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.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7719
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 07 Jun 2010 22:02

vic wrote:Corruption in army is nowdays making even Political class look good.


Thank you for opening the argument with the most idiotic of statements - the fact that it is not relevant to the debate at hand will most probably be lost on you.


While I'm all for local products, why put up things and argue for the sake it? What merits do the weapon systems (apart from Abhay) have which are being overlooked by the Indian Army? So accept Abhay should be ordered?


The fact that you make this statement shows that you don't know anything about what you're writing - but then you did make that amply clear in couple of posts above. But let us see - if there is still chance to recover you

Please answer this - Why should the Abhay be ordered? Is the Indian Army looking for newer AFV?

a) Light tank 105mm + BMP chasis - Just because there is a domestic product means that it should be adopted? What are the parameters spelt-out by the latest RFI for Light Tanks and how does DRDO product meet the same? I'm personally not in favor of using BMP chassis as platform. IMO, they offer too less protection. Parameters are fixed to promote foreign maal.


Hello, do you see a conspiracy under every stone? Is this all you've to say? What parameters are or will be fixed?

(b) Light SPG Artillery 105mm + tracked chassis - Has IA ever shown interest (desi or phoren) for 105mm SP Gun? Does any Mechanized formation of IA even use 105mm gun? IA is moving away from 105mm Caliber for it's Field Regiments - so where does 105mm SPG fit in? Which formations require 105mm SPG? 105mm SPG would be cheap solution at 1/10th the cost like 81mm mortar mounted on BMP. But army always wants the best like US$ 10 million Bhim


Everybody should have chance to read the boldedpart...I give up..I don't see hope for you...... :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:


<SNIP>

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7719
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 07 Jun 2010 22:14

Rahul M wrote:rohit, my point was not at all about abusing the army on which I mostly agree with you.

regarding wheeled APC, the long term plan of IA calls for widespread mechanisation, it's impossible that we will be able to do it with tracked vehicles alone, even the red army couldn't afford it. so the need is definitely there, I would estimate a few thousands easily, all versions considered.
isn't it strange that in IA tanks outnumber APC/IFV's 2:1 ?? in most armies it is the other way around !

technology-wise, APC is a low hanging fruit that can be completed in 3-4 years of sustained effort, leveraging the experience we already have in manufacturing and customising BMP's for the last couple of decades, even engines which are the achilles heel of any Indian endeavour is not a pressing problem, the engines used in the heavy duty trucks can be used without much of a problem.

the problem with stryker itself is cost and the fact that we will have to go through this again 20-30 years down the line when we want to make a replacement. stryker costs almost as much as a MBT, add the profits, infrastructure costs, licensing fee, it will probably cross the price of an arjun !!
if we do further mods then add those costs as well. of course assuming we are allowed to touch the insides in the first place !
how many would the GOI be ready to buy in that case, and even if they do, should we splurge on yet another foreign item unnecessarily ? the stryker as it stands now is a over-complex machine that has had its costs pushed up due the various variations called for by its european and american users, many of these variations have little use for us but we will have to pay for them anyway.
shouldn't we simply go for a simpler robust option made for ourselves and make it in numbers ?
in fact, we can probably even ask the major truck makers for a competition and select the best design.


Right on dot. As for the skewed ratio of MBT and AFV in IA, to quote some one who knows couple of things about Mechanized Warfare - IA does not know what to do with Mechanized Infantry. This was a bit earlier in the decade - I hope the situation is better now. BTW, how many know that 33rd Armored Division was raised as Mechanized Division?

As for the Stryker - my questions were more exploratory in nature. I was thinking on the lines of importing the basic design specifications and manufacturing the same in India - with our modifications - from guns/cannons/ATGM to the whole ze bang. I know we can neither afford the TFTA Khan version nor do we need it.

