Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

[Kanson]

We have already seen this before. Western powers are planning to upgrade to 1800/2000 Hp engine for their 60-65 t tank. I guess the report says engine could cope even if the proposed FMBT moves beyond targeted 50 t and upto 60 t weight.

[Kanson]

This FMBT BS started as a red herring for some former Tin can supporters to get rid of the Arjun and now has taken a life of its own.

The fact is looking 8 yrs ahead there is very little futuristic in the horizon. None of the tank powers see anything dramatic in the next 8 yrs. Hence the dithering because when you have have not even thought of a futuristic truck\jeep\wheeled vehicle it is very very hard to come up with a FMBT.

hmm you put it nicely. Lets see what they can come up with. I think it will take few more years.

[chackojoseph]

I am sure IA will be requiring the invisible cloak developed by the BAE on FMBT.

[rohitvats]

^^^This FMBT thing in hogwash. What IA needs to do is focus on iterative development of Arjun and by 2018-2020 period, one of the versions of the Arjun can be developed into "FMBT"...we'll call is T-2020 to keep everyone happy.

[SaiK]

I would say standardize on Thrust to weight, and work on the right weight to the engine. We could have 1200hp or 1500hp depending on the weight/load.

Get the dam bharat pack engine out first! focus on one thing at a time. Arjun Mk2 is more important now than FMBT.

[VinayG]

hope they improve Arjun into a Military technology beast .




At left is a stealth variant of the Giat Industries AMX 30 tank. At right is a drone, a robotic vehicle which can undertake surveillance or reconaissance. The soldier is wearing a prototype of the French FELIN infantry system, which provides integrated targetting, sensor and communications equipment and NBC

http://articles.janes.com/articles/jdu2 ... riant.html

cant open complete article since i am not a member of janes defense weekly

[Viv S]

Quick question here:

I was taking a look the Frontier India article comparing the Arjun and T-90.

It put the Arjun's internal fuel capacity at 1580L for a range of 290km on road and 160km off road (disregarding fuel barrels).

So how is it that the Leopard 2 with an internal fuel capacity of 1160L, offers a (presumably on-road) range of 500km+?


Even accounting for the Arjun's wider tracks and older MTU engine variant - surely the difference shouldn't be that stark. The transmission for both as well is Renk produced - difference isn't likely to be huge.

Its an important matter as it relates to what performance we can reasonably expect from the BharatPack.

So what gives?

[Nihat]

This whole FMBT saga just seems set to be another messed up program in the making , especially when the army is undecided itself. As many have pointed out in previous posts that incremental improvements to the arjun start much more prudent st this point in time.

Besides who is even certain if manned tanks have any future at all.

[chackojoseph]

Quick question here:

I was taking a look the Frontier India article comparing the Arjun and T-90.

Even accounting for the Arjun's wider tracks and older MTU engine variant - surely the difference shouldn't be that stark.

Older engines + adaptations to engine due to desert heating problems. The comparison ain't apple to apple.

[dinesha]

India's future main battle tank now grapples with a weight issue
Ajai Shukla
http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... ue/460560/

FEATURES OF THE FMBT
Weight:- 50-tonnes
Engine:-1800 Horse Power
Transmission:- CVRDE-developed
Armour:-Active Protection System (APS)
Gun:-120 mm smoothbore
Suspension:-Hydro-pneumatic

As the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) begins designing the Future Main Battle Tank (FMBT), the army is sending out typically mixed messages on the vital question of how big and heavy India wants its tanks. While insisting that the DRDO’s 60-tonne Arjun tank weighs too much to move around the riverine terrain of Punjab and J&K, the army has demanded features in the next Arjun model (Arjun Mark II) that will raise its weight to 65 tonnes.

Planning for the FMBT —the Gen-Next tank that will follow the Arjun Mark II by 2020 — is even more contradictory. The army wants the FMBT to weigh just 50 tonnes while bettering all the Arjun’s features.

Officials at the Combat Vehicles R&D Establishment (CVRDE), Avadi, who will develop the FMBT, say it is impossible to build the FMBT 15 tonnes lighter while also improving crew protection; fitting a more powerful gun that can slam projectiles through improved enemy tanks; and making the FMBT faster and more powerful.

