Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

[pragnya]

The infrastructure upgrades in the Himalayas, specially the NE are likely to remain a joke for another decade at least

agree. infact it may take more than a decade if you hear the stories from BRO. they are short on labour and even latest road building equipment. unless the pvt sector which has big infra players are involved, this is going to remain a 'long term' project.

and one wonders why we haven't thought about a light wheeled tank. Having ploughed through the Arjun and other projects, we should be able to develop something like the Panhard with 90mm gun in relatively short time.

IA which was looking for light tanks and issued RFI for the same in 2009 has changed it's mind and now wants MBTs (T-90MS) to be stationed there. so the wheeled or tracked tanks are not required. if you reacall DRDO had developed a 105mm (GIAT Turret) light tank based on a BMP 2 which did not find favour.

http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfocus/2009/aug09.pdf

[Pratyush]

The MBT is not going away, however, it is getting supplemented by wheeled combat vehicles in many armies.

It may be some thing that can be studied for execution in the IA. Cause, equipped with Active protection system such vehicles may be survivable in most battle field situations.

On the negative side, if will cost nearly the same as new MBT.

On the plus side, being lighter, it will required a lighter logistical support structure.

[Karan M]

Found this..

[Karan M]

Also, spares for Arjun.

http://smartinvestor.business-standard. ... ML_Ltd.htm

AR 2011-12

The Union Budget for 2012-13, hiked the defence outlays to Rs. 1,93,407.29
crore. This represents a growth of 18% over the previous year`s outlays and
is one of the highest increases in recent years. Of the total Capital
Expenditure of the three services, around 89% 66,459.43 crore) is earmarked
for capital acquisition or modernization. To meet this demand, BEML has
geared up by setting up a facility to overhaul T-72 in addition to BMP II
and power pack for Arjun and manufacture of parts, quantity of Arjun tank.
BEML will produce and supply spare parts for MBT Arjun required for both
OEM and spares requirement as OFB is not able to cater to the demand. Plans
are on the anvil to deliver the order of ARV as per the delivery terms
including indigenization.

[negi]

Karan is that image an artist's impression or kind of a leak of official rendering ?
The turret frontal looks unsymmetrical about the vertical axis to me ; what is that green box on the left turret face ?

[Pratyush]

It is the milimitric wave radar installation. It is intended to augument the FCS, I think.

[Pratyush]

Reading the APFSDS thread and looking at the pic of the shot. I get the feeling that the barrel burst problem has something to do with the type of shot and the fact that it is a 2 piece round, with the propellant in both the parts of the round.

We have had this issue bothe with imported barrel and domestic barrel.

[Karan M]

Hi Negi, its an artists rendering.. kinda looks awesome though so posted it.
The green box.. i am still unsure myself what the box on the Mk2 prototypes is.. either ERA arranged in a way it doesn't impact the GMS, or a BFSR set up, or a MMW setup (for IFF - they actually have a prototype of that).

[Victor]

IA which was looking for light tanks and issued RFI for the same in 2009 has changed it's mind and now wants MBTs (T-90MS) to be stationed there. so the wheeled or tracked tanks are not required. if you reacall DRDO had developed a 105mm (GIAT Turret) light tank based on a BMP 2...

MBT in Arunachal is impossible, period. Even light tank won't do. We need a sturdy wheeled ATV that can go off road and fit it with the biggest gun it can carry. Even Tata trucks move around with care there and prefered mode is Sumo or better.

[Rahul M]

Karan is that image an artist's impression or kind of a leak of official rendering ?
The turret frontal looks unsymmetrical about the vertical axis to me ; what is that green box on the left turret face ?

it is not symmetric janab.

[Pratyush]

Rahul,

In the photo linked by you. The turret does give the impression of being a patch work. For a simple reason that the front left side of the turret has a full suit of ERA. But the right front side gives the impression of being largely unprotected.

Personally, I think that this was a short term measure, in order to save time, and have the major technologies sorted out. While the DRDO worked to redesign the turret, which would integrate the modifications for the definitive MK 2. Which we will see as a production version.

[chackojoseph]

It is definitely a patchwork. There is no full standard Mk2 right now.