As for the numbers - I really hope we use Wheeled APC to acheive mechanization. Even if IA converts all the Infantry Battalions with the 7 RAPID Divisions - we need 60 X 42 (6 Infantry Regiments/Divisions) - 2,500+ Wheeled APC. Enough numbers, I guess, to get a doemestic programme going.

skher
BRFite
Posts: 197
Joined: 16 Apr 2007 23:58
Location: Secured; no idea

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby skher » 08 Jun 2010 00:03

Rahul M wrote:skher, I don't see anything about armoured helos in that link. nothing I've come across so far suggests that such a 'jump' is realistic or even considered.
vivek rahguvanshi is anyway not very reliable, consider :
"The Ambala-based Kharga Corps, a rapid-action force of 15,000, is equipped to operate behind enemy lines and to carry out a proactive strategic role."

a division alone might have close to that number of men.


Right.My bad.Based the pooch on a very old simulation.

Operation Vajra Shakti

Air Force sorties were launched, both for Blue as well as Red forces. While fighter aircraft neutralised targets in depth, attack helicopter missions were flown during day as well as night for degrading and delaying enemy mechanised forces. In addition, a quick link-up was also established with heli-borne forces launched behind enemy lines.

skher
BRFite
Posts: 197
Joined: 16 Apr 2007 23:58
Location: Secured; no idea

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby skher » 08 Jun 2010 00:21

Singha wrote: the 20-30mm cannon in remotely operated turret could be a purchase or JV with israel or russia.


iirc, Vidhwansak comes in 20 mm version and perhaps can be mated with OFB's Stablised Remote Controlled Weapon Station (SRCWS) to avoid the purchase/JV.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2538
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby darshhan » 08 Jun 2010 09:42

skher wrote:
Singha wrote: the 20-30mm cannon in remotely operated turret could be a purchase or JV with israel or russia.


iirc, Vidhwansak comes in 20 mm version and perhaps can be mated with OFB's Stablised Remote Controlled Weapon Station (SRCWS) to avoid the purchase/JV.


vidhwanshak is an anti material rifle.It cannot replace an automatic cannon.

Vidhwanshak will never be able to provide the firepower which can only be provided by a cannon

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54175
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 15 Jun 2010 08:50

akimalik wrote:Hi, I came across this article in JDW.

http://www.janes.com/events/exhibitions ... ssia.shtml

The power pack can be supplied with a variety of diesel engines with outputs up to 1,200hp, and the cooling system has been designed for operations in high ambient temperatures.



kvraghavaiah
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 16 Feb 2008 17:20
Location: Chennai
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby kvraghavaiah » 16 Jun 2010 19:15

I have a little confusion regarding the ARJUN forth coming component modifications.

1. From which batch will the indegenous transmission and BEL FCS (Fire Control System) be installed (from 125th tank?)
2. From when will the honey comb design armour will be implemented.
3. Is there any plan to install indegenous or semi indegenous engine (ther was some news about TATA engine).
4. What is laser warning system?
5.What are different plans to protect ARJUN in battle field. Expliosive reactive armour? Smoke and Flare launcher? anti missile shells/grenades/bullets? any other mechanism you know?

Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1143
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Samay » 17 Jun 2010 00:43

AN old article but...
http://web.archive.org/web/20080129043924/http://russianarmor.info/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html
#

* T-90: RPG-29 produced a total of 3 penetrations.
No other RPG rounds could penetrate even the stripped target.
* T-80U: RPG-29 penetrated 3 times with ERA, all 5 times without ERA.
Of all other grenades, one PG-7VR penetrated the stripped target.

# ATGMs

* T-90: No ATGMs could penetrate the ERA-equipped target. One Kornet ATGM penetrated the stripped target.
* T-80U: 2 Kornet ATGMs penetrated the ERA-equipped target, all 5 penetrated the stripped target.
No other ATGMs could penetrate.

# APFSDS

* T-90: ERA-equipped target could not be penetrated. Furthermore, after firing the crew entered the vehicle, activated it and was able to execute the firing sequence.
Without ERA, one round penetrated.
* T-80U (data available only for stripped target): One round almost penetrated (3mm hole in the inner lining, no visible equipment damage); two penetrated to 1/2 thickness; one missed the target completely; one hit the gun.


guess who is the user of rpg-29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-29#Operators

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2415
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Prem Kumar » 17 Jun 2010 03:22

Yep - known threat. That particular article about T-90 performance against ATGM threats was discussed quite extensively in this thread before during the Arjun vs T-90 saga.

