Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

koti · Post by **koti** » 25 Oct 2010 17:27

Narayana Rao wrote:If we need new and next gen AFV then why there is no news reports on follow up for Abhay project. Is BMP II not an old design?

Sirji,
Maybe this will help: http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/10/in ... hicle.html

Unless you are mentioning something else.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Oct 2010 17:33

discounting the white part at bottom of arjun round, there still seems to be considerable diff in length between the arjun and t-series rounds perhaps 6" ?

is this on account of the length limitations of autoloader? earlier armour discussions used to claim the longer the length:diameter ratio the better for APDS.

if true, and assuming the muzzle velocity and drag factor in both rounds about equal-equal, the arjun round has a good advantage in APDS role.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 25 Oct 2010 18:57

^^ quick reply - Russian round is two part. The second part of the round is not shown in the picture. This is how a two part round looks like -
http://ofbindia.nic.in/products/data/am ... /lc/26.htm
http://ofbindia.nic.in/products/data/am ... /lc/37.htm

This is an army exhibition, so its clear the round has entered service.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 26 Oct 2010 13:28

tsarkar wrote:Rohit, You had asked me couple of years back whether 125 mm Mk2 ammo was successful and entered service. I didn’t want to answer that question then, but you have your answer here - <SNIP>

Sir, was offline for last couple of days and saw these pics only today and jumped out me seat (saw your post a tad later).....Yes, it is a great news. Good that we are going ahead on our own.

To others - please see and compare the 120mm APFSDS Round - which can mean only Arjun and the two-piece ammunition for 125mm.....the 125mm ammunition has a length constraints...the 120mm ammunition does not and this affects the length of the penetrator.

The pic of 120mm round and 125mm round+catridge are given in same exhibition pics. Please see here:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... start=2480

Please see the T-72 autoloader video to see how the round and catridge are loaded seperately:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTzobtVjqPs

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 26 Oct 2010 16:58

Rupak wrote:Thanks for the upate DRoy. Equally important is the fact that Abhay is meant as a technology development demonstrator. Puts to rest any speculations about it.

I have a pic of miniature model of abhay,not sure how to upload,i did once long back with some steps written in a thread couldnt recollect now,will be thankful for any help.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 26 Oct 2010 20:08

rohitvats wrote:
To others - please see and compare the 120mm APFSDS Round - which can mean only Arjun and the two-piece ammunition for 125mm.....the 125mm ammunition has a length constraints...the 120mm ammunition does not and this affects the length of the penetrator.

Rohit, weren't some worthies here clamouring for a 125mm smoothbore gun on Arjun for "commonality" with tin-e-can?

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 27 Oct 2010 07:39

Name Arjun as Tin can yar, all these probelms will be solved and it will be certified as super duper MBT

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 01 Nov 2010 08:08

Top tanks of the world. An interesting ranking list by someone who is a tank freak. A kind of tank recognition video as well.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Nov 2010 09:13

interesting - the Heer seems fond of firepower demos and field 'shows' of its gear to spectators....must be lot of armour ethusiasts in germany like aviation freaks in UK.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 01 Nov 2010 17:39

For the first time i'm seeing buffs rating Arjun at top level.

rkhanna · Post by **rkhanna** » 01 Nov 2010 20:35

IMO the developers of the Arjun should use the Leo Evo/A7 as a sort of benchmark/guide for the MarkII/III.. Seing how the M1/Leo/Challengers/Merkava have evolved over the last couple of the decades the Arjun program if handled well could last half a centuary in the subcontinent.

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 01 Nov 2010 21:25

Seems like slowly but steadily Arjun MK-I is earning a name for itself. I am just trying to imagine what will be people’s opinion be when Arjun MK-II will come up in next 5 yrs.

Good Times are Arround

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Nov 2010 00:32

rkhanna wrote:IMO the developers of the Arjun should use the Leo Evo/A7 as a sort of benchmark/guide for the MarkII/III.. Seing how the M1/Leo/Challengers/Merkava have evolved over the last couple of the decades the Arjun program if handled well could last half a centuary in the subcontinent.