CVRDE director P Sivakumar told Business Standard during an exclusive briefing on the FMBT, that it would meet weight targets only if the army identified its inescapable needs rather than demanding every feature available. One example is crew protection. The FMBT will have a cutting-edge Active Protection System that detects incoming enemy projectiles (which travel faster than rifle bullets); and then fires a projectile to hit and degrade the incoming warhead. But the army also insists on the conventional armour plate that has traditionally protected tank crews.

“If you want a 50-tonne FMBT you must choose wisely. If your Active Protection System can reliably defeat enemy projectiles, why do you also want the heavy armour plating of passive systems? Whatever you use — composites, lightweight materials, etc. — the weight of the tank will rise. Similarly, how can you increase your tank gun’s ability to penetrate enemy tanks without a weight increase?” asks Sivakumar.

Difficult choices like these are delaying the finalisation of the FMBT’s Preliminary Staff Qualitative Requirements (PSQR), the document that will specify its capabilities and major systems. With nothing settled, the DRDO is readying for a heavier-than-planned FMBT. Business Standard reported yesterday that CVRDE is developing an 1800 Horse Power engine, rather than the 1500 HP needed for a 50-tonne FMBT.

While foreign consultancy will drive the engine design, CVRDE will play the central role in building a transmission system, which transfers engine power to the FMBT’s tracks. Sivakumar, himself an accomplished transmission designer, says that the CVRDE’s home-grown design will be vetted by a consultant, who will be chosen from three candidates: Ricardo; AVL; or US-based South West Research Institute.

“CVRDE has a tradition in transmission design. We built a 1500 HP transmission for the Arjun, which was not used because the engine design was changed. We have also built the “aircraft mounted accessory gearbox” that is standard fitment in the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft. It is 35 kg of magnesium alloy, spinning at 16,800 rpm. This gearbox has successfully completed some 3000 flights,” says Sivakumar.

The FMBT will be armed with India’s first smoothbore 120-millimetre tank gun. While the rest of the world has long used smoothbore guns — which fire anti-tank missiles and high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds — the DRDO alone has stuck with rifled guns. There is confidence that the changeover will be smooth: the DRDO developed a smoothbore gun for the T-90 tank after Russia illegally blocked gun technologies. The DRDO is also working with Israel Military Industries (IMI), which developed the smoothbore gun for the Merkava tank.

Cushioning the FMBT’s ride will be one of the Arjun’s unique successes, its hydro-pneumatic suspension unit (HSU), which smoothens the jerks from driving fast over uneven cross-country terrain. The Arjun’s smooth ride allows its gun to accurately hit a suitcase two kilometres away while driving at 30 kmph. The initial FMBTs will have improved Arjun HSUs, while CVRDE proposes to develop an “active suspension” by 2030. This has sensors scrutinising the terrain just ahead of the tank and making anticipatory adjustments before the tank’s tracks roll over that area.

“The future is active suspension. The FMBT will initially roll out with hydro-pneumatic suspensions but we are commencing R&D for active suspension. It takes some time to develop a reliable active suspension. No tank has managed it so far,” says Sivakumar.

[Singha]

nice ideas except the 50t part. active protection systems are sensor driven and sensors have a nice way of crapping out in battle due to wear n tear or damage or people find way to defeat them. atleast passive protection of armour plate does not go from 100% to 0% if a battery or electronic board fails somewhere.

the korean K2 black panther has a mtu 1500hp unit and in addition a 400hp gas turbine for APU duty. I believe the japanese and koreans are also planning on predictive suspension that scans ahead and adjusts the wheels dynamically to soak up the road better...their civilian automobile industry gives them a good handle on such ideas.

Arjun mk3 should have all these features but get its name as T-100-2020-Slava-Uralskaya to appease the T-gods. target weight could be 63-65t with 1800hp engine. hope someone knocks some sense into the right heads soon .... 50t is at best a uparmoured CV90 not a MBT.

[tejas]

Why are 1500 hp engines enough for mediocre 65-70 ton tanks like the Abrams, Leopard and Merkava but a 50 ton uber tank for the IA needs at least 1500 hp? And what praytell did the Tin can-90 come with -1000 or 1200 hp? The more demands I hear from the IA wrt tanks the more I wonder who and what caliber people are in charge. What is good enough for Umrikah and Israel isn't up to snuff for Yindia unless it has cyrillic letters in its manual ?

