Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36417
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby SaiK » 16 Dec 2013 23:14

jokes apart, the proof is in the purchse order pudding. i wan't to see IA commitments in numbers.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5314
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby jamwal » 17 Dec 2013 00:01

indranilroy

Lets wait for orders first.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8265
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Indranil » 17 Dec 2013 00:52

No disagreement there :-)

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby chackojoseph » 17 Dec 2013 11:17

indranilroy wrote:What I do agree is that orders for Mk2 should be placed now. Looks like they are going to change the LAHAT missile system rather than the anything in the tank. So, why hold back now?


I also mentioned the tow hook, lights etc too. But, the general point is what you are pointing out.

I have repeated this to multiple people and multiple times in this forum that Army uses election year to delay the project. Lets see if the next defence ministry team is as good as this team.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby vic » 17 Dec 2013 22:19

Look at the proposed rate of fire by the HMG using RWS, makes me wonder about it's use, except to create a fancy addition to a tank which army is doing it's best not to procure by makin it heavy, costly and complicated.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19862
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Karan M » 17 Dec 2013 22:46

RWS is used to protect the tankman. If the tank gets into a situation where it has to employ the gun against infantry or airpower, the tank commander/gunner employing the gun is exposed. The open hatch is another point of weakness.

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2061
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby srin » 17 Dec 2013 23:11

One question about the gun itself: if you want to defend against ATGM-armed choppers, wouldn't a 20 mm cannon be more effective than a 12.5mm one ?

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9918
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Yagnasri » 17 Dec 2013 23:30

How many things you put there sir?. Mine plow? Which other tank in the world has it?. May be we need a warp engine and phasers.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19862
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Karan M » 18 Dec 2013 00:49

abhik wrote:But why change if a locally made(assuming that it is) system is already available?


i dont know whether its locally made or assembled. it is from israel - either IMI or IWI supplied by OFB. dont know whether it has all the sights mentioned in the tender - IIRC it says ti/ccd and LRF and level of stabilisation required.
mandate usually is to put out a RFP for best choices..

One question about the gun itself: if you want to defend against ATGM-armed choppers, wouldn't a 20 mm cannon be more effective than a 12.5mm one ?


well, yes, but a larger gun is more weight and complexity. hence sticking with 12.7 mm makes sense. of course with todays long range systems, depending purely on guns on tanks to knock down choppers is dicey. as dicey as depending on lahat for that matter for that role. they are more like secondary options if they have to be used in that role.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19862
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Karan M » 18 Dec 2013 00:52

Narayana Rao wrote:How many things you put there sir?. Mine plow? Which other tank in the world has it?. May be we need a warp engine and phasers.


t-72s also have it. not all the tanks in the formation will carry it, only those in the assault formation which have to deal with such obstacles. they will clear a path for the rest of the formation to follow. usual mine plough adds around 1.5T to the tank.
reason for tanks having it is flexibility. IA is not exactly heavy on support assets like first world armies which are profligate in units and variety (money, money, money) which are then earmarked for specific tasks and which will be in heavy demand during assault. so instead of waiting for engng support if facing a minefield which was not known beforehand, IA formation commander has choice to proceed nonetheless.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19862
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Karan M » 18 Dec 2013 00:55

RoyG wrote:That israeli jammer is so god damn ugly. They couldn't find another spot to put it. The tank is also vulnerable in that area.


that spot already has kanchan. so its not like its vulnerable per se, only that it lacks the additional stand off protection of the ERA.
and what does it matter if it is ugly? this is a weapon of far, it does not have to look good as long as it gets job done

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby pragnya » 18 Dec 2013 10:24

Karan M wrote:
abhik wrote:But why change if a locally made(assuming that it is) system is already available?


i dont know whether its locally made or assembled. it is from israel - either IMI or IWI supplied by OFB. dont know whether it has all the sights mentioned in the tender - IIRC it says ti/ccd and LRF and level of stabilisation required.
mandate usually is to put out a RFP for best choices..


this pic says the RWS is OFB developed with this gun possibly. :roll:

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby rohitvats » 18 Dec 2013 13:24

Given the amount of upgrades and add-ons which Arjun is going through, next the army will say it is too advanced for use by zimple SDRE soldiers....

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14740
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby pankajs » 18 Dec 2013 13:25

Back to Maruti vs BMW stand hanji?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby chackojoseph » 18 Dec 2013 13:39

This problem has manifested before as evaluation problem.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby vic » 18 Dec 2013 14:46

OFB was displaying an Israeli RWS in various Def Expos.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby rohitvats » 18 Dec 2013 14:47

I really hope someone pushes Arjun down the throat of IA...some 500-600 tanks at least.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8390
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Pratyush » 18 Dec 2013 16:01

rohitvats wrote:I really hope someone pushes Arjun down the throat of IA...some 500-600 tanks at least.


Only a political DM force the IA to do so. The Saint cant do this.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sagar G » 18 Dec 2013 19:54

Will wrote:And what incentive does the private sector have for investing in R&D? The govt doesn't have any clear cut policies. There have been instances of the private sector doing all the work and the final order going to one of the public sector units which only puts the paint on them. The govt needs to fund part of the R & D with assured orders if milestones are met. Which private company in its right mind is going to invest millions of dollars in R & D when there is not even a hope that it might be considered for an order. Take the case of Tata's Howitzer. They have been looking for a testing range within India. Don't think the govt has even bothered about thinking of providing them with a facility.


If having the capability to rub shoulders against global biggies at the international stage isn't "incentive" enough then I don't have much to say here. R&D not only generates a knowledge base within your organization but also get's you noticed on national and international stage, I agree that regarding defence R&D the gov. should give incentives so that more pvt. companies take up actual research work but then what about the public field ??? I don't see any ground breaking research being carried out by our pvt. companies there as well. That's why many eminent scientists/engineers have called upon the industry to put more money in R&D so that they can shoulder the burden with the government establishments. Pvt. companies have pressure groups why don't they use that to make the govt. form more policies so that R&D in India turns a new page. If they really wanted to then they could have done that, but the thing is they are also really happy doing ctrl+c, ctrl+v.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby vic » 18 Dec 2013 19:57

If Army wanted a lighter tank, it could always have asked DRDO to develop a 3 person manned tanks like Leclerc or T-junk.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Singha » 18 Dec 2013 20:29

what is the current status of the redoubtable FMBT which was supposed to be 50t, 3 man, yet sport the protection of a 65-t tank ?
has better sense prevailed and Arjun mk3 == FMBT or are we still hunched over the pot, trying to boil lead into gold?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Kersi D » 18 Dec 2013 22:55

rohitvats wrote:Given the amount of upgrades and add-ons which Arjun is going through, next the army will say it is too advanced for use by zimple SDRE soldiers....


And the new T 420 is advanced yet so easy to be used by "zimple SDRE soldiers"

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 589
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Shalav » 19 Dec 2013 00:17

Sagar G wrote:If having the capability to rub shoulders against global biggies at the international stage isn't "incentive" enough then I don't have much to say here. R&D not only generates a knowledge base within your organization but also get's you noticed on national and international stage, ...


The whole thing is that - bhaiya sabse bada rupaiyah. R&D shar & D may or may not allow you to rub shoulders with the high and mighty in phoren, but if it does not bring in money there is no incentive.

OTOH if that R&D brings profits, desi Cos. have some of the best R&D labs for their needs. The same is the case with phoren Cos. R&D is not done for the sake of rubbing shoulders, but to make money.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby chackojoseph » 19 Dec 2013 08:42

vic wrote:If Army wanted a lighter tank, it could always have asked DRDO to develop a 3 person manned tanks like Leclerc or T-junk.


Unlike whats over Internet, Army does not want a light tank or a heavy tank. If you see the Mk2 specs, it is army which wants ERA etc and logically the increase in weight, which they are aware of it.

Based on Army specs and absence of any material that is light weight enough for a tank, it is implied that that Army is specifying for a heavy tank. Army continues to build for specs even when known that the tank will gain weight.

So, the argument that that the tank is heavy needs to be discontinued.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19862
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Karan M » 20 Dec 2013 04:56

Singha wrote:what is the current status of the redoubtable FMBT which was supposed to be 50t, 3 man, yet sport the protection of a 65-t tank ?
has better sense prevailed and Arjun mk3 == FMBT or are we still hunched over the pot, trying to boil lead into gold?


lead into gold. last i heard per public info, the IA had given DRDO a laundry list of features of 50T tank which they wanted to be reduced to 40T (or even below!) class. the proposal was considered so unworkable, that something had to give, and folks were still figuring out what to do and how to rewrite. and whether IA would sign off on something practical.

FMBT will at this rate will open door for another T1000 purchase after years of bickering on who wants what and whatever is made will be too heavy per original requirements. :|

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8167
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nachiket » 21 Dec 2013 05:54

https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewt ... 7#p1562477

Just look at ACM Browne's speech at the Tejas IOC ceremony. How I wish our COAS comes out and gives a speech like that on the Arjun. The IAF may have been guilty of treating the LCA like a step-child in the past but they have now taken full ownership of the program and given a commitment to a total of six squadrons, (2 mk1 and 4 mk2) despite the mk2 being a mere paper plane at this point.

Now contrast this with the IA's treatment of the Arjun. The Mk1 is a completed product. Even the Mk2 is comparatively far more battle-ready than the LCA Mk1 and it is better than the best tanks our adversaries can send against us. Yet look at the difference in levels of commitment. There are still no firm orders for the Mk2 and no more than the original measly 124 for the Mk1. As per the latest article, IA is waiting for some cosmetic changes to be demonstrated.

The IA is doing a disservice to the nation.

Offensive part of the tweet deleted. User warned for using highly offensive language and invective against the Indian Army. It has has been categorically stated that offensive language and name calling against Services will not be tolerated. Don't get ahead of yourself in your criticism of Services - rohitvats.
Last edited by rohitvats on 21 Dec 2013 22:14, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: User warned for offensive language against the IA.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36417
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby SaiK » 21 Dec 2013 07:23

ouch! i'm in disbelieve that IA should let themselves to such criticisms.

now i have to doubt IA's capability with T90s issues... and a two prong war happens from both NE and NW sector.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby chackojoseph » 21 Dec 2013 08:07

Navy was in minority when it came to making and fielding, even may be fighting. it was also smallest of all in terms of making a difference. With navy's sky high profile and Air Force joining the league, Army has been rendered to chota prah in image (in 1971 when Adm Nanda asked the reluctant ACM PC Lal for strikes on Karachi. Gen Manekshaw said that IAF should relent to chota prah (small brother)).

Army cannot stand out alone in rains for long. Eventually, it will relent and join. Its a matter of time.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby member_22539 » 21 Dec 2013 08:20

Offensive part of the post deleted and user warned. You have been advised earlier as well to mind you language. - rohitvats

PS: Maybe they should rename Arjun to Hunky/Tuffy. Might be more acceptable that way.
Last edited by rohitvats on 21 Dec 2013 22:24, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: use warned for offensive language

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sagar G » 21 Dec 2013 12:30

Shalav wrote:The whole thing is that - bhaiya sabse bada rupaiyah. R&D shar & D may or may not allow you to rub shoulders with the high and mighty in phoren, but if it does not bring in money there is no incentive.

OTOH if that R&D brings profits, desi Cos. have some of the best R&D labs for their needs. The same is the case with phoren Cos. R&D is not done for the sake of rubbing shoulders, but to make money.


Thanks for the enlightenment I didn't knew that I thought R&D is done for fun only.

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 589
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Shalav » 21 Dec 2013 13:50

You're welcome sir... :)

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1875
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby uddu » 22 Dec 2013 18:12

del.
Last edited by Rahul M on 22 Dec 2013 19:51, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: OT.

Indaruta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 27
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 21:42

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Indaruta » 22 Dec 2013 18:25

del.
Last edited by Rahul M on 22 Dec 2013 19:51, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: OT.

Eric Leiderman
BRFite
Posts: 364
Joined: 26 Nov 2010 08:56

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Eric Leiderman » 25 Dec 2013 00:38

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 118_1.html

this link is about the DRDO engine development for the FMBT

quote

Sivakumar says that a tank remains static for at least 40 per cent of the time in battle, during which time its engine idles. “This means that 40 per cent of the time, you wastefully run a 1,500 Hp engine, guzzling diesel and giving away the tank’s position, while you need very little power for running electricals like the radios and gun control equipment or for moving the tank slowly. So, we are evolving a hybrid technology concept in which the tank will have two engines: a 500 Hp engine for low power mode and another 1,000 Hp engine that kicks in when high power is required, e.g. for manoeuvring in battle,” explains the CVRDE director.

unquote

this concept of 2 engines when you are trying to cut down on weight does not make sense as with a single engine there are savings in cost, auxiliary equipment, weight, simplification ( u will need clutchs with two engines a more complex gear box etc) (speed at which u can switch fm 500 hp mode to 1000 hp mode,) with one engine the power band can be gone through seamlessly.

a 1500 hp engine say a 12 cylinder engine with electronic fuel injection can fire on 4-6 cylinders when idling or under light loads.
this is already being done by GMC in their light trucks where at cruising speed only 3 of the 6 cylinders fire.
It is done in a certain sequence where by over a number of cycles all cylinders fire keeping the heat generation/dissipation even over the heads/blocks, in addition to that a hybrid using a battery power pack could aid in adding power for acceleration and storing regenerative power and cutting down on the size of alternator used, also increasing stealth in the IR band.

maybe their consultants can / will come out with the above, compared to two separate power packs.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby vasu raya » 25 Dec 2013 00:54

what if the 2nd bigger engine is a gas turbine? its only engaged 60% of the time and a major weight saver

Eric Leiderman
BRFite
Posts: 364
Joined: 26 Nov 2010 08:56

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Eric Leiderman » 25 Dec 2013 04:07

Vasu Raya
2 power plants mean a more complicated gear box, hydraulic clutches, aux equipment eg Lube pumps cooling pumps
Not sure but weight advantage will not be appreciable, fuel efficiency at higher power?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby chackojoseph » 25 Dec 2013 07:53

^^^ No denial that gearbox will have additional channels and probably the driver might have additional gears. Multi gen set type of arrangement is already being tested for railways Indian Railways tests multi-genset diesel locomotive
A multi engine will be power on demand. It will also do away with an APU compartment.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7556
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Prasad » 25 Dec 2013 08:10

Why use multiple engines when you can do cylinder deactivation? Easier no?

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby vasu raya » 25 Dec 2013 08:30

Maybe its the other way round, micro turbine for 500hp and a 1000hp diesel, the turbine runs constantly with no idling while the diesel delivers the torque when needed, can they connect these by continuously variable transmission?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby chackojoseph » 25 Dec 2013 09:12

Dual engine ensures mobility even if 1 has trouble, even if not optimum. They must have made choices between dual engine, cylinder shut down and multiple gensets.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests