Arjun Tank News Thread

In 2007 the Arjun tank was fielded during the Ashwamedha exercise in the deserts of Rajasthan.[42] The army was extremely unhappy with the tank, citing 14 defects that included "deficient fire control system", "inaccuracy of its guns", "low speeds in tactical areas" and "inability to operate over 50 degrees Celsius".[43] "The Army is now faced with a troubling prospect: inducting a lumbering, misfiring, vintage design tank like the Arjun, and that, too, in large numbers".[41] This, after DRDO over-shot Arjun’s project deadline by 16 years — from 1984 to 1995, finally closing the project only in 2000 — and the cost over-run is almost 20 times the original estimate. This is the highest percentage over-run for any DRDO project.[4

The gunnery solution and driving solution is 1 generation ahead for Arjun. vs T-90.
But this does not mean They are not up to mark in T-90 ( assuming driving and gunnery solution to be not upto the mark would be incorrect)
- TI has similar range and are of same generation.

Arjun Driving Points: 10
T-90 Driving Points: 8

Arjun Gunnery Solution: 10
T-90 Gunnery Solution: 8

Arjun TI: 10
T-90 TI: 10

Arjun Missile firing: 0
T-90 Missile Firing: 10

Arjun Protection Armour: 8
T-90 Protection Armour: 10

Arjun Crew Comfort: 8
T-90 Crew Comfort: 5

Arjun Maintainence: 6
T90 MAintainence: 10

Arjun APU(silent ops): 10
T-90 APU(silent ops): 0

Arjun Silhouette: 8
T-90 Silhouette:10

Arjun FCS: 10
T-90 FCS: 9

1 ) The commander/driver on a T-90 is a roast if its hit , Arjun has
blow up panel and ammos are stored seperately preventing spontanous
combustion when hit.

2 ) T-90 is a small tank and lacks space for growth compared to the Western heavy Arjun

3 ) Big tank like Chally,Abrams,Arjun provide better crew comfort and better protection due to heavy armour

4 ) Lacks proper cooling and electronic gets heated often in heat of
Rajasthan desert , which will be the place where the great tank battle
will take place.

Saturday, January 9, 2010 New tank conditioner
The new compact conditioner for tanks, armored and civilian vehicles was developed in Russia. It used Peltier effect: thermoelectric cooling, based on creating a heat flux between the junction of two different types of materials. The most problem successfully solved was effectiveness of the Peltier modules. It's all solid state freon-free device, without any negative effect on ozone layer and global warming.
Also it's very compact and stress-withstanding. Unlike current models it can be installed inside the Russian MBT tank T-90A. However, the more probable target for the new conditioner installation is 'Burlak' - the modernized version of T-90 tank currently over the tests. It could be installed on the export version T-90S or T-90M instead of the external conditioner, which can be seen on the Algerian and Libian T-90s.
Naturally the Russian Future MBT, which published name is T-95, would be equipped with a conditioner based on the same principles, if the program succeeds.

5 ) Lacks the long rod ammo to penetrate western heavy ( ofcourse T-90M may have it )

6 ) All in All T-90 is a bad tank compared to Arjun and is a older design.

Russians (being Russian) have always preferred their Main Battle Tanks to be smaller than contemporary Western designs.

1. Protection - A Smaller tank will usually mean lighter or less
armor. In the case of the T-90, a stripped T-90 v.s. a stripped M1A2
Abrams, the Abrams has a thicker LOS Glacis, which would mean that the
Abrams would have a better protected hull. To compensate for this of
course, T-90s have Kontakt-5/Kaktus/Relikt ERA.

2. Crew comfort and Survivability - A Smaller tank will mean a more
cramped tank. However, there are only 3 persons in a T-90 anyways.
Survivability wise, a larger tank based around Western doctrine would
usually produce a higher survivability rate, if blow out panels and
blast shields are in place.

Personally, I never liked that argument that Western designs are slow,
fat, and big rocks while Russian designs were basically Eagles with
guns. An Abrams will not surpass a T-90 on a drag race nor will an
Abrams out turn a T-90 in a Formula 1 race, but that's not the point. In
retrospect, the doctrine of high maneuverability was formulated to
battle Tiger I tanks back in WW2, but those Tigers have only evolved
into Abrams, Challengers, and Leopards, which have admittedly less
maneuverability than that of Russian tanks but more than enough to get
the job done.

T-90M does in fact have it. The Welded turret was done so that
elongated ammo such as the BM-42 can be used (which has an estimate of
650 mm of RHAe perforation at 2 km). If one were to be foolish and
looked Wikipedia, they'd see that the Abrams has about a 900 mm RHAe
equivalency v.s. KE. This is true, but that is only the protection level
from the Abram's front turret. the Glacis of the Abrams is only about
600 mm RHAe v.s. KE at best and 560 mm at worst. In theory, a T-90's
APFSDS round should perforate that easily.

Well there is also a belief that in recent Arjun vs T-90 trials that was
held recently , Arjun defeated T's comprehensively , although there is
no single official word on it just hearsay and bloggers opinion.

But considering the T-95 tanks which was suppose to superceed T-90 is of
a heavier class , the Soviets were considering moving to heavy tank but
one prototype wouldnt say every thing about the tank or if its a final
design.

1. Protection - A Smaller tank will usually mean lighter or less
armor. In the case of the T-90, a stripped T-90 v.s. a stripped M1A2
Abrams, the Abrams has a thicker LOS Glacis, which would mean that the
Abrams would have a better protected hull. To compensate for this of
course, T-90s have Kontakt-5/Kaktus/Relikt ERA.

I disagree here. A smaller tank could easily be fitted with armour the same thickness as the M1 Abrams so a smaller tank does not necessarily mean lighter or less well armoured.

To put it in simpler terms if the only weapons were pistols, assault rifles, machineguns and heavy machineguns then your armour should not be compared with your enemies armour, it should be compared with your enemies weapons.
For instance having the same level of armour protection as the other guy doesn't help if his HMG is a 14.5mm weapon and your armour protects you from 12.7mm ammo only. That would mean both of you are protected from all your weapons but you aren't protected from his most powerful weapon.

What I am getting at is that the Russians have gone for lighter and smarter, so instead of putting armour as thick as that used by the US on the Abrams they have made it almost as thick and also put ERA on it... and EO jammers like SHTORA, and they are working on active defence systems as well... DRODZ was tested in Afghanistan in the 1980s for example.

2. Crew comfort and Survivability - A Smaller tank will mean a more
cramped tank. However, there are only 3 persons in a T-90 anyways.
Survivability wise, a larger tank based around Western doctrine would
usually produce a higher survivability rate, if blow out panels and
blast shields are in place.

And here we disagree again... having lots and lots of space inside a tank does not make it more or less comfortable.
The separation of ammo and fuel from the crew compartment is very important but again has nothing to do with size as shown by the T-90M upgrade which separates the crew and ammo without making the tank taller.

Personally, I never liked that argument that Western designs are slow,
fat, and big rocks while Russian designs were basically Eagles with
guns. An Abrams will not surpass a T-90 on a drag race nor will an
Abrams out turn a T-90 in a Formula 1 race, but that's not the point. In
retrospect, the doctrine of high maneuverability was formulated to
battle Tiger I tanks back in WW2, but those Tigers have only evolved
into Abrams, Challengers, and Leopards, which have admittedly less
maneuverability than that of Russian tanks but more than enough to get
the job done.

Soviet experience during WWII... remember with the KV-1 they had experience with big slow tanks and found mixed units of tanks resulted in the T-34s arriving first, T-26 light tanks arriving next and being wiped out, and KV-1s arriving last if at all.
They put an 85mm gun in the KV and then put the same gun in the T-34 and realised that there was no great advantage to a slow heavy tank with a good gun over a smaller lighter faster easier to produce tank with a good gun so they started looking at huge guns to put in the KV.

T-90M does in fact have it. The Welded turret was done so that
elongated ammo such as the BM-42 can be used (which has an estimate of
650 mm of RHAe perforation at 2 km). If one were to be foolish and
looked Wikipedia, they'd see that the Abrams has about a 900 mm RHAe
equivalency v.s. KE. This is true, but that is only the protection level
from the Abram's front turret. the Glacis of the Abrams is only about
600 mm RHAe v.s. KE at best and 560 mm at worst. In theory, a T-90's
APFSDS round should perforate that easily.