Juggi G
BRFite
Posts: 1070
Joined: 11 Mar 2007 19:16
Location: Martyr Bhagat Singh Nagar District, Doaba, Punjab, Bharat. De Ghuma ke :)

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Juggi G » 17 Jun 2010 03:30

Tank Trouble
The Indian Express
Tank Trouble
Manu Pubby

Posted online: Thu June 17 2010, 01:31 hrs

New Delhi : More than 30 years after the project was conceptualised, the Indian Army will finally have a sizeable number of the indigenously developed Arjun tanks in its inventory. With the order for 124 additional tanks finalised by the government, the Army will have close to 250 Arjun MKI tanks in its mechanised forces over the next few years as the Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment ramps up production.
The Army, on its part, is looking forward to the Arjun MK II, an improved, new, next generation tank that will meet its future requirements. The project to develop the newer version of the tank was approved by the government last month on the recommendation of the Rama Rao Committee and on the insistence of successive top Army officers. The Arjun’s excessive dependence on foreign equipment — the engine, gun control system and gunner’s main sight are all imported — has come under criticism and DRDO wants to bring down the foreign components from 60 per cent to 30 per cent.

A JITTERY START

While the project seems to have got some respite after the Army turned around from its initial stance that the order book would be frozen at 124 to make way for a new generation tank, it has been fraught with setbacks, delays and cost overruns since being sanctioned in May 1974. DRDO was allotted Rs 15.50 crore to develop the tank within 10 years. However, the first prototype rolled out only by 1983. The project suffered repeated delays and deadlines and costs were revised on three occasions — 1980, 1987 and 2000.

When the project was officially closed by DRDO in 1996, its cost stood at Rs 306 crore. The first of the 14 pre- production versions of the tanks were handed over to the Army for trials in 2005 but they failed to satisfy. The real saga of the Arjun began post-2005 after DRDO started to aggressively push for large orders of the tank by the Army.

TRIAL FAILURES

From 2005 till the present, when the order book stands at close to 250, a series of critical reports and observations by experts have haunted the tank. Over the years, the tank failed to impress the Army, which kept pressing for improvements and modifications in order to make it combat-worthy. The tank’s dismal performance in the trials carried out in 2006 was of particular concern to the Army.

In its trial report, the Army reported problems with the laser range finder of the gunners main sight and the piston rods of the suspension system. One of the Army’s major concerns was the tank’s fuel efficiency and its trial report said that the “high fuel consumption was evident during the validation trials in June 2006”. Defence Minister A K Antony, who had been pushing for early induction of the tanks in the Army, too had to concede that problems remained. “Some more problems are there but I am hopeful that we will be able to remove that,” he said after the report was made public.

After months another batch of the improved tanks were handed over for trials in 2007-08. Again, this round of trials ended in disappointment.

After the tank failed to clear a round of winter trials, the then Army chief General Deepak Kapoor wrote to Antony saying that a “lot of improvements” are needed before the tank can be cleared for bulk intake. The letter had its roots in the five months of Accelerated Usage cum Reliability Trials in Rajasthan in which two Arjun tanks were tested by the Army. The tanks suffered engine failures on four separate occasions after being put through only 1,000 km of trials.

‘NEED A NEW TANK’

An Army report in April 2008 said: “The tanks have performed very poorly. There have been four engine failures so far. The tanks have done about 1,000 km each. There is a problem”. A parliamentary panel monitoring the Arjun project then called for immediate modifications in the tank. “The causes for failure of the tank should be identified without loss of time and necessary modifications carried out at the earliest so that the tank becomes acceptable to the Army,” the panel said, adding it was “startled” over the poor performance.

