Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) Mark II

[sayareakd]

I think you are mistaken or jealous of Indian achievement (being a Paki that's understandable).
That's ERA Mk-II developed by DRDO

they dont have good doctors for eyes in Pakistan.

 

[Dazzler]

its quite an achievement indeed, go though last 5 pages to review it

 

[Archer]

it is the issue, making an apfsds-t is by no means easy, ask OFB engneers.



i stand corrected, the penetration value is not 320 but 300mm at 2000 m

That ammo is old and is being replaced with new Mk2 penetrators co developed with Mk2. Also being inducted are thermobaric rounds.

 

[Archer]

Im crusious if DRDO or indian industry even developed now better APFSDS for Arjun, and T-72/90?
It shoud be logical.

There is a better round 125mm Mk2 at 500mm plus for T-72, which is at the level of current Mango/IMI rounds in inventory. An improved round with performance equal to the newer IMI rounds available via import is now in trials.

 

[Archer]

Yes they have imported it from Russia, otherwise this new ERA would be on DRDO site.

dimensions/thickness etc are same as a K-5 plate, source for this being "indigenous"

That's grossly inaccurate logic...because most of DRDOs stuff isn't on their website.

 

[Archer]

Looking on this forum posts this thinking is present for many (IMHO to many) time.

As I understand Indian Army bought super-expensive now 3BM42 from Russia? And Arjun "new" 120mm APFSDS is not ended or even tested yet?

Arjun's new 120mm FSAPDS is part of the overall Mk2 program. Mk2 final trials, out of five total, are due in May 2014, and program is on track with 3 sets of trials conducted already. Net, the FSAPDS would have been tested.

 

[Apollyon]

There is a better round 125mm Mk2 at 500mm plus for T-72, which is at the level of current Mango/IMI rounds in inventory. An improved round with performance equal to the newer IMI rounds available via import is now in trials.

 

[Archer]

And what those part really mean?
India got copied Konkat-1 ERA and Kontakt-5 ERA - dimension and (at least in indian copy Kontakt-1 ERA case) internal layout is teh same as in Soviet enalogues. Both ERA now are not very modern. Kontakt-1 is obsolate and con be enought only versus single HEAT warhed, Kontakt-5 is not really sphisticated now. What is the most important: there is no explanation about test result - just "Performance (..) has been demnstrated". More or les unkown result.

What again is importnat - in NATO countries in half of the 1990s there was DOI ammo (APFSDS) able to perofrate Kontakt-5 without loosing penetration capabilities, the same new modern double HEAT warhed where introduced in to service - devleoped to overcome "new" Kontakt-5.
Pakistan and Indian armen is one-two decades ago in compare to the NATO ones, but sooner or layter sucht modern ammo (immune on ERA) will be zable for both countries, and what then?

A lot of assumptions in your post. If India merely wanted to copy K-5, it could do so way back when it started getting K-5. Institutional issues with reverse engineering apart, which DRDO rarely does and often gets criticized for making their own products and taking more time, their is the issue of IP. Russia threw a fit when OFB(not DRDO) copied the Ak-47. Even HAL is sticking to its terms of Su-30 manufacture importing Russian raw materials and will indigenise spares, replacement LRUs. Even with Konkurs, Milan the BDL stuck to mandated agreement figures for local vs imported items (by 15percent of value). Net, it's not going to be a copy of the K-5.

 

[Archer]

That's the one. Performance at the 500mm level..obviously slightly more.. the exact number won't be up on promotional materials. This round dates from 2010 IIRC. Also is being supplanted with an improved variant. IIRC that is already in IA user trials circa 2013.

 

[militarysta]

That's the one. Performance at the 500mm level..obviously slightly more.. the exact number won't be up on promotional materials.

It will be almoust the same like on polish 125mm APFSDS ammo:

in certified is used polish norm, what is copied ex soviet norm: more then 75% rounds must pass the limit, NATO norm is not so heavy -just 50% +1, difrence in both norms is about 8% in penetration.

So this polish 125mm APFSDS have 520mm RHA (75% rounds) to 560mm RHA (50% rounds) on 2000m.
If this was able decade ago in Poland then it's sure that it is possible in India - what more - it's based on IMI technology too - just like present indian 125mm APFSDS amunition.

IMHO those "new" indian APFSDS 125mm will have 520-560mm RHA on 2000m - just like polish round.

