Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Nov 2011 09:46

perfect complement to Mk2 has three parts - LCH, MLRS and SP guns.

check for 1 and 2. howl for 3.

ie if you want a iraq style shakinah that 'brushes aside' oppn and a couple armour divs slice through the outskirts of lahore before wheeling north....

vic · Post by **vic** » 24 Nov 2011 10:02

Green thing might be radar for active (ATGM) kill defense mechanism.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Nov 2011 10:26

or could it be trophy?

nash · Post by **nash** » 24 Nov 2011 10:31

In this article, 19 major modification mentioned for MkII:
four:the mobility performance at 65.5 tonnes; the commander’s night sight; the driver’s night vision device, and ammunition containerisation , already test and one:missile firing through the Arjun Mark II’s main gun will be done by coming january and another one is Laser warning counter measures(LWCS), it also tested on T-90.

Other might be:
MCS(Mobile camouflaging system)
Anti-aircraft Round.
1500 hp engine
IR jammer
Aersol smoke grenade
ERA

that make 12, what will be the rest of 7 modification

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 24 Nov 2011 10:48

Trophy does use those little triangular things (mounted on four corners) for tacking incoming threats (that were detected by radar). The green thing could be the radar but the field of coverage will be very small if it is the only one. Also the radar shown on trophy looks smaller.

Anyways an old trophy video

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Nov 2011 11:39

at 0:08 a guy in a striped lungi fires a RPG!

wiki: The Institute for Defense Analyses analyzed 15 active protection systems, including Trophy and Quick Kill, and found Trophy to be the top system. In March 2006, Pentagon testers at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Dahlgren tested Trophy. An official involved with the tests told NBC that Trophy worked in every case. The only anomaly was that in one test, the Trophy round hit the RPGs tail instead of its head. But according to our test criteria, the system was 30 for 30.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Nov 2011 12:11

only eyesore now is the big drop tank in back...due to bulky older gen MTU engine. if we can crack that with Cummins JV, additional fuel tank can slide into engine bay...and that would round it off nicely.

anirban_aim · Post by **anirban_aim** » 24 Nov 2011 15:07

SaiK wrote:http://www.bharatrakshak.com/NEWS/newsr ... wsid=16845
balle balleeeya! but where is the bharat pack? no story about the new 1.5k engine.

interesting third party review done (Israelis )

A Lungi Dance moment for sure!! but I'm holding it till the tests in Jan get over. But seeing that the good old Col Saheb is all gung ho gives me a lot of hope!!

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 24 Nov 2011 15:53

Was this posted ?

<del>
kindly do not post from prasun sengupta's blog.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 24 Nov 2011 18:57

At the same time, the DRDO’s Pune-based Composites Research Centre (CRC) and the Research and Development Establishment, Engineers [R & D E(E)], have developed multi-layered multi-functional fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite hull/turret sub-structures at much lower weights in comparison with metallic counterparts. More than 40 per cent weight savings over steel hull structures have been achieved.

If this is true then why is the weight of Mark-II increasing rather than decreasing or atleast staying where it is. if it's costly to replace all the steel structure with the new material, then why not have it in places where the impace is going to be high, like frontal sections of the turret and the hull? Will that not help to maintain the weight of Arjun MKII to that of Mark-I variant?
Also is it not cost effective to have composite materials? Also will it bring down the time to build the tank as well?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Nov 2011 19:11

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/11/ ... oised.html

The Arjun Mark II’s most remarkable feature is its extra weight, 3-4 tonnes more than the earlier 62-tonne Arjun. For years the army criticised the Arjun as too heavy for India’s road and rail infrastructure; now it wants modifications that will make the Arjun heavier. Fitting Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) plates on the tank has boosted crew protection, but also increases the weight by one and a half tonnes. An equivalent increase comes from added mine ploughs, which churn up the ground ahead of the tank, uprooting explosive mines that would otherwise blow up the tank.