A month later, in May 2008, the Defence Ministry too conceded that the tank was suffering engine failures and did not even manage to fire straight during the trials. Admitting its poor performance during the trials, the Ministry said five major faults, including low-firing accuracy, have been identified in the indigenous tank. Listing the problem areas, the then Minister of State, Defence, Rao Inderjit Singh informed Parliament that the tank had “low accuracy and consistency”, chipped its gun barrels while firing live rounds at the Accelerated Usage cum Reliability Trials and suffered a failure of the hydro pneumatic suspension units.

The dismal performance prompted the Army to tell DRDO that the tank should be treated as a technology demonstrator and a platform to work on a totally new tank design for the future. Months after retiring as the Director General of Mechanised Forces at Army HQ in 2008, Lt Gen K D S Shekhawat told The Indian Express that it was time for a new next generation tank. “After 30 years, the Arjun has not fructified and now we need to start with a new design and a new tank. We have always said that a next (generation) tank has to come out in due course of time. We now have a base and expertise to start on the futuristic tank,” he said.

It finally took the Rama Rao Committee, which was instituted to suggest a revamp plan for DRDO, to give a clear direction for the tank. The report said that the main reason for the repeated delays on the project was the over-optimism of developers who underestimated the time needed for making weapon systems. “Too much time and effort was spent in developing an engine for the tank without meeting success. DRDO looked at outsourcing turret control systems only in the mid-eighties after failing to develop it in-house. Inexperienced and overoptimistic developers underestimated the time required. The tank suffered from poor product quality and sub-optimal performance during development, testing and production stage,” said the report. “DRDO should immediately start work on a MK II version of the tank to meet requirements of the Army”. It also said advanced versions should be built on a “joint development model and foreign collaborators should be roped in to gain expertise”.

After repeated improvements, the first regiment of the Arjun — 124 had been originally ordered at the start of the project — was officially inducted into the Army in May 2009. The first armoured regiment of 45 tanks was inducted symbolically on the day Antony took charge in his second term as the Defence Minister.

The decision to induct the regiment came after DRDO carried out major modifications to suit the Army’s needs. A major improvement was modifications in the transmission by its German manufacturer, Renk. The failure of the transmission had been identified by DRDO as the main reason for the repeated engine failures during the trials. Improvements were also carried out on the suspension system.

THE ARJUN VS T-90 DEBATE

Since the first induction, there was immense pressure from the DRDO on the Army to conduct comparative trials between the Arjun tank and the T 90 MBT. However, the unfairness of comparing two different tanks rankled experts both within and outside the military establishment.

With adequate pressure from the ministry, the trials were carried out earlier this year but reluctantly, as the huge difference in the class of the two tanks did not leave much scope for comparison. The biggest difference is the weight. At 58.5 tons, the Arjun is more than 10 tons heavier than the T 90. The added weight and size gives it several advantages over the Russian machine in terms of more armour, greater capability to carry ammunition as well as extra sensors.

DRDO on its part said at that time that there is “room for both tanks” in the Army’s inventory and the trials were carried out to find a role for the Arjun tank in the Army. While the report has not yet been made public, the DRDO officials have said the trials were successful and the Arjun’s performance has been satisfactory for the Army. After more than 10 years of trials and improvements, the tank was finally found fit for limited induction.

The additional order for 124 more tanks is being seen as a victory of sorts for the Arjun but after more than three decades in development. The Arjun is the smallest part of the Indian tank fleet, well behind the T 90 and T 72 tanks that make up the armoured backbone of the Army. This is still a far cry from the concept behind the development of an indigenous Arjun tank. The whole idea was to develop the Arjun as the Army’s main battle tank to reduce dependence on imports. However, the frequent delays in the project appears to have given the Armed Forces a tank that will only be produced in limited numbers and is likely to get outdated after just a decade of service.

