Indian Army Armored Vehicles

[Twinblade]

CVRDE is looking for partners to develop active protection system for Tanks/AFVs.

Objective
To jointly develop Active Protection System to provide best posible protection to the tank and crew against wider spectrum of threats including Rocket propeled Grenade (RPG), anti-tank grenades, HEAT, HESH, CE, KE rounds and advanced ATGMs.

Requirement
1. The system should be capable of detecting and neutralizing various threats viz. RPG, HEAT, HESH, CE, KE projectiles and ATGM fired from any kind of platform (Land or Air based). 2. The system should have fully automated detection, identification, tracking and neutralization of incoming threats which includes Sensor suite, Control System, set of protective ammunition & its launcher, Launcher activation Unit and Display.
3. The system should have Multi spectral Sensor based threat detection including RADAR, LASER Sensors to cover wide variety of threat velocities ranging from 70 - 240 m/s
4. The system should have accurate Intercept computation based on various threat parameters in both static and dynamic conditions.
5. The system should have engagement range from 50 to 150 m and quick reaction time to effect neutralization before 50m.
6. The system should be able to neutralize close range threats.
7. The system should have Simultaneous Multi directional multiple threat detection and Neutralization capability with very high hit probability (95%)
8. The system should provide 360 degree hemispherical protection coverage.
9. The system should be able to intercept the target accurately when the tank is in both static and dynamic condition.
10. The system should be safe for nearby troops and issue audio/visual warning during activation of counter measure.
11. The system should have protection against accidental activation of the explosive charges due to small arm firing, artillery splinters or flares and flying objects of earth.
12. The system should be robust, light weight and modular in design and construction.
13. The system should be based on Open System Architecture with BITE facility.
14. The mounting of the system should not affect the Silhouette of the platform.

Scope of Work
1. To design and implement hardware and software for Active Protection System meting the above requirements with required Interface.
2. Integration of Active Protection System in AFV
3. Field Evaluation of Active Protection System
4. The system developed wil be part of AFV which should met he following requirements
(a) Environment Test Miltary Standard MIL 810G/JS555
(b) EMI /EMC standard MIL 461F
(c) Power suply as per MIL1275D
(d) Aplicable Software Standards

 

[bengalraider]

Good video outlining the T-90MS, we are apparently going to get around 300 of these as well.

Yours truly with Vladimir at the DEFEXPO 2012

 

[kumar2310s]

"The Buy and make in India" model being followed, does it allow limited porduction of guns or can we exceed the numbers depending on the need?
Does the technology transfer also take place in such agreement? Can we make a few changes and come out with our own designs later and produce new guns without the license conditions in place?

 

[myana]

probably noob question and don't know where to ask, why do we need more guns when we have Pinaka1 & Pinaka2(Still in testing) can do similar things where moving a gun to the higher altitude is a bigger problem than moving a mbrl launcher?

 

[Blood+]

probably noob question and don't know where to ask, why do we need more guns when we have Pinaka1 & Pinaka2(Still in testing) can do similar things where moving a gun to the higher altitude is a bigger problem than moving a mbrl launcher?

Simply because an MBRL can never become substitute for tube artillery,because the MBRL rockets are much more expensive to manufacture.So on just the basis of cost,it's not feasible to replace tube artillery pieces with MBRLs.Besides,as the rockets are far bigger and heavier than tube arty shells and propellant charges,so the rockets are also cumbersome to move from one place to other.
Then,the MBRLs have got a much bigger logistical foot prints,as they need dedicated loader and replenishment vehicles,which further escalates their operating costs and also provide juicy targets for the enemy.
Besides,moving a gun to a higher altitude is actually easier than moving the MBRLs would be.But there is more to it,you just can't move the launch vehicles only,you also have to move the replenishment vehicles as previously stated.So as you can see,moving a MBRL over the mountains are harder than moving a towed piece would be.
These are some of the reasons why India Army needs more guns even as they have MBRLs.Hope this answers your questions.

