Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

vic · Post by **vic** » 13 Nov 2010 09:28

The problem with our engine projects like Kaveri and Arjun engine project is utter lack of understanding in a Babu as to how R&D is done and the complexity of a project. Add to it the incapacity of corrupt Babu to understand the financial benefits of indigenous R&^D and we have inability of India to address defense R&D and production inspite of 1000 years of servitude. Now let me explain.

Problem Uno- There is an idiotic motto that simple things we will import (why reinvent the wheel) but complicated things DRDO should make. Hence we try to make Nuke subs while importing pistols, shoes etc. Though the actual reason is that strategic items have political push but for small items nobody cares. The IAF ignored HTT-40 for 20 years before creating emergency requirement.

Problem – Duo- Refusal to pay for technology import. Even when technology is available, the idiotic Babu will refuse to pay for it. For instance, for Su-30MKI import/indigenous manufacture the requirement was that indigenous manufacture + tech transfer + capital equipment should be less than the cost of imported products. So Whisky and candy industry in India gets protection by customs duty but not defense manufacture.

Problem and Problem – Inability to understand the financial benefits. For instance India would need say around 4000 tanks plus 1000 variants plus get benefit of offshoots of indigenous manufacture. It means that order book of US$ 10 Billion plus say around 15 Billon for spares and upgrade. Which means that around US$ 2 Billion is justified to build an indigenous tank. But the budget allocated will be only US$ 100 million which would be 1/20 th of the required amount. If you look at allocations to Barak, Brahmos etc then they are way above what is given to DRDO.

Last but most important:- R&D budget is calculated by estimating cost of assembling few prototypes from imported components, basic manpower and constructing administrative offices. Hence nothing is done for basic research like building codes for functioning & CFD, or metallurgy, nor optimizing components, nor advanced labs, nor test stands for individual components etc. That is why we get budgets like US$ 89 million for Kaveri while at the same time France was spending around US$ 2 Billion on M88. We get budget (today) of US$ 10 million for FMBT Engine when it should be something like US$ 500-1000 million. Hence the so called research would be just importing a few components, screwing them together, wasting 10 years and then wondering as to why it does not work. It seems that FMBT engine research is going in the same absurd method. The so called industrial partners are component suppliers who will largely be disinterested as they will be asked to supply Rs. few lakhs of material. Most of the money will go for administrative expense while no basic research will be done on metallurgy, building fuel injections system, turbos, refining design, test stands for each component separately to study its behavior in isolation, high tech labs, high tech cad cam design labs etc. We will end up a failure as one cannot have a MBT engine for US$ 10 million. The costing is basically done on the basis that say 10 prototypes need be assembled and it will cost around US$ 10 Million. I am at a loss of words to explain this lunacy of low budgeting our R&D.

vic · Post by **vic** » 13 Nov 2010 12:52

nukavarapu wrote:^^^ VIC - whats wrong with u? Why are you playing the same record in all threads?

because I like the song!

vic · Post by **vic** » 14 Nov 2010 17:05

But I have one more nitpicking joker in the bar, so it is not that lonely but he may be loony

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 16 Nov 2010 10:52

Looking at the pics posted by AndyB, (dont remember which thread) I am stuck (once again) by how TFTA German equipment looks and looked during WW II compared to very SDRE US and British stuff.

German build quality (analyzing build quality from pictures is a birth right of all BRFiets, no?) smoothness, rivet joints, profiles etc etc are all more like tanks/guns build elsewhere only 20-30 years hence.

Beautiful beasts --- beautiful.

Just goes to tell us about Shiv's jis badass analysis works for machines as it does for men.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Dec 2010 17:44

What is the advantage of having an all electric tank over conventional types ?

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 02 Dec 2010 21:00

Austin wrote:What is the advantage of having an all electric tank over conventional types ?

By 'all electirc' do you also mean;
1) The main gun is an E-M rail gun?
2) All electric motor instead of IC engine?

