Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) Mark II

[ersakthivel]

Govt buys non-AC tanks, draws CAG fire - The Times of India

NEW DELHI: India's main-battle tanks, the Russian-origin T-90S, are without any airconditioning. Apart from crew discomfort, this is "degrading" the sophisticated fire-control systems, thermal-imaging sights and missile firing mechanisms of the tanks due to their prolonged exposure to heat and dust conditions.

The latest CAG report, tabled in Parliament on Tuesday, has fired a salvo at the defence ministry and the Army for signing deals worth Rs 9,083 crore with Russia for 657 T-90S tanks, and concluding another Rs 330 crore contract for transfer of technology to indigenously produce another such 1,000 tanks at the Avadi Heavy Vehicles Factory, without providing for the critical air-conditioners.

"Ignoring the recommendations of the trial team (which tested the tanks in Russia in 1999), the MoD procured the tanks in 2001 and 2007 without ACs, rendering the fleet vulnerable to degradation of sensitive components," said CAG.

The T-90S fleet, as reported by TOI earlier, has grappled with glitches in its missile and thermal imaging systems right since its induction after India first ordered 310 of these tanks for over Rs 4,087 crore under a February 2001 contract with Russia.

With the next order for 347 tanks in November 2007 and the indigenously-produced tanks also beginning to roll out subsequently, the Army has till now inducted about 800 such tanks. All are without ACs despite the MoD and Army belatedly realizing the desperate need for them.

"The tanks are basically meant for the western sector with Pakistan. Temperatures in the Thar desert can soar to even 50 degree Celsius. The tank commanders usually keep the tank cupola or hatch open," said an officer.

In June 2009, the AK Antony-led defence acquisitions council had approved the acquisition of 1,657 ACs to equip all the tanks at a cost of Rs 597 crore. But the project is yet to materialize.

India, incidentally, had gone in for the T-90S tanks since Pakistan was inducting T-80UD tanks from Ukraine as well as 'Al Khalid' MBTs developed with China's help, and the indigenous Arjun tanks were then nowhere on the horizon.

Now CAG too is showing the defects of T-90 Vs the customization of Arjun to indian conditions.

 

[ersakthivel]

These are not so accurate, These information are already De-classified as shown in public ..

All you see in DFI is close to reality but not exact

All the areas of my interest have been carefully left out of this photo!!!

 

[Dejawolf]

The weld line you should explain is,

the one that lies just above the red dotted line with 350- 360 mm LOS mark ,

that starts at the end of the dog house for the main sight(on the thin yellow lline)

a similar weld exists on the left side of the front turret glacis as well, yet from interior pictures, there's no armour going all the way back to the back ledge there.
could simply be manufacturing limitations. thick slabs of steel can only be made in certain smaller size, maybe limitations with cutting equipment.. dunno.
but these welds are present on the arjun mk.1 as well.

 

[ersakthivel]

a similar weld exists on the left side of the front turret glacis as well, yet from interior pictures, there's no armour going all the way back to the back ledge there.
could simply be manufacturing limitations. thick slabs of steel can only be made in certain smaller size, maybe limitations with cutting equipment.. dunno.
but these welds are present on the arjun mk.1 as well.

Welds are present in arjun mk-1 as well,

and as per my post number-885 in this thread ,

600 plus LOS armor is present in arjun mk-1 as well,

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-army/9558-arjun-main-battle-tank-mbt-331.html

 

[Dejawolf]

Welds are present in arjun mk-1 as well,

and as per my post number-885 in this thread ,

600 plus LOS armor is present in arjun mk-1 as well,

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-army/9558-arjun-main-battle-tank-mbt-331.html

back to the point, the weld is present on the loaders side as well, and there's no armour block there, so therefore the claim that the weld on the TC/gunners side is because of an armour block similar to the leopard 2A4 is dubious at best, when clearly the evidence is stacked against it.

 

[Shaitan]

http://publications.drdo.gov.in/ojs/index.php/dsj/article/view/365/472

 

[Kunal Biswas]

You want me to remove that picture, Actually i had more pics and this picture is considered safer to post ..