[tejas]

self deleted

[Austin]

Developing a Arjun plus style protection within a 50 T tank is not an impossible task , The T-90MS has protection level comparable to Western heavies from all sides and still weighs 48T.

Protection level is not a question of Heavy or Medium tank but a question of Volume to Armour ratio , if they use only composite armour the weight will go up , they will have to move towards a integral Composite Armour + ERA layout seen on Russian and other tanks of medium weight to shave of weight but keep similar protection level.

Obviously they cant go for 4 man crew as the tank will get bigger , they will have to go for a auto loader plus 3 man crew.

A transition to Smooth Bore is a welcome one , now the tank can fire more versatile ammo then the current Rifled gun can do.

But a 1800 HP engine for a 50 T tank is insanely high unless they want the FMBT to fly or win a F1 race , such high engine will quickly suck up all the fuel impacting strategic mobility , A more desirable engine will be in ~ 1300 hp class for a 50T tank for a optimum trade off on power to weight ratio and strategic mobility

[vina]

Developing a Arjun plus style protection within a 50 T tank is not an impossible task , The T-90MS has protection level comparable to Western heavies from all sides and still weighs 48T

Well, maybe if you drink that Russian Kool-Aid. Fact is until now in all real world battles, the T series has been crushed in tank to tank battles with the western heavies.

And now we have some mythical T-90 MS (whatever happened to the current T-90s we have, not good enough?) that is supposed to be comparable to western heavies? Sorry, dont think so.

Even if you go to a tank the T-90 size with 3 man crew and go with the bustle mounted autoloader with ammo stored safely in blast proof doors, I dont know how such tank can come in at anything less than say 55 tons, with enhanced level of protection and features.

Instead of steel, build the tank out of titanium, your weight will come down by a third, and you can have a tank of that kind of capability at 40 tons. But then be prepared to pay orders of magnitude more PER tank.

[rohitvats]

^^^Something like the French Leclerc comes to mind.

[Singha]

perhaps the only current role model is Leclerc - 55t, 1500hp engine, 3 man crew, autoloader, 550km range, hydropneumatic suspension, composite+NERA armour....

it has the most surgically neat interior among current tanks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Leclerc-IMG_1720.jpg

3 man crew is only way out - you can see leclerc autoloader here, feeding in rounds from its protected box in bustle area
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6nlvii-bP0

rumor is the M1A3 will use this 34 rd autoloader but the human loader will be retained for other duties
http://mdswebmaster.com/UK/MDS2008/cms/ ... &Itemid=94

[Austin]

Well, maybe if you drink that Russian Kool-Aid. Fact is until now in all real world battles, the T series has been crushed in tank to tank battles with the western heavies.

Clearly you need a lot to learn on tanks , weren't you the one propogating the virtues of Rifled Gun over Smooth bore and clearly with FMBT voila they choose smooth bore

T series in Gulf war were of 1962 vintage having zero night visibility and export model protection level with a APFSDS cant couldnt penetrate 200 mm of KE , if if M1A1 stood still in front of it they wouldnt have done any thing better , M1A1 peers were T-80 and if you followed georgia war the T-64 was used and it did well , which is no surprise if you have better armour and crushing numerical superiority.

And now we have some mythical T-90 MS (whatever happened to the current T-90s we have, not good enough?) that is supposed to be comparable to western heavies? Sorry, dont think so.

Comparable in protection level yes , The myth that bigger tank means more protection is just a myth , protection is a function of Armour Volume ratio and not bigger or heavier tank.

You will have to do you own research on this and you will realise that having a 50 T tank will afford you the same protection as a 60 T western heavy but will end up with low internal volume in return.

Even if you go to a tank the T-90 size with 3 man crew and go with the bustle mounted autoloader with ammo stored safely in blast proof doors, I dont know how such tank can come in at anything less than say 55 tons, with enhanced level of protection and features.

All things have trade off , A bustle mounted autoloader or bustle ammo has its own problem its it far more exposed to common anti tank weapon ,Artillery, RPG type because the bustle ends up with lower armour compared to other part of turret , the positive side is better crew protection due to isolation.

