Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

[tsarkar]

Karan,

Funny how you want your words to be taken as gospel without an iota of supporting evidence, yet claim published facts as wrong. Lets take them one at a time.

For your information, the BEL IGMS is not on the tank. It was a development system intended for Batches 2 & 3 of MK1 if the Arjun was series produced in number, based on Army orders! Nor is it the BEL IGMS. It is the IRDE IGMS, for which BEL is the development partner and it is on a trials tank!

There is only one IGMS, Karan, on production Arjuns Mk 1. It is developed by IRDE and produced by BEL. BEL lists only serial production items and not one off development items. Development is IRDE's job and producing it is BEL's job. So you may try to obfuscate the air by claiming multiple IGMS in existence, but the fact remains that the IGMS in production (at BEL because IRDE Dehradun doesnt have manufacturing mandate or capability) does not have commander hunter gunner killer capabilities.

The current production FCS is the Delft/Sagem-DRDO one, with the GPS/TI provided by Sagem working with Delft, integrated with the DRDO-TATA ballistic computer

Sagem (based at Delft, Netherlands) provided components – like the Sagem Thermal Imager – & provided system integration assistance that was used by IRDE to develop the IGMS and productionized by BEL.

& German meteo sensors!

Swiss meteo sensors, NOT German. IRDAM 2156. http://www.irdam.ch So much for your claims of being in the know of things!

The CPS integrated with this FCS which DOES have HK capability is from IRDE, and the new one is again being developed with a partner.

And after obfuscating the air claims of non-existent multiple IGMS version, you introduce the disinformation here that IRDE developed Hunter Killer capabilities for commander's panoramic sight. If IRDE developed it, then why isnt it under production at BEL? IRDE Dehradun is a lab, and even manufacturing 124 FCS sets is beyond its means. Nor does it have the mandate to manufacture. BEL manufactures the FCS, which is what it has listed

And no, you will not find this information on google either, mores the pity!

No my friend, I get information from people who've spent their lives driving tanks, and eat, live, sleep in them. I correlate the information provided by them with industry documentation and publicly available news. Usually it tallies. And I write in BR correlated information of the parts released in the press or industry documentation. If I don't find any correlation, then I typically DON'T write that information.

So, unlike you, I do not claim to be privy to not-publicly-released-top-secret-information-known-only-to-you-for-dissemination-in-BR. Because facts will logically tally with published R&D capabilities and industry capabilities.

but no TI, a passive channel is offered via light amplification but its Gen2 and thoroughly obsolete, not to mention of limited use at best in night time. So no separate TI and the commander takes a feed from the Thales FC on a monitor.

Lets define Generations. From http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo ... =ADA481411

operating in 8-12 micron Long Wave Infra Red (LWIR)

In T-90, the TPN-4E image intensification sight is replaced by Catherine FC. From http://www.thalesgroup.com/Workarea/Dow ... gType=2057

8-12 microns

So Catherine on T-90 is Gen3.
Now, what about Arjun? From http://www.bel-india.com/index.aspx?q=&sectionid=315

Uses second generation Thermal Imager for Night observation & firing

So T90 sights & FCS is better than Arjun Mk1. This is being addressed in Mk2.

Our Ordnance Board Member in the Hindu believes that Arjun gun stabilizer & FCS system integration compensates for the sight.

While the Arjun gun stabilizer is definitely superior than the T-90 and the System Integration might be superior, it does not compensate for lack of HK capabilities in the FCS.

Yet Karan believes that IRDE is producing 124 numbers of unheard/superior/vapourware IGMS with HK capability for Arjun Mk1 and the BEL one is being produced for Shangri-La tanks.

Weren't you the one also talking about how the Tejas would not even require an EW suite as it was not even in the ASR and similar rubbish. When informed there were indeed plans to fit an EW suite on the LCA, your response was typical - an obnoxious denial saying the IAF would never require one & similar attacks. Then the claim that it works only in the one band, and only in the forward direction. Do note the fwd & rear antennae and the high/low band capability. And nor is this the most capable EW suite in development either. About the only thing that you have to clutch at is that its still being contemplated for whether to fit it on the MK1 & 2, and so far instead of having any actual information about the topic bar some brochures posted by others from Aero India, all you have to show for your attitude are statements like delusional.

Let me clarify your understanding on frequency bands, because your post conveys complete lack of understanding of electronic communications.
Internal jammers typically cover only one frequency band, X-Band (8-12 GHz) because its used by fighter radars. High Band means the higher side of the frequency band (10-12 GHz) and Low Band means lower side of the frequency band (8-10 GHz). It does not mean two or more frequency bands (L+S+C+X+Ku+K+Ka). Even the US has not achieved wideband radar jamming (ie multiple bands), so I stand by my statement that most internal jammers work in single bands.

The picture is of a DARE project for Unified EW System that has been going on for ages around Unified Receiver Exciter Processor. The Su-30 uses Siva HADF pod and this project seeks to compress HADF to a LRU. Suffice to say, this has never matured to be tested, and no flying Tejas till date shows these transmitter bumps. It may may sufficiently mature for Mk2.

And my facts come not from speculative posters, but official DRDO publications, that state all production Tejas Mk 1 has is RWR and Chaff Dispensers. Here is it once again to refresh your memory since you're attributing false statements against my name. http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfoc ... 011%20.pdf

[sudeepj]

Sudeep, we are all armor newbies, the actual experts are at Ahmednagar and CVRDE. I'd rather somebody with a good grasp & memory of ORBATS answers query.

1. I remember all sorts of sizes for the brick size, perhaps rohitvats can help you here. The standard used to be around 50 tanks, but then numbers as high as 60-70 have also been quoted, but not likely today, when the regiment should be 40 odd tanks. Try Orbat.com, they have a good TOE list.

