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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by chackojoseph »

vina wrote:
And of course, our very own BR Tank warriors like Sanku Maharaj Ji will come and do cutting edge analysis on the advantages of "Hyperbar" vs "TSI" and how the greatest engine maker in the world there is "Wartsila / SACM" went "Hyperbar" while DRDO/India chose some other option, so it must be "obsolete of course" because 100% of the tanks in the world with "Hyperbar" engines chose to do well you guessed "Hyperbar" , and so, for the "next version" of the engine, the DRDO should dump whatever technical option they choose and go "Hyperbar"..Hallelujah!.
That is nothing. Rifled vs smooth bore debate will be extended to advantages of having no guns at all. Has somebody noticed, the FMBT has no gun requirement. :rotfl:
Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7808
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Anujan »

They called the current guns adequate (and in fact the bottleneck is the propellant and not the gun) and want rocket assisted KE rounds!
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

the guy who cooked up the spec in consultation with dr J walker fell asleep before he could get to that page in janes tank guide.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17168
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Rahul M »

okay people, enough with the fooling around please.
sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10195
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by sum »

symontk wrote:Those who are lambasting the Army are forgetting an important thing, Army does not issue specs, GOI does
Am sure the GoI consults the IN/IAF for preparing specs for a MBT since the IA doesnt seem to be involved in the "spec-ing" procedure!!
Last edited by sum on 15 May 2010 21:48, edited 1 time in total.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by NRao »

What a bunch of cry babies and cartoon has BR got to be.

It is JUST a "wish list" (very first para). That by itself should provide some glimmer of hope that the tide is changing in India. IF at all this thinking needs to be sustained and not ridiculed!!!!!!!!

What is wrong with that list?

At the very least some, hopefully a majority of it, will be funded AND THEN some of those that are funded will get to becoming a tank? Even if 20-30% make it to fruition that is great. IF more makes it you guys will be jumping up and down.

The good part is that we saw similar sensibilities WRT the LCA (and it is coming back for the LCA) and the MKI too. Thankfully the associated people did not read such posts. Grrrrrrrrrr............

If the kitchen is too hot, move on ........................ Understand that you cannot take such heat.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Karan M »

>>It is just a wish list

Yeah, and it will create the GSQR. Guess how realistic that will be

>>>What is wrong with that

What is wrong is the wish list makes no identification of what the army needs versus what is merely technology for technologys sake, makes no assessment of cost effectiveness, has no clear idea of what is required for the tank/weapons system in its likely theater of operations, reels off a list of features cobbled together from here and there and does not even distinguish between essential and non essential features.

It does not even mention the programmatic aspects namely that the Army will/should work with the design authorities. As such its another pie in the sky wishlist meant to make local developers flail around, while the intended user watches from the sidelines with disinterest, and will lead to the Arjun fracas all over again.

>>What a bunch of cry babies and cartoon has BR got to be.

I would think the forum was full of crybabies and cartoons if they tom tommed this silly list and patted themselves over the back with it.

>>At the very least some, hopefully a majority of it, will be funded AND THEN some of those that are funded will get to becoming a tank? Even if 20-30% make it to fruition that is great. IF more makes it you guys will be jumping up and down.

Good joke. Talk about the Arjun all over again. Unreasonable wish list, as a result of which the developer struggles to meet the challenge, then import an "interim" which you then buy 1600 of, while dismissing the local alternative. Yeah, India should continue to be happy with 20-30% science projects ..

>>The good part is that we saw similar sensibilities WRT the LCA (and it is coming back for the LCA)

And that is good? Talk about a laundry list of features for the LCA MK1. And now, the IAF has come out with another for the LCA MK-2.

>>and the MKI too. Thankfully the associated people did not read such posts. Grrrrrrrrrr............

The MKI does not feature anywhere near the amount of science fiction the above list does.

>>If the kitchen is too hot, move on ........................ Understand that you cannot take such heat.

Yeah, lets outsource all our brochure requirements to foreign glossies and weapons manufacture to US/russia/france/israel...oh wait, havent we already done that?
a_kumar
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 23:53
Location: what about it?

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by a_kumar »

NRao wrote: It is JUST a "wish list" (very first para). That by itself should provide some glimmer of hope that the tide is changing in India. IF at all this thinking needs to be sustained and not ridiculed!!!!!!!!

What is wrong with that list?