Ammo inside the hull or turret are better protected due to more armour and canisterisation , the down side its near to crew , you choose any of and you will have its plus and minus.

Instead of steel, build the tank out of titanium, your weight will come down by a third, and you can have a tank of that kind of capability at 40 tons. But then be prepared to pay orders of magnitude more PER tank.

Armour is not made of steel , they have multilayer composite armour with different materials to deal with HEAT and KE type of threat, going for steel or titanium ( which is funny ) wont make it any better , Kanchan is an example of composite armour which will have properties any times better then any hardened steel or titanium

[uddu]

The solution is material that is light, cheap and strong.
Something like this.
http://www.rense.com/general20/transparentalum.htm
Regarding the selection of 1800hp engine, shows that it's now impossible for the DRDO to trust the Army. The Army can start with 50 ton requirement and keep going with additions, modifications in their requirements at times and that may finally result in a very heavy tank. So better to be prepared for any eventuality. That's DRDO thinking.
From the Army side, they must start to innovate. Set aside egos and brochures from foreign manufacturers and decide what's needed for them and then must be able to think and act pragmatically be it about weight or protection level. I will say they better go with better protection and higher weight than a normal tank.
Setting aside what has been said above, i do have a wish to see a dream tank that's something like a Su-30 MKI on the ground.
My FMBT concept is slight modification of the aircraft concept. In this tank, there will be no loader, no gunner.
Just the Commander who will be the Gunner. There will be a driver, who will also be able to control the automatic weaponry except the main gun. The Commander cum Gunner must be able to operate all the weapons. The tank commander and Driver will sit in the hull which can be slightly bigger with all kinds of displays etc providing all the information that they need, just like in a fighter aircraft. Then proper camouflage using sensors+display materials on the outer surface mimicking the surrounding in which the tank operate during day time and stealthy during day and night to thermal and other signatures. The turret will have mechanism for auto loading and storage of Ammo. The Engine etc be made smaller in size and lighter. Then proper protection with light weight Armour and active protection. The main weaponry of the tank must be Fire and forget missiles fired after getting a lock on the target. Lahat will do. Easy to maintain tank. About weapon firing etc, it can be something like in an attack helicopter. The pilot/Tank commander looking at the target and squeezing the trigger.

[Singha]

however its a fact that soviet and russian electro-optics of the kind used for night vision on tanks, helicopters and uavs still lags behind that of the west and israel. a T80 vs m1a1/chally/leopard matchup in central europe would have other factors like tactical CAS and heavy artillery / mines in the matrix but in 1:1 contests the western heavies would still retain the advantage of better night vision and a better C3I network in general, and they would still slaughter the second echelon T72's from behind hull down positions .... heavy losses were likely though the soviets due to much larger nos and 100-gun shakinaw barrages might still have succeeded in the mission

Austin and other steel beast fans might enjoy reading john hacketts WW3 book and another novel "Chieftains" (the british tank)
http://coldwarhot.blogspot.com/2011/02/ ... novel.html

[VikB]

Supr duper great but where are TATAs, Crompton Greaves etc?? Also should one not involve navy also as they would need such engine variants? What about variants of this engine for gen sets, railways, tatra trucks etc

A tank engine is a very specialized engine, that is meant to run for only a few 1000 kms (around 10K), deliver high power and have a small form factor. They are rated at their PEAK power and not continuous power.

You cannot obviously put such an engine in a bus or a truck or a train or a ship , where engines operate at continuous power for months on end in some case . Those engines tend to have a larger form factor for their size. Compare the power output of a volvo truck and the engine size, with that of a tank and it's engine size and power output.

