Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Arjun Tank News Thread

    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2914
    Points : 3790
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Arjun Tank News Thread Empty Arjun Tank News Thread

    Post  Vladimir79 on Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:04 am

    India will start testing a second version of the tank Arjun summer 2011

    Organization Defense Research and Development (DRDO) of India in the summer and winter of 2011 will test an improved version of the main battle tank Arjun Mark II, reports IANS. Test tank held a year after the government and the Ministry of Defence of India approved the establishment of a second version Arjun. Details of upcoming inspections are still unknown.

    Arjun Mk.II will differ from the basic version of the tank's ability to launch anti-tank missiles through the gun barrel. New laser-guided missiles are capable of destroying enemy armored vehicles at a distance of eight kilometers. In addition, the tank will get improved active-reactive armor, guidance systems and surveillance systems, night vision and communications equipment.

    Currently in service with Indian Army worth 124 Arjun tanks first version. In mid-May 2010, shortly after comparative tests Arjun and T-90 assembled in Russia, India's army has ordered 124 of the tank, which will also be delivered in the first version.

    Arjun is able to reach speeds of up to 72 miles an hour down the highway and 40 miles per hour over rough terrain. Tank equipped with laser guidance and night vision devices. The main armament of the tank is represented by 120-mm rifled gun. In addition, the tank
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21749
    Points : 22295
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Arjun Tank News Thread Empty Re: Arjun Tank News Thread

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jan 21, 2011 2:50 am

    Rifled gun?

    Even the British are changing to smooth bore aren't they?

    What sort of HESH round does India use?
    nightcrawler
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 522
    Points : 634
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 29
    Location : Pakistan

    Arjun Tank News Thread Empty Re: Arjun Tank News Thread

    Post  nightcrawler on Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:54 pm

    Oh Gosh!
    Their Arjun will be the main competitor against our Al-Khalid
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Khalid_%28tank%29
    & we use the 125 mm smoothbore gun!! with all kinds of modern self-stabilised rounds
    Last time if I recall the Indian army generals weren't at all happy with the suspension system of Arjun
    In 2007 the Arjun tank was fielded during the Ashwamedha exercise in the deserts of Rajasthan.[42] The army was extremely unhappy with the tank, citing 14 defects that included "deficient fire control system", "inaccuracy of its guns", "low speeds in tactical areas" and "inability to operate over 50 degrees Celsius".[43] "The Army is now faced with a troubling prospect: inducting a lumbering, misfiring, vintage design tank like the Arjun, and that, too, in large numbers".[41] This, after DRDO over-shot Arjun’s project deadline by 16 years — from 1984 to 1995, finally closing the project only in 2000 — and the cost over-run is almost 20 times the original estimate. This is the highest percentage over-run for any DRDO project.[4
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjun_%28tank%29
    avatar
    Austin

    Posts : 7354
    Points : 7751
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Arjun Tank News Thread Empty Arjun vs T-90 MBT

    Post  Austin on Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:39 am

    I was having an interesting discussion with d_berwal at BRF , he is a person from Arny background and has been in tank regiment with experience , I asked him to rate T-90 vs Arjun this is what he gave link

    The gunnery solution and driving solution is 1 generation ahead for Arjun. vs T-90.
    But this does not mean They are not up to mark in T-90 ( assuming driving and gunnery solution to be not upto the mark would be incorrect)
    - TI has similar range and are of same generation.

    Arjun Driving Points: 10
    T-90 Driving Points: 8

    Arjun Gunnery Solution: 10
    T-90 Gunnery Solution: 8

    Arjun TI: 10
    T-90 TI: 10

    Arjun Missile firing: 0
    T-90 Missile Firing: 10

    Arjun Protection Armour: 8
    T-90 Protection Armour: 10

    Arjun Crew Comfort: 8
    T-90 Crew Comfort: 5

    Arjun Maintainence: 6
    T90 MAintainence: 10

    Arjun APU(silent ops): 10
    T-90 APU(silent ops): 0

    Arjun Silhouette: 8
    T-90 Silhouette:10

    Arjun FCS: 10
    T-90 FCS: 9



    I was surprised to know Indian T-90 dont have APU , Do russian T-90 have APU ?
    IronsightSniper
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 414
    Points : 418
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Arjun Tank News Thread Empty Re: Arjun Tank News Thread

    Post  IronsightSniper on Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:28 am

    According to Vasiliy Folfanov, the T-90 variant with the 1,000 HP engine has a 1 KW APU.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21749
    Points : 22295
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Arjun Tank News Thread Empty Re: Arjun Tank News Thread

    Post  GarryB on Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:47 am

    AFAIK the gas turbine T-80s got APUs because running their engines all the time used up huge amounts of fuel, but otherwise it was mostly commander model Russian tanks that had APUs to power the extra radio equipment in them.

    I would expect that with battle management systems and other electronic gear will require APUs in the next upgrade for all T-90s.
    avatar
    Austin

    Posts : 7354
    Points : 7751
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Arjun Tank News Thread Empty Re: Arjun Tank News Thread

    Post  Austin on Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:44 am

    I tend to hear these complains more on Indian forums on Arjun vs T-90 debate , specially those who prefer Arjun and say T-90 lacks innovation and is old 70's design of T-72

    1 ) The commander/driver on a T-90 is a roast if its hit , Arjun has blow up panel and ammos are stored seperately preventing spontanous combustion when hit.
    2 ) T-90 is a small tank and lacks space for growth compared to the Western heavy Arjun
    3 ) Big tank like Chally,Abrams,Arjun provide better crew comfort and better protection due to heavy armour
    4 ) Lacks proper cooling and electronic gets heated often in heat of Rajasthan desert , which will be the place where the great tank battle will take place.
    5 ) Lacks the long rod ammo to penetrate western heavy ( ofcourse T-90M may have it )
    6 ) All in All T-90 is a bad tank compared to Arjun and is a older design.

    I just want a rational opinion on this , what does Garry and others who have closely watched Soviet/Russian tank have to say on these points.

    I should point here that Indian Army has bought the T-90's in good numbers ( ~ 1600 tanks to be lic produced ) , so Indian Army may not agree with these and since they operate T-72 they know the T's well , I think a 1600 Tank purchase is probably the largest by any Army in decades if I remember.

    Here is a nice picture of T-90

    Arjun Tank News Thread Vld_0210
    IronsightSniper
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 414
    Points : 418
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Arjun Tank News Thread Empty Re: Arjun Tank News Thread

    Post  IronsightSniper on Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:52 am

    It's obvious that Points 1-3 are based around the size debate.

    Russians (being Russian) have always preferred their Main Battle Tanks to be smaller than contemporary Western designs.

    Some Pros and Cons of being a small tank:

    Pros:

    1. Weight - Smaller tanks are usually lighter, which allows for lower ground pressure and thus better maneuverability in say, muddy terrain. Also, smaller tanks (if given the right engine) would have a better HP/Tonne ratio than a larger tank, which would give it better acceleration. Lighter tanks also demand less of the local infrastructure (for example, 60 tonne Abrams could not cross many bridges in Iraq due to weight).

    2. Cost - Being smaller requires less materials, which will reduce it's cost (IIRC, a single T-90 in 2010 would cost about $1.7 million USD, compared to a single M1A2 Abrams in 2010, costing $6-7m USD). Lower cost allows for more production, which means more numbers.

    3. Size - The Small silhouette (2.22 x 3.78 x 9.53 m) of the T-90 would hinder a tracking by enemy Tanks or weapons. It would also allow the T-90 to position itself in advantageous positions unreachable by fatter or taller vehicles.


    Cons:

    1. Protection - A Smaller tank will usually mean lighter or less armor. In the case of the T-90, a stripped T-90 v.s. a stripped M1A2 Abrams, the Abrams has a thicker LOS Glacis, which would mean that the Abrams would have a better protected hull. To compensate for this of course, T-90s have Kontakt-5/Kaktus/Relikt ERA.

    2. Crew comfort and Survivability - A Smaller tank will mean a more cramped tank. However, there are only 3 persons in a T-90 anyways. Survivability wise, a larger tank based around Western doctrine would usually produce a higher survivability rate, if blow out panels and blast shields are in place.



    Personally, I never liked that argument that Western designs are slow, fat, and big rocks while Russian designs were basically Eagles with guns. An Abrams will not surpass a T-90 on a drag race nor will an Abrams out turn a T-90 in a Formula 1 race, but that's not the point. In retrospect, the doctrine of high maneuverability was formulated to battle Tiger I tanks back in WW2, but those Tigers have only evolved into Abrams, Challengers, and Leopards, which have admittedly less maneuverability than that of Russian tanks but more than enough to get the job done.


