Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) Mark II

[contra 101]

Please correct me if i'm wrong

For the MkII to be a world beating tank, the following would be needed:
1> Move the gunner sight to the top of the turret
2> Thicker armor on the left side of the turret similar to the right side.
3> Upgrade to a 1800hp engine
4> ERA tiles on top of turret and in front of hull
5> Thicker ERA/NERA covered modular armor on the sides of the turret
6> Slat armor at the back of the turret
7> Much better APFSDS (600mm) and HEAT (800mm) rounds
8> Move the RCWS backwards and make it more compact so that the commander sight does not have blindspots in the frontal hemisphere.

With all these, can the weight be maintained below 70 tons?

with a 1800 hp engine which even Abrams (62 ton+1500 GT) lack right now, even at 70ton, it would have a good p/w ratio.

era cover on the right side will add to the armour protection certainly.

rcws should be moved at one side either left, right

slat armour should be a good addition

apfsds round with more than 600 mm penetration maybe required to get favourable kills against era equipped tanks

heat rounds in IA (invar, lahat) are pretty good IMO

 

[Archer]

Please correct me if i'm wrong

For the MkII to be a world beating tank, the following would be needed:
1> Move the gunner sight to the top of the turret
2> Thicker armor on the left side of the turret similar to the right side.
3> Upgrade to a 1800hp engine
4> ERA tiles on top of turret and in front of hull
5> Thicker ERA/NERA covered modular armor on the sides of the turret
6> Slat armor at the back of the turret
7> Much better APFSDS (600mm) and HEAT (800mm) rounds
8> Move the RCWS backwards and make it more compact so that the commander sight does not have blindspots in the frontal hemisphere.

With all these, can the weight be maintained below 70 tons?

The issue is whether the "world beating tank" is something that the IA wants as versus an IA specific tank.

Re1
For instance, moving the GMS to the top of the tank would introduce further blind spots for the COAPS, and also expose it to damage. Right now, its vulnerable only from the front. The COAPS & RCWS are exposed on the top.
Now, by moving it to the top, more armor can be added to the front. But is it necessary? IMHO, based on DRDO/Public reports, this ERA exercise was driven by the perception that more & more powerful HEAT warheads/guided missiles were proliferating and their extensive use would degrade the Kanchan which requires return to base for cutting out and replacement as versus ERA which can be replaced on the field. The APFSDS protection despite speculation on this forum was sufficient. This requirement against missiles has been addressed by a combination of additional armor & the ALWCS.

So moving the GMS is not a must have at this point.

2
The sides of the turret are Kanchan probably - dont look like storage modules. They have lifting eyes as well.

4
ERA on top - sights gone then. Besides, helicopter launched, manually guided missiles apart which will not be easy to guide, IIRC neither Pak or China field top attack missiles. A 155mm shell on top of a tank will disable it, ERA or none. Front of hull - if its not there, its by design.

3
1800 hp engine - good to have, not must have, at this point.

6
Slat armor? Again - useful if fighting in built up areas. In the desert?

Points 7 & 8 - yes, agree.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

1. The engine is modified and it has a turbo charger, It is design to provide more power at movement at loss of few kms of speed ..

2. RCWS is slaved with COAP, In case RCWS block the COAP then a commander can switch to RCWS`s optical, But i doubt this config will stay like this.

A few observations...
* it weighs a whooping 68
ton with a 1400hp engine,
movement in desert may
prove difficult.

* The RCWS mounted in the
center, restricting
gunner's/ commander's
LOS (line of sight) * The apfsds is the same as
ever...

^^^Not mine,but questions from another member in another forum.

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

58km is the speed the tank can go fastest, But in field area speed is limited to 40-48kms at most due to terrain ..

good post !

a question to you sir, does arjun 2 has the same engine as the arjun 1? The poster i saw mentions speed at 58 kms, is it not less compared to t-90s?

 

[arnabmit]

Re1
For instance, moving the GMS to the top of the tank would introduce further blind spots for the COAPS, and also expose it to damage. Right now, its vulnerable only from the front. The COAPS & RCWS are exposed on the top.
Now, by moving it to the top, more armor can be added to the front. But is it necessary? IMHO, based on DRDO/Public reports, this ERA exercise was driven by the perception that more & more powerful HEAT warheads/guided missiles were proliferating and their extensive use would degrade the Kanchan which requires return to base for cutting out and replacement as versus ERA which can be replaced on the field. The APFSDS protection despite speculation on this forum was sufficient. This requirement against missiles has been addressed by a combination of additional armor & the ALWCS.