Vina, you seem knowledgable on the subject (no sarcasm here). Wud like to understand a few things.
1. Small form factor- rolling tendency on flat surface. Even on a much lighter (though high by truck standards) truck of net wt 8 ton (Gross Vehcile Weight 40+ tons) an engine of upto 1000+HP does not have much effect. For a 1800 HP engine and 50+ton tank, is that a concern?
2. Peak power vs continuous power - All engines are rated on both these parameters. No difference here
3. Continuous power- well working an engine even a commercial vehicle engine at constant high power only fu*cks up the cyliner lining that can be changed. With small modifications like different coolant and bigger radiator, these are easily surmountable.
There is no difference between an auto engine and a tank engine. The cylnder are the same. few peripherals and probably the electronics requires tweaking.
The Tatas recently hit a JV with Cummins for their ISLe range that gives max power of 800HP. For continuous high power performance as pointed by Vina, same can be taken up esaily beyond 900 HP. Similarly, Tatas are importing heavier engine for their Prima range of vehicles called ISX 15 which gives poutput till 1500 HP for auto application which again can be tweaked for higher ranges. I am sure Ashok Leytland is doing similar with Navistar tie up. Then why does DRDO has to enter where it does not belong? In my opinion, they shud let the private sector get them the engine. they will benefit from economies of scale as the same engine can be used commercially too.

[Singha]

as noted they are letting the pvt sector produce it, and both cvrde and pvt sector player will work with the chosen consultant on the prototype. the tank transmission will likely be far more demanding work than truck gearboxes.

[Austin]

however its a fact that soviet and russian electro-optics of the kind used for night vision on tanks, helicopters and uavs still lags behind that of the west and israel. a T80 vs m1a1/chally/leopard matchup in central europe would have other factors like tactical CAS and heavy artillery / mines in the matrix but in 1:1 contests the western heavies would still retain the advantage of better night vision and a better C3I network in general, and they would still slaughter the second echelon T72's from behind hull down positions .... heavy losses were likely though the soviets due to much larger nos and 100-gun shakinaw barrages might still have succeeded in the mission

Cold War tank battles were all fought under the shadow of Tactical Nukes ,if either side was found wanting loosing the commander would simply use Nukes and wipe up the adversary advantage , that is the reason they never fought in first place.

NATO clearly used the heavy tank in a fortified holding pattern , where Soviet were to use its lighter tanks and numerical advantage for fighting manouver warfare , the tactics of NATO was to allow the concentration of Soviet tanks and then use Nukes to decimate it.

[Kailash]

But a 1800 HP engine for a 50 T tank is insanely high unless they want the FMBT to fly or win a F1 race , such high engine will quickly suck up all the fuel impacting strategic mobility , A more desirable engine will be in ~ 1300 hp class for a 50T tank for a optimum trade off on power to weight ratio and strategic mobility

All comes back to the same triangle - firepower-mobility-protection. They cant have the best of everything, and hope it would turn out light and cheap. Good that DRDO has put its foot down at the design phase itself.

[Austin]

Assuming its a 1800 hp for a 50 T tank , it would give an astonishing 36 hp/t

If the idea is to use 1800 hp indiginous engine to use at some point to re-engine Arjun tank , then it makes sense ........ but keep an eye on fuel consumption.

[vina]

There is no difference between an auto engine and a tank engine. The cylnder are the same. few peripherals and probably the electronics requires tweaking.

Big differences in fact! Just look at a 1500hp railway engine in some WDMx in Indian railways vs a 1500hp engine on the tank and compare the sizes. The size difference exists for a very good reason! Obivously you cannot take the tank engine and put it on the train (or ship) and for a journey from Bangalore to Mysore, end the journey at Kengeri instead, because the engine gave up!

You cant put the tank engine on a truck either for similar reasons.

Oh, and all diesel engines are the same. They burn fuel, air and operate on a diesel cycle and produce power!

[vina]

, M1A1 peers were T-80 and if you followed georgia war the T-64 was used and it did well , which is no surprise if you have better armour and crushing numerical superiority.

Yeah, whatever. The "Warsaw Pact" versions of T72s and T80s were simply sitting ducks in Chechnya which were simply made mince meat of. In fact, many of the much vaunted T80 UDs simply ran out of fuel and had to be abandoned with the gas turbine guzzling away!

And in Georgia, I dont remember either side having any western heavies!

Comparable in protection level yes , The myth that bigger tank means more protection is just a myth , protection is a function of Armour Volume ratio and not bigger or heavier tank.

And having no space to fit an a decent thermal imager and needs airconditioning ?

You will have to do you own research on this and you will realise that having a 50 T tank will afford you the same protection as a 60 T western heavy but will end up with low internal volume in return.

The latter part is true, but other than math calculations, I haven't seen any real evidence of the former, other than brochure claims and exhortations on drinking the Russian Kool-Aid.

