Not correct. The evolutionary approach to adding capability on the Abams is moving along with the SEPV4s which should be ready by the early 2020s. Existing variants with APS will be fielded ahead of that.Singha wrote:massa has stopped investing in abrams program
Along with a tracked "light tank" in the 25-35 ton class (2 potential contenders in the picture below). The "Mobile Protected Firepower" program RFP was released a month or two ago and the intention is to have the first unit fielded by 2025.wheeled vehicles with smarter 105mm will be most used.
And not enough people to drive it...Singha wrote: EU -> lack of funds for bigger 4 -crew setup. netherlands has infact mothballed all its leopards and has no tanks now!
TUSK mods were performed on site in Iraq when the US was deployed there in the late 2000s. Approximately 500 or so tanks were modified, most of them while deployed, in about 2 years from contract award to General Dynamics. More recently (2017), the US Army has begun adding the Abrams Reactive Armor Tile (ARAT) to additional deployed M1A2s in Europe. ARAT was one of the hardware additions included in the TUSK package.Singha wrote:what I meant was avionics and active defence type bolt ons might change but the core armour, drivetrain, transmission, gun , thermals, ammo of the abrams has not changed at all since OIF days. there has been no need , its good enough and it works well. the TUSK thing was not invested beyond some protos right? neither was the Leo2 urban warfare model.
active defence systems are pocket change in massa budgets.
And we have most of the building blocks too! If it were up to me, I would totally design a two man tank with a pilot and a WSO, tandem seated in the hull under the turret ring. 4K cameras recessed into the armor will present a 360 degree view to both the pilot and the wso, and the WSOs job will be to simply identify the targets on the screen and hand them over to the auto-gunner to engage. Multifunction screens and joystick steerings will allow both the pilot and the wso to perform each others job if needed. It will have an aux power generator to power the electronic systems, as well as power tools that will be used for the heavier maintenance load on the crew. It will have a 40mm grenade launcher system that will allow firing grenades at a high elevation angle for city fighting. All of this, and under 40 tonnes with protection levels that exceed the current M1-Tusk. If wishes were horses... The Mango is crap.. But even if the DRDO were to develop a longer dart, will our autoloaders on the Russian tanks be able to accomodate the longer darts? Arjun could, but should we waste national engineering talent on a round for 250 odd guns? Better to import the challenger rounds, even their legacy darts would do a lot better than anything we have right now.Karan M wrote:I am more concerned that our FSAPDS program is a bit behind & we dont have many reports of a Mk3 program. Only if the IA had not gone all in with IMIs claims and allowed DRDO to simultaneously work on a local program. We are still a ways off achieving any decent cost effective alternative to the Refleks round.
Such short-sightedness from the user! In such a scenario, R&D efforts should have their own tech roadmap with separate funding.Karan M wrote:On a positive note, 125mm MK2 and 120 mm Mk2 are both ready for production and have cleared IA trials AFAIK but they are better than Mango, but I doubt will be hugely ahead penetration wise. We are basically starting from a standing stop with the stop having occurred circa 1999, with those designs dusted off and being productionized. We have lost a decade of tinkering because IA said stop, take rounds only from IMI and the corruption allegations between IMI and OFB stopped that as well. Its a mess. At least we have restarted.
Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/948618584829321216 ---> Things are becoming interesting now. Here's a rendition of a 'revolutionary configuration' study for a potential next generation main battle tank by DRDO's CVRDE that could weigh in at just 41 tons. Source: DRDO's DSJ
https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/948622775693991936 ---> Of course, the paper itself where this rendition is given deals with the use of a 'design of experiments' statistical approach towards weight management for which both an evolutionary and a revolutionary configuration were considered.
https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/948619126250995712 ---> It's been dubbed Generation Next MBT = GNMBT.
Howitzer-type indirect fire at close-range is better provided by 120mm mortar (which have same explosive power as a 155mm shell), or a 160mm mortar if you really want to pulverize everything in your path.Singha wrote:arjun chassis with a smaller engine + more internal fuel should also be made into a 155mm low velocity siege cannon thing for infantry support role. this will supplement the usual BMP2 cannons which are not so effective in dense urbanized areas and hollow cement block houses which are common in rural areas now.
No, it is older than ISIS. perhaps lesson from 2nd gulf war , there is model of BUSK AT DEFEXPO2012 , but no actual prototype bulidshaun wrote:Interesting modification ( concept from syrian adventure against ISIS ), apologies if posted before
Stupid news. Which tank gun fired missile has that 8km range the article talks about?
http://www.janes.com/article/77812/russ ... mata-orderRussian Deputy Defence Minister Yuri Borisov has confirmed an order for two battalions of T-14 main battle tanks (MBTs), the Ministry of Defence (MoD) reported on its website on 9 February.
The order for the T-14 MBTs and T-15 heavy infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) is understood to have been placed in December 2017. Touring the Uralvagonzavod factory in Nizhny Tagil, Russia, Borisov said, “It’s no secret that we already have a contract for trials and combat operations: two battalions of Armata tanks and one battalion of heavy infantry fighting vehicles.” Both vehicles are based on the Armata common platform.
Borisov also reported on the current status of the Armata programme, which is part of Russia’s State Armaments Programme (SAP) 2012-2020. He said state trials would begin this year and continue until the end of 2019. In 2020, all new models will be complete, after which a decision on big contracts for serial production will be made, according to Borisov. This is good news for the Armata programme, which was earlier reported to be in jeopardy as Russian defence funds were diverted into modernising older platforms.
Although not much is known about the composition of the K21's armour, the frontal armour of the vehicle is specifically designed to protect against large caliber automatic cannon rounds, primarily the 30 mm APDS munitions (30×165mm) for 2A72 automatic cannon used on BMP-3, which has approximately 50 mm (2.0 in) armour penetration at ranges of 1,000 m. The side armour is designed to protect against 14.5 mm AP rounds, which has approximately 25 mm (0.98 in) armour penetration at 1,000 m. The top can withstand fragments from 152 mm artillery shells exploding as close as 10 meters. It has been confirmed that the composite armour comprises S2-glass fibre and Al2O3 ceramic including lightweight aluminium alloy.[2]