Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

member_28700
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_28700 » 14 Apr 2016 18:16

Cost concern wrt both tanks is valid and would not be able to match the T90's cost.


Obviously Arjun cannot match the costs of T-90.
Arjun is given piecemeal orders so economies of scale cannot be used. Any imported parts cannot be licence produced. Development and infrastructure costs cannot be amortized.
As for T-90, it has so many advantages to its side, their creator (Russia) supports them, their user (India) supports them, India pays for developing the barrels and making them, TIs which do not work are developed and replaced by us and ACs developed by DRDO are installed since their electronics are not hardened enough.
So, we use our tax payers money to change everything we have already paid for and say it is such a cheap tank.

No where in the world does a country bankroll another's work and gifts them with more rewards the way we do.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4825
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 14 Apr 2016 18:36

Who's counting :((

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4825
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 14 Apr 2016 18:59

vaibhav.n wrote:Sudeep,

Full fording snorkel on the T series has also to be prepared and then undertaken.

Under all combat conditions the primary capability to cross dry and wet gaps would be provided by the Bridge Laying Tanks (BLT). These are integral to an Armoured Brigade's Engineer Squadron. The domestic T-72 based BLT is MLC70, post survey a BLT can deploy the bridge in 15 mins.

Cost concern wrt both tanks is valid and would not be able to match the T90's cost. The Arjun however provides more capabilities, better mobility and survivability, that counts for a lot.

The sad part is the IA is chasing numbers to ignore the capability that Arjun brings, their thinking is very different.


It takes 20 minutes to prep a T-90 for fording.

T-90 main battle tank - Technical Data

Crossing with BLT would be a lot quicker.

nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby nelson » 14 Apr 2016 19:49

DexterM wrote:
nelson wrote:^
For full fording, 5 litre ingress was permissible for T-90. Auditor halves it to 2.5 litre ingress limit for medium fording for Arjun; and questions zero ingress limit set by IA.

Q. Is the relation between full fording( at 5 mtr depth of water) and medium fording (air intake, exhaust and barrel mouth above water ) linear?

Could you please share the relevant links for us to compare:
1. Ingress allowed at Low/Medium/Full for T-90s. Vs. the same documentation for the Arjun (MkI will do).
2. Source or proof that T-90 is compliant with 5 lts for Full fording but Arjun is not as you imply.
3. Comparison of fording results at the head to head trials.

Those who have served India with pride and honour, our salutes to you.
Let's not dilute that seva param (sarvottam uttishta) dharma.


The answers to your query lie in the same CAG Report that has been quoted, specifically noted on the page which has been quoted and the Appendix referred therein.

Arjun does not have full fording capability, but that was not the question after all. IA didn't want that capability, period. Question is how one extrapolate non-linear metrics and compare one tank versus another?

In addition, many will remember the umpteen round of discussions on this and members have agreed to disagree with popular notion here However that doesn't make anyone here a little lesser rakshak than others.
Last edited by nelson on 14 Apr 2016 19:51, edited 1 time in total.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1901
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby sudeepj » 14 Apr 2016 19:50

Vivek, you need to tone down the hostility and the adjectives. If you cant, it would be best if you directed your posts at someone else. Calling me names is not going to bring about the Arjun in the numbers we would like.

I am simply trying to understand the reasons why people who are obviously experts in their field prefer the T90 over the Arjun. Now, I have never seen an Indian Tank with a snorkel, either the T90 or the Arjun. So perhaps, this is not an advantage at all. And yes, before such a crossing is made, engineers or commandos would have to survey the crossing point and not botch it up. Such surveys were also carried out by British commandos before the D-Day landings, to search for beaches that could actually take the weight of armor.

Indranil asked, if there were bridges on the Pak side that were in the precise weight class that would take a T series tank but not a Western heavy. I think, those bridges can definitely take a T series tank because Pak needs to ferry their armor over the same bridges. Whether they can take a Western tank, I don't know. But its not as if this information is super secret or classified.. Every bridge should have some signage saying the weight it can take. Only the Paks and the Indian army would have a compilation of this data, and they are not talking. :-)

btw. for people who have seen the MKII beast at close ranges, are the storage bins on the sides of the rear turret covered with ERA now? They do have an angular shape now which suggests at least spaced armor, while the earlier version looked like it was thin sheet metal.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1901
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby sudeepj » 14 Apr 2016 20:01

vaibhav.n wrote:Sudeep,

Full fording snorkel on the T series has also to be prepared and then undertaken.

Under all combat conditions the primary capability to cross dry and wet gaps would be provided by the Bridge Laying Tanks (BLT). These are integral to an Armoured Brigade's Engineer Squadron. The domestic T-72 based BLT is MLC70, post survey a BLT can deploy the bridge in 15 mins.

Cost concern wrt both tanks is valid and would not be able to match the T90's cost. The Arjun however provides more capabilities, better mobility and survivability, that counts for a lot.