Somebody I know said he sat inside the Abrams/M1 tank in India and he said they have done lot of evaluation for Arjun comparing with these

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 02 Nov 2010 00:46

^^When had the Abrams tanks been brought to India?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Nov 2010 00:47

rohitvats wrote:
......
To others - please see and compare the 120mm APFSDS Round - which can mean only Arjun and the two-piece ammunition for 125mm.....the 125mm ammunition has a length constraints...the 120mm ammunition does not and this affects the length of the penetrator.
The pic of 120mm round and 125mm round+catridge are given in same exhibition pics. .....

And depth of penetration is effected by length of projectile all things being equal. Issac Newton discovered this long ago.

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 02 Nov 2010 00:53

Acharya wrote: Somebody I know said he sat inside the Abrams/M1 tank in India and he said they have done lot of evaluation for Arjun comparing with these

The above statement is a bit hazy. Is it supposed to mean something like:

"I know somebody who is associated with the development of Arjun in India.
He has an experience with Abrams/M1 tank (in India??).
They (the developers / army ??) have a done comparisons of Arjun with these (M1/Leo/Chally/Merkava) "

~Ashish

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 02 Nov 2010 07:07

rkhanna wrote:IMO the developers of the Arjun should use the Leo Evo/A7 as a sort of benchmark/guide for the MarkII/III.. Seing how the M1/Leo/Challengers/Merkava have evolved over the last couple of the decades the Arjun program if handled well could last half a centuary in the subcontinent.

I hope not Sir. The evolution of the Leopard/Challenger is a particular response to situations that the west is faced with today to face challenges that the tank was not designed for. Side protection, cover for multiple IED attacks, ability to blow off IED's etc.

The above response is partly due to the philosophy of these forces and partly due to an inability and unwillingness of these forces to use alternative tactics and tools in fighting the wars that they are fighting today.

I hope the evolution of the Arjun is not based on these western models but based on what our threat perceptions look like for our armored forces with a high degree of focus on indigenization of key systems.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 02 Nov 2010 11:12

Guys, we need to be cautious wrt the Arjun. Currently it is confirmed the 124+124 will be built. Then we start the Mk business. No one has a clear Idea as to what that will mean for the MBT.

If the Army comes out and places orders for say 1000 Arjuns. To be dilivered over 5 / 10 years. Followed by MK 2 and the FMBT. We will have reasons to be very exited but as of now I will be very cautious regarding the future of the Arjun.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 06 Nov 2010 13:18

Guys, this is how it's going to be.
Already orders has been placed for 124+124 main Arjun MK1 variant of the main battle tank.
The Arjun MK-II is under development and 124 of this is going to be inducted in the first batch.
http://www.hindu.com/2010/11/05/stories ... 981500.htm
May be we can expect a 124 more of the MKII after the army is satisfied. So it's going to be around 500 Arjun tanks in the Indian army. This is to be followed by the FMBT that will start replacing the T-72's from 2015-2017.

May be There will also be an FMBT-II that will replace the T-90's. So eventually only two types of tanks we will there in service and that's going to be Arjun's and FMBT. Also the Arjun engines can be same as that of the FMBT since it's smaller and more powerful providing an upgrade to the Arjun MK1 and II's. If the Army and DRDO work together to achieve this goal, we can have a formidable Armour force by 2020. And don't forget the FICV as well. The more commonality the FICV has with the FMBT that much better.
A good start has been made with the Arjun tank. Now it all depends on the IA. Will they follow the Indian Navy to get the best stuff in the world by working with DRDO.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Nov 2010 13:25

ShauryaT is right - we need not follow blindly the western penchant for urban warfare upgrades because they are unwilling or unable to commit infantry to clean out and hold such areas properly. these upgrades make the tank heavier, costlier and less mobile, and detract from its prime attack role.

we got to keep it clean and as per the old school type philosophy - better engine, gun, ammo, thermals(for commander), rear camera, better armour , better shaping is always welcome.

there are no iraqi insurgent infested towns to hold in tibet = the only danger would be getting buried under the hugs of liberated people.

as for the paktowns, squadrons of jags/tejas dropping FAE cansisters will do a neat job of smoking out razakar stay-behind forces.

rahulm · Post by **rahulm** » 06 Nov 2010 14:48

The Hindu link states DRDO will develop a 1,500 HP indigenous engine for the FMBT.