Even if you go to a tank the T-90 size with 3 man crew and go with the bustle mounted autoloader with ammo stored safely in blast proof doors, I dont know how such tank can come in at anything less than say 55 tons, with enhanced level of protection and features.

which will have properties any times better then any hardened steel or titanium

Steel is by far the highest % weight in any tank. Titanium is roughly 1/3rd the weight and titanium armor is used in attack helis and planes and in inserts in personal armor!

[Singha]

not sure if this is legit, but someone has posted a speculative pic of Mk2 Arjun
http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/s ... my_002.jpg

[Sriman]

not sure if this is legit, but someone has posted a speculative pic of Mk2 Arjun
http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/s ... my_002.jpg

That looks like a JGSDF Type 10. Not an Arjun definitely, note the number of wheels.

[Philip]

Sometime ago I posted an "80s article about the revolution that attack helos was bringing to the battlefield and the Soviet tank vs helo equation,numbers and cost.With the proliferation of new ATGMs,RPG tandem rounds,and helo launched ATGMs,no matter how heavy and well protected a tank is it cannot survive air attacks.If not destroyed,it will be disabled.Protecting the tank from air attacks requires a huge investment in SP anti-air artillery,SR SAMs and ground troops with MANPADs.

Therefore, designing and building huge behemoths that carry a 4-man crew which requires extra protection ,extra weight,extra cost,etc.,is a futile exercise.The bulk oif the IA's tanks are all T-72s or T-90s.The IA has for decades trained to fight with 3-man crewed tanks,which are lighter,more mobile tha larger taks like Arjun.Arjun was never designed with the IA in the loop from the start,which is why it faced so much resistance from the Army.Nevertheless,the IA eventually ordered the Arjun and a repeat order is said to have also been made for the MK-2 version.

However,from its pronouncements,the IA still wants a 3-man crewed tank for the future.
Why cannot therefore the DRDO attempt to design a 3-an crew tank with the advanced tech and features that the IA wants,some of which it has made much headway wiht the development of Arjun,its HP suspension for example? Why is it still trying to shove down the Army's gullet an even larger and heavier 4-crewed Arjun,which will weigh more,is visible more and costs morembothf rom the unit cost of the tank,plus that of an extra crew member in an age of scarce human resources and advances in automation.If the IA feels so strongly,then it must lay down its requirements very clearly,that is a 3-man crew,etc.,etc. to the DRDO and make its voice heard in the MOD forcefully.After all,it is the army that will fight the enemy not the boffins and babus of the DRDO nd we do not have the luxury of developing a toy that the bofins want and which the Army has little afetion for.

Let the DRDO prove itself by designing and building a 3-man crewed takm with an auto-loader and other features that the IA wants.In any case,with the need for a smaller turret the tank's size will come down and even if providing it with the kind of protection the DRDO can offer,its weight will never exceed that of Arjun MK-1 and in fact will be less by at least 5t! If the DRDO feels that it needs a foreign partner for some of the tech required,no problem.We are not restricted by Cold War sanctions today and can take a look at what is available today in both the west and the east.

The Le Clerc is perhaps the best example of the new thinking behind tank design,which eventually will evolve into the two-man crewed tank that some have demanded.Take a look at the neat manner in which the glacis has been designed .It offers perhaps the best interin western alternative (no doubt the Russians too will have their breauty in the paddock too) to a future 2/3-man crewed tank with a larger turretless main gun,equipped with all the bells and whistles of protection active and passive and anti-air weponry too.Until that tank is finally developed,the 3-man crewed tank is the best practicl soultion for the IA.The DRDO must make an honest attempt for the same,otherwise the Arjun FMBT will fight its next battle at home against the IA and not the Pakis or Chinese!

[Kailash]

Steel is by far the highest % weight in any tank. Titanium is roughly 1/3rd the weight and titanium armor is used in attack helis and planes and in inserts in personal armor!

Google chacha tells me that Titanium is way costlier than high strength steel. Most of the cost can be recovered though. Major % is for tooling, welding techniques and manufacturing process. And we need only 30-40% of the material by weight vs equivalent stength steel armour.

Since we are producing Ti sponge in-house now, should be interesting to see the timelines required for making armour grade titanium components. DRDO would have to hike up costs by 40-50%, but could give IA what it wants.

Only gripes are - private sector should be willing to invest in Ti technology, and this should not delay the project.

[VikB]

There is no difference between an auto engine and a tank engine. The cylnder are the same. few peripherals and probably the electronics requires tweaking.

Big differences in fact! Just look at a 1500hp railway engine in some WDMx in Indian railways vs a 1500hp engine on the tank and compare the sizes. The size difference exists for a very good reason! Obivously you cannot take the tank engine and put it on the train (or ship) and for a journey from Bangalore to Mysore, end the journey at Kengeri instead, because the engine gave up!

You cant put the tank engine on a truck either for similar reasons.

Oh, and all diesel engines are the same. They burn fuel, air and operate on a diesel cycle and produce power!

Vina Saar, while I am ready to be educated- avoid getting hyper.
"You cant put the tank engine on a truck either for similar reasons. " this is as intangible as it can get. "Just look at a 1500hp railway engine in some WDMx in Indian railways vs a 1500hp engine on the tank and compare the sizes. The size difference exists for a very good reason" another one.
Kindly refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Locomotives. Check the HP ranges there. May I remind that auto engines have been and are being used on aircrafts and marine applications. There is no different requirement for a tank or auto engine. FYI - one of Indian auto major was bidding for the upgrade of T 72 and BMP. The engine being considered then was a Cummins engine and their own engine.

[Philip]

Titanium is indeed very costly,and the Russians,the world leaders in titanium tech,abandoned their Alfa class SSNs,built out of titanium and the fastest and deepest diving SSNs ever,because of the cost and technical challenges.INstead they developed the Akula class to replace the Alfa.Perhaps in limited qtys. titanium can be used in critical areas,perhaps the turret roof to counter top attack munitions,but the evolution of various kinds of ERA,now flush wiht the turret/hull may be equally resistant to prjetiles and missiles and more cost-efective.

[chackojoseph]

Arjun was never designed with the IA in the loop from the start,which is why it faced so much resistance from the Army.Nevertheless,the IA eventually ordered the Arjun and a repeat order is said to have also been made for the MK-2 version.

New twist in the story.

[Austin]

Yeah, whatever. The "Warsaw Pact" versions of T72s and T80s were simply sitting ducks in Chechnya which were simply made mince meat of. In fact, many of the much vaunted T80 UDs simply ran out of fuel and had to be abandoned with the gas turbine guzzling away!

If you use Tanks in a way its not suppose to be used it will be a sitting duck , You can see similar Sitting Ducks made out of Abrams in Iraq conflict

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q_dnTVFIL0

And in Georgia, I dont remember either side having any western heavies!

Neither do i remember Iraq using any tank that was remotely comparable to M1 , not to mention bad tactics and training.

And having no space to fit an a decent thermal imager and needs airconditioning ?

No space , or cooling problems, The fact is T-90 has AC , IA didnt buy it to save money , check out all the T-90 exported to other countries comes with AC. AC is needed so that crew can fight with comfort not that tanks need it and all western tanks have AC for crew.

The latter part is true, but other than math calculations, I haven't seen any real evidence of the former, other than brochure claims and exhortations on drinking the Russian Kool-Aid.

You dont have to believe on brochure claims , read on tanks from Western Author like Steven Zaloga and do your own research on the topic , there are enough topic available on google on the pro and cons of Western and Russian tank design.

Even if you go to a tank the T-90 size with 3 man crew and go with the bustle mounted autoloader with ammo stored safely in blast proof doors, I dont know how such tank can come in at anything less than say 55 tons, with enhanced level of protection and features.

Exactly whats so sacrosanct of 55 T that is not so much about 50 T or for that matter what so great about the magical figure 60 T ?

You use more composite armour you will get more heavy tank , you use combination of Composite Armour + ERA you will shave of some weight and get comparable protection.

The key is to develop technology for armour and era that you can afford to have such protection.

Ever thought why did they go for ERA on Arjun on the frontal turret and on sides even though it is suppose to be a near 60 T tank and why even Abrams side turret is so vulnerable to a common anti-tank weapon like RPG-29 of 105 mm class even though its a 62 ton tank.