The sad part is the IA is chasing numbers to ignore the capability that Arjun brings, their thinking is very different.


I agree with you, a T90 is absolutely a quantity over quality tank. What bothers me though is, that simple and low cost changes would make the tank a lot safer. E.g.
1. A bustle extension with blow off panels to store the rounds that are currently stored in the turret.
2. Some kind of armor around the carousal autoloader to make it resistant to spall or HEAT.

Some more non trivial changes could make it a lot more effective too..
1. An APU and an AC.
2. A slightly wider hull or redesigned autoloader so it could take longer rounds
3. Muzzle reference system.

And more comfortable..
1. The Arjun hydro-pneumatic suspension system and the rubberized tracks.

To me, it looks like these tweaks are well within the engineering capabilities of Avadi, but they haven't been tasked to make these changes. Its as if the DGMF is content with a buying relationship where they want to walk into a mall and buy some electronic gadget and does not think of design, like the Navy does. At present, the only use of Arjun tech in the T90 appears to be the Kanchan armor modules.

*And now, the Russians are selling some of these same changes as the T90MS.. And we are apparently buying!! Its a little strange.
Last edited by sudeepj on 14 Apr 2016 20:10, edited 1 time in total.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Viv S » 14 Apr 2016 20:03

sudeepj wrote:Indranil asked, if there were bridges on the Pak side that were in the precise weight class that would take a T series tank but not a Western heavy. I think, those bridges can definitely take a T series tank because Pak needs to ferry their armor over the same bridges. Whether they can take a Western tank, I don't know. But its not as if this information is super secret or classified.. Every bridge should have some signage saying the weight it can take. Only the Paks and the Indian army would have a compilation of this data, and they are not talking.

Question is, do the IA's mech experts actually expect to find Pakistani bridges intact? And assuming they happen to find such conveniently preserved bridges, do they intend to order their men to actually drive onto them?

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1901
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby sudeepj » 14 Apr 2016 20:04

Vivek K wrote:Sudeep, please go back to the comparative trials. Don't you think that a biased IA would have used this quality against the Arjun if it could? Also let me ask you this, if the Arjun beats the T-90 in medium fording, would it be any worse in "submarining"?

You have raised false issues
a) submarine qualities
b) Higher cost of Arjuns vis a vis T-90
c) Extra time for heavier bridge for Arjuns

And these are incorrect. Like Indranil stated - anything the T-90 can do, the Arjun can do it better. And since it is Indian and better, which of the two should IA buy?


I think the Arjun, but the IA doesnt care what I think. :-D

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1901
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby sudeepj » 14 Apr 2016 20:08

Viv S wrote:
sudeepj wrote:Indranil asked, if there were bridges on the Pak side that were in the precise weight class that would take a T series tank but not a Western heavy. I think, those bridges can definitely take a T series tank because Pak needs to ferry their armor over the same bridges. Whether they can take a Western tank, I don't know. But its not as if this information is super secret or classified.. Every bridge should have some signage saying the weight it can take. Only the Paks and the Indian army would have a compilation of this data, and they are not talking.

Question is, do the IA's mech experts actually expect to find Pakistani bridges intact? And assuming they happen to find such conveniently preserved bridges, do they intend to order their men to actually drive onto them?


That sort of thing does happen in combat, particularly because you need the bridges for your own forces to maneuver. There are examples in history.. E.g. at Sedan in WW II, one particular dam/bridge was not blown up because of concerns that if it were to be blown up, the water levels in the lake behind would drop so much that it would not be an obstacle anymore. Guderian (or Rommel, I dont remember who) found that one bridge, and rushed his panzers across. But for that one crossing, the French army would not have collapsed as soon as it did. No doubt, there were other areas where the Germans put up pontoon bridges and used those as well.. Then there was the Ludendorf bridge across the Rhine. Taking bridges, ports intact can shorten wars a lot and turn the fate of a campaign.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8297
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Indranil » 14 Apr 2016 22:18

nelson wrote:^
For full fording, 5 litre ingress was permissible for T-90. Auditor halves it to 2.5 litre ingress limit for medium fording for Arjun; and questions zero ingress limit set by IA.

Q. Is the relation between full fording( at 5 mtr depth of water) and medium fording (air intake, exhaust and barrel mouth above water ) linear?


Answering from just a physics point of view. It should be linear, as the only variable is water pressure. And water pressure grows linearly with depth.

DexterM
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 372
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby DexterM » 14 Apr 2016 22:52

nelson wrote:
DexterM wrote:Could you please share the relevant links for us to compare:
1. Ingress allowed at Low/Medium/Full for T-90s. Vs. the same documentation for the Arjun (MkI will do).
2. Source or proof that T-90 is compliant with 5 lts for Full fording but Arjun is not as you imply.
3. Comparison of fording results at the head to head trials.