Unless DRDO does really well this time, sadly, our high HP engine development efforts to date, in the military or civilian domain don't promise a bright future for this effort.

Tank engines have a small form factor (compact) compared to civilian engines for the same power output and herein lies the challenge.

Up gunning existing tank engines may be the best option. The T72 engine outputs about 780 HP. The existing MTU 838 Ka 501 powering the Arjun outputs 1,400 HP. The easiest would be to tune the latter to up the power to 1,500 HP representing a 7% increase over existing power output. However, I don't think this engine is manufactured in India. Its a complete import or CKD at best.

RDSO, perhaps, have the best track record in up rating engines. The original ALCO 251B has been tuned from its original 2,400 HP (WDM) to 3,300 HP (recent WDM3A), a 37% increase albiet these are lower speed engines where form factor is not an issue.

Time will tell.

Avik · Post by **Avik** » 06 Nov 2010 15:11

^^^^^

Rahulm: What you've written is very true. The Indian Railways has the best record at uprating and innovation amongst all heavy engineering companies in India- Private and Public. Infact BHEL, TELCO etc. all fall behind compared to CLW and DLW. The IR has taken the basic ALCO 2100 HP design and has broughts about 3000 HP + diesel locos; 4500 HP locos from the earlier EMD GT 46 MAC and also uprated 6000 HP + electric locos from the earlier ABB design.
Infact, I seriously think that HEC, Ranchi and BHPVL, Vizag should be combined with DLW and CLW to form an Indian heavy engineering behemoth like the Chinese groups.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 06 Nov 2010 15:18

The issue is not with the Arjun.. what great tactical advantage would be conferred by having 1500 HP as opposed to 1400 HP right now, and does the T90 enjoy that advantage?

The issue is that the Army, specifically the DGMF along with its cronies in the MoD, are deliberately undermining the Arjun in favour of Russian natashas

Luit · Post by **Luit** » 06 Nov 2010 18:12

wtf? DGMF could only come up with a 2 regiment order for the 5th best tank in the world (claimed by a tanknut)?

shame, shame..poppy shame.

rahulm · Post by **rahulm** » 06 Nov 2010 19:18

Tanaji makes a point. Keeping that aside for the moment, its interesting that Wartsila, whose forte is Marine and low speed engines, has the V8X-1500 1,500 HP that powers the Leclerc. Wartsila have been in India since the late 80's and maybe they can be roped in.After all, India is one of Nokia's biggest markets

Here is a gem

Military Diesel Engines: More Punch at Each Stroke

It is probably true to say that whatever their merits as regards performance, adaptability to a particular weapon system and other features, engines will in the final analysis be largely chosen by military procurement agencies on the basis of their country of origin, and that a local product, or one built under licence locally, will usually have priority over one manufactured abroad. <snip>

<snip>.. are major decision criteria, so that the engine's technical quality is not always the dominant factor in its choice.

Another point worth making is that "military specials", i.e. engines specially developed for military applications, are in the main only found in armoured combat vehicles. All other engines used in military vehicles Military vehicles include all land combat and transportation vehicles, excluding rail-based, which are designed for or are in significant use by military forces tend to be derivatives of standard commercial designs {550 HP Greaves for Abhay is an example}

A good read on worldwide military diesels http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Military+ ... -a09046423

The Perkins CV12 (Challenger 2) and Detroit Diesel 1500 HP (Merkava) are other options.

Coming to India, the Greaves V12 engine @ 604 HP (with twin tubo charging and after cooling ) is compact, has multi fuel capability (important for tanks & other military vehicles ), has been around since a long time (1980's) and far as my knowledge goes, is the highest HP multi fuel mass produced (actually batch produced) engine in India.

