Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[JAISWAL]

.
.
The driving simulator for the Arjun tank developed by CVRDE Chennai

 

[JAISWAL]

.
.
SOURCE: EXPRESS NEWS SERVICE


Combat Vehicles R&D Establishment (CVRDE), a premier DRDO lab at Avadi working in the research and development of battle tanks, celebrated the DRDO Day on Tuesday to mark the founding of the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO). Dr P Sivakumar, Director, CVRDE, recounted the achievements made by CVRDE in 2011. Successful demonstration of Arjun MBT Mk-I with 52 improvements required for Arjun Mk-II during summer trials, evaluation of digital control harness and advanced land navigation system were among the achievements. He also said that the Mark II version of Arjun MBT is slated for user trials during June 2012 and the lab is working for its success.
.
Link:- .
.
Arjun Mk-2 battle tank user trials in June | idrw.org

 

[sayareakd]

Arjun can operate in all places, It mobility is better or same as T-90s and T-72, So does the transportation..

Arjun ability to drive through water channels 5–6 feet deep or more.

since i am in good mood, here are some of the support vehicles for Arjun tank from personal collection.

Shot at 2012-01-04

Shot at 2012-01-04

Shot at 2012-01-04

Shot at 2012-01-04

this is inside BMS for shakti, but Arjun BMS command post would also be like this.

Shot at 2012-01-04

 

[Austin]

From Army Chief interview to January 2012 issue of FORCE source

What is the status on armour? Is T-90s the MBT now? What is being done about the large numbers of T-72 tanks which lack a night fighting capability? How many Arjun regiment will the army have, and are there plans to upgrade Arjun tanks?

By terming the T-90 tank as the main battle tank (MBT), the Indian Army implies that this tank is the future mainstay of the Indian Army, and is indicative of the volumes of this tank comprising the backbone of the mechanised forces. T-90 is a state of the art and highly capable weapon system, capable of survival in the most challenging environments.

The Indian Army has already addressed the issue of night blindness of T-72 tanks. A large number of tanks are now night-enabled. Measures are already in place to ensure speedy night enablement of the balance numbers. With this, we have ensured that the erstwhile issue of night blindness is addressed holistically, with our entire tank fleet capable of operations at night.

As far as Arjun tank is concerned, the Indian Army is looking at inducting a few additional numbers of MBT Arjun regiments in the future. The tank finally produced by DRDO is quite competitive and has come a long way. Upgradations and improvements to the MBT Arjun as a Mark- II version are underway. On successful completion of these improvements, the tank will meet the requirements of the Indian Army.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

 

[agentperry]

well what i feel is that if IA wants to accommodate arjun they will make space for it and if they dont want one then they will stay without tank for decades but wont accept arjun...case is simple. it all depends upon the complex calculations being done in MoD and army HQ.

the improvement in arjun are done after brief consultation with army so now if army rejects it, it will be something beyond the case of being obvious. there is some perpetual hatred for arjun among armymen

 

[nitesh]

Arjun, Dhruv Get Thumbs Up From Indian Army Chief - Defence Now

"There are certain problems (in Arjun)...everything cannot be perfect," he said, defending the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) that designed and developed the tank and the Avadi-based Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) that is manufacturing them.

He also indicated the upgraded Arjuns could go up to Mark III version too.

"We found certain faults and these have been rectified in Arjun Mk II and it will become Arjun Mk III," he said.

Asked if the number of Arjuns will go beyond the 248 already on order, Singh said the deployment of Arjuns will decide the number of tanks that will be inducted into service.

"And accordingly, the numbers have been fixed as per the number of units that will operate Arjuns," he said, without specifying the numbers.

The Army has already inducted Arjuns and raised a regiment that is now operating in the deserts of Rajasthan from among the 124 tanks ordered in the middle of last decade. About a year and half ago, it placed an additional order for 124 more tanks, but these will be the Mark II version, which is undergoing tests at present.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

He also indicated the upgraded Arjuns could go up to Mark III version too.

"We found certain faults and these have been rectified in Arjun Mk II and it will become Arjun Mk III," he said.

Expected..

 

[sayareakd]

Arjun III, interesting, is that Arjun with auto loader and three man crew will the goodies or the regular arjun with 4 men crew.

 

[p2prada]

I bet it is the regular Arjun with the 4 man crew. Like the article says. Some flaws noticed in Mk2 will be fixed in a Mk3 model.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Arjun III, interesting, is that Arjun with auto loader and three man crew will the goodies or the regular arjun with 4 men crew.

Auto-loader is not a good Idea..

 

[plugwater]

If they are talking about Mk3 means no more orders for Mk2!!

 

[bhramos]

India's future main battle tank now grapples with a weight issue

 

[bhramos]

If they are talking about Mk3 means no more orders for Mk2!!

124 MKII already ordered...

The Army has already inducted Arjuns and raised a regiment that is now operating in the deserts of Rajasthan from among the 124 tanks ordered in the middle of last decade. About a year and half ago, it placed an additional order for 124 more tanks, but these will be the Mark II version, which is undergoing tests at present.

 

[p2prada]

India's future main battle tank now grapples with a weight issue

Similarly, how can you increase your tank gun's ability to penetrate enemy tanks without a weight increase?" asks Sivakumar.