So moving the GMS is not a must have at this point.

I am talking about a sunk-in GMS in the front turret slope which would not interfere with the COAPS, like in the Challenger 2E. That way the Kanchan thickness there can be increased similar to the right side and the LAHAT/CLGM radar can be moved closer to the gun mantle and more of the front can be covered by ERA.

2
The sides of the turret are Kanchan probably - dont look like storage modules. They have lifting eyes as well.

Yes, they definitely look like Kanchan modules, but I would like them to be covered by ERA as well so that the turret is protected from the front in an arc greater than 60 degrees.

4
ERA on top - sights gone then. Besides, helicopter launched, manually guided missiles apart which will not be easy to guide, IIRC neither Pak or China field top attack missiles. A 155mm shell on top of a tank will disable it, ERA or none. Front of hull - if its not there, its by design.

The COAPS sits atleast 10-12 inches above the turret. So a 4-5 inch ERA layer would improve top-attack ATGMs. The way China is hacking & sealing US design work, by the time MkII is inducted, Pak supplied by China might have already fielded Javelin clones.

Front of the hull, I would like to understand the logic of not putting in ERA, though earlier CGI showed there would be front hull ERA. The prototype displayed in defexpo also shows bolt holes for bolt-on ERA.

 

[Archer]

If you move the GMS to the top, it will be vulnerable. An inch or two of protection at best versus the thick armor it currently resides within in terms of protection from the sides and the top. A tradeoff. Plus, the challenge of making another hole in the turret top with a further weakened spot. Its something that can be done, but if they haven't then its probably something they didn't consider worth the effort and nor did the IA push for it either. Note they have after all integrated the COAPS and RCWS, so it could be done, but they have chosen not to do so.

The sides are Kanchan protected then why more ERA - granted, its modular and replaceable as discussed earlier, but it adds more weight & in an area which is anyways priority 2 (not in frontal arc)

The COAPS even if above turret top ERA will get damaged by it. Until and unless you recess the sites within an armoured container by itself the exploding shrapnel would slice and dice the optics currently in a composite/thin metal shell intended to protect against small arms/light shrapnel.

Hull wise, there is ERA added on the glacis. It appears to be of a different composition than the ones on the turret front and in the CAD image, appears thicker than there is on the MK2, but its there.

You can make out the thickness here:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YP7YbHOwNYM/UvZpsoIYBAI/AAAAAAAAV3c/cXcm3nCwhsU/s1600/DSC08578-725656.JPG
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5jryeEV5FZg/UvZpwttGweI/AAAAAAAAV4Y/jDwKYUmcqrA/s1600/DSC08483-741106.JPG

In the CAD image, i cant see any ERA image on the lower hull. Only the mine plough. No ERA there implies it was deemed to be already protected enough. Of course, it could also be that it has facilities for adding ERA when the plough isnt there.

 

[bose]

Please correct me if i'm wrong

For the MkII to be a world beating tank, the following would be needed:
1> Move the gunner sight to the top of the turret
2> Thicker armor on the left side of the turret similar to the right side.
3> Upgrade to a 1800hp engine
4> ERA tiles on top of turret and in front of hull
5> Thicker ERA/NERA covered modular armor on the sides of the turret
6> Slat armor at the back of the turret
7> Much better APFSDS (600mm) and HEAT (800mm) rounds
8> Move the RCWS backwards and make it more compact so that the commander sight does not have blindspots in the frontal hemisphere.

With all these, can the weight be maintained below 70 tons?

That will be must to have in next version of Arjun...

Addtionally ... How about a re-design turret with a smooth bore gun and auto loader that will reduce some weight that can be put up for additional armor ??

 

[sayareakd]

What i think is that DRDO can put in lot of things on Arjun and make it super tank, but the user want it to have its own things. So MK-2 has things which only user wants and nothing more.

DRDO wants the user to induct tank, that is all.

