Design your own tank

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 12 Dec 2010 21:16

Thats why I posted that

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 12 Dec 2010 21:26

shiv wrote:If we know these facts beforehand it means that any Chinese build up of lagre tank forces within 500 km of Aksai Chin can be construed as a threat of invasion. So how do we respond

1) Ideally I would like to see a defeat of Chinese tank forces in Aksai Chin itself.
2) I would like to see an Indian invasion of Aksai Chin

Preemptive defeat of Chinese armor would be the realm of MBRLs and air power for us. In fact, the reduction in density of air at those altitudes leads to almost forty percent increase in range for most conventional artillery systems in the IA. In other words, a Pinaka unit from Saser could rain death on Chinese tanks deep inside the Aksai Chin cued in from LOS UAVs and/or Satellites. In fact, such systems already exist within the IA. The air-power application becomes a slight bit more problematic because of Chinese S-300 system capability. In any given war, inital strike options would in fact rest with Indian rocket artillery units (tactical effects) rather than air power, which will have more of strategic effect in later days by when the anti-air threat is neutralized.

However, the invasion of the Aksai Chin with light armor units would need some kind of analysis. I had done some analysis on aerial deployment rates for the IAF and so forth a year ago. Let me see if I can dig those up. Basically speaking, for any invasion aspect, we assume that the major concentrations of Chinese armor have been neutralized before dispersion into the hills in defensive setups and that the IAF has secured counter-MSR dominance over the Chinese in the Aksai Chin area. These are powerful requirements that I am not sure we can pull off yet with our own strength (current or projected, unfortunately). As I said, we probably need to do a simulation of IAF aerial deployment and sustainment capacities to be sure...

That said, deep inside the Aksai Chin, the LOS problem disappears for lighter, mobile units to play hit and run against Chinese forces. Frankly, if we could sustain them, I say its a powerful option at our hands...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Dec 2010 21:29

Off topic - but this weapon recently ordered appears ideal against an attacking tank/vehicle formation in flat terrain. The only question is - will those parachutes work as advertised at 15,000 feet up in the mountains
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97_Sensor_Fuzed_Weapon

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 12 Dec 2010 22:35

Wouldn't a vehicle like the M3 bradely be suitable for the envisaged role. It retains the 25mm cannon for infantry support and a potent AT defence in the form of TOW missiles.
there would, of course, be a need to be refine this to suit our needs but this should do what shiv sir says.

sohamn · Post by **sohamn** » 12 Dec 2010 23:15

shiv wrote: No No absolutely no ideas to counter all this - all valid observations. But I must say I am approaching this issue from the back door. I am making an assumption of "What we can carry using MCA?" first and then thinking about what is achievable with that weight and then wondering (from sheer ignorance and blindness) about what the Chinese can throw against such a vehicle.

Without going through all the theoretical groundwork I had/have in my mind's eye a vehicle (not necessarily a formal "tank") that falls somewhere in between a 15 ton Indian Army BMP and a 35 ton Tungushka. I am throwing some questions up in the air here. Any infantry force in the mountains can have RPGs and ATGMs. They will have mortar/artillery as well. But what will the Chinese bring on with 20 or 30 mm cannon? I am ignorant here. And if the terrain is suitable for full size battle tanks - then yes there is no point having anything less. But I am assuming mountain terrain and the need to traverse passes and roads that are just passable by 20-30 ton trucks where the main heavy opposition (if any) is from the air and fire from mountain vantage points some kilometers away. I may be completely off the mark (apart from being off my rocker and out of my depth) but am willing to learn.

The idea is to have a mobile vehicle that doubles up to provide anti-aircraft and anti-armored vehicle power and a multi-barrel heavy caliber machine gun armament that can rain a high volume of firepower against concentrations of troops and light fortifications. A road-mobile A-10 Warthog-lite.

Shiv
I think there is some merit in your thought. Ladakh is indeed a tank territory
but the route to Ladakh is not. I remember indian army had positioned few t 72 tanks
there. But all of them had to be airdropped by Gajraj. In case of an unprovoked attack
we may not be able to transport the tanks quickly.
In this case what we need is a mobile gun platform. It should be airdroppable. Main role
should be to counter enemy armoured formation and provide arty support.