[Rahul M]

that CGI was simply an extension of this version, which is WIP, as you say.

will have to wait and see how final version looks like. however, modern tanks are not perfectly symmetric e.g leclerc.

on a general note, how do the leclerc and K2 rank in terms of protection, given its 3 man crew ? do their autoloader solution avoid the pitfalls of the soviet one ? what do the resident tank experts say ?

[Pratyush]

Rahul,

Don't claim to be an expert. But reading on the matter of the Tin can auto loader, the problem is the autoloader design, it self which is a compromise in order to save space.

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/EQP/al-72.html

Quoting from the link.

Note however, that opposite to a common belief the carousel is well protected from above. During loading, the round passes through the door that closes after the tray has retracted, and therefore in the case of turret penetration the incandescent splinters will land on the autoloader roof and not ignite the carousel. Nevertheless, the extra rounds stored in the fighting compartment are very likely to ignite in this case, and of course the lower hull penetration is quite deadly.

In other words, not the autoloader per se, but the whole notion of placing ammunition inside a fighting compartment makes the tank very susceptible to catastrophic fire if penetrated from virtually any angle. This has been amply illustrated by the conflicts in which T-72s and T-80s have participated.

Now, for the K1 And Leclerc, wiki has the following, the K2's loader while derived from the Leclerc has no interchange parts.

The Leclers auto loader as provided by Army Guide. http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3648.html

It seems that no reliable schematics exists as to where the auto loader is actually located, in side the tank.

[chackojoseph]

http://youtu.be/0IjgndIFhgU

[Rahul M]

Pratyush, I am aware of tin can series' autoloader problems. that's why I was asking whether k2/AMX56 avoids those and if so, how ?

thx chacko, the vid indicates that tin can's carousel system is not used in these.

[Pratyush]

One of the You tube links is provided below. For the K2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NjkP62IJKU

It seems that the Ammunition is located in the Turret bustle and ammo is loaded on a conveyer system. Which brings the relevant ammo to the Auto loader.

The DFI has some of the images of the 120 MM auto loader system of the Lelerec linked. on this page.

Page 258


In addition to the above, the ammunition is kept separate from the fighting compartment. Which is turn is supposed to overcome a T 72 type problem.

However, in the absence of information about Blow off Armour panels, for the turret. It is hard to say just how well protected the tanks are.

[vic]

We should be practical. If Army is satisfied with T-90 then DRDO should be tasked to develop next version or indigenous variant of T-90s. Otherwise we should continue improving the Arjun line.

[Austin]

More firepower offered for BMP-2 IFV
Christopher F Foss, London - IHS Jane's International Defence Review

Russia's Kurganmashzavod Joint Stock Company has developed two firepower upgrades for the widely deployed BMP-2 Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV).

The first version includes the installation of a B07K2 gunner's sight that features double-plane head mirror stabilisation, a thermal imaging camera, and a laser rangefinder. The imagery from these devices is displayed on a monitor at the gunner's position in the turret.

Furthermore, in place of the commander's roof-mounted TKN-3MB vision device, the TKN-AI unit, which features laser active pulse illumination, has been installed.

Armament improvements come in the form of a twin launcher for the Kolomna KBM 9K120 Ataka missile system. This offers improvements in lethality and range over the 9K113 Konkurs anti-tank guided missile that is installed on the standard BMP-2 IFV.

The Ataka has a semi-automatic command-to-line-of-sight guidance system, requiring the gunner only to maintain his sight on the target until missile impact. The supersonic missile has a maximum range of 5,800 m (the Konkurs is effective out to a range of 4,000 m), and at least three types of missile are currently being marketed. The first of these, the 9M120, is the option for the BMP-2 upgrade.

The 9M120-1 features a tandem high-explosive anti-tank warhead that is claimed to be able to penetrate 800 mm of conventional steel armour protected by explosive reactive armour (ERA). The 9M120F1 has a thermobaric (or fuel air explosive-type) warhead that is optimised for use against bunkers, and the 9A220 has a continuous-rod high-explosive warhead with impact and proximity laser fuzing, which is normally used for airborne applications.