While DRDO is pushing for larger orders of the Arjun to justify developmental costs, the Army is constrained by the fact that it has already ordered sizeable number of the T 90 tanks to fulfill current requirements. Experts say it takes several years to train and optimise crews and tactics for a new class of tanks. Interestingly, while creating new infrastructure and training personnel means extra finances, the Army also finds it hard to justify the cost of the Arjun tank that comes close to Rs 17 crore per piece. On the other hand, the ready-to-use, battle-hardy and in-production T 90 tank costs the Army around Rs 13 crore per tank. And, this cost would go down progressively as the Avadi Ordnance Factory churns out T 90s in larger numbers.

The mainstay battle tank of the Army is the T 90 that was first ordered from Russia in 2001. The Army has placed orders for 660 T 90s from Russia to replace the ageing fleet of T 72s. The orders were placed again in 2007 after it became clear that the Arjun was not even close to induction. In addition, over 1000 T 90s will be manufactured at the Avadi Heavy Vehicles Factory. Given Arjun’s slow progress, the Army has also decided to upgrade 650 of the older T 72s.



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

FIREPOWER

The tank has a 120 mm calibre rifled gun that fires indigenously developed Fin Stabilised Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot (FSAPDS) ammunition. It has a German-origin computer-controlled fire control system with an all-weather sighting system. The DRDO says that this gives the Arjun a “very high first round hit probability and reduced reaction time”.

Main Armament

The rifled 120 mm gun is the main fire power of the tank that is designed to beat the armour used by contemporary tanks. While the tank cannot fire missiles from the gun like the one atop the T 90 tank, DRDO says that the capability has been demonstrated and can be incorporated if required.


Secondary Armament

The Arjun has a co-axial 7.62 mm machine gun for an anti-personnel role and a 12.7 mm machine gun for anti-aircraft and ground targets, similar to the T 90 Main Battle Tank (MBT).


Gunner’s Main Sight

The Delft-SAGEM Gunner’s Main Sight that has been imported from Belgium, has all weather, day-night capability. The thermal imager gives the gunner night vision and also the ability to engage targets even in the presence of haze, dust or smoke.


Panoramic Sight

The tank commander has a “panoramic sight” that gives him an “all round surveillance” capability. Without removing eyes from the sight and despite the turret motion, a stable a view of the environment is available. This view can also be magnified if the need arises.


Ammunition

The Arjun is being equipped with two types of ammunition, the FSAPDS ammunition is the main battle ammunition of the tank and has performed satisfactorily in trials. The tank will also have High Explosive Squash Head (HESH) ammunition. DRDO is also developing an anti-helicopter round to combat aerial threats.


MOBILITY

One of the major systems imported for the Arjun is the power plant provided by German company MTU. The transmission has been imported from German company Renk. The tracks are being manufactured by Larsen and Toubro but are again of German origin.

The Arjun has come under criticism for the hydro-pneumatic suspension. While the new generation suspension makes the tank a very stable platform for firing , the system requires high maintenance and is prone to failures.


PROTECTION

The main feature of the protection system is the indigenously developed Kanchan armour. The developer claims that the armour gives the tank much better protection than current Russian origin tanks in the Army’s inventory. In its trials in 2000, the armour withstood a direct hit from a T 72 tank at point blank range. Newer versions of the tank may be equipped with a new reactive armour under development by the DRDO.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19147
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 17 Jun 2010 03:44

Whines about everything, but somehow forgets to mention the outcome of the recent T-90 versus Arjun trials. Perhaps those were too "unfair" to be included in this hack piece. Oh well, Indian Express's journalism reaches new lows.
Last edited by Karan M on 17 Jun 2010 04:35, edited 1 time in total.

ajit_tr
BRFite
Posts: 412
Joined: 16 May 2010 21:28

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby ajit_tr » 17 Jun 2010 04:28

Pakistan has requested M1A1 tanks from usa in its wish list will that make IA to induct Arjun or they will go for some other foreign tank???

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19147
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 17 Jun 2010 04:36

ajit_tr wrote:Pakistan has requested M1A1 tanks from usa in its wish list will that make IA to induct Arjun or they will go for some other foreign tank???


Would you have any link stating this? Many thanks.

