Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60269
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Singha » 28 Jan 2017 07:53

So looks like 18x2 in bustle in which 18 are ready round and i heard second 18 are semi accessible not sure what it means and 6 in hull for total 42. Not bad.
And we know from isis work the blow off panels really work well.

In arjun nd leo the left side of bustle seems taken by other eqpt. Nd we can see the sad result of hull mag explosion.

I think the merkava carries some 50 rounds standard and upto 72 if the infantry space in back is empty is the claim. Would love to see pics of its ammo storage. They have a powered 10 rd ready mag by imi somewhere

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60269
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Singha » 28 Jan 2017 08:13

Well well another khulasa karhi ninda once i dug deeper....

The merk has a high hull taller than 6 feet and a shallow wedgy turret...so room inside turret only for the powered 10 round mag

Rest of around 40 rounds are stored in lots of 4 in the back compartment and loader has to reach there with turret pointing front to fetch and reload 10 more rds as needed. And no infantry can be carried in this mbt mode.

The back part with all this ammo also has thinnest armour for sure. The exit door in middle is weak.

These things are carefully not spoken of in the huge publicity materials. Only indian stuff is booed and heckled as bad design.

The turret kind of overhangs the back chamber to give some top attack protection. The tank is also huge around 75t so a fat target for atgm teams and rpg in cqb....

Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60269
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Singha » 28 Jan 2017 08:19

So every mbt incl the tfta western ones have serious compromises not just russi scapegoats tseries.

Abrams uses a huge and wide turret and low profile for least compromise but needs jet fuel and infantry cannot ride its engine deck or closely follow a must in urban warfare.

No wonder kornets and metis are having a gala time boo woo

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1050
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby sudeepj » 28 Jan 2017 10:22

Tanks designed for deep combat operations, breakthroughs against conventional armies and to destroy other tanks and bunkers will not do well in unconventional combat. A new kind of tank will need to be designed for these ops.

1. APU is must, to keep the tanks combat systems switched on.
2. AC is must, to keep the electronics and human beings buttoned up inside working.
3. Remote controlled weapon system capable of firing at a high angle is a must.
4. Active protection system to defeat rear aspect ATGMs etc.
5. Crew must be separated from propellant with blast off panels.

Perhaps the idea of a single platform for both conventional and unconventional threats is unachievable with currently available platforms.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60269
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Singha » 28 Jan 2017 10:28

The merkava and m1 tusk are attempts in that direction...not perfect for sure

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5004
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby jamwal » 28 Jan 2017 10:55

Singh saar,.

Ammunition torage bins in Arjun are in back iirc.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1489
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Sid » 28 Jan 2017 11:04

Why tanks for urban/unconventional warfare needs to be manned? Or why it needs to be a tank to begin with? A hulking metal in the middle of a concrete jungle is gonna stick out as a sore thumb.

It must be everything which a MBT is not.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19619
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Austin » 28 Jan 2017 11:46

Singha wrote:So every mbt incl the tfta western ones have serious compromises not just russi scapegoats tseries.

Abrams uses a huge and wide turret and low profile for least compromise but needs jet fuel and infantry cannot ride its engine deck or closely follow a must in urban warfare.

No wonder kornets and metis are having a gala time boo woo


Indeed many of the IS video has shown Abrams has the tendencies to catch fire and secondary explosion much faster than any tank out there , in a matter of seconds the tanks seems to explode and crews dont have any chance to run out , probably the concussion from hit takes its own toll.

The Houthis versus UAE/Saudi Armoured fight in Yemen was more interesting and funny

ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ArmenT » 28 Jan 2017 11:57

Sid wrote:Why tanks for urban/unconventional warfare needs to be manned? Or why it needs to be a tank to begin with? A hulking metal in the middle of a concrete jungle is gonna stick out as a sore thumb.

It must be everything which a MBT is not.

Tanks in built-up urban areas are not in their preferred element. They become vulnerable to close-range attacks from RPGs and IEDs in heavily constructed areas. The problem also lies in the fact that an urban environment has no true frontline: attacks can not only come from the front where the tanks are heavily protected, but they can also come from above, below, the sides or the rear, targeting the tank's weaker spots. And an urban environment, by its nature, can dictate the paths that a tank has to take to get to a particular location. The same is not true in open countryside, where there is a frontline and RPG operators have a far lesser chance of getting close to a tank's rear, or forcing the tank to travel on a particular path with 100% certainty.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60269
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Singha » 28 Jan 2017 12:48

Tanks are getting hammered even in rural areas of syria

Jamwal see my factory pic. Arjun has 10ish rd rack in bustle and around 24 to 30 in hull mag like leo2 . Pics clearly shows both.there is no other room to pack 24 to 30 rds inside the turret ring or bustle.

Austin ..abrams has 4 fuel tanks in the 4 corners. The back ones are on both sides of the hot turbine engine. Unlike diesel the jet fuel kerosene will ignite like hell if a rear or side hit spills the kerosene into the damaged engine.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60269
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Singha » 28 Jan 2017 12:55

I m developing a new respect for the 3 man unmanned turret concept with high angle remote hmg. Weight saving in turret put in underhull mine protection and side hull armour. Front aspects make it 1500mm rha protection.give the crew a chance to survive. Make tank ad low and fast as possible. Use some special inert shells that do not detonate on a hit. Make ammo be loaded from.bustle by autoloader

Ie the armata i think lol

Ia has got it right except weight has to 60t not 50t for underhull topattack and side protection levels. A t90 it cannot be

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 834
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Mihir » 29 Jan 2017 20:44

Singha saar, I remember one tank guy telling me that the blast door protecting the M1's bustle ammo isn't as useful as it first seems. His argument is that if an AP dart/HEAT jet significantly overmatches the frontal armour, it's going to go straight through and penetrate the blast door as well. And once it does that, the burning propellant will vent into the crew compartment through the hole made by the shell and kill the crew. He says the Leo is a little better because it stores only a small portion of its ammo in the turret and the rest in the hull, away from the line-of-sight of AP darts.

The M1A1 offers an increased degree of protection from hits to the side of the turret, but that's only when a round strikes to ammunition compartment; if it hits the crew chamber, they crew are done for.

I also once asked Shook Law about his opinion on the Armata's three man turret. He says,

...putting the commander in the hull would seriously compromise his battlefield awareness. But then, that has always been a lesser requirement in Russian designs. The optical instruments in the T-72 left much to be desired. Now, putting the commander lower down would create an even more urgent requirement for high-quality optics, placed higher up... periscope style.

The gun cannot traverse electrically until both the commander and the driver hatches are closed... an electronic switch ensures that. Otherwise, a sudden traverse could slice them in half.

So that's not a problem. My biggest issue would be 360 degree awareness. Given that a commander MUST remain "opened up" for as long as possible, i.e. in eye contact with the battlefield until there is serious artillery shelling... this design simply does not hack it for me.

IMO, the best AFV for fighting insurgent in built-up areas is the BMPT on a T-90 chassis. Two 30mm autocannon that can elevate up to 45 degrees, four ATGMs, two automatic grenade launchers with 300 rounds each, and a hull re-inforced to withstand landmine explosions. Looks effective as hell.
Last edited by Mihir on 30 Jan 2017 03:36, edited 1 time in total.

abhik
BRFite
Posts: 1990
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby abhik » 29 Jan 2017 23:58

IMO the next revolution in Armoured vehicles/Tanks will have to be in the situational awareness area. 360 degree field of view sensors in visible, IR and Radio spectrum with automatic freind or foe identification, threat detection and prioritization. The crew can remain in the hull and will have a full view of the surroundings using VR or F-35 like helmets.

AdityaM
BRFite
Posts: 1797
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby AdityaM » 30 Jan 2017 12:35

Image
what are the wind chime like gray-red rods hanging on the left..some sort of sensors?

if yes, then when these vehicles will move on dirt tracks raking all the dust around, then wont the sensors get clogged?

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5004
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby jamwal » 30 Jan 2017 14:40

Singha wrote:Tanks are getting hammered even in rural areas of syria

Jamwal see my factory pic. Arjun has 10ish rd rack in bustle and around 24 to 30 in hull mag like leo2 . Pics clearly shows both.there is no other room to pack 24 to 30 rds inside the turret ring or bustle.



I was inside Arjun tank years back so my memory is patchy at best. The ammo storage bin were behind the gunner on both sides in hull, nothing in turret afair. Don't remember any such thing in front near driver. Could be wrong. I've lost all the pictures except a few uploaded on my website so don't have anything to go by except the hazy memory.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5004
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby jamwal » 30 Jan 2017 14:52

AdityaM wrote:Image
what are the wind chime like gray-red rods hanging on the left..some sort of sensors?

if yes, then when these vehicles will move on dirt tracks raking all the dust around, then wont the sensors get clogged?