It does not show much but what the MFDs the commander have, Btw i should mention this is a prototype not production model ..

The interiror are going to be much refined including the re-location of MFDs ..

All the areas of my interest have been carefully left out of this photo!!!

 

[Kunal Biswas]

@Shaitan, thanks for sharing ..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

L&T product

Modular Bridge for heavy weapon systems

Arjun MBT rolling over L&T modular bridge

 

[Twinblade]

Excellent find @Shaitan, I just realised I had saved the paper to my hard drive and hadn't gone through it. In the picture you can see a Milan missile being tested on the armour. Apparently I was searching for NERA with the wrong description.

 

[sayareakd]

MK1 does not have same stuff

 

[bhramos]

 

[SajeevJino]

Israeli Hand in India's New Tank​

The Arjun tank project, director by the Indian DRDO is coming to an end, as the new version of the tank has only two more user trials expected to be completed this year. For the Israeli industry, this is a project in which Elbit Systems, IAI and IMI participated

The Arjun Mk II tank, India's Future Main Battle Tank (FMBT), is currently under development, and is expected to include a number of Israeli systems, including the ALWACS system by Elbit Systems and "LAHAT" missile by the IAI (source).

The Arjun Mk II will undergo five phases of user trials, out of which three have been completed, and the fourth is scheduled for May 2014, according to a publication on new indian express.

The new tank will include an advanced laser warning and countermeasures system (ALWACS) and commander's open-architecture panoramic sight (COAPS) - both developed by Elbit Systems.

According to online sources, The ALWACS will include four E-LWS sensors that can detect, categorize and pinpoint laser sources, including rangefinders, designators, beam-riders, and infra-red illuminators. E-LWS also enables direction indication for all threats, as well as audio and visual warnings.

The system is immune to reflection, gunfire, lightning, fire and self-electro-optical operations. The other two components of ALWACS are an IR jammer, and two 8-launcher aerosol smoke screening systems. According to foreign sources, Elbit Systems has previously supplied the Indian Army with these systems for the Arjun Mk1A main battle tanks (MBT) in January 2012 .

Another Israeli company that helped India to develop the new tank is IMI. The company helped to improve the overall design of the tank, specifically its turret and hull for more accurate and reliable firepower, and assisted in optimizing the production line processes (source).

http://www.israeldefense.com/?CategoryID=483&ArticleID=2759

 

[sayareakd]

@Kunal sir, for you


because enemy know the weak spots on the tank...............

 

[sayareakd]

@<a href="http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/member.php?u=8795" target="_blank">Kunal</a> sir, for you


because enemy know the weak spots on the tank...............

this one too

 

[militarysta]

this one too

Sweet Jesus Christ...this all talks about destroyed in 2006 in Lebanon Merkavas start to be boring.
Most persons is writnig about destoryed Merkava's without any, even small, thinking about what tanks and when was destroyed.

In fact only Merkava Mk.IV is on more or less NATO armoured level, Merkava Mk.III BAZ is under level present by Leopard-2A4 or M1A1 - in fact Merkava Mk.III BAZ produced since 1995 (to 2004) was the first Israeli tank protected by multilayerd armour in western style - older tanks - Merkava Mk.III (1989-1995), Merkava Mk.II and of course Mk.I was armoured worse then T-71M1 Aleya. Amour was primitive - no "special armour" just veery primitive "the bulkhead system" whit simple RHA, air, RHA, fuel, engine and agian RHA layout.
As I said: the first Israeli tank protected by quite modern armour looks like western (NATO) ones was Merkava Mk.III BAZ from 1995. More then 16-17 yers later then NATO tanks(!). And armour on Mk.III BAZ is mucht thinner then in Leopard-2A4 and M1A1...and T-80U, and T-90A etc...
Only Merkava Mk.IV is protected by modern and guit thick armour - but still - becouse Jewish want's to protected whole tank around the armour modules they have special shape. So for frontal arc armour is thinner then in leo-2A5 or M1A2, but for turret sides and hull is thicker of course.