 

[militarysta]

Arjun's new 120mm FSAPDS is part of the overall Mk2 program. Mk2 final trials, out of five total, are due in May 2014, and program is on track with 3 sets of trials conducted already. Net, the FSAPDS would have been tested.

Any details? light alloys sabot or composite? assumed penetrator lenght? Or it will be 125mm penetrator and sabot converted to 120mm rifted ammo? Im just crusious

 

[methos]

If India merely wanted to copy K-5, it could do so way back when it started getting K-5. Institutional issues with reverse engineering apart, which DRDO rarely does and often gets criticized for making their own products and taking more time, their is the issue of IP.
...

Net, it's not going to be a copy of the K-5.

And who told you that they didn't simply reverse-engineer Kontakt-5? The snipplet about Indian ERA posted on the previous place says that it is "having equivalent performance". So it does not actually matter if it is a Kontakt-5 clone or not (even though the odds of getting the exact same performance with a different working mechanism are extremly minuscule). It's seems to be very likely a case of India not having made a ToT contract for Kontakt-5 and hence being forced to copy K-5 in order to keep up with the requirements for armour protection.

 

[Archer]

It will be almoust the same like on polish 125mm APFSDS ammo:

in certified is used polish norm, what is copied ex soviet norm: more then 75% rounds must pass the limit, NATO norm is not so heavy -just 50% +1, difrence in both norms is about 8% in penetration.

So this polish 125mm APFSDS have 520mm RHA (75% rounds) to 560mm RHA (50% rounds) on 2000m.
If this was able decade ago in Poland then it's sure that it is possible in India - what more - it's based on IMI technology too - just like present indian 125mm APFSDS amunition.

IMHO those "new" indian APFSDS 125mm will have 520-560mm RHA on 2000m - just like polish round.

Again - the "new" Polish ammo or for that matter new Russian ammo has no direct relevance to ARDEs efforts because there is no given theorem that they will exactly follow what others have done or that they have even taken Russian or Polish assistance (for example).

You are further mixing up things. IMI technology to India has little relevance to DRDO because they did not work with IMI for that round and that TOT was a mess. Basically, DRDO made 125mm rounds, OFB (which is the state mandated manufacturer) screwed up on one large batch by mixing and matching DRDO penetrators with imported Russian propellant, which leaked when the Army stored them in high heat conditions. The rounds malfunctioned and one crew was even lost. Instead of waiting for issue resolution, the IA chose the simpler route of selecting an IMI round with marginally better performance and had OFB negotiate for license production. That license production involved importing complete penetrator blanks to be machined in India at OFB. DRDO's 125mm round (MK1) was effectively dropped. Meanwhile they continued working on their tech using their own money, but the IA was not interested. Meanwhile things started getting interesting. IA ran shot of Mango rounds that came with T-90, when they tried to put the Israeli rounds in the T-90, the Russians asked for more money for the software modification for the BC. IA then asks DRDO/Pvt supplier to use Arjun tech to develop a new Ballistic com for the T-90 in the same form factor.

Meanwhile, OFB continues to have issues with IMI tech transfer, rounds never quite manage to meet quality audits.

Meanwhile, Israel offers new 125mm rounds with performance better than the CL3254M that had been originally sold to India.

If all this was not enough, the MOD blacklisted IMI when news broke that an ex OFB head may have taken bribes. So the IA turns around and a) imports Mango rounds in huge numbers (66K+ at 2-3x the price citing urgent operational necessity), and b) agrees to work with DRDO for their 125mm round, which is languishing, because I kid you not, the IA originally had said that there was no operational requirement for the round (IMI rounds plus Mango were expected to suffice), and hence no official GSQR (Army General Staff Qualitative Requirements).

Now, they agree to work with DRDO to refine the round, participate in trials, and then ask the DRDO to improve the round performance to what the Israelis had now offered and realized that imports and TOT were not as easy as they had thought.

So what do we know about the new GSQRs and what they may include?

The stated requirement of the IA for the new round is per what they were getting from the international market from Israel, till corruption allegations put paid to the procurement. That round, the latest available for the 125mm class from Israel, was stated as at least 600mm. A similar statement is made by the ex head of DRDO in an interview in 2012 IIRC wherein he mentions that requirement.

So OFB is the production agency. It rarely if ever flows tech "back" to DRDO. If anything, DRDO sends what tech it has to OFB. OFB doesn't particularly care if DRDO programs had issues in the past, because one way or the other, they would make whatever India wanted, even if imported.

