Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 May 2011 15:34

so to summarize ?

- gunner in both T90 and arjun has TI that works both in day and night
- commander in both T90 and arjun has panoramic low light sight but not latest thermal
- gunner thermal in T90 was unreliable and due to heating issues IA is seeking replacement
- gunner thermal in arjun is reliable and tested in the heat before induction of 124 was approved
- arjun mk2 would have TI facility for the commander (better tech than T90)
- no plans for T90 to have TI for commander? (IRDE working on some soln)
- HK is there in daytime for both t90 and arjun
- HK is there in night for both if conditions and the lack of TI for commander permit

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 26 May 2011 16:34

Singha wrote:so to summarize ?

- gunner thermal in T90 was unreliable and due to heating issues IA is seeking replacement
- no plans for T90 to have TI for commander? (IRDE working on some soln)
- HK is there in night for both if conditions and the lack of TI for commander permit

Some corrections:
- gunner thermal in T-90 reliable, IA has floated an RFI from the PoV of mid-life upgrade coming up in next 4-5 yrs time.
(there were issues which have been shorted out long time back)

- Mid life upgrade might see an addition to commander scope here

- T-90S has commander scope called TKN-4S, It allows the all-round observation, target recognition and identification and acquisition of fire management independent of the gunner's day and night. (in night mode there is a range penalty)

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 26 May 2011 16:48

Singha wrote: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.

The muzzle brake ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 May 2011 16:57

d_berwal wrote: T-90S has commander scope called TKN-4S, It allows the all-round observation, target recognition and identification and acquisition of fire management independent of the gunner's day and night. (in night mode there is a range penalty)

This is the one http://ofbindia.nic.in/products/data/optical/add_39.htm

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 27 May 2011 02:15

Austin wrote:
d_berwal wrote: T-90S has commander scope called TKN-4S, It allows the all-round observation, target recognition and identification and acquisition of fire management independent of the gunner's day and night. (in night mode there is a range penalty)
This is the one http://ofbindia.nic.in/products/data/optical/add_39.htm

Austin Saab

Your link says:-

(j) IR Source : Searchlight OU-3GA2M with IR light filter

Does this mean that the sight depends on an IR searchlight to illuminate the targets for them to be visible at night? Is this sight passive or active?

Also, how does the target assignment from the commander to the gunner take place with this sight? Is it like the Arjun, where the commander presses a button and the gunners sight and the gun automagically slews to what the commander is pointing at?

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 27 May 2011 03:58

Austin wrote:
Rahul M wrote: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.

This isn't a matter of throwing out an opinion about "probably".

The wiki article has links to primary sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_of_Ba ... on_history

The Iraqi versions were similar to the export versions in some respects (such as armor) but also were upgraded. Its true they were outclassed by the Abrams but so was the T-72 in general which is precisely why the Soviets themselves were developing more modern tank lines.

Also the majority of Abrams destroyed in GW1 were friendly fire incidents.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 27 May 2011 04:21

Austin wrote:
sudeepj wrote: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.

So Austin saab, forgive me for trying to sum up your position, please forgive any inaccuracies and correct me if I am wrong:

You are saying, that once the tank gets penetrated, that is as bad a situation as it can get. The crew may already be dead/injured pretty badly. Further any ammo in the crew compartment is likely to cook off once the tank is penetrated.

Arjun wallahs are saying, that even if the tank gets penetrated, the crew (or at least part of the 4 man crew) has a better chance of walking away from the attack than a T series crew, because:
1. The ammo is all in one place in Arjun, unlike the T90, and hence much less likely that one of the metal fragments finds a round.
2. The ammo in Arjun has a further layer of protection, being in individual armored steel bins.

I must confess that I find the Arjun wallahs arguments pretty compelling.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 27 May 2011 05:04

Karan M wrote:

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.

Yup, i remember that autocar article where it even described HK. There is a very slight outside possibility that it is not included in Mk1 (like LAHAT firing capability) but given the date of that article, I believe we can safely assume that is not the case.

However, the CITV advantage on T-90 still remains as per my understanding. Every technical spec on Arjun mentions CPS as Commander's Panoramic Day Sight. At night the commander is totally dependent on Gunners TI. I believe the output from the Gunner's TI is forwarded to commander's viewer.
On the otherhand, T-90 has a Gunner's TI plus CITV. Now the The CITV contains only a 2nd gen image intensifier and not 3rd gen thermal but still the bottomline is that at night(or may be in low light), the T-90 commander and gunner can look at 2 different objects/target whereas Arjun can not.
But then again, given the heat situation inside T-90, the commander most likely will increase the number of scar's in his forehead (due to banging his head in frustration) and the gunner will be able view upto the top of driver's head during nighttime

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 27 May 2011 07:01

^^The T-90 does not have CITV. The Arjun Mk2 is getting one. There are no plans currently to fit the T-90S in Indian service with a CITV.