It would be interesting if you could define your specs as well.

bapatnikhil · Post by **bapatnikhil** » 12 Dec 2010 23:30

Sohamn sir,
How are you planning on connecting one 2 stroke and one GT (total 2000) HP to a 1500 HP electric motor? If the GT is 1800 HP wouldn't it be a waste of additional power if the generator-motor set is only 1500 HP? The gas turbine is a high speed low torque engine and piston engines are usually low speed-high torque engines so to connect it to a generator, which is supposed to run at a constant speed irrespective of the load, pretty complicated gearing would be required.

And why 2 stroke engine? 4 stroke ones are better when it comes to efficiency. And I think with the new technology like CRDI and good machining the newer 4S diesel engines are much much better than a few years ago.

For GT vs Diesel engine we can always design reciprocating engines to accept different fuels. Apart from this gas turbines can accept some more fuels than a normal diesel engine but are very very sensitive to the impurities/derbies in fuel and intake air. So even though acceptance of different fuels seems good, normally GT fuels are lighter and more refined than normal diesel is. I guess a tank which uses same fuel as rest of the vehicles in the regiment, that is diesel would simplify logistics.

Apart from this the engineering crew normally works with piston engines, so a tank piston engine is just a bigger version of say a truck piston engine. A GT would require it to be taken out at regular intervals to change the blades etc. which cannot be done by maintenance crew without special training and equipment, a diesel engine requires much less maintenance than a GT

Notwithstanding the last point, why not try something like Wankel engine? It uses normal fuels, it is much more smoother and also has high power/weight ratio.

sohamn · Post by **sohamn** » 13 Dec 2010 00:39

bapatnikhil wrote:Sohamn sir,
How are you planning on connecting one 2 stroke and one GT (total 2000) HP to a 1500 HP electric motor? If the GT is 1800 HP wouldn't it be a waste of additional power if the generator-motor set is only 1500 HP? The gas turbine is a high speed low torque engine and piston engines are usually low speed-high torque engines so to connect it to a generator, which is supposed to run at a constant speed irrespective of the load, pretty complicated gearing would be required.

And why 2 stroke engine? 4 stroke ones are better when it comes to efficiency. And I think with the new technology like CRDI and good machining the newer 4S diesel engines are much much better than a few years ago.

For GT vs Diesel engine we can always design reciprocating engines to accept different fuels. Apart from this gas turbines can accept some more fuels than a normal diesel engine but are very very sensitive to the impurities/derbies in fuel and intake air. So even though acceptance of different fuels seems good, normally GT fuels are lighter and more refined than normal diesel is. I guess a tank which uses same fuel as rest of the vehicles in the regiment, that is diesel would simplify logistics.

Apart from this the engineering crew normally works with piston engines, so a tank piston engine is just a bigger version of say a truck piston engine. A GT would require it to be taken out at regular intervals to change the blades etc. which cannot be done by maintenance crew without special training and equipment, a diesel engine requires much less maintenance than a GT

Notwithstanding the last point, why not try something like Wankel engine? It uses normal fuels, it is much more smoother and also has high power/weight ratio.

The GT & the AUX engine will be connected to the generator using a gear box. It won't be connected together i.e. either connected the GT or the AUX.
About the power, my apologies, It was a typo. It should be 1800 bhp electric motor and power output at the shaft should be atleast 1500 bhp. (Some power goes away in transmission loss and some for operating other equipments)
By the way about the gearing, we have many locomotives, ships etc that does so(Hybrid Propulsion). Even in India the diesel locos dosen't rotate the drive shaft directly . The challenge is to minituarize such an assembly and still make it reliable.
The biggest advantage of having hybrid propulsion is high torque at 0 rpm, which only an electric motor can produce.

As for AUX engine, please note that mostly these are compact 2 cylinder engines. Today no battletank has more than 2 cylinder aux engine. Some even have a single cylinder. However, the power these aux engines generate is no more than 30 bhp. Strykers AUX engine(single cylinder) generates only 10 bhp, M1A1(twin cylinder) aux engine generates 20 bhp.
But my design needs 200 bhp AUX engine and it should be small, simple twin cylinder(1000 cc) engine. I guess the simplest design for the same should be a 2 stroke. I don't want any complicated design, it should be able to take a lot of punishment.
By the way, another adv of 2 stroke engine is it can also be adapted to take multi fuels. 2 stoke engines used is ships can take fuel oil whose viscosity is far greater than diesel ( looks like MOBIL Lube ).