The bharat-rakshak orbat page says, each Vijayant regiment has 72 tanks. Is it because these regiments are tasked with some special task, or because it needs nearly 1.5 number of tanks as in T72 regiment to actually deploy the same 40 odd number of tanks on the ground?
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... Orbat.html

For 2, it depends. The Leopard 2 has all its ammunition in one area of the hull, unlike the Arjun though, these rounds are in thin walled canisters. I didn't see any closed hatches either. The Leclerc, if my memory serves me correct is similar. The Ariete should be likewise, but then its probably not a good example as its not considered amongst the premier western tanks anyhow. The Merkava - perhaps eastern not western here, stores its rounds in individual fireproof canisters in the first few iterations, then in 4 round magazines in the last, with around 8-10 rounds in a semiautomatic, armored autoloader in the turret in the MK 4 version. Most of its rounds are stored towards the rear of the tank, near the hatchway. The Merkava is unique in that its engine is in the front, so even that technically acts as armor. The Challenger has unique two piece rounds for its rifled tank gun. It has relatively small sized FSAPDS sabots, which are loaded with bagged propellant charges. These charges, which are a fire/saftey hazard are stored in armored bins in the turret.
So to answer your question, logically, yes. If rounds are all over the turret and drivers compartment, then its much more likely to be hit if a round penetrates. Problem (like I said previously) is that rounds nowadays are made of cellulose compounds for the exterior shell. They are not brass rounds which are harder to set fire to (the fragment has to go through the exterior brass casing).

So if theres a spray of molten fragments into the tank as a result of the penetration, one or the other rounds sprinkled across the turret of the 72 are likely to be hit and cook off, as opposed to a (nonM1, non Merk) western tank, which has all its ammo in one location?

For 3, the T-90 is the T-72 BM, same dimensions & India's T-90s, welded turret apart, are plain jane T-90s, no substantial increase in internal volume over the T-72BM. Unless they have access to Harry Potters expanding house tech, I doubt they can do anything fancy for the ammo. For the "modernized" versions of the T-90, they were planning Merkava style containers, but that will require turret redesign & more internal volume

Its a reasonable inference, but not conclusive. So can any other Armor guru answer this? Are rounds sprinkled all over the T90 turret as in the T72 turret? Are there any grounds to believe that this has changed from the T72 to the T90?

[Karan M]

tsarkar:
Karan,

Funny how you want your words to be taken as gospel without an iota of supporting evidence, yet claim published facts as wrong. Lets take them one at a time.

Heh Niranjan Malik not being "published facts" and not "evidence" - how convenient. Relying on obsolete weblinks to buttress your claims when the reality is totally different just goes to show me that your grasp of the subject is indeed quite shaky. Try as you might to explain the actual situation away, tsarkar, fact is you are in the wrong, and plainly so. Trying to browbeat me via verbiage won't work, I'm afraid.

tsarkar
There is only one IGMS, Karan, on production Arjuns Mk 1. It is developed by IRDE and produced by BEL. BEL lists only serial production items and not one off development items. Development is IRDE's job and producing it is BEL's job. So you may try to obfuscate the air by claiming multiple IGMS in existence, but the fact remains that the IGMS in production does not have commander hunter gunner killer capabilities.

Tsarkar, nice try but you'd have been better off trying all this on a topic where you at least had a chance of instilling some doubt.

If you don't know something, and the other guy does, these tactics aka FUD, don't really work. All they do is tell the other guy, that you don't know and are stretching.

Funny bit about Sagem there - nice try in using the very information I provided and trying to tell me that the IGMS on the BEL website is developed by IRDE and produced by BEL, when it was what I said. so remind me again, why is it exactly that you are telling me what I told you?
FYI, to remind you of the nuance in what I noted & which you unfortunately mangled, I said it was codeveloped by BEL. BELs engineers worked on the FCS to finesse it. But its not the one on the Arjun MK1.

Coming to multiple IGMS in existence, go ahead, learn something new...

Sagem (based at Delft, Netherlands) provided components – like the Sagem Thermal Imager – & provided system integration assistance that was used by IRDE to develop the IGMS and productionized by BEL.

Good try, but unfortunately I am chuckling at your claims of Sagem based in Delft, Netherlands, providing systems integration expertise! After I mentioned Sagem, now you change tack, and bring in Sagem! Since I mentioned the name Delft, out comes Sagem, based in Delft Netherlands. So, I tell Sanku that the thermal imager was replaced by Sagem and LOL, you quote it back to me as if its something original. Great debating tactics.

FYI, the FCS deal was struck with Delft Sensor systems. As you clearly didn't know this, Delft was the name of the actual FCS partner for Arjun. Its actual FCS division was not from the Netherlands but Belgium. The unit was procured by ELOP of Israel. The holding company was based out of Netherlands.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-106864054.html
http://www.oip.be/history.asp

Go ahead google something up, and then add some mirch masala and then quote it back to me as if you are teaching me something. Or, instead of just trying to make things up on the go, kindly realize that on this topic, obfuscation will not work on me. For your information, Delft asked Sagem to help out before its acquisition to make the FCS all European and the contract continues. The combine supplies the entire GPS - Gunners Primary Sight! Its tied to an Indian FC. It is yet to be license manufactured in India. OIP remains the primary contractor and responsible for the integration.

& German meteo sensors!Swiss meteo sensors, NOT German. IRDAM 2156. http://www.irdam.ch So much for your claims of being in the know of things!

Oh my! What a victory! Remind me to go and tell the FCS engineer who spent an entire hour explaining the Arjun FCS to me and several others of the common tax paying public, and mentioned German meteo sensors about your one-up! And yeah, takes a lot of effort to google Arjun + meteo sensors, and out comes good ole Prasun Sengupta talking about the IRDAM. Gee, I am awed - his google fu is better than mine. At least for once he is correct though.

And after obfuscating the air claims of non-existent multiple IGMS version, you introduce the disinformation here that IRDE developed Hunter Killer capabilities for commander's panoramic sight. If IRDE developed it, then why isnt it under production at BEL? IRDE Dehradun is a lab, and even manufacturing 124 FCS sets is beyond its means. Nor does it have the mandate to manufacture. BEL manufactures the FCS, which is what it has listed

The one obfuscating, making "air claims" up would be you, tsarkar. You clearly have no idea whats the current state of the FCS? Why isn't it in production at BEL, has it struck you that its under negotiation? And that the current FCS is being improved further with autotracking? My goodness, I do think its clear now to me that you seriously make things up as you go along. BEL manufactures the FCS which is what it has listed it seems, when everybody in the know about Arjun knows that the IGMS project was not put into series production!

No my friend, I get information from people who've spent their lives driving tanks, and eat, live, sleep in them. I correlate the information provided by them with industry documentation and publicly available news. Usually it tallies. And I write in BR correlated information of the parts released in the press or industry documentation. If I don't find any correlation, then I typically DON'T write that information.

Yeah sure, while the rest of us all live in Tora Bora, hiding in caves and know nothing. Your information being so accurate, that you didn't even know what was on the Arjun and were confidently trying to tell me about Shangri La! And the rest of the fancy stuff about correlation, everyone does it. Every guy on this site does it. The way you express it though, it would seem to be something special. Please give me a break.

So, unlike you, I do not claim to be privy to not-publicly-released-top-secret-information-known-only-to-you-for-dissemination-in-BR. Because facts will logically tally with published R&D capabilities and industry capabilities.

LOL, and who said the information I gave was not-publicly-released-top-secret-information-known-only-to-you-for-dissemination-in-BR.

It was common knowledge to anyone with a working knowledge of the Arjun.

Not only did you not know it, you continue to deny it. To what end? What do you know of published R&D capabilities and industry capabilities either? If you did, you would not even have made that kind of emphatic comment about the BEL IGMS that you did and backed it up with such misplaced sarcasm either.

Heck, it was common knowledge as far back as 2005, that the IGMS was not going ahead without a bulk Arjun order and the OIP Sagem/ DRDO hybrid FCS would remain the standard instead, but you didn't know it. And here you are stuck on a broken record, instead of acknowledging the bit of info and moving on, there you go trying to justify it, somehow, something, will stick!


Lets define Generations. From http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo ... =ADA481411 operating in 8-12 micron Long Wave Infra Red (LWIR)
In T-90, the TPN-4E image intensification sight is replaced by Catherine FC. From http://www.thalesgroup.com/Workarea/Dow ... gType=2057 8-12 micronsSo Catherine on T-90 is Gen3.

Irrelevant. I clearly noted the sight on the PNK-4S was a passive night magnification sight as versus a proper thermal imager. And now you bring in generations, which has absolutely no relevance to the topic whatsoever. Is it that hard to admit that you made a mistake and misinterpreted my remarks?

Now, what about Arjun? From http://www.bel-india.com/index.aspx?q=&sectionid=315 Uses second generation Thermal Imager for Night observation & firing

Again irrelevant. For your kind information, the thermal imager on the T-90S and Arjun are of the same vintage and were sourced at the same time and the BEL link does not refer to the TI on the current Arjun MK1 as previously noted. Funnily enough, one of the IGMS displayed by BEL showed a Thomson CSF thermal imager. Thomson CSF, purchased by Thales.

In contrast, the actual Arjun production IGMS uses a TI from Sagem integrated by OIP.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.in/2002 ... 040800.htm

The curious fact is that both Catherine and SAGEM source the detector, the heart of the system, from the same French manufacturer.

Heck, in actual trials performance, the TI on the Arjun has outperformed the one on the T-90 as well.

Boss, give it up...seriously, all this google fu on the Arjun wont work with me.

So T90 sights & FCS is better than Arjun Mk1. This is being addressed in Mk2.

Wrong again. The Arjun FCS has proven better than that on the T-90.

Our Ordnance Board Member in the Hindu believes that Arjun gun stabilizer & FCS system integration compensates for the sight.

Nothing of the sort, an absolute misinterpretation of what he wrote. Both the thermal imagers are of the same darn vintage.

While the Arjun gun stabilizer is definitely superior than the T-90 and the System Integration might be superior, it does not compensate for lack of HK capabilities in the FCS.

ROTFL. Here is what the FCS specialist on the Arjun program actually wrote in response to my specific query:

Hunter-killer capability: absolutely yes:
1) The commander first of all has an independantly stabilised line of
sight, this means that he can observe the landscape and detect a target, with
his line of sight fully stabilised, whatever the gunner is doing (engaging
a target for example) and the whatever are the movements of the tank,
2) the commander has the capability to designate the detected target to the
gunner (the gunner's line of sight and the line of fire automatically rally
the commander's line of sight, when the commander depresses the right
switches).

Sorry tsarkar, but you stretched here and got bowled. Big time. It might have worked on someone else or on some other topic. Not this time.

Yet Karan believes that IRDE is producing 124 numbers of unheard/superior/vapourware IGMS with HK capability for Arjun Mk1 and the BEL one is being produced for Shangri-La tanks.

LOL, whom are you trying to convince here? You think by adopting this hoity toity, oh so superior tone of voice, the reality will disappear?

Unheard, yeah - unheard by you. As usual when confronted by details you are unaware of, you follow the usual process. Step 1- ad hominem attacks (delusion, this that), followed by Step 2 - intensely argueing in an authoritative manner, hoping the other guy will get confused and back off.

Because all your talk of secret contacts with people who live/eat/breath in tanks apart, you really don't have an idea about the Arjun FCS.

If you were that aware, you'd have known about the IGMS already...but you didn't did you. And now you just can't admit you were wrong. Even though enough information has been floating around all the way back since 2002, and even in 2006 more details were available, so much for your statements about correlating x vs y.

And who said IRDE is producing these FCS?

Trying to put words in my mouth again, eh? It should be clear to anyone who read what I said, that IRDE Dehradun is the lead developer of the IGMS and collaborated with BEL to design it, and BEL was the designted production house if it ever went into series production.

Let me clarify your understanding on frequency bands, because your post conveys complete lack of understanding of electronic communications.
Internal jammers typically cover only one frequency band, X-Band (8-12 GHz) because its used by fighter radars. High Band means the higher side of the frequency band (10-12 GHz) and Low Band means lower side of the frequency band (8-10 GHz). It does not mean two or more frequency bands (L+S+C+S+Ku+K+Ka). Even the US has not achieved wideband radar jamming (ie multiple bands), so I stand by my statement that most internal jammers work in single bands.
The picture is of a DARE project for Unified EW System that has been going on for ages around Unified Receiver Exciter Processor. The Su-30 uses Siva HADF pod and this project seeks to compress HADF to a LRU. Suffice to say, this has never matured to be tested, and no flying Tejas till date shows these transmitter bumps.

