India's Future Main Battle Tank, NGMBT

[aditya10r]

Paki tanks as of just as shitty, but Chinkys are plugging the gap very well. Their 3man crew tanks weigh 57tons and increasing.
In case of a tank battle in Ladakh at 2030, be mentally prepared to handle a lot of beef roast memes all over internet.

If thats the case then i would simply prefer army to stick to T-90MS and Upgraded Arjun mk1a and Mk2(whenever it comes out).

For light tank duties,get Kestrel and slap the L7 105mm gun.Or get a turret on top of it with ATGMs.

________________________________________

In Sri lanka these Tin-72s were blown up like diwali patakha and Gulf war is of whole different magnitude.

_________________________________________

Their logic of arjun cant be transported is pure bullshit.We already have bridge layers for it and army has used 55tonne plus smerch to cross bridges.Plus what makes them think that pakis wouldnt blow up the bridges once hostilities start.Why would they leave infrastructure intact for an overwhelmingly strong enemy.

 

[Bleh]

...and Upgraded Arjun mk1a and Mk2(whenever it comes out).

Yeah that one is dead... Army has been "placeing orders of upgraded Arjuns" for atleast 5-7 years now. Never gonna happen, especially after the economic crisis due to Corona.

And frankly slapping on more armour sampling of the solution anymore... You can suffocate the crew inside by a thermobaric or cook them alive by incendiary (tagged as high-explosive ofcourse) with zero armour penetration.

In today's time you want;

• Soft & hard kill APS
• Jamm-prooof comms and sensors
• Ground penetrative radars
• Electromagnetic countermeasures for mine or IED
• Scouting/assisting drones and drone-jammers
• Fire-suppression system and fire-protective suits
• Mobile Camouflage System hiding visual, thermal signature
• Integrated BMS
• IRNSS based IFF showing all friendly tanks (& enemy contact)
• 360° X-Ray vision
• LGB guidance laser
• Top-attack and guided munition
• Maybe EMP to fry electronics
• Drone tanks, or AI driven unmanned-wingman tanks etc.

 

[Bleh]

• Oh, and HMS operated RCWS-cum-PanoramicSight like attack helicopters.
• DE Lasers that can blind sights (& crew too if looking directly or by periscope). Chinks may be operating this already.

 

[Bajirao]

As the size decreases and quick reaction mobility increases the chances of getting hited by kinetic projectiles from enemy tank decreases drastically...and for atgm there are aps so,we dont need heavy armour all over the tank body..drdo also devoloping a new gen era.
..
In the case of t-72 in iraq war,it was not about t-72 vs abram..it was t-72 vs apache(hellfire) plus a-10 plus abram,let's not talk about quality difference of tank crews from both side

 

[Bleh]

As the size decreases and quick reaction mobility increases the chances of getting hited by kinetic projectiles from enemy tank decreases.

Unkess your tank has the size & speed of a F1 racecar, then no.

That fallacy is getting less true everyday, even upgraded T-XX can hit moving-static or viceversa 2m×2m targets with near 100% accuracy at penetrable range... Even frontal armour too got 50:50 chance of getting hit at weakspot.
Today in the era of first-hit-kill, situational wareness and detection capabilities matter the most.

 

[Bleh]

On closer look.;

This latest official iteration of NG-MBT it actually shows decent hull armour design. They changed its armour distribution from being concentrated on upper-glacis like Arjun/Challenger, to hull-front like in Abrams/Leopard2... more efficient and covers the centre of silhoutte.

Also the crew hatches on the turret-top indicate that they wont sit on both sides of driver like T-14, but below turret like in cancelled T-95 Black Eagle. (Better if there be a thin 2nd layer between hull-turret) they can safely reduce weight by highly slanting turret-front and clearly^^ plan on totally removing its side armour.

Modified drawing to fit their render (possible best case):

 

[Bajirao]

On closer look.;

This latest official iteration of NG-MBT it actually shows decent hull armour design. They changed its armour distribution from being concentrated on upper-glacis like Arjun/Challenger, to hull-front like in Abrams/Leopard2... more efficient and covers the centre of silhoutte.

Also the crew hatches on the turret-top indicate that they wont sit on both sides of driver like T-14, but below turret like in cancelled T-95 Black Eagle. (Better if there be a thin 2nd layer between hull-turret) they can safely reduce weight by highly slanting turret-front and clearly^^ plan on totally removing its side armour.

Modified drawing to fit their render (possibl best case):
View attachment 47055

Is this a new design study or, the older one which done in 2010-11

 

[Bleh]

Is this a new design study or, the older one which done in 2010-11

The 3D render is the latest official stuff... GNMBT concept in DRDO publication from January 2018, page 6:
http://publications.drdo.gov.in/ojs/index.php/dsj/article/view/12182/6087

This design I made to match that one, by modifying these older ones;

The version everybody said was a rejected concept... Expecting they have favoured this Armata-like arrangement of crew.

 

[Bleh]

Sums up everything known right now very well, as usual.

 

[sthf]

This latest official iteration of NG-MBT it actually shows decent hull armour design. They changed its armour distribution from being concentrated on upper-glacis like Arjun/Challenger, to hull-front like in Abrams/Leopard2... more efficient and covers the centre of silhoutte.

This thing has been doing rounds for a few years now. You will most likely find it in this very thread.

Don't know who made this and why it refuses to die but for the love of all that is sane in this world why does this "CREWLESS" turret has two crew hatches?

This reminded me another one of these gems. The one which was a 50 ton and had a 4 man crew and an autoloader. Why, I don't know. Fourth guy was probably to repair the tyres if they ever got punctured.

*Edit: Found it.

 

[Bleh]

Don't know who made this and why it refuses to die but for the love of all that is sane in this world why does this "CREWLESS" turret has two crew hatches?

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.

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).

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.

 

[sthf]

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).

[-- Redacted --] If yes, try 8th from top under "Main features". What does the gunner's sight has to do with it?

Rejected because the couldn't bring that below 50 ton.

Surely you must have a source for this.

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.

It is so much inspired by an experimental design and yet looks nothing like it. Which is weird because it looks a lot closer to other unmanned turrets than that of the Black Eagle itself. Also can you cite the source for the Black Eagle picture?

M1 TTB

The Falcon turret

Armata

So its very bold of you to proclaim that designers disagree with me when the only operational design by the same country looks nothing like T-95.

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).

So we are playing the "what if" game, okay but why? That has nothing to with my post. Feels that you wanted to plug in your own post about a long list of mumbo jumbo.

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.

More stuff that has nothing to do with my post.

[-- Redacted --]

 

[Bleh]

You can read right? If yes, try 8th from top under "Main features". What does the gunner's sight has to do with it?

Surely you must have a source for this.

Yep, that definitely looks inconsistent. They probably mixed up data for old with new FMBT design (they are quite infamous for doing stuff like that). Also it is very old stuff, I could find a source on it 5 years ago probably. Not anymore.
The original FMBT concept having 4-crew 50-ton requirement is somewhat of a common knowledge by now.

But that design was clearly a quite simple hybrid between a downsized Arjun hull & a modified turret (possibly from LeClerc) with T-90's frontal armour.

It is so much inspired by an experimental design and yet looks nothing like it. Which is weird because it looks a lot closer to other unmanned turrets than that of the Black Eagle itself. Also can you cite the source for the Black Eagle picture?

M1 TTB

The Falcon turret

Armata

So its very bold of you to proclaim that designers disagree with me when the only operational design by the same country looks nothing like T-95.

You'll note T-14 is not field proven and rest of those unmanned turrets are practically experimentals too!

I am not sure why Russia opted for T-14 over T-95 (based on T-80 platform). Maybe they decided it is time for some revolutionary changes, after 4 decades of evolutionary designs... Cant say.
Nor am I sure India will opt for that turret design. It was from 2 years ago. So, I jotted down what advantages of the NG-MBT turret I could think of as possible reasons we would prefer if over the other.

Lastly, don't feel any need for convincing you. Keep your opinion. Maybe you are right and we will choose the other design with crew at front. I have said what I had to say for my reasoning.

Also now that mods are active again I don't need to tolerate any trolling.

 

[Bajirao]

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.

In the new design concept,beside the driver is that engine or, ammo storage? and is there another ammo storage at the rear of turret?

 

[Bleh]

In the new design concept,beside the driver is that engine or, ammo storage? and is there another ammo storage at the rear of turret?

Its an hull ammo-cum-fuel stowage with downward blowoff panels. I think the diesel breaks up HEAT stream.

Yes, there's another turret ammo rack of 20-25 shells. You can see it in the design.

 

[Bajirao]

Possibly GNMBT latest iteration.
https://tdf.drdo.gov.in/
View attachment 44762

Did they mentioned it as ngmbt?

 

[WolfPack86]

Russia offers the latest Armata tank to T-90/T-72 operators like India

Russia’s Industry and Trade Minister Denis Manturov said in April that Russia was planning to start work with foreign customers of the Armata tank in 2021 and had already received several prior requests from current T-90/T-72 Main Battle Tank operators who are keen on acquiring latest next-generation Main Battle Tank from Russia. T-90/T-72 Main Battle Tank operators like India were first to be offered the new tank as per Russian media and several countries have shown interest in acquiring them from Russia, but there has been no confirmation if the Indian Army has shown similar interests in the platform. Indian Army Main Battle Tanks primarily consists of 1900 T-90S and 1900 T-72M and T-72M1 with a small fleet of 128 Arjun Mk1 Tanks. Indian Army is planning to retire around 1000+ older T-72 series tanks due to aging but it still not clear if it HAS plans to purchase Armata tank or buy a locally developed tank on offer from DRDO and Private defense sector companies The Armata is a heavy tracked standardized platform serving as the basis to develop the main battle tank, an infantry fighting vehicle, an armored personnel carrier, and some other armored vehicles. The T-14 tank based on the Armata platform was shown to the public for the first time at Red Square’s Victory Day parade on May 9, 2015. The new combat vehicle features fully digitized equipment, an unmanned turret and an isolated armored capsule for the crew.

Russia offers the latest Armata tank to T-90/T-72 operators like India – Indian Defence Research Wing

idrw.org

 

[Super lca]

Can anyone answer my question will gnmbt project be pursued?Are funds sanctioned?Is it on the drawing board?

 

[AmitG]

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.

A crewless turret like the T14 could be a disadvantage. I think tank commanders like to pop up to scan an area and for better situational awareness.

 

[Bleh]

A crewless turret like the T14 could be a disadvantage. I think tank commanders like to pop up to scan an area and for better situational awareness.

They can do it in the 2nd design despite both being crewless turrets.