 

[cobra commando]

Critical review of Army recovery vehicle next month

CHENNAI: The critical design review of Armoured Repair and Recovery Vehicle , which is presently being developed by a DRDO lab here, is scheduled for next month, signaling the completion of design of the vehicle for the Indian Army. "We have already completed the preliminary design review and the critical design review will take place next month," P Sivakumar, Director of Combat Vehicle Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE) told PTI. The vehicle, which is a variant of the Arjun Main Battle Tank, is jointly being designed by CVRDE and Bengaluru-based Bharat Earth Movers Limited (BEML). CVRDE would develop two prototypes, which would look similar to the main battle tank Arjun but a crane and a winch in the place of a gun, he said. The Army is expected to order 30 units, if the Chennai-based DRDO lab satisfied its specifications in the first two units. The vehicle would weigh around 65 tonne and function as a recovery vehicle for the Army in tough terrain as well as in extreme climatic conditions. Once the design was finalised, the production would commence in two years, he added. As for Arjun Mk II, he said all the trials by the user Indian Army were complete and the vehicle was awaiting evaluation by the Director General of Quality Assurance (DGQA) and an evaluation for maintenance. When asked about the anti-tank missile to be fitted on the vehicle, he said it has been decided to go for an Indian anti tank missile instead of an Israeli missile. Pune-based Armament Research and Development Establishment was developing the Indian missile, he said.
Critical review of Army recovery vehicle next month - The Economic Times

 

[bengalraider]

Found this old image of IA troops using PT-76 amphibious tanks to cross a canal during the 71 war, one of the rare photographs of the PT-76 in the IA.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

It would have been a good choice, To manufacture them in country back then ..

The reason they got phased out was because lack of spares ..

 

[cobra commando]

The secret of T-72 Main Battle Tank's improved night vision

If gunners in T-72 Main Battle Tanks of the Indian Army are thanking their stars for improved night vision, it has a Bengaluru connection. A city-based company is upgrading the tank's ability to identify targets up to three kilometres at night. Col. H.S. Shankar (Retd.), Chairman and Managing Director of Alpha Design Technologies (ADT), told The Hindu, "Hitherto, the Russian-made T-72 had night vision range of 300 metres." ADT is the offset partner of Israeli company Elop-Elbit, which has won the contract for T-72 upgradation. "We started fitting Thermal Imager Fire Control Systems (TIFCS) in November 2014. So far, 170 kits have been supplied to the army," he said adding the night vision technology will be fitted in 1,000 T-72s over the next one year. The company is also the offset partner in the Indian Army's infantry command vehicle upgradation. It has already supplied 300 thermal imager standalone kits (TISK), which improves night vision for main gun firing and also missiles. By September this year, 969 vehicles would be upgraded, he said. Both TIFCS and TISK are on display at Aero India 2015.
The secret of T-72 Main Battle Tank's improved night vision - The Hindu

 

[grampiguy]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

Designed by DRDO, manufactured by L&T

@sayareakd, @Kunal Biswas @Ray

Is it possible to change Arjun MK-1's turret to the one with ERA tiles on Arjun MK-2 ?? Also, since the T-90 gun barrel technology has been developed in house by Indian public and private companies due to refusal to technology transfer by Russia, why can't the same gun be installed on Arjun with similar autoloader which will reduce the weight and make it able to fire missiles ??

Any detailed clarifications??

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

The Arjun is design based on given requirement by Army, Army do not want an auto-loader, As its has its own merits learned by Army by operating T-72 in last few decades >>

1. Removing of gun is a very complex and time consuming in T-72/90, So does maintaining an auto-loader in field conditions, The reason why Arjun has manual loader and large mantel for easier removal of gun, purposes ..

2. Auto-loader in T-tank pose significant hazards as its ammunition is expose to flash and sparks, The reason DRDO was told to make isolated ammunition bin which enhance crew survivability ..

==========

T-90 gun is same as Arjun`s Gun in terms of life span and chamber pressure, T-90 gun was developed by ARDE purely Indegeniously and its based on Arjun`s gun, As Russian never delivered Tot of Gun the technology was shared via Arjun`s research ..

The main difference between two is, T-90 gun is smooth-bore and Arjun`s rifled ..

Arjun MK2 is design to fire CLGM, Which is better than any import system technically and tactical reasons ..

==========

Arjun MK1 can be upgraded at similar level as MK2, Only at request of Army ..

There can be no changes done at will of DRDO ..

@sayareakd, @Kunal Biswas @Ray

Is it possible to change Arjun MK-1's turret to the one with ERA tiles on Arjun MK-2 ?? Also, since the T-90 gun barrel technology has been developed in house by Indian public and private companies due to refusal to technology transfer by Russia, why can't the same gun be installed on Arjun with similar autoloader which will reduce the weight and make it able to fire missiles ??