Have these recon vehicles been inducted ? Saw these a looong time back.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7571
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby rohitvats » 30 Jan 2017 15:44

^^^Well, from the formation sign on the vehicle, it is from an operational unit of 21 Strike Corps.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2117
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby tsarkar » 30 Jan 2017 17:23

AdityaM wrote:what are the wind chime like gray-red rods hanging on the left


Cleared Lane Marking System - used by sappers to mark lanes cleared of mines. Not sure of their utility in NBC environment. This vehicle looks like the Armoured Engineering Reconnaissance Vehicle also developed by CVRDE but anyways configurations keep evolving.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60269
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Singha » 30 Jan 2017 18:02

the BMPT is indeed very impressive. the Russians should ship a few dozen to syrian army and let them proof it.

the Armata has very expensive and khanish looking optics all round.

the commanders sight is right where he would be with hatch open and standing and has 360 rotation.
Image

nam
BRFite
Posts: 467
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nam » 30 Jan 2017 19:28

abhik wrote:IMO the next revolution in Armoured vehicles/Tanks will have to be in the situational awareness area. 360 degree field of view sensors in visible, IR and Radio spectrum with automatic freind or foe identification, threat detection and prioritization. The crew can remain in the hull and will have a full view of the surroundings using VR or F-35 like helmets.


The yehudis already have them.


Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3745
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Rakesh » 30 Jan 2017 23:34

DRDO outlines future MBT requirements
http://www.janes.com/article/67154/drdo ... quirements

Speaking at the International Armoured Vehicles 2017 conference in London, Dr U. Solomon of the DRDO's Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE) highlighted some of the new requirements for the MBT design, which is intended to replace the Indian Army's fleet of T-72M1 'Ajeya' MBTs and is scheduled to enter service from the early 2020s.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9140
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Yagnasri » 31 Jan 2017 12:27

That too with Bharat Power Pack which I do not think anyone has seen so far.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60269
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Singha » 31 Jan 2017 16:20

These are needed to retain funding...project a timeline 15 yrs out and netas wont put money on table.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33465
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby shiv » 01 Feb 2017 10:01

nukavarapu wrote:
Singha wrote:These are needed to retain funding...project a timeline 15 yrs out and netas wont put money on table.


I thought things have changed with MP on helm.

I heard that Manohar Parikkar has lost the support of PC Sorcar whose help was needed to do everything in the time we give him. Just sayin..

AdityaM
BRFite
Posts: 1797
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby AdityaM » 01 Feb 2017 23:42

tsarkar wrote:
AdityaM wrote:what are the wind chime like gray-red rods hanging on the left


Cleared Lane Marking System - used by sappers to mark lanes cleared of mines.

Thank you

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19619
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Austin » 10 Feb 2017 14:13

Qatar Leopard 2A7+ Main Battle Tanks Training Exercise


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19619
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Austin » 12 Mar 2017 20:09

Production of new Karrar tanks on Iranian Bani-Hasem tank plant near Dorud

https://twitter.com/imp_navigator/statu ... 2982857729

Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19619
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Austin » 12 Mar 2017 20:10

Iran armored Industry "Karrar" MBT Tank


sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 325
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby sarabpal.s » 12 Mar 2017 22:24

Good analysis on Turkeys Leopard loss in Syria

https://misterxanlisis.wordpress.com/20 ... -in-syria/

Rampy
BRFite
Posts: 257
Joined: 25 Mar 2003 12:31
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Rampy » 12 Mar 2017 22:29

Austin wrote:Qatar Leopard 2A7+ Main Battle Tanks Training Exercise



Why cant india train with Qatari army using Arjun, that will help us in desert tactics (ME will be a front sooner than later)and also improving airlift capability for Arjun?

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4331
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby putnanja » 13 Mar 2017 12:58

Looks like Arjun is headed for dead-end :-?

Big New Hurdle For India’s Arjun Battle Tank

...
The Indian Army wants the DRDO to fully redesign the Arjun Mk.II’s hull and turret structures and use newer materials to replace the conventional structure, in an effort to ‘achieve a reasonable reduction in weight, without removing any of the major improvements’. The Arjun Mk.II currently weighs 68.6 tons — a full six tons over the MK.I, owning entirely to the 73 improvements the Army demanded on the newer tank. The Army has stated, in no uncertain terms, that the 68.6 ton weight of the Arjun Mk.II is too much for ‘seamless application in semi-developed and developed sectors of the Western Front’. In other words, the Arjun Mk.II, the Army says, can’t be forward deployed beyond the deserts, in the event of active hostilities with Pakistan. But more on that a little later.
...
...
The story doesn’t really end there. In fact it gets more perplexing. While the DRDO gets busy trying to redesign the Arjun Mk.II’s hull/turret structures and use new materials, the Army has already written off the exercise. In fact, at the very same September 2016 meeting where the DRDO committed to a 3 ton weight reduction, the Army stated, ‘There are no major advantages from tactical and operational point of view with 65 t weight reduction also. It is felt that even weight reduction to 62 tons (equal to that of Arjun MBT Mk-I) may not provide any significant tactical/ operational advantages.’