Things are changing now, and OFB has started investing in R&D, and its facilities are leveraged by DRDO, it helps in productionizing DRDO products, but at the end of the day, they are still very dependent on DRDO and others for tech & even roadmap of future products.

Also, expecting pure iterative development from DRDO may appear logical, but it only works to a point. They do make transitions to newer tech even as the "older" is still in production or in trials. Take the MRLS - Pinaka (40km) in production, Mk2 (iterative improvement at 60 km, same overall system, improved rocket) in final trials, yet a strike SSM Prahar (150km class, absolutely new) derived from a SAM in simultaneous trials and will be introduced roughly at the same time as MK2 Pinaka ramps up.

So to say that the "new" (Mk3 unofficial) 125mm ammo will be just scaled up 125mm MK2 - again, that may not work. The MK2 was ready for trials circa 2010. Its been 3 years now.
Similarly, the Arjun MK2 was also required to come with new rounds. The DRDO never bothered fielding new rounds for MK1 because it was stuck in endless trials syndrome. Each time, the IA would ask for new trials.
Finally, after forced comparative trials, the Arjun came out ahead of the T-90 in mobility and fire power accuracy. IA reluctantly agrees to MK2, after senior IA observers start seeing the advantages and MK2 requirement includes new 120mm rounds (including thermobaric) which DRDO agreed to because now it made sense to invest in new rounds for the Arjun given the first 124 would go into production and another 118 were likely as well.

 

[Archer]

And who told you that they didn't simply reverse-engineer Kontakt-5? The snipplet about Indian ERA posted on the previous place says that it is "having equivalent performance". So it does not actually matter if it is a Kontakt-5 clone or not (even though the odds of getting the exact same performance with a different working mechanism are extremly minuscule). It's seems to be very likely a case of India not having made a ToT contract for Kontakt-5 and hence being forced to copy K-5 in order to keep up with the requirements for armour protection.

I am going by logic and knowledge of past development practises of the DRDO & Indian industry in particular. Whereas you are going by pre-decided views. Indian MOD & GOI owned Indian industry (as versus unregulated pvt sector) is very careful about IP as they work closely with foreign partner organizations & in the past even minor deviations have caused furore. Its a different matter whether this dependence is healthy & such risk averse behavior is really required.

Performance equivalent to does not mean necessarily the same performance. It means that the minimum requirements are at the K-5 level. Nothing less nothing more. However, improvement beyond that is upto the DRDO.

Take the Astra MK-1 missile. From declared specifications, its overall flight envelope is similar to that of the RVV-AE, because that is what the IAF has asked for. However, it has improvements over the RVV-AE in terms of better capabilities (buddy designation, HMDS designation etc) as DRDO introduced them over the development. The IAF asked for capabilities at least equivalent to RVV-AE because that is what they have, are familiar with & it is conservative for local development to meet as a MK-1.

After a significant redesign effort after original design had aero issues, DRDO introduced new avionics and software improvements as well. Copying the RVV-AE would not do. After all, even seeker of MK1 is via Russia (with TOT at BEL). Messing up that supply was not worth the risk. Today, Astra MK-1 may have similar flight envelope in some respects to RVV-AE but looks nothing like it, has mostly different systems bar a similar seeker which allows differentiation in terms of capabilities.

Astra MK-2 is expected to go beyond RVV-AE or even RVV-SD capabilities in terms of range requirements which are far more.

Of course, Russia wont be sitting still either & is likely to introduce its own designs.

Simpler example. MiG-29 (non uograded) LRUs. Bar the engine, the IAF Base Repair Depot indigenized almost 80% of flight critical (as versus mission critical - such as radar) LRUs. These were direct drop in replacements of the original Russian LRUs. But were made using different materials, were designed differently, even functioned differently. As an IAF engineer noted, we are in the 2000's, what is the point of reverse engineering something from an earlier era? Besides, who could exactly tell what they were made of, and many were replaced because they didnt work too well.

So, Indian industry designs & makes stuff that is form factor compatible. It may even have the same layout in a rough sense. Open it up though, and its often much different. If you dont have access to the Russian metallurgy or even design methods, why rely on approximation or copying because if Army asks you for MK3 tomorrow, what will you do? This is directly contradictory to the Chinese method of working which results in quicker results. Hence the IA/IAF pressure that perhaps in some cases, reverse engineering is not bad at all. But easier said than done.

