Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) Mark II

[Yusuf]

Then what cold start really mean ? if you cant punish Pakistan without cutting them off. 8 IBG not going into towns but going into Pakistan is good idea, just get inside and take defensive positions and start taking out any counter attack.

We do have calculated their limit, that is why cold start.

Cold start is not about going 100kms inside Pak. Cold start was devised to stay below the "percieved" nuke threshold of Pak. I have always maintained we need to call the Pak bluff on nukes but then I don't make decisions

Cold start doctrine was actually partial calling of the Pak bluff on nukes. It scared Pakis no end and that's why they bluffed again with tactical nukes and Nasr.

India really doesn't need to get 100kms inside Pak. Cold start will unravel that country quite quickly.

 

[sayareakd]

Cold start is not about going 100kms inside Pak. Cold start was devised to stay below the "percieved" nuke threshold of Pak. I have always maintained we need to call the Pak bluff on nukes but then I don't make decisions

Cold start doctrine was actually partial calling of the Pak bluff on nukes. It scared Pakis no end and that's why they bluffed again with tactical nukes and Nasr.

India really doesn't need to get 100kms inside Pak. Cold start will unravel that country quite quickly.

ok Yusuf, then 200 kms.

 

[ladder]

Pakistan is at max 400 km deep from our border. so if PA wont challenge us within few hours we can cross and go to Afghanistan

On a lighter note, It will be great idea to deliver the first batch of Arjun tanks to ANA over land. We can stop over at Lahore, Isloo, and Peshawar en route.

 

[Yusuf]

ok Yusuf, then 200 kms.

 

[binayak95]

GO Arjun!! Beat the crap out of the T-90MS and teach the IA: Desi is best!!

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Arjun is design for Indian terrain, Over Astan the best is T-55 or T-55 based Upgrades..

On a lighter note, It will be great idea to deliver the first batch of Arjun tanks to ANA over land. We can stop over at Lahore, Isloo, and Peshawar en route.

 

[pmaitra]

I believe, No you cannot increase engine bhp of an engine through any modification with the gear box onlee, military or non military.

You can reduce the gear ratios, where you have more revolutions of the engine and less in the wheels. That way you get more torque, but less speed.

This is what they did with the Arjun Mark II I think. They simply changed the gear ratios so that the tank will still perform as good as Arjun Mark I when negotiating rough terrain and obstacles, but it won't be able to attain the high speeds like Arjun Mark I.

Think of what you do when climbing uphill - you downshift.

 

[The Last Stand]

Arjun is design for Indian terrain, Over Astan the best is T-55 or T-55 based Upgrades..

Not exactly. Any light tank with good traction will work well for Afghanistan.

 

[AVERAGE INDIAN]

Not exactly. Any light tank with good traction will work well for Afghanistan.

its not about traction murali its about skilled man power and maintenance facilities pakis will never allow military equipment to afgans by road through their country either you have to fly or re-rout it through iran. which will increase costs and time consuming

currently no disrespect about afgans doesn't have the skilled man power nor facilities to maintain current generation battle tank's it will take time so as a stop gap measure upgraded T series tanks 55's or 72's will do the job since afgans do have a quite good experience on T series tanks

 

[Payeng]

You can reduce the gear ratios, where you have more revolutions of the engine and less in the wheels. That way you get more torque, but less speed.

This is what they did with the Arjun Mark II I think. They simply changed the gear ratios so that the tank will still perform as good as Arjun Mark I when negotiating rough terrain and obstacles, but it won't be able to attain the high speeds like Arjun Mark I.

Think of what you do when climbing uphill - you downshift.

I have read reports earlier about change in gear ratio and final drive sprocket advocated for Arjun MBT for its menu for next upgrade, which I believe is an improvement effort over the Mk I version, but when military experts says despite increase in weight, the power to weight ratio remains the same, laymans like me get .
1. The engine must be up-rated so that the existing power to weight ratio is not compromised.
2. Possibly engine up-rating is not published.

@pmaitra, I know that the torque curve can be modified with modification in the gear box and final drive. This is done to tap the torque produced by the engine as per requirement. But what a layman can understand which a military jingo cannot is increase in weight of the vehicle without up-rating the engine WILL result in reduction of power-to-weight ratio (BHP/ton) of the vehicle. But who knows Arjun Mk I might be over powered so it is not an issue

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I said T-55 coz Afghans forces likes them..