And just as importantly the best armour on any tank is in its front 60 degrees... the simple matter of putting some "mine" signs to make the tanks turn and approach from a different direction presents thin side armour... and most importantly in Guerilla warfare the most common attack is from the side or rear anyway which completely negates the advantage of an enormous weight of heavy frontal armour.

GarryB wrote:This problem has been recognised... and is shared by many modern tanks... including the Leopard and Challanger tanks.
Immediate solution is not to carry loose ammo in the crew compartment areas which limits the tank to 22 ready to use rounds in the armoured autoloader. The turret bustle autoloader of the T-90 upgrade will add 30 rounds which are seperate from the crew and also ready to use.

Smaller targets are easier to hide and harder to hit. When more room is needed it can be created as shown with the reshaped turret design of the upgraded T-90 with more space for electronics.

A bigger tank by definition will require a lot more armour for a lower level of overall protection. It is basic physics that if you make a box bigger then if it offers the same thickness of protection then it will have to be much heavier.

Must be a terrible tank because the Indian Army keeps buying them and putting them in service...

Or it might not be a bad tank, just not a great tank, and offer potentially good commonality with existing T-72s already in Indian service with an upgrade path to make it every bit as good as the bigger, heavier and more expensive Arjun.

Not quite... they haven't looked at western designs and decided to make them smaller... they have gone with the premise that a smaller tank is harder to hit and that a low small lighter tank is better most of the time than a big tall heavier tank.

Austin wrote:

GarryB wrote:This problem has been recognised... and is shared by many modern tanks... including the Leopard and Challanger tanks.
Immediate solution is not to carry loose ammo in the crew compartment areas which limits the tank to 22 ready to use rounds in the armoured autoloader. The turret bustle autoloader of the T-90 upgrade will add 30 rounds which are seperate from the crew and also ready to use.

So do you mean Chally and Leopard carry loose ammo and they do not have blow off panel and no seperation of ammo and crew.

From what I have read this problem is distinct to T's and hence the view that the crew of T's would be roasted.

Smaller targets are easier to hide and harder to hit. When more room is needed it can be created as shown with the reshaped turret design of the upgraded T-90 with more space for electronics.

Yes you can redesign the turret and make it roomy but what about the chasis , a bigger chasis affords better space in every respect.

A redesigned Turret like T-90M also means you add weight and that means they need to go for higher HP engine , from what I have read the T-90M has a 1200HP engine.

A bigger tank by definition will require a lot more armour for a lower level of overall protection. It is basic physics that if you make a box bigger then if it offers the same thickness of protection then it will have to be much heavier.

Not always the case a bigger tank with better over all protection will mean higher HP engine to afford the same mobility with better protection.

Must be a terrible tank because the Indian Army keeps buying them and putting them in service...

Or it might not be a bad tank, just not a great tank, and offer potentially good commonality with existing T-72s already in Indian service with an upgrade path to make it every bit as good as the bigger, heavier and more expensive Arjun.

Not really the IA really likes the T series and has been cautious and conservative in adopting heavy tank.

Probably that is quite understandable , the only place where a tank warfare will ever occur will be Indo-Pak border , the bridges and other infrastructure will be be in a position to support a heavy 55 - 60 T tank , which means the IA might need its own logistics , mobile BLT etc to transport it across.

Remember even pakistan does not operate heavy tank and it just operated the most modern T-80UD and similar series 40 plus T tank.

Ofcourse there are lobbies in Government circle that would want to push Arjun since its a home made product , DRDO has been aggresively pushing Arjun claiming its the best tank etc

But considering the big number of T-55,T-72 that IA is operating , the T-90 likely number of 1600 Tanks , the T series will be spear heading the IA frontline tank for the next 20-25 years.

There is the new 40T FMBT under development , so with all things of DRDO project you can expect delays and most likely it will come out after 2020.

Not quite... they haven't looked at western designs and decided to make them smaller... they have gone with the premise that a smaller tank is harder to hit and that a low small lighter tank is better most of the time than a big tall heavier tank.

A counter argument i can present with Arjun tank specs of silhouette

T-90 ht - 2.23 metres (7 ft 4 in)
Arjun ht - 2.32 metres (7 ft 7 in)

And ground pressure is 0.84 and power/weight ratio of 24

Check this interesting comparision table of Arjun with other heavy tank by DRDO

Main Battle Tank Comparision

Can some one tell me what does those 2 Drums on the back of the tank carry in the new T-90M ?