The Arjun Project leaders, V Balamurugan and GK Kumaravel, are unfazed by the weight gain. During gruelling trials this summer, the Arjun has demonstrated a crucial modification in the transmission system that makes the 65-66 tonne Arjun Mark II more agile than the lighter, 62-tonne Arjun Mark I.

“We ran the modified Arjun for 1,300 kilometres, gradually loading dead weight until it was 65.5 tonnes. We demonstrated that its performance, acceleration, torque, working temperature and fuel consumption were better than the Arjun Mark I,” claimed Balamurugan.

Also modified is the tank's hydro-pneumatic suspension which is now capable of handling a 70-tonne load. This also incorporates some newly-developed technologies to overcome occasional problems that the Arjun Mark I has grappled with during its development period: grease leakage and track shedding.

The trade-off, though, is in maximum speed. The Arjun Mark II does just 60 kmph, compared with the 70 kmph top speed of the Arjun Mark I. But the army has accepted this trade-off. “Tanks need agility and acceleration in battle, not sustained high speed. And the advantages of ERA and a mine plough are enormous,” says a tank officer.

Another crucial improvement in the Mark II is the tank commander’s thermal imaging (TI) night sight, which replaces the day-only sight of the earlier Arjun. Now the Arjun can operate at night in “hunter-killer” mode --- the commander as hunter; and the gunner as killer. The commander scans the battlefield through his new TI sight; targets that he spots are electronically allocated to the gunner to destroy, while he returns to hunting for more targets.

The Mark II also equips the driver with a new night vision device based on “un-cooled thermal imaging”, allowing him to clearly see 300-500 metres, even on a pitch-dark night. The “image intensifier” device in the Mark I required some ambient light. A DRDO laboratory, Instrument R&D Establishment (IRDE), Dehradun, has built the new driver’s sight.

“We also now have an ammunition containerisation system. If the tank is hit, and the on-board ammunition explodes, it will blow outwards, saving the crew. A metallic box with ‘blow-off panels’ directs the explosion outwards,” explains Kumaravel. <lungi dance icon goes here>

The man who oversees the Arjun project, DRDO’s Chief Controller for Armament and Combat Engineering (CC-ACE), S Sundaresh, says: “Four major modifications --- the mobility performance at 65.5 tonnes; the commander’s night sight; the driver’s night vision device, and ammunition containerisation --- were validated this summer.”

Just one crucial system will come later, perhaps next October: a “laser warning counter measure system.”

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 24 Nov 2011 20:12

What is not clear form the above article is, will the Mine Plough be a permanent fixture of the Mk2 or will it be a removal item. If it will be a permanent fixture, then what is the concept of operation for the MK2.

Or is this yet another attempt by the IA to delay the Arjun and its widespread employment by saying that it is a too specialised tool and cannot seen widespread service.

Also, what does the weight on the vehicle and the level of protection, and the fact that it had to add 1.5 tons of era in order to be protected say about the tin can. Just how well protected is it compared to the Arjun.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Nov 2011 20:26

rohit should weigh in on the matter but one guess is arjun will spearhead any thrust of the IBG's it is placed in.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 24 Nov 2011 20:29

RM Ji,

That much is clear, but the question remains, if a 60 ton tank needs 1.5 tons of extra ERA and blow off armour panels to meet the IA GSQR. Then, what does it says about the tin can and the fact that 1600 + of those have been ordered to be built.

The second point I think is more important, the remaining t 72s can be upgraded using the TIs developed for the Mk2 if the IA thinks it fit.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Nov 2011 20:31

^^^From what I understand, mine-ploughs are not permanent fixtures...tanks are capable of using them for the specific purpose but that does not mean an entire regiment is going to go into battle sporting these.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Nov 2011 20:34

I am guessing each regiment would have 1 or 2 mine plough attached tanks to clear a track.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Nov 2011 20:37

Pratyush wrote:RM Ji,

That much is clear, but the question remains, if a 60 ton tank needs 1.5 tons of extra ERA and blow off armour panels to meet the IA GSQR. Then, what does it says about the tin can and the fact that 1600 + of those have been ordered to be built. <SNIP>

The premise of that argument is incorrect. GSQR was written for a new product to be developed while in case of tincans, you buy what meets your requirement the best - given the constraints of finance and geo-politics.

On the ERA front - I have a feeling that we're going the western route in terms of their response to superiority of Soviets in numbers. Basically, heavy well guarded tanks which can take multiple hits and with overmatch in terms of sensors and electronics. Arjuns, after all, are going to spearhead the attack as part of IBG (my inference) and need to slog it out till the hammer of Strike Corps falls.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Nov 2011 20:46

now capable of handling a 70-tonne load.
.............
- the mobility performance at 65.5 tonnes;

Q: What would be the tonnage of a fully loaded (operational with all artillery & systems) Arjun-2?

keshavchandra · Post by **keshavchandra** » 24 Nov 2011 22:40

<del>
not this denil thing again. it's a fraud.

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 24 Nov 2011 22:44

please dont make unverified posts.
this has already been posted here

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 24 Nov 2011 23:01

What blows my mind is the Arjun mk I blows away the tin can-90 and the IA is gracious enough to order another 124 Arjuns AFTER 100 upgrades are performed. In the mean time they order 1600 tin can-90s which they admit is an inferior tank. Where are the scam mongers in the DDM when you need them????

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Nov 2011 23:05

^^^No..no...let it be there.....let us for a change reap benefits of Schadenfreude for once...why onlee the lizard??? I'm sure if this gets repeated 10 times....everyone and his aunt will be singing praises about Arjun Mk2....

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 24 Nov 2011 23:14

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/11/ ... it-on.html

Poor tank...

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 24 Nov 2011 23:35

Gurneesh wrote:http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/11/ ... it-on.html

Poor tank...

No sirji. It's Swedish Bill-2 missile.

bodhi · Post by **bodhi** » 24 Nov 2011 23:43

Which tank was it? The syrian one?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Nov 2011 23:44

If Arjun 2 is exported, who would be the likely largest importer? I am sure there is no unkill pressure on this puppy as it is 90% indigenous. If we can sell about 1000 tanks outside, it would be awesome.

srai · Post by **srai** » 25 Nov 2011 00:43

nash wrote:In this article, 19 major modification mentioned for MkII:
four:the mobility performance at 65.5 tonnes; the commander’s night sight; the driver’s night vision device, and ammunition containerisation , already test and one:missile firing through the Arjun Mark II’s main gun will be done by coming january and another one is Laser warning counter measures(LWCS), it also tested on T-90.

Other might be:
MCS(Mobile camouflaging system)
Anti-aircraft Round.
1500 hp engine
IR jammer
Aersol smoke grenade
ERA

that make 12, what will be the rest of 7 modification

If we look at the Mk.II CGI, we can see majority of the changes:

Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) -> [sky blue (hull front) and dark brown (turret front edges)]
Remote Weapon Station -> [gray with gun and scopes on center top turret]
Tank commander’s 360 degrees thermal imaging (TI) night sight -> [gray cylinder on top turret next to RWS]
Laser warning counter measure system -> [4 x gray triangles on the edges of turret]
New night vision device for the Driver -> [purple and yellow green around the driver hatch]
Ammunition containerization system -> [gray on the turret rear behind the ERA]
Israeli LAHAT missiles with integrated sighting and control systems from OIP Sensor Systems (Belgium) and SAGEM (France) -> [dark green with gray dot on the turret right of the gun and gunner scope]
New integrated defensive automatic smoke grenades launching system -> [light green on rear turret]
Mine ploughs -> [light blue front of hull]
Turret hatch improvements w/ new sensors -> [green and yellow green on turret top hatches]
Track improvements -> [light green on the tracks]
Rear fuel tanks improvements -> [light green, blue, purple at the rear hull]
Various small improvements -> various colors on the hulls and turret

Under the hood, as mentioned in the article:

Modified hydro-pneumatic suspension
Transmissions

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Nov 2011 00:50

given the heavily urbanized nature of pakjab small merkavish 360' tv cameras on hull and for backing up might be a good idea to keep an eye on people sneaking around.....I am glad to note the commander HMG and integrated optics look like it can elevate to high angles and engage targets on top of buildings and trees looking to fire RPGs down.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Nov 2011 01:18

srai wrote:<SNIP>

[*]Ammunition containerization system -> [gray on the turret rear behind the ERA]
[*]Israeli LAHAT missiles with integrated sighting and control systems from OIP Sensor Systems (Belgium) and SAGEM (France) -> [dark green with gray dot on the turret right of the gun and gunner scope]
<SNIP>

- the ammunition is stored in a bustle in the rear section of the turret. And the blow out panels are going on top of this bustle. So, cannot be on the right/left section of the turret.

Check the pic here for ammunition storage of Arjun:http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/9027 ... 011f75.jpg
different tank - http://i41.servimg.com/u/f41/15/11/39/27/untitl10.jpg

- LAHAT is fired from the main gun, so seperate launch port will not be required.
Check here - http://i41.servimg.com/u/f41/15/11/39/27/untitl10.jpg

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 25 Nov 2011 01:57

Doze up a berm and brace yourself for incoming fire. Those "sloped turret = TFTA" fans would be upset for years to come

(btw, that kit-up looks real nice to punch a hole in the dentures of PA)

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 25 Nov 2011 02:00

>> [dark green with gray dot on the turret right of the gun and gunner scope]

that is the LWS, Col Shukla has mentioned in the comments.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 Nov 2011 03:27

Am I mistaking it because of the image's aspect or does ERA cover only half of the turret?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Nov 2011 04:19

Is it not that just a painting or a poster and not a real pic?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Nov 2011 09:26

the ERA is on the front hull, front part of side skirt and front half of turret only - same as the T90 style.
http://iliketowastemytime.com/sites/def ... _shot1.jpg

they could add in extra features like improved mine protection of the hull bottom and improved protection against top attack missiles if threat perception changes. israel has some good exp with such mods.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 Nov 2011 09:32

Singha wrote:the ERA is on the front hull, front part of side skirt and front half of turret only - same as the T90 style.
http://iliketowastemytime.com/sites/def ... _shot1.jpg

Does ERA cover the entire front half of the turret? It looked as if only the section to the left of the barrel had ERA.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Nov 2011 10:13

The Mk2 upgrade looks decent , they have not gone for redesign of the turret but have beefed up the turret /chassis armour and weakspots.

Pretty much what TSS of Hindu had mentioned about Arjun Mk2 , so he has been proven more right if the CGI is what it is as Ajai says. Although information on the new Engine would have been nice.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Nov 2011 10:20

Viv S wrote:Does ERA cover the entire front half of the turret? It looked as if only the section to the left of the barrel had ERA.

Yes they would cover both the frontal turret , although it would be an angled ERA as the CGI shows but perhaps it is shown as flat on the right side may be because an angled ERA may be blocking the view of gunner sight , but i would expect it to be angled on the turret.

vina · Post by **vina** » 25 Nov 2011 10:24

Although information on the new Engine would have been nice.

I think that will come in Shukla's next piece. His piece de resistance, his punchline.. on how to reduce the cost of Arjun from 37 crores ..My guess, Indian electronics and engine, replacing Oieropean stuff, bringing it down to some 16 crores all inclusive, around $3 / $3.5m per piece.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 25 Nov 2011 10:40

A new engine means a new transmission to be designed right? If IA wants to test them to failure the delay is not worth it.

It can be part of a Mk2.5/3 - a low cost version with improved communications, active protection, composites etc

VinayG · Post by **VinayG** » 25 Nov 2011 12:37

bodhi wrote:Which tank was it? The syrian one?

Swedish RBS-56 takes out Centurion Tank

[youtube]8ARjuTKdiIk&feature[/youtube]

Demonstration of the Bill2 anti-tank missile.
The main warhead pierces more then 510mm of RHA.

The tank is a Swedish Centurion with the turret boxes removed.
And NO, it is not thermite that is burning. The tank is loaded with regular fuel and ammo. This is what it looks like in real life anti tank missile hit