    I can't really comment on Point 4 as I honestly do not know anything in regards to T-90 cooling systems, but I do know the export T-90 to India does has a cryogenic cooling system from Israel.

    T-90M does in fact have it. The Welded turret was done so that elongated ammo such as the BM-42 can be used (which has an estimate of 650 mm of RHAe perforation at 2 km). If one were to be foolish and looked Wikipedia, they'd see that the Abrams has about a 900 mm RHAe equivalency v.s. KE. This is true, but that is only the protection level from the Abram's front turret. the Glacis of the Abrams is only about 600 mm RHAe v.s. KE at best and 560 mm at worst. In theory, a T-90's APFSDS round should perforate that easily.

    Arjun is a good tank, and it really depends on the doctrine the Indians want. However, I am unsure that the T-90 will get out of this one. The Arjun is becoming the pride of Indian fanboys so it seems.
    avatar
    Austin

    Posts : 7354
    Points : 7751
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Arjun Tank News Thread Empty Re: Arjun Tank News Thread

    Post  Austin on Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:35 pm

    IronsightSniper , thanks for your insight.

    Indeed among forums and bloggers in India , Arjun has become of every thing that is bad with T-90 tank and in general bad with T design.

    Well there is also a belief that in recent Arjun vs T-90 trials that was held recently , Arjun defeated T's comprehensively , although there is no single official word on it just hearsay and bloggers opinion.

    But considering the T-95 tanks which was suppose to superceed T-90 is of a heavier class , the Soviets were considering moving to heavy tank but one prototype wouldnt say every thing about the tank or if its a final design.

    I think the new T-90M overcomes most of the limitation of basic T-90 , namely isolation of ammo and crew although no blowup panel exist and ammo of long rod to defeat western heavies , although an APU is still needed.

    Do you have or read this book ?

    http://www.amazon.com/M1-Abrams-T-72-Ural-Operation/dp/1846034078/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_3

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21749
    Points : 22295
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Arjun Tank News Thread Empty Re: Arjun Tank News Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:01 am

    1 ) The commander/driver on a T-90 is a roast if its hit , Arjun has
    blow up panel and ammos are stored seperately preventing spontanous
    combustion when hit.

    This problem has been recognised... and is shared by many modern tanks... including the Leopard and Challanger tanks.
    Immediate solution is not to carry loose ammo in the crew compartment areas which limits the tank to 22 ready to use rounds in the armoured autoloader. The turret bustle autoloader of the T-90 upgrade will add 30 rounds which are seperate from the crew and also ready to use.

    2 ) T-90 is a small tank and lacks space for growth compared to the Western heavy Arjun

    Smaller targets are easier to hide and harder to hit. When more room is needed it can be created as shown with the reshaped turret design of the upgraded T-90 with more space for electronics.

    3 ) Big tank like Chally,Abrams,Arjun provide better crew comfort and better protection due to heavy armour

    A bigger tank by definition will require a lot more armour for a lower level of overall protection. It is basic physics that if you make a box bigger then if it offers the same thickness of protection then it will have to be much heavier.

    4 ) Lacks proper cooling and electronic gets heated often in heat of
    Rajasthan desert , which will be the place where the great tank battle
    will take place.


    Saturday, January 9, 2010 New tank conditioner
    The new compact conditioner for tanks, armored and civilian vehicles was developed in Russia. It used Peltier effect: thermoelectric cooling, based on creating a heat flux between the junction of two different types of materials. The most problem successfully solved was effectiveness of the Peltier modules. It's all solid state freon-free device, without any negative effect on ozone layer and global warming.
    Also it's very compact and stress-withstanding. Unlike current models it can be installed inside the Russian MBT tank T-90A. However, the more probable target for the new conditioner installation is 'Burlak' - the modernized version of T-90 tank currently over the tests. It could be installed on the export version T-90S or T-90M instead of the external conditioner, which can be seen on the Algerian and Libian T-90s.
    Naturally the Russian Future MBT, which published name is T-95, would be equipped with a conditioner based on the same principles, if the program succeeds.

    http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-tank-conditioner.html

    5 ) Lacks the long rod ammo to penetrate western heavy ( ofcourse T-90M may have it )

    Answered that yourself...

    6 ) All in All T-90 is a bad tank compared to Arjun and is a older design.

    Must be a terrible tank because the Indian Army keeps buying them and putting them in service...

    Or it might not be a bad tank, just not a great tank, and offer potentially good commonality with existing T-72s already in Indian service with an upgrade path to make it every bit as good as the bigger, heavier and more expensive Arjun.

    Russians (being Russian) have always preferred their Main Battle Tanks to be smaller than contemporary Western designs.

    Not quite... they haven't looked at western designs and decided to make them smaller... they have gone with the premise that a smaller tank is harder to hit and that a low small lighter tank is better most of the time than a big tall heavier tank.

    Keep in mind the T-90 is in the same weight class as a WWII Panther.


    1. Protection - A Smaller tank will usually mean lighter or less
    armor. In the case of the T-90, a stripped T-90 v.s. a stripped M1A2
    Abrams, the Abrams has a thicker LOS Glacis, which would mean that the
    Abrams would have a better protected hull. To compensate for this of
    course, T-90s have Kontakt-5/Kaktus/Relikt ERA.

    I disagree here. A smaller tank could easily be fitted with armour the same thickness as the M1 Abrams so a smaller tank does not necessarily mean lighter or less well armoured.

    To put it in simpler terms if the only weapons were pistols, assault rifles, machineguns and heavy machineguns then your armour should not be compared with your enemies armour, it should be compared with your enemies weapons.
    For instance having the same level of armour protection as the other guy doesn't help if his HMG is a 14.5mm weapon and your armour protects you from 12.7mm ammo only. That would mean both of you are protected from all your weapons but you aren't protected from his most powerful weapon.

    What I am getting at is that the Russians have gone for lighter and smarter, so instead of putting armour as thick as that used by the US on the Abrams they have made it almost as thick and also put ERA on it... and EO jammers like SHTORA, and they are working on active defence systems as well... DRODZ was tested in Afghanistan in the 1980s for example.

    2. Crew comfort and Survivability - A Smaller tank will mean a more
    cramped tank. However, there are only 3 persons in a T-90 anyways.
    Survivability wise, a larger tank based around Western doctrine would
    usually produce a higher survivability rate, if blow out panels and
    blast shields are in place.

    And here we disagree again... having lots and lots of space inside a tank does not make it more or less comfortable.
    The separation of ammo and fuel from the crew compartment is very important but again has nothing to do with size as shown by the T-90M upgrade which separates the crew and ammo without making the tank taller.

    Personally, I never liked that argument that Western designs are slow,
    fat, and big rocks while Russian designs were basically Eagles with
    guns. An Abrams will not surpass a T-90 on a drag race nor will an
    Abrams out turn a T-90 in a Formula 1 race, but that's not the point. In
    retrospect, the doctrine of high maneuverability was formulated to
    battle Tiger I tanks back in WW2, but those Tigers have only evolved
    into Abrams, Challengers, and Leopards, which have admittedly less
    maneuverability than that of Russian tanks but more than enough to get
    the job done.

    Soviet experience during WWII... remember with the KV-1 they had experience with big slow tanks and found mixed units of tanks resulted in the T-34s arriving first, T-26 light tanks arriving next and being wiped out, and KV-1s arriving last if at all.
    They put an 85mm gun in the KV and then put the same gun in the T-34 and realised that there was no great advantage to a slow heavy tank with a good gun over a smaller lighter faster easier to produce tank with a good gun so they started looking at huge guns to put in the KV.


    T-90M does in fact have it. The Welded turret was done so that
    elongated ammo such as the BM-42 can be used (which has an estimate of
    650 mm of RHAe perforation at 2 km). If one were to be foolish and
    looked Wikipedia, they'd see that the Abrams has about a 900 mm RHAe
    equivalency v.s. KE. This is true, but that is only the protection level
    from the Abram's front turret. the Glacis of the Abrams is only about
    600 mm RHAe v.s. KE at best and 560 mm at worst. In theory, a T-90's
    APFSDS round should perforate that easily.

