Army dithers over futuristic tank, DRDO pursues engine

[Kunal Biswas]

Under army's supervision?

Was someone stationed there?

Like who?

Sir, I dont have deep knowladge abt that, But the Arjun Project was under Army supervision, Army had right to correct flaws in devlopment phases, Not only the flaws of the sub-systems but the degin itself.

 

[Anonymouse]

Under army's supervision?

Was someone stationed there?

Like who?

Major General HM Singh
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/03/arjun-tank-outruns-outguns-russian-t-90.html

 

[Ray]

Well, then he should answer.

Why is he silent?

And anyway, those who are put to pasture are there in sinecure.

That is a fault of the IA.

Personally speaking, there should be a high level inquiry to check who are at fault for this fiasco and they should be brought to book.

Sadly, too many important heads will roll and so nothing will be done!

Try a PIL or RTI and it will be stalled!

It appears from the photo that HM Singh can't even stand straight and is hunched!

Spine is required!

 

[Anonymouse]

Sadly, too many important heads will roll and so nothing will be done!

Try a PIL or RTI and it will be stalled!

How many IA heads rolled for 1962 rout? Same Niranjan Prasad was laughing stock of 1965. Some things never change.

 

[Ray]

We must ask Shukla who was anti Arjun and then pro Arjun as to why the change of heart.

Must be something good happened.

But to whom?

Arjun?

 

[Ray]

How many IA heads rolled for 1962 rout? Same Niranjan Prasad was laughing stock of 1965. Some things never change.

Niranjan Pershad was a jack in the box and hotfooted during the war and reached the Pakistani MP and realising the error hotfooted it back to the safety of the Indian line or so the story goes!

Head rolled in 1965, even if not publicised.

 

[Ray]

Head rolled even in the mobilisation phase of Op Parikrama.

Ask Lt Gen Kapil Vij.

But then that is shrouded in mystery!

 

[p2prada]

Design away.

Who has stopped that?

But give a product that is contemporary to meet the Threat.

I have been saying this since last year.

We also had HF 24 way back designed by the Focke Wulf engineer who made best of German air machines in WWII.

It was world class!

Shelved since India could not design a compatible engine or import one.

HF-24 was beyond world class. Sadly, circumstances failed the HF-24.

 

[p2prada]

We must ask Shukla who was anti Arjun and then pro Arjun as to why the change of heart.

Must be something good happened.

But to whom?

Arjun?

Haha! I am sure you remember Ajai Shukla's posts at BR in 2004.

He was heavily against Arjun and preferred the T types over it. He was right at that point when Arjun used old Analog FCS and electronics. Once the Israelis came in to the picture things changed. This was in 2005. I don't know if it was his attitude towards Arjun which changed or merely economics in play.

"But to whom?" is a very valid question to ask.

However I still support his old views about the Arjun. Arjun is still an incomplete tank. An Indian body with imported parts and it will remain so no matter what story anybody spins around it.

However when he talked about artillery, I did not buy it. According to me artillery is very important in tank warfare. He claimed buying multiple artillery platforms is like the Buta Singh approach(whatever that means). Howitzers, wheeled and tracked are important and it seems we are going for it.

So, while I supported his opinion on Arjun, I rejected his opinion on artillery.

 

[pmaitra]

Just a refresher - two very important considerations and I must commend DRDO for this.

P Sivakumar, CVRDE's livewire director, revealed that work had begun on crucial FMBT systems, even without a PSQR. Based on the army's weight limit of 50 tonnes for the FMBT, the DRDO has launched a "mission mode" project to develop an 1,800 Horse Power (Hp) indigenous engine. Sivakumar says 1500 Hp is sufficient for a 50-tonne tank, but the endemic danger of weight over-runs in a new tank makes a 300 Hp margin prudent.

Even as CVRDE develops this technological capacity, it is looking further ahead at a hybrid engine for the FMBT after 2030. Sivakumar says that a tank remains static for at least 40 per cent of the time in battle, during which time its engine idles. "This means that 40 per cent of the time, you wastefully run a 1,500 Hp engine, guzzling diesel and giving away the tank's position, while you need very little power for running electricals like the radios and gun control equipment or for moving the tank slowly. So, we are evolving a hybrid technology concept in which the tank will have two engines: a 500 Hp engine for low power mode and another 1,000 Hp engine that kicks in when high power is required, e.g. for manoeuvring in battle," explains the CVRDE director.

Source [first post]: Army dithers over futuristic tank, DRDO pursues engine

 

[p2prada]

Just a refresher - two very important considerations and I must commend DRDO for this.

Source [first post]: Army dithers over futuristic tank, DRDO pursues engine

These aspects are not written in stone. They may change as and when technology changes. We are talking about a 10-15 year project.

 

[pmaitra]

These aspects are not written in stone. They may change as and when technology changes. We are talking about a 10-15 year project.

Technology is already there, for one of the specific issues. We already have hybrid cars that are sold commercially. They are expensive, yes, but think about a real war like scenario. Hybrid engines will save valuable fuel and will give an enhanced range to the tanks. It simply gives that edge. The concern is field-repairs and maintenance. Reminds me of Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf. B.

The other issue is weight overruns. They almost always happen and requirements also change. As you said, technology can change, and for the better and we might come up with lighter armour, but then, other tanks might also have the same armour and we might have to think of a heavier gun. In any event, those 300 surplus horsepowers can always be tuned down or used to compensate for any increase in weight.

 

[p2prada]

I am not devil`s lawyer, But current specs are no where near Futuristic, Nor impressive..
1800hp for what on a 50 ton MBT? when a 70+ ton MBT can run far with a 1500hp engine..

Stupid question. Why should PAKFA have 170KN engines when a heavier Su-30 has 125KN engines?

Electronics need power.

The M1's engine, as mentioned by Damian, can be uprated to 2000HP.

 

[pmaitra]

Stupid question. Why should PAKFA have 170KN engines when a heavier Su-30 has 125KN engines?

Electronics need power.

The M1's engine, as mentioned by Damian, can be uprated to 2000HP.

Dang! More than 45 kilo Newtons of extra power for PAKFA! I don't know much about this. Is it because they want to have a more powerful radar? I don't see why other reason, electronics-wise, for so much extra power.

 

[p2prada]

Technology is already there, for one of the specific issues. We already have hybrid cars that are sold commercially. They are expensive, yes, but think about a real war like scenario. Hybrid engines will save valuable fuel and will give an enhanced range to the tanks. It simply gives that edge. The concern is field-repairs and maintenance. Reminds me of Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf. B.

The other issue is weight overruns. They almost always happen and requirements also change. As you said, technology can change, and for the better and we might come up with lighter armour, but then, other tanks might also have the same armour and we might have to think of a heavier gun. In any event, those 300 surplus horsepowers can always be tuned down or used to compensate for any increase in weight.

There is no point debating something which is going to be difficult to achieve. Two engines instead of one when we don't have our own engine to speak of. It will be an engineering marvel if we accomplish this. Engines are heavy, even a 500HP one.

This isn't etched in stone. It can be achievable, but something better may show up by then. This was my point anyway.

The next ten years will fly faster than the previous ten.

 

[p2prada]

Dang! More than 45 kilo Newtons of extra power for PAKFA! I don't know much about this. Is it because they want to have a more powerful radar? I don't see why other reason, electronics-wise, for so much extra power.

F-22s engines are rated at 157KN while F-35 is at 196KN and to be uprated to 226KN in due time. Power is everything for vehicles.

Earlier reports from Saturn suggested 180KN for PAKFA. But 165-170KN is seen as the goal today.

 

[pmaitra]

F-22s engines are rated at 157KN while F-35 is at 196KN and to be uprated to 226KN in due time. Power is everything for vehicles.

Earlier reports from Saturn suggested 180KN for PAKFA. But 165-170KN is seen as the goal today.

But my question is why? So much extra power for electronics? Is it for longer radar range?

 

[Payeng]

Stupid question. Why should PAKFA have 170KN engines when a heavier Su-30 has 125KN engines?

Electronics need power.

The M1's engine, as mentioned by Damian, can be uprated to 2000HP.

Maybe because the airframe of PAK-FA can effort to utilise the power in Super cruise, while su-30's airframe cannot achieve a supercruise top speed should not be a matter of concern for such power bands, not necessary but more power= gulp more fuel considering technology to be constant.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Stupid question. Why should PAKFA have 170KN engines when a heavier Su-30 has 125KN engines?

Electronics need power.

The M1's engine, as mentioned by Damian, can be uprated to 2000HP.

For Air maneuvers at high altitude at thin air, Quick turn rate increase AOA, Powerful engines are needed..

For tanks, climbing 70degree slope with 70 ton plus, can be done with 1500hp, Same done with 60ton with 1400hp engine on Arjun..

Both are different platforms for very different uses in different dimensions..

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

i think the fmbt project should be entirely scrapped and it should be replaced by arjun mk3.this is because the anti-armour penetration capability of our enemy is also improving.if army insists it should be a 50 ton tank with armour protection similar to 65 ton arjun mk2 then entire 8-10 years r&d will go to waste in creating someting we already have only a little lighter.instead in keeping pace with anti- armour prjectile improvement army must aim for a tank with better armour without increasing significant amount of weight.also i beleive going for only aps rather than passive armour is a blunder as aps system can be easily fooled with technologies which are present in rpg-30.