Those who have served India with pride and honour, our salutes to you.
Let's not dilute that seva param (sarvottam uttishta) dharma.


The answers to your query lie in the same CAG Report that has been quoted, specifically noted on the page which has been quoted and the Appendix referred therein.

Arjun does not have full fording capability, but that was not the question after all. IA didn't want that capability, period. Question is how one extrapolate non-linear metrics and compare one tank versus another?

In addition, many will remember the umpteen round of discussions on this and members have agreed to disagree with popular notion here However that doesn't make anyone here a little lesser rakshak than others.

Your disagreement is with facts.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7744
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rohitvats » 16 Apr 2016 12:17

The quantity versus quality debate is not relevant IMO. For a simple reason that IA has requirement for certain number of armored regiments which then go on to make armored brigades and divisions.

IA is in fact raising/raised new armored regiments.

The biggest obstacle to Arjun induction is the familiarity with T series and the whole ecosystem which exists around it. The cost of Arjun versus T-90 is not in per unit number. But everything else required to support tanks.

From troops in armored regiments being familiar with T series to mechanics used to working on them. And engineering and EME support.

I hope IA asks for and gets new armored division in desert with the condition that it be based purely on Arjun. Every tank in the Corps should be Arjun.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19880
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 16 Apr 2016 12:20

sudeepj wrote:
vaibhav.n wrote:Sudeep,

Full fording snorkel on the T series has also to be prepared and then undertaken.

Under all combat conditions the primary capability to cross dry and wet gaps would be provided by the Bridge Laying Tanks (BLT). These are integral to an Armoured Brigade's Engineer Squadron. The domestic T-72 based BLT is MLC70, post survey a BLT can deploy the bridge in 15 mins.

Cost concern wrt both tanks is valid and would not be able to match the T90's cost. The Arjun however provides more capabilities, better mobility and survivability, that counts for a lot.

The sad part is the IA is chasing numbers to ignore the capability that Arjun brings, their thinking is very different.


I agree with you, a T90 is absolutely a quantity over quality tank. What bothers me though is, that simple and low cost changes would make the tank a lot safer. E.g.
1. A bustle extension with blow off panels to store the rounds that are currently stored in the turret.
2. Some kind of armor around the carousal autoloader to make it resistant to spall or HEAT.

Some more non trivial changes could make it a lot more effective too..
1. An APU and an AC.
2. A slightly wider hull or redesigned autoloader so it could take longer rounds
3. Muzzle reference system.

And more comfortable..
1. The Arjun hydro-pneumatic suspension system and the rubberized tracks.

To me, it looks like these tweaks are well within the engineering capabilities of Avadi, but they haven't been tasked to make these changes. Its as if the DGMF is content with a buying relationship where they want to walk into a mall and buy some electronic gadget and does not think of design, like the Navy does. At present, the only use of Arjun tech in the T90 appears to be the Kanchan armor modules.

*And now, the Russians are selling some of these same changes as the T90MS.. And we are apparently buying!! Its a little strange.


You are asking for the entire tank design to be changed, especially 2.. Avadi has a tough time making Arjun without DRDO hand holding. Good luck with getting them to make a Black Eagle.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Austin » 17 Apr 2016 10:13

TATA Motors & GDL FICV Program

Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Austin » 20 Apr 2016 12:28

ISIS militants in northern Iraq with the help of one of the previously captured ATGM Kornet-E shot down a Turkish tank M60T Sabra.


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21234
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 20 Apr 2016 17:07

Vivek,my reasoning for the IA plumping for the T series is because of commonality-spares,trg.,etc.,culture, (3-man crew vs 4) ,existing large inventory and finally cost.There is a huge amt. of firang content in Arjun from the German engine,Israeli eqpt.,etc. All open source info suggests that Arjun is costlier than a T-90.The IA's armoured doctrine appears based upon large numbers to overwhelm the enemy as well as factoring in losses too in the current context of wars being fought due to assymetric warfare. It therefore wants as many MBTs as it can get. Neverthelsss,in order to shape the reqs for the FMBT,the GOI would be well advised to order sev hundred of Arjun MK-2s which have proven themselves in endless tests and use both MBTs complementary ,T-series where Arjun is less effective due to lesser mobility due to terrain (one excuse) and Arjun instead of the T-series in terrain where it scores better and can be supported easily by the logistic train. This also requires much maligned OFB and Avadi to improve their act. Using T-90s in the mountains and replacing the units with Arjuns (above post) is a good idea .

Money is scarce or is it not,with the massively expensive Rafale deal? By this yardstick there should be no excuse for not ordering Arjun on the cost front! If cost is a factor,then the IA should lobby against the Rafale deal using the same argument.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1901
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby sudeepj » 20 Apr 2016 20:17

Karan M wrote:
sudeepj wrote:I agree with you, a T90 is absolutely a quantity over quality tank. What bothers me though is, that simple and low cost changes would make the tank a lot safer. E.g.
1. A bustle extension with blow off panels to store the rounds that are currently stored in the turret.
2. Some kind of armor around the carousal autoloader to make it resistant to spall or HEAT.

