Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) Mark II

[Hari Sud]

Hello Bose

1800 hp will also be too small.

How about 2500 hp engine. (I am making fun. Ha.. Ha..ha..)

 

[Neeraj Mathur]

A brighter and a better picture after some modifications >>

is it woodland camo

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Let me clear this :

1. DRDO does not work on its own ..
2. It works only when a requirement is given by Army ..
3. It works under Army`s supervision ..

Unless Army issue a requirement for smooth-bore, There will be a smooth-bore also ARDE makes smooth-bore guns for T-90 and T-72, Its not that hard ..

===========
===========

I am telling this because there are lot of people who misunderstand how DRDO works, Army or any-other wing are responsible for most of the design, DRDO just make those design into reality, Due to misunderstanding about DRDO many people blame DRDO directly and those Army officers who also work in such design, Corrupt official and Gov take advantage of this Gap of knowledge and make various false statement in media ..

next step is smothbore gun(hope drdo would make a multiclaiber 120/140/152 mm gun) and 1800 hp engine.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Friends, I have to move some post from here to another thread, This because this topic is debated a million times before and hence will derail the thread, I hope many understand this ..

Post are moved here : http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/defence-strategic-issues/44522-arjun-vs-t90-mbt-113.html

======================
======================

Its not exactly woodland but based on Army`s new jungle camo ..

is it woodland camo

 

[Kunal Biswas]

At present the best solution would be DRDO ERA, These are outdated compare to latest ones ..

But it will provide good if not better protection ..

MK2

MK1

This minor upgrade will be cheap and can be fast as there is availability of such ERA in country ..

=============
=============

Note : It is not necessarily the marked areas are weak-points ..

I think IA should pay more attention to protect the tank from the top for top attack mode.

 

[arnabmit]

I definitely would have liked it better if they would have moved the gunner sight on top of the turret like in the Challenger. That area then could have had full thickness armor. Then they should have moved the radar in place of the current gunner sight. That way DRDO could have achieved better turret armor and more ERA coverage.

Also, instead of putting up angular ERA in front like the T-90, they could have put sloping ERA like in the Merkava 4, which would have given it a cleaner silhouette and cross section.

Also, the RCWS is operated by the commander, right? The RCWS already has sights built into it, so why install a separate commander sight next to the RCWS?

 

[Shaitan]

The right side is too sluppy.

The gunner sight should be lifted up, and the laser warning counter measure system should be shifted into the gunner sights place.

 

[Shaitan]

Moving the gunner sight up is something they did waaay back in it's earlier prototypes.

 

[pmaitra]

@Kunal Biswas, I think you had mentioned that you had seen a prototype of Arjun Mark II with the optic placed above where it is in Mark I. Do you have a picture of it?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

This topic was talked about here before, Though as the thread is long i will re-post those points again --->>

=================================

The Idea came from Army only & The idea was rejected by Army itself ..

This version was improvement over MK1 in early days ..

----------------------------

About the second point, I believe its because of maintenance friendly issues, its easier to change barrel and remove the mantel in this config, that is the reason the Army didn't asked to modify the mantel, In field condition its important to do maintenance quickly ..

I definitely would have liked it better if they would have moved the gunner sight on top of the turret like in the Challenger. That area then could have had full thickness armor. Then they should have moved the radar in place of the current gunner sight. That way DRDO could have achieved better turret armor and more ERA coverage.

Also, instead of putting up angular ERA in front like the T-90, they could have put sloping ERA like in the Merkava 4, which would have given it a cleaner silhouette and cross section.

@Kunal Biswas, I think you had mentioned that you had seen a prototype of Arjun Mark II with the optic placed above where it is in Mark I. Do you have a picture of it?

 

[Shaitan]

@Kunal Biswas, I think you had mentioned that you had seen a prototype of Arjun Mark II with the optic placed above where it is in Mark I. Do you have a picture of it?

Not of Mark 2, but a Mark 1.

#488 is a old prototype of a Mark 1.

 

[arnabmit]

Sir, any idea as to why it was rejected?

And could you please comment on the 3rd point?

This topic was talked about here before, Though as the thread is long i will re-post those points again --->>

=================================

The Idea came from Army only & The idea was rejected by Army itself ..

This version was improvement over MK1 in early days ..

----------------------------

About the second point, I believe its because of maintenance friendly issues, its easier to change barrel and remove the mantel in this config, that is the reason the Army didn't asked to modify the mantel, In field condition its important to do maintenance quickly ..

 

[sayareakd]

At present the best solution would be DRDO ERA, These are outdated compare to latest ones ..

But it will provide good if not better protection ..

This minor upgrade will be cheap and can be fast as there is availability of such ERA in country ..

=============
=============

Note : It is not necessarily the marked areas are weak-points ..

kunal sir this is the area where you need more protection (in yellow)

 

[pmaitra]

@Kunal Biswas,

Thanks, but at least they should move the vision block up as in the prototype and extend the armour.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Cannot say, Its within Army`s and DRDO `s design team ..

Can you please tell me more about your thirds point ..

Sir, any idea as to why it was rejected?

And could you please comment on the 3rd point?

@Kunal Biswas,

Thanks, but at least they should move the vision block up as in the prototype and extend the armour.

========================

Sir, Good point ..

Swedish Strv 122 with extra roof and hull armour.

I think similar treatment can be done with respect to given MK2 status pointed by you ..

kunal sir this is the area where you need more protection (in yellow)

 

[Shaitan]

This whole area here isnt even uparmored.

 

[Shaitan]

Give a read to rest of the thread ..

I already did. There isn't any indication they'll be adding anything more to what you see already.

 

[pmaitra]

Cannot say, Its within Army`s and DRDO `s design team ..

Can you please tell me more about your thirds point ..

No, just this one point. Move the vision block up, cover up the right side of the turret front, move the seeker a little forward, and II think it should be fine then.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Shaitan dost, It is true what you said but not correct how you expressed ..

By saying its not Armored, It means there is nothing behind it either ..

I already did. There isn't any indication they'll be adding anything more to what you see already.

=================
=================

The team did it in the prototype posted back in page, But got rejected for some good reason i assume..

No, just this one point. Move the vision block up, cover up the right side of the turret front, move the seeker a little forward, and II think it should be fine then.

 

[Shaitan]

Shaitan dost, It is true what you said but not correct how you expressed ..

By saying its not Armored, It means there is nothing behind it either ..
.

I never said not armored, I said up-armored.

At the very least, maybe move the gunner sight up. Laser warning system more to the right, and extend the blocks further.

Or place the armor blocks where the gunner sight was, and leave the laser warning system where it is.