K-5 ERA direct copy would have been easier, and inducted faster. But likely caused more issues with Russia when T-90 deal was anyways a huge mess with production stalled at OFB.

 

[Apollyon]

And who told you that they didn't simply reverse-engineer Kontakt-5? The snipplet about Indian ERA posted on the previous place says that it is "having equivalent performance". So it does not actually matter if it is a Kontakt-5 clone or not (even though the odds of getting the exact same performance with a different working mechanism are extremly minuscule). It's seems to be very likely a case of India not having made a ToT contract for Kontakt-5 and hence being forced to copy K-5 in order to keep up with the requirements for armour protection.

You are reading too much into the statement. DRDO (development agency) is only comparing the performance of the indigenously developed ERA Mk-II against Milan shaped warhead and AMK-340 with the performance of ERA on Indian T-90 against Milan shaped warhead and AMK-340 and conclude that the performance was same. So tell me how does this make ERA Mk-II copy of K-5 ?

 

[Archer]

Any details? light alloys sabot or composite? assumed penetrator lenght? Or it will be 125mm penetrator and sabot converted to 120mm rifted ammo? Im just crusious

I'd have to make a few assumptions, even if based on some data , so I am going to hold off for a while before I state anything.. plus, IA/DRDO are not going to like yahoos like me shooting their mouth off on the net, even if deductive reasoning.

In a year or so, I'd wager we'll see more info. Production will move to OFB and their brochures will start coming out.

Option A:
Conservatively, if IA asks for quick induction, we will see the basic 125mm MK2 round level capability fielded with the expectation that when the 125mm Mk3 is ready, a 120mm round is also available. So Mango/Pronit/CL3254M level.

Option B:
Logistically though, it would make sense to just have the newer round. A 125mm round/120mm round at similar levels with 120/5mm> OptionA

Only way the IA would ask for the former (OptionA) is if it wants to equip the Arjun MK1s quickly with better ammo. Because Arjun MK2s have LAHAT which (like Refleks for the T-90) is the guarantee against heavily armed ERA equipped rival tanks. But MK1s have only the older round if they too are not upgraded with the LAHAT system, and frankly, the older MK1 round is thoroughly outclassed by CL3254M and BM-42, let alone being thoroughly ineffective against ERA equipped tanks.

Its a different matter what performance option B has and whether it works against heaviest armoured tanks, from the effectiveness POV. Seeing the T-90 example, IA is using the combo of missiles (INVAR) even if APFSDS (Mango) alone cannot counter the threat anyhow. Conservative but very expensive approach. Also, unlike the 80s-90's when these first gen MK1 rounds were developed, DRDO has access to much better equipment, test articles, inducted ammo and more experience.

 

[Dazzler]

There is a better round 125mm Mk2 at 500mm plus for T-72, which is at the level of current Mango/IMI rounds in inventory. An improved round with performance equal to the newer IMI rounds available via import is now in trials.

thermobaric round is a fancy term, its more of a HEAT round, used to eliminate fortified bunkers, buildings etc. No big deal

 

[militarysta]

(...)

Thank You for this very valuable post! It explain my a lot about IA ammo and indian industry ammo.
It's very interesting that first IMI round for India (penetrator) have problem - like slighty previous polish PRONIT has. The same scenario what is interesting. More then 20% PRONIT 125mm penetrators for Poland (taken from IMI) had serious falitures and don't achive needed by army level 540mm RHA at 2000m. In reality it was under 500mm. It was more then decade ago.

to claryfied, so we had in 125mm APFSDS in India:

1. DRDO "first and faliture" APFSDS -this whit mixed DRDO penetrators with imported Russian propellant - program dropped, yes?
Any details about penetration level of this dropped round? Mk.I yes? It was redy when?
next:
2. IMI licenced APFSDS whit imported penetrator CL3254M -so propably polish PRONIT analogue. And in the same way those round have serious falitures... Mk.II yes? redy in 2010- yes?
menhwile:
3. old 3BM42 Mango from Russia whit T-90
after that:
4. imported 66 000 overpriced 3BM42 Mango from Russia
+
5. work on "new" indian 125mm APFSDS round whit penetration level circa 600mm - like on latest IMI rounds offered to India -yes? future Mk.III yes? it shoud be redy when?

 

[Dazzler]

Dk dont feed him, he is just here to post trash........

i talk with evidence, if thats what you call trash, its your choice.

 

[Dazzler]

from defexpo 2014