In other words, the Army believes the weight reduction exercise is fundamentally useless. Worse, the Army projects that the ‘cycle time for 65 ton weight reductions of Arjun MBT Mk-II and validation will take about four to six years for successful acceptance by user after trials/procedures.’
...

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7468
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 13 Mar 2017 13:02

Why not disband any capability to built tanks in country and out source the manufacturing and design ti Russians.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3470
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby srai » 13 Mar 2017 13:19

Pratyush wrote:Why not disband any capability to built tanks in country and out source the manufacturing and design ti Russians.


That is exactly what the end-user is doing. It asked for 3-ton weight reduction on Arjun Mk.2, after asking for all things that would add-up weight, and put it back in the development-endless loop only to then place order for 450 T-90S tanks. If the IA was serious about supporting an indigenous tank, it would work with the MoD/GoI/DRDO/Private to setup adequate infrastructure in the country to support Arjun deployment all over India. All the new bridging equipment that the IA is acquiring and made by DRDO supports 70t weight. Same for national highways. Rail and Road trailer system are available for transporting the Arjuns. So why does the IA keep using weight as an excuse? For whatever reasons, there are elements (who happen to be the decision-makers) in the IA that just want to import Russian tanks--Armata order is next.
Last edited by srai on 13 Mar 2017 13:28, edited 1 time in total.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17270
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 13 Mar 2017 13:24

Tan-tara,tan-tara,.Armata what?! :rotfl:

But seriously,the DRDO should understand,if it did not earlier,that the IA has for decades got addicted to a 3-man crewed MBT which weighs far less than an Arjun. The IA's entire armoured doctrine and logistic network has been built up for this requirement to support around 3000+ T-72s (upgraded) and T-90s. I would suggest that when the Arjun was first conceived,way back in the '80s, the DRDO took as its example the Leopard,which was then considered as the "best-from-the-west".The Arjun's turret shape can certainly see the influence of the Leopard.Slab sided hull with no sloped glacis. I remember a detailed Frontline article on it way back in the late '80s,early '90s when it was rolled out. A 4-crew MBT will definitely weigh more as the turret has to be much larger for the extra crew member. Now,in the latest evolution of the MBT,the Armata has the crew in the hull itself,with an entirely automated turret,not just the auto-loader on its T-series (T-72s and T-90s)s.

WE must also look at the doctrine behind the design of the Leopard and the Merkava. The Merkava places the engine first to protect the crew,expecting armoured frontal assaults from the enemy,where in defensive positions,it would be able to defeat incoming shells .In Lebanon,the Hiz were able to knock out so many Merkavas because they were attacked from the sides and rear,where the armour was less tk. and vulnerable to tandem warhead RPGs. The German Leopard has been designed to expect a massive Russian molniya/lightning strike across the borders,where the Soviet tactic was to use its heavier armoured MBTs like T-80s ,followed by large numbers of T-72s,etc., rushing through the gaps created .

Now according to sev. reports,T-90s manufactured in Russia are cheaper than those produced at Avadi. Open source info suggests that the costs are: T-90M$ @ 4.5M+,vs Arjun MK-1 @ $ 8.3M+.This is a huge difference. It means that the IA would approx. get 2 T-90s for the price of 1 Arjun. Even if a T-90 with all the bells and whistles costs around $5M,it would be much cheaper than an Arjun MK-2 which would cost ,being heavier and with more eqpt. at least $9-19M a pop. This would be a v.strong argument to be used by the IA with the MOD/GOI for continuing purchasing/building T-90s instead of Arjun MK-2s. What about the future?

Now here is an astonishing fig. Take it or leave it.The official/Wiki cost of an Armata is supposed to be only $3.7M! .Earlier estimates of it being about $6M+ were found excessive ,once the tank goes into mass production. By 2020 the Russian Army had planned to acquire around 2000" Armatas,v.unlikely,a more accurate fig would be around 500+ if production is streamlined.Some 3-D printing of components is being done says the OEM.100 tanks will be recd. by 2017 and batches of 100-150 will be produced. What the export price will be is anybody's guess,but given the Russian desire to export the tank to those nations who've been operating its MBTs,plus a couple of Gulfies as well,the MBT could be produced in v.large numbers keeping costs down. Being only around 50+T,it would also weigh approx 10T less than an Arjun MK-1. I would guesstimate that it would cost around $%M+ for export.

