Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

vic · Post by **vic** » 05 Jul 2012 19:30

More likely Army will order 100 with 10,000 modifications and improvements

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 10 Jul 2012 10:26

This I found in a article about next gen artillary link

Self propelled guns are now at the RFP stage and we have teamed up with BEML for the Army tender. BEML is taking the turret from the Czech firm Zusana and the same will be integrated on the Arjun tank chassis. Hopefully trials will commence within a year.

this may be the Bhim coming back to life..

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Jul 2012 10:04

The IDF’s future tank: Electromagnetic cannon

Imagine a tank that can shoot a laser or an electromagnetic pulse. How about one that can drive on a hybrid engine – partly powered by electricity – instead of the loud diesel engines used today? These technologies and others are under consideration for integration into Israel’s future tank which the IDF hopes will be operational by 2020.

Last year, the IDF Ground Forces Command set up a team of combat and technical officers – from the Armored Corps, the Weapons Development Branch in the Ground Forces Command and the Defense Ministry’s Merkava Program Office – to begin planning Israel’s future tank, the successor to the Merkava.

“When we look at what the future tank will look like, we need to look broadly at all technology that exists,” Brig.-Gen. Yigal Slovik, outgoing commander of the Armored Corps, said this week. “There are such things as electromagnetic or laser cannons, but right now they are too big and not applicable. They might however be in the future.”

For power, Slovik said that the tank could potentially operate on a hybrid engine that burns fuel to charge batteries that can then independently power the tank for extended periods.

Slovik said that the crew of the future tank would also likely be smaller than today, and as few as two soldiers could operate it.

“The future tank will ultimately be faster, better protected, more interoperable and more lethal,” he said.

The decision to begin developing a new tank was sparked by the entry of active-protection systems such as the Trophy, which has been installed on an entire brigade of tanks and successfully intercepted a rocket-propelled grenade along the Gaza border last year.

The thinking in the defense establishment is that tanks no longer require thick layers of armor – which slow down the vehicle, and raise fuel and production costs – and could suffice with less armor and more systems like Trophy.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 13 Jul 2012 10:41

I heard on the grapevine that the soldiers and officers of the IA agree that Arjun is an excellent tank but it is a maintenance intensive nightmare as compared to the T-90s and that unless the MoD or GoI increase the budget for maintenance of the Arjun tanks, the IA tank corps are loathe to go with the Arjuns in large numbers, because if they cannot get the money, they would have no working tank in short order and their line of thinking, better to get a working tank even if it is inferior than get a superior tank that will break down into non-working tank because of shortage of funds for maintenance.

Perhaps this explains why IA still have a penchant for the T-90s even though the Arjuns have demonstrated that it is a superior tank in every sense of the word. So if the MoD can increase the budget for maintenance of tanks, perhaps we will see Arjuns in more numbers.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 13 Jul 2012 11:10

Groan! Another problem with the Arjun!!! Why does the IA not ask for exo skeletons for the infantry, portable jet packs, and use shoulder-launched Nag firing flying infantry to substitute for armoured cavalry!!

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 13 Jul 2012 11:58

Are T-90s easier to maintain than Arjun? Or is it that T-90 has an existing infra in place while for Arjun, it needs to be built up.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 13 Jul 2012 13:21

Tincans spare parts are to be imported there by more commission for babus and nothing is going to come from Arjun. Next complaint will be Arjun does not have Tras Warp drive and ion Torpedos.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 13 Jul 2012 14:53

Commissions in locally produced TATRA have been higher than the imported ones. If one thinks Arjuns don't carry commission to deep pockets then he is sadly mistaken. Even a locally purchased ball-point pen carries commission. Commission is evil, not necessary but is omnipresent. Please take the 'commission' out of the arguments for Arjun.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 13 Jul 2012 18:58

heard on the grapevine that the soldiers and officers of the IA agree

thats not grapevine -thats probably motivated (satisfies nelson

) folks

there is enough info on this thread to refute that and even Sanku will agree that at this point the Arjun is a superb tank compared to the tin can

they basically do not want the Arjun for their motivated reasons and throw the nugget its excellent but..

the but... used to be weight
then it was issues on the features that the Arjun had which the tin cans did not

now its ambigous bullcrap

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 13 Jul 2012 19:25

Well i acknowledge that BRFites hold sufficient information to conclude whatever, like in the previous pages of this thread, but that does not constitute knowledge and certainly not the final word. There is no reason to attribute motives with a broadbrush.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 13 Jul 2012 19:49

There is no reason to attribute motives with a broadbrush.

