India's Future Main Battle Tank, NGMBT

[Bleh]

this is my take on how the RADAR/LASER DESIGNATOR of the arjun tank should have integrated into the tank ie its location.
the advantages of this configuration is

1.the frontal portion of the turret is freed up and can sport the ERA tiles thus providing much needed protection to the vulnerable frontal zone.

2.the line of sight of the RADAR/LASER DESIGNATOR is increased way more than in the previous installation position.

3. the RADAR/LASER DESIGNATOR is now safe from sniper fire / artillery shell fragments etc when in the HUNKER down mode . protection is way better since it can be place flat against the turret hull and not always exposed when not in active use.

4.circular traverse capability (not shown in the photo) can be provided to the RADAR/LASER DESIGNATOR mount system so that it can detect/lase targets even when the main gun/ gun turret is not aimed directly at the target or facing the target.

this allows additional independent capability much like the commanders panoramic sight, the commander will use the RADAR/LASER DESIGNATOR to lase the target even when the gun mantle is not facing the target , the gunner will simply fire the laser guided missile in a non line of sight mode (NLOS) as the missile will simply home towards the target via following/riding the laser beam.

the gun mount system (upper portion) will have 360 degree clearance and will not be obstructed by the raised RADAR/LASER DESIGNATOR (lower portion), the design specifically caters to this.

Note: the RADAR/LASER DESIGNATOR is a rectangular box covered by a conformal composite shell

rest is self explanatory as seen in the picture.

Arjun Mark2 may actually have something like this (or the CLGM could be F&F). Their FMBT showed RCWS & CPS in the 3D model but didn't show any designator.

 

[Swiftfarts]

You remain incorrect about both cases.

The old FMBT concept was a 4-crew one with no autoloader (you could notice if you would have looked closely, that gunners sight is before commanders hatch). The 4th guy was to be the loader. Rejected because the couldn't bring that below 50 ton.

The new one is possibly inspired from the experimental T-95 Black Eagle. Despite what you think unmanned turrets should look like, tank designers may disagree.
View attachment 47109
Imagine an Arjun whose crews enter via hatch but drop straight down at turret basket within hull to sit like the driver.
Lot of space can now be reduced up there, which means smaller and lighter turret, allowing armour concentration on hull... With sights and shit moved below, meaning whatever room left upwards can be for new gen tank techs (LINK).
View attachment 47121
View attachment 47120
Differences with the T-14 like design:

• Much less drastic change from conventional layout, manufacturing & maintenance advantage.
• Ability of tank's gun crew to rotate with their gun with be compatible with past experience, possibly they may prefer.
• Ability of tank's gun crew to access the autoloader in case of snag.
• Possible ability of tank's gun crew to manually reload without getting out the autoloader or the gun-breech itself.
• Ability of tank's gun crew to look out in every direction from turret hatch or periscopes. Both CPS and 360° outer cams (in case of commander's X-ray vision HMD) are quite destrible.
• Ability of tank's crew to survive hull penetration, from lower glacis or sides, as they are not seated together.
• No chance of whole turret blowing away like T-14, as hull ammo-stowage get blowoff panels below, also on turret bustle.

So i was reading couple of your post.. very detailed and technical.i want to ask some questions and give my opinion.

• Ability of tank's gun crew to access the autoloader in case of snag.

• Possible ability of tank's gun crew to manually reload without getting out the autoloader or the gun-breech itself.

This will give turret a bigger profile + wastage of space. autoloader snag are usually associated with carousel type autoloader far less with bustle mounted one.

.

• Ability of tank's gun crew to look out in every direction from turret hatch or periscopes. Both CPS and 360° outer cams (in case of commander's X-ray vision HMD) are quite destrible.

This is not such a big deal. NGMBT will have mm wave radar on it's unmanned turret along with other sensors. Situation awareness will be of the chart. sensors have come a long way + in actual tank on tank combat no one is sticking his head out.

.

• Ability of tank's crew to survive hull penetration, from lower glacis or sides, as they are not seated together.
• No chance of whole turret blowing away like T-14, as hull ammo-stowage get blowoff panels below, also on turret bustle.

I think it's better if crew is seated together. Whole protection capsule can be made keeping it in mind while keeping overall armour profile low....say concentration of DU armour , which will be better placed in case of Armata type configuration than Abraham's type with lower profile but more concentrated at a given point in this case directly at front of crew + saving overall weight in the process.

Further....more protection for the crew sitting together in front can be achieved by simply using Bustle mounted autoloader instead of Carousel type in case of T 14 Armata.

Than crew can be move further back since some space will be freed in the process. this will also allow longer gun without much hassle + even longer rounds.

Ukraine type option look far better.

 

[Swiftfarts]

^ Ukraine option above probably has a carousel autoloader my mistake . Just imagine it with bustle mounted one , something like this but with unmanned turret.

 

[Marliii]

View attachment 58494
Arjun Mark2 may actually have something like this (or the CLGM could be F&F). Their FMBT showed RCWS & CPS in the 3D model but didn't show any designator.

Bleh what is the status FMBT ? What do you think drdo will come up with?

 

[Bleh]

Bleh what is the status FMBT ? What do you think drdo will come up with?

No news or chatter for almost 2 years now.... on either GNMBT or Mark2.

No idea what's going on (in my experience that actually pounts at serious shit happening).

 

[Cruise missile]

No news or chatter for almost 2 years now.... on either GNMBT or Mark2.

No idea what's going on (in my experience that actually pounts at serious shit happening).

Lot of work is being carried out but it will take time.

 

[Bleh]

No hull is different count the no. Of wheels.

No he means the layout.

@ArgonPrime That's exactly what they originally did.

Bhe above cross-sections are actually an older ones... I later adjusyed that once I found a high definition photo of the 3D CAD of NGMBT.

Now they match better...

BTW Arjun's LFP is indeed a sandwiched layer between two plates meant to dissipate HEAT jet. I heard it in an interview.
Even the plate on frontal side-skirt are that composite plate in Mark1.

 

[Bleh]

Man, I don't think that's gonna dissipate anything worth noting but what can I say?? Our agencies seem to work in mysterious ways sometimes.

Fuck it!.. As long as they learnt to use wet stowage & compartmentalised vault & lower blowoff panels & fire-proof propellent charge, I'll call it progress.

Now this I'm looking forward to...

 

[Anandhu Krishna]

"We are offering a 2 men crew for the new tank but some generals are saying they want a four men crew"

My mind immediately went to the film 'The pentagon Wars'

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

"We are offering a 2 men crew for the new tank but some generals are saying they want a four men crew"

My mind immediately went to the film 'The pentagon Wars'

In tank crews, bigger might be better. More crew means you can maintain the tank more easily, carry out field repairs and modifications faster and overcome a loss of a crew member faster. With two man crew, the crewmembers would be overloaded, irrespective of any automation you put in.

 

[Bajirao]

"desert buggatti"

 

[Bajirao]

Future mbt should be offensive sensor based not defensive sensor based..early detection of enemy tanks or missile man can only give victory .destroying defensive sensors using anti material gun not a hard job..it will be like fighter jet bvr fight..

 

[KurtisBrian]

Hi,
watching the video...choice of a rifled gun barrel is indeed interesting. India's Russian designed tanks don't use rifled which allows them to fire missiles, right? The British use a rifled gun, preferring the superior accuracy. What I am wondering is can the different tanks use the same ammunition? If not, does Indian military doctrine actually prefer having several different types of weapon systems for some reason? Perhaps it will increase options for suppliers during a war?

 

[Anandhu Krishna]

In tank crews, bigger might be better. More crew means you can maintain the tank more easily, carry out field repairs and modifications faster and overcome a loss of a crew member faster. With two man crew, the crewmembers would be overloaded, irrespective of any automation you put in.

Not saying its good or bad. Just saying.

 

[Anandhu Krishna]

Hi,
watching the video...choice of a rifled gun barrel is indeed interesting. India's Russian designed tanks don't use rifled which allows them to fire missiles, right? The British use a rifled gun, preferring the superior accuracy. What I am wondering is can the different tanks use the same ammunition? If not, does Indian military doctrine actually prefer having several different types of weapon systems for some reason? Perhaps it will increase options for suppliers during a war?

Standard issue small arms include SiG 716 and soon AK 203, and a new RFI for a bunch of cabines have been issued. Make of that what you will

 

[KurtisBrian]

Standard issue small arms include SiG 716 and soon AK 203, and a new RFI for a bunch of cabines have been issued. Make of that what you will

thank you for the reply but unfortunately, I don't know what to make of it. It confuses me.

 

[Anandhu Krishna]

thank you for the reply but unfortunately, I don't know what to make of it. It confuses me.

I'm not sure if its part of the doctrine or the insecurities of potential sanctions or as you said, to diversify suppliers or just not wanting to have a single platform for a particular job but overlapping of equipment is prevalent

 

[WarriorIndian]

I heard that FMBT concept was dropped long back as they dint see any significant technology that required an evolution in tank armory. Arjun 2 is nothing but the FMBT that we hear today. Can the senior members verify this?

 

[Bleh]

I heard that FMBT concept was dropped long back as they dint see any significant technology that required an evolution in tank armory. Arjun 2 is nothing but the FMBT that we hear today. Can the senior members verify this?

As a semi-senior member I can verify that nobody fucking knows shit, least of all Indian Army. Please go see that Mark1A interview video in Arjun thread. You'll understand what I mean.

DRDO/CVRDE offered to make 2-crew unmanned turret FMBT... but some officers still want 4-crew... here we have designs of a 3-crew semi-manned turret!

 

[Johny_Baba]

I was given info that out of order of 118 MK.1As about 70 are simply reworked Mk.1 with upgrades,
so outta 118 only 48 or one regiment-worthy tanks would be new.