The Greaves V12 is is the bigger sibling of the TD V8 @ 550 HP being used in the Abhay. These engines were more or less fully indigenous by 1989 with only the turbo's & 12 cylinder Bosch fuel pumps being imported. This could be a starting point for DRDO.

An objective of Project Rhino was to up rate the existing T72 engine from 780 HP to 1000 HP which was achieved. Maybe this can be pursued further.

We need a multi year well funded, focussed effort to develop a range of IC military engines for armour and naval applications. Some Pielsticks (Kirloskar) power small naval ships.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Nov 2010 20:03

new 1500hp is red herring thrown in by natasha lobby to *make sure* Arjun2 development fails and T-100-mki can be imported

the suggestions above to grab bull by horns and rope in a good supplier with local footprint makes sense. and nothing better than using a domestic player like M&M/AL/Tata as the go-between JV player because they already have the manufacturing process/trained people/QC in place and will do a better job than a milkfed OFB unit.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 06 Nov 2010 22:02

I absolutely agree with Tanaji. This is an attempt to push Arjun acquisition back a decade and then compare it unfavourably with a new Russian Tank!! Its a shame!!!

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 06 Nov 2010 22:07

Agreed. If Arjun can beat tin can in our own tests then why we are not going all out and induct them now and improve up on that. Why are we still hesitating and talking about some 50T fancy name leaving what we have in hand. Neither Pakiland nor chipanda is going to have better armour than Arjun 1 or 2 now.

No one is stopping DRDO from developing a 1500 HP power pack and puting in in any future Arjun version. US itself stopped its development of fancy tanks of future after Iraqi exploits of Abrahams. So why is this bull about new tank development.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 06 Nov 2010 22:20

I guess the IA has institutionalised non-swadeshi for its armour! A 1500 HP pack and all other battlefield management systems can be added in as available. IA should acquire 1000 Arjuns ASAP!

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 06 Nov 2010 22:21

Vivek K wrote:I absolutely agree with Tanaji. This is an attempt to push Arjun acquisition back a decade and then compare it unfavourably with a new Russian Tank!! Its a shame!!!

It is worth noting that there is no "new Russian Tank" in development. T-95 development has been officially canceled. Of course, there is always the chance that more upgraded T-90s may be procured instead.

In all honesty, this news piece is very troubling. IMO, DRDO will never be able to match the requirement of IA. No one can. The 50 tonne weight limit in itself is unreasonable if you want to achieve adequate protection. There is a limit till which one can miniaturize the equipment (including electronics) and hence the tank.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 06 Nov 2010 22:28

Well, DRDO is working on a shrink ray which also works in the reverse. They will then construct a 100 ton Tank and then set a reduction ratio of 50% on the shrink gun to shrink it down to 50 tons. Once we have made 5000 of the shrunk tank then they will send the shrink ray to the border and shrink all the paki tanks to 10 tons. Our 50 tons will whup their 10 tons!!! The Pakis on seeing the shrunk 50 ton FMBT will run for cover!!

sum · Post by **sum** » 06 Nov 2010 22:50

Well, if the DRDO manages to make a 1500 HP engine and the 50T FMBT by getting hold of some martian technology within 10 years, it will be declared as nearing obsolescence at that time and a new concept of UFMBT ( Uber FMBT) will be floating around which will have the UFMBT at 30 tons max weight and 1800 HP engines ( to carry and power the ICBMs it will have to fire )

And the cycle wil continue ( like the endless artillery saga has courtesy GoI)

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 06 Nov 2010 22:59

Why would a 50 tonne tank need a 1500hp engine?

