Arjun Main Battle Tank (Mk-1 & Mk-2)

Himanshu

Senior member
Dec 3, 2017
912
1,508
New Delhi
indopacfront.blogspot.com
CVRDE issues EoI to manufacture turbocharger for 1500 hp diesel engine. Also,
screencapture-file-C-Users-himku-Downloads-ptmp137410-work_393289-RFP-pdf-2018-08-25-18_27_01.png


Ashok Leyland will collaborate with CVRDE for manufacture, assembly and testing of lightweight clutch for the design and development of weight optimised 1,500 hp automatic transmission for main battle tanks.

Ashok Leyland wins tender for defence tracked combat vehicles; makes foray into niche segment - Firstpost
 

Himanshu

Senior member
Dec 3, 2017
912
1,508
New Delhi
indopacfront.blogspot.com
RInfra to deliver parts prototypes for Arjun Mark II ahead of schedule

Reliance Infra is planning to deliver prototypes of the hull and turret for the Arjun Mark II main battle tank (MBT) to the Combat Vehicle Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE) six month ahead of the deadline. The prototypes are being manufactured at the company’s facility in Silvassa.

RInfra had won the contract to manufacture the prototypes in 2017 through a competitive bidding process. Other bidders included L&T, Bharat Forge, the Mahindras and Godrej.

“We are ready to deliver the hull and turret for the Arjun Mark II MBT six months ahead of schedule,” a Reliance spokesperson told BusinessLine. “This is amongst the first such projects to be awarded to the private sector in India, with the longer-term objective of creating alternative capacities and capabilities.”

The CVRDE has been looking to scale up the manufacturing capacity of Arjun tanks to meet the Army’s requirements. Private sector players were hence considered as an alternative supply line in addition to the Ordnance Factory Board, which has so far been the sole supplier of indigenous components for the MBTs.

Without disclosing the details and size of the CVRDE order bagged by RInfra, sources said the company is targeting an overall opportunity of ₹2,500 crore once mass production starts.

The Defence Acquisition Council gave the green signal for the ₹6,600-crore procurement of 118 Arjun Mark II MBTs to equip two regiments back in 2014. This will be in addition to an earlier order for 124 Arjun Mark I tanks currently manufactured by state-owned Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi, Chennai.

The Mark II version developed by the CVRDE was based on the Army’s recommendations following comparative trials of the Arjun Mark I and Russia’s T-90.

Indigenous components
One of the main requirements, according to experts, was to reduce the weight of the tank as well as incorporate an anti-tank missile firing capability. The weight of Mark II has been reduced to less than 50 tonnes. The updated model has over 90 improvements over the previous version. Also, it largely relies on indigenous components.


If its below 50 tonnes then CVRDE wouldn't have been looking for 70 tonne trailer for arjun mk-2.
 

Angel Eyes

Active member
Dec 1, 2017
199
117
Top of the world
RInfra to deliver parts prototypes for Arjun Mark II ahead of schedule

Reliance Infra is planning to deliver prototypes of the hull and turret for the Arjun Mark II main battle tank (MBT) to the Combat Vehicle Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE) six month ahead of the deadline. The prototypes are being manufactured at the company’s facility in Silvassa.

RInfra had won the contract to manufacture the prototypes in 2017 through a competitive bidding process. Other bidders included L&T, Bharat Forge, the Mahindras and Godrej.

“We are ready to deliver the hull and turret for the Arjun Mark II MBT six months ahead of schedule,” a Reliance spokesperson told BusinessLine. “This is amongst the first such projects to be awarded to the private sector in India, with the longer-term objective of creating alternative capacities and capabilities.”

The CVRDE has been looking to scale up the manufacturing capacity of Arjun tanks to meet the Army’s requirements. Private sector players were hence considered as an alternative supply line in addition to the Ordnance Factory Board, which has so far been the sole supplier of indigenous components for the MBTs.

Without disclosing the details and size of the CVRDE order bagged by RInfra, sources said the company is targeting an overall opportunity of ₹2,500 crore once mass production starts.