Its not a broadbrush - its targetted at Armour officials who have throw these little nuggets here and there similar to folks in other arms who make statements like what has DRDO delivered?

It is then collated with info with our own contacts

If they come baqck and give a specific example of what is a maintenance intensive (with a comparison to tin can) then we will take a second look

jai · Post by **jai** » 13 Jul 2012 20:30

As long as the production and it's back end supply chain does not stabilize how can anyone expect a stable spares supply? Who will manufacture piece meal parts only for 124 tanks ?? Army needs to order a good number and start using them to get the spare pipeline going at economical prices. These guys who are making such comments are indirectly but rightly blaming the army for this mess !! Antony needs to whip any one in army who says Arjun is not good enough, and needs to put a stop to all tin can buying, and if our tv jouro friends like aroor and shom are reading this - high time you created an issue of this in the media - ask some one like VK Singh why Arjun is not being given its due place.

jai · Post by **jai** » 13 Jul 2012 20:36

I also think its high time army stopped adding more armour, and focused instead on getting anti armour- javelins, lch, and namicas in big numbers as these can be effectively used against the dragon in the hills also...unlike tanks..Also badly need nvg's and sky shields mounted on bmp's in big numbers first.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 13 Jul 2012 21:39

Surya wrote:
There is no reason to attribute motives with a broadbrush.

Its not a broadbrush - its targetted at Armour officials who have throw these little nuggets here and there similar to folks in other arms who make statements like what has DRDO delivered?

It is then collated with info with our own contacts

If they come baqck and give a specific example of what is a maintenance intensive (with a comparison to tin can) then we will take a second look

Your target will have a CEP of 1500 kilometres?

Please read and understand reliability engineering, terms like MTBF and MTTR, take the pain to obtain credible info using RTI as a tool before expecting someone doing their duty to come back and give explanation to what DDM spouts.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 13 Jul 2012 22:20

jai wrote:I also think its high time army stopped adding more armour, and focused instead on getting anti armour- javelins, lch, and namicas in big numbers as these can be effectively used against the dragon in the hills also...unlike tanks..Also badly need nvg's and sky shields mounted on bmp's in big numbers first.

Amateurs can always question and often outguess professionals, but that may be more apt in GD Forum.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 13 Jul 2012 23:37

Please read and understand reliability engineering, terms like MTBF and MTTR, take the pain to obtain credible info using RTI as a tool before expecting someone doing their duty

Seriously???

Not going to bother replying

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 14 Jul 2012 05:25

jai wrote:I also think its high time army stopped adding more armour, and focused instead on getting anti armour- javelins, lch, and namicas in big numbers as these can be effectively used against the dragon in the hills also...unlike tanks..Also badly need nvg's and sky shields mounted on bmp's in big numbers first.

Jai ji, why 'stop adding more armour'? Shouldn't it be 'also add anti armour' ?

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 14 Jul 2012 11:05

Surya wrote:
Please read and understand reliability engineering, terms like MTBF and MTTR, take the pain to obtain credible info using RTI as a tool before expecting someone doing their duty

Seriously???

Not going to bother replying

Yes, seriously. Whereas DRDO has blanket exemption from providing info under RTI act, Army does not. The key is to persist with your efforts to obtain info and not give up at the first instance. Your chaiwallahs and panwallahs will never be of as much help as RTI.

jai · Post by **jai** » 14 Jul 2012 11:59

Manish_Sharma wrote:
jai wrote:I also think its high time army stopped adding more armour, and focused instead on getting anti armour- javelins, lch, and namicas in big numbers as these can be effectively used against the dragon in the hills also...unlike tanks..Also badly need nvg's and sky shields mounted on bmp's in big numbers first.
Jai ji, why 'stop adding more armour'? Shouldn't it be 'also add anti armour' ?

That would be ideal but difficult given the money available for modernization - focus can help get bigger bang for the buck- better lethalities- and more flexibly deployed against the dragon. We have always armed keeping the pukes in mind but need to do so keeping dragon and mountain warfare in mind - this is also what the army is struggling with now- money to raise mountain corps. Also, these are gaps and vulnerabilities that army has today, so modern weapons like mentioned above will be force multipliers. For example we have a decent sized tank force today, but it's largely night blind - so nvg's will increase their lethality. Similarly large javelin inductions can create a powerful and flexible,portable , and light weight artillery within infantry that can be effective in almost any terrain, against all kinds of targets. Sky shields can be deadly both as anti aircraft as well as highly mobile and powerful artillery against land targets as well when mated with a good mobility platform like a good truck chassis or bmp's - and can be air deployed quickly - as against tanks- same for namicas. My two paise are on keeping current tank fleets lethal and operational rather than buying more tin cans - if you need to replace old tanks - get Arjun's, but I would rather see more flying tanks (lch, apache) inducted now than additional tin cans.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 14 Jul 2012 12:29

ICH and Apache do not hold the ground and are very costly and bad in maintainance. I am not so sure we can totally replace tanks with the current level of tech. In future who knows. Arjun need to be persued actively with large and long term order to replace all the legacy tanks like t72 old models which are not updated and t55s etc in a timebound manner.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 14 Jul 2012 16:19

So according to those Army chaiwallahs, Arjun is equivalent to Tiger and T-90 to Sherman !

