Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
The Tank will never be accepted by IA unless for garbage pickup duties. Simple reason - decades long relations with one vendor. There is no politics involved!
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Its all in metallurgy and material science in which our manufacturing knowledge is immaterial to say the least.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
No it's not!pentaiah wrote:Its all in metallurgy and material science in which our manufacturing knowledge is immaterial to say the least.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
For better understanding of the series that began on my blog about canal based defenses in Pakistan, I've written an article on the military balance and potential offensive scenario (for India) in South Punjab-Sindh region. I've used the Mid-2002 deployment of IA (during Parakram) in Rajasthan Sector as an indicator of potential strike options.
In context of Arjun deployment, we can see that there is a vast tract of area south of Sri Ganganagar which can accommodate Arjun tanks even if we take the 10M MLC-70 class bridge argument at face value.
Here is the link: http://vatsrohit.blogspot.in/2012/08/st ... b-and.html
Any and all criticisms and feedback are welcome.
In context of Arjun deployment, we can see that there is a vast tract of area south of Sri Ganganagar which can accommodate Arjun tanks even if we take the 10M MLC-70 class bridge argument at face value.
Here is the link: http://vatsrohit.blogspot.in/2012/08/st ... b-and.html
Any and all criticisms and feedback are welcome.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
so what it is that made that decade long relations?Vivek K wrote:The Tank will never be accepted by IA unless for garbage pickup duties. Simple reason - decades long relations with one vendor. There is no politics involved!
and you all should know there is no fat pack middlemen when we deal with Arjuns.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
I would not be that bold Saik,while the chances are certainly lesser,there is a lot of firang components in Arjun starting with the engine,thermal imagers,etc.If you go the Tatra route too with sourcing off material and components,a clever dick can push up prices.The stark fact is that if our politico-babu nexus want to skim the cream off any deal,they will do it whether it is a foreign product or local.Why are they so protective of production by PSUs? Patriotism? When you see how easily it is to pad prices when sourcing simple things like canteen items,imagine the scope for sourcing raw materials and simple components! The Q is which lobby is stronger,the crooked foreign interest lobby or crooked desi-production lobby (where there is also a goodly content of firang components,special steels,etc., to be imported).
I think that we should keep on examining the "weight" issue/excuse that has been plastered on Arjun.Some of the main reasons for its limited acquisition are weight,transportation,mobility difficulties in certain terrain,and uncertain logistic support because of small numbers in service (chicken and egg!) .I there could be a graph comparing it with other western heavies it would help.To my mind,the key point is the IA's armoured warfare doctrine,fighting with a smaller lighter 3-man crewed tank,which would also cost less against a heavier 4-man crewed tank.However,the smaller tank would have to perform no less than the heavier tank in terms of accuracy of its main gun,quality of armour protection,mobility,etc.,the advantage being gained because of an auto-loader.This beggars the Q,given the IA's predeliction for a 3-man crewed MBT,whether the DRDO/CVRDE tried developing an auto-loader for Arjun,which if successful,would certainly bring down the weight and size of the tank.A 3-man tank based upon the success of Arjun tech would be a very interesting and attractive product,and the basis for the FMBT.
I think that we should keep on examining the "weight" issue/excuse that has been plastered on Arjun.Some of the main reasons for its limited acquisition are weight,transportation,mobility difficulties in certain terrain,and uncertain logistic support because of small numbers in service (chicken and egg!) .I there could be a graph comparing it with other western heavies it would help.To my mind,the key point is the IA's armoured warfare doctrine,fighting with a smaller lighter 3-man crewed tank,which would also cost less against a heavier 4-man crewed tank.However,the smaller tank would have to perform no less than the heavier tank in terms of accuracy of its main gun,quality of armour protection,mobility,etc.,the advantage being gained because of an auto-loader.This beggars the Q,given the IA's predeliction for a 3-man crewed MBT,whether the DRDO/CVRDE tried developing an auto-loader for Arjun,which if successful,would certainly bring down the weight and size of the tank.A 3-man tank based upon the success of Arjun tech would be a very interesting and attractive product,and the basis for the FMBT.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Okay, let me put this way.. We have an agreement to maintain that % ratio [or ration] to those clouts to sell Arjun parts making up the food for the import brains, and the fat packs. Now, still there would be hassles in the sense, it might not be from this nation or that, etc.. or else, CAG notice to those entities.
Now, once proven that the chickens did arrive from firang, and the firang brains are satisfied, what is stopping? It may not be just firang only arguments... much more. and that is where the fat packs get in, and satisfy the equation, leading to such conclusions.