About maintanence, i guess if you have the right tools, equipment and crew GT should not be difficult to maintain. The real adv of GT is space and high power ratio. Thats why I want to go for GT.
But hey, if you find a compact 4S engine that generates equivalent power let me know and I'll be delighted to offer this version for export customers.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Dec 2010 01:54

It would be a risky decision if a future tank can be restricted by a terrain condition, given that on the same terrain an enemy tank can go full speed destroying anything on its way. I am not saying if this would be a reality, but for planning and designing if there exists a possibility that a tank could plow through a terrain, then we should consider placing such options on the table.

--

This is the finished animation showing the Spetsnaz Tank I modeled entirely in ZBrush 4.0
nice animation

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 13 Dec 2010 04:06

shiv wrote:Off topic - but this weapon recently ordered appears ideal against an attacking tank/vehicle formation in flat terrain. The only question is - will those parachutes work as advertised at 15,000 feet up in the mountains
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97_Sensor_Fuzed_Weapon

Shiv saar beyond what you have pointed out, I have always thought that the fact that the CBU SFW needs to be released ideally in a fly over the target manuover is not comforting when you are up against enemies with dedicated shorads newtworks...I suppose the key as Vivek has pointed out would be suprise suprise suprise!!!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Dec 2010 06:16

The other important thing to do when it starts looking like this "light vehicle" may be a good idea is to see what any sensible Chinese would do to smash the idea and defeat Indian forces. I find that the best way to think about that is imagine that the Chinese have invented and manufactured the vehicle and are now airdropping 100 such vehicles at a time and attacking us. What would we do/innovate to defeat an attack using such vehicles.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Dec 2010 08:23

If I speak of a "light and highly mobile armed vehicle" that can be air transported and can travel up mountain roads - it will clearly have less armor than a tank and will not require a 120 mm tank main gun to take it out. It would probably be vulnerable to 23 or 30 mm cannon fire and RPGs. If such a vehicle were armed with anti-tank missiles that can outrange an MBT's main cannon and was able to use terrain cover (not in Aksai Chin I guess) or mobility it could pose a threat to an an attacking tank force. The assumption here is that he tanks themselves would be caught in a situation where they are less effective in neutralizing these mobile buzzing flies.

The design assumptions are critical and if those goals are not met or cannot be met the idea must be thrown in the bin.

1) It must be light enough to be air transportable by MTA. If air dropping is possible, so much the better
2) It must be fast and mobile, being able to outrange and outrun a battle tank
3) It must be able to negotiate mountain roads that do not allow tanks (the road should consider it a truck)
4) It must have antitank armament that can take out MBTs at ranges of 5000 to 6000 meters. Maybe the Nag?
5) It must be able to provide high volume heavy caliber suppressing fire - perhaps 23 mm against human and light fortified targets and aircraft/helicopters.

Such a vehicle should be dangerous to tanks in any terrain that allows mobility or terrain cover against LOS fire.

If these vehicles have to be taken out and neutralised - it could be done with mere 23 mm cannon fire - but they would have to be caught first. They could be "caught" in a narrow "saddle"- a town in a valley. They could be caught in plains by air power - helicopters or CAS aircraft.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 13 Dec 2010 09:14

Guys,

I am surprised that no one has on this thread has thought in terms of the return of the jeep/ LSV mounted 106 MM RCL mated with the clip on fire control system shuch as one ofiund for Shipmon.

The vehicle will be light, low profile, will have adequate killing power when it comes to APCs and trucks. Air transportable, will not require a lot of infrastrutue to support it self. This combined with ATGM jeeps and a smattering of Tanks should give us with adequated resources to deal with PLA as they come west in Laddhak. The low profile will also keep them safe.

JMTs apply

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Dec 2010 09:17

A future nag may AND multiple seeker technology - mmw/IR/electro-optic along with initial inertial. A future namica may be stealth variant

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Dec 2010 09:32

folks might want to investigate the scramjet tank shell that darpa was working on. it promises much higher range at the kind of velocity which conventional cannons give for 0-2km.

Saik I believe lockheed has that tri-mode seeker - gps/iir/mmw - so a Hellfire becomes a gps guided "rocket bomb" ; IIR guided precision strike ; MMW guided adverse weather/dust cloud strike immune to IR countermeasures. a fighter armed with 12 such weapons could inflict a lot of damage in any conditions from a distance of 10km - beyond effective MANPAD range. Sher Khan has also tried out F18 dropping a JDAM but pushing GPS target updates to a in-flight JDAM so that gps guided weapons can be used on mobile targets.

Hellfire2 could well become the most versatile weapon with such a tri-mode seeker. far far superior to Maverick of old.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Dec 2010 09:43

That would be really scary. From the radar thread Raytheon is full speed on miniaturization of AESA radars for fighter and Missiles seekers (algan nano wires perhaps), and such a seeker where mmw operates in LPI mode, nothing jamming it either, when at close range optics and IR can fuse in the coords. Sure death for enemy targets. Opt name hell fire.

Add laser designation then chant govinda.

bapatnikhil · Post by **bapatnikhil** » 13 Dec 2010 10:24

sohamn wrote:
bapatnikhil wrote:
The GT & the AUX engine will be connected to the generator using a gear box. It won't be connected together i.e. either connected the GT or the AUX.
About the power, my apologies, It was a typo. It should be 1800 bhp electric motor and power output at the shaft should be atleast 1500 bhp. (Some power goes away in transmission loss and some for operating other equipments)
By the way about the gearing, we have many locomotives, ships etc that does so(Hybrid Propulsion). Even in India the diesel locos dosen't rotate the drive shaft directly . The challenge is to minituarize such an assembly and still make it reliable.
The biggest advantage of having hybrid propulsion is high torque at 0 rpm, which only an electric motor can produce.

As for AUX engine, please note that mostly these are compact 2 cylinder engines. Today no battletank has more than 2 cylinder aux engine. Some even have a single cylinder. However, the power these aux engines generate is no more than 30 bhp. Strykers AUX engine(single cylinder) generates only 10 bhp, M1A1(twin cylinder) aux engine generates 20 bhp.
But my design needs 200 bhp AUX engine and it should be small, simple twin cylinder(1000 cc) engine. I guess the simplest design for the same should be a 2 stroke. I don't want any complicated design, it should be able to take a lot of punishment.
By the way, another adv of 2 stroke engine is it can also be adapted to take multi fuels. 2 stoke engines used is ships can take fuel oil whose viscosity is far greater than diesel ( looks like MOBIL Lube ).

About maintanence, i guess if you have the right tools, equipment and crew GT should not be difficult to maintain. The real adv of GT is space and high power ratio. Thats why I want to go for GT.
But hey, if you find a compact 4S engine that generates equivalent power let me know and I'll be delighted to offer this version for export customers.

That is one nice idea. Maybe we can design the tank and earn some good $$

And BTW you can connect both GT and motor directly to driveshaft using planetary gears. I know this because some guys I knew, have developed a system of gearbox which connects both to the drive shaft simultaneously. The gearbox uses planetary gears to connect the engine to genrator and if need arises to the driveshaft directly. The advantage is electric motors are good for constant speed but when the vehicle needs a power boost, say climbing uphill, we can connect both to the shaft at the same time (not 100% power from both but rather 1.5 times normal).

It looks like you have some serious thought going on in your mind about BR tank design

. Do you also happen to have some drawings? That would be great!

sohamn · Post by **sohamn** » 13 Dec 2010 10:45

bapatnikhil wrote: That is one nice idea. Maybe we can design the tank and earn some good $$
And BTW you can connect both GT and motor directly to driveshaft using planetary gears. I know this because some guys I knew, have developed a system of gearbox which connects both to the drive shaft simultaneously. The gearbox uses planetary gears to connect the engine to genrator and if need arises to the driveshaft directly. The advantage is electric motors are good for constant speed but when the vehicle needs a power boost, say climbing uphill, we can connect both to the shaft at the same time (not 100% power from both but rather 1.5 times normal).

It looks like you have some serious thought going on in your mind about BR tank design . Do you also happen to have some drawings? That would be great!

Definitely a good idea. I did mention this in my post before. In dire situation coupling the electric motor , GT and AUX will provide a huge amount of power for a limited time.
No actually I don't have any drawings. But yes, I have a friend who works in GDLS and some who works for the Army and I have had many discussions with them. And I take a lot of personal interest in tanks.

sohamn · Post by **sohamn** » 13 Dec 2010 10:48

shiv wrote:If I speak of a "light and highly mobile armed vehicle" that can be air transported and can travel up mountain roads - it will clearly have less armor than a tank and will not require a 120 mm tank main gun to take it out. It would probably be vulnerable to 23 or 30 mm cannon fire and RPGs. If such a vehicle were armed with anti-tank missiles that can outrange an MBT's main cannon and was able to use terrain cover (not in Aksai Chin I guess) or mobility it could pose a threat to an an attacking tank force. The assumption here is that he tanks themselves would be caught in a situation where they are less effective in neutralizing these mobile buzzing flies.

The design assumptions are critical and if those goals are not met or cannot be met the idea must be thrown in the bin.

1) It must be light enough to be air transportable by MTA. If air dropping is possible, so much the better
2) It must be fast and mobile, being able to outrange and outrun a battle tank
3) It must be able to negotiate mountain roads that do not allow tanks (the road should consider it a truck)
4) It must have antitank armament that can take out MBTs at ranges of 5000 to 6000 meters. Maybe the Nag?
5) It must be able to provide high volume heavy caliber suppressing fire - perhaps 23 mm against human and light fortified targets and aircraft/helicopters.

Such a vehicle should be dangerous to tanks in any terrain that allows mobility or terrain cover against LOS fire.

If these vehicles have to be taken out and neutralised - it could be done with mere 23 mm cannon fire - but they would have to be caught first. They could be "caught" in a narrow "saddle"- a town in a valley. They could be caught in plains by air power - helicopters or CAS aircraft.

Do you think Stingray II fits your idea?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_Light_Tank

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Dec 2010 10:55

folks dont restrict your thoughts - out of wild fantasies come the germs of great ideas.

at one end - small, ferret like vehicles (manned or unmanned) with sharp eyes and ears that shoot from cover / non-LOS or scamper fast....avoiding direct contests with bigger beasts.

at other end - humongasaurus type Merkavaish type beasts that stand openly and say "Maa ka dudh piya hai to bahar nikal saale, bahar nikhal aur dikha hame bajuo me kitna dam hai" ( if you you drunk your mothers milk, come out and dont hide! come out and show me the strength of your biceps!)

I have some thoughts.

due to terrain rarely does one imagine a situation wherein a entire regiment of 55 tanks will be line abreast to uncover max firepower and charge in like a Prokhorovka type wwf cagematch for a day long 'shoot anything' slogfest. as seen in Iraq - usually it will be units of 8-16 tanks coming into contact with the enemy and moving into line either for offense or defence because the 2nd line of tanks if any cannot fire safely...so all better be in one line. in open iraq desert, us army used a box formation with abrams tanks in the corners, who'd all move to the front if enemy force encountered.

also the entire regiment of 55 tanks never seems to advance in one blob - more like 16-32 in one blob with associated command tanks, ARVs, infantry for ATGM support (IFV/BMP), fuel tankers & spare engine/parts trucks, ammo trucks (might come fwd occasionally to replenish), Jeep/BTR type recce vehicles to screen the flanks, Tunguska/ZSU type AA vehicles, and tube and rocket artillery from division+WLR vehicles constantly keeping in range to provide indirect fire support. thats likely the minimum organic unit for armour battlegroup on the move. the rest of regiments tanks could form another such group or be held in reserve in the rear.

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 13 Dec 2010 14:50

slightly digressing from the topic,

How about highly armored battle station. position inside the mountain passes which replace the traditional sangars or outposts.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 13 Dec 2010 15:03

It can be bypassed and the enemy can go arround it. Unless you have a whole series of these. But then you just end up recreating Maginot Line to be reduced at leasure by the PLA.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 13 Dec 2010 15:11

^^Exactly my thoughts. Such a form of defence is very likely to be bypassed or be rolled over from flanks, rather than being attacked frontally.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 13 Dec 2010 16:09

>>folks dont restrict your thoughts - out of wild fantasies come the germs of great ideas.

Ok...I think two technologies basically change the tank warfare like anything and solve all the problems currently faced by Indian tank developers in meeting the requirement set forth by IA officers.

It solve all the strategic and tactical mobility problems.

It makes the tank lighter say between 30 - 40 ton much lesser than anticipated 50 ton in FMBT.

It fires projectiles much longer than any tank.

If required it can also be converted as SP artillery.

Without saying if leveraged properly it offers enormous protection.

But the draw back, it is not stealthy. Not necessary. In this tank, no one needs to be cowards like Americans who depends upon stealth for their survival and one can fight like man, hand to hand, gun to gun and face to face in this tank.

Two technologies that talked about are Cold fusion and Transformer technologies. Don't laugh.. It is going to be the reality.

With Transformer Technology(TT) and abdundant energy from Cold fusion(CF), it can fly like a plane to any war zone without any concern about strategic and tactical mobility. Once the mission is over it can fly back. This negates the need to have bridge laying equipments, transporting trucks/rail wagons etc. A net save for the government.

Having CF enables the employment of rail gun. Yes rail gun tech needs to be deveopled but that is diferent matter altogether. Once we have that, it can fire projectile any further with much more greater velocity. This can be further leveraged to act as SP artillery gun.

With enormous energy from CF, it can form a Electromagnetic ring that defeats any threats approaching the tank. This makes the tank as light as possible. Solving all the problems faced by the current tank developers.
Thats it. You have the most powerful tank.

Sorry couldn't resist Singha.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Dec 2010 18:37

sohamn wrote:
Do you think Stingray II fits your idea?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_Light_Tank

No because it has a maingun which in my view is a restricted weapon except for a heavy tank. The interesting thing about this tank (via Googal unkal) is that they put a 105 mm gun because there is a lot of ammo available.

I think there is no alternative to an antitank missile armament. Perhaps I am looking for a NAMICA with a 23 mm cannon to boot.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 13 Dec 2010 19:13

Bala Vignesh wrote:Wouldn't a vehicle like the M3 bradely be suitable for the envisaged role. It retains the 25mm cannon for infantry support and a potent AT defence in the form of TOW missiles.
there would, of course, be a need to be refine this to suit our needs but this should do what shiv sir says.

Like i said earlier, this should suffice your need, after a bit of trimming.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Dec 2010 19:47

Bala Vignesh wrote:
Bala Vignesh wrote:Wouldn't a vehicle like the M3 bradely be suitable for the envisaged role. It retains the 25mm cannon for infantry support and a potent AT defence in the form of TOW missiles.
there would, of course, be a need to be refine this to suit our needs but this should do what shiv sir says.
Like i said earlier, this should suffice your need, after a bit of trimming.

The Bradley minus the troop carrying requirement.

Incidentally Wiki has an interesting data point
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Fighting_Vehicle

During the Persian Gulf War, M2 Bradleys destroyed more Iraqi armored vehicles than the M1 Abrams.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Dec 2010 20:20

here is my attempt to come up with a modular family of vehicles (20-25t) range, deployable by MTA piecemeal (plugin modules come in another MTA) or as-is in IL76/C17...please read the text carefully as it lays out the capabilities and 'vision' behind my design.

I name this JMITV (Joint Modular Indian Tracked Vehicle)..the "Joint" is not needed since only IA will use it, but sounds cooler because american uses it for everything including the JTSL (joint tri service loo)..a wheeled version on tatra/xyz in same form factor is also possible...JMIWV.

the outer "shell" has driver, commander, diesel engine, fuel tank, radios, exhaust cooling intake, exhaust cooler and dissipator slits, electric generator, 360' periscope, armour protection with provision for additional bolt on armour for frontal aspects, communication(BMS) gear and two huge "slots"....

into these slots go two modules M1 and M2 which have a mix of weapons and sensors as appropriate. the rear module can also be a people module (with AC & heating and NBC protection) and carry 6 people (or 10 if using a stretched chassis for outer shell).

as roles and technology dictates, develop and change modules and slot them in. the outer shell evolves on its own track so long as physical, electrical and hvac interface remains backward compatible

repair and reload of weapons is offline , prepacked and tested modules will be slotted in by workshop/ARV vehicles as needed. reloading of M2 ammo module using electrically driven beltfeed from the rear is also possible when ammo module is not desired to be removed (A10 warthog is fed same way from huge drum belts)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/33097132@N ... 9/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33097132@N ... 9/sizes/l/

goal of 10 mins field time for pulling up and slotting in with self-test a new module. a faulty or damaged module should no longer hold up the entire platform....

the oil smudge in first pic is from a piece of cake I was eating while drawing(its not the outline of a beer can)...

I will be moving to designing heavier vehicles in my next round of 'creative writing'

negi · Post by **negi** » 13 Dec 2010 20:28

You mean we can take the BMP-2 platform and stuff it with more armour (we do not need troop carrying ability, do we ?) and fit in our licensed version of L7 (105mm rifled gun) ? This along with NAMICA should offer a decent punch against the Cheeni armour at high altitude. Btw who made those pics, Singha Jr. ?

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 13 Dec 2010 20:29

shiv wrote: The Bradley minus the troop carrying requirement.

Incidentally Wiki has an interesting data point
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Fighting_Vehicle
During the Persian Gulf War, M2 Bradleys destroyed more Iraqi armored vehicles than the M1 Abrams.

The M3's that i mention are exactly that. They are scout tanks, if you could call them that. These Bradleys use the troop compartment to carry extra ammo, fuel etc.

I pretty much had the same reaction when i first read it.

Singhaji,
Awesome work. Really love the concept. But for the time being we should forget about the troop carrying ability and consider solely on the other roles that we can use these bad boys in. For troop transport,IMVHO, there should be no compromise made to assure their safety to the extent possible.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Dec 2010 20:30

no Negi, I drew them myself an hour ago.

also the or 75mm 105mm high velocity cannon if modularized with a reload module in back would be another concept along same lines. a APDS round fired even from a 75mm cannon should be able to shred most things below a MBT std.

even the bradlay 25mm bushmaster cannon was able to go clean through older T-series MBTs...

negi · Post by **negi** » 13 Dec 2010 20:32

Dada concept-2 is good VL Nag with LOAL capability would be good in a mountainous terrain where the target might not always be in LoS.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Dec 2010 20:39

I believe Nag already has LOAL or radio command link ? else how in the test video does it climb so steeply and then tip over to top attack and crush the target?

negi · Post by **negi** » 13 Dec 2010 20:41

Yes but it is not VL , I was wondering if we can have both the main gun and 4 canister cluster behind the turret (obviously missile won't be fired when turret is in 180deg position).

And yes they can be wooden rounds i.e. no moving/rotary reload mechanism required.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Dec 2010 20:42

Singha wrote:no Negi, I drew them myself an hour ago.

Flippin heck those drawings are beeeeyooootiful!

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 13 Dec 2010 20:44

Singha Bliss take a look at this .

The VL missile is a reality and can also be left unattended near raod junction to kill approaching enemy vehicles.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 13 Dec 2010 20:47

Like Shiv said...

We need something fast and highly mobile. I am thinking something like a ATV, only bigger. So perhaps something like an ATV with 4 pairs of chunky wheels, not the same size as that of a wheeled 155 mm gun carrier, but on the same lines but much smaller that trades off the size with speed. I am not sure the German half track concept in WWII would be useful for speed?

Ideally such a contraption would have a small cabin for 2 that is titanium armored to protect against shrapnel, small arms fire and even small caliber bullets. The Nag or equivalent would be carried in quad or 6 packs , 3 on each side. The cabin would provide the central launch console, with a small radar for target acquisition. I suppose there could be space for a small gun for self protection...

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 13 Dec 2010 20:54

Tanaji I think you are thinking avanger with ATGM capabilities. Instead of Air defense for the original vehicle.

Provide 4 of these to every company link them with data links and 32 enemy tanks will be gone when the force decideds to make its presence felt.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Dec 2010 21:29

I believe IA has been testing a hummer sized or slightly bigger vehicle (huffy, tuffy, various JV offerings like mahindra axe, AL , Tata...) etc for better part of a decade without any commitment to buy large nos, no deals and no vision made public as to what these are supposed to do in terms of firepower / sensors besides just carrying around people.

if you want to launch anything from inclined tubes, the us army MLRS carrier is a good soln - basic armoured cabin upfront and a low flatbed in back for inclined tubes of any missile.

for VL tubes of sufficiently long range even a AL Stallion 4x4 truck could carry one module on its back and shoot it off even by remote control but its tall profile makes it stick out like a sore thumb and its zero armour protection wont work. so not a soln...but the small NLOS Nag missile packs in back of smaller 4x4 hummer sized vehicles would definitely work as pointed out by link above.....

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 13 Dec 2010 21:46

Actually not a bad idea.. If we can somehow use the image from a UAV loitering overhead, to guide the missile to a target then we can easily overcome the LOS requirements and the Avenger-like units can be employed everywhere without any problems.. Another solutions is to use GPS as an initially and when the missile reaches terminal stages, let the IIR seeker take over... Doesn't exactly make it fire and forget but for these situations they need not be..
They can be mounted on AXE/Gypsy and be easily transported/maintained by any means available.. A similar AAD vehicle can also be used to take out enemy aircrafts when they come to carry out CAS for the enemy...
JMVHO...
Added later- Got beaten by singha sir.

manish.rastogi · Post by **manish.rastogi** » 14 Dec 2010 00:08

can we have a fully electric engine,...!??please say why or why not too!!