A bigger tank by definition will require a lot more armour for a lower level of overall protection. It is basic physics that if you make a box bigger then if it offers the same thickness of protection then it will have to be much heavier.

The difference between the Russian manifestation of "Smarter" protection
(i.e. Heavy ERA), is that they are not as effective when faced with
contemporary weapons.

For example, Relikt ERA, even with it's thicker Front plate, will not
stop a Tandem heat charge from say, a TOW (TOW's precursor charge is
more than enough to perforate and destroy Relikt ERA).

When it's all said and done, that so and so tonnes of "Smart" armor
could always be incorporated into an Abrams or a Leo 2A6, which would
only beef them up more. But I'm quite sure you can't stack ERA on top of
each other.

But one only needs to look into the Hulls of a big Western tank v.s. a
Smaller Russian tank to see the volume difference, even when loaded.

You are going to see tanks stuck in mud but you aren't going to see a
T-90 running circles around an Abrams and the Abrams struggling to match
the turret's rotation with the T-90's turns.

So do you mean Chally and Leopard carry loose ammo and they do not have blow off panel and no seperation of ammo and crew.

From what I have read this problem is distinct to T's and hence the view that the crew of T's would be roasted.

Yes you can redesign the turret and make it roomy but what about the
chasis , a bigger chasis affords better space in every respect.

Not always the case a bigger tank with better over all protection will
mean higher HP engine to afford the same mobility with better
protection.

There is the new 40T FMBT under development , so with all things of DRDO
project you can expect delays and most likely it will come out after
2020.

Can some one tell me what does those 2 Drums on the back of the tank carry in the new T-90M ?

A counter argument i can present with Arjun tank specs of silhouette

This is not always the case as Tanks of nowadays are not as "well rounded" as they were in say, WW2.

An example of this would be the T-72.

The
T-72 has about a 300 mm LOS thickness for the Glacis. For comparison,
Tiger 1 tanks of Germany had 100 mm of LOS thickness for their Glacis.
However, the side of the T-72 has only about 60 mm of LOS thickness and
the rear of it has only 40 mm, this is compared to the 80 mm on the
sides and the rear of the Tiger 1. So it's obvious that not only has the
levels of protection changed, but also where it's prioritized.

Those 2 drums are still fuel tanks.

They also serve as impromptu stand-off applique armor.

medo wrote:I really doubt, that Arjun is any better tank than T-90. I don't think it have any better armor, FCS, gun, mobility, ... On the other hand if we consider the quality of Indian made Mig-21 planes which have very high rate of crashes, than I wouldn't like to be in Arjun tank in actual battle.

This is what he said when I asked him to compare Arjun vs T-90

Arjun MkI is in the process of being a world class tank.
- The driving and the gunnery solution is the real edge or main points of ARJUN.

Driving solution i mean:
- Providing a steering instead of sticks.
- Driver reaction time is faster.
- Driver training is easier.
- Less fatigue in driving it. (as lesser hand, leg and eye coordination)
- very forgiving for lesser trained crews.

Gunnery Solution:
- Giving a joy stick for turret control/ movement.
- Joystick based controls for laser and firing.
- This leads to better hand eye coordination and little forgiving for lesser trained crews.

from my point of view these two are the main plus point of ARJUN MkI

Quantum Leap
Arjun Mk2 will be more expensive with higher import content than its predecessor
By Prasun K. Sengupta



For all intents and purposes, the Arjun Mk2 main battle tank (MBT) — currently under development since mid-2007, will be more expensive and have a higher imported content than its predecessor, the Arjun Mk1. But in terms of mobility, protection and firepower, the Mk2 variant will come closest to what Indian Army HQ wants: an MBT with highly enhanced crew protection and maximum survivability in high-intensity, fire-saturated combat environments. To achieve this, the Defence Research and Development Organisation’s (DRDO) Avadi-based Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE) has roped in both Israel Military Industries (IMI) and Elbit Systems of Israel, with the former being responsible for improving the existing Arjun Mk1’s design plus mobility and fuel consumption, redesigning and modifying the various components of the MBT’s hull and turret, and providing consultancy for improving production-line processes. Elbit Systems, on the other hand, will enhance the MBT’s firepower and its accuracy, and provide survivability systems and air-conditioning hardware. The existing Arjun Mk1 MBT, which was formally inducted into the Army’s 75 Armoured Regiment on March 12, comes powered by a MTU 838Ka-501 diesel engine (rated at 1,400hp) coupled to a RENK RK-304A transmission, and can achieve a maximum speed of 70 km/hr (43 mph) and a cross-country speed of 40 km/h (25 mph). A total of 124 Mk1 variants are on order, and will be followed by 124 Mk2 variants, which were ordered by Army HQ on May 17 last year. The Arjun Mk2 will incorporate a total of 93 upgrades, including 13 major improvements. Rollout of the first prototype will take place by this June, and by 2013, the first 30 production-standard Arjun Mk2s will roll out from the Avadi-based, ministry of defence-owned Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF).



Work on developing the Arjun Mk2 began in the second half of 2007 soon after joint R&D contracts were inked between the CVRDE and the consortium of IMI and Elbit Systems. On October 31 that year, the CVRDE floated domestic and global expressions of interest for the co-development of a 1,500hp compact high specific power output diesel engine incorporating a state-of-the-art direct fuel injection system, digital electronic controls, turbo-charging, charge air cooling, safety controls and a pressurised multi-stage air-cleaning system; and for a hydro-kinetic automatic transmission with four forward and two reverse gears. Respondents to the CVRDE included Finland-based Wartsila (offering its V8X-1500 1,500hp hyperbar diesel engine coupled with either SESM of France’s ESM-500 transmission or US-based Detroit Diesel Allison’s X-1100-3B transmission), US-based General Dynamics Land Systems offering the EuroPowerPack comprising MTU of Germany’s MT-883 engine along with Renk’s HSWL-295TM transmission, UK-based Perkins proposing its CV12 Condor diesel engine coupled to with the ESM-500 transmission, and US-based Cummins offering a customised QSK-38 liquid-cooled, direct-injection engine coupled to the ESM-500. In late 2009, a combination of the QSK-38/ESM-500 powerpack was selected as the winner, following which Cummins India began customising this powerpack design. The ESM-500 automatic transmission, with five forward and two reverse gears, contains a planetary gearbox with shifting, steering and braking systems. It is also equipped with a hydrodynamic steering system, which allows

different turning radii depending on engine speed and selected gear. The braking system contains of two stages. As a parking brake and for a speed of up to 35kph air cooled disk brakes are used. At higher speeds a retarder is used. In addition, the transmission is equipped with a power takeoff for the cooling fans of the powerpack. Also, a hydrokinetic retarder can slow the MBT down at a decelleration rate of 7 metres/square second (0.7g), which can be very useful at the last moment before it could be hit. Supplementing this powerpack will be an indigenously developed auxiliary power unit (APU), which will provide power when the MBT is on ‘silent watch’ for battery recharging and night observation, with full systems operating while the main engine is shut down.

For ensuring MBT survivability, the Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory (DMRL) — located in Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad — has developed a Mk2 variant of its Kanchan modular armour, which was made by sandwiching composite panels (ceramic, alumina, fibre- glass and nickel-alloy) between rolled homogenous armour (RHA) plates to defeat APFDS or HEAT rounds. At the same time, the DRDO’s Pune-based Composites Research Centre (CRC) and the Research and Development Establishment, Engineers [R&D E(E)], have developed multi-layered multi-functional fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite hull/turret sub-structures at much lower weights in comparison with metallic counterparts. More than 40 per cent weight savings over steel hull structures have been achieved. Also developed for the Arjun Mk2 is co-cured composites integral armour (CIA), which comprises ceramic tiles and rubber sandwiched between two FRP composites layers. While the outer FRP composite layer acts as a cover and provides confinement, the ceramic layer provides primary protection against ballistic impact, and the inner FRP composite layer acts as the structural part as well as secondary energy absorbing mechanism. The rubber layer isolates stiff and brittle ceramic tiles from structural member.



The CVRDE, with IMI’s help, has also redesigned the Arjun Mk1’s turret to incorporate modular sloped armour fittings, and has developed a slat-armour package to protect the MBT against anti-tank rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) attacks. It functions by placing a rigid barrier around the vehicle, which causes the shaped-charge warhead (which uses a shaped-explosion rather than kinetic energy) to explode at a relatively safe distance. For protecting the Arjun Mk2 against tandem-charge PRGs and guided anti-tank missiles, the CVRDE and IMI have co-developed a lightweight non-energetic reactive armour (NERA) package, comprising tiles in which two metal plates sandwich an inert liner, such as rubber. When struck by a shaped-charge’s metal jet, some of the impact energy is dissipated into the inert liner layer, and the resulting high-pressure causes a localised bending or bulging of the plates in the area of the impact. As the plates bulge, the point of jet impact shifts with the plate-bulging, increasing the effective thickness of the armour.

For ensuring fool-proof protection against new-generation anti-armour guided-missiles, the Arjun Mk2 will incorporate both multi-threat warning sensors and an active protection system (APS). The former, supplied by Elbit Systems, comprises four E-LWS sensors that can detect, categorise and pinpoint laser sources, including rangefinders, designators, beam-riders, and infra-red illuminators. E-LWS also enables direction indication for all threats, as well as audio and visual warnings. It is immune to reflection, gunfire, lightning, fire and self-electro-optical operations. The Iron Fist APS, being supplied by IMI, uses two fixed radar sensors to detect potential threats and measures distance and trajectory for providing the APS’ fire-control system (FCS) with data for calculation of engagement plans. The FCS uses two ELTA Systems-built conformal, distributed radars and an infra-red sensor called Tandir, developed by Elbit Systems. When a threat is identified as imminent, an explosive projectile interceptor is launched toward it from either of the two twin-tube rotating launchers housing fin-stabilised launch cannisters. The interceptor, shaped similar to a small mortar bomb, is designed to defeat the threat even when flying in very close proximity. Iron Fist can handle multiple targets simultaneously with different intercept methods, including multiple countermeasures fired at two simultaneous threats at the same sector. Unlike other systems, the Iron Fist uses only the blast effect to defeat the threat, crushing the soft components of a shaped-charge or deflecting and destabilising the guided-missile or kinetic rod in their flight. The interceptor is made of combustible material, and is fully consumed in the explosion. Without the risk of shrapnel, the Iron Fist APS thus provides an effective, close-in protection for MBTs operating in dense, urban environment. Finally, a mobile camouflage system has been developed and integrated into the Arjun Mk2 in collaboration with Sweden’s Barracuda Camouflage Ltd to reduce the vehicle’s signature against all known sensors and smart munitions.

For enhancing structural survivability and firing accuracy, the Arjun Mk2 will do away with the existing electro-hydraulic turret control system (which is susceptible to impact damage and can cause a fire hazard) and will instead use a totally electronic modular electric gun and turret drive stabilisation (EGTDS) system supplied by Elbit Systems. The EGTDS uses azimuth/elevation motor drives with extremely rapid response time, low-voltage power, stabilised modes of operation, and manual back-up drives in both elevation and traverse. A motor drive-control unit transforms the power supply into two 3-phase systems. These supply and control the servo motors for alignment, stabilisation and slave mode of the turret/wea­pon according to the input signals of the sensors, control handles and active sight. The system assures increased safety since it eliminates the need for the hazardous, highly flammable hydraulic fluids. In addition, it offers smooth tracking at all speeds for very heavy turrets and guns and at extreme turret gun positions, while low power consumption leads to low infra-red signature as well as low-noise levels.

The Arjun Mk2 will also incorporate a brand-new Elbit-designed Commander’s panoramic sight (CAPS) — a dual axis stabilised line-of-sight, remote-operated, periscopic system for independent target acquisition, battlefield surveillance and main gun firing in a ‘hunter-killer’ auto-track mode. The CAPS will use a SAGEM-built Matis-STD thermal imager that operates in the 3-5 micron bandwidth, while the gunner’s sight will employ a THALES-built Catherine-FC thermal imager (operating in the 8-12 micron bandwidth. The Arjun Mk2’s turret will also housed an integrated battle management system (BMS) designed by Elbit Systems (and licence-built by Bharat Electronics Ltd), which provides rapid communications networking between the tactical tank commander and his subordinate units. It will enable the tank commander to plan missions, navigate, and continuously update situational awareness. The system will also record data for operational debriefing by using a digital data recorder, which will record and restore sight images and observation data collected during missions. This data can be shared with other elements, using the same network with the BMS, to report enemy targets. Such a concept is rapidly becoming an essential part of the digitised land forces integrated battlefield concept, combining MBTs, anti-armour teams, and attack helicopters in combined arms operations.

The Arjun Mk2’s loader will be able to load the 120mm rifled-bore main gun from a fully automated, fire-proof magazine, which will accommodate up to 10 ready rounds and deliver up to four types of ammunition types to the loader. In addition to APFSDS and HESH rounds, the Arjun Mk2 will make use of IMI-built APAM munitions designed to neutralize — especially in urban built-up terrain — tank-killer squads lurking with lethal anti-tank weapons. The APAM uses the proven concept of anti-personnel munitions based on controlled fragmentation. It deploys sub-munition shrapnel at defined intervals, covering a wide lethal area against soft targets. Each fragment is shaped to have enough kinetic energy to penetrate conventional body armour, or other materials. Also going on board the Arjun Mk2 is the laser-guided LAHAT anti-armour/anti-helicopter round, whose Israel Aerospace Industries-built target designator will be integrated with the MBT’s fire-control system. The tandem warhead-equipped LAHAT has a range of 8km when launched from a ground platform, and up to 13km, when deployed from high elevation. The missile has a 0.7 metre CEP when hitting its target at an angle of 30 degrees. Using the semi-active laser homing guidance method, LAHAT can be designated by the MBT’s gunner or through external designation from ground, mobile, or airborne observers. Firing the round requires minimal exposure in the firing position, and can be directed through the CAPS by only maintaining line — of-sight during missile flight. The missile’s trajectory can be preselected for either top attack (against MBT) or direct attack (against helicopter) engagement.

For improving crew comfort, the Arjun Mk2 will incorporate an Elbit Systems-supplied individual crew and equipment cooling system (ICECS), while will provide cooled and dried air from a special air conditioner to air-cooled overalls or vests. The air will naturally cool the upper torso of each crewman. Also being acquired from Elbit through a transfer-of-technology agreement for the MBT crew are regular/fire-resistant air-cooled overalls, NBC protected air-cooled overalls, and air-cooled compact vests. AS for tank tracks, the Arjun Mk2 will, just like the Mk1, make use of Germany-based Diehl Remscheid’s DST 570V tracks, whose basic components, like the track links, sprocket wheels, guide wheels, running rollers, support rollers, running pads, traction aids, connectors, bolts, mono block-body with integral centre guide, rubberised track pads, and grouser, are all being licence-built by Larsen & Toubro.

Training Aids
CAE of Canada will design and supply a comprehensive suite of Arjun Mk2 MBT training systems enhances combat effectiveness by offering systematic training in a real-time environment through advanced simulation techniques. Earlier, in 2009 CAE had developed and delivered the initial suite of Arjun Mk1 training systems to efficiently and cost-effectively train the driver, gunner and commander. CAE’s suite of Arjun Mk1 training systems currently offers standalone training for the driver and gunner; turret-level training for the gunner and commander; integrated MBT-level training for the gunner, commander and driver; and troop-level training by networking Arjun Mk1 simulators to rehearse troop tactics, movement and joint operations. The Arjun Mk1’s driver trainer provides ab-initio driving and procedural training to individual drivers. Mounted on a six degree-of-freedom (DoF) motion platform, the driver trainer emulates the MBT’s interior cabin with all driver station controls. CAE is also developing a desktop-based Arjun classroom trainer for procedural and familiarisation training. CAE has also developed a comprehensive suite of Arjun Mk1 gunnery training devices to train personnel as they develop gunnery skills and rehearse for target identification, tracking, lasing, and firing drills. CAE’s suite of gunnery trainers includes two separate types and levels of training devices. The desktop gunnery procedures trainer, also called the Agastya simulator, supports initial training in handling the gunner station and firing procedures. The trainee uses MBT-specific controls just like in the actual MBT for familiarisation and procedural training. The turret simulator replicates the interior of the gunner’ and commander’ stations of the MBT. Mounted on a six-DoF motion platform, the turret simulator features a 220-degree by 40-degree open-hatch visual display to provide trainees with the high-fidelity visual cues required for gunnery training.

All Arjun Mk1 training systems can be networked to provide initial and continuation training to the commanders, gunners and drivers at the individual-, crew-, and troop-levels. Along with developing individual skills, the driver and turret simulators create a team environment to support the development of crew teamwork, coordination and tactical skills, decision-making and planning, and crew communications. Through effective training and rehearsal of these skills, the crew can thus improve its proficiency in working as a team and as part of an entire troop during combat operations. The MBT training systems include CAE’s Medallion-6000 visual system with a detailed and realistic external environment view of actual MBT operations, sound simulation system that produces sounds heard during MBT operations and in synchronisation with the motion and visual cues in the training device, simulation host system for software management and software sub-systems that simulate MBT behaviour in real-time operations, content rich geo-specific databases, instructor stations to conduct training exercises and offer evaluation solutions, interface electronic units (IEU) that provide links between MBT crew controls and simulation software, and networking to connect the Arjun Mk1 driving and turret simulators. The training systems provide instructors with an intuitive, easy-to-use interface that enables the set-up of lesson parameters and trainee exercises, monitoring of the progress of the exercise, and full exercise control. The instructor can select the scenario (including target designation), insert malfunctions, and record and replay the exercise. Furthermore, the instructor is able to access the same views as the trainee, such as control of own and enemy tracks. Gunner’s training exercises can be conducted both in plains and desert terrain to include bore sighting, calibration, static tank to static target, static tank to moving target, moving tank to static target, moving tank to moving target, and moving tank to moving target firing practices. The Arjun Mk1 training systems can also be fitted in air-conditioned ISO containers that can be easily transported to different training locations or in-theatre. They can also be modified with minimum adjustments for use with any infantry combat vehicle (ICV) gun, self-propelled artillery, present day tank guns and normal field artillery. The DRDO, meanwhile, has developed a software package called Visualisation with Enhanced Digital Elevation Model and Soil Profile Analysis for MBT Arjun Simulator (VEDSAR) to simulate the MBT’s performance in different kinds of terrain. It uses data from ISRO’s Cartosat-1A remote-sensing satellite, and will help in building a new project named Vehicular Interaction with Soil for Trafficability Assessment and Route-decision Aid (VISTAR), which will provide the army with information on the shortest possible distance between two points, and the kind of obstacles present on the terrain.

Well depending on who you want to believe , the IA took a 3rd opinion on Arjun from Israeli and the Israel were impressed enough to call it Desert Ferrari , check the full story

And Arjun have the same turret design flaws as had Leopard 2A1/A4, starting from big gun mantle mask, main sight placed in the front turret armor plate, it is obvious that there are some armor behind but if someone will find how this looks even in modern versions of Leopard 2 he will know that this flaw is not easy, if not completely impossible to improve.

Next flaw is complete lack of understanding one of the most important tank design principles, angles of safe manouvering this means angles +/- 0-30 degrees from turret center line, and here we have two aproaches, or very heavy and thick side turret armor, or a turret geometry like in Russian/Ukrainian tanks,

Although I remember reading they used a rubber coating on APFSDS and HESH round to prevent spinning

Thank You much appreciated , what are the chances that a frontal hit will actually hit the mantle or the optical area , a heat or rod will have to pass through it and chances that it would hit the area in its weak spot is slim.

I think probably they are deal with the optical weakness in Mk2 but dealing with mantle weakness will not be easy because it will have impact on the gun movement if they make the area more thicker.

One more thing I came to know is Mk2 Arjun will come with Cummins 1500 hp engine over German MTU 1400 HP but as they say it will be 68 T then those high HP wont compensate for mobility.

I personally like the T-90AM approach , I wonder if they would upgrade the composite armour and ERA , Kaktus K-6 is twice as better then K-5 but K-5 is quite old almost 2 decade old and K-6 is quite old by now wonder they have improved on K-6 model.

The French Tank Lelerc also uses a autoloader proving the point that autoloader save on crew and volume.

What are your thoughts on the L=740 rounds , compared to western greater then 900 mm L dart , ofcourse what gurkhan is saying is true.