Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Dec 2010 10:13

ya the old WW2 jagdpanzer concept with some add ons.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Dec 2010 10:14

Viv S wrote:In 2020, the T-72s would have started retiring while the Arjun would have been in production for 13-14 years. Why not have a 'heavy tank' using the existing (indigenous not Russian) logistics base for the Arjun MkI and MkII.

Changing a logistics base built over 3-4 decades build to support ~ 40 -50T tank will be an expensive proposition
and probably the cost benefit ratio may not be favorable. They wouldn't change logistics just to support one heavy tank

Why not have an indigenous under 50 T tank with most indigenous content which meets IA requirement and has negligible import content ?

Put the same the new generation armor on the Arjun MkIII and you have a tank that'll enter production much much faster while being a world beating tank.

The army has asked for a lighter tank and perhaps with advancement in compactness of engine/power , light armour it may be possible to get an under 50T tank with the proportional protection and firepower.

Its America that wanted a lighter 40 ton new generation armored vehicle to replace the M1 series. And they abandoned it because of the river of dollars is gradually becoming scarcer.

I really dont care what America wants or how dollar affects them or their business , its more important and relevant what IA wants if the IA thinks an under 50T tanks can meet its need based on its doctorine,logistics,threat matrix then its more relevant to us.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Dec 2010 10:17

the relatively flat terrain of tibet and improving heavy logistics (like rail and 4 lane highways) means the IA will face ZTZ99 or whatever is the heaviest PRC tank of the day both in north sikkim and aksai chin.

so IA can come to the party with whatever it wants but the Lizard will bring his heaviest weapons and aim to take no prisoners.

this may not have been the case in 1990s when tibet side logistics were far less well developed.

IA needs to take this into account - I see the prospect of a serious border war with PRC as far more than with PA.

on the bare and treeless terrain once someone breaks cover and comes to attack, speed and muhammad ali moves will count for little -vs- superior protection levels and firepower.

not even Rus, germany and American with their decades of successful tank building exposure are claiming to build a 45t tank with the protection level of a 60t. the wheeled 'stryker' types floating around are meant to use long range ATGMs , N-LOS cannons etc to avoid getting into a LOS fight.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 08 Dec 2010 11:22

Guys,

I am refering to the same concept as the US MGS which is 105 mm weapon. Also the 120 MM Falcon turret for the Jordanian Challanger upgrade. Only made of lighter and better armour that may be developed in future ?? by the DRDO.

The Swedish concept is obsolete in the present situation. Perhaps I coud have worded my post better.

JMT

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Dec 2010 11:35

Austin wrote:Changing a logistics base built over 3-4 decades build to support ~ 40 -50T tank will be an expensive proposition
and probably the cost benefit ratio may not be favorable. They wouldn't change logistics just to support one heavy tank

What do you mean when you say logistics base? What comes to my mind is bridging equipment, recovery vehicles and railway and road transport wagons. Given the existing infrastructure and that inducted for the Arjun (which will number 472 tanks or more), how is it an 'expensive proposition'? The cost benefit ratio and just as importantly the time factor will favour an Arjun variant rather than a completely new armoured vehicle.

Why not have an indigenous under 50 T tank with most indigenous content which meets IA requirement and has negligible import content ?

Because that will require the armor (in relative terms) to be scaled down. The ONLY advantage gained will be a lower operational cost.

The army has asked for a lighter tank and perhaps with advancement in compactness of engine/power , light armour it may be possible to get an under 50T tank with the proportional protection and firepower.

The army also asked for an Arjun that meets its GSQR, and then procrastinated for years when CVRDE made one available. It wasn't until it thumped the T-90 in actual trials and after plenty of MoD prodding, that it realised what was necessary and sanctioned the MkII. Its only a pity that the tanks weren't actually pitted against each other, I doubt if the army would have welcomed having a T-90 MBT replaced with a burned out carcass of a tank.

One hopes that the feasibility studies reveal the same thing as those conducted by a dozen other tank producing countries. That 50T tank may have (and this is still questionable) the same protection as a 58T Arjun MkI, but proportionate protection is unlikely, unless technologies related to armor penetration stagnate. In addition, the effect of upgrading armor on a heavier tank, on the power to weight ratio is much lower than the same weight addition on a lighter tank.

A more worthwhile venture would be look for an powerplant/transmission system that gives a 60T tank in 2020, the same fuel efficiency as a 50T tank in 2010.

I really dont care what America wants or how dollar affects them or their business , its more important and relevant what IA wants if the IA thinks an under 50T tanks can meet its need based on its doctorine,logistics,threat matrix then its more relevant to us.

That's why I named six other countries in addition to the US and pointed out that none of them were looking to downgrade their future tanks. Fortunately, the army is losing (albeit gradually) its organisational inertia, and will hopefully realise the advantage of having a heavy but hard hitting tank before the FMBT's design is frozen.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 08 Dec 2010 11:39

Viv,

The Arjun lost the head to head as it was disqualified.

The umpire said that it engaged the target while still on the move. When the rules of engagement has stipulated that the particular target be engaged while being stationary.

Such was the farce of the head to head with the T 90..

JMT

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 08 Dec 2010 12:21

May be DRDO will have to consider stuff like composite turret etc.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Dec 2010 15:59

One of the issues of a Janes' publication has a good article on the French engine to replace Russian MBT engines,lighter and more efficient.I don't know if this has been discussed posted earlier.If not will dig out the matter.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Dec 2010 16:47

As Surya said,here comes the cavalry....Philip's Horse (s**t)!

In ruminating about an FMBT and its characteristics,from global thoughts on the subject,a few key requirements stand out.The first is firepower.A larger gun that can also fire long range ATMs.The Russians are supposed to be working on just that,a tank with a 135mm or was it 155mm main gun? Equipped with missiles fired from the main gun and an auto-loader for the same,separate ammo/missile compartment isolating the crew compartment/turret.An additional capability required would be SAMs for defence against attack UAVs/helos/GA aircraft.We do not know what development has been achieved in the field of electric guns.Some years ago,OZ devloped a revolutionary electric assault rifle firing projectiles at unbelievable rates and speeds.Therefore ,it is most likely that a main gun of larger calibre will be one requirement.

The second is a lighter tank giving greater mobility through reducing size greater automation and smaller crew.In an Indian FMBT,certainly a three-man crew is feasible as we are already operating Russia T-series tanks which have the same number.I posted earliuer reports about a new French engine for T-series tanks,smaller,lighter with better performance than current engines.Engine development will definitely be one main development in the future.Can an FMBT be designed with another lusted after feature,a two-man crew? Here,a two-man crew would serve in similar fashion as a two-pilot Flanker.In fact,with auto/fighter-like tank controls and flat creen displays,either crew member could act as commander-cum-driver-cum gunner.I feel that it is here that the greatest development can take place if one envisions an FMBT as a ground-based fighter aircraft.

The last requirement is armour.It is here that the biggest problem lies as above posts have pointed out,the rise and rise of ATGMs/RPGs with tandem warheads leading to additional bar/mesh armour and better ERA.Defeating the existing and newer incoming projectiles with higher kinetic energy is going to be problematic.Extra armour means extra weight.How light can an FMBT be? Leaving soft-kill methods like laser zappers,etc.Lighter more exotic laminate armour,sometimes filled with fluids will have to be developed to bring down weight.The Israeli "Iron-Dome" tech developed for incoming Hiz and Namas rockets,with hard-kill systems might see some spin-offs arrive.If a smaller lighter,lower profile tank 2-man crew turretless FMBT is feasible,that would be a significant achievement in itself.Lack of a turret will reduce wieght,allow a larger gun and have better mobility with a more powerful engine. Defeating UAVs,attack helos,etc. would also require the cavalry's integral air defence systems like Shilka's etc. available to protect the armoured columns.

Add to this Harry Potter/007's "invisible cloak",you would get perhaps the perfect tank.At least better technique's of camouflage/stealth,derived from aircraft and warship tech. and the tank's size would diminsh further.An FMBT could also possess conformal radar as in warships.Perhaps that would be only visible/invisible in FFMBTs!

PS:I did not dwell on Commns.,as NCW will ensure that every asset will be networked and every FMBT part of a larger entity,where sats/GPS will ensure that a tank is in the know of events tous azimuth.Do we also want the tank to swim? For that we need to bring in the IN!

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Dec 2010 18:10

^^^

None of these exotic technologies - EM main gun, two man crewed fighter type tank, fluid/laminate armor, etc can feasible be developed, let alone productionalized within ten years. If this is indeed what the forces are looking for then I'm quite comfortable, because the Arjun MkII and probably MkIII have a secure future, while the DRDO continues this pioneering experimentation in armor, guns, witchcraft and alchemy.

The later MkII units and (hopefully) MkIII need to have upgraded Kanchan II armor,drive-by-wire, better networking and communication equipment, a better man machine interface, a remotely operated HMG, a more efficient and powerful engine and a main gun with a higher muzzle velocity. Smoothbore guns could be examined as well.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 08 Dec 2010 18:17

aha trusty old philip

problem is none of the above is futistic (they have been tried example larger calibre guns) except the plastic armour and cloaking as futuristic and we are far behind on those areas and certainly not in the IAs futuristic thinking

so everything else the Arjun platform can be evolved and meet all criteria

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Dec 2010 20:17

a L55 cannon, 360 tiny merkava style cameras, a remotely operated HMG station for commander, better ammo, a thermal sight for commander , missile launch warning system, BMS for tank networking....a fairly simple and immediate fixes which could be done for Mk1 itself if money and interest is made available.

Setting up a engine deal with MTU, and its benefit of bigger fuel internal fuel tank, Kanchan II armour, BMS II to get feed directly from UAVs and such, next-gen FCS and thermals ... are longer range and realistic objectives.

only a criminal would let go this opportunity to finally become a tank design and producing nation , get something of Leo2A6 standard within a 5-7 yrs and feed all that technology into desi IFV, SP gun platforms, recce vehicles, unmanned robot vehicles for mine clearing, AA platforms, SAM telars....the list is endless once the right engine, automotive design and sensor skills are available inhouse backed by PMO support and funding.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Dec 2010 09:45

In the Indian context,the battlefields and terrain and the enemy's armoured formations haven't changed much.I too think that a significant incremental upgrade of Arjun as Singhas has proposed should be fine until 2020,when a new design can start coming off the assembly line,featuring some of the characteristics what I've posted earlier.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Dec 2010 09:56

the threat of chinese heavy armour running roughshod over light BMP/Namica units in sikkim and ladakh has increased a lot in last 15 yrs due to road and rail improvements in Tibet. you have all seen on google earth the 4 lane roads leading right upto the border and the one lane roads on our side.

in that sense it has changed. from the pakis it has not changed much if at all.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 09 Dec 2010 19:53

Guys,

Any news on the status of the Ashok Leyland FAT trials

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Dec 2010 20:42

what will it tow - the new 155mm towed deal is nowhere in sight

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 09 Dec 2010 20:43

Hey why so sad? The IA arty still has over 4000 guns that require towing.

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 10 Dec 2010 01:07

Thus, the Indian Army decided to standardize the tank guns on 125 mm? And 40 t category FMBT tank is approved:

Sources in the Indian Army said the proposed tank will be in the 40-metric-tons category and will be mounted with the 125mm smooth-bore tank gun.

- If so, it's very clever decision, much less supply headache without devastating double logistics... smart boys in the IA, happy end of the saga IOW

Interestingly what anti-aircraft machine-gun it seems to be on? Is not a 12.7 mm remote controlled 'Cord' clone? If yes, it could be a good choice too, since it's better then anything else for such purpose on the market.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 10 Dec 2010 01:45

defensenews - vivek raghuvanshi !!

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 10 Dec 2010 04:08

If so, it's very clever decision, much less supply headache without devastating double logistics... smart boys in the IA, happy end of the saga IOW

hmm gloating are we

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Dec 2010 10:22

I believe the CV90 heaviest model weighs 40t.

so long as the GSQR does not demand protection from direct hits by cannon shells fired by 120-125mm guns, 40t is fine, even 30t is fine....

40t is enough room to shrug off hits by 20-30mm cannons, era, spacing, steel rod matrix & composites might deal with ATGM/RPG29/CG hits and ofcourse 0.5cal fire will not penetrate....

maybe this is what the IA is looking for - a light and mobile tank with superior sensor capability.....the 125mm gun sounds a bit excessive for that weight but hey the T72 did it !!

writing is on the wall - the world awaits the T-95 MKI at 55t after the DRDO 'fails' to boil cabbage & rocks to produce uranium!!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Dec 2010 10:48

Sources in the Indian Army said the proposed tank will be in the 40-metric-tons category and will be mounted with the 125mm smooth-bore tank gun.

I wont be surprised if IA standardises on 125 mm Gun for Logistical Reason as they have more then 2500 Tank with similar caliber and the right thing to do.

Although most news indicate the FMBT will be in 45 - 50 T category putting it in the weight category of higher end of T-90 model.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Dec 2010 11:20

Interesting there is no build your own tank thread.

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 11 Dec 2010 18:09

Austin wrote:
Sources in the Indian Army said the proposed tank will be in the 40-metric-tons category and will be mounted with the 125mm smooth-bore tank gun.
I wont be surprised if IA standardises on 125 mm Gun for Logistical Reason as they have more then 2500 Tank with similar caliber and the right thing to do.

Although most news indicate the FMBT will be in 45 - 50 T category putting it in the weight category of higher end of T-90 model.

40 tons category means not more than 50 t, ambitious enough. I think the Indian Army tops are more open-mind then Russian, so when the last hesitate whether a new platform is worth, the Indian Army decides very unambiguously what to do in next decade. Other examples - are pr. 1135.6 history while Russian fleet is late 10 years after IN in this class induction 'due' to narrow-minding o Russian Navy commanders, late induction of Su-35 (indeed only after Su-30MKI version proved its global success) etc. The difference between India and Russia is as Russian MIC offers many things the Russian military cannot digest and in India the situation is quite opposite: the mil tops are very ambitious and assertive but the MIC cannot yet offer enough toys for them. So they better don't start their boring speculations about 'natashas', 'netas' and 'babus', it's not relevant at all, although sometimes the things are much more murky then could be imaginated...

manish.rastogi · Post by **manish.rastogi** » 11 Dec 2010 18:13

^^^i am in....i even thought one!!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Dec 2010 21:45

lets starts that thread....tank is one area where BR is always bubbling with creative ferment.

Jeff Wickline · Post by **Jeff Wickline** » 11 Dec 2010 22:00

^^ When? Where?
Would like to be a non-player cheer leader (sans lungi dance, have arthritic tendencies).
Would some one please list out the components to be designed as an intro?
Would we go for the 40T version, suitable for the northern defence?

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 12 Dec 2010 02:00

Seriously, why is a heavy tank like the Arjun not suitable for the army? FMBT is all fine, but I still havent understood why the FMBT is something different. We are not talking about rail guns or laser canons, so what is wrong with Arjun?

Note that this is a MBT, so "light" tank suitable for ops in China front is not a factor

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 12 Dec 2010 02:48

Boss don;t you know - our bridges can only handle the exact tonnage as a Tin can nothing more - and this for the last 20 yrs or more

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 12 Dec 2010 16:02

Hydrogen fuel for FMBT under development.

Hydrogen set to be gen-next fuel
Deccan Chronicle

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has launched a mission to improve engines used by the armed forces, said Mr V.K. Saraswat, the scientific advisor to the defence minister. “Its aim is to indigenously develop engines in the range of 400-1,500 horsepower to power futuristic main battle tanks utilising the expertise and infrastructure available within DRDO, Indian industries, academia and research-and-development institutions,” he said while speaking at the inaugural function of the 8th Asia-Pacific conference on combustion being held in the city.

vina · Post by **vina** » 13 Dec 2010 13:51

Hydrogen fueled MBT aye ?. Well, the Army and the Babu monkeys are in cloud cuckoo land.

You have an engine that works perfectly fine with widely available Diesel (even on battlefield/living off enemy supplies, diesel would be the most easily available), but no, the babu monkeys specify "multi fuel" and that the engine must be able to burn vegetable oil, residues, petrol , kerosene, turpentine and anything flammable, making the entire exercise orders of magnitude more difficult.

Now for the next gen engines, the baboons specify "hydrogen", which is so exotic, it is simply unobtainable from anything but a highly specialized supply chain which has zero fungibility!.

Talk of idiocy multiplied hundred times. Hydrogen tank engines make sense when everything including the neighborhood SUVs, cars, and trucks and everything are hydrogen and the pumps are ubiquitous and you can go to Jumhritalayya /Timubuktu and top it up.

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 13 Dec 2010 16:18

^^
Vina well said

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Dec 2010 15:17

Widely believed to be the canceled T-95 program.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Dec 2010 15:39

"...40t tank with a 125mm main gun.."Doesn't that tank already exist in the Russian light tank I spoke of many moons ago,ideal for the Himalayan heights? It's worth taking a look at that design at least for interim numbers that can be inducted faster to "stop the gap" capability.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 14 Dec 2010 15:41

Here we go again!!!!!!!!!

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 14 Dec 2010 16:18

ROTFL

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 14 Dec 2010 17:16

vina wrote:Hydrogen fueled MBT aye ?. Well, the Army and the Babu monkeys are in cloud cuckoo land.

But its the DRDO which made the statement.

But talking of DRDO is verboten on the forum aye?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Dec 2010 17:52

shukla wrote:Hydrogen fuel for FMBT under development.

Where does it says Hydrogen Fuel for FMBT ?

Dr Nair from ISRO just stated that Hydrogen as future fuel is promising etc etc

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 14 Dec 2010 18:06

seems to be a result of editorial jugglery

don't think anyone said it was for tanks

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 Dec 2010 18:13

^^

Exactly. The article nowhere mentions that hydrogen fuel is being used for the tank engines. It only speaks of a conference on future fuel, where the DRDO Chief spoke of tank engine development as an addition, to journalists. Basically, much ado over nothing.

What is notable is that Saraswat said "400 hp to 1500 hp", implying a range of different power plants for armoured vehicles & not just for the FMBT etc.

Part 1

Dec. 11: The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has launched a mission to improve engines used by the armed forces, said Mr V.K. Saraswat, the scientific advisor to the defence minister.

“Its aim is to indigenously develop engines in the range of 400-1,500 horsepower to power futuristic main battle tanks utilising the expertise and infrastructure available within DRDO, Indian industries, academia and research-and-development institutions,” he said while speaking at the inaugural function of the 8th Asia-Pacific conference on combustion being held in the city.

Dr Saraswat, who is also the chairman of the Combustion Institute (Indian section), said that IIT-Madras and Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, will be developed into centres of excellence for advanced research in combustion technologies.

Part 2

Dr G. Madhavan Nair, former chairman of the Indian Space Research Organisation (Isro), said that hydrogen as a form of eco-friendly, alternative form of energy was going to play a crucial role in the years to come.

“It can be used as next-generation fuel in the aviation, aerospace and automobile industries besides domestic cooking,” he said.

Dr Nair said the thrust was on developing cost-effective technology to extract hydrogen from water and develop safe handling of this eco-friendly fuel. “Currently, hydrogen technology is expensive and hence technologies to combine both solar energy and hydrogen are needed,” he said.