This is what baffles me. And this is why I agree with Singha that this 1500hp powerplant is a red herring. They have to show something that the new TFTA FMBT will have that the Arjun can't or won't. There is no chance in hell that a 50 tonne tank can have the same level of armour protection as a 58-60 tonner. If this mythical FMBT ever comes about we can be pretty sure that the Arjun Mk2 would still beat the crap out of it. I only hope they stick with the Arjun's indigenous gun and don't go for "commonality" with the 125mm tin-can gun.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Nov 2010 23:00

shrink ray reminds me of a tom and jerry cartoon where a witch shrunk poor tom down to rat size.

we should be spending cycles designing and building a 65t horse that will eat up, chew and shit out anything the chinese can throw at it, with superb main cannon, thermals and ammunition.....instead of this 50t farce called FMBT - it doesnt happen and nobody is betting the farm on these stryker/cv90-mki concepts vs "heavy" opponents like china. for bush wars against militias with overwhelming air superiority it is ok. another example of "what works for US doesnt work for india" because US never plans to take on china in a land war, not when it can deal with china by attacking it safely from the sea and air and blockading its trade routes". neither does russia have such a need. only india needs to plan for and equip for a serious no holds barred land war with china, that too with added rider of being at 10,000ft avg altitude where things are a bit different due to thin air and cold.

even the cv90 as a IFV is quite heavy...almost as much a T72 "MBT"

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 06 Nov 2010 23:08

Project for developing 1500HP engine for Arjun was sanctioned several years back. Someone even posted the approved project proposal and it was so crude that we had some heated discussion with Jcage defending. The proposal said all they need is Rs50corer and a particular combustion modeling software for making an engine. It also seemed that they have a prototype/tech demo in testing and had inhouse testing facilities too.

So more DRDO changes more it remains the same was argument at that time. They should have asked for at least 10x of the budget they asked for and a lot more modeling and CFD facilities and testing infrastructure for multiple prototypes and design choices.

ManuJ · Post by **ManuJ** » 07 Nov 2010 00:04

Why does the 50 tonne FMBT need 1500 HP?

Edited: never mind, someone already asked the question.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 07 Nov 2010 00:09

it is for Arjun not FMBT!

FMBT may use some smaller version.....

vina · Post by **vina** » 07 Nov 2010 08:26

This entire FMBT business and "indigenous" 1500 HP engine seems like a farce. MTU would very gladly license their Europack 1500 HP engine, along with the Renk transmission ,and yes, that engine is 2/3 the size, with common rail injection and all that the DRDO talked about in the article.

I really wonder what is the reason for this 100% indigenous engine fetish. When something is avialable off the shelf and is proven, why not use it and go around re-inventing the wheel, unless it is going to blow the pants off whatever is the current state of art, which frankly from what I read, it is not.

If it is going to be something like a 2 stroke OPOC engine like stuff that crashes the size and weight to say a half or better a quarter of the current engine and the overall engine bay and tank length comes back by say a metre and they hope to get to the 50 tons by shrinking the tank (sort of like Honda's more car, less engine space kind of thing), then it is worthwhile , not otherwise, if they are going to do a "me too" kind of project.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 07 Nov 2010 09:55

vina wrote:This entire FMBT business and "indigenous" 1500 HP engine seems like a farce. MTU would very gladly license their Europack 1500 HP engine, along with the Renk transmission ,and yes, that engine is 2/3 the size, with common rail injection and all that the DRDO talked about in the article.

I really wonder what is the reason for this 100% indigenous engine fetish. When something is avialable off the shelf and is proven, why not use it and go around re-inventing the wheel, unless it is going to blow the pants off whatever is the current state of art, which frankly from what I read, it is not.

If it is going to be something like a 2 stroke OPOC engine like stuff that crashes the size and weight to say a half or better a quarter of the current engine and the overall engine bay and tank length comes back by say a metre and they hope to get to the 50 tons by shrinking the tank (sort of like Honda's more car, less engine space kind of thing), then it is worthwhile , not otherwise, if they are going to do a "me too" kind of project.

Must be to reduce cost. of licensing fee. Use the same money in India for job creation, technology expansion etc. That's how the world wide trend is.

ManuJ · Post by **ManuJ** » 07 Nov 2010 10:03

Katare wrote:it is for Arjun not FMBT!

FMBT may use some smaller version.....

This is from the Hindu article -

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is working on India's future main battle tank (FMBT) with a 1,500-horsepower (HP) indigenous engine.
...
...
The FMBT's engine will be two-thirds the size of Arjun-Mark I's, but will generate 1,500 HP compared to Arjun-Mark I's 1,400 HP