Discounting above, should reduce the hydraulics and other mechanical contraptions for controlling turrets and armaments atleast. But the space and/or weight saved could be offset by that of additonal batteries/ fuel cells.

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 06 Dec 2010 17:33

Army formulates requirements for futuristic tank

New Delhi, Dec 6 (PTI) The government today said the Army has formulated its requirements for a Future Main Battle Tank, which is likely to be developed by the year 2020.

"Preliminary Staff Qualitative Requirement of Future Main Battle Tank has been formulated by the Army...It is likely to be developed by the year 2020," Defence Minister A K Antony told Lok Sabha in reply to a written query.

For its future warfare requirements, the Army wants its futuristic tank to be lighter and more capable than that of the present ones in its inventory such as the T-90, Arjun and the T-72 tanks, he said.

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 06 Dec 2010 17:36

DRDO Undertaking Feasibility Study for Future Main Battle Tank

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 06 Dec 2010 20:18

Jamal K. Malik wrote:Army formulates requirements for futuristic tank
New Delhi, Dec 6 (PTI) The government today said the Army has formulated its requirements for a Future Main Battle Tank, which is likely to be developed by the year 2020.

"Preliminary Staff Qualitative Requirement of Future Main Battle Tank has been formulated by the Army...It is likely to be developed by the year 2020," Defence Minister A K Antony told Lok Sabha in reply to a written query.

For its future warfare requirements, the Army wants its futuristic tank to be lighter and more capable than that of the present ones in its inventory such as the T-90, Arjun and the T-72 tanks, he said.

So it needs to be lighter than the T-series and better armored than the M1? Waste of national taxpayer dollars to indulge the corrupt.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 06 Dec 2010 20:29

Vivek K wrote: So it needs to be lighter than the T-series and better armored than the M1? Waste of national taxpayer dollars to indulge the corrupt.

Naive and foolish perhaps, but why corrupt? If a foreign FMBT is selected after 2020, the Officers who would have formulated the ASR in 2010 would have retired long ago. So, what corruption are you accusing them of? Are you suggesting that Russia is bribing them in advance for 2020-2025? Also consider that in 2025, the FMBT deal may not even go to Russia. It will all depend upon the political scene 10-15 years from now.

Of course, all this is assuming that DRDO tank is not acquired.

PS: I think that even DRDO has to step up in this matter. DRDO is now doing a feasibility study. I hope that they not follow their past attitude of..... ho jayega...for any ridiculous demand.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 06 Dec 2010 20:43

Naive and foolish? After the Arjun beat the T-90 hands down in a face-off scripted by the Army? To then "formulate FMBT requirements"? I don't know who is being naive here.

Call a spade a spade. This is corruption - plain and simple. It is practiced in the pvt sector everyday when one supplier is to be given preference over another. Talking about wasting another 20 years indevelopment is actually criminal and tantamount to betraying the country.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 06 Dec 2010 21:07

Let's then say that they're not corrupt, but are easily influenced.

sohamn · Post by **sohamn** » 06 Dec 2010 21:11

KiranM wrote:
Austin wrote:What is the advantage of having an all electric tank over conventional types ?
By 'all electirc' do you also mean;
1) The main gun is an E-M rail gun?
2) All electric motor instead of IC engine?

Discounting above, should reduce the hydraulics and other mechanical contraptions for controlling turrets and armaments atleast. But the space and/or weight saved could be offset by that of additonal batteries/ fuel cells.