    And just as importantly the best armour on any tank is in its front 60 degrees... the simple matter of putting some "mine" signs to make the tanks turn and approach from a different direction presents thin side armour... and most importantly in Guerilla warfare the most common attack is from the side or rear anyway which completely negates the advantage of an enormous weight of heavy frontal armour.

    Well there is also a belief that in recent Arjun vs T-90 trials that was
    held recently , Arjun defeated T's comprehensively , although there is
    no single official word on it just hearsay and bloggers opinion.

    Wouldn't you expect the Arjun to beat the T-90? Wasn't that what it was designed for? It is like saying the F-22 is the best so lets chuck out all those useless F-15s. The simple fact is that the F-15s are probably more useful right now than a handful of F-22s. Plus in many ways the F-15 still has plenty of growth potential in it anyway.

    But considering the T-95 tanks which was suppose to superceed T-90 is of
    a heavier class , the Soviets were considering moving to heavy tank but
    one prototype wouldnt say every thing about the tank or if its a final
    design.

    The main reason it was bigger was because all three crew were going to be sitting under armour in the front hull of the tank... which meant a wider tank and when you make the front of the tank wider that means you are increasing the width of a very thickly armoured area which of course will greatly increase the weight of the hull. Some of this is saved because the turret doesn't need heavy armour any more because there is nothing in there to protect but it makes the vehicle bigger... which makes it heavier without increasing protection levels.

    Regarding the future of Russian tanks they rejected the T-95 on mobility and cost issues and possibly because of high foreign content too, but basically I think they feel that they already have huge numbers of tanks already and that buying more right now is not a great idea. Their concept of light, medium, and heavy brigades where all are relatively mobile suggests a western style heavy tank is not really an option, so the T-90M will be it for a while and that the next gen tank will truely be a next gen tank... likely an electric tank possibly even with plastic armour and even electric armour and gun.
    Who knows... it might be unmanned with datalinks back to HQ where the commander, gunner and driver sit and fight like they are playing a computer game with a few UAVs over top giving them a birds eye view...
    IronsightSniper
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 414
    Points : 418
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Arjun Tank News Thread Empty Re: Arjun Tank News Thread

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:43 am


    1. Protection - A Smaller tank will usually mean lighter or less
    armor. In the case of the T-90, a stripped T-90 v.s. a stripped M1A2
    Abrams, the Abrams has a thicker LOS Glacis, which would mean that the
    Abrams would have a better protected hull. To compensate for this of
    course, T-90s have Kontakt-5/Kaktus/Relikt ERA.

    I disagree here. A smaller tank could easily be fitted with armour the same thickness as the M1 Abrams so a smaller tank does not necessarily mean lighter or less well armoured.

    To put it in simpler terms if the only weapons were pistols, assault rifles, machineguns and heavy machineguns then your armour should not be compared with your enemies armour, it should be compared with your enemies weapons.
    For instance having the same level of armour protection as the other guy doesn't help if his HMG is a 14.5mm weapon and your armour protects you from 12.7mm ammo only. That would mean both of you are protected from all your weapons but you aren't protected from his most powerful weapon.

    What I am getting at is that the Russians have gone for lighter and smarter, so instead of putting armour as thick as that used by the US on the Abrams they have made it almost as thick and also put ERA on it... and EO jammers like SHTORA, and they are working on active defence systems as well... DRODZ was tested in Afghanistan in the 1980s for example.

    The difference between the Russian manifestation of "Smarter" protection (i.e. Heavy ERA), is that they are not as effective when faced with contemporary weapons. For example, Relikt ERA, even with it's thicker Front plate, will not stop a Tandem heat charge from say, a TOW (TOW's precursor charge is more than enough to perforate and destroy Relikt ERA).

    When it's all said and done, that so and so tonnes of "Smart" armor could always be incorporated into an Abrams or a Leo 2A6, which would only beef them up more. But I'm quite sure you can't stack ERA on top of each other.

    2. Crew comfort and Survivability - A Smaller tank will mean a more
    cramped tank. However, there are only 3 persons in a T-90 anyways.
    Survivability wise, a larger tank based around Western doctrine would
    usually produce a higher survivability rate, if blow out panels and
    blast shields are in place.

    And here we disagree again... having lots and lots of space inside a tank does not make it more or less comfortable.
    The separation of ammo and fuel from the crew compartment is very important but again has nothing to do with size as shown by the T-90M upgrade which separates the crew and ammo without making the tank taller.

    Of course. But one only needs to look into the Hulls of a big Western tank v.s. a Smaller Russian tank to see the volume difference, even when loaded.

    Personally, I never liked that argument that Western designs are slow,
    fat, and big rocks while Russian designs were basically Eagles with
    guns. An Abrams will not surpass a T-90 on a drag race nor will an
    Abrams out turn a T-90 in a Formula 1 race, but that's not the point. In
    retrospect, the doctrine of high maneuverability was formulated to
    battle Tiger I tanks back in WW2, but those Tigers have only evolved
    into Abrams, Challengers, and Leopards, which have admittedly less
    maneuverability than that of Russian tanks but more than enough to get
    the job done.

    Soviet experience during WWII... remember with the KV-1 they had experience with big slow tanks and found mixed units of tanks resulted in the T-34s arriving first, T-26 light tanks arriving next and being wiped out, and KV-1s arriving last if at all.
    They put an 85mm gun in the KV and then put the same gun in the T-34 and realised that there was no great advantage to a slow heavy tank with a good gun over a smaller lighter faster easier to produce tank with a good gun so they started looking at huge guns to put in the KV.

    The difference of course is that the KVs of today are not the KVs of World War 2. You are going to see tanks stuck in mud but you aren't going to see a T-90 running circles around an Abrams and the Abrams struggling to match the turret's rotation with the T-90's turns.


    T-90M does in fact have it. The Welded turret was done so that
    elongated ammo such as the BM-42 can be used (which has an estimate of
    650 mm of RHAe perforation at 2 km). If one were to be foolish and
    looked Wikipedia, they'd see that the Abrams has about a 900 mm RHAe
    equivalency v.s. KE. This is true, but that is only the protection level
    from the Abram's front turret. the Glacis of the Abrams is only about
    600 mm RHAe v.s. KE at best and 560 mm at worst. In theory, a T-90's
    APFSDS round should perforate that easily.

    And just as importantly the best armour on any tank is in its front 60 degrees... the simple matter of putting some "mine" signs to make the tanks turn and approach from a different direction presents thin side armour... and most importantly in Guerilla warfare the most common attack is from the side or rear anyway which completely negates the advantage of an enormous weight of heavy frontal armour.

    However, I should mention that hit ratios from Gulf War 1 has shown that the majority of Modern APFSDS rounds have a 60% chance of landing 1.5 m above the ground, i.e. hitting the turret of the tank.
    avatar
    Austin

    Posts : 7354
    Points : 7751
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Arjun Tank News Thread Empty Re: Arjun Tank News Thread

    Post  Austin on Sat Feb 19, 2011 8:04 am

    GarryB wrote:This problem has been recognised... and is shared by many modern tanks... including the Leopard and Challanger tanks.
    Immediate solution is not to carry loose ammo in the crew compartment areas which limits the tank to 22 ready to use rounds in the armoured autoloader. The turret bustle autoloader of the T-90 upgrade will add 30 rounds which are seperate from the crew and also ready to use.

    So do you mean Chally and Leopard carry loose ammo and they do not have blow off panel and no seperation of ammo and crew.

    From what I have read this problem is distinct to T's and hence the view that the crew of T's would be roasted.

    Smaller targets are easier to hide and harder to hit. When more room is needed it can be created as shown with the reshaped turret design of the upgraded T-90 with more space for electronics.

    Yes you can redesign the turret and make it roomy but what about the chasis , a bigger chasis affords better space in every respect.

    A redesigned Turret like T-90M also means you add weight and that means they need to go for higher HP engine , from what I have read the T-90M has a 1200HP engine.

    A bigger tank by definition will require a lot more armour for a lower level of overall protection. It is basic physics that if you make a box bigger then if it offers the same thickness of protection then it will have to be much heavier.

    Not always the case a bigger tank with better over all protection will mean higher HP engine to afford the same mobility with better protection.



    Must be a terrible tank because the Indian Army keeps buying them and putting them in service...

    Or it might not be a bad tank, just not a great tank, and offer potentially good commonality with existing T-72s already in Indian service with an upgrade path to make it every bit as good as the bigger, heavier and more expensive Arjun.

    Not really the IA really likes the T series and has been cautious and conservative in adopting heavy tank.