The Defence Acquisition Council gave the green signal for the ₹6,600-crore procurement of 118 Arjun Mark II MBTs to equip two regiments back in 2014. This will be in addition to an earlier order for 124 Arjun Mark I tanks currently manufactured by state-owned Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi, Chennai.

The Mark II version developed by the CVRDE was based on the Army’s recommendations following comparative trials of the Arjun Mark I and Russia’s T-90.

Indigenous components
One of the main requirements, according to experts, was to reduce the weight of the tank as well as incorporate an anti-tank missile firing capability. The weight of Mark II has been reduced to less than 50 tonnes. The updated model has over 90 improvements over the previous version. Also, it largely relies on indigenous components.


If its below 50 tonnes then CVRDE wouldn't have been looking for 70 tonne trailer for arjun mk-2.
From 68 tonnes to 50 tonnes does'nt seems feasible.
 

Bon Plan

Senior member
Dec 1, 2017
2,449
1,116
France
From 68 tonnes to 50 tonnes does'nt seems feasible.
only with a complete modification of the armour.
A modern armor is made of differents layers of steel/uranium/glass/glass fiber/Kevlar/rubber/ceramic.... (not all together !)
Maybe you can remove one layer and let a free space instead... or replace a high weight steel or uranium layer (not all of course) by a lower weight material.
Maybe you can decide to reduce the protection in one part of the MBT.
Maybe a new engine + transmission help to reduce the weight.

But it's impressive. Too impressive to be true?
 
Last edited:

Himanshu

Senior member
Dec 3, 2017
912
1,508
New Delhi
indopacfront.blogspot.com
only with a complete modification of the armour.
A modern armor is made of differents layers of steel/uranium/glass/glass fiber/Kevlar/rubber/ceramic.... (not all together !)
Maybe you can remove one layer and let a free space instead... or replace a high weight steel or uranium layer (not all of course) by a lower weight material.
Maybe you can decide to reduce the protection in one part of the MBT.
Maybe a new engine + transmission help to reduce the weight.

But it's impressive. Too impressive to be true?

Armour is the key characteristic of arjun and i don't think DRDO will compromise there. I was expecting final reduced weight btw 58-60 tonnes, that much reduction will need some design change i believe. Also, T-90MS weigh 48 tonnes, so we could same trailer no need for new one then. Leopard 2A6 weigh 63 tonne and they have trailer capable of carrying 70-73 tonne, should be same for arjun also.
 

Bharath

Technical Staff
Dec 1, 2017
791
999
Boston
somehow I think the Media over compensates the achievement of DRDO / HAL other institutes, and raises our hopes so high that when the actual product comes out, even though its "good" we dont like it any more. Weight reduction from 65+ to 50 tonnes is not just impressive - it feels like some armor would have been compromised.

then again, this report is not from any official defense research group - so take it with a grain of salt?
 

Ashwin

Agent_47
Staff member
Administrator
Nov 30, 2017
5,467
9,069
Bangalore
Indigenous components
One of the main requirements, according to experts, was to reduce the weight of the tank as well as incorporate an anti-tank missile firing capability. The weight of Mark II has been reduced to less than 50 tonnes. The updated model has over 90 improvements over the previous version. Also, it largely relies on indigenous components.
Bad reporting, nothing else.
 

Arpit

Vox Populi
Nov 30, 2017
307
282
Delhi
Hogwash. Nothing which addresses the critical deficiencies in field.
TRISHUL: What's Wrong With The T-90S MBT's Fire-Control System?

this was a critical deficiency? Might be a partial deficiency, as it was in T-90.
: Kindly allow me to be more specific. The T-90S brochure from Uralvagonzavod states that the commander's sight offers a "semi-panoramic view of the terrain through sight by the commander". In addition, a quick glance of the T-90S MBT's photo clearly shows the limited independent traverse of the commander's sight (burdened as it is by the anti-aircraft gun. Consequently, the sight cannnot be rotated 360 degrees, unlike a panoramic sight that can be.
Secondly, to say that a replacement commander's panoramic sight be retrofitted within the T-90S as a simple 'drop-in installation' without any kind of structural/electrical modifications is, to say the least, oversimplifying the challenges involved in carry out such retrofits. Had you taken a first-hand look inside the turret and spoken to personnel from the Russian Army's Armoured Warfare Directorate (who usually accompany Uralvagonzavod JSC marketing officials in defence expos around the world), you would not have undulged in such oversimplifications.
Thirdly, you're right, I meant it as the automatic muzzle reference system. But here again, the T-90S' system is officially stated as being a "built-in boresighting device, which allows to boresight the gun with the sight with the crew not leaving the tank, enhances fire-accuracy and reduces boresighting time to one minute".
Fourthly, the gun-control system's stabiliser element--comprising a two-axis system with electro-mechanical power traverse and electro-hydraulic power elevation—isn’t quite the same as those to be found on the likes of the Leopard 2A6, Merkava Mk4 or Leclerc—all of which feature a digital servo gun turret drive stabilisation system, employed for isolating the gun platform from the effects of vehicle pitch, roll, yaw and jolt as the MBT manouevres and fires at the same time. Additionally, the gun-laying drives are electric powered for high precision first-round hit probability. By the way, all these upgradations will be incorporated into the Singaporean Leopard 2A4 MBTs as part of a pre-planned product improvement plan.
Fifthly, making provision for according space for future pre-planned (or pre-envisaged) product improvements does not translate into “dragging around empty space inside that serves no purpose but to provide room for these hypothetical enhancements”. All leading MBTs of non-Soviet/non-Russian origin have incorporated such design features since the mid-1970s. It may have been a ‘funny’ design philosophy when viewed by post-World War II Soviet MBT designers, but it most definitely was not for Western MBT designers of the same era.
In conclusion, I entirely agree with you about the need to look for ways to address specific shortcomings, and as far as I’m concerned, the best way to do this is make a distinct choice between either acquiring an MBT that wholeheartedly embraces a hit survivability design philosophy (as is the case with the Arjun Mk1, Leopard 2, M-1 Abrams, Merkava 4, Challenger 2 and Leclerc), or procuring MBTs that wholeheartedly embrace a hit avoidance design philosophy (as is the case with the T-72, T-80 and T-90 MBT families). For me, the former is a far better option, no matter what the cost.

There are a number of reasons why the radical modification of the T-90S (mind you, not the latest T-90M which the Army is also acquiring), especially the turret interior, could well be impossible. The foremost challenge lies in having adequate space for accommodating a panoramic commander's sight (with its built-in thermal imager) along with the battlespace management system, and then doing the impossible: catering to the extra battery power reqmts (by figuring out how exactly to accommodate such batteries and where) andinstalling the related wiring and harnesses. In fact, this was the most difficult issue to solve when it came to fitting the THALES-supplied Catherine-FC thermal imagers as part of the gunner's sight. Therefore, unless the turret volume of the T-90S is increased (like what has been done with the T-90M), the installation of a functional commander's panoramic sight in an existing T-90S is a VERY BAD & UNACHIEVABLE IDEA.
There are other operational shortcomings of the existing T-90S as well, all of which tend to dramatically reduce the MBT's first-round hit probability. Firstly, it does not have a muzzle reference system. Secondly, its gun-control system is more or less the same as that of the T-72 and T-80. The most critical element is the gun-control system's turret traverse and turret stabilisation units. These ought to be electrically-powered (instead of the existing electro-hydraulic system in place). While the DRDO has already demonstrated such current-generation systems with the Abhay ICV and is on course to introduce them in the Arjun Mk2 MBT as well, in the case of the T-90S, the absence of such systems once again affects the MBT's first-round hit-probability.
As opposed to all this, the Arjun Mk1 MBT's internal turret volume has adequate space for future growth enhancements (by the way the same goes for the Al Khalid MBT's turret as well). The hull has enought space to cater to the enhanced electrical power requirements for both the gunner's sight and commander's panoramic sight, and the turret has enough space to accommodate the battlespace management system and its related radio/comms units, plus two thermal imaging cameras and their related cryogenic cooling elements for the gunner's sight and commander's panoramic sight. As to who the potential suppliers for such thermal imagers will be, there are only two vendors: THALES and SAGEM, both from France, and both of whom have already supplied such thermal imagers for both the Al Khalid MBT and the Arjun Mk1 MBT.