Oh yada yada, here we go again, please give it up already, before attempting to "clarify my understanding" of the topic about "Unified Receive Exciter Processor" and frequency bands and what not, about which which I only posted on BRF, and we end up in this pointless waste of time, you just dodge around the topic again.

Please admit it, you did not know the LCA was to receive an internal EW suite, which it is receiving. And this is not seeking to compress HADF to a LRU. As usual you saw one common term and jumped to a conclusion. The HADF on the MKI is much more accurate and sensitive. It would give some of the folks who worked on the system a heartattack to hear that the system could be compressed to fit into one LRU, I mean seriously oh c'mon..!!

Second your comments about the program never maturing to be tested, again - totally out of whack with reality. I mean, if you knew about the system, you'd know the program has already matured and is already under testing and kits have already been supplied for multiple programs and for even more advanced variants to boot.

Go talk sometime using your extensive living/breathing/eating contacts and ask them whats going on. Or better still ask the developers for non classified information at public events like the rest of us plebeians do.

And my facts come not from speculative posters, but official DRDO publications, that state all production Tejas has is RWR and Chaff Dispensers. Here is it once again to refresh your memory since you're attributing false statements against my name. http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfoc ... 2011%20.pd

Your so called facts come from weblinks which take five minutes of google and change every other day, given the dynamic nature of the programs in question. Thats how things are, and which is why all these weblinks don't really always reflect the truth.

Before accusing others of attributing false statements to your name, please do remember your own claims last time around, about the IAF never wanting an internal EW suite to begin with on the LCA and how you responded to my statement stating the truth, which was otherwise.

Your statements about the EW suite only working in the forward sector alone were also incorrect.

Its ok to be wrong tsarkar, nobody is correct 24/7, its another thing to acknowledge information shared in good faith, and not respond with obnoxious attacks as you are wont to each time somebody corrects you. That is what leaves a bad taste in the mouth and just goes to show your inability to admit that there are things you are not aware of.

Sorry tsarkar, but your "facts" in this case, are anything but facts. They are just a melange of stuff from wiki and DRDO etc websites which anyone can and does come up with. I have seen it all before on the internet, and I am not awed.

[Karan M]

So if theres a spray of molten fragments into the tank as a result of the penetration, one or the other rounds sprinkled across the turret of the 72 are likely to be hit and cook off, as opposed to a (nonM1, non Merk) western tank, which has all its ammo in one location?

I'd rate the Challenger also highly. Rest, if its hull ammo, they have the IFDSS right there, so they have a good chance of saving the crew by preventing an explosion. But if that gets damaged, all bets are off. But even so, the T-72 is more at risk. The rounds are not just across the turret but in the drivers compartment as well. He has a few pinned beside him.

Its a reasonable inference, but not conclusive. So can any other Armor guru answer this? Are rounds sprinkled all over the T90 turret as in the T72 turret? Are there any grounds to believe that this has changed from the T72 to the T90?

There is no information whatsoever to suggest that the layout of the T-90 has changed. For the record I did manage to get a look see into an empty (clean) T-90, but it was dark and for all intents and purposes it was a copy of the T-72 layout except all the analog thingmajigs were digital. Space wise, appeared identical. Couldnt see any extra volume to fit in any special containers.

[Rahul M]

The bharat-rakshak orbat page says, each Vijayant regiment has 72 tanks. Is it because these regiments are tasked with some special task, or because it needs nearly 1.5 number of tanks as in T72 regiment to actually deploy the same 40 odd number of tanks on the ground?
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... Orbat.html

just like a cricket team has 11 players, an Indian army tank regiment has 45 tanks, irrespective of type(3 squadrons @ 14 tanks each + HQ sqdn @ 3 tanks). however, the army allocates a higher number of tanks per regiment to cater for breakdown, war wastage etc. this is sometimes called a brick. the actual number depends on the reliability of the tank. for unreliable machines like the vijayanta this number might have been 72(I don't remember). for arjun it should be about 62 as you can clearly see that the 124 tank order is meant for 2 regiments.

Its a reasonable inference, but not conclusive. So can any other Armor guru answer this? Are rounds sprinkled all over the T90 turret as in the T72 turret? Are there any grounds to believe that this has changed from the T72 to the T90?

this has all been discussed in the past pages of this thread I really don't feel like scouring the net for the sources again.
if you are interested in this stuff I suggest you read up this thread from the start, it will be a rewarding experience.

[Karan M]

Some T-90 pics

http://img222.echo.cx/img222/1186/pribor900079eo.jpg
http://img71.echo.cx/img71/7618/pribor900089ol.jpg

courtesy harkonnen

[sudeepj]

Some T-90 pics

http://img222.echo.cx/img222/1186/pribor900079eo.jpg
http://img71.echo.cx/img71/7618/pribor900089ol.jpg

courtesy harkonnen

Is the long yellow cylinder to the extreme left of the picture in the second link you posted, one of those propellant charges sprinkled around the T90?

[tsarkar]

Karan,
For all those words, you have given not one substantiative proof that Arjun FCS has the capability.

The commander doesnt have a night sight, that typically is a precursor to HK capabilies. The Arjun commander is blind at night while the gunner can see. How the FCS gets designated by a blind chap is beyond the realm of science, but as per you, this vapourware has been developed and produced for Mk1 by someone that you cant specify.

The tank indeed has extensive advances in some areas, but deficiencies in others. In the real world, unless these deficiencies are ironed out, that tank wont be inducted in numbers, no matter how much nonsense you spout on internet on mythical capabilities.

[tsarkar]

one inaccuracy in my earlier post, the chap i spoke to believed Delft to be a subsidiary of Sagen, which isnt correct. He's with an Arjun unit for more than a year now, & while fully aware of current capabilities, isnt aware of the development history.

[negi]

The tank indeed has extensive advances in some areas, but deficiencies in others.

TSarkar sorry to nitpick I am just curious to know the deficiencies in question; as a MBT platform what are the areas in which it is weaker than the T-90 in Indian service ? Lets keep the logistics out of this for time being.