    Probably that is quite understandable , the only place where a tank warfare will ever occur will be Indo-Pak border , the bridges and other infrastructure will be be in a position to support a heavy 55 - 60 T tank , which means the IA might need its own logistics , mobile BLT etc to transport it across.

    Remember even pakistan does not operate heavy tank and it just operated the most modern T-80UD and similar series 40 plus T tank.

    Ofcourse there are lobbies in Government circle that would want to push Arjun since its a home made product , DRDO has been aggresively pushing Arjun claiming its the best tank etc

    But considering the big number of T-55,T-72 that IA is operating , the T-90 likely number of 1600 Tanks , the T series will be spear heading the IA frontline tank for the next 20-25 years.

    There is the new 40T FMBT under development , so with all things of DRDO project you can expect delays and most likely it will come out after 2020.

    Not quite... they haven't looked at western designs and decided to make them smaller... they have gone with the premise that a smaller tank is harder to hit and that a low small lighter tank is better most of the time than a big tall heavier tank.

    A counter argument i can present with Arjun tank specs of silhouette

    T-90 ht - 2.23 metres (7 ft 4 in)
    Arjun ht - 2.32 metres (7 ft 7 in)

    And ground pressure is 0.84 and power/weight ratio of 24

    Check this interesting comparision table of Arjun with other heavy tank by DRDO

    Main Battle Tank Comparision

    Can some one tell me what does those 2 Drums on the back of the tank carry in the new T-90M ?

    Arjun Tank News Thread Uvi9v10
    IronsightSniper
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 414
    Points : 418
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Arjun Tank News Thread Empty Re: Arjun Tank News Thread

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat Feb 19, 2011 9:29 am

    Austin wrote:
    GarryB wrote:This problem has been recognised... and is shared by many modern tanks... including the Leopard and Challanger tanks.
    Immediate solution is not to carry loose ammo in the crew compartment areas which limits the tank to 22 ready to use rounds in the armoured autoloader. The turret bustle autoloader of the T-90 upgrade will add 30 rounds which are seperate from the crew and also ready to use.

    So do you mean Chally and Leopard carry loose ammo and they do not have blow off panel and no seperation of ammo and crew.

    From what I have read this problem is distinct to T's and hence the view that the crew of T's would be roasted.

    Smaller targets are easier to hide and harder to hit. When more room is needed it can be created as shown with the reshaped turret design of the upgraded T-90 with more space for electronics.

    Yes you can redesign the turret and make it roomy but what about the chasis , a bigger chasis affords better space in every respect.

    A redesigned Turret like T-90M also means you add weight and that means they need to go for higher HP engine , from what I have read the T-90M has a 1200HP engine.

    A bigger tank by definition will require a lot more armour for a lower level of overall protection. It is basic physics that if you make a box bigger then if it offers the same thickness of protection then it will have to be much heavier.

    Not always the case a bigger tank with better over all protection will mean higher HP engine to afford the same mobility with better protection.



    Must be a terrible tank because the Indian Army keeps buying them and putting them in service...

    Or it might not be a bad tank, just not a great tank, and offer potentially good commonality with existing T-72s already in Indian service with an upgrade path to make it every bit as good as the bigger, heavier and more expensive Arjun.

    Not really the IA really likes the T series and has been cautious and conservative in adopting heavy tank.

    Probably that is quite understandable , the only place where a tank warfare will ever occur will be Indo-Pak border , the bridges and other infrastructure will be be in a position to support a heavy 55 - 60 T tank , which means the IA might need its own logistics , mobile BLT etc to transport it across.

    Remember even pakistan does not operate heavy tank and it just operated the most modern T-80UD and similar series 40 plus T tank.

    Ofcourse there are lobbies in Government circle that would want to push Arjun since its a home made product , DRDO has been aggresively pushing Arjun claiming its the best tank etc

    But considering the big number of T-55,T-72 that IA is operating , the T-90 likely number of 1600 Tanks , the T series will be spear heading the IA frontline tank for the next 20-25 years.

    There is the new 40T FMBT under development , so with all things of DRDO project you can expect delays and most likely it will come out after 2020.

    Not quite... they haven't looked at western designs and decided to make them smaller... they have gone with the premise that a smaller tank is harder to hit and that a low small lighter tank is better most of the time than a big tall heavier tank.

    A counter argument i can present with Arjun tank specs of silhouette

    T-90 ht - 2.23 metres (7 ft 4 in)
    Arjun ht - 2.32 metres (7 ft 7 in)

    And ground pressure is 0.84 and power/weight ratio of 24

    Check this interesting comparision table of Arjun with other heavy tank by DRDO

    Main Battle Tank Comparision

    Can some one tell me what does those 2 Drums on the back of the tank carry in the new T-90M ?

    Arjun Tank News Thread Uvi9v10

    Those 2 drums are still fuel tanks.

    They also serve as impromptu stand-off applique armor.

    About Vasiliy Folfanov estimates those fuel tanks to give the rear of the T-90 a total protection of 180 mm RHAe.


    Also, to regards to Garry:

    A bigger tank by definition will require a lot more armour for a lower level of overall protection. It is basic physics that if you make a box bigger then if it offers the same thickness of protection then it will have to be much heavier.

    This is not always the case as Tanks of nowadays are not as "well rounded" as they were in say, WW2.

    An example of this would be the T-72.

    The T-72 has about a 300 mm LOS thickness for the Glacis. For comparison, Tiger 1 tanks of Germany had 100 mm of LOS thickness for their Glacis. However, the side of the T-72 has only about 60 mm of LOS thickness and the rear of it has only 40 mm, this is compared to the 80 mm on the sides and the rear of the Tiger 1. So it's obvious that not only has the levels of protection changed, but also where it's prioritized.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21749
    Points : 22295
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Arjun Tank News Thread Empty Re: Arjun Tank News Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 19, 2011 11:49 am

    The difference between the Russian manifestation of "Smarter" protection
    (i.e. Heavy ERA), is that they are not as effective when faced with
    contemporary weapons.

    I am not suggesting the Soviet/Russian approach is better than the US/UK/German/etc approach, just that it is different.
    They believe a smaller target is harder to hit and cheaper to own and operate and deploy and support operationally.

    For example, Relikt ERA, even with it's thicker Front plate, will not
    stop a Tandem heat charge from say, a TOW (TOW's precursor charge is
    more than enough to perforate and destroy Relikt ERA).

    ERA is not supposed to stop penetrations, it is supposed to degrade performance so that the remaining energy is not enough to penetrate the main armour. TOW will penetrate Relikt... but it has to get past ARENA or DRODZ first and also the guidance system has to defeat SHTORA as well. (Note SHTORA defeats SACLOS weapons by shining IR light at the guidance system. It is like looking at two lighthouse lights through a telescope trying to follow a lit match so the guidance system can manouver the missile the lit match is attached to onto a target between the two lighthouse lights...)

    Even if TOW or HOT can't do the job the US will develop something that will... measure and countermeasure is an ongoing battle so any victory is always short lived.

    When it's all said and done, that so and so tonnes of "Smart" armor
    could always be incorporated into an Abrams or a Leo 2A6, which would
    only beef them up more. But I'm quite sure you can't stack ERA on top of
    each other.

    As far as I know the Relikt tiles remain in place so I really don't see why they couldn't be stacked and still work. Certainly work seems to be heading towards ERA that doesn't use explosives... called Non Explosive Reactive Armour or NERA that should in theory work perfectly well in as many layers as you want.

    I do remember in the 1980s when I think it was a T-72 tank fitted with ERA blocks had the blocks stacked in three layers, but that was old first gen ERA so the outer boxes would have worked but the inner boxes probably would have acted only as spaced armour. As the ERA blocks were the same size of course on a curved surface the outer blocks had large gaps between them and the inner blocks would not probably have worked properly so it would likely have been less effective than a single layer.

    But one only needs to look into the Hulls of a big Western tank v.s. a
    Smaller Russian tank to see the volume difference, even when loaded.

    AFAIK the internal volume difference between a T-90 and an M1 Abrams is exactly the difference in average size of Russians and Americans and the omission of one crewman in the form of the loader.

    You are going to see tanks stuck in mud but you aren't going to see a
    T-90 running circles around an Abrams and the Abrams struggling to match
    the turret's rotation with the T-90's turns.

    I rather doubt a direct comparison of Abrams and T-90s is even relevant unless America plans to invade India or Russia.