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 14 Jul 2012 17:57

^^Not only in capabilities, but hopefully in numbers too (some chaiwallahs seem to have agendas).

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 15 Jul 2012 12:03

Hitesh wrote:I heard on the grapevine that the soldiers and officers of the IA agree that Arjun is an excellent tank but it is a maintenance intensive nightmare as compared to the T-90s and that unless the MoD or GoI increase the budget for maintenance of the Arjun tanks,

don't know what is the 'agenda' of these chaiwallahs. defies facts averred and accepted by the Arjun Tank regiments.

it is well known Arjun has a 'modular build' which makes it 'maintainence friendly' unlike the T-72 and its offshoot the T-90.

2 for instance -

Arjun's engine can be changed in 1 hr whereas a T-72 engine needs a full day!! T-90 engine change requires not less than 6 hrs.

Arjun's HSU needs just 2 hrs to change while T-90's Torsion bar in which replacement of a road wheel station is a 'major undertaking' as ajai shukla says.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 15 Jul 2012 20:01

what about APU?

sights in hot weather

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 15 Jul 2012 20:53

Surya wrote:what about APU?

sights in hot weather

shhhh... you are not supposed to dig deep. we are talking 'maintainence' only.

jai · Post by **jai** » 16 Jul 2012 01:12

Narayana Rao wrote:ICH and Apache do not hold the ground and are very costly and bad in maintainance. I am not so sure we can totally replace tanks with the current level of tech. In future who knows. Arjun need to be persued actively with large and long term order to replace all the legacy tanks like t72 old models which are not updated and t55s etc in a timebound manner.

LCH is not yet deployed. Apache is, do you have any data to back the claim of maintainence heavy ? How does it feature with no. of tanks and armour killed ? Why Do attack helicopters need to hold territory ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Jul 2012 09:49

Picture of BMP-2 upgrade from Engineering technologies 2012

http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/Engin ... oto033.jpg

venku_Raj · Post by **venku_Raj** » 17 Jul 2012 10:55

Arjun Mark II MBT will be a world beater : DRDO

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Jul 2012 11:02

a more fuel efficient and slightly compact engine from the Cummins-ARDE project and The Trophy system (cost!) would complete the creamy layer and kiwi fruit on the cake. this might permit larger internal fuel tanks near the engine and getting rid of the ferry tank in back. ofcourse proving the new engine and gearbox combo when it comes will take some time.

overall the Mk2 should be comfortable against the opposition in our locality. to reach its full potential, need IBG type formations with Rudra units and powerful logistical and C3I assets like MLRS, UAV, 155mm trucked guns, Nag units in support.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 20 Jul 2012 07:05

cross posting from the Multi media forum

who needs RTI

Defence Line - Army's Battle With Arjun - 23 June 2012 - Part 1

Defence Line - Army's Battle With Arjun - 23 June 2012 - Part 2[/quote]

will give a bit of time for it to sink in

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jul 2012 08:30

Enough discussions. We have had too many (being Indians I guess).

I suggest IA order some 1000/2000 Arjun Mk II.

Such an order will have a +ve force that no one can counter. Time to cut the umbilical I would say.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 20 Jul 2012 08:46

arey baba - let it sink in

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Jul 2012 09:32

venku_Raj wrote:Arjun Mark II MBT will be a world beater : DRDO

Added to this, is the remote firing capability with 360 degree coverage for the Air Defence weapon.

does this mean no men is required to be inside the tank? means a step #1 towards robotic tanks for the future.

Experts say that there are three main elements that constitute the attributes of a MBT: armour, firepower and maneuverability. To attain optimal level in one element is to give in to sub-optimality in another. For example, the German tank Leopold has heavy armour but is not all that maneuverable. The American Abrams is focused on fire-power. The Israeli Merkava IV has fast maneuverability.