I guess he means all the components including transmission, power to tracks, turrets, loader, target detector is operated by electric motors instead of mechanically operated motors. A IC engine/turbine will be present to charge the batteries or provide electricity to the electric motors indirectly.
Well all electric tank concept is being studied in US , it has a huge adv when it comes to stealth since it generates very little heat and noice. The problem is the IC/Turbine engine must be powerful enough to provide that much amt of current. And it would need a decent amt of space to house a powerful battery. Nevertheless it may become a reality in near future, especially for wheeled armoured vehicles.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 07 Dec 2010 06:38

India is the only country now designing such thing. Even US abandand this project and going have Abrams for few more decades. So it is corruption plain and simple

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 07 Dec 2010 06:55

Jamal K. Malik wrote:
For its future warfare requirements, the Army wants its futuristic tank to be lighter and more capable than that of the present ones in its inventory such as the T-90, Arjun and the T-72 tanks, he said.

Unless the DRDO comes up with some hitherto unknown djinn technology I do not see how that is possible. A 59 tonne Arjun will always be better armored than any 50 tonne tank the DRDO can come up with. So what exactly do they mean by "more capable"? Any electronic gizmo that they can fit on the FMBT can also be fitted on the Arjun. If they manage to develop an efficient 1500hp engine, that can be a nice upgrade for the Arjun. The Arjun's p/w ratio is already greater than the Army's darling T-90.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 07 Dec 2010 08:05

IA to receive its first upgrade Schilka next year from BEL

By Anantha Krishnan M.
BENGALURU, India

The Indian army will receive the first batch of upgraded Soviet-made Schilka tanks from next year onward.

Bharat Electronics Ltd. (BEL) has completed giving the first tank a new lease on life at its Military Radar Strategic Business Unit in Bengaluru.

BEL won a global tender to upgrade the tanks, which the Indian army finds difficult to use because of their increasing operational cost and component obsolescence. The army released the tender in 1997, specifically to upgrade the Schilka weapon systems. The tanks are armed with 23-mm. guns featuring four barrels to enable a high rate of fire.

“We will upgrade all the 90 Schilka tanks of the Indian army,” BEL General Manager P.C. Jain tells Aviation Week. “The tanks will now have a 3D phased array radar, new engine, state-of-the-art electronics suite and air-conditioning. We plan to upgrade 48 Schilkas in [the] first phase.

“The tanks used gas turbine engines that consumed over 90 liters of fuel per hour,” Jain says. “Today, we have replaced them with diesel engines that consume just nine liters per hour. We are also putting new cameras on board with . . . thermal imaging capabilities. This will add more teeth to the platform.”

article link

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Dec 2010 09:30

Did not the Schilka undergo upgrades earlier as well? Which ones are these?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 07 Dec 2010 10:26

It not a GSQR it is a overall sense of direction for a LONG TERM plan.

A DRDO feasibility study.

DRDO feasibility study.

DRDO feasibility study.

Sigh..........

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Dec 2010 10:39

If the army doctrine focus on mobility then they are better off having a medium tank in ~ 45 T class that can be transported by most aircraft and can use existing logistics base build for T series.

It is very much possible to build a better armoured tank compared to T-90's yet keep the same or lighter dimension/weight with better fire power,mobility,protection, engine and electronics and hopefully with most indigenous content incorporated from design stage with the goal to achieve full indiginisation in various build blocks.

I see no reason to ape america because it has built heavier tanks and the M3 will possibly more heavier , if the army thinks and needs lighter tank then DRDO is better off delivering that.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 07 Dec 2010 11:56

Why is it assumed that a lighter tank will be more mobile? Is the t-72/t-90 more more mobile than the M1,Leo,Arjun etc?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Dec 2010 13:37

abhik wrote:Why is it assumed that a lighter tank will be more mobile? Is the t-72/t-90 more more mobile than the M1,Leo,Arjun etc?

A heavier tank will need a very powerful engine to get the same mobility , a powerful engine will consume more fuel which would mean you have to make sure that you design it in a way that it can carry more fuel. It would have constrains in logistics,transportation and bridges etc that can support such tanks , the advantage would be you have a better protected tank (more Armour ) and comfortable crew space/protection.

