Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) Mark II

[ezsasa]

Maana ki dono bhai thoap hai,
Par issme kya phod le-enge?

unrestricted cash flow and adherence to time lines(especially the elder brother)...........

 

[Kay]

Another 2 years of development & 4-5 years of tests/trials.
Will IA order 65 tonne Arjun Mk2 7 years from now? Wouldn't the focus be on FMBT?
(Yes, the goal of the weight reduction is to get it to 65 tonnes)
Can't seem to understand what the strategy for MBTs are!

I guess it is very difficult to design any tank today given the changing nature of the tank's role in warfare.
There has not been tank battles between advanced armies for years. Massed tank battles are unlikely in the future because of lessons drawn from Iraq war. Network centric warfare with greater co-ordination with infantry seems to be the way.
Many of the advanced technologies in tanks are not battle tested against near peer adversaries and is difficult to predict how they will perform in actual battle - e.g. unmanned turrets, active and passive protection systems, electric drives, etc. Army's RFI for FRCV envisions a very ambitious tank - but risk prone in terms of technology and cost. Improving Arjun incrementally is the best interim strategy as it will reduce risk and can be supported by our industrial infrastructure.
We may end up with 4 tanks in the future in the medium term - T-72s, T90s, Arjuns and FMBTs - not optimal, but necessary.

 

[Enquirer]

I guess it is very difficult to design any tank today given the changing nature of the tank's role in warfare.

That argument will hold if no new tanks are bought! If new tanks are being bought in the thousands last decade, this decade and next decade, then a tank can be designed. Because in both the cases, the military is building a strategy involving the tanks!

There has not been tank battles between advanced armies for years. Massed tank battles are unlikely in the future because of lessons drawn from Iraq war. Network centric warfare with greater co-ordination with infantry seems to be the way.
Many of the advanced technologies in tanks are not battle tested against near peer adversaries and is difficult to predict how they will perform in actual battle - e.g. unmanned turrets, active and passive protection systems, electric drives, etc. Army's RFI for FRCV envisions a very ambitious tank - but risk prone in terms of technology and cost.

That's true of any military system - starting from guns going all the way upto fighter jets! US forces found their M16s/M4s completely deficient to bring the required firepower against the Taliban.....

Improving Arjun incrementally is the best interim strategy as it will reduce risk and can be supported by our industrial infrastructure.

Army should buy as many Arjuns as they need immediately and move to a different platform!
Arjun concept (not just the design) is essentially 50+ years old! The fundamental reason why Arjun is so heavy is because it's a 4 person tank - that requires it to be BIG!
All modern concept tanks have 3 person crew (with autoloader). That in itself reduces the space requirement, and cuts down the weight drastically (even if autoloader requires a few extra tonnes)!

 

[ezsasa]

unrestricted cash flow and adherence to time lines(especially the elder brother)...........

Forgot to add... direct access to PM, if DRDO guys try to show their babugiri...

 

[Kay]

That argument will hold if no new tanks are bought! If new tanks are being bought in the thousands last decade, this decade and next decade, then a tank can be designed. Because in both the cases, the military is building a strategy involving the tanks!


That's true of any military system - starting from guns going all the way upto fighter jets! US forces found their M16s/M4s completely deficient to bring the required firepower against the Taliban.....




Army should buy as many Arjuns as they need immediately and move to a different platform!
Arjun concept (not just the design) is essentially 50+ years old! The fundamental reason why Arjun is so heavy is because it's a 4 person tank - that requires it to be BIG!
All modern concept tanks have 3 person crew (with autoloader). That in itself reduces the space requirement, and cuts down the weight drastically (even if autoloader requires a few extra tonnes)!

A new tank will have to be designed from scratch with signature management in mind and also the army wants electric drive and other emerging technologies in it's FRCV. This will result in protracted development.
Arjun can be redesigned, first with a smoothbore gun, then with a new turret with autoloader (bustle mounted). This will be something similar to the Franco - German hybrid tank recently showcased with Leopard hull and Lecrec turret. You can even change the hull at a later point, if you want a narrower hull and an armoured capsule in the hull for the driver. This approach is better than waiting to design, test and induct a new tank - it will reduce risk, cause faster turnover and retain the trained manpower and production facilities.

 

[Enquirer]

A new tank will have to be designed from scratch with signature management in mind and also the army wants electric drive and other emerging technologies in it's FRCV. This will result in protracted development.
Arjun can be redesigned, first with a smoothbore gun, then with a new turret with autoloader (bustle mounted). This will be something similar to the Franco - German hybrid tank recently showcased with Leopard hull and Lecrec turret. You can even change the hull at a later point, if you want a narrower hull and an armoured capsule in the hull for the driver. This approach is better than waiting to design, test and induct a new tank - it will reduce risk, cause faster turnover and retain the trained manpower and production facilities.

Having an autoloader and still continuing with the BIG space for the 4th crew member (loader) and paying weight penalty doesn't make sense.
Arjun is a fine tank as is (chassis conceived 40+ years ago!). But is not the future tank. A new chassis design is required for future proofing. CVRDE at this time has so much experience building variants of tanks that it should be fairly easy for them to design a modern chassis. Note that Arjun Mk2 (even without HNS etc) was changed quite a bit from the Mk1 variant!
The futuristic chassis could easily be made available in the next 10-12 years, when T72s start retiring...
Arjun Mk2 could still be produced in few hundreds by reducing the ongoing procurement of T90s by few hundreds.

 

[ersakthivel]

You're pathetic! !!!!!!!!!!!!!

IMHO

The attempt to link digitized 3D drawings

meant for machining, tight fit , high accuracy parts OF ARJUN MK2 , in multi axis CNC machines

to

having 6 axis robots in CVRDE production line

is

PATHETIC.

And suggesting a non existent FMBT


as an alternative for Arjun mk2, which will be ready with IA Specific weight reduction request & other modifications


is not rational either.


even DGMO doesn't know what it needs in FMBT,

asking the MNCs to define specs first,

then float a tender for best design,

then get total IP rights & royalty rights ,for best design by paying off the winner

then select another entity for production, which quotes least price,

When will it happen ?

 

[ersakthivel]

Having an autoloader and still continuing with the BIG space for the 4th crew member (loader) and paying weight penalty doesn't make sense.
Arjun is a fine tank as is (chassis conceived 40+ years ago!). But is not the future tank. A new chassis design is required for future proofing. CVRDE at this time has so much experience building variants of tanks that it should be fairly easy for them to design a modern chassis. Note that Arjun Mk2 (even without HNS etc) was changed quite a bit from the Mk1 variant!
The futuristic chassis could easily be made available in the next 10-12 years, when T72s start retiring...
Arjun Mk2 could still be produced in few hundreds by reducing the ongoing procurement of T90s by few hundreds.

In tanks I hv heard words like hull & turret design, This ,"chassis" is news to me,

Where is it?

Please specify what is 40 year old chassis design & what is the latest cutting edge chassis design in tanks,

Give me links for that,


Arjun 's chassis was not conceived 40 years ago.

Do you know how many times IA changed its GSQR for Arjun ,on all specs, like weight, gun caliber, etc , etc,

Which 40 year old tank has hydraulic suspension & composite armor?


Get your ,"facts" checked. thanks

 

[binayak95]

Which 40 year old tank has hydraulic suspension & composite armor?


Get your ,"facts" checked. thanks

Its hydropneumatic suspension, pioneered back in 1975, by the Japanese in their Type-74/STB-1 series of tanks.
And the first production tank to feature composite armor was the Soviet T-64, in service from 1964.

So, yes the Arjun is an evolution of the Leo 2A4 with elements of British/Indian Army tank doctrine (referring to the rifled barrel especially)

 

[no smoking]

We may end up with 4 tanks in the future in the medium term - T-72s, T90s, Arjuns and FMBTs - not optimal, but necessary.

You are giving your financial minister and logistic department head a heart-attack.

 

[Kay]

You are giving your financial minister and logistic department head a heart-attack.

We already have 3 and have RFI out for the fourth - I am just stating the obvious.
China operates 5 tanks today - types 59, 79 88, 96 and 99 and their variants. So, it is pretty standard.

 

[Willy3]

I am going to choose not to respond to your posts, even if your b!~(# @Willy3 thinks you won because of that!

Oh...dear ,is my opinion so important to u ??

 

[Kshithij]

We already have 3 and have RFI out for the fourth - I am just stating the obvious.
China operates 5 tanks today - types 59, 79 88, 96 and 99 and their variants. So, it is pretty standard.

T72 will be retired soon. Another tank of T90 size is not worth it. T90 is already indigenpus and is having several upgrades. There is no need for another of its weight class.

Tanks are not as important in today's warfare as aerial power will dominate the most. Tanks are only needed for some places where aerial cover may not work and for ground invasion. Being too picky about tanks is not good

 

[Defenceanalyst91]

Stop wasting billions in these toy tanks. These toys fr only for showpiecce. Use this money to build big concrete wall in LoC. It will save unvaluable human lives.

 

[Kay]

T72 will be retired soon. Another tank of T90 size is not worth it. T90 is already indigenpus and is having several upgrades. There is no need for another of its weight class.

Tanks are not as important in today's warfare as aerial power will dominate the most. Tanks are only needed for some places where aerial cover may not work and for ground invasion. Being too picky about tanks is not good

Don't bet on T-72 retiring soon. I believe it will soldier on for a long time with upgrades. Shrinking defense budgets and high cost of acquisition for modern systems are to blame. It's the same story everywhere.

 

[cyclops]

Both DRDO and Army are still not on the same bloody page.

 

[Enquirer]

Both DRDO and Army are still not on the same bloody page.

The participants are ex-DRDO, ex-military. Their views are as the situation was few years ago. The current situation might be the same or could have changed.

 

[vishnugupt]

Look at this Army guy he is having no valid answer, only same old cries, like heavy, 60% foreign import systems, not repairable in situ, chipping of barrels ( similar to insas rifle which polymer magazine cracked decades ago ) but same army love to buy 100% foreign maal without any maintenance contract then how they repair in situ? Tank is heavily because it is Army who has been giving false requirements. On the other hand DRDO guy gave answer very logically.
In my opinion, every General or other service Chief come with simple goal , just to sign atleast one foreign contract so they can get kick back money for rest of life.

 

[WolfPack86]

Arjun MK 2 main battle tank.

 

[WolfPack86]

Arjun MK 2 main battle tank.