Hobbes · Post by **Hobbes** » 27 May 2011 08:37

rohitvats wrote: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.

And I'm praying that this is indeed the true state of affairs....

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 May 2011 09:17

sudeepj wrote: that even if the tank gets penetrated, the crew (or at least part of the 4 man crew) has a better chance of walking away from the attack than a T series crew, because:
1. The ammo is all in one place in Arjun, unlike the T90, and hence much less likely that one of the metal fragments finds a round.
2. The ammo in Arjun has a further layer of protection, being in individual armored steel bins.

Irrespective of any tank after a penetration or even for that matter a hard hit by KE or HEAT, it is hard to see how a crew waving his hand can simply get out with a smile on his face saying every thing is ok , if he is a lucky chap he would get alive with burn wounds , inhaling toxic fumes and a shock effect that would take a long time to recover , in most cases a penetration would mean a dead crew and in worst case it would mean secondary explosion if the ammo is near to the crew even if its in a canister or covered by thin steel. Incase of T series where the ammo is loose the probability of explosion is much higher.

But AFAIK all western tanks barring Abrams carry some ammo near the crew which make it vulnerable to jet penetration or KE round depending on which part of the tank takes the hit.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 May 2011 09:33

Quite a nice and brief upgrade on Mk2 given link

As for Arjun Mark II, the CVRDE Director said the major upgrades would include missile-firing capability against long-range targets; panoramic sight with night vision to engage targets effectively at night; containerisation of the ammunition wing; enhanced penetration of Arjun's ammunition; a variety of ammunition; and a painted surface that will camouflage the tank.

Other major upgrades, according to Sivakumar, are explosive reactive armour; an advanced air-defence gun to shoot down helicopters; a plough to remove mines; and an advanced land navigation system. Arjun Mark II will have sensors that can detect lasers fired by an enemy tank and alert the tank to fire smoke grenades that confuse the laser. The first prototype demonstration of Ajun Mark II will take place by June 2011. By 2013-14, the first batch of about 30 tanks will roll out of the HVF, said Sivakumar.

What is an advanced AD gun to shoot helicopter , will they upgrade the guns to 23 mm type or keep the existing 12.5 mm.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 27 May 2011 10:07

nachiket wrote:^^The T-90 does not have CITV. The Arjun Mk2 is getting one. There are no plans currently to fit the T-90S in Indian service with a CITV.

But the commander's independent sight in T-90 has a second generation image intensifier separate from gunner's TI. So during the night time, The T-90 commander can still look out for new target while the gunner is engaging the previous one. That is what i meant by CITV i.e. Commander's Independent (from gunner) Thermal(albeit 2nd gen) Viewer. What am I missing here?

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 27 May 2011 13:21

Austin wrote:
What is an advanced AD gun to shoot helicopter , will they upgrade the guns to 23 mm type or keep the existing 12.5 mm.

most likely ability to operate AD MG in Hatch close-down mode. (like T-90), it will remain a 12.5mm caliber.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 27 May 2011 18:33

http://www.thalesgroup.com/Workarea/Dow ... gType=2057
CATHERINE FC data sheet from Thales
Operating Temperature -40 to +55 , this should satisfy people that temperature related issues have been ironed out

http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/optical/add_40.htm
OFB page on ESSA TI for T-90
This is now produced in India with ToT i believe (CJ can you confirm this)

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 27 May 2011 19:06

quote from Austin's Link

WITH the Army in possession of 100 of the 124 Arjun Mark I Main Battle Tanks it had ordered,...

..

The remaining 24 of the 124 tanks ordered by the Army will be produced by June this year, Sivakumar said.

....

So the Arjun line will go idle this June.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 27 May 2011 19:09

>> Operating Temperature -40 to +55 , this should satisfy people that temperature related issues have been ironed out

really ? how so ? it has been always been stated that catherine TI started malfunctioning above 55 deg, a temp the tincan quite readily achieves.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 27 May 2011 19:43

CATHERINE FC data sheet from Thales
Operating Temperature -40 to +55 , this should satisfy people that temperature related issues have been ironed out

wow the faith and trust in company brochures

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 27 May 2011 19:47

The proof of the pudding is in eating it.....lot of people advertise lot of stuff. We know how the best of the best break down in indian conditions.