Any detailed clarifications??

 

[sayareakd]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

@sayareakd, @Kunal Biswas @Ray

Is it possible to change Arjun MK-1's turret to the one with ERA tiles on Arjun MK-2 ?? Also, since the T-90 gun barrel technology has been developed in house by Indian public and private companies due to refusal to technology transfer by Russia, why can't the same gun be installed on Arjun with similar autoloader which will reduce the weight and make it able to fire missiles ??

Any detailed clarifications??

Arjun armor is designed to absorb hit while ERA is design to repel tandem charge.
About private sector developing gun tech for T90. It was Arjun gun tech which is used for domestic T90s. Thanks to Arjun domestic T90s exists.
About auto loader. Arjun mannual is faster then T90s. 6 rounds forT90 per minute against 6+ for Arjun and all the advantages mention by Kunal sir.

In T90s think crew is sitting on ammo. One breach and tank will lit like diwali cracker.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

T-90 gun is same as Arjun`s Gun in terms of life span and chamber pressure

Riffled bore same as smoothbore?
ARDE developed one?

Arjun MK2 is design to fire CLGM, Which is better than any import system technically and tactical reasons ..

??

Arjun mannual is faster then T90s. 6 rounds forT90 per minute against 6+ for Arjun and all the advantages mention by Kunal sir.

On the other hand, autoloader can sustain firing rate for whole mechanised storage and in any conditions(on move, for example).

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

Do you have difficulty in reading ?

Same applies for manual, no differences ..

The Arjun is design based on given requirement by Army, Army do not want an auto-loader, As its has its own merits learned by Army by operating T-72 in last few decades >>

1. Removing of gun is a very complex and time consuming in T-72/90, So does maintaining an auto-loader in field conditions, The reason why Arjun has manual loader and large mantel for easier removal of gun, purposes ..

2. Auto-loader in T-tank pose significant hazards as its ammunition is expose to flash and sparks, The reason DRDO was told to make isolated ammunition bin which enhance crew survivability ..

==========

T-90 gun is same as Arjun`s Gun in terms of life span and chamber pressure, T-90 gun was developed by ARDE purely Indegeniously and its based on Arjun`s gun, As Russian never delivered Tot of Gun the technology was shared via Arjun`s research ..

The main difference between two is, T-90 gun is smooth-bore and Arjun`s rifled ..

Arjun MK2 is design to fire CLGM, Which is better than any import system technically and tactical reasons ..

==========

Arjun MK1 can be upgraded at similar level as MK2, Only at request of Army ..

There can be no changes done at will of DRDO ..

Riffled bore same as smoothbore?
ARDE developed one?

??

On the other hand, autoloader can sustain firing rate for whole mechanised storage and in any conditions(on move, for example).

 

[Gloire_bb]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

Do you have difficulty in reading ?

Producing smooth-bore gun with barell life of riffled one means acknowledged lack of experience in their production.
That's reason why i asked.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

It is true, Previously the gun manufactured have higher chamber pressure compare to Russian 2A46M but only at life of 250rnds ..

Now upgraded Gun used both in T-90 and T-72 has 500rnds, Which is better than previous gun ..

Producing smooth-bore gun with barell life of riffled one means acknowledged lack of experience in their production.
That's reason why i asked.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Improved 120mm MK1 FSAPDS Penetrator.. ?

300mm at 60 degree from 2000ms

@ersakthivel, Long back some got stuck at the idea 300mm RHA from 2000m at 90 degree, Now it is proved such claims are wrong, Also look at the new penetrator ..

 

[methos]

Long back some got stuck at the idea 300mm RHA from 2000m at 90 degree, Now it is proved such claims are wrong, Also look at the new penetrator ..

On the paper between the foremost and the second projectile assembly, it is clearly written: Depth of Penetration 300 mm (150 mm RH plate at 60° and 2000 m)

Where does this proof 300 mm RHA penetration at 2,000 m at 90° wrong?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

If you have something interesting to add which can be debated, Better do it so ..

Don`t waste bandwidth, Learn to read posts before quoting them ..

On the paper between the foremost and the second projectile assembly, it is clearly written: Depth of Penetration 300 mm (150 mm RH plate at 60° and 2000 m)

Where does this proof 300 mm RHA penetration at 2,000 m at 90° wrong?

 

[Abhi9]