At the very least some, hopefully a majority of it, will be funded AND THEN some of those that are funded will get to becoming a tank? Even if 20-30% make it to fruition that is great. IF more makes it you guys will be jumping up and down.

The good part is that we saw similar sensibilities WRT the LCA (and it is coming back for the LCA) and the MKI too.
But I sadly see similarities with the first Arjun more than LCA you bring up.

Note that in case of LCA (or more so in shipbuilding), IAF and IN stuck with the projects and saw them to fruition. Can't say the same for Arjun even after it is way more mature than LCA is. Worse, IA can't even put money where their dreams are (We want western tank, but, screaming from rooftops that the frigging tank is 60 Tons!!).

So if IA is dreaming up things (again?), detached from the reality, then pardon me if it gets my goat. The issue is IF all of Shiv's post is true (a big IF I admit), IA must think it has a massive mil-ind complex at its disposal. Like.. Boeing/LT/Raytheon/Bae etc competing with each other!!!

We don't have a soooper-doooper Mil-Ind complex comparible to Uncle Sam (infact, we are miles behind), and we have to work towards it. What we need now are not fancy/scifi requirements removed from reality, but challenging and still hard-nosed choices that use and gradually build our capabilities.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by NRao »

I have cut-paste from livefist.

So, what is so unusual about that list? Integration for one for sure. The other R&D (internal or with partner?) and manufacture?

Give me some time and I will compile what is happening in other parts of the world. Considering that India has sufficient funds, why is there doubt about building a tank close to these specs? Can some other country do it? IF yes, then what prevents India from doing it? Do not have that infrastructure today - granted, we all know that, but we are talking of 10-15 years from now.

Besides, why is this a surprise? The IA talked about this at a much higher level (that Arjun, etc will be outdated by 2020) years ago!!!!! "FMBT" is an OLD acronym!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, what is so unusual about this list?


• including paints/materials to provide limited invisibility in IR/visible spectrum and for scrambling and avoidance of detection
• Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system
• reliable and secure mobile communication system capable of data transmission, audio and video conference
• IR detectors, laser warning, radar warning and devices to instantaneously integrate these signals and control a countermeasure suite
• hybrid electric vehicle technology and incorporate digital vehicle electronics (vetronics) to provide intra-vehicle and inter-vehicle communication capability that will greatly improve sit awareness and enhance operational effectiveness
• couple the conventional diesel engine of the proposed tank to a turbine
o zero to full power at 1,500 hp in 2.8 seconds
• active suspension system with sensors, control units, and a hydraulic power source in combination, to automatically alter the suspension characteristics to more closely match the speed of the vehicle and the terrain profile
• requires signature management in design measures, basic camouflage, additional camouflage and temporary camouflage
• the main battlefield threats against tanks are Anti Tank Guided Missile (ATGMs), unguided anti tank rockets and grenades; shaped charge High Explosive Anti Tank (HEAT) gun rounds; Kinetic Energy (KE) gun rounds; and top-attack weapons like intelligent sub-munitions, terminally guided artillery rounds, etc. There is a need for developing Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA). Given optimised designs, integrated ERA offers tanks highly effective protection against both the penetrators of Armoured Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot (APFSDS) projectiles and the jets of shaped charge weapons, including those with tandem warheads
• (a) Reduced penetration by most lethal weapons, (b) Elimination of parasitic mass leading to a weight reduction, (c) Excellent corrosion resistance, (d) Inherent thermal and acoustic insulation properties.
• needs Infra Red (IR) detectors, target identification systems, laser warning systems, radar warning receivers and devices to coordinate their signal and instantaneously control a countermeasures suite. These countermeasures fall into two categories: soft-kill system and hard-kill system.
• Automatic Protection Systems (APS)
• Of course, weapons
• Ground sensors, non-line-of-sight launch system and the network capability will enhance soldiers’ understanding of their situation in dynamic battlefield conditions by promoting a common perspective of enemy and friendly locations on digital maps and provide timely actionable intelligence.
• need to manufacture modern simulators
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Karan M »

Is it the IA's job to set operationally relevant requirements or a copy paste of various glossies under an acronym?

And:

>>Besides, why is this a surprise? The IA talked about this at a much higher level (that Arjun, etc will be outdated by 2020) years ago!!!!! "FMBT" is an OLD acronym!!!!!!!!!!!!