Some more non trivial changes could make it a lot more effective too..
1. An APU and an AC.
2. A slightly wider hull or redesigned autoloader so it could take longer rounds
3. Muzzle reference system.

And more comfortable..
1. The Arjun hydro-pneumatic suspension system and the rubberized tracks.

To me, it looks like these tweaks are well within the engineering capabilities of Avadi, but they haven't been tasked to make these changes. Its as if the DGMF is content with a buying relationship where they want to walk into a mall and buy some electronic gadget and does not think of design, like the Navy does. At present, the only use of Arjun tech in the T90 appears to be the Kanchan armor modules.

*And now, the Russians are selling some of these same changes as the T90MS.. And we are apparently buying!! Its a little strange.


You are asking for the entire tank design to be changed, especially 2.. Avadi has a tough time making Arjun without DRDO hand holding. Good luck with getting them to make a Black Eagle.


I beg to differ.. using the same engine, same transmission, same general layout, track system, gun, gms, but adding a bustle, or an inch of armor around the autoloader perhaps a new suspension is not a new tank but at best an evolutionary upgrade. No new technology needed..

The issues with the autoloader have long been known.. At least I have been reading about it for 10 years now.. Why didnt the DGMF push for at least some of the changes that would have made the T90 a vastly safer and more effective tank? Instead, we have the DRDO pushing in the Arjun track and the DGMF pushing in the T90 track and the resultant, less than satisfactory picture.

To me, it almost seems that the DRDO has been sent on successive wild goose chases in bad faith.. Which is a complete wastage of engineering and scientific resources that we have.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1635
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 20 Apr 2016 20:23

Re Arjun use, Southern Command is the best theatre for it. 21 Corps and 12 Corps can be fully Arjun based. Thats what 12 Armoured Regts at least ? But it will be more expensive than the T90 and support system like transporters, spares etc will be needed. But the govt can take a call and hike the budget.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2788
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Prem Kumar » 20 Apr 2016 20:29

To sudeepj's point. Though I hear your viewpoint, I want to make a point about the difference in attitude between DRDO & IA:

1) Should engineering talent be used to design & build "complete systems" with COTS/imported parts that make up the system? Over time gradually indigenize the components where feasible

2) Should engineering talent be used to become the "component maker" that will fit into other people's complete systems?

The biggest value add is in the creation of "complete systems" - you control the branding/marketing of your product. You gain 10X more valuable engineering lessons than being just a "component manufacturer". That's why Nike pockets so much money, while the Hondurans who make those shoes earn pennies.

Component manufacture can be an initial baby-step but the final goal should be towards system design. Especially for a country with India's size, clout & ambitions. The Naval Design bureau is a great example of (1).

Its a shame that the DRDO is demonstrating a world-class, complete system design, but the IA is button-holing them into a component-manufacturer role. No engineer worth his salt will accept this sort of disgrace. The good ones will either leave or just pass time, being demoralized.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2115
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Picklu » 20 Apr 2016 20:56

sudeepj wrote:
I beg to differ.. using the same engine, same transmission, same general layout, track system, gun, gms, but adding a bustle, or an inch of armor around the autoloader perhaps a new suspension is not a new tank but at best an evolutionary upgrade. No new technology needed..

The issues with the autoloader have long been known.. At least I have been reading about it for 10 years now.. Why didnt the DGMF push for at least some of the changes that would have made the T90 a vastly safer and more effective tank? Instead, we have the DRDO pushing in the Arjun track and the DGMF pushing in the T90 track and the resultant, less than satisfactory picture.

To me, it almost seems that the DRDO has been sent on successive wild goose chases in bad faith.. Which is a complete wastage of engineering and scientific resources that we have.


Let me turn the q around. If it was so easy, what is stopping the Russians to do the same? None of the deficiencies are environment related, all are performance related like safety and more firepower etc so equally applicable to ruskis and injuns. Then why not?

Now, you may beg to differ but to me the answer is simple. The T90 line is at the deadend of its evolution i.e. a marginal positive in one aspect is going to cause a mighty large negetive in others given the current state of the art at the price point.

The only way things can improve is by a new design from scratch and that is what the ruskis themselve did via armata. So did the injuns via Arjun, but only a decade ahead of the ruskies.

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby vaibhav.n » 20 Apr 2016 20:59

Next time when you scratch your heads over the confidence of the Armoured Corps in the T-90, do well to remember their dictum.....