T-90 verus Arjun is a sensitive issue so better not discuss it

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 07 Dec 2010 18:07

Sorry I just don't buy that simplistic argument. I guess this thread has gone through this over and over again so let it be.
But anyway I'm reminded of an unfortunately amusing scene from Maroof Raza's Line of Duty on Armored Warfare where he says (about the T-72) some thing along the lines of "this beastly tank has a fuel capacity of ~1ton ... but burns 10l/kM .. so it'll have to refuel every 100km.." while showing a jawan toping up an armored vehicle(from a drum?) using a hand pump!

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 07 Dec 2010 18:21

^ Abhik, mobility is not directly to do with lighter or heavier tank; it is to do with weight to thrust ratio and further its capability to operate in different types of terrain like marshy lands, dessert type, river bed etc.

Keeping every other parameter same mobility of 50 ton tank powered by 1500 hp is as good as 60 ton tank powered by 2000 hp.

The peculiar case of mobility talked in Indian scenario is about meeting mobility needs to that of crossing Pakistan infrastructure(bridges?) which is claimed to support only 50 ton. This argument found favours in supporting T-90 type tank compared to Arjun tank. We have yet to see the final judgment on this debate. So take your pick.

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 07 Dec 2010 19:27

Kanson wrote:The peculiar case of mobility talked in Indian scenario is about meeting mobility needs to that of crossing Pakistan infrastructure(bridges?) which is claimed to support only 50 ton. This argument found favours in supporting T-90 type tank compared to Arjun tank. We have yet to see the final judgment on this debate. So take your pick.

It would be safe to assume that the Paks will blow up most of their bridges if they have to fall-back across a river, so it really is a question of how much your engineering equipment can handle - not how much their bridges can handle. But even that question is kind of irrelavant currently because of larger uncertainties.

Methinks the T-90 purchase is a reactionary purchase ~ Paks got T-80s, Indians got T-90s; it also keeps the men in black quite for a while. There are no grand plans on how it is to be used (or for that matter even if IA had an all Arjun fleet); it just serves as a mid-level defense against any Pak rope-a-dope misadventures. The real solution is going to some at some other level, through some proactive acquisition and/or revolutionary change in operations.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 07 Dec 2010 21:06

It is very much possible to build a better armoured tank compared to T-90's yet keep the same or lighter dimension/weight with better fire power,mobility,protection, engine and electronics .

Possible in theory but obviously has not happened and not in the immediate future else the Americans, Germans, Koreans, japanese etc who have more advanced industrial capacity would have tried that

Everyone would love a lighter tank with the same protection

But for now thats a wet dream and it is a particularly crazy wet dream for an Army which has no experience designiong anything futuristic - not a jeep, nto a truck let alone a tank

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 07 Dec 2010 23:37

It is very much possible to build a better armoured tank compared to T-90's yet keep the same or lighter dimension/weight with better fire power,mobility,protection, engine and electronics .

When you state better protection, do you mean ERA type or better armor? And which engine (currently in design or on the drawing board - in Russia or elsewhere) would you be referring to? Would improved crew comfort be a feature this soope dooper tank would likely posses or will they roast like in the t-series?

What is the need to waste taxpayer funds in such directionless studies for an army that is addicted to imports and a developer that cannot cure that addiction? And since the T-90 did not measure up to Arjun stds, why is that a standard?? Or are we going to remain addicted to (naive or foolish or easily influenced - take your pick) imports?

bhavani · Post by **bhavani** » 07 Dec 2010 23:54

When ever somebody talks of Arjun and T-90 everybody talks of Arjun's weight. I don't think it is that heavy. Even the latest Chini ones are nearly that heavy. All of this talk of super light tanks makes me dizzy.

1. Can one of these things stand up to hordes of chini, russian, and paki ATGM's? The proliferation of ATGM's is very high. Even Unkle's best M-1 and mighty Merkava is having problems with these new generation ATGMs like RPG-29, new RPG-7 warheads.

2. can the light tanks deal with warfare in urban environment.