[Singha]

apparently the t90 does not have a muzzle ref system too, which measures the warpage of a barrel over its lifetime and tells the FCS how to compensate for it - starting all over again when a new barrel is plugged in.
dont see the box type thing on the rim of the barrel at the tip
http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/s ... ia_001.jpg

strange thing is every pic of abrams has it. some of leopard has it, some dont. arjun has it in all pics.

[Abhisham]

Another thing to take into context is that the reason why Armoured core officers have a high openion of T-90 is because most of them have very limited exposure to anything else (even Arjun) and compared to earlier generation equipment (T-55/Vijyanta/T-72) T-90 definately is better. Please remember that throughout the development cycle Arjun was based out of one location and with one regiment of the IA.

However not to disapprove of what Karan M has brought up with my limited interactions with not only Armoured core officers but also OR's I have heard good praise about T-90's reliability and haven't come across TI malfunction issues to an extent as reported in the media. But then again this has nothing to do with the Arjun, which as per an individual serving with the Arjun is a "fantastic tank which has proved its worth to the high-ups during the recent comparative trails". This given I hope with more regiments being raised Arjun's capability will be more widely appreciated and lead to additional orders.

[Singha]

sudeepj yes that looks like a consumable charge ... the gunner/commander seems to have kept it upright right next to his left arm.

I wonder how dangerous are these charges ? do they ignite if kinetic energy shrapnel (red hot) passes through?

the single piece ammo used by arjun and western heavies look far neater and easier to manage imo. the two piece thing is perhaps a compromise to fit longer rounds into the carousel ?

[Austin]

I wonder how dangerous are these charges ? do they ignite if kinetic energy shrapnel (red hot) passes through?

Very dangerous , if it gets penetrated the molten sharpnels would fly in all direction will kill the crew and set off explosion in the crew compartment.

Any ammo in the crew compartment is dangerous doesnt matter if they are protected by thin layer of armour , it is possible that the crew might be loading the ammo and the penetration is achieve which exposes the ammo , it is also possible the shock from HEAT or KE even if its not penetrated the armour might kill or produce secondary explosion.

The only tank that is completed ammo from crew is the Abrams where the crew and armour is completely isolated in the turret and any explosion will limit the effect it will have on crew , you might want to read this link

[pragnya]

Actually I dont think they are available on net any more, my book mark at least does not work. Can you point me to them again? As far as I see, the above statement you have made is not borne out by that report. But I will be happy to point that from the very report if you can share the link again.

Sanku, that seems to be right. the files have been removed.

Rahul M

i had happened to save a file and it is in the form of pdf. i don't know how to upload the file. if you can provide me your email id i can send it to you.

[pragnya]

Some T-90 pics

http://img222.echo.cx/img222/1186/pribor900079eo.jpg
http://img71.echo.cx/img71/7618/pribor900089ol.jpg

courtesy harkonnen

Karan

those images are not seen on my comp. i see an image of a frog in a cube.

that apart brilliant posts Karan. much appreciated.

[Rahul M]

boss upload on ifile.it. it's free.

[sudeepj]

I wonder how dangerous are these charges ? do they ignite if kinetic energy shrapnel (red hot) passes through?

Very dangerous , if it gets penetrated the molten sharpnels would fly in all direction will kill the crew and set off explosion in the crew compartment.

Any ammo in the crew compartment is dangerous doesnt matter if they are protected by thin layer of armour , it is possible that the crew might be loading the ammo and the penetration is achieve which exposes the ammo , it is also possible the shock from HEAT or KE even if its not penetrated the armour might kill or produce secondary explosion.

The only tank that is completed ammo from crew is the Abrams where the crew and armour is completely isolated in the turret and any explosion will limit the effect it will have on crew , you might want to read this link

Austin saab

The way I see it, the probability of the metal fragments finding one of these consumable charges is much more if they are sprinkled all over the tank as opposed to being concentrated in one location, with some modicum of protection.

[Singha]

iirc a old 1980s copy of discover mag which my father got somewhere had a cover story on abrams. its ammo compartment (way back then in mk1 using 105mm british cannon) had fire sensor and automatic fire extinguiser + blast panels with a reaction time of 10 milisecs. the interiors looked neat and functional even back then. it also had muzzle reference, dual TI, wind sensor and all the toys.

sher khan ambitiously pushed the paradigm after the M60 and got a great product at the end of it.

[Singha]

reading Austin's thread it seems that major issue with Rus tanks vs Western heavies "known" is they lack the heavy armour AND their guns+sensor+ammo combo is not good enough to post heavy losses to western MBTs so far in "known" engagements like GW1/GW2...
no chobham , no Rhienmetall 120mm std gun, no TFTA thales/atlas elektronik/texas instrument electro-optics, no DM53 or M829A3 ammo....

but I thought for russian design firepower + mobility > protection; so unfortunately they are lagging in what they chose as their core focus area of strength. apart from ofcourse housing ALL their ammo below the turret, as compared to maybe 40-50% of ammo in western heavies minus abrams.

so taking all tanks as vulnerable to turret ammo cookoff (except the abrams with his huge width and bustle), the western heavies seem able atleast in "unfair" fights like GW1 to be able to smack the T-series with better ammo, longer range and better sensors?

[Austin]

Austin saab

The way I see it, the probability of the metal fragments finding one of these consumable charges is much more if they are sprinkled all over the tank as opposed to being concentrated in one location, with some modicum of protection.

Sundeep-jee I do not disagree there that the probability of metal fragments hitting a loose ammo is quite high , but there is a fundamental weakness of ammo in crew compartment , you can agree a lot of things might go wrong , a molten fragment that can cause explosion of loose ammo can also kill the crew or incapacitate badly.

[tsarkar]

Negi, I am far removed from tanks, except for joyrides given by coursemates long time back and Triamph exercises. There were no T-90 or Arjuns when I retired.

Having said that, my observations are that the Arjun is superior in every aspect to T-72, and in many aspects to T-90. There are some design deficiencies, but these can be taken up as incremental mark upgrades.

While the MTU engine is superior to T-series engine, there are operational issues. The MTU 1400 hp engine is a one off product used only in Arjun. No other tank or vehicle uses it. Because of that, there is no cost sharing across industry, and certain parts do not have active production line.

There were system integration issues, and resolving those issues became problematic because of lack of joint ownership. Essentially, in Tejas, if NFTC discovers fault during flight testing, ADA will develop a solution and HAL will implement it. This close cooperation and SOP was earlier missing in the Arjun program. Everyone passed the buck around. The T-90 too faced SI issues, but because it was a tightly run Army program, resolution mechanism was simpler.

Similarly, there was no clear ownership of drafting the maintenance procedures. Neither CVRDE nor HVF bothered to prepare SOP for the end user. End user had to do this on this own by trial and error. Now, in any organization, if one is not able to budget expenses earlier, then any unforseen expense head is a pain, hence maintainers do not particularly love the Arjun because of this increased headache. T-series is much simpler in this regard.

In my opinion, most issues regarding Arjun are operational issues rather than technical issues. The technical issues are covered in the Mk2 improvements.

[Austin]

but I thought for russian design firepower + mobility > protection; so unfortunately they are lagging in what they chose as their core focus area of strength. apart from ofcourse housing ALL their ammo below the turret, as compared to maybe 40-50% of ammo in western heavies minus abrams.

The T-90 has gun has better ballistic capability then T-72 and they fire from a 125 mm rounds , but what they lack is the long rod ammo which would give it a high probability to penetrate frontal ammo of Western heavies. But then again all the areas of any tank is not equally well armoured.

In GW1/2 the fight was really lopsided but I have read there were 15 confirmed kills of Abrams , any ways top notch US Abrams versus 70's T-72 is a mince meat.

[Rahul M]

hardly 70's T-72, the assad babil or lion of babylon tank was at par with the best T-72 types with russia.

[rohitvats]

With respect to Arjun tank, I have a theory on the induction pace and numbers planned for induction of Mk1.

Now, considering the IA's chequered history wrt Arjun, this may seem implausible but please hear me out.

Now we know that Arjun has turned a corner - and that is on two accounts: (1) When the DRDO got is act together and Arjun became a mature product in 2003-2004 (2) The show down with T-90 where it trumped the tincan on all parameters. The second act was witnessed by many senior staff members (many of whom might not have been from Armored Corps) and Arjun gained a wider acceptance.

Now, there might be a slight chance that people in the Armored Corps see Arjun truly for it is - a fantastic weapon system with lot of development potential. And, they might want to harness this development potential and field a truly superlative tank with all the contemporary bells and whistles as witnessed in western MBTs of today. So, while IA might cap the number of Mk1 at 248, it is gunning for Mk2 which by all accounts will be right at the top with all the worthies - with especial emphasis on electro-optronics and things like BMS.

The T-90 is a done deal - there is nothing IA or anyone else can do about it. And it is required to fill in the numbers. The sorry state of production at Avadhi is a fact. So, while IA uses Avadhi and Russia to beef up the numbers and induct the ~1,600 T-90 to undertake much required modernization, it might be banking on the Mk2 version of Arjun to give it the required overmatch. I forsee T-90 to be in the same position as compared to Arjun as T-72 is wrt T-90 - the Hi-Lo mix, although, this hi-lo mix itself will be more than capable of taking on everything TSPA or PLA throws at us.

I expect the transition to be someting like where T-90 take over T-72 duties in elite formations (armored divisions of Strike Corps) in first go and T-72 relegated to support functions or beef up numbers of armored regiments. Arjun might actually become the lynchpin of the offensive capability which will come to Pivot Corps. May be, the incduction of Arjun Regiments with RAPIDs of Pivot Corps is an indication of things to come - it also solves the requirement to push move the tank on rail cars. Arjun may well be the centerpiece of IBG (or offensive formations of Pivot Corps) in coming time. I know, all this may seem to be fairy tale but if I have caught the drift of Chacko's cryptic comments on this topic as well as comments from d_berwal, this may well be the case. And the recent requirement for panoramic sight on NAMICA may well be a similar story. Infact, this modificaton, even at last minute, brings out the strong positives of indeginious products - the IA can actually ask for such modifications and will not have to go through 10 different loops to get the job done.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

[Rahul M]

I have had similar thoughts over the last few days. in addition, I would hope that they adopt the T-72 platform when possible for support duties, SAMs, SP AD gun carrier etc. the commonality should be leveraged whenever possible.

[Singha]

fitting the older T72/T55 chassis with a dual 20mm cannon or a single 30mm cannon + remotely operated HMG for commander sounds like a decent infantry support soln to me. better mobility and protection than BMP and cost benefit already obtained in prior life as a MBT. they could for mixed light raiding parties with BMPs and proper T72s

the IDF is famous for taking all sorts of junk like WW2 shermans and such and squeezing every last drop of value from them!

@40 t , the T72 is not much heavier than the 30-35t wheeled / tracked western IFVs like CV90!!

[Austin]

hardly 70's T-72, the assad babil or lion of babylon tank was at par with the best T-72 types with russia.

Not really during the Cold War the Soviets Kept the best for them and Warsaw , in some cases the warsaw never got exactly what SU had depending on the equipment.

All other types provided by SU were export model and suitably downgraded in Armour , Ammo from what I have read the one used by Iraqi were similar to the training model T-72 that SU used.

I am not sure if even India was an exception to this rule then , They also mention Abrams exported are without DU layer for export model hence downgrading of equipment was common then if not now due to fear factor.

[Singha]

the T72M india got was also a weak export model. the Rus kept the best one T72B iirc for themselves onlee.

[rohitvats]

I have had similar thoughts over the last few days. in addition, I would hope that they adopt the T-72 platform when possible for support duties, SAMs, SP AD gun carrier etc. the commonality should be leveraged whenever possible.

Rahul, T-72 was tried as SP Arty platform but was found unsuitable - IIRC, it developed cracks when subjected to stress from sustained firing of the gun. That is why Arjun was adopted for Denel turret.

[Picklu]

Tsarkar, Karan M, nice posts all around.

Regarding HK is it possible that both of you are correct and the reality is somewhere in the middle?