 

[bhramos]

Tarmak007 -- A bold blog on Indian defence: Arjun MBT Mk II gears up for final leg of user trials

 

[Dejawolf]

Same engine but reengineered transmission to deliver more torque (to handle the higher weight). Top speed is not an issue because to be honest, none of these tanks will ever be used at that speed in their operational area (the desert). At most, they will be at 20-30 kmph (max) to get accurate shots on the move (in fact ~20 kmph) and the important thing is the acceleration (from rest, to move from place to place, get out of trouble) for which the powerpack (engine and transmission) has been reconfigured.

From the technology point of view, the 1400 MTU engine & Renk transmission is still good enough for our needs. But its older than the newer 1500 hp engines out from MTU itself & its basic issue is that the 100 hp difference apart, its larger in volume. A larger volume means a larger hull or for the same hull size & similar armor protection, compromises made in terms of ammunition carried, fuel carried etc.

If a more compact engine were to be used, and qualified (please remember that the MTU/Renk powerpack team worked extensively with DRDO for the engine to be ruggedized to meet heat issues & a specific radiator that could handle the Thar dust), it would allow the DRDO to make a more compact Arjun, with presumably better range & (slightly) more ammunition carried. That of course, would lower the overall weight as well. A new engine could be developed as well.

But to do so, they would need more than 500 tanks. Even the MTU engine TOT is vouchsafed if production extends for 500 odd units, this for a ready engine that is available off the shelf and already developed. Any newer engine, say a local development would require a larger production run to cover for the development costs & amortization.

Bottomline, the 1400 HP engine meets our current needs. But for tomorrow, we can do better.

the 1400hp engine is actually more powerful than the older 1500hp engine. it might have less HP, but it has higher torque giving it higher acceleration.

 

[Dejawolf]

If you move the GMS to the top, it will be vulnerable. An inch or two of protection at best versus the thick armor it currently resides within in terms of protection from the sides and the top. A tradeoff. Plus, the challenge of making another hole in the turret top with a further weakened spot. Its something that can be done, but if they haven't then its probably something they didn't consider worth the effort and nor did the IA push for it either. Note they have after all integrated the COAPS and RCWS, so it could be done, but they have chosen not to do so.

The sides are Kanchan protected then why more ERA - granted, its modular and replaceable as discussed earlier, but it adds more weight & in an area which is anyways priority 2 (not in frontal arc)

the gunners primary sight is not very well protected from the top, only a thin plate. and from the front it's still vulnerable, only now, instead of just the GMS being knocked out, the round might penetrate the front armour and kill people on the inside. americans solved this issue by putting the sight inside of a "doghouse" which protects it from 12.7mm and other small arms.
also, the area with the relocated GMS wouldn't be a weakened spot, but a strengthened spot, as long as the doghouse top is as thick as the roof.

 

[Archer]

There may be a layer of passive armor above the current GMS, not as thick as a full blown Kanchan plate but still better than small arms level protection alone. Per se, against frontal threats the IA has deemed protection to be sufficient. They have been concerned primarily with ATGMs & repeat shots damaging the armor and making the tank only base/workshop recoverable, which led to ERA & the ALCWS.

My issue with the std. doghouse is that all the optics from all three sensors, will be on the turret roof and become vulnerable.

IMHO, if the GMS has to be moved, they should also explore the induction of an active defence system to protect that zone, and up armor the doghouse significantly from the sides.

 

[Archer]

the 1400hp engine is actually more powerful than the older 1500hp engine. it might have less HP, but it has higher torque giving it higher acceleration.

Interesting, but isnt it larger as well? The main issue as I recall with the engine was its size versus more compact newer gen powerplants.

 

[ersakthivel]

The issue is whether the "world beating tank" is something that the IA wants as versus an IA specific tank.

Re1
For instance, moving the GMS to the top of the tank would introduce further blind spots for the COAPS, and also expose it to damage. Right now, its vulnerable only from the front. The COAPS & RCWS are exposed on the top.
Now, by moving it to the top, more armor can be added to the front. But is it necessary? IMHO, based on DRDO/Public reports, this ERA exercise was driven by the perception that more & more powerful HEAT warheads/guided missiles were proliferating and their extensive use would degrade the Kanchan which requires return to base for cutting out and replacement as versus ERA which can be replaced on the field. The APFSDS protection despite speculation on this forum was sufficient. This requirement against missiles has been addressed by a combination of additional armor & the ALWCS.

So moving the GMS is not a must have at this point.