The Armoured Corps, successor to the erstwhile cavalry, retains the elan of the horse borne warrior of old, along with that infuriatingly languid air of confidence, of never being seen as perturbed in public. This is a necessity and not a facade. —Indian Army Armoured Corps

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1901
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby sudeepj » 20 Apr 2016 21:15

Picklu wrote:
sudeepj wrote:
I beg to differ.. using the same engine, same transmission, same general layout, track system, gun, gms, but adding a bustle, or an inch of armor around the autoloader perhaps a new suspension is not a new tank but at best an evolutionary upgrade. No new technology needed..

The issues with the autoloader have long been known.. At least I have been reading about it for 10 years now.. Why didnt the DGMF push for at least some of the changes that would have made the T90 a vastly safer and more effective tank? Instead, we have the DRDO pushing in the Arjun track and the DGMF pushing in the T90 track and the resultant, less than satisfactory picture.

To me, it almost seems that the DRDO has been sent on successive wild goose chases in bad faith.. Which is a complete wastage of engineering and scientific resources that we have.


Let me turn the q around. If it was so easy, what is stopping the Russians to do the same? None of the deficiencies are environment related, all are performance related like safety and more firepower etc so equally applicable to ruskis and injuns. Then why not?

Now, you may beg to differ but to me the answer is simple. The T90 line is at the deadend of its evolution i.e. a marginal positive in one aspect is going to cause a mighty large negetive in others given the current state of the art at the price point.

The only way things can improve is by a new design from scratch and that is what the ruskis themselve did via armata. So did the injuns via Arjun, but only a decade ahead of the ruskies.


But they are!! The T90MS has at least some of these things incorporated. The lose rounds in the hull and turret are moved to a new bustle and they claim they have put new armor around the autoloader.. New APU..

At some point, it becomes 'the tank of theseus' .. But at least some of these improvements could have been done in-house on our now vast inventory of T90s.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2115
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Picklu » 20 Apr 2016 21:19

^^Yes but at what cost of performance in the other areas? We don't know.

Now that cost coming from Ruskies may be accepted by IA but if done by DRDO?

They are already asking all the improvements of Arjun mk2 within the weight limit of mk1 :eek:

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1901
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby sudeepj » 20 Apr 2016 21:32

Picklu wrote:^^Yes but at what cost of performance in the other areas? We don't know.


It appears that it is a bit heavier but they have also uprated the engine. Ground pressure likely goes up. Other than that, I can't see any significant hit to performance. APU can only add to the potential of the tank. The autoloader still imposes the short length APFSDS.. And they still have the barrel spanning fins, so lots of drag.

Picklu wrote:Now that cost coming from Ruskies may be accepted by IA but if done by DRDO?

They are already asking all the improvements of Arjun mk2 within the weight limit of mk1 :eek:


Exactly! Which is why, to me it appears that DGMF is acting in bad faith, which is infuriating!! If T90 type was what they wanted, why didnt they make **any effort** to improve upon that flawed and unsafe tank! The only change I can see is Indian made ERA bricks atop the turret.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2115
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Picklu » 20 Apr 2016 21:41

And I am commenting about the same bad faith. Had DRDO done any improvement to t series, IA would still berate the same pointing out the trade offs. Similar trade offs coming from ruskies would have been accepted. Otherwise what is t90 if not some basic upgrades of t72 with added weight?

Any uprate in the engine would mean lesser range unless a completely new gen engine with better fuel economy and unfortunately engine tech remains the weakest link for entire Indian automobile sector, so very little chance of DRDO to succeed.

So, DRDO bosses thought it is better to create a new one from scratch completely over matching the current champion. And personally, I agree with their wisdom.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1901
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby sudeepj » 20 Apr 2016 21:47

Picklu wrote:And I am commenting about the same bad faith. Had DRDO done any improvement to t series, IA would still berate the same pointing out the trade offs. Similar trade offs coming from ruskies would have been accepted. Otherwise what is t90 if not some basic upgrades of t72 with added weight?


Unfortunately, what you are saying has a lot of truth to it. :-(

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19880
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 20 Apr 2016 22:03

sudeepj wrote:I beg to differ.. using the same engine, same transmission, same general layout, track system, gun, gms, but adding a bustle, or an inch of armor around the autoloader perhaps a new suspension is not a new tank but at best an evolutionary upgrade. No new technology needed..


It doesn't work like that because the T-90 is Russian IPR. You cannot mess around with it without their say so. So, you will have to replace all key systems otherwise and make a new tank on the same lines. We did a T-72 Upg but Russia was sort of ok because they were still getting us the T-90. Of late they have become much more pushy..

The issues with the autoloader have long been known.. At least I have been reading about it for 10 years now.. Why didnt the DGMF push for at least some of the changes that would have made the T90 a vastly safer and more effective tank? Instead, we have the DRDO pushing in the Arjun track and the DGMF pushing in the T90 track and the resultant, less than satisfactory picture.


What issues with the autoloader? You mean you want a new one to be bustle mounted? That's a very significant redesign - again, Black Eagle, Leclerc come to mind. T-90 MS retains autoloader & moves spare rounds to bustle.