Without CITV, it is obvious that HK is not possible at night. However does that preclude HK during the daytime as well?

I would assume that transferring the commander designated target to the gunner would be a capabiity of FCS and not of any particular sight. In that case, the commander can still search and designate using CPS during the daytime. And in future when Arjun gets CITV, it automatically allows HK in night as well.

Btw, I remember discussion @ tanknet around 5 years back where the Russian fan boys used to point out the presence of CITV in T-90 to prove its superiority over Arjun. To be honest, that is a very valid argument and the given reason for delay in NAG induction proves that IA is consistent in its requirement at least in some cases. The good news is that DRDO promised CITV in NAMICA in another years time so hopefully that drawback of Arjun also will soon be a thing of the past.

However just having a CITV is not enough, it has to be reliable as well; otherwise it is just a piece of useless dead weight. And from all published info the reliabily of the CITV in T-90 is nothing to right home about. Since that did not stop IA to order a large number of T-90 in good faith, one wonders why ARJUN and NAMICA/NAG are treated in such step motherly way.

It is very true that compared to the the current crops of paki and chinese tanks that are being inducted, T-90 is not a bad tank at all. Every drawbacks of T-90 will be present in them as well, even in greater proportion due to chinese quality. It is the step-mothely treatment towards Arjun that makes this discussion so emotional. If there are 1300 confirmed orders of T-90 even with unreliable CITV, why the repeated statements of curtain call on Arjun at the current 248 level? As of now, nobody from Army came forward with a higher number of Mk2.

[Rahul M]

I have had similar thoughts over the last few days. in addition, I would hope that they adopt the T-72 platform when possible for support duties, SAMs, SP AD gun carrier etc. the commonality should be leveraged whenever possible.

Rahul, T-72 was tried as SP Arty platform but was found unsuitable - IIRC, it developed cracks when subjected to stress from sustained firing of the gun. That is why Arjun was adopted for Denel turret.

boss, please note I said SP AD (as in air defence)gun i.e AAgun not SP arty. perhaps you already know this but that problem is there for the karna too. the gandiva and arjun turret is too heavy duty for the T-72 chasis.

Austin, I know about the monkey model but an exception was made for the iraqis. they were not given the best category directly but polish experts worked in iraq with assistance from the russis, incorporated lessons of iran-iraq war whenever possible and built a tank that was considered quite good. the only area it was lacking vis-a-vis WP tanks was the gun. in many cases the sensor package was more advanced than those of the soviets. I will try and hunt down the links when I have the time.

[Sanku]

I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

+1.

But I must say that I have been very confident from the early time that the above picture would emerge, just that its happening much slower pace than otherwise.

It wont hurt to give some credit to me too.

[chackojoseph]

If everyone takes off the fatigue factor due to T-90 vs Arjun disum dishum in media and elsewhere. I will our some fresh thinking.

1) Arjun was made under the watchful eyes of VCOAS.

2) Army personnel have worked on it.

3) Arjun slippages happened because of changes in GSQR and smaller requests from Army, like torission bar version etc. Army actually tried to eveluate it.

4) In 1996, Arjun performed all the paramater in front of VCOAS. This is where the first freezing on the version took place. Subsequently inductions came and unfortunately the HVF messed with caliberations. Tanks were sent back and 3 months of caliberations took place.

5) The old mantra of "additional features and capabilities" as well as "reduction in tank weight" set in.

6) If you remember, 2000 - 2005 saw concepts like mark I came up. It happened in LCA, Arjun etc. MoD top brass was effectively looking into it. The thought process LCA is far more capable than Mig-21 and Arjun more than T-72 came up

7) Gen JJ Singh said "we will see how best to deploy it." This was taken as a negative comment. But, I have mentioned it somewhere. what he meant was the tank will be deployed where it is strong. Read point 10) for what he said and is happening.

8 ) Additional point like fording was demonstrated. AUCRT etc.

9) Comparrission with T-90 came up.

10) Induction, famliarity, ironing out the logistics etc. The tank is still more capable than anything in IA. It has been deployed in least resistence areas as IA dosen't want to experiement with Arjun in more critical areas. But gradually increasing numbers as they get more confident. I don't expect them to throw away T-72 and T-90 immediately.

11) DRDO is set to demonstrate mark 2.

So, in terms of procedures, IMO it is going well (some time lag though).

What irritated us was a) some comments from Army men, media etc. I don't deny that there were some scuttling attempts too.

In the above process, I have tried to filter the high decibel noise from the actual process.

What I expect in the future

1) Arjun forming a formidable force which can cut through/via non tankable areas, which will raise the bar and resources across the border. Now for the country in west, there is no such thing as "they cannot come from here." Arjun will be true IBG weapon. it gives army a lot of flexibility in terms of planning the operations via newer avenues. I was chatting up and was told "it dosen't matter 45 or 65 tonns," as the diches on the other part will not allow even jeep operation when it comes to war. We need to carry resources to suport our equipment. Don't expect them to stop the 62 ton Arjun and give a safe passage to T-72 or T-90. All the three tanks are at equal risk."

2) I see Arjun leading to FMBT.

However, I still see attempts to block Arjun or drag the induction during elections or regime change.

[rohitvats]

AFAIK, the DCB - or Ditch cum bund is a major factor till southern Punjab where one has plenty of canals which double as defensive aids.....now, this may just be another co-incidence that Arjun Regiments are all south of this.

[Austin]

incorporated lessons of iran-iraq war whenever possible and built a tank that was considered quite good. the only area it was lacking vis-a-vis WP tanks was the gun. in many cases the sensor package was more advanced than those of the soviets. I will try and hunt down the links when I have the time.

They probably developed a tank which would be considered good to beat the Irani ,considering they were sworn enemies but never anticipated they would be fighting Abrams some day with the same equipment or for that matter a group of 25 plus nations with best equipment money can buy and lead by US.

[chackojoseph]

AFAIK, the DCB - or Ditch cum bund is a major factor till southern Punjab where one has plenty of canals which double as defensive aids.....now, this may just be another co-incidence that Arjun Regiments are all south of this.

You read the comment where I mentioned JJ Singh's statement.

[Karan M]

tsarkar,

Karan,
For all those words, you have given not one substantiative proof that Arjun FCS has the capability.


Yeah, the Arjun FCS engineer mentioning and explaining the capability is not good enough.

Here, since you clearly dont know anything about the Arjun FCS, except worthless sarcasm and five minute googled links .., from Autocar India's dry run of the Arjun FCS..

Before you engage a target, you have to place the turret into stabilized mode, in which it literally floats up like a hovercraft with a suspension of its own. This seems to work really well, and the tip of the gun remains absolutely still, however bumpy the terrain. The gunner uses an aircraft-like yoke, which elevates the gun and swings it around. Once the type of shell and target is selected, the gunner activates the laser and presses the fire button - as simple as that........

The commander sitting above the gunner has his own 'paranomic sight', which rotates through 360 degrees. He can select another target while the 120mm gun is taking a shot, lock onto it and then 'hand it over' the the gunner with a press of a button - as the turret automatically aligns itself with the new target.

Go look it up, should be online someplace.

Not only did you not know even this basic fact, its shameful that you continue to obfuscate viz. the topic as you are now doing below...

The commander doesnt have a night sight, that typically is a precursor to HK capabilies. The Arjun commander is blind at night while the gunner can see. How the FCS gets designated by a blind chap is beyond the realm of science, but as per you, this vapourware has been developed and produced for Mk1 by someone that you cant specify.

LOL....so now you cant deny the Arjun CPS does confer HK capabilities out comes the claim of a lack of a thermal channel..

Typical obfuscation again. Do you even understand what a HK sight is? It has nothing to do with night capability! HK means what the FCS specialist wrote nothing else, nothing more. The commander hunts with his own stabilized sight while the gunner kills! HK is that, nothing else, nothing more. It has been around for a long time, including on Russian tanks.

Adding a thermal channel to a HK capability just improves it. If there was any evidence required that you just make things up as you go along and clutch at straws to salvage your mistakes, this was yet another one!

Your beloved T-90 does not have a thermal channel either and was ordered in bulk! The Army is now seeking a replacement for its CPS to replace the rubbish PNV with actual thermals which work at range.

The tank indeed has extensive advances in some areas, but deficiencies in others. In the real world, unless these deficiencies are ironed out, that tank wont be inducted in numbers, no matter how much nonsense you spout on internet on mythical capabilities.

Actually everyone here can make out what the Arjuns strengths and weaknesses are, unlike you who doesn't know what any of these are, and try to disguise it behind some impressive sounding talk. The so called weakness you are touting exists in the T-90 as well, and the tank has been ordered in significant numbers.

And in the real world, the Arjun has already shown its mettle and will do it what it should on its own merits, despite all the nonsense you write on the internet from googled links and mythological friends and what not.

one inaccuracy in my earlier post, the chap i spoke to believed Delft to be a subsidiary of Sagen, which isnt correct. He's with an Arjun unit for more than a year now, & while fully aware of current capabilities, isnt aware of the development history.

Yeah sure, whom are you kidding? One inaccuracy - more like full of inaccuracies, beginning with that confident claim about IGMS which had no relation to reality whatsoever. Fully aware of current capabilities and you aren't even aware of the most basic of things like the Arjun's HK capability, what it means and wasted my time and the forums bandwidth as usual, engaging in one of your useless flamewars, trying to score one up, instead of acknowledging the information and moving on.

As usual, you have nothing substantive to contribute bar googled links which any chap here could provide. Go try these tricks on somebody who can't see through them.

[akimalik]

Karan,
For all those words, you have given not one substantiative proof that Arjun FCS has the capability.

The commander doesnt have a night sight, that typically is a precursor to HK capabilies. The Arjun commander is blind at night while the gunner can see. How the FCS gets designated by a blind chap is beyond the realm of science, but as per you, this vapourware has been developed and produced for Mk1 by someone that you cant specify.

The tank indeed has extensive advances in some areas, but deficiencies in others. In the real world, unless these deficiencies are ironed out, that tank wont be inducted in numbers, no matter how much nonsense you spout on internet on mythical capabilities.

Dear Sir(s),
keeping in mind the comment highlighted above, could you then explain why the T-90 should be inducted in the numbers that it is being inducted ... when it too has (critical ones according to some) design deficiencies?
TIA,
a

[Karan M]

Without CITV, it is obvious that HK is not possible at night. However does that preclude HK during the daytime as well?

I would assume that transferring the commander designated target to the gunner would be a capabiity of FCS and not of any particular sight. In that case, the commander can still search and designate using CPS during the daytime. And in future when Arjun gets CITV, it automatically allows HK in night as well.
.

Picklu, HK is very straightforward and you have it right. The commander hunts, the gunner kills.

Here you go from the horse's mouth. These words are from an Arjun FCS specialist who has played a key role in its development

Hunter-killer capability: absolutely yes:
1) The commander first of all has an independantly stabilised line of
sight, this means that he can observe the landscape and detect a target, with
his line of sight fully stabilised, whatever the gunner is doing (engaging
a target for example) and the whatever are the movements of the tank,
2) the commander has the capability to designate the detected target to the
gunner (the gunner's line of sight and the line of fire automatically rally
the commander's line of sight, when the commander depresses the right
switches).

That is what HK capability means for tanks, nothing less nothing more. All this rubbish of Arjun not having HK capability is exactly that.

If you want, go ask this exact question on Tank-net, and you will get this exact answer. Most western tanks & Russian tanks have had HK capability for a while, and so does the Arjun.

Also, the T-90 does not have a CITV capability. It has a 2G Image Intensifying Tube based sight which is next to useless in actual operational conditions. For one, its not even the latest generation, and second, in a desert battle, with dust, smoke and obscurants, it offers very little capability.

The IRDE are working on adding a thermal channel to the PNK-4S commanders sight for the T-90 as the Army wishes to replace the T-90 CPS. Thats the only way a limited upgrade is possible on the T-90, you have to accomodate the existing form factor.

The Arjun's Commander Sight will be more sophisticated and capable. It is being developed by IRDE with its Arjun FCS partners and as with the existing OIP-Sagem/DRDO FCS will involve multiple partners and customization from the Indian end.