Not exactly. Any light tank with good traction will work well for Afghanistan.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

One of the Interesting features of MK2 >>

Russia and India. Despite the differences in geography, culture and other aspects of these countries have in common the common problems of construction of modern armed forces. That in Russia, in India, is now the place to be opposition political groups and clans. As applied to the case military modernization, this translates into a hard military conflict - representatives of the Ministry of Defence and the Army Command in particular, representatives of the military-industrial complex. Similarly, as we now have in Russia, India, military lobby in favor of military equipment imported armaments. Industrialists, in turn, are talking about support for "domestic" manufacturer, to lobby for the development of national industry and economy.The report "Ukraine steals Russian tanks" we have already mentioned that in order to explore the possibilities to upgrade T-90S tanks, the Indian side has sent to Ukraine to Plant im.Malysheva KMDB and one of the tanks of this type, for a comprehensive modernization. But Russian officials probably will not see this as a problem, but according to this do not take any response. But one look at the appearance, demonstrated a model of modernization, as it becomes clear that the Ukrainian company offers direct competitor Russian version of modernization of the T-90C, known as T-90ms "Tagil".

Another strong competitor T-90ms in India, is the national development - the project "Arjun" Mk.2. On this machine we just mentioned . However, it is worth to recall it again. The reason for this are the new details emerged about the configuration of the machine.World experience shows armor upgrade priority - FCS modernization, equipping tanks with more modern sighting systems with the thermal and the possibility of the panoramic view. So much for the tank "Arjun" Now Mk.2 prototypes piloted MSA with panoramic sight COAPS from Israeli firm Elbit Systems (ELOP).

Setting sights on COAPS tank "Arjun" Mk.2 manufactured by Elbit together with the Indian company Bangalore-based Serial Innovations. According to the promotional materials distributed, COAPS has several features that are absent in other OMS tanks. The sight is a modular, open architecture platform, stabilized in two planes. This allows you to easily and cost-effectively add to it or modify the design, reduces maintenance and repair. Allows you to easily install a thermal imaging camera range 3-5mkm or 8-12mkm (target detection range of 5 km), the camcorder with the ability to scale color image format HDTV (target detection range of 5 km), the laser range finder (distance of 10 km). Stabilization of an independent two-plane. Provides a 360 deg. in the horizontal plane and from -20 to +60 deg. in the vertical. The sight has a ballistic protection from bullets and shrapnel. Provides integration into military carrier system, the work in the "search-destruction."

It is not difficult to see panoramic sight COAPS compares favorably to the Russian and Belarusian counterparts smaller in size, with the odd then it may be easier to assemble modernized, but more so on the newly developed machines. Serious benefits are enhanced viewing angle in the vertical plane (such as our "Hawkeye" only from -15 to +45 deg.), And, of course, open architecture. It may be noted and disadvantages.

First of all, this is clearly insufficient combat and operational viability. Ballistic protection rotten. In dusty conditions the air, not to mention the effects of combat, there are structural prerequisites to ensure that sight can jam with the movements in the vertical plane. Oh and do not know how to show the thermal camera in low thermal contrast.

However, panoramic sight COAPS - this is a serious competitive bid. We can say the Russian tank designers are challenged. Not so terrible it's integration to the modernized "Arjun", will be hurt and angry if this sight the Indian side chooses to upgrade its T-72 and T-90.

Source : Gur Khan attacks!: Панорамный прицел для "Арджуна"
Source : Панорамный прицел для "Арджуна" » Военное обозрение

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

Like to left this note, This was my work picked up by foreign blogs..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Arjun MK2, Electronic Panoramic Sight >>

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Arjun MK2, Electronic Panoramic Sight >>

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

Off-topic:
Recently its been used for Upgrade program for TAM in Argentina & Will be implemented on T-90S as per Upgrade..

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

 

[pmaitra]

I have read reports earlier about change in gear ratio and final drive sprocket advocated for Arjun MBT for its menu for next upgrade, which I believe is an improvement effort over the Mk I version, but when military experts says despite increase in weight, the power to weight ratio remains the same, laymans like me get .
1. The engine must be up-rated so that the existing power to weight ratio is not compromised.
2. Possibly engine up-rating is not published.

@pmaitra, I know that the torque curve can be modified with modification in the gear box and final drive. This is done to tap the torque produced by the engine as per requirement. But what a layman can understand which a military jingo cannot is increase in weight of the vehicle without up-rating the engine WILL result in reduction of power-to-weight ratio (BHP/ton) of the vehicle. But who knows Arjun Mk I might be over powered so it is not an issue

Good points you have raised.

Frankly, I do not understand how by keeping the numerator constant and by changing the denominator, the ratio can remain the same. This is mathematically impossible, but I think anybody with a penchant for the English language can become an author of technical articles.

An engine will always produce the same horsepower, if it remains the same engine. The brake-horse-power can differ from the horse-power, because, there are differences in the ways one measures them; however, as long as the engine is same in Mark I and Mark II, and as long as Mark II weighs more than Mark I, I fail to see how the power-to-weight ratio can remain constant.