    Even right now I rather doubt either vehicle could penetrate the other frontally at more than 2kms range and it is only a matter of time before they have perfected their MMW radar terminal homing seekers for their HERMES ATGMs. These missiles are 130mm calibre so should be fully transferable to the 125mm missiles used on Russian tanks.
    With long range diving top attack MMW radar guided missiles I think a T-90 could hold its own against pretty much any enemy.

    So do you mean Chally and Leopard carry loose ammo and they do not have blow off panel and no seperation of ammo and crew.

    From memory even the Abrams in their early models had to carry about 8 rounds in the crew compartments too, and yes the Chally and the Leopard had loose rounds in their crew compartment. Like the T-72 they had the choice of not carrying those rounds of course, but for a full load of ammo they were in the crew compartment.

    From what I have read this problem is distinct to T's and hence the view that the crew of T's would be roasted.

    The truth is that the Abrams were one of the first tanks to separate ammo into the turret bustle and that earlier British and German and French tanks all carried ammo in the crew compartment.
    One of the criticisms of one of the Soviet tanks that had ammo in the turret bustle area during WWII was that enemy infantry could place HE charges under the turret bustle full of ammo and take out the whole tank. That is what stopped them storing it there AFAIK. (It didn't have blow out roof panels and vented the explosion directly into the turret and crew compartment.)

    Yes you can redesign the turret and make it roomy but what about the
    chasis , a bigger chasis affords better space in every respect.

    The Tigers bigger chassis was a complete pain in the @$$, as was the Panthers larger chassis. They had to take the tracks off the Tigers and the outer wheels and special narrow tracks had to be fitted to transport them by rail and had similar problems with the Panthers.
    Width of the vehicle is limited by many factors including the width of common bridges and the width of tank transporting means and tunnels etc.
    It also adds weight by making the frontal armour wider.

    Not always the case a bigger tank with better over all protection will
    mean higher HP engine to afford the same mobility with better
    protection.

    Power to weight ratio is important for acceleration, but not mobility. Countering weight increases with more power is a complicated solution governed by the laws of diminished returns. Increasing engine power means changes to the drive train and gearbox and running gear too... an Abrams might keep up with a lighter tank but when it comes to some places like bridges or even some roads it is total mass that counts and causes roads and bridges to collapse under the weight.
    Some terrain will put up with a lot of weight and other types of terrain wont.

    I am currently reading a book about the Soviet forces pushing the German forces back from Murmansk in 1944 and so far their T-34s and ISU-152s have been stuck on the single road in the region which of course the Germans are mining heavily and setting up anti tank guns to cover... a bottleneck because the terrain is rocky and unsuitable for any tanks.

    There is the new 40T FMBT under development , so with all things of DRDO
    project you can expect delays and most likely it will come out after
    2020.

    The Americans are also working on a lighter tank than the Abrams, which suggests that even if you have a good heavy tank sometimes a lighter tank can be more useful.

    Can some one tell me what does those 2 Drums on the back of the tank carry in the new T-90M ?

    Diesel. Used for long marches and can be transfered into the internal tanks from inside the tank. Normally dumped before going into battle. They basically extend the range of the vehicle... like drop tanks for an aircraft.

    A counter argument i can present with Arjun tank specs of silhouette

    Proof that a smaller tank is not necessarily lighter or less well protected than a larger tank.

    I have not suggested the Arjun is a bad tank. I have not suggested any tanks are bad.

    At the end of the day a tank is a mobile gun platform that can take and/or hold ground and support infantry in doing the same.


    Last edited by GarryB on Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:32 am; edited 1 time in total
    medo
    medo

    Posts : 3586
    Points : 3670
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Arjun Tank News Thread Empty Re: Arjun Tank News Thread

    Post  medo on Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:41 pm

    I really doubt, that Arjun is any better tank than T-90. I don't think it have any better armor, FCS, gun, mobility, ... On the other hand if we consider the quality of Indian made Mig-21 planes which have very high rate of crashes, than I wouldn't like to be in Arjun tank in actual battle.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21749
    Points : 22295
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Arjun Tank News Thread Empty Re: Arjun Tank News Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:31 am

    This is not always the case as Tanks of nowadays are not as "well rounded" as they were in say, WW2.

    An example of this would be the T-72.

    The
    T-72 has about a 300 mm LOS thickness for the Glacis. For comparison,
    Tiger 1 tanks of Germany had 100 mm of LOS thickness for their Glacis.
    However, the side of the T-72 has only about 60 mm of LOS thickness and
    the rear of it has only 40 mm, this is compared to the 80 mm on the
    sides and the rear of the Tiger 1. So it's obvious that not only has the
    levels of protection changed, but also where it's prioritized.

    Germanys super tanks were the exception, the Tiger and for that matter the Elephant had what you might call good all aspect armour, though it could have been greatly improved if it was sloped. The Panther for example was well known for having very thin rear turret armour, and standard design from the start was to put the heaviest armour at the front of the vehicle and was adhered to by most designers of armour. Of course even the best armoured tank can be let down... I think the British know who I am talking about here. The Matilda and the Churchill tank both had good armour for their time but were let down because of poor speed and mostly because of pathetic armament with both having a 2 pounder gun. The British described their guns by the shell weight they fired, so the 2 pounder fired a 2 pound shell and was a 40mm calibre weapon. The crazy thing was that both tanks were designated as infantry support tanks yet their 40mm guns didn't have a HE shell and so they were pretty useless against infantry or enemy positions. The Soviet equivalent to the 40mm gun was the 45mm gun which was replaced by the 76.2mm gun with better penetration and a much more effective HE shell in tanks fairly quickly, but continued throughout the war in the form of a towed weapon used to support infantry with a HE shell. The irony is that the KV-1 Soviet heavy tank was criticised for having a weak gun at a time when Churchills had 40mm guns which were later upgraded to 6 pounders or 57mm guns.


    Those 2 drums are still fuel tanks.

    They also serve as impromptu stand-off applique armor.

    I remember reading a US field manual that described Soviet diesel fuel as having a very high flashpoint and that even their standard small arms incendiary ammo would have trouble igniting it.

    Of course they wouldn't be present in a combat area... just like BMP-1 and BMP-2s would not have fuel in their rear crew compartment doors in a combat area either.
    avatar
    Austin

    Posts : 7354
    Points : 7751
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Arjun Tank News Thread Empty Τ-90 vs Arjun

    Post  Austin on Mon Feb 21, 2011 1:03 pm

    medo wrote:I really doubt, that Arjun is any better tank than T-90. I don't think it have any better armor, FCS, gun, mobility, ... On the other hand if we consider the quality of Indian made Mig-21 planes which have very high rate of crashes, than I wouldn't like to be in Arjun tank in actual battle.

    Actually d_berwal who was an ex-Tank/Armour officer in Indian Army and has presented a balanced view on T-90 vs Arjun debate has mentioned that Arjun is better than IA T-90 in driving comfort and firecontrol , the firecontrol is reportedly one generation ahead.

    You can find the debate we had on T-90 vs Arjun and d_berwal views link

    This is what he said when I asked him to compare Arjun vs T-90

    Arjun MkI is in the process of being a world class tank.
    - The driving and the gunnery solution is the real edge or main points of ARJUN.

    Driving solution i mean:
    - Providing a steering instead of sticks.
    - Driver reaction time is faster.
    - Driver training is easier.
    - Less fatigue in driving it. (as lesser hand, leg and eye coordination)
    - very forgiving for lesser trained crews.

    Gunnery Solution:
    - Giving a joy stick for turret control/ movement.
    - Joystick based controls for laser and firing.
    - This leads to better hand eye coordination and little forgiving for lesser trained crews.

    from my point of view these two are the main plus point of ARJUN MkI



    I would personally be very happy if Indian Army now starts series building the new T-90M , it has a new Turret , has new Gun/FC system and we need a new APU.

    I am not certain if the T-90M has a new 1200 HP engine as well but even a 1000HP engine as the IA uses it for Bhishma would suffice incase if there is a marginal increase in weight of T-90M


    Last edited by Austin on Mon Feb 21, 2011 1:14 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Austin

    Posts : 7354
    Points : 7751
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Arjun Tank News Thread Empty Arjun Mk2 ΜΒΤ

    Post  Austin on Thu Apr 07, 2011 5:46 pm

    Latest FORCE magazine has an update on Arjun Mk2 thats under development , posting it in full , thought it would be interesting to share

    Quantum Leap
    Arjun Mk2 will be more expensive with higher import content than its predecessor
    By Prasun K. Sengupta

    Arjun Tank News Thread Ztz-9910

    For all intents and purposes, the Arjun Mk2 main battle tank (MBT) — currently under development since mid-2007, will be more expensive and have a higher imported content than its predecessor, the Arjun Mk1. But in terms of mobility, protection and firepower, the Mk2 variant will come closest to what Indian Army HQ wants: an MBT with highly enhanced crew protection and maximum survivability in high-intensity, fire-saturated combat environments. To achieve this, the Defence Research and Development Organisation’s (DRDO) Avadi-based Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE) has roped in both Israel Military Industries (IMI) and Elbit Systems of Israel, with the former being responsible for improving the existing Arjun Mk1’s design plus mobility and fuel consumption, redesigning and modifying the various components of the MBT’s hull and turret, and providing consultancy for improving production-line processes. Elbit Systems, on the other hand, will enhance the MBT’s firepower and its accuracy, and provide survivability systems and air-conditioning hardware. The existing Arjun Mk1 MBT, which was formally inducted into the Army’s 75 Armoured Regiment on March 12, comes powered by a MTU 838Ka-501 diesel engine (rated at 1,400hp) coupled to a RENK RK-304A transmission, and can achieve a maximum speed of 70 km/hr (43 mph) and a cross-country speed of 40 km/h (25 mph). A total of 124 Mk1 variants are on order, and will be followed by 124 Mk2 variants, which were ordered by Army HQ on May 17 last year. The Arjun Mk2 will incorporate a total of 93 upgrades, including 13 major improvements. Rollout of the first prototype will take place by this June, and by 2013, the first 30 production-standard Arjun Mk2s will roll out from the Avadi-based, ministry of defence-owned Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF).

    Arjun Tank News Thread Agasty10

    Work on developing the Arjun Mk2 began in the second half of 2007 soon after joint R&D contracts were inked between the CVRDE and the consortium of IMI and Elbit Systems. On October 31 that year, the CVRDE floated domestic and global expressions of interest for the co-development of a 1,500hp compact high specific power output diesel engine incorporating a state-of-the-art direct fuel injection system, digital electronic controls, turbo-charging, charge air cooling, safety controls and a pressurised multi-stage air-cleaning system; and for a hydro-kinetic automatic transmission with four forward and two reverse gears. Respondents to the CVRDE included Finland-based Wartsila (offering its V8X-1500 1,500hp hyperbar diesel engine coupled with either SESM of France’s ESM-500 transmission or US-based Detroit Diesel Allison’s X-1100-3B transmission), US-based General Dynamics Land Systems offering the EuroPowerPack comprising MTU of Germany’s MT-883 engine along with Renk’s HSWL-295TM transmission, UK-based Perkins proposing its CV12 Condor diesel engine coupled to with the ESM-500 transmission, and US-based Cummins offering a customised QSK-38 liquid-cooled, direct-injection engine coupled to the ESM-500. In late 2009, a combination of the QSK-38/ESM-500 powerpack was selected as the winner, following which Cummins India began customising this powerpack design. The ESM-500 automatic transmission, with five forward and two reverse gears, contains a planetary gearbox with shifting, steering and braking systems. It is also equipped with a hydrodynamic steering system, which allows

    different turning radii depending on engine speed and selected gear. The braking system contains of two stages. As a parking brake and for a speed of up to 35kph air cooled disk brakes are used. At higher speeds a retarder is used. In addition, the transmission is equipped with a power takeoff for the cooling fans of the powerpack. Also, a hydrokinetic retarder can slow the MBT down at a decelleration rate of 7 metres/square second (0.7g), which can be very useful at the last moment before it could be hit. Supplementing this powerpack will be an indigenously developed auxiliary power unit (APU), which will provide power when the MBT is on ‘silent watch’ for battery recharging and night observation, with full systems operating while the main engine is shut down.

    For ensuring MBT survivability, the Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory (DMRL) — located in Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad — has developed a Mk2 variant of its Kanchan modular armour, which was made by sandwiching composite panels (ceramic, alumina, fibre- glass and nickel-alloy) between rolled homogenous armour (RHA) plates to defeat APFDS or HEAT rounds. At the same time, the DRDO’s Pune-based Composites Research Centre (CRC) and the Research and Development Establishment, Engineers [R&D E(E)], have developed multi-layered multi-functional fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite hull/turret sub-structures at much lower weights in comparison with metallic counterparts. More than 40 per cent weight savings over steel hull structures have been achieved. Also developed for the Arjun Mk2 is co-cured composites integral armour (CIA), which comprises ceramic tiles and rubber sandwiched between two FRP composites layers. While the outer FRP composite layer acts as a cover and provides confinement, the ceramic layer provides primary protection against ballistic impact, and the inner FRP composite layer acts as the structural part as well as secondary energy absorbing mechanism. The rubber layer isolates stiff and brittle ceramic tiles from structural member.

    Arjun Tank News Thread Iron_f10

    The CVRDE, with IMI’s help, has also redesigned the Arjun Mk1’s turret to incorporate modular sloped armour fittings, and has developed a slat-armour package to protect the MBT against anti-tank rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) attacks. It functions by placing a rigid barrier around the vehicle, which causes the shaped-charge warhead (which uses a shaped-explosion rather than kinetic energy) to explode at a relatively safe distance. For protecting the Arjun Mk2 against tandem-charge PRGs and guided anti-tank missiles, the CVRDE and IMI have co-developed a lightweight non-energetic reactive armour (NERA) package, comprising tiles in which two metal plates sandwich an inert liner, such as rubber. When struck by a shaped-charge’s metal jet, some of the impact energy is dissipated into the inert liner layer, and the resulting high-pressure causes a localised bending or bulging of the plates in the area of the impact. As the plates bulge, the point of jet impact shifts with the plate-bulging, increasing the effective thickness of the armour.

    For ensuring fool-proof protection against new-generation anti-armour guided-missiles, the Arjun Mk2 will incorporate both multi-threat warning sensors and an active protection system (APS). The former, supplied by Elbit Systems, comprises four E-LWS sensors that can detect, categorise and pinpoint laser sources, including rangefinders, designators, beam-riders, and infra-red illuminators. E-LWS also enables direction indication for all threats, as well as audio and visual warnings. It is immune to reflection, gunfire, lightning, fire and self-electro-optical operations. The Iron Fist APS, being supplied by IMI, uses two fixed radar sensors to detect potential threats and measures distance and trajectory for providing the APS’ fire-control system (FCS) with data for calculation of engagement plans. The FCS uses two ELTA Systems-built conformal, distributed radars and an infra-red sensor called Tandir, developed by Elbit Systems. When a threat is identified as imminent, an explosive projectile interceptor is launched toward it from either of the two twin-tube rotating launchers housing fin-stabilised launch cannisters. The interceptor, shaped similar to a small mortar bomb, is designed to defeat the threat even when flying in very close proximity. Iron Fist can handle multiple targets simultaneously with different intercept methods, including multiple countermeasures fired at two simultaneous threats at the same sector. Unlike other systems, the Iron Fist uses only the blast effect to defeat the threat, crushing the soft components of a shaped-charge or deflecting and destabilising the guided-missile or kinetic rod in their flight. The interceptor is made of combustible material, and is fully consumed in the explosion. Without the risk of shrapnel, the Iron Fist APS thus provides an effective, close-in protection for MBTs operating in dense, urban environment. Finally, a mobile camouflage system has been developed and integrated into the Arjun Mk2 in collaboration with Sweden’s Barracuda Camouflage Ltd to reduce the vehicle’s signature against all known sensors and smart munitions.

    For enhancing structural survivability and firing accuracy, the Arjun Mk2 will do away with the existing electro-hydraulic turret control system (which is susceptible to impact damage and can cause a fire hazard) and will instead use a totally electronic modular electric gun and turret drive stabilisation (EGTDS) system supplied by Elbit Systems. The EGTDS uses azimuth/elevation motor drives with extremely rapid response time, low-voltage power, stabilised modes of operation, and manual back-up drives in both elevation and traverse. A motor drive-control unit transforms the power supply into two 3-phase systems. These supply and control the servo motors for alignment, stabilisation and slave mode of the turret/wea­pon according to the input signals of the sensors, control handles and active sight. The system assures increased safety since it eliminates the need for the hazardous, highly flammable hydraulic fluids. In addition, it offers smooth tracking at all speeds for very heavy turrets and guns and at extreme turret gun positions, while low power consumption leads to low infra-red signature as well as low-noise levels.

    The Arjun Mk2 will also incorporate a brand-new Elbit-designed Commander’s panoramic sight (CAPS) — a dual axis stabilised line-of-sight, remote-operated, periscopic system for independent target acquisition, battlefield surveillance and main gun firing in a ‘hunter-killer’ auto-track mode. The CAPS will use a SAGEM-built Matis-STD thermal imager that operates in the 3-5 micron bandwidth, while the gunner’s sight will employ a THALES-built Catherine-FC thermal imager (operating in the 8-12 micron bandwidth. The Arjun Mk2’s turret will also housed an integrated battle management system (BMS) designed by Elbit Systems (and licence-built by Bharat Electronics Ltd), which provides rapid communications networking between the tactical tank commander and his subordinate units. It will enable the tank commander to plan missions, navigate, and continuously update situational awareness. The system will also record data for operational debriefing by using a digital data recorder, which will record and restore sight images and observation data collected during missions. This data can be shared with other elements, using the same network with the BMS, to report enemy targets. Such a concept is rapidly becoming an essential part of the digitised land forces integrated battlefield concept, combining MBTs, anti-armour teams, and attack helicopters in combined arms operations.

    The Arjun Mk2’s loader will be able to load the 120mm rifled-bore main gun from a fully automated, fire-proof magazine, which will accommodate up to 10 ready rounds and deliver up to four types of ammunition types to the loader. In addition to APFSDS and HESH rounds, the Arjun Mk2 will make use of IMI-built APAM munitions designed to neutralize — especially in urban built-up terrain — tank-killer squads lurking with lethal anti-tank weapons. The APAM uses the proven concept of anti-personnel munitions based on controlled fragmentation. It deploys sub-munition shrapnel at defined intervals, covering a wide lethal area against soft targets. Each fragment is shaped to have enough kinetic energy to penetrate conventional body armour, or other materials. Also going on board the Arjun Mk2 is the laser-guided LAHAT anti-armour/anti-helicopter round, whose Israel Aerospace Industries-built target designator will be integrated with the MBT’s fire-control system. The tandem warhead-equipped LAHAT has a range of 8km when launched from a ground platform, and up to 13km, when deployed from high elevation. The missile has a 0.7 metre CEP when hitting its target at an angle of 30 degrees. Using the semi-active laser homing guidance method, LAHAT can be designated by the MBT’s gunner or through external designation from ground, mobile, or airborne observers. Firing the round requires minimal exposure in the firing position, and can be directed through the CAPS by only maintaining line — of-sight during missile flight. The missile’s trajectory can be preselected for either top attack (against MBT) or direct attack (against helicopter) engagement.

    For improving crew comfort, the Arjun Mk2 will incorporate an Elbit Systems-supplied individual crew and equipment cooling system (ICECS), while will provide cooled and dried air from a special air conditioner to air-cooled overalls or vests. The air will naturally cool the upper torso of each crewman. Also being acquired from Elbit through a transfer-of-technology agreement for the MBT crew are regular/fire-resistant air-cooled overalls, NBC protected air-cooled overalls, and air-cooled compact vests. AS for tank tracks, the Arjun Mk2 will, just like the Mk1, make use of Germany-based Diehl Remscheid’s DST 570V tracks, whose basic components, like the track links, sprocket wheels, guide wheels, running rollers, support rollers, running pads, traction aids, connectors, bolts, mono block-body with integral centre guide, rubberised track pads, and grouser, are all being licence-built by Larsen & Toubro.

    Training Aids
    CAE of Canada will design and supply a comprehensive suite of Arjun Mk2 MBT training systems enhances combat effectiveness by offering systematic training in a real-time environment through advanced simulation techniques. Earlier, in 2009 CAE had developed and delivered the initial suite of Arjun Mk1 training systems to efficiently and cost-effectively train the driver, gunner and commander. CAE’s suite of Arjun Mk1 training systems currently offers standalone training for the driver and gunner; turret-level training for the gunner and commander; integrated MBT-level training for the gunner, commander and driver; and troop-level training by networking Arjun Mk1 simulators to rehearse troop tactics, movement and joint operations. The Arjun Mk1’s driver trainer provides ab-initio driving and procedural training to individual drivers. Mounted on a six degree-of-freedom (DoF) motion platform, the driver trainer emulates the MBT’s interior cabin with all driver station controls. CAE is also developing a desktop-based Arjun classroom trainer for procedural and familiarisation training. CAE has also developed a comprehensive suite of Arjun Mk1 gunnery training devices to train personnel as they develop gunnery skills and rehearse for target identification, tracking, lasing, and firing drills. CAE’s suite of gunnery trainers includes two separate types and levels of training devices. The desktop gunnery procedures trainer, also called the Agastya simulator, supports initial training in handling the gunner station and firing procedures. The trainee uses MBT-specific controls just like in the actual MBT for familiarisation and procedural training. The turret simulator replicates the interior of the gunner’ and commander’ stations of the MBT. Mounted on a six-DoF motion platform, the turret simulator features a 220-degree by 40-degree open-hatch visual display to provide trainees with the high-fidelity visual cues required for gunnery training.

    All Arjun Mk1 training systems can be networked to provide initial and continuation training to the commanders, gunners and drivers at the individual-, crew-, and troop-levels. Along with developing individual skills, the driver and turret simulators create a team environment to support the development of crew teamwork, coordination and tactical skills, decision-making and planning, and crew communications. Through effective training and rehearsal of these skills, the crew can thus improve its proficiency in working as a team and as part of an entire troop during combat operations. The MBT training systems include CAE’s Medallion-6000 visual system with a detailed and realistic external environment view of actual MBT operations, sound simulation system that produces sounds heard during MBT operations and in synchronisation with the motion and visual cues in the training device, simulation host system for software management and software sub-systems that simulate MBT behaviour in real-time operations, content rich geo-specific databases, instructor stations to conduct training exercises and offer evaluation solutions, interface electronic units (IEU) that provide links between MBT crew controls and simulation software, and networking to connect the Arjun Mk1 driving and turret simulators. The training systems provide instructors with an intuitive, easy-to-use interface that enables the set-up of lesson parameters and trainee exercises, monitoring of the progress of the exercise, and full exercise control. The instructor can select the scenario (including target designation), insert malfunctions, and record and replay the exercise. Furthermore, the instructor is able to access the same views as the trainee, such as control of own and enemy tracks. Gunner’s training exercises can be conducted both in plains and desert terrain to include bore sighting, calibration, static tank to static target, static tank to moving target, moving tank to static target, moving tank to moving target, and moving tank to moving target firing practices. The Arjun Mk1 training systems can also be fitted in air-conditioned ISO containers that can be easily transported to different training locations or in-theatre. They can also be modified with minimum adjustments for use with any infantry combat vehicle (ICV) gun, self-propelled artillery, present day tank guns and normal field artillery. The DRDO, meanwhile, has developed a software package called Visualisation with Enhanced Digital Elevation Model and Soil Profile Analysis for MBT Arjun Simulator (VEDSAR) to simulate the MBT’s performance in different kinds of terrain. It uses data from ISRO’s Cartosat-1A remote-sensing satellite, and will help in building a new project named Vehicular Interaction with Soil for Trafficability Assessment and Route-decision Aid (VISTAR), which will provide the army with information on the shortest possible distance between two points, and the kind of obstacles present on the terrain.
    adyonfire4
    adyonfire4

    Posts : 3
    Points : 3
    Join date : 2011-03-03
    Age : 27
    Location : india

    Arjun Tank News Thread Empty Re: Arjun Tank News Thread

    Post  adyonfire4 on Sat Apr 09, 2011 3:26 pm

    The Arjun is said it to have higher number of imported components in the Mk-2 Version many French and Isareli Components will be used making it one of the top tanks but thats going to increase the cost to twice. study
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21749
    Points : 22295
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Arjun Tank News Thread Empty Re: Arjun Tank News Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 10, 2011 1:41 am

    Are they licence producing the parts or just buying the parts and fitting them?

    Licence production of parts is expensive, but at least at the end of the day you are making the parts yourself in a factory you own so with the experience new parts can eventually be made of your own design in the same factories.
    nightcrawler
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 522
    Points : 634
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 29
    Location : Pakistan

    Arjun Tank News Thread Empty Re: Arjun Tank News Thread

    Post  nightcrawler on Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:11 pm

    Don't know if its credible link
    http://www.forceindia.net/featurereport2.aspx

    it mentions all the latest armaments that are going to be fitted in Arjun; most like French contractors of LECREC
    avatar
    Austin

    Posts : 7354
    Points : 7751
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Arjun Tank News Thread Empty Re: Arjun Tank News Thread

    Post  Austin on Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:51 am

    I was reading on T-90A and Arjun debate in mp.net and I found this rather interesting post from Damian which list out the flaw in Arjun viz a viz T-90

    Arjun Flaws

    So it seems even leopard has the same flaw , though I do find it a bit difficult to understand what he means by that flaw in Arjun.

    Another point I came to know is that T-90 in terms of the armour layout, the T-90 has a FAR better armour to internal volume ratio, as well as a better frontal armour array layout as it provides full protection up to 30degrees off center.

    Since Arjun has rifled gun over smooth bore , they affect the performance of APFSDS and HEAT round since it does not need spinning compared to HESH round.

    Although I remember reading they used a rubber coating on APFSDS and HESH round to prevent spinning
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21749
    Points : 22295
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Arjun Tank News Thread Empty Re: Arjun Tank News Thread

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:57 am

    Well depending on who you want to believe , the IA took a 3rd opinion on Arjun from Israeli and the Israel were impressed enough to call it Desert Ferrari , check the full story

    Not exactly a compliment for a tank... ferraris are fast and stylish, but not very practical, very expensive and need to be looked after.

    Removing one crewman and replacing them with an autoloader reduces internal volume which makes the tank smaller, particularly the turret smaller as you only need to fit two people in it.

    As the front turret armour is the thickest and therefore also the heaviest on the tank per square metre then making the area smaller saves weight and reduces the tanks profile.

    And Arjun have the same turret design flaws as had Leopard 2A1/A4, starting from big gun mantle mask, main sight placed in the front turret armor plate, it is obvious that there are some armor behind but if someone will find how this looks even in modern versions of Leopard 2 he will know that this flaw is not easy, if not completely impossible to improve.

    Look at this image:

    Arjun Tank News Thread 220px-10

    As you can see from this close up front image the mantle (ie moving bit around the gun barrel) is large and relatively thin which creates a weak spot for enemy fire.
    Also the optics sight is embedded in the front glacis armour... to put it there you are taking armour out and replacing it with electronics. This means you are cutting a bit hole in your thickest strongest armour to put an electronics box in there... a weakness if the front turret is hit there because the armour thickness of 1.2m of armour or whatever the thickness is for the Leo II in its turret front does not apply if the round hits the sight or goes through the cavity where the site is mounted.


    Next flaw is complete lack of understanding one of the most important tank design principles, angles of safe manouvering this means angles +/- 0-30 degrees from turret center line, and here we have two aproaches, or very heavy and thick side turret armor, or a turret geometry like in Russian/Ukrainian tanks,

    He is basically saying that most tanks have the front 60 degrees with their heaviest protection, but Soviet tanks angle the sides of their turret so that they offer even better protection from off centre shots. The Leopard and other western tanks have horizontal sides but require thicker armour to offer reasonable side protection.

    Very simply an APFSDS round is too long and slim to properly stabilise with spinning... it needs fins. Any spinning it does get from a rifled barrel actually destabilises the round and makes it less accurate.
    For HEAT rounds the spinning effect reduces the penetrator effect of the plasma beam generated by the explosive and metal liner so they work best in a smooth bore too.

    The only rounds the need spinning for accuracy are HESH and HE FRAG rounds.

    HESH is pretty obsolete as most modern armour structures have cavities and layers of rubber and other materials that absorb shock waves. Most of the time a standard HE round is more useful especially with proper fragmentation design and an electronic timed fuse system like ANIET.

    Although I remember reading they used a rubber coating on APFSDS and HESH round to prevent spinning

    Slip rings are sometimes used for HEAT and APFSDS rounds in rifled barrels to reduce spin. HESH like spin and would not have slip rings.
    avatar
    Austin

    Posts : 7354
    Points : 7751
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Arjun Tank News Thread Empty Re: Arjun Tank News Thread

    Post  Austin on Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:19 am

    Thank You much appreciated , what are the chances that a frontal hit will actually hit the mantle or the optical area , a heat or rod will have to pass through it and chances that it would hit the area in its weak spot is slim.

    I think probably they are deal with the optical weakness in Mk2 but dealing with mantle weakness will not be easy because it will have impact on the gun movement if they make the area more thicker.

    One more thing I came to know is Mk2 Arjun will come with Cummins 1500 hp engine over German MTU 1400 HP but as they say it will be 68 T then those high HP wont compensate for mobility.

    I personally like the T-90AM approach , I wonder if they would upgrade the composite armour and ERA , Kaktus K-6 is twice as better then K-5 but K-5 is quite old almost 2 decade old and K-6 is quite old by now wonder they have improved on K-6 model.

    The French Tank Lelerc also uses a autoloader proving the point that autoloader save on crew and volume.

    Another think i realised with Arjun Mk1 is their armour is not sloped or angled but straight making it better for penetration.

    What are your thoughts on the L=740 rounds , compared to western greater then 900 mm L dart , ofcourse what gurkhan is saying is true.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21749
    Points : 22295
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Arjun Tank News Thread Empty Re: Arjun Tank News Thread

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:08 am

    Thank You much appreciated , what are the chances that a frontal hit will actually hit the mantle or the optical area , a heat or rod will have to pass through it and chances that it would hit the area in its weak spot is slim.

    The front of the turret is statistically the most common place for a tank to be hit in tank on tank warfare.

    Behind the mantlet the armour is very thin because that is where the mechanism for mounting the gun, stabilising it, and raising and lowering the gun is, so penetration is very likely there... the larger the mantlet the larger the "target area".

    Also in the photo above of the optics remember that the visible optics port does not include an area around it for the electronics etc so the weak spot is likely larger than the visible part which is a significant target.

    I have heard Challenger tank gunners claim they can hit a helmet sized target at 1km range, so such a weakness is a problem.

    I think probably they are deal with the optical weakness in Mk2 but dealing with mantle weakness will not be easy because it will have impact on the gun movement if they make the area more thicker.

    The optics problem might require a complete rearrangement of the electronics inside the turret and would not just be a cosmetic change.
    The mantlet will be a similar problem... they likely didn't make it large for fun, it is clearly a case of a large gun cradle and stabilisation system that may need to be redesigned too.

    One more thing I came to know is Mk2 Arjun will come with Cummins 1500 hp engine over German MTU 1400 HP but as they say it will be 68 T then those high HP wont compensate for mobility.

    Power to weight ratio is a reasonable measure of acceleration potential, but shifting a near 70 ton beast over rough country is always going to be thirsty work with a lot of risk.

    I personally like the T-90AM approach , I wonder if they would upgrade the composite armour and ERA , Kaktus K-6 is twice as better then K-5 but K-5 is quite old almost 2 decade old and K-6 is quite old by now wonder they have improved on K-6 model.

    When they had money before the end of the cold war they put new stuff on almost every overhaul the vehicles in service got. It made it very difficult to spot one model from another because when a new model came out with a new feature that distinguished it from previous models the older model vehicles got that feature added during their overhauls.
    They have certainly shown that they don't put all their eggs in one basket so they will likely use composite armours, ERAs, NERAs(when ready), and APSs.

    The French Tank Lelerc also uses a autoloader proving the point that autoloader save on crew and volume.

    Quite true, and if or when NATO goes to 140mm calibre rounds I think more countries will realise that an autoloader is a necessity rather than a luxury... a round that weight would be hard to handle and load inside a turret.

    What are your thoughts on the L=740 rounds , compared to western greater then 900 mm L dart , ofcourse what gurkhan is saying is true.

    Well I think what happened was that the UVZ company had spend several decades working on a next gen tank with a new large calibre gun and up until 2010 they thought that by the time money was actually going on production replacements for current equipment the T-95 and a large calibre gun and ammo would likely be in production and entering service.
    Knowing that there was a possibility that a turret bustle designed tank could possibly get into service in the form of an upgraded T-90 in the mean time they were probably very conservative in making penetrators that could fit in T-90AMs in their rear turret auto loaders but also in upgraded T-90S tanks that could use projectiles that were about 750mm long.
    Once they get a contract to make x hundred T-90AM tanks then they will likely start working on penetrators that are significantly longer, but until then it makes no sense developing a round that could only be fired by towed 125mm anti tank guns.

    Sponsored content

    Arjun Tank News Thread Empty Re: Arjun Tank News Thread

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:35 pm