3. Can a light 45-50 ton tank carry a new generation tank main gun, lets take a 140 mm tank gun which was experimented and was was supposed to replace the L-44 main gun.

I really doubt if a 45-50 ton light tank can face a modern battle field.

Like singha sir always says, why do we always run after light this and light that. let us make some thing which can boss the battlefield rather than run around.

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 08 Dec 2010 00:19

The transition to light armor may well happen because armor cannot keep up with man-portable ATGMs economically. The heavy cavalry in Europe actually lightened from fully armored knights on destriers to partly armored Heavy Dragoons (and similar units) simply because armor could not keep up with increasing deadliness of ever cheaper matchlocks. Ever since then the job of the cavalry has always been to run around and round up targets into a kill-zone. If you want to be a King of Battles, a God of War join the Artillery!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 Dec 2010 01:53

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20101205/main3.htm

DRDO readies hybrid armour for tanks
Ajay Banerjee
Tribune News Service

New Delhi, December 4
The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has developed a specialised ‘hybrid’ armour that will make tanks safer in battle and somewhat immune to anti-tank missiles. The DRDO’s Pune-based High Energy Materials Research Laboratory (HEMRL) has worked on the new armour.

Dr A Subanandha Rao, HEMRL Director, said the hybrid armour would take care of tandem warheads and also kinetic energy projectiles aimed at tanks in the battlefield. It would increase the survivability rate of tanks.

Tandem warheads and kinetic energy projectiles are much more dangerous than the anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) that are currently used. The kinetic energy projectiles have rod warhead with multiple sections, each enclosing a projectile and an explosive charge. These can prove to be lethal for the tank and its crew in a tank battle. Most modern-day tanks built by major tank makers in the US and Ukraine are now incorporating the hybrid armour. The tandem warheads also work on similar lines. The hybrid armour will drive back incoming tandem warheads and kinetic energy. It will work almost on the same pattern on which the HEMRL developed the explosive reactive armour (ERA) for the T-72 series of tanks.

The hybrid armours are likely to be used on the latest Russian-origin T-90 tanks and the indigenous Arjun tanks, Rao said, adding that the Army had been involved at every stage of testing and developing.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 08 Dec 2010 02:05

So if the DRDO feasibility study comes to the conclusion that this super duper tank is not so feasible, what exactly is the Army going to do since the T-95 project stands abandoned? Buy more T-90s?

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 08 Dec 2010 06:08

Dont worry brothers natasha will always have a tin can with a number on it ready for you .

Seriously why not work on Arjun just like now. Lighter tank for the people who want to air lift them. Where are we going to air lift our tanks to? We never even have a decent capability to ship them at present. Our tanks can not just drive into any ship at present right?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 08 Dec 2010 06:36

Wonder whether somewhere in this wet dream is a joint development with some tin can of the Russians

all this needs is for Phillip to come in and reel the features of this future MBT -

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Dec 2010 06:50

Austin wrote:If the army doctrine focus on mobility then they are better off having a medium tank in ~ 45 T class that can be transported by most aircraft and can use existing logistics base build for T series.

In 2020, the T-72s would have started retiring while the Arjun would have been in production for 13-14 years. Why not have a 'heavy tank' using the existing (indigenous not Russian) logistics base for the Arjun MkI and MkII.

It is very much possible to build a better armoured tank compared to T-90's yet keep the same or lighter dimension/weight with better fire power,mobility,protection, engine and electronics and hopefully with most indigenous content incorporated from design stage with the goal to achieve full indiginisation in various build blocks.

Put the same the new generation armor on the Arjun MkIII and you have a tank that'll enter production much much faster while being a world beating tank.

I see no reason to ape america because it has built heavier tanks and the M3 will possibly more heavier , if the army thinks and needs lighter tank then DRDO is better off delivering that.

Its America that wanted a lighter 40 ton new generation armored vehicle to replace the M1 series. And they abandoned it because of the river of dollars is gradually becoming scarcer.