The American XM360 is lighter than the L44/55 and is more powerful.

Officials at the Combat Vehicles R&D Establishment (CVRDE), Avadi, who will develop the FMBT, say it is impossible to build the FMBT 15 tonnes lighter while also improving crew protection

So, only the Russians can do it. How silly. I doubt a 50 ton tank will have a 4 member crew. A 3 member crew can help reduce weight.

Planning for the FMBT —the Gen-Next tank that will follow the Arjun Mark II by 2020 — is even more contradictory.

Hardly. The Arjun is not the best tank in the world. The FMBT will be a new design.

"active suspension" by 2030.

Too bad it won't be ready in time for the FMBT.

 

[Damian]

The American XM360 is lighter than the L44/55 and is more powerful.

Not exactly. XM360 is a low recoil, low weight 120mm smoothbore gun for vehicles lighter than MBT's. XM360E1 is a low weight 120mm smoothbore gun for MBT's. There are siginificant differences between both.

Both are L48 guns, so I can agree that they are more powerfull than L44 (at least XM360E1 that was designed as direct replacement for M256 that is L44 gun), but more powerfull than L55?

So, only the Russians can do it. How silly. I doubt a 50 ton tank will have a 4 member crew. A 3 member crew can help reduce weight.

It also depends on vehicle design philosophy and how armor is placed on vehicle, it's size etc.

But weight can be reduced by using lighter components, not nececary by reducing armor protection.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Not exactly. XM360 is a low recoil, low weight 120mm smoothbore gun for vehicles lighter than MBT's. XM360E1 is a low weight 120mm smoothbore gun for MBT's. There are siginificant differences between both.

Both are L48 guns, so I can agree that they are more powerfull than L44 (at least XM360E1 that was designed as direct replacement for M256 that is L44 gun), but more powerfull than L55?

Its the ammo what counts, FMBT is coming with 120mm smooth-bore, I hope we can use NATO rounds..

 

[methos]

XM360 uses a muzzle break, which seems to be included in the length of 48 calibers (at least it seems so, when XM360 and XM360E1 are directly compared). So it might offer exactly the same firepower as the M256 but for a lower weight and recoil. I don't know why they chose the XM360E1 to be a L/48 (given the fact that a variety of L/50, L/52 and L/55 guns exist), but the M1 turret layout has proven to be incompatible with the L/55 gun at least. Maybe L/48 is the maximum possible without much redesign?

 

[Damian]

The story of M1 turret to be incompatible with L55 seems to be someones fantasy and complete BS, M1 turret was tested with much longer XM291 (one of it's variants in 120mm calliber) and as far as I know there were no problems. I do not see a reason why M1 turret is not capable to use L55 while Leopard 2 turret also without redesign is capable... looks very fishy, like typical European black PR to discredit a competitor.

However if this...

XM360 uses a muzzle break, which seems to be included in the length of 48 calibers (at least it seems so, when XM360 and XM360E1 are directly compared).

...is true, then XM360E1 is longer than XM360.

And from graphic made by manufacturer, it seems that indeed XM360E1 looks longer, maybe it is L50 or L52 gun?

 

[methos]

That the M1 is incompatible with the L/55 has been published by Rolf Hilmes and other authors. Therefore it is very likely not "complete bullshit". In fact the US bought three L/55 guns as part of their Advanced Tank Armament System project and got the licence to produce 12 barrels (so a total of 15 barrels was procured, which is enough to fire ~ 3,000 - 4,500 high barrel wear KE rounds like DM53 or M829A2/3). The gun was designated M256E1 (would have been M256A1 if it would have entered service) in US Ordnance inventory.
But since the General Dynamics thought it would better to produce the M256 as "simplificated version" and not as exact Rh 120 L/44 copy, the turret has been designed differently (especially the gun bearing and the electro-hydraulic sighting compensation). The US test revealed that their turrets can hold the gun, but due to bad mounting and compensation systems the vibration behaviour is too bad; they can not fire accuratley (at least not on the move, don't know if standing still and aiming can be compensated by the too weak compensation system) when mounting the L/55 in the M1 turret. Unless they redesign the turret significantly they can not mount the M256E1 aka. Rh 120 L/55. They might fit in other guns specifically designed to fit in their turret, but not the longer Rheinmetall ones (and as the Rheinmetall L/44 gun has been the reference for nearly every other tank builder in the Western hemisphere, including Italy, Switzerland and France), they probably can not mount the GIAT L/52 or the Swiss L/51 tank gun.
If they can easily fit longer barreled guns in the M1, why do they stay with L/48? There is no real improvment compared to the L/44 barrel without using higher pressures. The Swiss CTG has reportedly a ~40 m/s higher muzzle velocity and the GIAT gun a 40 - 50 m/s higher than the L/44 - that is less than 1 km longer range (as the typical vdrop for 120 mm APFSDS is claimed to be ~50 - 60 m/s/km.

And from graphic made by manufacturer, it seems that indeed XM360E1 looks longer, maybe it is L50 or L52 gun?

I'm not sure. It could be but longer, but it also could be just L/48. If they would include the muzzle break in the caliber length, then both could be "L/48", and the basic XM360 would have only ~44 calibers barrel and ~4 calibers muzzle break.