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 27 May 2011 21:36

d_berwal wrote:http://www.thalesgroup.com/Workarea/Dow ... gType=2057
CATHERINE FC data sheet from Thales
Operating Temperature -40 to +55 , this should satisfy people that temperature related issues have been ironed out

Whats +55? ....
55.5?

Ashish

sum · Post by **sum** » 27 May 2011 21:37

Misraji, +55 is just the nomenclature to show that is can operate upto max of 55C above 0 . Thats why -40C is the other end of spectrum.

Marut · Post by **Marut** » 27 May 2011 22:06

Gurneesh wrote:quote from Austin's Link

WITH the Army in possession of 100 of the 124 Arjun Mark I Main Battle Tanks it had ordered,...

..

The remaining 24 of the 124 tanks ordered by the Army will be produced by June this year, Sivakumar said.

....
So the Arjun line will go idle this June.

Arjun orders are at 248 currently, so line will not idle anytime till end of 2013. Hopefully Mk 2 comes online before they fill out the Mk 1 order.

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 27 May 2011 22:31

^^^^

An old article...

http://frontierindia.net/arjun-tank-pro ... -30-months

The lead time for production of next batch is 30 months.

The delay in production is unavoidable due to delay in ordering

the production can restart in mid 2013

Plus read somewhere that while the 124 followup order was of MK1, due to this delay DRDO decided to convert it to Mk2 or atleast 1.5 (if the indigenous engine is not ready)

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 27 May 2011 22:33

sum wrote:Misraji, +55 is just the nomenclature to show that is can operate upto max of 55C above 0 . Thats why -40C is the other end of spectrum.

Oh ... + as in +ve and not as in "unspecified but above 55C" ..
Chorry ...

~Ashish

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 28 May 2011 08:58

chacko, rohit, anyone else, what's the number of T-72's we have now and how many are upg to what standard ? the number 600 CIA somehow floats to my head.

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 28 May 2011 09:53

Gurneesh wrote: Plus read somewhere that while the 124 followup order was of MK1, due to this delay DRDO decided to convert it to Mk2 or atleast 1.5 (if the indigenous engine is not ready)

is there any news on at what stage is the the indigenous engine development?
wont it take time to get the engine certified for use ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 May 2011 10:32

sameer_shelavale wrote:is there any news on at what stage is the the indigenous engine development?
wont it take time to get the engine certified for use ?

The indigenous 1500hp engine with associated gear now named as "Bharat Power Pack " is for the FMBT , the Mk2 will have the same engine as Mk1.

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 28 May 2011 21:21

Austin wrote: The indigenous 1500hp engine with associated gear now named as "Bharat Power Pack " is for the FMBT , the Mk2 will have the same engine as Mk1.

Wrong. Mk2 will get 1500HP indigenous engine in 2014 & Mk2 will be 90% indigenous. The 1500HP power pack for FMBT will be 2/3 the volume occupied by current engine, hence the R&D. Google and you shall find the references.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 May 2011 21:35

er anyone have a photo of this kraken beast? I mean the current engine...never heard of any prototype or tests being undertaken...who is doing it?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 May 2011 21:56

sivab wrote:Wrong. Mk2 will get 1500HP indigenous engine in 2014 & Mk2 will be 90% indigenous. The 1500HP power pack for FMBT will be 2/3 the volume occupied by current engine, hence the R&D. Google and you shall find the references.

We have hardly developed any engine for any tank yet , now developing an indigenous engine of 1500 hp that would better the German engine and in the same breath will be proven for Mk2 is a real long shot.

There is confusion where the Bharat Pack engine for FMBT is being mixed with Arjun Mk2 engine , Arjun Mk2 will have the same engine as Mk1 .

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 28 May 2011 22:01

sivab wrote:
Austin wrote: The indigenous 1500hp engine with associated gear now named as "Bharat Power Pack " is for the FMBT , the Mk2 will have the same engine as Mk1.
Wrong. Mk2 will get 1500HP indigenous engine in 2014 & Mk2 will be 90% indigenous. The 1500HP power pack for FMBT will be 2/3 the volume occupied by current engine, hence the R&D. Google and you shall find the references.

Bharat Power Pack does seem to be aimed at FMBT.

http://www.hindu.com/2010/11/05/stories ... 981500.htm

The FMBT will weigh only 50 tonnes compared to Arjun-Mark II's 62 tonnes. The DRDO is simultaneously working on Arjun-Mark II. The volume occupied by the electronics package in the FMBT will be less. The FMBT's engine will be two-thirds the size of Arjun-Mark I's, but will generate 1,500 HP compared to Arjun-Mark I's 1,400 HP.

Improved technologies

Improvements in material, fuel injection and filtration technologies will contribute to the reduction in the engine size without compromising on power.