What tanks (Merkavas) take part in lebanon war in 2006?

7 tank bde. (Merkawy Mk.2)
847 tank bde. (Merkawa Mk.2D)
188 tank bde. (Merkawa Mk.3 BAZ)
434 tank bde.(Merkawa Mk.3 BAZ)
673 tank bde. (Merkawa Mk.3 BAZ)
401tank bde. (Merkava Mk.4)

What above was modern? Only Merkava Mk.IV as on circa NATO levle (Leopard-2A5, M1A2) -as in modern armour and more or less armour thickness. Merkava Mk.III BAZ is less protected then Leopard-2A4 and M1A1 for exmaple. Armour is thinner and propably less advanced... Merkva Mk.II is very primitive protcted tank - worse then T-72M1 Aleya in India Of course IDF had modernizated Mk.II to Merkava 2B BATASH whit special armour modules but in 2006 in Lebanon only one tk.bde have those tanks (847 bde) and guess what -yes, armour in Mk.II BATASH is still thinner then in...Leo-2A4, M1A1, and T-90A
More or less definetly most jewish tank was:
a) mucht worse protected then Leo-2A4, M1A1, T-90A
b) only Mk.IV have armour as modern NATO tanks.

Now Merkva losses.
totall losses 9(tanks completly destroyed):
3x Merkava Mk.2
1x Merkava Mk.3
1x Merkava Mk.4

losses:
1. Merkava Mk.2 (12.07.2006) IED (4 KIO)
2. Merkava Mk.4 (24.07.2006) ATGM hit 1 KIO
3. Merkava Mk.4 (24.07.2006) ATGM hit 1 KIO
4. Merkava Mk.3 (03.08.2006) ATGM hit 3 KIO
5. Merkava Mk.4 (03.08.2006) ATGM hit 1 KIO
6. Merkava Mk.2 (08.08.2006) ATGM hit 2 KIO
7. Merkava Mk.2 (09.08.2006) ATGM hit 4 KIO (famous hit in to ammo rack and blow out whole tank)
8. Merkava Mk.2 (10.08.2006) ATGM hit 1 KIO
9. Merkava Mk.3 (10.08.2006) ATGM hit 1 KIO
10. Merkava Mk.4 (12.08.2006) ATGM hit 4 KIO
11. Merkava Mk.4 (12.08.2006) ATGM hit 3 KIO
12. Merkava Mk.4 (12.08.2006) ATGM hit 1 KIO
13. Merkava Mk.3 (12.08.2006) ATGM hit 1 KIO
14.Merkava Mk.3 (12.08.2006) IED 4 KIO
15. Merkava Mk.3 (13.08.2006) ATGM hit 1 KIO

In anditional 2 Merkava's where penetration from ATGM hit but nobody was killed, and tank was not destroyed.


ps. sorry for OT but Lebanon in 2006 is mythologized as Merkava tank is...

 

[sayareakd]

Sweet Jesus Christ...this all talks about destroyed in 2006 in Lebanon Merkavas start to be boring.
Most persons is writnig about destoryed Merkava's without any, even small, thinking about what tanks and when was destroyed.

In fact only Merkava Mk.IV is on more or less NATO armoured level, Merkava Mk.III BAZ is under level present by Leopard-2A4 or M1A1 - in fact Merkava Mk.III BAZ produced since 1995 (to 2004) was the first Israeli tank protected by multilayerd armour in western style - older tanks - Merkava Mk.III (1989-1995), Merkava Mk.II and of course Mk.I was armoured worse then T-71M1 Aleya. Amour was primitive - no "special armour" just veery primitive "the bulkhead system" whit simple RHA, air, RHA, fuel, engine and agian RHA layout.
As I said: the first Israeli tank protected by quite modern armour looks like western (NATO) ones was Merkava Mk.III BAZ from 1995. More then 16-17 yers later then NATO tanks(!). And armour on Mk.III BAZ is mucht thinner then in Leopard-2A4 and M1A1...and T-80U, and T-90A etc...
Only Merkava Mk.IV is protected by modern and guit thick armour - but still - becouse Jewish want's to protected whole tank around the armour modules they have special shape. So for frontal arc armour is thinner then in leo-2A5 or M1A2, but for turret sides and hull is thicker of course.