I see plenty of reasons to ape -

1. US - M1A3
2. Germany - Leopard 2A6
3. Britain - Challenger 2
4. Israel - Merkava 4
5. South Korea - K-2 Black Panther
6. Turkey - Altay
7. China - Type 99A2

The Armoured Corps needs a good functional tank to deal with Pakistani tanks and ATGMs. What it doesn't need is an unique and exotic piece of technology. Any advances in armor or fire-power can be used to upgrade or even redesign the Arjun. What is NOT needed is a new platform for a new soap opera.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 08 Dec 2010 07:43

you should also add the Japanese tank. once the modular armour is attached it gets right in the weight category

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 08 Dec 2010 09:28

Guys,

What if the DRDO came up with a poded turret less tank with a crew of 3. Top notch protection should be possible at under 50 tons in that case even if you are using Arjun Hull. As IIRC, the turret it self has a weight of 20+ tons.

JMT

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Dec 2010 09:37

Pratyush wrote:Guys,

What if the DRDO came up with a poded turret less tank with a crew of 3. Top notch protection should be possible at under 50 tons in that case even if you are using Arjun Hull. As IIRC, the turret it self has a weight of 20+ tons.

JMT

Do you realize the only the direction the gun will be able to fire in that case, will be forward? Which means a tactical retreat for example, will require the tank to be driven in reverse all the way?

I think you ought to run these past the Newbie thread before posting them here.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Dec 2010 09:49

Pratyush, In the sixties the Swedes did have such a turretless tank. The idea was to reduce its profile and less mechanical parts. It didnt go beyond prototype as one needs a 360 azimuth turret in battlefield.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Dec 2010 09:56

that was the S-tank. but obviously the concept is useless for us. maybe he was referring to the old Soviet idea of having a unmanned (smaller) turret with just the gun and thermal sights + remotely operated HMG station, fed from a autoloader below in the hull and the 3-man crew seated entirely inside the hull. this could potentiall save 5 tons of turret weight due to less size. but for real safety the ammo should be in turret bustle with blowoff panels which still means a fairly deep turret (in normal turret the gun breech reaches almost to the rear) but perhaps can be narrower so thickest frontal armour area need be less.

the fact that nobody among those named has even built a prototype to play with the idea indicates it has some strong drawbacks over a manned turret?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-95
http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2006-11/0 ... 402655.jpg

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Dec 2010 10:02

we are obviously better off (less risk, cheaper) continuing to develop the Arjun into mk2 and mk3 variants with all round improvements just as Leo & Merkava did.

or else be prepared to lose all domestic capabilities built up at great effort, hand over $15 bil to Russia to develop the T-95 and license make it at Avadi with a coat of green paint from "asian paints" factory.

the financial, political support for maintaining or upgrading large armour forces in EU is practically zero at this point and getting worse going forward. loads of downsizing is due to take place.

in this env, we should not just take the easy way out of importing 'europack' 1500hp engine for the next tank but rope in MTU to work with CVRDE and pvt player(s) to do a range of useful engine based on similar tech level of 700hp, 1000hp and 1200hp which we can use in other projects like SAM vehicle, IFV , light tank, SP guns etc.

its a lot of money for MTU over a 30-40 yr product lifecycle if 300-500 tanks use one of their engine. and anyway they are unlikely to be seeing big $$ orders in EU anytime soon.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Dec 2010 10:05

ramana wrote:Ppratyush, In the sixties the Swedes did have such a turretless tank. The idea was to reduce its profile and less mechanical parts. It didnt go beyond prototype as one needs a 360 azimuth turret in battlefield.

If wikipedia is to be believed 270 units of the S-tank were built but its classified as a heavy armament combat vehicle.

The term "battle tank" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations. Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre. In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Treaty on conventional armed forces in Europe

The S-tank would be closer to a tank destroyer than a MBT.