Had it been already 1000 Arjun order placement guaranteed.. I'll shut da f up.
Now, once proven that the chickens did arrive from firang, and the firang brains are satisfied, what is stopping? It may not be just firang only arguments... much more. and that is where the fat packs get in, and satisfy the equation, leading to such conclusions.
Had it been already 1000 Arjun order placement guaranteed.. I'll shut da f up.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
This post is relating to the requirement of MLC 70 bridge and related civilian infrastructure.
I recall an interview of an PWD minister of Maharashtra( late 90s), who stated the he did away the requirement of building bridges in the MLC 70 class, In order to speed up infra development. His rational was that the IA did not have tank in that category. This was in the late 90s.
The question based on my memory is, did the PWD of other states also had a similar requirement when it came to the construction of civilians bridges. If yes then when was that requirement waived off.
People associated with the PWD, will be best able to answer this question.
I recall an interview of an PWD minister of Maharashtra( late 90s), who stated the he did away the requirement of building bridges in the MLC 70 class, In order to speed up infra development. His rational was that the IA did not have tank in that category. This was in the late 90s.
The question based on my memory is, did the PWD of other states also had a similar requirement when it came to the construction of civilians bridges. If yes then when was that requirement waived off.
People associated with the PWD, will be best able to answer this question.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 265
- Joined: 05 Dec 2008 22:23
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Guys hurry up....open tv and watch special report on drdo....hurry its runnin now on discovery
Last edited by keshavchandra on 25 Aug 2012 18:20, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
TV says induction of more Pinaka suffering due to tatra scam and stoppage of tatra assembly in BEML.
army has requested to MOD to sort out the tatra mess and get production restarted by BEML.
army has requested to MOD to sort out the tatra mess and get production restarted by BEML.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Discovery program has bits and pieces of info... but it appears to my novice knowledge that Arjun has digital display layout.. except secondary sight. cool look... and the level of sophistication of the Arjun simulator is something to recon with.. a marvelous achievement. And discovery documentary claims that till 1995 (or may be 90 ) specifications keep changing... the disappointing fact is there is no perspective or comments from Army is recorded... ....
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Specs can change and that is a healthy sign.. but once delivered, then they can't change the spec but could perhaps ask for modification for the next phase if that is not a defect but an add on feature or something makes it better. Tranche based development model is ideal for IA-DRDO.
It is important that they sooner and not later to get into an agreement of minimum purchase of each tranches.. of course all tranches can be upgraded. one could see the business generation here.. and who would be trying oppose such a move?
firang clout onlee.
It is important that they sooner and not later to get into an agreement of minimum purchase of each tranches.. of course all tranches can be upgraded. one could see the business generation here.. and who would be trying oppose such a move?
firang clout onlee.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
If weight cannot be lowered, then a wheeled 2 crew + 2 passengers can be considered; along with; long ranged missile capable 260 mm smoothbore gun/launcher. Perhaps the width can be changed to fit broad gauge track through more length.Philip wrote: Some of the main reasons for its limited acquisition are weight,transportation,mobility difficulties in certain terrain,and uncertain logistic support because of small numbers in service (chicken and egg!) .I there could be a graph comparing it with other western heavies it would help.To my mind,the key point is the IA's armoured warfare doctrine,fighting with a smaller lighter 3-man crewed tank,which would also cost less against a heavier 4-man crewed tank.However,the smaller tank would have to perform no less than the heavier tank in terms of accuracy of its main gun,quality of armour protection,mobility,etc.,the advantage being gained because of an auto-loader.This beggars the Q,given the IA's predeliction for a 3-man crewed MBT,whether the DRDO/CVRDE tried developing an auto-loader for Arjun,which if successful,would certainly bring down the weight and size of the tank.A 3-man tank based upon the success of Arjun tech would be a very interesting and attractive product,and the basis for the FMBT.
Transportation difficulties are not more difficult than were for the Conquerer series, assuming weight is 65-57 tonnes. Airpower might resolve issue better.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
someone needs to put a summary for rest of us.....
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
IA's needs are in a quandary!
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Here is second round of analysis about Defense Canals in South Punjab and Sindh covering the RYK Area.
http://vatsrohit.blogspot.in/2012/08/ca ... ab-ii.html
http://vatsrohit.blogspot.in/2012/08/ca ... ab-ii.html
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Japanese have developed the Type-10 Tank which almost has everything Army wants from FMBT and still weighs 48 tonns only. They are about to begine the production of the above tank.
It has a Autoloader with 3 member crew and a 120 MM Smoothbore gun. If DRDO can produce a Arjun varient similar to type-10 we could replace the whole fleet with this hi/Low mix of Arjun and new Tank.
It has a Autoloader with 3 member crew and a 120 MM Smoothbore gun. If DRDO can produce a Arjun varient similar to type-10 we could replace the whole fleet with this hi/Low mix of Arjun and new Tank.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Katare wrote:No it's not!pentaiah wrote:Its all in metallurgy and material science in which our manufacturing knowledge is immaterial to say the least.
It is to a large extent.Dont think many youngesters consider or even know of metallurgy as a career. To think that once, in ancient times , India forged some of the best metal.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 613
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Arjun Mk-2 is certainly a better tank, the mine plough, new tracks, porposed new engine, active protection system and amor make it a step ahead of the Type-10.
I think T-72 should be quickly replaced by the Anders, If we purchase this with full-tot, we can have around 2000+ of these light weight tanks made in India at a decent price.
Anders is a nice light tank which can between 30 to 45 T depending on the variant.
http://www.google.be/imgres?q=anders+ta ... ,s:0,i:110
Anti-Aircraft vehicle, Mobile Radar vehicle
with Automated turret, Command vehicle
Engineering vehicle, w rocket artillery
Infantry Fighting Vehicle, with mine flail
It can carry 32 rounds, 3 crew and another 4 shock troops who can act as the tank's human protection units. A tank regiment I believe should always have shock troops protecting them against enemy anti tank units. Armed with semi auto snipers, rifles, LMGs, and Manpads to shoot down any incoming helos or anti tank air. Each Anders can carry it's human protection into battle. A regiment of 50 tanks will have a total of 200 shock troops to protect them, which is terrible force for any one to deal with.
It is also light enough to load 2 of these onto the c-17.
I think T-72 should be quickly replaced by the Anders, If we purchase this with full-tot, we can have around 2000+ of these light weight tanks made in India at a decent price.
Anders is a nice light tank which can between 30 to 45 T depending on the variant.
http://www.google.be/imgres?q=anders+ta ... ,s:0,i:110
Anti-Aircraft vehicle, Mobile Radar vehicle
with Automated turret, Command vehicle
Engineering vehicle, w rocket artillery
Infantry Fighting Vehicle, with mine flail
It can carry 32 rounds, 3 crew and another 4 shock troops who can act as the tank's human protection units. A tank regiment I believe should always have shock troops protecting them against enemy anti tank units. Armed with semi auto snipers, rifles, LMGs, and Manpads to shoot down any incoming helos or anti tank air. Each Anders can carry it's human protection into battle. A regiment of 50 tanks will have a total of 200 shock troops to protect them, which is terrible force for any one to deal with.
It is also light enough to load 2 of these onto the c-17.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
I could not see how the above mentioned items make Arjun MK-2 Superior. Any way We are not comparing Arjun MK2 with Type-10. They had also Type-90 which was also similar to Arjun MK1, Leopard but they have suceeded in reducing the weight to 48 tonns. May be DRDO can take this tank as a case study while developing the FMBT.Septimus P. wrote:Arjun Mk-2 is certainly a better tank, the mine plough, new tracks, porposed new engine, active protection system and amor make it a step ahead of the Type-10.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Depends on your definition of better but in terms of technology Type 10 is currently the most advanced tank out there (instrument panels/electronics , engine and armor) and the price justifies it over $ 12 million unit cost. IMO it should serve as blue print of what our own future MBT should be. But you know my views i don't think MBT have a place in wars of the future...Septimus P. wrote:Arjun Mk-2 is certainly a better tank, the mine plough, new tracks, porposed new engine, active protection system and amor make it a step ahead of the Type-10.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Photo-essay on Indian Canal crossing operations:
http://vatsrohit.blogspot.in/2012/08/in ... tions.html
http://vatsrohit.blogspot.in/2012/08/in ... tions.html
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Watch the BBC's Top Gear lilliput,Richard Hammond in his new series "Crash Course".It features him experiencing an M-1 training as driver,commander,and gunner.Some of the ergonomic detailing in the M-1 needs to be redesigned A great insight into the M-1.One wishes that a similar feature is done on the Arjun.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Tracer fire by Arjun MBT's.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
i would agree with that, MBT''s will not be a part of future land warfare (at least not in its current form) with a 3 man tank crew and relatively heavy elephants which would make easy pickings for UCAV's and increasingly sophisticated portable ATGM's. in the long term we have to look at unmanned solutions which are lighter and capable of operating in all terrains , even if firepower is somewhat sacrificed.John wrote:Depends on your definition of better but in terms of technology Type 10 is currently the most advanced tank out there (instrument panels/electronics , engine and armor) and the price justifies it over $ 12 million unit cost. IMO it should serve as blue print of what our own future MBT should be. But you know my views i don't think MBT have a place in wars of the future...Septimus P. wrote:Arjun Mk-2 is certainly a better tank, the mine plough, new tracks, porposed new engine, active protection system and amor make it a step ahead of the Type-10.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 348
- Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Nope, these are BMPsuddu wrote: Tracer fire by Arjun MBT's.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
http://i.imgur.com/nDFZj.jpg
one of the cool pics from mil photos place.
