Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

[nachiket]

Its hard to deploy Arjun on East front because, the government has not developed suitable road infrastructure there, which leaves only Air transport as mode of rapid deployment(Road transportation of t-90 will be slow as well).

Which aircraft will you use to transport the T-90? There is no evidence that the IL-76 cargo hold is wide enough to fit the T-90. Even the T-72 which is narrower is extremely difficult to fit in it. The C-17 is large enough to carry both the T-90 as well as Arjun. So what advantage does the T-90 give?

[keshavchandra]

I was watching a documentary on rail and road link project of china upto Tibat. As per this documentary china started the base like for this mega project of around 3000 Km(one fourth portion cover high hill region) in year 1953. But due to project challenges, available technologies and funds limitations, they repetitively delay the project. For the technology know-how china send delegates to all major countries (especially Russia) to learn all the possibilities and shocking part is they cover around 50 countries to get the best out of all. Now they have a better and working rail and road line which is ready to address all high altitude related issues(Like low oxygen..etc)..

I think GOI need to plan a mix project of IR and BRDO to get all the required dimension from one mega project....

[pralay]

Its hard to deploy Arjun on East front because, the government has not developed suitable road infrastructure there, which leaves only Air transport as mode of rapid deployment(Road transportation of t-90 will be slow as well).

Which aircraft will you use to transport the T-90? There is no evidence that the IL-76 cargo hold is wide enough to fit the T-90. Even the T-72 which is narrower is extremely difficult to fit in it. The C-17 is large enough to carry both the T-90 as well as Arjun. So what advantage does the T-90 give?

I thought IL-76 could carry t-90, but just found out that its wider that the IL76 inner space.
Very well, then people shall not say that the tanks can not compete with each other.
Both will operate on same war front and in same environment.
And we know who the winner is

[Sanku]

And we know who the winner is

Yes it will be India, and all its arms.

[Sanku]

Tanks are non going anywhere on A/cs in any meaningful numbers.

All tanks will go by roads onlee.

As for tank use in east, read Vivek Ahuja's scenario.

[d_berwal]

I have never once mentioned the Arjun as a T-90 "replacement" in that post. Neither has anybody else on BRF or in DDM. Please look up the difference between "replacement" and "alternative". I'll give you an example. Say the IAF had been inducting the Gripen. Then the LCA would have been an "alternative" to the Gripen while both would have been "replacements" for the Mig-21.

so as per your logic ARJUN is alternative to T-90, (how come an unfinished product be called as an replacement, at the time when the decision was being taken is beyond my imagination)

lets look at today 2012 scenario IA vs PA:
IA (MBT Fleet equipped for night battle)
- T-90 = 700+
- ARJUN = 120+
- T-72M UPG = 700
Total = 1500 approx

PA (MBT Fleet equipped for night battle)
- T-80 = 320
- AK = 600+
- T-85 II= 700+
Total = 1600 approx (even - Al Zarrar is TI enabled but am not counting it)

lets look at today 2002 scenario IA vs PA:
IA (MBT Fleet equipped for night battle)
- T-90 = 100+
- ARJUN = NA
- T-72M UPG = 300+
Total = 400 approx

PA (MBT Fleet equipped for night battle)
- T-80 = 320
- AK = 100+
- T-85 II= 700+
Total = 1000 approx (even - Al Zarrar is TI enabled but am not counting it)

Even today Arjun cannot be considered as alternative to T-90 my 2cents

[Kailash]

Tanks are non going anywhere on A/cs in any meaningful numbers.

So be it T90 or Arjun, they are not equipped to get to or progress fast on mountainous terrain. Atleast not as well as wheels howitzers,tatra or trucks.

Having no/bad roads on the east essentially doesn't put much emphasis on tanks or tank warfare on the eastern front. That essentially means that against pakistan, we are either so confident with existing tanks or possess enough anti-tank capabilities to not worry about numbers.

[Sanku]

Tanks are non going anywhere on A/cs in any meaningful numbers.

So be it T90 or Arjun, they are not equipped to get to or progress fast on mountainous terrain. Atleast not as well as wheels howitzers,tatra or trucks.

Having no/bad roads on the east essentially doesn't put much emphasis on tanks or tank warfare on the eastern front. That essentially means that against pakistan, we are either so confident with existing tanks or possess enough anti-tank capabilities to not worry about numbers.

Sure fully agree, the tanks will be used as movable pill boxes in mountains to dominate key heights and passes along with extra sand bagging etc.

[pralay]

Even today Arjun cannot be considered as alternative to T-90 my 2cents

very enlightening,
berwal ji,
Considering all the logistics and supply chains are available for both tanks, which are and will be for sure,
What exact modifications/upgrades do you think will make Arjun an alternative to t-90 according to you ? Where does the Arjun lag specifically?

[d_berwal]

berwal ji,
Considering all the logistics and supply chains are available for both tanks, which are and will be for sure,
What exact modifications/upgrades do you think will make Arjun an alternative to t-90 according to you ? Where does the Arjun lag specifically?

Arjun mk1 is almost on par with T-90 (some where it lags, some where it is better but overall on par)
Arjun mk2 will be better in almost all area's if we can sort out quality issues.

There are some serious quality concerns in the present Arjun mk1, which AI has not made public as they don't have a vested interest.

My point of view is why does one want to replace T-90 with Arjun mk2 ?(as mk2 will be an alternative, in view of this discussion ) when IA holds 1000+ obsolete T-72 in active service.

Present IA Inventory:

T-90 = 700+ (Once all T-72 are replaced, then one can think of T-90 replacement, which is 20+ yrs away)
Arjun mk1 = 120+
T-72m1 upgraded = 700+ (once all non-upgraded T-72 are replaced then this lot can be replaced)
T-72m1 = 1300+ (This is an ideal candidate for replacement with Arjun Mk2, Mk3 etc, it will take more than 10 yrs @ 130 units per year to just replace this)

FMBT should be Arjun mk3 or mk4 not a totally new vehicle

There is a realization in IA that the mistakes made in framing Arjun requirements should not be repeated.
- Main flays was that, all requirements were R&D requirements rather that product requirements.
FMBT requirements should be on the basis of what can be bought from market and what can be produced in 3-5 yrs rather that 5-10yrs of R&D and another 5 yrs of testing and etc.
- R&D requirements should be drawn up by CVRDE, VRDE etc.
- IA should only come up with product requirements based on current capability and capability that can be acquired/ bought from market.

[Yagnasri]

I have never once mentioned the Arjun as a T-90 "replacement" in that post. Neither has anybody else on BRF or in DDM. Please look up the difference between "replacement" and "alternative". I'll give you an example. Say the IAF had been inducting the Gripen. Then the LCA would have been an "alternative" to the Gripen while both would have been "replacements" for the Mig-21.

so as per your logic ARJUN is alternative to T-90, (how come an unfinished product be called as an replacement, at the time when the decision was being taken is beyond my imagination)

lets look at today 2012 scenario IA vs PA:
IA (MBT Fleet equipped for night battle)
- T-90 = 700+
- ARJUN = 120+
- T-72M UPG = 700
Total = 1500 approx

PA (MBT Fleet equipped for night battle)
- T-80 = 320
- AK = 600+
- T-85 II= 700+
Total = 1600 approx (even - Al Zarrar is TI enabled but am not counting it)

lets look at today 2002 scenario IA vs PA:
IA (MBT Fleet equipped for night battle)
- T-90 = 100+
- ARJUN = NA
- T-72M UPG = 300+
Total = 400 approx

PA (MBT Fleet equipped for night battle)
- T-80 = 320
- AK = 100+
- T-85 II= 700+
Total = 1000 approx (even - Al Zarrar is TI enabled but am not counting it)

Even today Arjun cannot be considered as alternative to T-90 my 2cents

Do you mean that Pakis have more advaced MBT version tanks than Indians? Some how it is hard to accept.

[koti]

Do you mean that Pakis have more advanced MBT version tanks than Indians? Some how it is hard to accept.

No.
Capability wise T-90 and Arjun are pretty much ahead on a tank to tank basis against both AK and T80. But the number of units they have that are equipped with the Night fighting equipment is more if the numbers are correct. Though this is less of an issue today then it was a decade ago, it is still inadequate to overwhelm the enemy let alone defeat him.

[ParGha]

Capability wise T-90 and Arjun are pretty much ahead on a tank to tank basis against both AK and T80. But the number of units they have that are equipped with the Night fighting equipment is more if the numbers are correct. Though this is less of an issue today then it was a decade ago, it is still inadequate to overwhelm the enemy let alone defeat him.

Night fighting capabilities are important in infantry support and force protection duties, but not that much in a maneuver battle against enemy tanks. If you need to use your tanks to "overwhelme" enemy armour, it means either (a) your engineers and artillery and CAS suck, or (b) your tankies have no operational discipline; minimum engagement with enemy tanks, maximum movements. In a battle of maneuver, the role of your armor and mech-inf is to push/trick the enemy into kill-boxes setup by the engineers and the forward observers/controllers. Its a different story when you need to protect your infantry and engineering (and God forbid, HQ or artillery) from enemy tanks; then you need to be able to fight through night and low visibility conditions, and you should be able to stand and take punishment ... and give it back with interest; minimal movement, maximum engagement. Methinks India has a good combination with T90s for one role (with the Strike Corps' Armoured Bdes) and Arjuns for another role (with the Holding Corps' armoured rgt or bdes). Don't see why it has to be T90 versus Arjuns.

[member_20317]

Sure fully agree, the tanks will be used as movable pill boxes in mountains to dominate key heights and passes along with extra sand bagging etc.

Tanks as movable pill boxes.

I need to understand that better. Where can I find more resources?

[member_20317]

The proportions of various types could be suggesting something about expected usage pattern.
Arjuns : T-90/T-72 : BMPs

I dont see : (1) any clash between usage of Arjun & T-90; or (2) overwhelming enemy armour tactics.

[rohitvats]

Arjun mk1 is almost on par with T-90 (some where it lags, some where it is better but overall on par)

Can you please point out where Arjun lacks in performance when compared to T-90?

There are some serious quality concerns in the present Arjun mk1, which AI has not made public as they don't have a vested interest.

Quality concerns? What have the same got to do with Arjun as a product per se? The T-90 rolling out of Avadi HVF will face similar issues and the article by Ajai Shukla is on record that IA has withheld further orders before they shake down the initial orders absorbed into the IA and find out the QC status. What has this got to do with Arjun?

On the contrary, IA had no qualms to order more T-90 from Russia - when the basic product had issues in the user trial stage itself. So, please take this talk to QC issues and other stuff to people who beat drums about the invincibility of T-90. T-90 and Arjun are both MBT - read that slowly - MAIN BATTLE TANKS - there are meant to serve the same purpose. All this heavy and light MBT is hogwash.

My point of view is why does one want to replace T-90 with Arjun mk2 ?

My counter-question is: Why order more T-90? Why not order more Arjun MK1 to replace the older T-72?

The way IA has managed the MBT acquisition and induction, the 1,670 T-90 are given to come into IA service. But to make them the backbone of Armored Divisions when you've a superior product is nonsense. At least, make the formations earmarked for south of Abohar-Fazilka Arjun dominant? But that would be too much to ask for from the IA.

[Misraji]

@Arjun:
Damn!!! That seems like the very definition of the word: Juggernaut.

--Ashish

[SBajwa]

Are These Chinese tanks? I see a Red Flag.

[nachiket]

Are These Chinese tanks? I see a Red Flag.

These are Indian. The pics are from an exercise. The red flag is probably for the red team. The big ones in the center are Arjuns. T-90 second from left. The little ones are BMP-2 ICVs.

[NRao]

IA had sent out a supplementary RFI for light tanks in May of 2011. IIRC 8 vendors had responded to the earlier RFI.

[d_berwal]

Can you please point out where Arjun lacks in performance when compared to T-90?

rohit you would have to go back couple of dozen pages to see my view on this, which was posted earlier.

Quality concerns? What have the same got to do with Arjun as a product per se? The T-90 rolling out of Avadi HVF will face similar issues and the article by Ajai Shukla is on record that IA has withheld further orders before they shake down the initial orders absorbed into the IA and find out the QC status. What has this got to do with Arjun?

On the contrary, IA had no qualms to order more T-90 from Russia - when the basic product had issues in the user trial stage itself. So, please take this talk to QC issues and other stuff to people who beat drums about the invincibility of T-90. T-90 and Arjun are both MBT - read that slowly - MAIN BATTLE TANKS - there are meant to serve the same purpose. All this heavy and light MBT is hogwash.

i never said light/ medium or heavy,
and about invincibility: of T-90 its only people in forums who dont like to hear any thing accept ARJUN, raise this invincibility issues as a sarcastic comment.
T-90 issues as you point out are way far less serious than the issues of Arjun (my point of view, and you are entitled to have yours)

My counter-question is: Why order more T-90? Why not order more Arjun MK1 to replace the older T-72?

The way IA has managed the MBT acquisition and induction, the 1,670 T-90 are given to come into IA service. But to make them the backbone of Armored Divisions when you've a superior product is nonsense. At least, make the formations earmarked for south of Abohar-Fazilka Arjun dominant? But that would be too much to ask for from the IA.

to replace 1700+ T-72, it would require 10yrs @ 170 ARJUNS per year
- current capability is 30 per year getting scaled up to 50 per year.
- to scale up production to 170 it would take more than 7 - 10years bare minimum.
- where as if both T-90 and ARJUN production lines continue at current rate, there will be 1000 T-90 and 250 Arjuns

[Sanku]

Sure fully agree, the tanks will be used as movable pill boxes in mountains to dominate key heights and passes along with extra sand bagging etc.

Tanks as movable pill boxes.

I need to understand that better. Where can I find more resources?

Well, you can perhaps check out the scenario's thread by Vivek for some vivid description of the same.

Also there are other narratives of battles where this is covered. Let me see if i can fish out links.

[Nikhil T]

Exciting upgrade for Arjun Mk2.

Bangalore firm gives Arjun Tank an 'Automatic Video Tracker'

In another bull’s eye for the city, a Bangalore-based electronics firm has developed a device which would soon make the Indian Army’s Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) an even more formidable weapon of war.
The indigenous Arjun tank, considered the finest third generation battle tank in the world, will soon be fitted with an ‘Automatic Video Tracker’, a device developed by Deepti Electronics and Electro-Optics Pvt Ltd (Delopt), Kanakapura Road. The device homes in on an enemy target and tracks it until it is destroyed.

Based on Line Replacement Units (LRUs) technique, a state-of-the-art technology, the tracker uses thermal technology to locate enemy tanks and vehicles. The device becomes the ‘eyes’ of the tank as it maintains a constant surveillance for potential targets. Once a target is detected, information is passed on to the gunner, who then launches a weapon to destroy the target. The entire process takes no more than a fraction of a second.

A prototype of the device was successfully tested on Arjun tanks in the Pokhran range, Rajasthan recently. A slightly modified version of the device will be handed over to the army in about a month’s time.

According to M R Sheshadri, director of Delopt, Arjun tanks are currently fitted with a manual thermal imager produced by a French company. It requires the navigator to constantly keep an eye on either the monitor or the view finder to locate enemy targets — a difficult process as both are on the move.

“By the time the information is passed on to the gunner, the target would have escaped,” Sheshadri, a former DRDO scientist, said. “With the thermal imager, the navigator can only track the enemy, but he cannot lock on to it for that perfect strike.”

Considering these drawbacks, the DRDO had called for tenders inviting firms to devise and manufacture a mechanism that would lock on to a target irrespective of its speed and location.

“Once the device locks on to a target, the commander can forget about it,” Sheshadri said. “The tracker will take care of the rest. It collects intelligence inputs like location, distance, range etc and in less than a few milliseconds output is sent to the gunner who then fires a missile to destroy the target. It has zero error. Unlike the earlier mechanism, with this device you can save personnel from fatigue. For instance, the tank commander can attend to some other duty while the tracker locks on to the target.”

An Arjun tank is operated by a four-member crew comprising a commander-cum-navigator, gunner, loader and driver.

While the tracker has been devised to primarily locate targets on land, it is capable of tracking air-borne threats as well.

“Whether the target is in the front or at the rear of the tank, the device can detect any enemy threat and lock on to it,” Sheshadri said. “During trials,
it detected fighter aircraft and missiles at a distance of 25 to 30 kms away. But for terrestrial targets, the army wanted us to limit it to 3km. Israel has also installed a commercial grade version of the product in their surveillance gadgets like air balloons etc. The defence grade has been made available only to the DRDO ,” he said.

Although it can locate a number of targets, the tracker can lock on to only one target at a time. “We are working to incorporate multiple target engaging facility,” said Sheshadri, whose firm took five years to develop the tracker.

[Nikhil T]

Exciting upgrade for Arjun Mk2.

Bangalore firm gives Arjun Tank an 'Automatic Video Tracker'

In another bull’s eye for the city, a Bangalore-based electronics firm has developed a device which would soon make the Indian Army’s Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) an even more formidable weapon of war.
The indigenous Arjun tank, considered the finest third generation battle tank in the world, will soon be fitted with an ‘Automatic Video Tracker’, a device developed by Deepti Electronics and Electro-Optics Pvt Ltd (Delopt), Kanakapura Road. The device homes in on an enemy target and tracks it until it is destroyed.

Based on Line Replacement Units (LRUs) technique, a state-of-the-art technology, the tracker uses thermal technology to locate enemy tanks and vehicles. The device becomes the ‘eyes’ of the tank as it maintains a constant surveillance for potential targets. Once a target is detected, information is passed on to the gunner, who then launches a weapon to destroy the target. The entire process takes no more than a fraction of a second.

A prototype of the device was successfully tested on Arjun tanks in the Pokhran range, Rajasthan recently. A slightly modified version of the device will be handed over to the army in about a month’s time.

According to M R Sheshadri, director of Delopt, Arjun tanks are currently fitted with a manual thermal imager produced by a French company. It requires the navigator to constantly keep an eye on either the monitor or the view finder to locate enemy targets — a difficult process as both are on the move.

“By the time the information is passed on to the gunner, the target would have escaped,” Sheshadri, a former DRDO scientist, said. “With the thermal imager, the navigator can only track the enemy, but he cannot lock on to it for that perfect strike.”

Considering these drawbacks, the DRDO had called for tenders inviting firms to devise and manufacture a mechanism that would lock on to a target irrespective of its speed and location.

“Once the device locks on to a target, the commander can forget about it,” Sheshadri said. “The tracker will take care of the rest. It collects intelligence inputs like location, distance, range etc and in less than a few milliseconds output is sent to the gunner who then fires a missile to destroy the target. It has zero error. Unlike the earlier mechanism, with this device you can save personnel from fatigue. For instance, the tank commander can attend to some other duty while the tracker locks on to the target.”

An Arjun tank is operated by a four-member crew comprising a commander-cum-navigator, gunner, loader and driver.

While the tracker has been devised to primarily locate targets on land, it is capable of tracking air-borne threats as well.

“Whether the target is in the front or at the rear of the tank, the device can detect any enemy threat and lock on to it,” Sheshadri said. “During trials,
it detected fighter aircraft and missiles at a distance of 25 to 30 kms away. But for terrestrial targets, the army wanted us to limit it to 3km. Israel has also installed a commercial grade version of the product in their surveillance gadgets like air balloons etc. The defence grade has been made available only to the DRDO ,” he said.

Although it can locate a number of targets, the tracker can lock on to only one target at a time. “We are working to incorporate multiple target engaging facility,” said Sheshadri, whose firm took five years to develop the tracker.

[Singha]

looks like its the hunter-killer handoff thing thats found in western heavies but so far lacking in Arjun mk1.

this is part of the mk2 line items for sure.

[chackojoseph]

Exciting upgrade for Arjun Mk2. Israel has also installed a commercial grade version of the product in their surveillance gadgets like air balloons etc. The defence grade has been made available only to the DRDO ,” he said.

Looks like reverse technology denial.

[d_berwal]

looks like its the hunter-killer handoff thing thats found in western heavies but so far lacking in Arjun mk1.

this is part of the mk2 line items for sure.

it looks like the next thing to traditional hunter killer.

it should involve the following based on the above posted news(my thoughts)
- Advanced algorithm based video frame analysis SW for real-time
- - Detection (based on TI video output)
- - Recognition (classification and prioritization of targets, mbt, afv, icv, etc)
- - Tracking (keeping a track and updating the relative position of targets and shifting between them, plus laying the main gun on target)
- - Management (passing on target information to other vehicles and system, and plotting them on a map)

This would free-up lots of time for commander to preform C2 activities.

[chackojoseph]

Hypothetically, the video tracker, if combined with robust IFF with elements of missile seeker that can identify a hidden target and an auto loader can eliminate a lot of headache for the crew. Probably what they can do is to man the tank with three man crew with multi roles (driver/observer) (one can take rest). So, one guy drives, one observes if the systems are identifying right targets and firing and one can be stand by. So the below 50 tonne FMBT speck is ready.

[d_berwal]

Hypothetically, the video tracker, if combined with robust IFF with elements of missile seeker that can identify a hidden target and an auto loader can eliminate a lot of headache for the crew. Probably what they can do is to man the tank with three man crew with multi roles (driver/observer) (one can take rest). So, one guy drives, one observes if the systems are identifying right targets and firing and one can be stand by. So the below 50 tonne FMBT speck is ready.

to Hypothetical for me,

video Auto-tracker plotted targets and targets identified plotted by BFSR + robust IFF is the solution to go for. (A BMS which can combine feed from Video tracker and BFSR etc)

for a three man crew, one needs a auto-loader other wise 3 man crew is impossible. (my view)
- Driver duties cannot be clubbed with anything, driver duties are too demanding and drivers vision is immediate ground nor a 360degree observers view.
- Gunner and Commander can be combined but to much to ask for, it need very advanced SW and HW interface, even western world is not near this, its still 10-15 yrs for this to be practical
- If no auto-loader, loader is mandatory.
- Commander/observer and some one to man radio and communication is must.

[prabhug]

Hi
i saw it in the msme defexpo.I was still not convinced with the ability to track after tranks uses some camouflage like smoke grenades and the ability to track one tank among multiple tanks

[chackojoseph]

Hypothetically, the video tracker, if combined with robust IFF with elements of missile seeker that can identify a hidden target and an auto loader can eliminate a lot of headache for the crew. Probably what they can do is to man the tank with three man crew with multi roles (driver/observer) (one can take rest). So, one guy drives, one observes if the systems are identifying right targets and firing and one can be stand by. So the below 50 tonne FMBT speck is ready.

to Hypothetical for me,

video Auto-tracker plotted targets and targets identified plotted by BFSR + robust IFF is the solution to go for. (A BMS which can combine feed from Video tracker and BFSR etc)

for a three man crew, one needs a auto-loader other wise 3 man crew is impossible. (my view)
- Driver duties cannot be clubbed with anything, driver duties are too demanding and drivers vision is immediate ground nor a 360degree observers view.
- Gunner and Commander can be combined but to much to ask for, it need very advanced SW and HW interface, even western world is not near this, its still 10-15 yrs for this to be practical
- If no auto-loader, loader is mandatory.
- Commander/observer and some one to man radio and communication is must.

I did mention auto loader. Check bold.

You are looking it at a traditional role of commander -driver-gunner etc.

I am proposing a crew that can drive, observe and calibrate since the functions of detection, tracking, loading, firing and verification is automated. Added to that, the sit rep can be fed by external mode like UAV, Surveillance etc. In battle field, the third extra can man the machine gun if needed.

A 3km BSFR should not be that demanding technology. Anyways, the video device mentioned above is anyway handling that to a lot of extent.

Hypothetically, though.

[Kailash]

Is this system an addon to the thermal imaging device from Fance? Or is there an indigenous TI part of this system?

[chackojoseph]

As per the narration, the device features a thermal detection. So logically, it is not a add on for thermal sight.

[member_20617]

[quote="chackojoseph

to Hypothetical for me,

video Auto-tracker plotted targets and targets identified plotted by BFSR + robust IFF is the solution to go for. (A BMS which can combine feed from Video tracker and BFSR etc)

for a three man crew, one needs a auto-loader other wise 3 man crew is impossible. (my view)
- Driver duties cannot be clubbed with anything, driver duties are too demanding and drivers vision is immediate ground nor a 360degree observers view.
- Gunner and Commander can be combined but to much to ask for, it need very advanced SW and HW interface, even western world is not near this, its still 10-15 yrs for this to be practical
- If no auto-loader, loader is mandatory.
- Commander/observer and some one to man radio and communication is must.[/quote]

I did mention auto loader. Check bold.

You are looking it at a traditional role of commander -driver-gunner etc.

I am proposing a crew that can drive, observe and calibrate since the functions of detection, tracking, loading, firing and verification is automated. Added to that, the sit rep can be fed by external mode like UAV, Surveillance etc. In battle field, the third extra can man the machine gun if needed.

A 3km BSFR should not be that demanding technology. Anyways, the video device mentioned above is anyway handling that to a lot of extent.

Hypothetically, though.[/quote]

Taking this further

I have an idea – can we not aim to produce unmanned automated combat tanks (UACT) like UCAVs linked to external mode like UAV, Surveillance etc as suggested by chackojoseph?.

[Singha]

a high power mast mounted BFSR + BFSR-on-rotor-UAV combo that scans 10km ahead and automatically lays down murderous mortar fire on people hiding in foxholes and defilades waiting to ambush mobile columns from close range would be a good add.

[koti]

to Hypothetical for me,

video Auto-tracker plotted targets and targets identified plotted by BFSR + robust IFF is the solution to go for. (A BMS which can combine feed from Video tracker and BFSR etc)

for a three man crew, one needs a auto-loader other wise 3 man crew is impossible. (my view)
- Driver duties cannot be clubbed with anything, driver duties are too demanding and drivers vision is immediate ground nor a 360degree observers view.
- Gunner and Commander can be combined but to much to ask for, it need very advanced SW and HW interface, even western world is not near this, its still 10-15 yrs for this to be practical
- If no auto-loader, loader is mandatory.
- Commander/observer and some one to man radio and communication is must.

Regarding the 4 man crew, I think it has more to do with saving Autoloader weight then the 4th man advantage.

[Snehashis]

Arjun-Mark I main battle tank will prove its mettle by firing a LAHAT missile

A modified version of Arjun-Mark I main battle tank will prove its mettle by firing a LAHAT missile from an Army range this month. The LAHAT (Laser Homing Attack or Laser Homing Anti-Tank missile) is a third-generation semi-active low-weight anti-tank missile. This version was fired from the Arjun tank in 2004. The Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment, a DRDO facility at Avadi, designed and developed the Arjun.

[Yagnasri]

It is as if with out Lahat the tank is useless. We have gone for riffle barrel on the idea that Rockets are not so effective. Goes for Lahat as an option may be good , but advertising and craving for missle firing capacity is strange.

[Singha]

is Arjun Mk2 making a move to smoothbore cannon?

[Austin]

is Arjun Mk2 making a move to smoothbore cannon?

Rifled Gun as existing Arjun Mk1