Watch this space.

Some Wiki xcpts:
In all, India plans to have 1,640 T-90 tanks in service by 2018–2020.A ₹10,000 crore (US$1.5 billion) purchase of 354 new T-90MS tanks for six tank regiments for the China border has been approved[29] which would take the total number of T-90 tanks in the Indian Army's inventory to 2011 and with a total of nearly 4500 tanks (T-90 and variants, T-72 and Arjun MBT) in active service, the world's third largest operator of tanks.

India plans to have 21 tank regiments of T-90s by 2020, with 45 combat tanks and 17 training and replacement tanks per regiment, for 62 total each
On 17 September 2013, India's Defence Ministry approved the production of 235 T-90 tanks under Russian licence for $1 billion


Composite armour:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... year-17740
The armor is a composite incorporating a new steel alloy known as 44C-SV-W, developed by the JSC Institute of Steel—also known as the NII Stali Institute for Protection—in Moscow. The new steel, made via electroslag melting, is apparently lighter than traditional steel, shaving “hundreds of kilograms” off the vehicle weight.
Last edited by Philip on 13 Mar 2017 14:17, edited 4 times in total.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9624
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby sum » 13 Mar 2017 13:40

The story doesn’t really end there. In fact it gets more perplexing. While the DRDO gets busy trying to redesign the Arjun Mk.II’s hull/turret structures and use new materials, the Army has already written off the exercise. In fact, at the very same September 2016 meeting where the DRDO committed to a 3 ton weight reduction, the Army stated, ‘There are no major advantages from tactical and operational point of view with 65 t weight reduction also. It is felt that even weight reduction to 62 tons (equal to that of Arjun MBT Mk-I) may not provide any significant tactical/ operational advantages.’

In other words, the Army believes the weight reduction exercise is fundamentally useless. Worse, the Army projects that the ‘cycle time for 65 ton weight reductions of Arjun MBT Mk-II and validation will take about four to six years for successful acceptance by user after trials/procedures.’

Time to end this dog and pony show and put this long going farcial drama out of its misery.
Guess it is written in the country's "janam-kundali" that it will forever remain a 100% tank importing nation

nam
BRFite
Posts: 467
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nam » 13 Mar 2017 18:26

Looks like the focus has now shifted to the Chinese border.

So IA wants something in the T90 weight class, specially it is planning an expansion on the Leh border. And it is right, that it will take 5-6 years.

So there are three options.

1) Arjun MK2 will be the upgrade option for tanks based in desert. They can replace some of the T72's which are deployed in deserts.

2) The Indian T90 anyway has a Indian barrel & armour. DRDO can take a "empty T-90" with internals removed and see if it can fit Arjun components.

Arjun FCS, Single piece perpetrator with autoloader, thermals, an APS, rectify the infamous "exposed ammo" etc. So you are not starting from ground zero.

3) or Jump to FMBT rightaway. Bharat powerpack, APS, under 50 ton, 3 man crew etc. Major research on materials and concepts for light armour and APS.


We have already jumped over the hump (except for the engine). Now it is time to create options for IA and not relie on GSQR.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6551
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Prasad » 13 Mar 2017 19:15

Just how many years of development and tests beyond tests do to think it'll take before IA pushes for Armata emergency buy?

nam
BRFite
Posts: 467
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nam » 13 Mar 2017 19:23

For which tanks would Armata be replacement for? T-72?

GOI will ask IA to replace T72 with T90. To get Armata, they have argue T90 is oudated... which leaves IA in a very peculiar situation.

IA can like any tank they want. GOI hold the money bag.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3470
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby srai » 13 Mar 2017 19:54

nam wrote:For which tanks would Armata be replacement for? T-72?

GOI will ask IA to replace T72 with T90. To get Armata, they have argue T90 is oudated... which leaves IA in a very peculiar situation.

IA can like any tank they want. GOI hold the money bag.


There is a thing called FMBT or FRCV that the IA has put out RFI for.

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2705
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby arshyam » 13 Mar 2017 20:57

Prasad wrote:Just how many years of development and tests beyond tests do to think it'll take before IA pushes for Armata emergency buy?

Why bother? Just place an order and buy the goddamned thing. Enough of this nonsense. At least DRDO will be around to fix the shit on any imported shitty system, so no point spending years on testing anything.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brar_w, Gagan and 40 guests