one of the cool pics from mil photos place.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
thanks Saik
its gorgeous
which thread in mil photos?
its gorgeous
which thread in mil photos?
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
DRDO episode on ARJUN MBT- INSIDE OUT on Discovery Channel on 8th September- Saturday at 1800 hr, 13th September- Thursday at 0900 hr and 22nd September- Saturday at 1800 hr.
Can somebody record and post on youtube
TIA
Can somebody record and post on youtube
TIA
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
^that would be nice. yes.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
+1 pretty please
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
second that..would be great if someone could record that. A Sharma, thanks for bringing it to our notice.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Unless of course someone develops these - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_(tank)i would agree with that, MBT''s will not be a part of future land warfare (at least not in its current form) with a 3 man tank crew and relatively heavy elephants which would make easy pickings for UCAV's and increasingly sophisticated portable ATGM's. in the long term we have to look at unmanned solutions which are lighter and capable of operating in all terrains , even if firepower is somewhat sacrificed.
You can check out some stories involving Bolos at
http://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/20-T ... /index.htm
http://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/20-T ... /index.htm
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
In continuation of previous post on my blog (Indian Army-Canal Crossing Operations), Part-II covering the bridging equipment of the army. There are also couple of excellent videos of river crossing exercise by Russian Army.
http://vatsrohit.blogspot.in/2012/09/in ... on-ii.html
The topic is something I've studied for the first time while putting together the above post. So, please, if anyone has more information or if any aspect of details covered by me is wrong/out-dated, please feel free to give your feedback here on BRF or in comments section. This way, we can build a single repository of information on the subject.
http://vatsrohit.blogspot.in/2012/09/in ... on-ii.html
The topic is something I've studied for the first time while putting together the above post. So, please, if anyone has more information or if any aspect of details covered by me is wrong/out-dated, please feel free to give your feedback here on BRF or in comments section. This way, we can build a single repository of information on the subject.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
A system with protection, mobility and firepower all combined into one is going to be around for a long long time to come. Be it a armoured hourse, war elephent, Tank or it a Bolo of the Sci fi novels.Hobbes wrote:Unless of course someone develops these - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_(tank)i would agree with that, MBT''s will not be a part of future land warfare (at least not in its current form) with a 3 man tank crew and relatively heavy elephants which would make easy pickings for UCAV's and increasingly sophisticated portable ATGM's. in the long term we have to look at unmanned solutions which are lighter and capable of operating in all terrains , even if firepower is somewhat sacrificed.
You can check out some stories involving Bolos at
http://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/20-T ... /index.htm
http://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/20-T ... /index.htm
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Did anyone record this on Sept 8th?A Sharma wrote:DRDO episode on ARJUN MBT- INSIDE OUT on Discovery Channel on 8th September- Saturday at 1800 hr, 13th September- Thursday at 0900 hr and 22nd September- Saturday at 1800 hr.
Can somebody record and post on youtube
TIA
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Didn't record it but did get a chance to watch it. Some of the points summarised below:
1. Overall nice presentation, nice view of tank interiors and its firing on the move capabilities
2. Excellent view of simulators
3. In the end they talked about Mk2 version and showed testing of different ERA versions against Milan ATGM warhead
All in all good.
Regards,
Khambat
1. Overall nice presentation, nice view of tank interiors and its firing on the move capabilities
2. Excellent view of simulators
3. In the end they talked about Mk2 version and showed testing of different ERA versions against Milan ATGM warhead
All in all good.
Regards,
Khambat
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
It got re-tele casted today morning...but i had to take my kid to doc so missed it