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sunilUpa » 17 Jun 2010 04:38

Tank Trouble

To save the time and effort involved in going around in circles, lets agree that it was all IA's fault. Now that is certified, is there anything we could learn from this whole exercise?

ajit_tr
BRFite
Posts: 412
Joined: 16 May 2010 21:28

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby ajit_tr » 17 Jun 2010 04:39

Mrinal wrote:
ajit_tr wrote:Pakistan has requested M1A1 tanks from usa in its wish list will that make IA to induct Arjun or they will go for some other foreign tank???


Would you have any link stating this? Many thanks.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... rs/?page=3


But the Pakistani wish list also includes equipment that is not traditionally associated with counterinsurgency or mountain warfare. The Pakistanis are also requesting M1A1 tanks and M113A3 armored personnel carriers, as well as air-defense missiles, such as the Stinger, the Javelin and the Hawk.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 17 Jun 2010 11:57

sunilUpa wrote:Tank Trouble


This is a article from Shri Manu Pubby. He has been writing this same article from his perch in his fav pub for 15 years.
:roll:

Too many inaccuracies to even start pointing them out.

biswas
BRFite
Posts: 503
Joined: 02 Nov 2009 20:42
Location: Ozzieland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby biswas » 17 Jun 2010 12:08

How do they afford all this with a $5B budget?

Srivastav
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 24 Jan 2009 17:23
Location: where the polar bears live

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Srivastav » 17 Jun 2010 12:30

biswas wrote:How do they afford all this with a $5B budget?

on credit and/or begging bowl

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Craig Alpert » 01 Jul 2010 18:27

DRDO working on more advanced version of Arjun MBT: Saraswat
NEW DELHI: After receiving orders for 124 more Arjun main battle tanks, the DRDO has decided to supply an advanced version of the weapon system to meet the requirements of the Army.

"We will have the modifications (on Arjuns) that the Army is looking for," Defence Research and Development Organisation chief V K Saraswat said here on Thursday.

He was asked if the DRDO had any plans of delivering a more advanced version of Arjun to the Army as part of the next order. The DRDO chief was talking to reporters on the sidelines of a function to mark the golden jubilee of the Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Allied Sciences (INMAS).

Saraswat said that the DRDO had already started working on the mark II version of the tank, which will incorporate a number of modifications that have been sought by the Army.

"We have to make certain modifications in the tank, which we call the Arjun mark II version. Development process on mark II is already in progress and our scientists and the Army are working together," Saraswat said.

The DRDO chief said the decision by the Army to place orders for 124 more Arjuns will ensure that the assembly line of the tanks is "engaged".

Army has till date placed orders for 248 Arjun tanks of which 124 have already been delivered to it. The orders for additional 124 tanks was placed after the comparative trials in March and April this year.

The comparative trials between the Arjun and the Russian T-90 were carried out to decided the future of the tank in the Army, during which the indigenous tanks reportedly performed satisfactorily.

The DRDO wants the Army to place orders for at least 500 Arjuns to recover its investments before staring work on the futuristic main battle tank for the service.

Commenting on the role of INMAS during the recent Mayapuri radiation leak case here, Saraswat said, "INMAS also has the expertise of detecting nuclear radiation and we provided the fastest response to the casualties there. We were able to send our teams within four hours and we also found out the level of radiation."

Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1143
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Samay » 01 Jul 2010 19:04

sunilUpa wrote:... is there anything we could learn from this whole exercise?

Yes, dont screw up simple things,just to make a point why they are simple

shanksinha
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 98
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 16:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby shanksinha » 08 Jul 2010 20:29

A nice video on everyone's favourite whipping boy & India's MBT the T-90:
http://en.rian.ru/video/20100708/159738498.html

shambu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 7
Joined: 14 Feb 2010 02:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby shambu » 29 Jul 2010 20:36

Arjun Mark II battle tank getting ready, first trials by June 2012

Chennai: The prototype of the Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) Mark II will be ready for testing by June 2012, officials of the Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (CVR&DE), Avadi, have said. The Arjun MBT Mark I was tested in 1984.