In hunter-killer fire-control systems as those on board the Merkava-4, Challenger 2, M-1A2 Abrams, Leopard 2A6 and the Leclerc, it is the commander's panoramic sight that is responsoble for target acquisition, target tracking and target designation. Only after the MBT commander completes these three tasks is the engagement phase undertaken by the gunner. In other words, while the commander's sight does three separate but sequential functions, the gunner's sight performs only one function. While all four processes are smoothly conducted by the Arjun Mk1 MBT's hunter-killer fire-control system, this is not the case with the upgraded T-72M1 CIA and T-90S MBTs for the simple reason that neither of these two MBTs have a panoramic commander's sight (they have a 'semi-panoramic' sight). This in turn prevents the MBT commander from looking around the MBT's periphery searching for targets. Instead, the entire turret has to be traversed (moved around) to look for targets and once they're acquired, the turret stays fixated in the direct of the target so that the fixed gunner's sight can complete the target engagement process. This results is valuable time being lost, with the MBT commander unable to search for new targets that may be lurking outsight the field-of-view of the gunner's sight. While it is true that installation of two separate thermal imagers on the commander's panoramic sight and gunner's sight dramatically increases the cost of the fire-control system, it is nevertheless regarded as an imperative in today's battlespace as it enables one to achieve the vital 'first to acquire & first to kill' capability, not to mention increased survivability of MBTs equipped with dual thermal imagers.

I dont know how IA planning to fight with latest gen Al Khalid-2 which hold superior FCS than T-90S,, but as T-90 is demigod we achieve anything. And if we match with Israeli standards, Israeli had such FCS in Mk 2B. LoL. And here we talking about Arjun deficiencies. This boggles my mind. But again as Venom movie is released, T-90 cover itself in black venom and kill anything.

And if people still unable to tell the difference in

with this


Then god save us. But these are just partial deficiencies.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Hellfire and Ashwin

Himanshu

Senior member
Dec 3, 2017
912
1,508
New Delhi
indopacfront.blogspot.com
Upgraded Arjun tank on trial

An upgraded version of the Arjun tanks that has better firing and mobility is presently undergoing validation trials. ‘Arjun Mark 1A’ was being validated at trials, the Parliament was informed this week. This was the first official confirmation and the ‘Mark 1A’ will be an a additional version of the tank till ‘Mark 2’ version, which is somewhat lighter in weight, is readied, okayed and accepted.
Sources said it was a significant development as it showed that the Ministry of Defence was ready to keep on improving the tank, be it the addition of more power or reducing its weight.

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and the Indian Army had, in the first half of this year, agreed on accepting the new version. In all, the Army is looking to have 118 pieces. A total of 93 modifications have been done over the first version of Arjun, 124 of which were inducted in 2010-11.
Sources said the Army was okay with the tank, but wanted it to be lighter than its present weight of 68 tonne. Most modern European tanks are of the same weight and tank-transporters (specialised trucks) for Arjun are available to ferry it.

The ‘Mark 2’ will have to be lighter by some 3 tonne and be in the range of 65 tonne. This may require some modification in the hull of the tank for the final contours to emerge.

As part of the arrangement with the Army, the DRDO has promised to set up a system to maintain the Arjuns within India. It will be an annual maintenance contract with the Bharat Earth Movers Limited as a possible agency.

The tanks, as part of the trials, had already done some 4,000 km of run and only the upgrades were being tested now, said sources.
 

Himanshu

Senior member
Dec 3, 2017
912
1,508
New Delhi
indopacfront.blogspot.com
So basically 124 mk-1(58 tonne), 118 mk-1A(68 tonne) and later mk-2(62 tonne) will be ordered.

With FRCV delayed to 2040s looks like arjun mk-2 will be ordered in bulk. Maybe its a new design with HNS steel, weight optimised hull, turret, 1500 hp engine, tyres, composite hatches etc. Here is what the 70T trailer for mk-2 in development by DRDO.

Drawing.jpeg