This is just absurd, and I am, perhaps, missing something.

Regarding the change in the sprockets, I think I read they changed the way it was being made. Earlier, it was fabricated, and now, they are simply casting it (IIRC?); therefore, it is cheaper and quicker to produce.

 

[Payeng]

Good points you have raised.

Frankly, I do not understand how by keeping the numerator constant and by changing the denominator, the ratio can remain the same. This is mathematically impossible, but I think anybody with a penchant for the English language can become an author of technical articles.

An engine will always produce the same horsepower, if it remains the same engine. The brake-horse-power can differ from the horse-power, because, there are differences in the ways one measures them; however, as long as the engine is same in Mark I and Mark II, and as long as Mark II weighs more than Mark I, I fail to see how the power-to-weight ratio can remain constant.

This is just absurd, and I am, perhaps, missing something.

Regarding the change in the sprockets, I think I read they changed the way it was being made. Earlier, it was fabricated, and now, they are simply casting it (IIRC?); therefore, it is cheaper and quicker to produce.

That must be Sen Gupta's expert editorial addition into the article if the same is not expressed in any other news report.

 

[pmaitra]

That must be Sen Gupta's expert editorial addition into the article if the same is not expressed in any other news report.

Probably. He is just throwing in terms to sounds as if knows what he is talking about.

Now, as we have discussed earlier in this thread, this capping of the max speed at 58 kmph might not be a major problem, since our BMP and NAMICA also have speeds in the vicinity of ~60 kmph, what should have been appropriate is that this increase in weight would not make a major difference, and from the operational point of view, this is not a significant disadvantage.

In any event, I would still like to see the new 1,800 hp engine put in production locally.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

So you are the layman And who must be the military Jingos ?

( *** Jingoism is extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy.*** )

How is the Jingoism related in a technical thread ?

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

Stick to the topic, No political discussion..

But what a layman can understand which a military jingo cannot is increase in weight of the vehicle without up-rating the engine WILL result in reduction of power-to-weight ratio (BHP/ton) of the vehicle. But who knows Arjun Mk I might be over powered so it is not an issue

 

[Payeng]

So you are the layman And who must be the military Jingos ?

( *** Jingoism is extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy.*** )

How is the Jingoism related in a technical thread ?

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

Stick to the topic, No political discussion..

Ok as you are a mod maybe I dont deserve to tell you this,

1. Respect for Respect.
2. Introspection.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Upcoming modifications on the Arjun Mark II

1. Missile firing capability
2. Commander's TI panoramic sight Mk II
3. Driver's uncooled thermal imaging night sight
4. Additional ammunition (don't ask"¦ won't tell!)
5. Enhanced ammunition penetrator
6. Effective alternative to muzzle reference sight (MRS)
7. Resin-based CCC
8. Ten-round containerised bin
9. Explosive reactive armour panels
10. Infra-red/Thermal imaging resistant paint
11. Air defence weapon remote firing
12. ALWCS (advanced laser warning and countermeasure system)
13. Roof mounted driver's seat
14. ATT in GMS (gunner's main sight)
15. Advanced land navigation system
16. New final drive with increased reduction ratio
17. Advanced running gear system
18. New track system
19. Mine plough

1. An improved sprocket wheel that modifies the manufacturing process from rolled homogenous armour (which required gas cutting and machining) to a forged sprocket which is 50% the cost, 50% easier to build and gives a longer life.

2. Another minor modification is the incorporation of stainless steel fuel tanks. The painting required for the insides of the earlier mild steel tanks was creating residue that clogged the fuel lines and filters. But stainless steel requires no painting.

3. Internal electrical wiring has been comprehensively re-laid, incorporating the dozens of modifications that have been incrementally carried out over the years. The wiring has now been laid systematically, making it easier to track and repair.

4. The radio harness has been modified, and internal communications are now digital. That makes it easier to integrate audio alarms and provides an SMS facility between the crew (how 'bout sum chai?). It is totally noise free"¦ now the crew can communicate easily.

5. Another improvement is the incorporation of a new compact Auxillary Power Unit (APU), which provides 8 KW of electrical power (uprated from the existing 4.5 KW APU). This requirement is based on fresh load budgeting calculations, allowing the tank to operate in "silent mode" with the additional electronics"¦ also keeping a cushion for future electronic enhancements.

Of these 93 modifications, 45 have already been tested during trials in summer 2011"¦ having been incorporated on one "improved Arjun Mk I" tank. A second tank is being cut open to put in three major modifications, including the commander's panoramic sight Mk II.

Source : Broadsword: Upcoming modifications on the Arjun Mark II