No upgrades have been made to the BMP-2's 30 mm 2A42 dual-feed cannon and 7.62 mm PKT co-axially mounted machine gun.

The more limited second firepower upgrade package includes the installation of a remote-controlled 30 mm AG-17 automatic grenade launcher and a BPK-3-42 gunner's sight.

Survivability enhancements come in the form of appliqué passive armour to the hull and turret, spall liners inside of the crew compartment, and special plates under the hull floor for improved protection against mines. Bar/slat-type armour has been fitted to the hull and turret to help counter rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs). ERA could be fitted as an alternative to the bar/slat armour, but this would increase the gross vehicle weight.

Other survivability improvements include the installation of fire- and explosion-proof diesel fuel tanks and suspended seats for the crew.

For improved crew comfort during operations in high ambient temperatures, a KBM 2 air-conditioning system can be fitted, and tracks with rubber pads will reduce damage to roads and noise.

Finally, the existing engine can be replaced by a more powerful UTD-23T turbocharged diesel unit that develops 360 hp and upgraded suspension, including stronger torsion bars and new road wheels.

[jamwal]

Read an article in Hindi Dainik Jagran that Army has raised the issue of smoke buildup inside Arjun after firing rounds . Any other related news ?

[RKumar]

Thanks Jamwal, I took your lead and found this article from 06.11.2013

खामियों के चक्रव्यूह में फंसा 'अर्जुन'

नई दिल्ली, जागरण ब्यूरो। स्वदेशी युद्धक टैंक अर्जुन तकनीकी खामियों के चक्रव्यूह को नहीं तोड़ पा रहा है। मुख्य युद्धक टैंक के तौर पर तैयार अर्जुन-मार्क 2 के हालिया परीक्षणों के दौरान बैरल से निकला धुआं मुख्य चेंबर में भरने की बीमारी सामने आई है। वहीं, इस तकनीकी रोड़े ने एमबीटी अर्जुन के सेना में शामिल होने की मियाद बढ़ा दी है।

उच्च पदस्थ सूत्रों के मुताबिक, अगस्त में राजस्थान के पोखरण में अर्जुन टैंक के मिसाइल फायर परीक्षणों के दौरान बैरल से निकले धुएं के मुख्य चालक कक्ष में भरने की समस्या दर्ज की गई। यह परेशानी गंभीर है क्योंकि इसके कारण चालक का दम घुटने का भी खतरा है।

अर्जुन को विकसित करने वाले रक्षा अनुसंधान एवं विकास संगठन (डीआरडीओ) को भी इसकी जानकारी है तथा इसे दूर करने के प्रयास अब किए जाने हैं। अर्जुन अपनी 120 मिमी गन से एंटी टैंक मिसाइल भी फायर करने में सक्षम है।

ताजा तकनीकी खामी के कारण 2015 में अर्जुन-मार्क2 को सेना में शामिल करने की योजना खटाई में पड़ सकती है। अर्जुन को अगली पंक्ति की तैनाती के लिए मंजूरी देने से पहले सेना मुख्यालय हर पैमाने पर संतुष्ट होना चाहेगा। इसका परीक्षण बीते दो सालों से जारी हैं।

अर्जुन-मार्क2 का हालिया परीक्षण भी साठ से अधिक संशोधनों और सुधारों की कामयाबी आंकने के लिए किया गया था। इसमें टैंक के लिए नाइट विजन, थर्मल इमेजिंग, टैंक रोधी मिसाइल फायरिंग, ऑटोमेटिक टार्गेट ट्रैकिंग आदि शामिल हैं।

स्वदेशी अर्जुन टैंक परियोजना चार दशक से अधिक पुरानी है। वैसे टैंक कहने भर को ही स्वदेशी है क्योंकि इसमें 55 फीसद उपकरण विदेशी हैं। यह बात डीआरडीओ रक्षा मंत्रालय संबंधी संसदीय समिति को दिए अपने प्रतिवेदन में स्वीकार कर चुका है। इस परियोजना के लेकर सेना और डीआरडीओ के बीच खींचतान भी काफी समय से चली आ रही है।

इसकी क्षमताओं को लेकर आशंकित सेना ने अर्जुन और रूसी मूल के टी-90 टैंक की बाकायदा प्रतिस्पर्धा भी कराई थी। हालांकि, इस तुलनात्मक प्रतियोगिता में अर्जुन जीत तो गया लेकिन अभी भी सेना का दिल जीतने के लिए उसे परीक्षा पास करना जरूरी है।

[putnanja]

Can someone please translate the article into english please?