Steel is by far the highest % weight in any tank. Titanium is roughly 1/3rd the weight and titanium armor is used in attack helis and planes and in inserts in personal armor!

Its true Steel is one of the layers but modern tank uses composite armour that have many layers of materials and alloys and is not made of only hardened steel.

Titanium affords lower weight for equivelent protection , hence they use on helis not only to afford protection but also to keep its weight lower , modern personal armour uses many layers of materials including carbon fiber to keep weight to minimum.

A tank today would at the minimum would face 650 mm CE from RPG type weapon to 1300 CE for 152 mm class weapon and similarly 450 - 800 mm for KE depending on the kind of APFSDS they face.

The truth no modern tank including western heavies have symmetrical protection on all sides of turret , only frontal armour is well protected the rest , side and back cant hold against modern APFSDS or HEAT , the top is even worse.

[Singha]

only the merkava is claimed to have top attack armour equivalent to about 12" of steel plate. but then its turret is such that front and top is part of the same wedge.

an urgent area to pay attention to no doubt - both for urban fighting against late model RPGs and every 'proper' army out there will soon have top attack ATGMs in the mould of javelin or bill even for infantry squads not just big nag or hellfire style weapons.

[rohitvats]

Arjun was never designed with the IA in the loop from the start,which is why it faced so much resistance from the Army.Nevertheless,the IA eventually ordered the Arjun and a repeat order is said to have also been made for the MK-2 version.

New twist in the story.

CJ, that is not a twist.

That is an absolute and blatant lie born out of wilfull negligence of facts and refusal to accept reality. This has gone beyond funny - posts like this should be removed and posters banned for spreading such nonsense.

[Singha]

I think a fair test of the 3-man 55t design philosophy and how it works in combination with bideshi latest western tech is if a division of Leclercs went toe to toe with a Khalid/ZTZ99 unit.

but with < 250 active tanks in french army thats not going to happen.

maybe we should buy 15 Leclercs and a support pkg for comparative testing and put it through paces at CVRDE and test ranges vs the T90 and Arjun before saying yes/no on the 50-55t vs 65t decision point. use a couple for impact testing, firing shells, ATGMs(Milan2T,Nag,konkurs) and RPG29's at it from various angles and see how it shapes up.

the russians will pass sorts of unreliable data to suit themselves and so will any other vendor.

[Austin]

Nag certainly can take out any damn tank in the world with its top attack capability , its 8Kg tandem warhead will atleast give it a CE of 1100 mm , no need to test

In the end if the Army tests all the tank from 45 T to 65 T , it will find its own pros and cons for the tank and for the entire logistics involved..... i am sure they would have tons of internal studies like any army in the world would do on such issue.

It simply boils down to what the Army thinks it needs for future warfare , what is sufficient , what is desirable and what is critical and cannot be done without in a tank and what are the logistical implications , cost/benefit ratio and doable by indian scientific R&D and Industry.

[bmallick]

Question 1: Can any of the current tanks survive a top attack ATGM? If no, how heavy the armor needs are for the said protection?
Question 2: How proliferate is the use of Top Attack ATGM's in our immediate neighbourhood?
Question 3: How high is the chance of our tanks meeting up with enemy attack choppers & attack planes?
Question 4: What are the challenges to mobility in our context, viz-a-viz, desert, flat salt plains, flat plains & narrow valleys, heavy jungles. Would a single design be able to cater to all these terrains without heavy penaties?

Isn't it a ironical that with modern active defense systems coming on to tanks, they are kind of becoming like land based counterpart of naval ships, armed with defensive as well as offensive systems. Would that mean that the tanks would shed the heavy armor just like the naval vessels have done so since the advent of missile age?

Are tank barrel launched ATGM's like LAHAT, etc are a must for offensive operations in today's world. If they are a must, then what is the heavy 120/125mm gun going to do? You do not require high velocity heavy rounds to take out bunkers, machine gun posts, IFV & APC's. A much smaller 30-60 mm gun can deal with them. So can that gun be done away with?

ERA's are being touted as the great thing. However, need to look at its implications when operating with infantry troops around. Does the shrapnel's produced cause too much friendly damage?


Can we come out with answers to these question, before jumping the gun and saying what type of tank is needed by IA.