What the IA has said, is a joke. Kindly look below, for why,

>>including paints/materials to provide limited invisibility in IR/visible spectrum and for scrambling and avoidance of detection

Already on Arjun


>>Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system

Can be put on MK2

>>Reliable and secure mobile communication system capable of data transmission, audio and video conference

Can be put on MK2. First let the IA operationalize its BMS and other C3I networks

>>IR detectors, laser warning, radar warning and devices to instantaneously integrate these signals and control a countermeasure suite

Similar stuff is already being put in Arjun


>>hybrid electric vehicle technology and incorporate digital vehicle electronics (vetronics) to provide intra-vehicle and inter-vehicle communication capability that will greatly improve sit awareness and enhance operational effectiveness

Can be put on Arjun derivative itself

>>couple the conventional diesel engine of the proposed tank to a turbine
o zero to full power at 1,500 hp in 2.8 seconds

And? What of the cost, fuel consumption and maintenance? More complexity to reject a tank as unsuitable

>> active suspension system with sensors, control units, and a hydraulic power source in combination, to automatically alter the suspension characteristics to more closely match the speed of the vehicle and the terrain profile

Current suspension on Arjun can already be modified to meet terrain requirements, but it was a sticking point as it was "expensive, hard to maintain, too delicate" bla bla...now IA wants "active suspension system"...

>> requires signature management in design measures, basic camouflage, additional camouflage and temporary camouflage

Can be achieved in Arjun derivatives itself

>>the main battlefield threats against tanks are Anti Tank Guided Missile (ATGMs), unguided anti tank rockets and grenades; shaped charge High Explosive Anti Tank (HEAT) gun rounds; Kinetic Energy (KE) gun rounds; and top-attack weapons like intelligent sub-munitions, terminally guided artillery rounds, etc. There is a need for developing Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA). Given optimised designs, integrated ERA offers tanks highly effective protection against both the penetrators of Armoured Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot (APFSDS) projectiles and the jets of shaped charge weapons, including those with tandem warheads

Can be done in Arjun derivative itself.

>> (a) Reduced penetration by most lethal weapons, (b) Elimination of parasitic mass leading to a weight reduction, (c) Excellent corrosion resistance, (d) Inherent thermal and acoustic insulation properties

See above

>> needs Infra Red (IR) detectors, target identification systems, laser warning systems, radar warning receivers and devices to coordinate their signal and instantaneously control a countermeasures suite. These countermeasures fall into two categories: soft-kill system and hard-kill system.
• Automatic Protection Systems (APS)

Copy paste expert who originally created this list is now repeating stuff. All the above can be included in Arjun MK2 itself and is on offer

>>• Ground sensors, non-line-of-sight launch system and the network capability will enhance soldiers’ understanding of their situation in dynamic battlefield conditions by promoting a common perspective of enemy and friendly locations on digital maps and provide timely actionable intelligence.

Sounds nice. Who will pay for this? Where is the Armys current system to integrate this? Guess what, there is none

>>need to manufacture modern simulators

Already being done for Arjun


--------------

Guess what this entire FMBT list is a JOKE. It includes stuff which can be achieved via Arjun itself but which IA is not admitting, and second, it includes copy pasted specifications without ANY logic around why they are required vis a vis operational requirements

Given the history of the Arjun program where such dubious claims were used to knock down a local product, this appears to be set on the same path.

>>Give me some time and I will compile what is happening in other parts of the world. Considering that India has sufficient funds, why is there doubt about building a tank close to these specs? Can some other country do it? IF yes, then what prevents India from doing it? Do not have that infrastructure today - granted, we all know that, but we are talking of 10-15 years from now.

First, please understand the context. This so called ludicrous FMBT list is nothing but copy pasted stuff of items that can either be integrated on existing tanks like the Arjun and second, which have little operational relevance given the kind of threats India faces and will face.

Its not about whose list is better and what is happening in "other parts of the world".

And no India does not have "sufficient funds". One of the biggest claims against the Arjun was it is too expensive @ $ 4 Million. The Korean KX-2 BLACK PANTHER which claims to have many of these so called advanced features, currently costs $ 8.7Million to make.

That is the reality of this dubious list of "advanced features" which require a "FMBT" from the Indian Army.

Its just another scam in the making.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by NRao »

I am very, very glad that we have moved from "asking for a lot" to at least upgrading the current machine with these very technologies.

Will re-read your post and respond l8r.