To me, it almost seems that the DRDO has been sent on successive wild goose chases in bad faith.. Which is a complete wastage of engineering and scientific resources that we have.


Arjun is to a degree a wild goose chase.. but we are learning along the way. Fingers crossed for FMBT.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19880
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 20 Apr 2016 22:06

sudeepj wrote:But they are!! The T90MS has at least some of these things incorporated. The lose rounds in the hull and turret are moved to a new bustle and they claim they have put new armor around the autoloader.. New APU..

At some point, it becomes 'the tank of theseus' .. But at least some of these improvements could have been done in-house on our now vast inventory of T90s.


The T-90MS moving lose rounds to the bustle is a bad idea, period - a stop gap arrangement if you will, unless you can access those rounds from within the armour and don't have to go outside. The IA tank has to be capable of extended buttoned up ops, with limited resupply.

Also, the t-series tanks can't be fired w/manual reloading as i recall. You have to load up the A/L and then index it and use it.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Gyan » 21 Apr 2016 16:25

Army will never let indigenous tank production take place in India. It seems when GSQRs for FMBT were asked the indicated features by them were 40 ton tank with 4 men crew and "all round" protection. The idea is to make it impossible for DRDO. Army killed Air Defense Gun Project and doing Arjun on lot of other projects like Nag missile.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1901
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby sudeepj » 22 Apr 2016 21:36

Karan M wrote:
sudeepj wrote:I beg to differ.. using the same engine, same transmission, same general layout, track system, gun, gms, but adding a bustle, or an inch of armor around the autoloader perhaps a new suspension is not a new tank but at best an evolutionary upgrade. No new technology needed..


It doesn't work like that because the T-90 is Russian IPR. You cannot mess around with it without their say so. So, you will have to replace all key systems otherwise and make a new tank on the same lines. We did a T-72 Upg but Russia was sort of ok because they were still getting us the T-90. Of late they have become much more pushy..


This is the part I dont understand.. Presumably, we are already paying for their IP when we produce the tank. Will they really complain if we replace the torsion bars by the Arjun hydro-pneumatic suspension? Or cut out the plates at the back of the turret and attach a bustle? This business is really murky so we dont really know, but as their biggest customers, we aught to have at least some leverage!

sudeepj wrote:
karanm wrote:The issues with the autoloader have long been known.. At least I have been reading about it for 10 years now.. Why didnt the DGMF push for at least some of the changes that would have made the T90 a vastly safer and more effective tank? Instead, we have the DRDO pushing in the Arjun track and the DGMF pushing in the T90 track and the resultant, less than satisfactory picture.


What issues with the autoloader? You mean you want a new one to be bustle mounted? That's a very significant redesign - again, Black Eagle, Leclerc come to mind. T-90 MS retains autoloader & moves spare rounds to bustle.


Short rounds and potential to blow up in case of a turret or hull penetration.

Karan M wrote:
To me, it almost seems that the DRDO has been sent on successive wild goose chases in bad faith.. Which is a complete wastage of engineering and scientific resources that we have.


Arjun is to a degree a wild goose chase.. but we are learning along the way. Fingers crossed for FMBT.


The DRDO appears to be learning, but the DGMF.. :-(

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9647
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby brar_w » 30 Apr 2016 00:06

Austin wrote:ISIS militants in northern Iraq with the help of one of the previously captured ATGM Kornet-E shot down a Turkish tank M60T Sabra.

]


Turkish tank survives Kornet missile strike

A Turkish M60T - a version of the US-made tank upgraded by Israeli Military Industries (IMI) - has apparently survived being hit by the latest Russian man-portable anti-tank guided weapon (ATGW) system.

The attack was seen in a video released by the Islamic State militant group on 19 April and showed a man firing a 9K129 Kornet ATGW towards a tank on a hilltop position. The missile hit its target, but the tank was not seen exploding or burning.

The Islamic State said the target was a Turkish tank deployed to Bashiqah, 30 km to the northeast of Mosul city in northern Iraq. The Turkish military presence at Bashiqah and several other locations in Iraq was revealed in December 2015, prompting Baghdad to demand that Turkey withdraw all its troops from its territory.

Ankara ignored the demand, stating that the base at Bashiqah had been established to train a militia to help expel the Islamic State from Mosul.
Later on 19 April, Turkey's Anadolu Agency reported a military source as saying that the Islamic State carried out an attack on a M60 tank at Bashiqah. The source said the tank had been slightly damaged and there were no casualties in the camp. Turkish forces returned fire, killing 32 Islamic State fighters, the source said.

A photograph emerged on social media purportedly showing the tank that was hit in the attack. The tank was an M60T in a hull-down defensive position with much of the applique armour fitted to the front right side of its turret blown away. The underlying armour did not appear to have been penetrated.