Though this fairly recent article explicitly mentions an indigenous engine.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Arjun-tan ... 61357.aspx

Clearly the FMBT engine will be similar to Euro Power Pack engine (similar size and power), so should be a modern engine. For Mk2 then the engine seems to be similar to the 838 Engine. Maybe DRDO managed to resurrect the earlier Indian effort which i guess was stuck at 1000 hp.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 May 2011 22:06

None of the recent interview by TSS with CVRDE has ever spoken of indiginous engine for Arjun Mk2 ( unless they are talking of lic production of German engine ).

Any new engine on Arjun will again end up with long series of trial to prove reliability of any new engine design.

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 29 May 2011 00:14

Austin wrote:None of the recent interview by TSS with CVRDE has ever spoken of indiginous engine for Arjun Mk2 ( unless they are talking of lic production of German engine ).

Any new engine on Arjun will again end up with long series of trial to prove reliability of any new engine design.

If you are willing to spend 1 minute googling...

http://newshopper.sulekha.com/drdo-to-m ... 040595.htm

When asked about the status of the Indian Army's order for 124 Arjun tanks, CVRDE director S. Sundaresh said: 'The order will be completed this year. We are confident of getting more orders, which would enable us to have more local component content in the battle machine.'

Presently, the local content is around 50 percent. The engine and power train has been imported from Germany.

'We plan to source engines from Cummins India for future orders. If more orders come by, we can reduce the imported content to 25 percent,' Sundaresh added.

That article was from 2 years ago. Current plan is 90% indigenous. See link posted by Gurneesh or google you will find more links.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 29 May 2011 01:06

I just looked over the Cummins offerings in the engine department and at present, their highest offering seems to be 850 hp.

http://cumminsengines.com/every/applica ... ense.page?

In India, they have a joint venture with Tata.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 29 May 2011 01:20

The 1500 hp engine is still in development, so they are not able to list a product that does not yet exist operationally.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 May 2011 05:53

sivab wrote:That article was from 2 years ago. Current plan is 90% indigenous. See link posted by Gurneesh or google you will find more links.

Even if that were to be true and we move to cummins engine , Wouldt that be like Lic Manufacturing of Cummins Engine in India by its Indian subsidiary rather than direct import , to make it cheaper to procure hence it not an indigenous engine but a lic manufucture cummins engine

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 May 2011 06:18

if we look at the cummins defence engine brochure they have a long history with NATO and US and seem to be supplying engines in the 250-600hp class for a range of things like MLRS, AS90, Bradley, Pandur, Duro and so on...so they are certainly no pushovers in defence engines and integration process.
their biggest engine V903-850hp is V8 with 14800cc displacement.
http://www.dersadiesel.com/files/CUMMIN ... EFENCE.pdf

from there its definitely a step up to 1200hp or 1500hp .... but not impossible for cummins given the funding and opportunity. you are right that technology and IP would be held by Cummins unless we paid them heavily to make it a india specific development and share the IP (like UAE did for the block60 falcon) . CVRDE surely cannot develop a 1500hp world class tank engine from nowhere in a few yrs and hope it will work and integrate with Arjun....at best they can handle the integration and testing side of making it work with the Arjun and the punishing trials process.

MTU has a decades long history with heavy MBTs and it shows in the kind of things they do like testing leopard's high in the chilean andes.
http://www.mtu-online.com/fileadmin/fm- ... t-cats.pdf

now I need to daydream for 5 mins about a vision of 100 arjuns and 100 ICVs ambushing a chini MSR at night in a T-shaped intercept and a zulu dual prong manouver emerging from dry wadis in the sides....

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 May 2011 06:25

How much of a trail would the new engine need to go through to point where its a proven engine ?

Secondly we would end up with two types of engine for Arjun one for mark 1 and other for mark 2 .

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 May 2011 06:31

trials would be considerable I am sure. but IA seems willing to cut plenty of slack of bideshi kit in terms of initial acceptance vs totally "khadi" homespun kit which must win the monaco F1 before considering it for any reason. my guess is a 5 yr process in lab and various test ranges - desert, high alt, snow, monsoon...
in the end perhaps the idea is develop a 2 vendor scenario for license production of either the cummins engine or europack engine

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 May 2011 07:07

Singha wrote:trials would be considerable I am sure. but IA seems willing to cut plenty of slack of bideshi kit in terms of initial acceptance vs totally "khadi" homespun kit which must win the monaco F1 before considering it for any reason. my guess is a 5 yr process in lab and various test ranges - desert, high alt, snow, monsoon...

Exactly for the same reason it would be a bad idea would boil down to proven German engine versus an unproven one.