(And, a request: please use the "quote" button - just makes things more readable. TIA)
rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 855
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by rajsunder »

before going ahead with the research & development, DRDO needs to take in writing from the IA that they would not buy anything less than the specs mentioned from anywhere in the world.
Then they need to identify items which could be developed in sequential order and ones which can be done parallel and add these onto the existing Arjun and delivering the improved Arjun's to IA.
sathyaC
BRFite
Posts: 124
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 19:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by sathyaC »

Can any one say what might be changed or added on the Arjuna to make Mk2 stranded :wink: :?: :?:
a_kumar
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 23:53
Location: what about it?

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by a_kumar »

sameer_shelavale wrote: 5. something like periscope to fire torpedoes when underwater or to file (fire?) missiles when behind hills.
hey.. that sounds good! Allows firing from behind the dunes or small obstructions!!
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by chackojoseph »

Most of the FMBT stuff on camo, heat signature etc, You can read here
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32286
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by chetak »

a_kumar wrote:
sameer_shelavale wrote: 5. something like periscope to fire torpedoes when underwater or to file (fire?) missiles when behind hills.
hey.. that sounds good! Allows firing from behind the dunes or small obstructions!!
That may require a howitzer type of weapon.

Why not use man portable UAVs with video relay for over the horizon surveillance and maybe a laser designator to fire a small / medium BVR (If required, mounted externally) type munition from the Arjun?
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

such things are better done from SP howitzers because 155m would permit a meatier weapon and big turret allows more storage room.
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Gagan »

I would say that use a NAMICA type smart munition launcher alongwith a small targetting UAV to take out enemy formations from a distance
This will be very very effective for armour and gun positions and infantry concentrations, which can't move quickly enough.

The UAV's need to be small so that they can't be located and shot down. Perhaps even a Nishant type bird will be adequate.
The NAMICA launcher can be just a dumb bomb carrier.
The missile will need to be high tech, able to correct its course, have a secure data link, and home in on either a laser designator of a specific frequency or having a certain code, or be able to identify enemy armour visually.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

is the BMP upgrade with thermal imager and such ON or OFF ?

part of each IFV and MBT upg should be a remote weapons station esp of light 'recce' type vehicles that may suddenly encounter
groups of hostile infantry and enemy recce vehicles. to bad the T90 is too small to accomodate but the Arjun can surely have a
remote station

http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.p ... ng=3&pdb=1
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32286
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by chetak »

Singha wrote:such things are better done from SP howitzers because 155m would permit a meatier weapon and big turret allows more storage room.
Right saar.

I was talking with respect to the 120 mm main rifled gun of the Arjun.

But as long as we are wishfully thinking,


May be one could use smooth bore of the T-90s to launch a suitably encapusulated UAV subject to such a UAV withstanding the rigors of the firing acceleration and stresses.

OTOH, maybe a hand launched electrically powered UAV would be suitable in terms of stealth and ease of use.
Many fine examples are currently available and have been demonstrated in India under field conditions by various manufacturers. They have fine optics and thermal imaging capabilities. Nor too hard to outfit one of these with a stabilized low power laser designator.

Given the serious level of papi jappi with the americans, it would be worthwhile to explore if the CLGP Copperhead could be suitably downsized for the T90s. The Copperhead is no longer used but maybe some development could tale place along those lines?
The cannon-launched guided projectile (CLGP) M712 (Copperhead) is a 155-mm, separate-loading, laser-guided, HE projectile. It is heavier (137.6 pounds) and longer (54 inches) than the standard 155-mm projectile.


At 20 seconds from impact, the laser designator operator begins designating the target. The ground laser operator may use a G/VLLD, a laser target designator (LTD), or modular universal laser equipment (MULE). Airborne systems include the AH-64, OH-58D, and unmanned aerial vehicles. The Copperhead projectile acquires the reflected laser energy and initiates internal guidance and control, allowing it to maneuver to the target.