[Pratyush]

^^^

Reading the news, it seems that it is a new problem for the tank. Funny, as the Mk1 has no such issues.

[rohitvats]

Can someone please translate the article into english please?

Long story short - in the recent trials of firing the ATGM from the tank gun barrel, issue of missile gas exhaust flowing into the crew compartment was observed.

[negi]

I like the repot though , not taking a side but just sticking to the story. Anyways looks like this is normal teething problem may be a more powerful fume extractor will do the job. What would be interesting to know is if this issue persists with Refleks and T-90.

[Rahul M]

Pratyush, MK1 didn't fire missiles.

[NRao]

IF this is true, I wonder how it was not caught before the test? I am sure the manufacturer conducts his own tests prior to a user test.

I could be dead wrong, but, something does not seem right.

[SaiK]

good point nrao. can someone answer this?

is this a case that happened only to one unit or all vehicles leaked smoke?

[ArmenT]

Perhaps the missile doesn't generate enough pressure within the barrel for the fume extractor valves to function properly? A shell generates a lot more bore pressure than a rocket does and the propulsion force ceases to act on the shell after it leaves the barrel. In contrast, a missile starts off slowly and continues to accelerate long after it has left the barrel tube.

[Pratyush]

Pratyush, MK1 didn't fire missiles.

But I distinctly recall, Mk1 conducting LAHAT tests. So what changed between then an now?

[krishnan]

there has been no confirmation till date, no videos, though all those available say it can fire LAHAT , but all have videos of leopard or other MBT

[pragnya]

I like the repot though , not taking a side but just sticking to the story. Anyways looks like this is normal teething problem may be a more powerful fume extractor will do the job.

yes. would not be a problem that can't be easily solved.

What would be interesting to know is if this issue persists with Refleks and T-90.

sir, how can you ask such questions?? T-90 is 'selected' to be the MBT and if it has been selected, how can there be issues?? ok, minor problems like TI which surfaced, were licked loooong back no??

Pratyush, MK1 didn't fire missiles.

LAHAT missile firing capability was proven in Mark 1 Arjun.



but in the debates of T-90 vs Arjun (past) somebody (Karan M ??) mentioned IA did not want the capability in Mark 1 so was not included.

[negi]

^ Yep remember that pic being posted here .
Janes had reported Arjun's test firing of Lahat during DEFEXPO in 2004.

[Austin]

Abrams Dieselization Project: A Modest Proposal
Abrams Dieselization Project: Doing the Math

[tsarkar]

Rahul,In the photo linked by you. The turret does give the impression of being a patch work. For a simple reason that the front left side of the turret has a full suit of ERA. But the right front side gives the impression of being largely unprotected.Personally, I think that this was a short term measure, in order to save time, and have the major technologies sorted out. While the DRDO worked to redesign the turret, which would integrate the modifications for the definitive MK 2. Which we will see as a production version.

For some reason best known to designers, all Arjun's (Production Mk1 & under development Mk2) have the gunner's sight in front right of the turret in an insert next to the gun http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-caimA47ZKgk/U ... rmy-IA.jpg

Most tanks have their sights on top, but in Arjun, the sight is next to the gun. Introduces a weak spot in the turret if an enemy round hits there. In Mk2, the gunner's sight next to the turret prevents the ERA to be placed there.

Karan is that image an artist's impression or kind of a leak of official rendering ? The turret frontal looks unsymmetrical about the vertical axis to me ; what is that green box on the left turret face

It is the milimitric wave radar installation. It is intended to augument the FCS, I think.

Hi Negi, its an artists rendering.. kinda looks awesome though so posted it.