2
The sides of the turret are Kanchan probably - dont look like storage modules. They have lifting eyes as well.

4
ERA on top - sights gone then. Besides, helicopter launched, manually guided missiles apart which will not be easy to guide, IIRC neither Pak or China field top attack missiles. A 155mm shell on top of a tank will disable it, ERA or none. Front of hull - if its not there, its by design.

3
1800 hp engine - good to have, not must have, at this point.

6
Slat armor? Again - useful if fighting in built up areas. In the desert?

Points 7 & 8 - yes, agree.

The 68T combat weight IIRC is with the mine plough. Only a few tanks in a formation will be equipped with these.

is the 68ton with mine plough short tons or metric tons?

1.because I remember seeing in frontier india website ,the weight of Arjun mk-1 was once mentioned as 58 metric tons and 62 short tons,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjun_(tank)
http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/186719-turret-and-hull-weights-of-various-tanks/

http://frontierindia.net/dissimilar-combat-arjun-mbt-vs-t-90s-specs#axzz2spvsXYFz

Also in the below it is mentioned that Arjun mk-1 weighs 58 tons in metric tons and mk-2 weighs 67 tons in metric tons as you said . But CVRDE chief has said that Arjun mk-2 weighs just 4 tons over Arjun mk-1 in the republic day special interview done by Daily Thanthi Tamil news channel , including the mine plough and ERA tiles.

So in metric tons Arjun mk2 is expected to weigh around 62 tons, or 68 tons?


So please clarify what is the weight of Arjun mk-1 and mk-2 with or without mine ploguh in both metric tons and short tons,


2.Also did they increase Arjun mk-2's the track width to maintain the same low ground pressure per square inch of Arjun mk-1(0.83 kg per sq inch if I am correct, one of lowest among modern tanks )?

Because this low gorund pressure per sq inch helps Arjun mk-1 to cover areas which were marked non tankable in IA old maps even with lighter T-72s(because they have a much higher ground pressure per sq inch)

3.Also please clarify whether there are extra protection kanchan modules behind the GMS (in arjun mk-1 itself)to compensate for the cutaway depth on the turret front. It is a very contentious issue debated repeatedly in Arjun mk-1 thread.

For me the inside pics indicate there was some extra protection behind the GMS with some extra step of space for kanchan armor. Is it correct or not?

4 . Will arjun mk-2's kanchan armor compare well with modern armor across the world in RHA penetration protection, there are not much open source info on it as well. Your comments might help,

 

[Kunal Biswas]

@Dejawolf, @ersakthivel,

I went to defexpo .....

Also took some good photos which will solve issue with measurements, Will post those pics in coming days ..

1. Measurement issue, from main sight to the gunner periscope..
2. Radar installation ..
3. Inside photos, ( This is a prototype )

 

[ersakthivel]

Bharat Rakshak "¢ View topic - Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Some info on the weight issue here as well,

The Arjun combat weight for MK1 is 58.5 T.Combat weight means fuelled up, with ammo etc.

That 62 T weight is with an added mine plow, which is only to be provided to a handful of tanks which face minefields when attacking prepared positions. In reality though, the Arjun is mostly designed as a tank killer, in which case the mine plow will not be used.

Next, this is the reality of the 58.5T weight as versus

SO if ERA on mk-2 weighs about two tons as reported in various sources then if we take into account the CVRDE chief Sivakumar's interview to Tv channel Daily Thanthi , then the the weight of Arjun mk-2 should be 64 metric tons,

because he clearly says including the mine plough and ERA arjun weighs 4 tons over mk-1,

In many sources without Mine plough the weight of Arjun mk-1 is mentioned as 58 metric tons,With mineplough mk-1 weighs about 62 tons, SO if we add 2tons of ERA mk-2 weight should be around 64 tons.

 

[Kyubi]

@Dejawolf, @ersakthivel,

I went to defexpo .....

Also took some good photos which will solve issue with measurements, Will post those pics in coming days ..

1. Measurement issue, from main sight to the gunner periscope..
2. Radar installation ..
3. Inside photos, ( This is a prototype )

we are waiting eagerly for the pictures Kunal Sir

 

[Kunal Biswas]

 

[sayareakd]

 

[sayareakd]

I think they need to move the commander sight (shown in blue area)

that way it wont have blind spots on the left side (hidden by RCWS).

 

[sayareakd]