Arjun 2 would be unique when compared among these top 3.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 20 Jul 2012 09:51

Surya wrote:cross posting from the Multi media forum

who needs RTI
Defence Line - Army's Battle With Arjun - 23 June 2012 - Part 1
Defence Line - Army's Battle With Arjun - 23 June 2012 - Part 2
will give a bit of time for it to sink in

Naughty boy...could not resist, hain!!!

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 20 Jul 2012 10:02

Naughty boy...could not resist, hain!!!

Ha ji

When MTBF turns out to be not ordering\building stocks - one does tend to get naughty

To attain optimal level in one element is to give in to sub-optimality in another. For example, the German tank Leopold has heavy armour but is not all that maneuverable. The American Abrams is focused on fire-power. The Israeli Merkava IV has fast maneuverability.

copy paste can get things wrong.Leopard 2 is not manoeuvrable is right up alongside Leopard 2 is outdated and has a boxy turret.

The Germans read\remeber their history unlike us

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Jul 2012 15:20

Surya wrote:Defence Line - Army's Battle With Arjun - 23 June 2012 - Part 1

Defence Line - Army's Battle With Arjun - 23 June 2012 - Part 2

Very Nice and Informative Discussion

nash · Post by **nash** » 20 Jul 2012 15:38

Lines like "Problem is not with the capability ...." and many others are like music to ears...
Also the discussion is very much like we have in BR.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 21 Jul 2012 01:51

They did talk about the APFSDS penetration poorer than the T-series. That should be a bit of a worry ?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Jul 2012 02:10

A worry only if you are in a time machine!
The Arjun FSAPDS actually performs lower than the latest FSAPDS for the 125mm smoothbore, and matches the previous rounds we were using. Not bad for a round originally designed in the late 90's and put into production in early 2000's.

Today, DRDO has better tech for both the penetrator and the propellant.

They have designed and manufactured a new Mk2 round for the 125mm which matches the Israeli rounds we currently use on the T-90s and T-72s and which is currently in trials.

Net, they can field a round on their own, which far outperforms the decade+ old round on the current Arjun.

A new FSAPDS round is part of the loadout for the Arjun MK2 as well. Check point 5.

From Ajai Shukla's blog
Upcoming modifications on the Arjun Mark II

1. Missile firing capability
2. Commander’s TI panoramic sight Mk II
3. Driver’s uncooled thermal imaging night sight
4. Additional ammunition (don’t ask… won’t tell!)
5. Enhanced ammunition penetrator
6. Effective alternative to muzzle reference sight (MRS)
7. Resin-based CCC
8. Ten-round containerised bin
9. Explosive reactive armour panels
10. Infra-red/Thermal imaging resistant paint
11. Air defence weapon remote firing
12. ALWCS (advanced laser warning and countermeasure system)
13. Roof mounted driver’s seat
14. ATT in GMS (gunner’s main sight)
15. Advanced land navigation system
16. New final drive with increased reduction ratio
17. Advanced running gear system
18. New track system
19. Mine plough

Check points 4 as well.

Interesting thing is that there are several firms who can work with DRDO to make state of the art, leading edge rounds, if the organization so chooses. Even if it didn't choose these firms, and looked within, it does have the tech to match what is on the T- tanks and likely, even better them.

Since one of the crucial problems with the T tanks is that they can't field true long rounds, the growth potential in the Arjun is more.

However, lets compare current rounds. The Arjun's current round features a comparatively short dart (with lower l:d ratio)
But...Arjun unitary round design allows for more propellant as well.

Approx ~8.3kg in Arjun round (http://ofb.gov.in/products/data/ammunition/lc/23.htm)
Around 7.2- 7.4 kg in 125mm round (http://ofb.gov.in/products/data/ammunition/lc/26.htm)
(Propellant weight is a fraction of the overall cartridge weight; rest is obturator cap and cellulose casing)

Current Israeli round (which was then banned under corruption investigation) is at 20 l:d (http://ofb.gov.in/products/data/ammunition/lc/37.htm)
This is the same as DRDO MK2 round (http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/8168/scan0078q.jpg)

Note that MK1 125mm round (developed at the same time as Arjun MK1 round) was at 14:1 L:D which DRDO has now improved to 20:1.

Net, DRDO has the technology and ability to develop a new Arjun round with far better performance. It can field both improved penetrator matching current Israeli round and also, with possibly more propellant to boot.

As to why they didnt do a new round earlier, simple - what was the point of jumping through the hoop of developing an entirely new round, when the Army was yet to induct even the first 124 tanks and give a clearance for its baseline weapons system (including the gun and FCS, plus round). Now that has been accepted, as part of the MK2, a new round is clearly being developed.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 21 Jul 2012 06:16

Karan M,
Thank you sir