The M60T is an M60A3 that has been upgraded with a 120 mm smoothbore gun, a new fire-control system, a more powerful engine and transmission, and hybrid armour (both active and passive) over its frontal arc. IMI delivered 170 M60Ts to Turkey between 2007 and 2010.

The Russian-made 9K129 Kornet can use either 9M133-series anti-tank or 9M133F-series anti-structure missiles. The video did not show the prolonged fireball and white smoke that would be caused by the thermobaric warhead on the 9M133F.

KBP, the system's manufacturer, says the 9M133 can defeat explosive reactive armour (ERA) and penetrate up to 1,200 mm of steel armour.

The apparent ability of the Israeli armour package on the M60T to defeat a Kornet missile comes after a Russian-made T-90 tank appeared to survive a TOW ATGW attack in Syria.

A Syrian rebel group released a video on 26 February showing a TOW being fired at a T-90 during fighting in Aleppo province. The tank's Shtora ATGW defence system was not activated and the missile hit the tank on the front left side of its turret. Although the tank was not seen catching fire, one member of the crew was seen climbing out of the gunner's hatch.

A photograph subsequently emerged on social media showing a T-90 with the Shtora emitter fitted to the left side of its turret hanging off, suggesting it was the tank seen being hit by the TOW in the video.

The markings seen on TOW systems used by Syrian rebels have shown they are using BGM-71E-3B missiles, which have warheads designed to defeat ERA.

The Kornet is in service with various Iraqi government and militia forces. It is possible that the missile used on 19 April was an Iranian-made version that the Islamic State captured from an Iranian-backed militia.
Armour and the ability to defeat armour have been engaged in a constant arms race since the tank's first combat use at the Battle of Flers-Courcelette 100 years ago, writes Nick de Larrinaga

It is hard to independently judge the relative effectiveness of armour and the mechanisms designed to defeat it. The continued industry reference point for armour penetration continues to be rolled homogenous armour equivalency (RHAe) even though solid sheet steel RHA has long been superseded by laminates of ceramic, composites, and other layered metals. Meanwhile, there are few pieces of information as closely guarded by nations as the performance of their armour technologies.

However, while once armour ruled supreme there has been a growing perception in recent years that anti-armour technologies have made decisive advances, prompting much speculation about the death of the tank.

This view appears to have been supported by evidence from recent conflicts during which armour has repeatedly been penetrated by anti-tank systems, be they kinetic or chemical, with even the heaviest and most modern main battle tanks suffering losses. At the same time, there has been more focus on developing active protection systems like the Shtora that can defeat anti-tank munitions before they hit armour.

This trend seems logical as armour remains bound within the practical weight and size limitations of armoured vehicles, making advances exponentially more difficult and expensive to achieve. In contrast, it is far easier to increase the size of a shaped charge to make it more powerful, add more charges to help defeat ERA, or use a 'top-attack' warhead that targets the weak armour on the roof of the tank.

The apparent survival of the Turkish M60T is of note as its frontal turret armour package appears to have saved it from what is generally regarded as one of the most potent ATGWs currently in service. Of course, the turret and frontal glacis are invariably the best protected parts of a tank. Nevertheless, the M60T's apparent survival indicates that the arms race between armour and its defeat mechanisms is much closer than recent discourse would suggest.



Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19880
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 30 Apr 2016 04:47

sudeepj wrote:This is the part I dont understand.. Presumably, we are already paying for their IP when we produce the tank. Will they really complain if we replace the torsion bars by the Arjun hydro-pneumatic suspension? Or cut out the plates at the back of the turret and attach a bustle? This business is really murky so we dont really know, but as their biggest customers, we aught to have at least some leverage!


they have all the leverage.. we have little.
t-90 spares, russia. t-72 local production? not really 100% in india.
mi-17, su-30, arihant, kilo-class, talwars, subsystems eg radars/shtil, list goes on and on and on....

sudeepj wrote:Short rounds and potential to blow up in case of a turret or hull penetration.


well, you are proposing a complete redesign. leclerc style bustle autoloader with long rounds. spare rounds in their own armour (eg merkava). entirely new turret, entirely new volume management, which may mean new powerpack.

The DRDO appears to be learning, but the DGMF.. :-(


they won't till GOI steps in. when was the last time we had somebody smart at MOD. parrikar is one such individual who can at least understand basics. but whether he can succeed against an entrenched system is another issue. how many DGMF have been involved in Arjun? one, two, three? if you track the line of folks, its an entire set up of people who were involved in T-90 fiasco. bharadwaj, shekhawat, etc -long list of names in whose best interest it is, that the arjun prodcution never take off.

fact is the entire system is set up so that every babu/n and big name wallah can suborn it.
it exists to maintain small empires like above or to shovel money into vested interests.

most services folks are also unaware of scale of rot and depth of challenge.

parrikar too, has made many big statements but time will tell whether he could get MOD to actually deliver. so far, he too seems to have been stuck in defence purchase minister mode and the congress and others have planted enough bombs with OROP, completely messed up deals like rafale, for him to navigate.

he has made some big moves on local defense after initial foot-in-the-mouth behavior with chander, and what not, but actual results will be seen if we see what happens to su-30 serviceability, to drdo programs (will the chronic underfunding be reversed over a consistent period, not just 1-2 plans), about whether indigenous big ticket programs (FICV etc) get cleared..

