The Arjun Tank

[niteshkjain]

i dont know what the fuss is all about with the black eagle.
its just russias attempt to build a western style mbt of the 60 ton class.
it will be very good but theres nothing revolutioary about it.

one might argue that it will sport a 152mm main gun. but that will happen later on.initially it will have only a 125mm smoothbore like rest of the russian tanks.
and by the time it does have a 152mm gun all other tanks in the world will also be sporting bigger guns.

mind you the germans are already testing with 140mm gun for leo series.

its the same story with the t-95. although tecnologically its a step ahead but its still a concept. by the time it goes in full production there will be more formidable tanks around .

No, the T-95 is a new design, and it will have 135 mm gun instead of 125 mm, check these info

http://russianarmor.info/Tanks/MBT/t-95.html

http://www.tanksim.com/topic8.htm?bcsi_scan_0752DDFA1B5B7E84=0&bcsi_scan_filename=topic8.htm

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum...DDFA1B5B7E84=IvBLwRJpT4UGo4EwQkZ8SwEAAAC52D0A

 

[eckherl]

i dont know what the fuss is all about with the black eagle.
its just russias attempt to build a western style mbt of the 60 ton class.
it will be very good but theres nothing revolutioary about it.

one might argue that it will sport a 152mm main gun. but that will happen later on.initially it will have only a 125mm smoothbore like rest of the russian tanks.
and by the time it does have a 152mm gun all other tanks in the world will also be sporting bigger guns.

mind you the germans are already testing with 140mm gun for leo series.

its the same story with the t-95. although tecnologically its a step ahead but its still a concept. by the time it goes in full production there will be more formidable tanks around .

The proper statement would be that the Germans did test a 140mm and decided to go with a L55 120mm gun, which has plenty of penetration power at tank engagement ranges of 2000 meters and below, 140 mm is not warranted at this time. The U.S is the only western tank manufacture that may in fact place a dual main gun caliber breech mechanism that will accomadate both 120mm and 140mm, this is not to say that the Germans nor anyone else is not capable of doing this also. It makes me laugh every time I hear mention of the Chinese or Russians going with a 152mm main gun, do you realize the size of that complete munition, do not forget that the U.S has tried this also with two different tank models, M60A2 and M551. Both models fell far below expectations.

P.S - one last thing, Black Eagle is a dead project with no takers, when the South Koreans did not show interest nor anyone else that pretty much squashed the deal.

T-95 will be a different beast all together which I have my doubts will even be built any time soon, there are other priorities that Mother Russia has at the current times.

 

[tatra]

It makes me laugh every time I hear mention of the Chinese or Russians going with a 152mm main gun, do you realize the size of that complete munition, do not forget that the U.S has tried this also with two different tank models, M60A2 and M551. Both models fell far below expectations.

Difference of course being that 'the west' has used a single piece round for its 120mm smoothbore tankguns (mostly loaded manually), while 'the east' has used two-piece ammunition for its 125mm smoothbore guns (loaded mechanically). I'm sure a single piece 140mm round would be huge (and probably require a loading system), while a two piece 152mm round might still be workable (esp. with an autoloader).

The M162 gun//Shillelagh missile launcher system was used on the M60A2 and M551 (short barrelled version) and on MBT-70 (long barrelled version).
This was optimized for the missile to penetrate enemy armor at very long ranges and little thought was given to how this would effect conventional ammunition. In fact, it denied the possibility of developing a kinetic energy round, and the only round available for most of its service life was a very slow M409 high explosive antitank (HEAT) round that was very inaccurate at longer ranges and took a toll on the fire control system when it was fired. The M409 had a combustible case, which (e.g. in Vietnam) often swelled in the dampness making it difficult to load. All of the 152mm systems suffered from electrical problems throughout their service life because of the M409.

 

[eckherl]

Difference of course being that 'the west' has used a single piece round for its 120mm smoothbore tankguns (mostly loaded manually), while 'the east' has used two-piece ammunition for its 125mm smoothbore guns (loaded mechanically). I'm sure a single piece 140mm round would be huge (and probably require a loading system), while a two piece 152mm round might still be workable (esp. with an autoloader).

The M162 gun//Shillelagh missile launcher system was used on the M60A2 and M551 (short barrelled version) and on MBT-70 (long barrelled version).
This was optimized for the missile to penetrate enemy armor at very long ranges and little thought was given to how this would effect conventional ammunition. In fact, it denied the possibility of developing a kinetic energy round, and the only round available for most of its service life was a very slow M409 high explosive antitank (HEAT) round that was very inaccurate at longer ranges and took a toll on the fire control system when it was fired. The M409 had a combustible case, which (e.g. in Vietnam) often swelled in the dampness making it difficult to load. All of the 152mm systems suffered from electrical problems throughout their service life because of the M409.

Yes - either way if it is a two piece 152mm or a one piece 140mm cartridge they will be rather large, but a two piece 152mm cartridge is just way too large for vehicle load out, the propellant case is over a meter in length alone not counting the projectile casing that will measure a meter in length also, that doesn`t give you a whole lot of room inregards to vehicle stowage. It has pretty much been decided that when the U.S goes to the dual caliber system that it will have a auto loader in place, this will also include the M1A3 while retaining 4 crewmembers.

We actually tested a few APFSDS round for the M60A2, M551 and MBT70, we were rather disappointed in the results due to trying to keep the shell at a certain size critera, we found that it was rather slow also, especially because what is needed for a KE projectile to perform properly, energy and mass. I have thrown in a few photos of a 140mm British projectile, the round next to it is a 120mm to compare sizes, I also threw in a couple of photos a our 152mm KE projectiles with a chart also that were tested.

 

[niteshkjain]

Some words from DRDO side, but Army top brass not having experience on tank battle? I think this was unnecessary

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2008/20080709/nation.htm#1

ank tussle hots up
Induct 500 Arjuns: DRDO
Ajay Banerjee
Tribune News Service

New Delhi, July 8

The ongoing tussle over inducting Arjun tank in the Indian Army has become a hot topic of discussion in the past few days. After the director general Mechanised Infantry, Lt-Gen Dalip Bharadwaj, was quoted in the media saying that the Army would not buy more than 124 Arjun tanks, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has reportedly told defence minister A.K. Antony that at least 500 such tanks should be manufactured and inducted.

Senior functionaries of the DRDO have briefed the minister that capacity exists to manufacturing 500 tanks at the Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi. The Army is to decide on it next set of requirements. The balance is tilted in favour of the Russian tank T-90.

Rather the DRDO has informed that 70 tanks are ready for delivery at the Avadi plant and the Army contracted number of 124 tanks would be met in the next six months. Hundreds of crores of rupees have been invested in building capacities at the Avadi plant and more tanks should be purchased. Since the tanks have shaped up very well in the just concluded summer trials there is no reason why more should not be inducted, the DRDO is learnt to have told Antony in the past few days.

Notably, the DRDO’s claim that Arjun was a good tank has been buffered by a personal letter, written by the retired Lieutenant General to the defence minister. The Chandigarh-based former Army officer has alleged that the Army was opposing the Arjun tank, as most of the top brass of the Army did not have much experience in a tank battles.

Sources said the DRDO had reacted sharply to the Army officers assertion in the media on the status of the Arjun tank and briefed the defence minister. Rather a note is being put up by the DRDO on how the tanks fared in the just concluded trials and how new systems and technologies have been incorporated. Five discrepancies had been pointed out during the winter trials in 2007 that were about the gearbox, the firing accuracy and quality control over some equipment.

It may be mentioned that the DRDO has been gunning for comparative trial between the Arjun and the Russian made T-90 tanks.

The defence minister and the ministry of defence officials are keen that such comparison be conducted. The DRDO has also reportedly informed the minister that Arjun is a contemporary tank and is far superior to T-54, T-55 and T-72 tanks used by the Army in the past.

 

[tatra]

Yes - either way if it is a two piece 152mm or a one piece 140mm cartridge they will be rather large, but a two piece 152mm cartridge is just way too large for vehicle load out, the propellant case is over a meter in length alone not counting the projectile casing that will measure a meter in length also, that doesn`t give you a whole lot of room inregards to vehicle stowage. It has pretty much been decided that when the U.S goes to the dual caliber system that it will have a auto loader in place, this will also include the M1A3 while retaining 4 crewmembers.

Uhm, so how come 152 and 155 mm SPGHs do manage to work this? They too have ammunition on board (e.g. PzH2000: magazine holds 60 rounds + charges. G-6 SPGH holds 45 projectiles and 50 charges. MSTA-S 2S19 152mm SPH has 50 rounds of ammunition onboard). A case for the 2 piece round?

 

[kato]

PzH2000: magazine holds 60 rounds + charges.

The PzH 2000 is huge though - hull sized like a MBT but with forward engine and minimal armour, turret makes it 3.5m (!) high, turret bustle is afaik a bit wider than on a MBT.

 

[eckherl]

Uhm, so how come 152 and 155 mm SPGHs do manage to work this? They too have ammunition on board (e.g. PzH2000: magazine holds 60 rounds + charges. G-6 SPGH holds 45 projectiles and 50 charges. MSTA-S 2S19 152mm SPH has 50 rounds of ammunition onboard). A case for the 2 piece round?

As Kato stated, a SPH is huge on the inside versus a MBT that is crammed with all kinds of FCS systems and other gizmos to support it as a direct fire weapons platform versus a SPH which is primarily used for indirect fire. Also howitzer guns use different types of propellants for their charges versus a MBT main gun projectile that is designed for some major muzzle velocity which is needed for target penetration when firing KE projectiles. This is one reason why we did not field a APFSDS on U.S 152mm equipped tanks. The bugger of this is that we may see the Russians abandon 2 piece tank projectiles altogether when they go to a bigger gun, they do have dis - advantages versus one piece.

 

[Chrom]

155mm is of course not serious, but 135mm is real possibility here - at least, in medium terms.

Regarding T-95 - seems no one knows what it really is and which feature it will include. Will be a big disappointment if it turns out to be something like a Black Eagle - i.e. slightly upgraded in western style T-90.

 

[Feanor]

Again Black Eagle was not a minor upgrade. It was a whole new tank design and a major step forward. Apparently a new tank is in development and is due to enter the armed forces in 2010. However no mention of the supposed public debut that was to happent this year.

http://newsru.com/russia/10jul2008/24hours_t90.html

 

[DavidDCM]

Sorry to disrupt your vivd discussion, but there are news about the Arjun and they're not good:
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw080710_1_n.shtml

 

[eckherl]

Sorry to disrupt your vivd discussion, but there are news about the Arjun and they're not good:
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw080710_1_n.shtml

I doubt it, this very well may be out of their hands and they will be forced to purchase additional units. The drama continues and we will just have to see what next week will bring us.

 

[eckherl]

155mm is of course not serious, but 135mm is real possibility here - at least, in medium terms.

Regarding T-95 - seems no one knows what it really is and which feature it will include. Will be a big disappointment if it turns out to be something like a Black Eagle - i.e. slightly upgraded in western style T-90.

I don`t know Chrom, Black Eagle turret and hull modifications may be a good thing for all those older T-80`s sitting around. Could be a cost issue though.

 

[Chrom]

I don`t know Chrom, Black Eagle turret and hull modifications may be a good thing for all those older T-80`s sitting around. Could be a cost issue though.

Developing and building completely new tank just to copy/catch current western tanks, conceptually developed 25 years ago - is a big disappointment for russian industry, which was always very innovative and ahead in tank development.

I dont see much sense to buy such such tank in any significant numbers for russian army.

I also dont see much sense to upgrade older T-80/T64/T-72 with such new turret. It will be completely cost ineffective.

 

[Feanor]

The upgrade idea has apparently been scrapped. It's now all about the T-90 and "the new tank". Sorry to take this off topic, but given the history, Russian tank development will certainly have a big influence on India procurement.

 

[eckherl]

The upgrade idea has apparently been scrapped. It's now all about the T-90 and "the new tank". Sorry to take this off topic, but given the history, Russian tank development will certainly have a big influence on India procurement.

Yes, as I stated a few prior posts that the Black Eagle is a no go, doesn`t mean though that the decision cannot be reversed. But, as I have to agree with Chrom that the cost could be way to high for justification.

With the world arms market pretty much opened up India does not soley have to rely on Russian tactical vehicle technologies for a advanced MBT or other fighting vehicles, we cannot discount India`s rising economy either, this will give them the freedom to pull from eastern and western technologies on pretty much anything that they want to do.

 

[kams]

Do you guys think FMBT (Western/Eastern) will incorporate capability to engage multiple targets simultaneously, instead of sequentially?

 

[Chrom]

Do you guys think FMBT (Western/Eastern) will incorporate capability to engage multiple targets simultaneously, instead of sequentially?

Very possible. However, i think battle network which would allow any vehicle attack own, distributed by network target, cooperative acquire and distribute targets - looks much more promising and doesnt require bulky and expencive multi-channel FCS and weapon.

 

[Waylander]

Simultaneously?
I would think that future ATGM carrier might be able to do this. With a tank carrying a gun? No way. One can only shoot one per gun. Faster engagement times with better autoloaders and computer supported target aquisition are defenitely possible, though.

 

[kams]

Simultaneously?
I would think that future ATGM carrier might be able to do this. With a tank carrying a gun? No way. One can only shoot one per gun. Faster engagement times with better autoloaders and computer supported target aquisition are defenitely possible, though.

Sorry I wasn't clear. A tank with externally mounted 4-6 ATGM along with main gun, networked to BFSR, UAV, other tank and Infantry.

Reason I asked is, I remember reading an article published in Armour some years back projecting evolution of MBT. It's another matter that the article projected US Armed forces to start inducting such tanks in 2008!