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4521
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Tanaji »

symontk wrote:Those who are lambasting the Army are forgetting an important thing, Army does not issue specs, GOI does
Hmm, so according to the T90 gang, the Army does not
  • Decide, evolve or write policy or doctrine
  • Issue specs (so who writes the GSQRs then that presumably is a spec listing? Or do they admit Janes writes it for them?)
  • Does not write the parameters of the contract
  • Does not select the vendor(s)
  • Does not pay for the stuff
What is it then the Army actually does? Just a user? Or is that even GoI? Then what right does it have to demand anything?
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Vivek K »

symontk wrote:Those who are lambasting the Army are forgetting an important thing, Army does not issue specs, GOI does
This remark does more damage to the IA's reputation than all the criticism levelled here!
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Gagan »

1. For the next gen Arjun, DRDO needs to put in place a multisprectrum resistant paint coat. AFAIK the T-90s come with an IR reducing coat.
2. Do a JV with the Israelis for the Iron Dome and have it installed on a few tanks in each regiment. Tweak the system so that the few tanks can provide some level of group protection.
3. Do the chota-mota tweaking that the army wants (LAHAT FCS integration, ERA, indigenized engine, Tank commander's thermal imaging panoramic sights, and the other improvements that Ajay Shukla recommends) and be done with it.

But time is of the essence. Because as per shukla, to prevent the assembly line from shutting down, the orders for the sheet metals, and other components need to be placed NOW, so that if there is to be a follow on order, that can commence right after the 124 are delivered.
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Gagan »

Vivek K wrote:
symontk wrote:Those who are lambasting the Army are forgetting an important thing, Army does not issue specs, GOI does
This remark does more damage to the IA's reputation than all the criticism levelled here!
I don't think that the army has come out with any specs yet. Or if they have, that will be with the MOD. These set of specs sound more like a wishlist that Shiv Aroor came up with.

Although I suspect, the level of contacts Shiv Aroor would have in the MOD, parts of this wishlist might be true.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

since tanks operate with other IFVs and vehicles in rear, UAVs are better launched and recovered from such rear support vehicles if batalion level UAVs are desired. but more than UAV, we need a BMS among all vehicles so that intel picture is synchronized and immediate....this is a costly and long drawn process unless massive funding is poured in.
pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 524
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by pralay »

chetak wrote:
sameer_shelavale wrote: 5. something like periscope to fire torpedoes when underwater or to file (fire?) missiles when behind hills.
That may require a howitzer type of weapon.

Why not use man portable UAVs with video relay for over the horizon surveillance and maybe a laser designator to fire a small / medium BVR (If required, mounted externally) type munition from the Arjun?
howitzer will be required to fire dumb shells
but missiles can be fired from tank main gun to go over dunes/hills
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Sanku »

Any time lines for the FMBT?

The key to FMBT would be signing off on the key items in the list by the agency tasked with the tank (CVRDE again? or did the DRDO reorg create a new agency?)

Well at least we now know what the IA mean when it say next gen technologies in a tank.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Austin »

^^^ Wonder if the new Indo-US bonhomie will lead to something like the next gen FMBT for IA is here the M1A3 8)
Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Virupaksha »

Austin wrote:^^^ Wonder if the new Indo-US bonhomie will lead to something like the next gen FMBT for IA is here the M1A3 8)
but but wouldnt the *same* problems of , it is wider by 3 inches and weighs 55+ tons surface too?
pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 524
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by pralay »

ravi_ku wrote:
Austin wrote:^^^ Wonder if the new Indo-US bonhomie will lead to something like the next gen FMBT for IA is here the M1A3 8)
but but wouldnt the *same* problems of , it is wider by 3 inches and weighs 55+ tons surface too?
LOL,
Bull's Eye

Austin ji why you still love to rely on other countries even though DRDO have proved that it can make better products?
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by chackojoseph »

PIb release though

Army Decides to Take 124 More MBT Arjun

The Army has decided to place fresh order for an additional home-built 124 Main Battle Tank (MBT) Arjun. This is over and above the existing order of 124 tanks. The development follows the success of the indigenous MBT Arjun in the recent gruelling desert trials.

The project for the design and development of the MBT Arjun was approved by the Government in 1974 with an aim to give the required indigenous cutting edge to our Mechanised Forces. After many years of trial and tribulation it has now proved its worth by its superb performance under various circumstances, such as driving cross-country over rugged sand dunes, detecting, observing and quickly engaging targets, accurately hitting targets – both stationary and moving, with pin pointed accuracy.

Its superior fire-power is based on accurate and quick target acquisition capability during day and night in all types of weather and shortest possible reaction time during combat engagements.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Sanku »

Austin wrote:^^^ Wonder if the new Indo-US bonhomie will lead to something like the next gen FMBT for IA is here the M1A3 8)
Actually that was the thought that flashed through my mind when I read that list.
:((

I do hope not.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Sanku »

chackojoseph wrote:PIb release though

Army Decides to Take 124 More MBT Arjun

.
Right on dot, as predicted for last 4 years (at least)

Hope fully Avadi will be ramped up to a 100 tanks per year line while this order if fulfilled and those will all be Mk II.
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Gagan »

If massa is involved, no these problems won't be an issue.

Because capacity build up has been happening in anticipation of the Arjun induction.
1. Savartra bridge,
2. Higher and wider railway rakes,
3. Strengthened railway bridges, Railways putting in new gen steel on its railway tracks nation wide.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

imo its time to apply the boot to Avadi's backside and have them complete in a time bound fashion atleast 60 tanks per annum
what good is a tank factory that cannot produce 5 tanks a month? in WW2 shermans were rolling off production lines every 30 mins.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Austin »

http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=61870

Good news , I had predicted some time back when I said IA will buy the next batch of 124 Arjun Tanks

Rahul then reprimanded me for quoting that number , Rahul see I was right onleee :twisted:

Now let me predict the new 124 Arjun will be the Mk2 types that Ajai had put up in his blog.
srs
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 15
Joined: 07 May 2010 15:33

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by srs »

1000+ Tins and just 250 Arjuns. R they doing charity by ordering 124 more arjuns :(( :x
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Austin »

sameer_shelavale wrote:Austin ji why you still love to rely on other countries even though DRDO have proved that it can make better products?
Dont tell me Arjun is better than M1A2 ?

Any ways we are talking of FMBT and considering the advancement and combat experience of American tanks , the new M1A3 on the cards it would be worth while looking at it since the new found bonhomie with US

Unless some one thinks FMBT will be better then M1A3 given the so called wishlist
Actually that was the thought that flashed through my mind when I read that list.
:(( I do hope not.
Sanku jee why are you so anti-US what is wrong with M1A3 ?
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Sanku »

Austin wrote:
Actually that was the thought that flashed through my mind when I read that list.
:(( I do hope not.
Sanku jee why are you so anti-US what is wrong with M1A3 ?
Nothing, but it seems fixing the requirements to help a particular entity is going out of hand and more seriously is getting pervasive, with such thinking becoming institutionalized.

As as I said hopefully this does not mean that this will result into yet another headlong 20 billion dollar partnership.

If not, no problems.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by rohitvats »

Austin wrote:
<SNIP>

Good news , I had predicted some time back when I said IA will buy the next batch of 124 Arjun Tanks
But Sanku and you had us beleive that IA will buy whatever the GOI+MOD will decide. So, did IA finally order Arjun or MOD+GOI ordered it for Army?
Now let me predict the new 124 Arjun will be the Mk2 types that Ajai had put up in his blog.
Which means that we need to lock up this thread and wait for another 2-3 years, comparative trials with T-90XX and some more circus. Having said that, these should be the current variants. Why you ask? Zimple onlee; it is these tanks which have passed the "trials" in desert...In case of MK2, will not IA want to validate evey screw and nut & bolt before giving the green signal? You see, IA is bhery behry shtrict with specifications...everything needs to be evaluated in "trials"...in between if you loose couple of years and have to import some more T-XYZ, all par of course.... :roll:

But look at the beauty of PIB Release:
The Army has decided to place fresh order for an additional home-built 124 Main Battle Tank (MBT) Arjun. This is over and above the existing order of 124 tanks. The development follows the success of the indigenous MBT Arjun in the recent gruelling desert trials.
After many years of trial and tribulation it has now proved its worth by its superb performance under various circumstances, such as driving cross-country over rugged sand dunes, detecting, observing and quickly engaging targets, accurately hitting targets – both stationary and moving, with pin pointed accuracy. Its superior fire-power is based on accurate and quick target acquisition capability during day and night in all types of weather and shortest possible reaction time during combat engagements
The PIB would have us believe that it is only Arjun which was on trials. No mention of "Comparative Trials" with T-90 and how the latter performed. How did the Army establish that Arjun is so good? Because it wiped the floor with it's favorite toy, as given by ajai's blog and chaiwala on BRF.

This is what MOD replied to PSCD:
“Comparative trials between MBT Arjun vis-à-vis the Russian T-90 tank has been undertaken with an aim to evaluate the operational performances. Comparative trials conducted in various phases encompassing fire power, survivalibility, protection, reliability and miscellaneous issues has just concluded.”
This again brings us to the same point - 1,647 inferior tanks while 248 superior tanks...Business as usual. :evil:
Post Reply