Officials of the CVR&DE, the nodal design and development agency for the MBT, said Mark II was not only a improved version of Mark I but also had several unique features, including greater missile firepower and better protection. “By the summer of 2012, we will come out with a prototype of Arjun Mark II for tests by the Army while the complete version will be ready by 2014,” CVR&DE director P Sivakumar told The Times Of India.

On July 9, the first executive board meeting was held at the CVR&DE on finalizing the configuration for the Mark II where officials of the DRDO and CVR&DE reviewed progress made by various establishments towards meeting the various requirements of the Army. Besides the CVRDE, the expertise of several allied DRDO organisations was taken for developing the Mark II.

Of the 82 improvements requested over the earlier version, the CVR&DE has so far completed 21 improvements. Some of them are: substantial increase in the missile firing capacity, provisions for night vision and for enabling the crew to engage targets under static and dynamic conditions. “Many of the improvements requested are technical in nature. The Mark I could engage targets only under static conditions. However, the Army wanted this version to engage in static and moving conditions so we incorporated them,” said Sivakumar.

The new version will also have a explosive reactive armoury (ERA) that will help the crew identify explosives deployed by the enemy from a distance and take precautionary measures. The 12.7mm advance air defence gun and a new builtin power unit to reduce the noise generated are among the the other features.

The present MTB with the Army is covered with nets during operations. Mark II will have a perfect camouflage. “We delivered 80 of the 124 Arjun Mark I tanks and will deliver the rest before March 2011. We have got orders for another 124 tanks,” Sivakumar added.


Link
Last edited by Rahul M on 29 Jul 2010 21:27, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: we can read normal sized fonts quite well, thanks you.

neeraj
BRFite
Posts: 310
Joined: 12 Jun 2001 11:31
Location: UK

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby neeraj » 29 Jul 2010 20:46

shambu wrote:
The Mark I could engage targets only under static conditions. However, the Army wanted this version to engage in static and moving conditions so we incorporated them,” said Sivakumar.

I know that Arjun Mark-1 can hit targets while in motion but it is surprising to know that it cant hit targets which itself are in motion - in a tank battle the enemy is not going to be static. I wonder how T-90 and other tanks fares.

shambu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 7
Joined: 14 Feb 2010 02:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby shambu » 29 Jul 2010 20:53

^^I guess it's a DDM

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 29 Jul 2010 21:06

Its BS

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 29 Jul 2010 21:12

the old T72M1 we have have to stop to fire at any target - static or moving. so they usually move, then bang bang, move again...

the T90 and Arjun are able to fire moving on moving....though one cannot be sure of T90 :)

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3277
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Tanaji » 29 Jul 2010 21:19

How many projected orders for Arjun Mk II?

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1858
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby uddu » 29 Jul 2010 21:25

The new version will also have a explosive reactive armoury (ERA) that will help the crew identify explosives deployed by the enemy from a distance and take precautionary measures. :shock: :roll: :rotfl:

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1858
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby uddu » 29 Jul 2010 21:30

I know that Arjun Mark-1 can hit targets while in motion but it is surprising to know that it cant hit targets which itself are in motion - in a tank battle the enemy is not going to be static. I wonder how T-90 and other tanks fares.

It's true that Arjun can fire on the move against moving targets. T-90 can fire on the move but don't know much about it's firing capability against moving targets. Taking into account the latest test data result, there is nothing much to tell about the T-90's firing capability.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16943
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 29 Jul 2010 22:00

neeraj wrote:
The Mark I could engage targets only under static conditions. However, the Army wanted this version to engage in static and moving conditions so we incorporated them,” said Sivakumar.

