II


colonel sahab has posted next article on Arjun MK2.
nice reading :)


In the comments section of the above article:

Broadsword said...

Who has told you that the Arjun Mark II would be getting a new engine?

A new engine would require re-engineering of the kind that would delay the Mark II beyond acceptability.

Instead, the 1400 HP engine's output has been optimised by re-engineering the tank's final drive... and re-arranging the gear ratios so as to obtain more torque at lower speeds... and obtain fast acceleration, lower operating speeds and better fuel economy.


So, no new engine on MkII.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9858
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 27 Nov 2011 05:57

But 1500 Eng is under development. Right?

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby PratikDas » 27 Nov 2011 08:33

Narayana Rao wrote:But 1500 Eng is under development. Right?

Yes.
Nov. 2010 - The Hindu: 1,500-horsepower FMBT to replace T-72 tanks beyond 2020
The DRDO is launching a project to develop the transmission for the tank; the indigenous engine and transmission will together be called Bharat Power Pack and it will meet the FMBT's mobility requirements.

The FMBT will weigh only 50 tonnes compared to Arjun-Mark II's 62 tonnes. The DRDO is simultaneously working on Arjun-Mark II. The volume occupied by the electronics package in the FMBT will be less. The FMBT's engine will be two-thirds the size of Arjun-Mark I's, but will generate 1,500 HP compared to Arjun-Mark I's 1,400 HP.

So they're aiming for more horse-power and two-thirds the volume in the first-generation of Indian design itself.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1694
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Khalsa » 27 Nov 2011 10:36

Internal Competition ... hmmmmmmm

Lets hope that FMBT does not damage the arjun unless they can come up with a prototype or two.

Nikhil T
BRFite
Posts: 1286
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 06:48
Location: RAW HQ, Lodhi Road

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Nikhil T » 27 Nov 2011 10:52

Improving Arjun's already great suspension.

Ajai Shukla

One of the distinctive features of the Arjun tank is its hydro-pneumatic suspension, distinct from and far more advanced than the "torsion bar" arrangement that conventional MBTs (including the T-90) feature. The Arjun's suspension provides a smoother ride, making the tank a more stable gunnery platform that permits more accurate engagement of targets whilst on the move.

The Arjun Mark II features an enhanced version of the Arjun's well-proven hydro-pneumatic suspension, with the new one designed for a 70-tonne load. This is part of an improved "running gear", including the road wheel mountings, the road wheels, axle arms and shock absorbers.

The new suspension has already been tested in the recent trials and run for 1,300 kilometers. In order to obtain an accurate comparison with the earlier suspension, the trial tank was fitted with both: the old suspension on the left side and the new one on the right. The photographs --- in which the new suspension still looks new while the old suspension looks somewhat the worst for wear (not surprising; 1,300 km is a lot of running!) --- point to a successful upgrade.

The Arjun's suspension will be practically all-Indian. The road wheels, which continue to be built by Sundaram Industries, have been improved with better manufacturing and bonding processes for the rubber. Tractor Engineeers Ltd (TENGL), an L&T company, is doing parallel development of the Arjun track (imported so far), including development of one of the most difficult running gear technologies: the track pins.

I am amused at the many who appear to believe that the Arjun is "built entirely of foreign components" that are "hammered together in India". This kind of view is rooted in a deep lack of understanding of the processes of indigenisation. It is true that almost 60% of the cost of the Arjun goes on imported components. Practically all of that goes on just three components --- the power pack; the gunner's main sight (GMS); and the gun control equipment (GCE). Almost all the Arjun's other 10,000-odd component are sourced from Indian industry, which is rising to the challenge. More support from the government, in terms of better procurement procedures, would accelerate this.

There will be more on this particular issue in Broadsword. Stay tuned...

In ---


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests