Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 15 Jun 2013 23:05

ranji wrote:Modular tank will be easy to airlift in parts and then assemble. Here all marks for Arjun.

How is Arjun modular and T-series isn't ?

member_26965 · Post by **member_26965** » 16 Jun 2013 10:34

If you read the literature, the engine of Arjun can be disassembled and put back soon. Armour is modular. Good enough to space saving and faster assembly. Is this possible with T-90?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 16 Jun 2013 11:57

RKumar wrote:Indian Army T-72 Tanks barrels bursts

http://frontierindia.net/indian-army-t- ... els-bursts

Could it be that this issue still not fixed along with Krashnapov ammunition? or will it be too expensive and wastage of taxpayers money to fix these?

The culprit in this case is OFB which manufactures the tank shells and not the T-72 gun barrel.

There have been serious QC issues with OFB manufactured ammunition in the past with ammunition worth 100s of crores rejected by IA because of IA issues...and then, it became a blame game between DRDO and OFB. I think some geniuses in OFB had tried to mix and match the propellant charge and got it completely wrong leading to ammunition issue. There is a detailed CG Report on the same.

sarabpal.s · Post by **sarabpal.s** » 16 Jun 2013 12:13

Should not OFB put under the Army control? where IA is direct customer like this product.

sarabpal.s · Post by **sarabpal.s** » 16 Jun 2013 12:18

ranji wrote:If you read the literature, the engine of Arjun can be disassembled and put back soon. Armour is modular. Good enough to space saving and faster assembly. Is this possible with T-90?

Wrong we are talking about whole tank not Engine, which can be changes in hour or less in Arjuna but tin can't.
other than this there will be common routine disassemble and transfer tank via Plane

member_26965 · Post by **member_26965** » 16 Jun 2013 12:25

There might not be Logo assemblies. So you are wrong on this. As I understand that these small changes are enough to space save and fly. Arjun engine can be assembled back faster than T-90. There might or might not be advantage on armour module.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Jun 2013 13:18

What the hell are you talking about boss. What has engine assembly-dissembly got to do with space saving? Question is can you do something quickly so that tank can change in width.

member_26965 · Post by **member_26965** » 16 Jun 2013 13:44

Correct. As if you guys have a choice. There are just two tanks. Arjun Tank and T-series. People want to discuss modularity in them suddenly. Why engine and armour separation cannot be modularity? What is the choice here? Between the two options, Arjun is modular. It's faster to assemble. Naturally there are trade offs. Height - T-90 2.22m , Arjun 2.32m' width - T-90 3.78m , Arjun 3.87m.

C-17 can easily load M1 A1 Abrams (3.66 m width, 2.44 m height). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IdgzCODvZM

The weight crunch comes when its has to be loaded on to a c-130j ( C-130J's cargo compartment is approximately 41 feet (12.5 m) long, 9 feet (2.74 m) high, and 10 feet (3.05 m) wide - Wiki).

A bunch of super generals consider others trollers and would like to fight with LEGO toys.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 16 Jun 2013 15:38

Even if you take out the engine, rest of body which includes turret, chassis still stands. Taking out the engine may help in reducing weight, but it has absolutely nothing to do with dimensions.
Whatever I know of Arjun, Kanchan armour can't be taken off just like ERA tiles.
Except for easier assembly of engine (I'm taking your word on this), there is nothing in public domain which makes Arjun more modular than T-series.
According to my understanding, a more modular tank will be the one in which turret, chassis etc can be dissembled and assembled easily, a bit like Lego. I don't know of one single armoured vehicle like that.

member_26965 · Post by **member_26965** » 16 Jun 2013 15:58

To assemble your realtime lego's , you have to create a full fledged workshops in the destinations for heavies like T-90 and Arjuns. A place like Nyoma, a C-130 or C-17 can land with less weight and another comes with the engine and a crane and accessories. Probably 3 planes can put 2 Arjuns in action with that combination.

The degree of modularity you are not comfortable with. My opinion is it is foolish to disassemble a tank and then assemble it and then test it in the heat of the moment.

Arjun's modular engine and replacability is some 1 odd hour compared to 5 odd hours for T-90. Kanchan is a modular armour. Its a fact. Arjun's terrain capabilities are also known vs T-90 including gradient negotiation.

You can correct me on the above. I am also an arm chair but not lego type. As I said, there are trade offs.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 16 Jun 2013 18:08

rohitvats wrote:The culprit in this case is OFB which manufactures the tank shells and not the T-72 gun barrel.

Rohit, Ajai Shukla mentions that it was because the OFB tempered the barrels at temperatures that were lower than specified.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Jun 2013 20:43

Where is Tank-Ex?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 16 Jun 2013 20:59

the type of workshop required to put together a tank (and all its systems and then test it) will really not be possible in a forward location, nor will it be feasible in a hurry

member_26965 · Post by **member_26965** » 17 Jun 2013 06:59

They can also degrade Arjun Mk 1 to strip out systems that are required for desert climes and suit it for subzero. It can be done within country. FCS and other components can be straight away imported from cold European countries and operationalised. Climitisation within tank can be undertaken for high altitude pressure levels and crew comforts like a heater which can also heat up the MRE . They can also use Tank-Ex concept for a lighter version.