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Austin » 24 May 2016 08:30

Thales' boost for Make in India with thermal imagers for tanks

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 101_1.html

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21234
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 25 May 2016 18:03

Enjoy this with a shot of Stoli! :rotfl:

Ck the link for the video

Things Get Real as Russia's T-14 Armata Tanks Start Battle Tests (VIDEO)
© Sputnik/ Vladimir Astapkovich
Military & Intelligence
16:39 22.05.2016
Russia's 21st century T-14 Armata battle tanks have commenced combat tests displaying their unique features on the link for the video.


The T-14 Armata, rolled out for the first time during the 2015 Victory Parade in Moscow, brandishes a constellation of characteristics which make it an author of a new chapter in the battle tank industry.

Thanks to stealth technology, the machine is practically invisible in infrared and other spectrums. It is equipped with an active electronically scanned array (AESA, or active phased array radar, APAR) similar to the one designed for Russia's T-50 PAK FA 5th generation aircraft.

The radar and cameras are meant not only for combat against an enemy but also for reconnaissance and fire adjustment.



Locked and Loaded: T-14 Armata Tank, the Armored Pearl of Russia

© Wikipedia/ Vitaly V. Kuzmin

Locked and Loaded: T-14 Armata Tank, the Armored Pearl of Russia
10
The tank's armament includes a 125mm smoothbore cannon and a 7.62mm remote-controlled machine gun. In the future the tank can be transformed into a heavy self-propelled gun with a 152mm weapon.

But the Armata's technology stretches way beyond the T-14. The platform serves as a basis for the T-15, a heavy infantry fighting vehicle which will be augmented with a drone. A pilotless, robotic version of the tank is also envisaged. In addition, Russia intends to develop a tank support fighting vehicle dubbed the Terminator-3 using the Armata platform.

Moreover, the Koalitsiya-SV self-propelled gun is expected to be upgraded with this platform.

Deadlier Than Terminators: WATCH Russia's Unique Robotic Tank in Action
Twenty-eight vehicles are planned to be built using the Armata concept altogether.

The Armata tank's main feature is its unmanned turret. The crew of three is seated in an armored capsule in the hull's front, which is separated from the stowage area. This construction gives the crewmen a greater chance of survival if the tank's ammunition explodes.

The armored capsule, unmanned turret, an APAR radar and active defense weapons make the T-14 Armata a unique vehicle capable of intercepting all kinds of currently operational anti-tank arms. This cascade of characteristics makes the T-14 Armata nearly invincible on the battlefield.

India, China, Egypt and several other countries have queued up for the T-14.
But the Russian Army's needs remain a priority. The first batch of 100 tanks will enter service next year and 2,500 vehicles will join the Army by 2025, according to the Defense Ministry.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/2016052 ... z49fsvZpSW

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21234
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 26 May 2016 10:58

That's why I asked one to take this with a shot of Stoli.Not a cheap shot like the one you've posted above! :mrgreen:


sivab
BRFite
Posts: 1007
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby sivab » 29 May 2016 19:13

[youtube]pvqC4cbTgkk?t=959[/youtube]

See from 16:00 mark on the criminal neglect of Arjun MK-I by UPA. No ammo, spares and were rotting in field. MP made efforts to get it back to its feet with about 70% of 2 regiments operational now. Good news is he is confident Mark-2 will be manufactured after some changes and see service. Great news is he is looking to export Arjun. 8)

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4825
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 30 May 2016 05:18



Indian T90S don't have it AFAIK. The stripped down version of T90S is considered "cheaper" than others :P

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1204
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 30 May 2016 06:35

"Thanks to stealth technology, the machine is practically invisible in infrared and other spectrums. It is equipped with an active electronically scanned array (AESA, or active phased array radar, APAR) similar to the one designed for Russia's T-50 PAK FA 5th generation aircraft."
Now , How the hell armata's AESA radar works for ground targets !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! just check the video, it was farting like anything to show its stealthy sorry arse.

The ruskis are moving to the philosophy of heavier tanks , which already mastered by their western counterparts and our own Arjun. Being bigger , it have got more fire power , that's the difference , the others are as usual show bazi..!! The latest generation of Merkavas with trophy embedded is arguably the best tank in the world.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16977
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 30 May 2016 07:27

Sivab,

I think he meant exporting all the items he mentioned (and more). Very much doubt it includes the Arjun, sadly.

But, one never knows. This man could pretty accomplish that too.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests