India's MBT: Arjun and its standing among Tanks

[kay_man]

Yes, yes. Thats why India try to build LCA/MCA a-like F-22 (AESA, stealth, etc). I mean, such ambitions without ANY succesfull indegenious combat aircraft project... What make you think India will do differently in tank area, especially WITH (relative) succesfull Arjun project behind?
40-45t Vehicle cant be anything but FCS. Even upgraded T-90 gets close to 50t.
The other alternative is future russian projects with unmanned turret, etc. But this would be possible only when cooperating with Russia and it have nothing common with T-90 anyway.

agreed.
the mca and the aesa are ambitious projects butits not tht difficult.the mca project will go on side by side with the pak-fa , so any difficulties in tht area can be solved with reference to that project. and anyway the mca is not meant to compare with f-22 , the pak-fa is meant to counter tht. the mca is meant to replace the jaguars and mirages in future combat scenarios.

ths fcs is a system .india does not have the resources to develop a complete system like tht so i think it will be a new design ( maybe unmanned turret) but it will be capable of operating individually and will be designed to fit into the current doctrine.
and anyway it does not hav anything like the russian design.u underestimate the indian eggheads dude.....i believe the lebanon or some other small country has already made prototypes of an unmanned turret tank.....if they can then surely we can !!

 

[Chrom]

agreed.

and anyway it does not hav anything like the russian design.u underestimate the indian eggheads dude.....i believe the lebanon or some other small country has already made prototypes of an unmanned turret tank.....if they can then surely we can !!

You understimate the difficulties to develop competetive modern tank with unmanned turret (or a tank in 40t base). Just slapping remote-controlled unmanned turret is nothing difficult - that could be done ( and was actually done) 70 years ago already.

Either way even your suggestions have nothing to do with T-xx tanks I dont think anyone in the right mind would choose t-xx serie as base for future tank development.

 

[eckherl]

agreed.
the mca and the aesa are ambitious projects butits not tht difficult.the mca project will go on side by side with the pak-fa , so any difficulties in tht area can be solved with reference to that project. and anyway the mca is not meant to compare with f-22 , the pak-fa is meant to counter tht. the mca is meant to replace the jaguars and mirages in future combat scenarios.

ths fcs is a system .india does not have the resources to develop a complete system like tht so i think it will be a new design ( maybe unmanned turret) but it will be capable of operating individually and will be designed to fit into the current doctrine.
and anyway it does not hav anything like the russian design.u underestimate the indian eggheads dude.....i believe the lebanon or some other small country has already made prototypes of an unmanned turret tank.....if they can then surely we can !!

The Middle Eastern country that you made reference to is not the country with this design but instead is Jordan.

 

[kay_man]

The Middle Eastern country that you made reference to is not the country with this design but instead is Jordan.

yeaa, thats the one.

 

[kay_man]

You understimate the difficulties to develop competetive modern tank with unmanned turret (or a tank in 40t base). Just slapping remote-controlled unmanned turret is nothing difficult - that could be done ( and was actually done) 70 years ago already.

Either way even your suggestions have nothing to do with T-xx tanks I dont think anyone in the right mind would choose t-xx serie as base for future tank development.

i said maybe it will be a unmanned turret design,maybe. it may be a fresh design tht has been develioped in house, tht may end up looking like the t-xxx series.

i hope u will agree tht the new tank design in the fcs is meant to opperate as a system ,i.e in the presence of the airsupport and all , and it it may not function as independantly as an m1a1.????

the new tank indian army is supposed to be asking for is supposed to be able to operate independantly, coz india currently does not have resources to invest in unmanned attak helis to provide aircover . because a lot of defence deals are stalled or delaed at the moment and there are other major requirements than to invest money in fcs like thing.

ths why it cannot be an fcs like vehicle, it may be closer to 40-45 tonnes like t-xx series . im not saying its a good decision on the part of the army but then again they havent made any sensible desisions in the last decade

 

[Chrom]

i said maybe it will be a unmanned turret design,maybe. it may be a fresh design tht has been develioped in house, tht may end up looking like the t-xxx series.

i hope u will agree tht the new tank design in the fcs is meant to opperate as a system ,i.e in the presence of the airsupport and all , and it it may not function as independantly as an m1a1.????

FCS could function as independantly as m1a1, it is just becomes so much better in the presence of airsupport and network. Besides, any tank, even future upgraded M1Ax and Arjun-x will have most FCS-like features regarding network and BM

the new tank indian army is supposed to be asking for is supposed to be able to operate independantly, coz india currently does not have resources to invest in unmanned attak helis to provide aircover . because a lot of defence deals are stalled or delaed at the moment and there are other major requirements than to invest money in fcs like thing.

No current tank can effectively operate independently. And wasnt able for the last 100 years.

ths why it cannot be an fcs like vehicle, it may be closer to 40-45 tonnes like t-xx series . im not saying its a good decision on the part of the army but then again they havent made any sensible desisions in the last decade

It may be close to 40-45t but obviosly it would be completely different design than T-xx. T-xx is characterised by very compact (but conventional) layout, very strong armor and big gun. All that is impossible to achieve in competetive 40t design. You'll need to develop unconventional layout or suffer in armor/gun department. Either way you choose it will have nothing common with T-xx.

Just realise - you cant upgrade t-72 to future standards and leave it at 40t. Nope. If you manage that the resulting tank will have less common with T-72 than Leopard II.

 

[kay_man]

FCS could function as independantly as m1a1, it is just becomes so much better in the presence of airsupport and network. Besides, any tank, even future upgraded M1Ax and Arjun-x will have most FCS-like features regarding network and BM
No current tank can effectively operate independently. And wasnt able for the last 100 years.
It may be close to 40-45t but obviosly it would be completely different design than T-xx. T-xx is characterised by very compact (but conventional) layout, very strong armor and big gun. All that is impossible to achieve in competetive 40t design. You'll need to develop unconventional layout or suffer in armor/gun department. Either way you choose it will have nothing common with T-xx.

.

i hav seen a documentary about the fcs systems on the discovery channel, and all the manned and unmanned units have one thing in common , i.e they are made for very rapid deployment. they hav tracks tht are made up completely of rubber ( no metal involved at all) and many other sacrifices in armour and survivability of the tank and crew. so survivability of the fcs will be maximum only if theywork togeather(unlike the m1a1 and other tanks of today which are capable of taking considerable battering from the enemy)

 

[kay_man]

in all the previous wars that india has been involved in it has always been on the defending side, so i think very very rapid deployment is not the most important aspect the army will be looking for. it may be 1 of the priorities but certainly not THE priority. survivabilty of tank and crew will be of more importance.

 

[Chrom]

i hav seen a documentary about the fcs systems on the discovery channel, and all the manned and unmanned units have one thing in common , i.e they are made for very rapid deployment. they hav tracks tht are made up completely of rubber ( no metal involved at all) and many other sacrifices in armour and survivability of the tank and crew. so survivability of the fcs will be maximum only if theywork togeather(unlike the m1a1 and other tanks of today which are capable of taking considerable battering from the enemy)

Yes, these sacrificies were made for rapid deployment and weight saving, and not becouse FCS have so good BM, networking, etc. Note, USA hope what advances in BM, networking etc will somehow offset weaker armor, gun and other deficiences. These sacrificies were made due to impossibility to achieve M1A3 (may be even M1A1) armor protection in 40t class. Now, you somehow suggest what India will manage it by just modifying T-xx.

This is completely off logic. I mean, USA couldnt develop a completely NEW tank in 40t class able to achieve all these goals. Now India magically somehow will be able to develop such tank by simply upgrade...

My logic is simply: If India want 40t class - it will be a-la FCS design.
If India do not want FCS - then it will be 50+t design. But even then, nothing common with T-xx. T-xx is just too old to serve as example. Even Russia abandoning this design next year.

 

[kay_man]

Yes, these sacrificies were made for rapid deployment and weight saving, and not becouse FCS have so good BM, networking, etc. Note, USA hope what advances in BM, networking etc will somehow offset weaker armor, gun and other deficiences. These sacrificies were made due to impossibility to achieve M1A3 (may be even M1A1) armor protection in 40t class. Now, you somehow suggest what India will manage it by just modifying T-xx.

This is completely off logic. I mean, USA couldnt develop a completely NEW tank in 40t class able to achieve all these goals. Now India magically somehow will be able to develop such tank by simply upgrade...

My logic is simply: If India want 40t class - it will be a-la FCS design.
If India do not want FCS - then it will be 50+t design. But even then, nothing common with T-xx. T-xx is just too old to serve as example. Even Russia abandoning this design next year.

im not trying to upset you or anything,

but just look at the circumstance here will you,
DRDO is already working on an armour that will replace the kanchan armour and will be much lighter than it. it will definately be more effective than the armout on the t-90 and im saying tht bcause the current kanchan armour is lot better.
+
there is a good rapport between the russian and indian firms so there may be some techno input from the russians in terms of active protection and other weight saving measure.

even with the current technology it is possible to make an adavanced tank tht waighs around 46-47 tons and as things progress we may make a tank that may surpass the t-90 in every aspect and still keep the weight same.

anyway its too early to come to any conclusions, because the news reports are sketchy itself and not much is being exposed. i wont be surprised if this 40 tons crap is cancelled and the army goes for arjun mk2, which sounds more logical.

 

[Chrom]

im not trying to upset you or anything,

but just look at the circumstance here will you,
DRDO is already working on an armour that will replace the kanchan armour and will be much lighter than it. it will definately be more effective than the armout on the t-90 and im saying tht bcause the current kanchan armour is lot better.

There is absolutely no proof for that. Moreover, knowing cirumstances - i.e. inheritely bigger inner space of Arjun - i suspect exactly the opposite. Just as with newer M1A2 uranium inserts - USA used armor inserts what give worse per-weight protection than common composite armor becouse there were little free space left.

+
there is a good rapport between the russian and indian firms so there may be some techno input from the russians in terms of active protection and other weight saving measure.

even with the current technology it is possible to make an adavanced tank tht waighs around 46-47 tons and as things progress we may make a tank that may surpass the t-90 in every aspect and still keep the weight same.

Yes, 47-50t... With AL, 3 crew and quite cramped inner space. Not 40t. But, this tank, what will it have in common with T-90?? I mean, both KIA and Ferrary have 4 wheels - but this fact doesnt mean one is very a-like of the other...

anyway its too early to come to any conclusions, because the news reports are sketchy itself and not much is being exposed. i wont be surprised if this 40 tons crap is cancelled and the army goes for arjun mk2, which sounds more logical.

I'm almost sure 40t req will be dropped. Next tank will be likely in 52-55t area.

 

[kato]

Yes, 47-50t... With AL, 3 crew and quite cramped inner space. Not 40t.

Oh, it's not that impossible. Just mix AMX-30B2 (37 tons) and AMX-40 (43 tons).

 

[Chrom]

Oh, it's not that impossible. Just mix AMX-30B2 (37 tons) and AMX-40 (43 tons).

Underarmored for modern standards. Slap some more armor on it to reach decent protection - and you are looking at ~50t bare minimum. Install bigger gun (ex 135mm) - and you are looking at 55-60t. There is no magic. In conventional layout constrains it is impossbile to build a good armoured tank with less than 50t weight. For 4 crew i would even say 55-60t is minimum.

Why is that? Allhought modern armour indeed can offer better protection for 40t tank than 30-years old armour for 60t tank - designers will still prefer 50+t monsters. Why? It is simply - ATGM's and APFSDS designers also didnt slept last 30 years. And new APFSDS will be able to penetrate 30 years old 60t tank with easer.
You will need 60t of MODERN, light weight armor to have some chance stopping new APFSDS and ATGM's...

P.S. Btw, i thought AMX-40 was in 50+t class... have you good references?

 

[kato]

P.S. Btw, i thought AMX-40 was in 50+t class... have you good references?

Can't find an original source right now. However, there's only a single "source" on the internet for a 55-ton weight of AMX-40 (likely confusing it with Leclerc), while the 43-ton version for the weight is far more widespread and pretty much the accepted version.

 

[kay_man]

no dude i think u have misread the news,

it does not say a 40ton tank it says a 40ton class tank, theres a distinction.

 

[Chrom]

no dude i think u have misread the news,

it does not say a 40ton tank it says a 40ton class tank, theres a distinction.

Well, 49t tank with 3 crews and AL is definitly possible... but that will still limit future armour and gun. Allthought, if we call 49t tank as base version, and then stack up add-ons like APS and ERA to reach 55-58t - DRDO can happely boost about "40t class tank" and still present competetive tank..

 

[bobba]

can someone post some photo's of the tank?

 

[DefConGuru]

This tank has been plagued with problems since it was created on paper, I don't like how people keep dragging this tank into "Arjun vs the world" type debates as firstly, the tank doesn't even come close to a modern mbt and secondly, it has more problems under its belt than most advanced fighter plane programs.

 

[eckherl]

This tank has been plagued with problems since it was created on paper, I don't like how people keep dragging this tank into "Arjun vs the world" type debates as firstly, the tank doesn't even come close to a modern mbt and secondly, it has more problems under its belt than most advanced fighter plane programs.

And how do you know of this, can you elaborate on why it is lagging behind other tanks that are currently fielded or will be upgraded in the near future.

 

[eckherl]

There is absolutely no proof for that. Moreover, knowing cirumstances - i.e. inheritely bigger inner space of Arjun - i suspect exactly the opposite. Just as with newer M1A2 uranium inserts - USA used armor inserts what give worse per-weight protection than common composite armor becouse there were little free space left.

Yes, 47-50t... With AL, 3 crew and quite cramped inner space. Not 40t. But, this tank, what will it have in common with T-90?? I mean, both KIA and Ferrary have 4 wheels - but this fact doesnt mean one is very a-like of the other...
I'm almost sure 40t req will be dropped. Next tank will be likely in 52-55t area.

We were you using DU armor inserts way before the M1A2 came on the block, also we did not decide to place DU insert plates because we ran out of room to add additional composite armor, if needed we could very well do this.