There is NO mmW radar planned or under development for any tank. Only mmW IFF http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QDmMhNsWp7w/U ... CIFF-1.jpg

Among the improvements are Elbit ALWCS (advanced laser warning and countermeasure system) http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2011/11/u ... rk-ii.html

Now the original Elbit ALWCS on Arjun Mk 2 had this layout (refer page 2) http://elbitsystems.com/Elbitmain/files/ALWACS.pdf and this http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-o6O2WYDbY6c/U ... ALWACS.jpg

However, the final Arjun Mk 2 ends up looking like this http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tFh6xR7UQtE/T ... raphic.jpg

I believe the green box is the Advanced Missile Detection System component of the ALWCS.

Having said that, the green box and the gunner's sight make it impossible for ERA placement for protecting the front right of the turret.

The gunner's sight needs to be moved to top of the turret for better protection.

[Karan M]

The armor modules behind the GMS extend further and hence its not a weak spot. I confirmed this by speaking to one of the designers a few years back. There is a simple reason the GMS is located where it is, for protection from arty & infantry targeting from the sides. It was what was adopted in the original LEO2 A4 design and the design was deemed good enough to retain. In the original configuration, the GMS is the only sight that has a thermal camera with stabilized optics. The CPS is limited in comparison & does not have the same. So to protect the GMS is essential.

In MK2, the CPS is upgraded and is located on top and replicates the GMS capability, which remains located where it is because if the CPS gets knocked out (arty, infantry) its still there for night ops.

Incidentally, even the ERA is actually not required for MK2 over the frontal arc, Kanchan is a pretty solid package - its been added because IA felt a) T-90 has it, so should the Arjun b ) Its easier to field replace than damaged Kanchan modules which require heavier work at the ABW. But it adds more weight to the tank and is not exactly optimal for a tank deemed too heavy to begin with.

Instead of adding more heavy ERA, they should have convinced the IA to add an APS & be done with it.

[Rahul M]

karan, would be nice to read your comments regarding autoloader designs on non-russi tanks like leclerc, k2 etc.

>> LAHAT missile firing capability was proven in Mark 1 Arjun.
not disputing that. but this capability was limited to one (modified?) Mk1 tank. the Mk1 model as such didn't have this capability.

[chackojoseph]

not disputing that. but this capability was limited to one (modified?) Mk1 tank. the Mk1 model as such didn't have this capability.

There was no mod. They kept the designator outside. It was to show that the barrel can fire it.

MK2 has designator inside.

The smoke seeping in is a matter of concern if multiple missiles are being fired. Exhaust port has to be modified I suppose.

[rrao]

Hindi to English Google translation:

New Delhi, July Bureau. Indigenous Arjun battle tanks have been unable to break the maze of technical flaws . Arjun main battle tank prepared - Mark 2 out of barrel during the recent trial of smoke filling the main chamber of the disease occurred . However , this technical obstacle MBT Arjun has extended the term of joining the military .According to highly placed sources , Arjun tank missile at Pokhran in Rajasthan in August during fire tests barrel filling out the smoke problem recorded in the driver cabin . This problem is serious risk of choking because it is the driver .Arjun who developed the Defence Research and Development Organisation ( DRDO ) is also aware of it and try to remove it would be now . Arjun anti-tank missile from its 120 mm gun is able to fire .Fresh Arjun in 2015 due to technical faults - Mark 2 can upset the plans to join the army . Arjuna before being approved for deployment of the next line headquarters would be satisfied at every scale . The trial continues from the last two years .Arjun - Mark 2 modifications and improvements over sixty recent test was used to assess success . The tank for the night vision , thermal imaging , firing anti-tank missiles , automatic target tracking , etc. .Indigenous Arjun tank project more than four decades old. The tank is negligible because only 55 per cent of indigenous instruments are foreign. The matter to the Parliamentary Committee on Defence Ministry has acknowledged in its report . The project tussle between the Army and the DRDO is also long -standing .Worried about its military capabilities Arjun and Russian- made ​​T-90 tanks were competing examinations . However , in the comparative Arjuna won the competition to win the hearts of the army , but is still required to pass the exam .

[Singha]

tanks generally used a blast of air to clear the barrel after each shot iirc.