What tanks (Merkavas) take part in lebanon war in 2006?

7 tank bde. (Merkawy Mk.2)
847 tank bde. (Merkawa Mk.2D)
188 tank bde. (Merkawa Mk.3 BAZ)
434 tank bde.(Merkawa Mk.3 BAZ)
673 tank bde. (Merkawa Mk.3 BAZ)
401tank bde. (Merkava Mk.4)

What above was modern? Only Merkava Mk.IV as on circa NATO levle (Leopard-2A5, M1A2) -as in modern armour and more or less armour thickness. Merkava Mk.III BAZ is less protected then Leopard-2A4 and M1A1 for exmaple. Armour is thinner and propably less advanced... Merkva Mk.II is very primitive protcted tank - worse then T-72M1 Aleya in India Of course IDF had modernizated Mk.II to Merkava 2B BATASH whit special armour modules but in 2006 in Lebanon only one tk.bde have those tanks (847 bde) and guess what -yes, armour in Mk.II BATASH is still thinner then in...Leo-2A4, M1A1, and T-90A
More or less definetly most jewish tank was:
a) mucht worse protected then Leo-2A4, M1A1, T-90A
b) only Mk.IV have armour as modern NATO tanks.

Now Merkva losses.
totall losses 9(tanks completly destroyed):
3x Merkava Mk.2
1x Merkava Mk.3
1x Merkava Mk.4

losses:
1. Merkava Mk.2 (12.07.2006) IED (4 KIO)
2. Merkava Mk.4 (24.07.2006) ATGM hit 1 KIO
3. Merkava Mk.4 (24.07.2006) ATGM hit 1 KIO
4. Merkava Mk.3 (03.08.2006) ATGM hit 3 KIO
5. Merkava Mk.4 (03.08.2006) ATGM hit 1 KIO
6. Merkava Mk.2 (08.08.2006) ATGM hit 2 KIO
7. Merkava Mk.2 (09.08.2006) ATGM hit 4 KIO (famous hit in to ammo rack and blow out whole tank)
8. Merkava Mk.2 (10.08.2006) ATGM hit 1 KIO
9. Merkava Mk.3 (10.08.2006) ATGM hit 1 KIO
10. Merkava Mk.4 (12.08.2006) ATGM hit 4 KIO
11. Merkava Mk.4 (12.08.2006) ATGM hit 3 KIO
12. Merkava Mk.4 (12.08.2006) ATGM hit 1 KIO
13. Merkava Mk.3 (12.08.2006) ATGM hit 1 KIO
14.Merkava Mk.3 (12.08.2006) IED 4 KIO
15. Merkava Mk.3 (13.08.2006) ATGM hit 1 KIO

In anditional 2 Merkava's where penetration from ATGM hit but nobody was killed, and tank was not destroyed.


ps. sorry for OT but Lebanon in 2006 is mythologized as Merkava tank is...

because of all this Markava has trophy auto loader as standard equipment. Plus few more things like more protection at underbelly.

 

[Dejawolf]

because of all this Markava has trophy auto loader as standard equipment. Plus few more things like more protection at underbelly.

Trophy is an Active Protection System. not an autoloader.

 

[sayareakd]

Trophy is an Active Protection System. not an autoloader.

US had issues with Trophy didnt have auto loader.

Video on the link
Israel field-tests effective anti-RPG weapon - NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams - NBC News Investigates | NBC News

 

[sayareakd]

US had issues with Trophy didnt have auto loader.

Video on the link
Israel field-tests effective anti-RPG weapon - NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams - NBC News Investigates | NBC News

wow our army is almost like their army only difference is that they like domestic product and hate foreign product how so ever good that might be, our is reverse case.