The new mountain division they are raising has 2 armour units, who can have this equipment.

If they start today, the equipment in Mk-1 should be ready by next 5 years.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 17 Jun 2013 10:20

I do not see we have option for cold and hot wheather Arjuns. Unfortunately we have various kinds of place like Ran of Kuch to Rajastha, Punjab, Himalayas to Assam etc wherein we may need forces at a very short notice. So any system is required to be deployed in most of the areas. Removing ac ets for tanks of moutain division looks ok on paper but are we sure we will not be forced to deploy the same tanks somewhere it is very hot and humid?,

member_26965 · Post by **member_26965** » 17 Jun 2013 11:14

If airlift option is not needed, then T-90 / 72 routinely operates in those conditions elsewhere. The last batch order might have these tanks and army must have built this in specs for the new terrain requirement. Hopefully they have.

mody · Post by **mody** » 17 Jun 2013 11:29

The M1A1/2 Abrams are modular in some respects, that the turret and chassis can be disassembled relatively easily.

In fact there was a program on NatGeo or Discovery channel, Mega Factories, I think, that showed the entire process. After the dis- assembly, the turret and chassis are reconditioned at two different factories, 100 of miles apart and then the two parts are put together fairly easily.

member_26965 · Post by **member_26965** » 17 Jun 2013 12:39

I have already replied *Weight.* http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1471506

People are abusing the word modular by stereotyping it.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 17 Jun 2013 12:51

@ranji

The engines of variants of Arjun weigh about 2.0 tonnes each. How will reducing 2.0 tonnes from a 58 tonne tank improve its modularity in terms of weight. Please explain how the same will prove it superior to a 48 tonne tank, in the given aspect of modularity in terms of weight.

58 - 2 = 56 > 48

member_26965 · Post by **member_26965** » 17 Jun 2013 12:53

Armour? Why only selective engine picking?

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 17 Jun 2013 12:57

Are you sure about that? Your two statements themselves raise question marks on that???

member_26965 · Post by **member_26965** » 17 Jun 2013 12:58

Which two statements?

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 17 Jun 2013 13:02

ranji wrote:To assemble your realtime lego's , you have to create a full fledged workshops in the destinations for heavies like T-90 and Arjuns. A place like Nyoma, a C-130 or C-17 can land with less weight and another comes with the engine and a crane and accessories. Probably 3 planes can put 2 Arjuns in action with that combination.

The degree of modularity you are not comfortable with. My opinion is it is foolish to disassemble a tank and then assemble it and then test it in the heat of the moment.

Arjun's modular engine and replacability is some 1 odd hour compared to 5 odd hours for T-90. Kanchan is a modular armour. Its a fact. Arjun's terrain capabilities are also known vs T-90 including gradient negotiation.

You can correct me on the above. I am also an arm chair but not lego type. As I said, there are trade offs.

ranji wrote:There might not be Logo assemblies. So you are wrong on this. As I understand that these small changes are enough to space save and fly. Arjun engine can be assembled back faster than T-90. There might or might not be advantage on armour module.

member_26965 · Post by **member_26965** » 17 Jun 2013 13:05

Look who is trolling without combining the engine and armour with selective quotes. Haven't I already told that the two can be separated with Arjun and assembled faster? And I used the word 'might.'

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 17 Jun 2013 13:08

On the T series I think that initially they were taking the Turret off and transporting them to Leh AFB. Then the turrets would arrive in the next flight, and they would be assembled.
The next thing was loading a T-72 without ammo, side skirts, essentially taking off everything extra as much as possible and loading it carefully onto the IL-76.
At lease on the Next gen tank - FMBT, air mobility should be part of the design process. In terms of Tank Dimensions, modularity and removal of parts which can be quickly assembled at the field level as much as possible.

A few decades in the future, our military will be deploying overseas to protect India's interests, mobility of ALL military platforms for quick overseas deployment has to be one of the requirements.

But finally, India REALLY needs to have an all weather road to the farthest corners of Laddakh. The Leh Manali tunneling is going on, but it is a single road

member_26965 · Post by **member_26965** » 17 Jun 2013 13:41

IAF IL-76 can carry approx 40 tonnes. So, weight is important factor.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Jun 2013 15:59

the internal volume and 40t payload limit means its a good people mover and for light wheeled vehicles that are less wide than the T72 (which is quite narrow)...jeep types..nothing much bigger like stallion trucks will fit in. Its kind of in the C130J volume category if you think about it and its a mistake to think of it as a strategic airlifter.

big daddy had the AN22 Cock (80 tons payload) and planned to have a fleet of AN124 for the real work.
there are photos of AN22 with entire ICBM telar and missile being loaded up.

we need the C17 and AN124 to operate like that. beating up the IL476 for not being a C17 is like beating a buffalo for not being a hippo. whether by barking or getting beaten the buffalo cannot be made a hippo.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 Jun 2013 17:12

advancing to concurrent engineering for large projects is the ideal way to go.. having the required technical skills and ability, the only thing that remains is establishing the capabilities to execute orders. in addition, we should be able to re-engineer and re-design parts that fits cross-cutting features across a platform range. we could standardize like the car industry, like compact, medium-size and heavy-duty platforms, the engine, body, structure and size being standard, and the addons being different. features are different, like gun, range, etc. electronic stds can be easily achieved.. augment parts gets into plugin model of deployment and confign.

LRU components and concurrent engineering the way to go. The will is there, tech is there, people are there, money is there. We need only the good politics and IA coming away from the corruption path. If they are silent and keep showing the negative-capabilities, mean they have corruption to the core, that can never be proven and shown. IA could easily sail another 100 odd years without problems as there is no present and clear danger, per its ops and capabilities forecast.

Aam People are not that dud to understand these.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 18 Jun 2013 13:03

mody wrote:The M1A1/2 Abrams are modular in some respects, that the turret and chassis can be disassembled relatively easily.

In fact there was a program on NatGeo or Discovery channel, Mega Factories, I think, that showed the entire process. After the dis- assembly, the turret and chassis are reconditioned at two different factories, 100 of miles apart and then the two parts are put together fairly easily.

If we watched the same show, then it took months for tank to come back to operational status. They didn't mention how easy or difficult is it to take apart and put together the whole thing again. Things are easier in those huge factories with expensive machines and very well trained and experienced manpower.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 18 Jun 2013 14:29

any complex vehicle these days will not be plug and play modularised lego kit buildable in the field. they can be designed that way, but they are not right now

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 18 Jun 2013 14:45

Come on gurus. Airlifting of Tanks??? Are we fighting wars around the world??? If we do not have proper roads and allow us in a situation wherein we do not know enimy plans and actions in advance and do not have proper roads to such places for rapid deployments of armour and forces then we are going to have our a** kicked anyway. How we are going to fight such war?? With tanks alone and no supplies, no infentry??? No art.

Next thing someone asks is since Arjun do not fly independently for 5000Km without refuling and has no particle canon we can not have it. GOD.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Jun 2013 18:05

plug and play possible within the category of the intended design scope. for example, standardization can lead to more plug and play, and the reason i said, we could have compact, medium and heavy armor category of vehicles. for example, we could come up with 3 types of turret, for each category, and engines in one area of standardization.. many other LRUs can be flexible and cross cutting across platforms. it can be designed and built that way, but it is a massive effort. only indics can do it.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 18 Jun 2013 18:18

saik - all fine, but not in the field, the SI and testing challenge is too great
better off building railheads and roads up to the critical areas

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 18 Jun 2013 23:12

It is not possible to have operational roads for even half of the year in many vital places. Even Jammu to Srinagar highway remains closed for extended periods of time in winters and even in monsoons. Laddakh road is much more difficult.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Jun 2013 03:34

perhaps out of the box thinking is required for mountains.. light weight design, single man or remote controlled robotic tanks should play a big role, and of course that would be entirely a new category of light-combat vehicles.

symmetrical design, something to think about: http://www-robotics.jpl.nasa.gov/system ... ?System=16

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Jul 2013 10:11

Indian T-90 Upgrade ( pg 23 , 28,29 )

http://www.geopolitics.in/july2013.aspx

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 07 Jul 2013 20:09

Rebirth of Catapult artillery system with Arjun Chassis

In unusual twist of events and as per latest media reports, Indian Army plans to bring back M46 howitzers mounted on Vijayanta tank chassis (originally the Vickers MBT) back to life. Indian army will soon place orders for 40 Arjun chassis to be used for mounting Soviet era M46 Howitzers.

‘Bhim’ self-propelled howitzer project which was supposed to replace Catapult system before it was shelved after supplier of 155mm / L52 howitzer guns by Denel of South Africa was blacklisted by Indian government . Project went cold and find for replacement Gun to be mounted on Arjun chassis not yet been successfully, Bhim was successfully tested by Indian army and was cleared for Production before the project went cold due to blacklisting.

After success with M-46 guns in 1971 war with Pakistan , Indian army had used soviet union supplied towed 130 mm Field Gun M-46 and mounted it with Vijayanta tank chassis and was known has Catapult artillery system which served in Indian army till 2008 before it was put in reserve .

According to Military experts India had put into reserve around 100 Catapult artillery systems most of the guns will come from here, but before it is mounted on Arjun chassis, Guns will be upgraded to 155mm 52 calibre standard by OFB and then DRDO will integrate it with Arjun chassis.

Initial order of 40 can go up if Army is satisfied with the Final Product and Indian army can procure more of these guns from old soviet bloc countries, Indian army had a requirement of 200 mounted howitzers on Arjun chassis for the Bhim Project.

vic · Post by **vic** » 07 Jul 2013 22:26

Why not just put OFB 155mm Bofors on Arjun Chassis?

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 07 Jul 2013 22:38

Why not denels gun? I think the blacklist is expiring soon.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 07 Jul 2013 22:46

Why not buy an entire tracked artillery system from somebody who actually knows how to build them like the Europeans, the Koreans, the Russians etc ??