I know that Arjun Mark-1 can hit targets while in motion but it is surprising to know that it cant hit targets which itself are in motion - in a tank battle the enemy is not going to be static. I wonder how T-90 and other tanks fares.

this should tell you about the quality of the article.
The new version will also have a explosive reactive armoury (ERA) that will help the crew identify explosives deployed by the enemy from a distance and take precautionary measures.
I never knew that ERA was a fancy term for sniffer dogs. :rotfl:

___________________________
just FWIW,
http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories623.htm
Sources present at the site of the trials told India Strategic “the tank outgunned the T-90s by 30 percent in nearly hundred parameters compared by the user (the Army).”

keep in mind that India strategic is very anti-arjun in general, it came out with a stupid story during the trials that arjun was more susceptible to PAF F-16's because it has a higher silhouette (yes those 4 inches apparently make it a sitting duck as compared to the sneaky T-90). :roll:

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7719
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 29 Jul 2010 23:57

^^^Rahul da, All DRDO fault onleeee.....Arjun should hae been able to fly to deal with those F-16.....

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7453
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Prasad » 30 Jul 2010 01:00

rohitvats wrote:^^^Rahul da, All DRDO fault onleeee.....Arjun should hae been able to fly to deal with those F-16.....


No. It should've been able to launch SAMs at the F-16!! But its good to see that they're progressing with the upgraded version. Hope they tailor it to exactly what the IA wants. 2 years is probably not enough time for the IA to change its requirements again.

shanksinha
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 98
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 16:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby shanksinha » 30 Jul 2010 01:45

Uddu
Taking into account the latest test data result, there is nothing much to tell about the T-90's firing capability.


Could you kindly point to these "latest test data results" and also please elaborate as to why how there is "nothing much to tell about the T-90's firing capability" or the lack of it. Its pretty hard to understand such things from "informed" one liners.

-Thanks in advance for your time.

ashdivay
BRFite
Posts: 116
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 14:10
Location: India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby ashdivay » 30 Jul 2010 02:00

Prasad wrote:
rohitvats wrote:^^^Rahul da, All DRDO fault onleeee.....Arjun should hae been able to fly to deal with those F-16.....


No. It should've been able to launch SAMs at the F-16!! But its good to see that they're progressing with the upgraded version. Hope they tailor it to exactly what the IA wants. 2 years is probably not enough time for the IA to change its requirements again.


Well thats illogical. a MBT with a SAM.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7453
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Prasad » 30 Jul 2010 02:13

ashdivay wrote:Well thats illogical. a MBT with a SAM.


Precisely.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3826
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby hnair » 30 Jul 2010 02:19

Call it a Freudian slip whatever, but one tank is named after a gent, who despite potential, took a rather questionable acupuncture therapy during a big war where everyone depended on him. While the other one is named after the chap who administered the therapy.

therapist 8)

sevoke
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 69
Joined: 08 Jun 2008 09:30
Location: Republic of Tibet

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sevoke » 30 Jul 2010 03:21

hnair wrote:Call it a Freudian slip whatever, but one tank is named after a gent, who despite potential, took a rather questionable acupuncture therapy during a big war where everyone depended on him. While the other one is named after the chap who administered the therapy.

therapist 8)


Humor at its best! LOL!!!

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9747
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 30 Jul 2010 17:43

How can we accept the Arjun Mk2? It does not have photon torpedos, unlimited Phasar Banks, Trance warp capability. Regenerative shields etc which are minimum essentials in all future wars from 2010. Let us import to T 293 tank which is quite small (2ft 7inch) can not see in day light unless it is mid day and cheap at 2.7 Billon $ per peace. No spare parts will be available at a later stage.
:rotfl:

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2998
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Kanson » 30 Jul 2010 17:56

ashdivay wrote: Well thats illogical. a MBT with a SAM.


Leaving all the jokes, modern tanks must be able to fire a SAM like Stinger missile or Anti-heli missile. I think LAHAT can be converted to Anti-heli missile.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 30 Jul 2010 18:09

didnt the Merkava video on youtube have a sequence where a proximity fused round explodes near a helicopter?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmitU2cm ... re=related

I do agree that compact MMW radar and proper IIR guided gun launched missiles are coming because helicopter gunships at present have the big advantage on tanks in mobility, all weather sensors & longer range firepower. that game needs equalizing. they can target tanks
and scoot away before the 2nd echelon of AA guns and SAM carriers behind the wave of tanks can engage them.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests