|
Search Forums |
Advanced Search |
Go to Page... |
![]() |
Search this Thread | ![]() 130,862 views |
![]() | #46 |
BHPian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Melbourne
Posts: 24
Thanked: 0 Times
| None of these tanks are good enough. Bhisma is too high while Arjun was designed to be lower in height thus increases its width. Tanks need to be as low as possible so as to stay hidden and it makes it harder for them to get hit with long range shells. US+UK are still trying to get a single tank in development but are stuck between choosing wider chassis which comes to the issues of Arjun or limiting crew to 2 and move controls of turret to front driver’s seat and reduce the size of turret which has its own issues, for example. There is no backup driver. Reloading mechanism jamming means crew members will need to get out and go into the turret while normally a person is sitting there to monitor shell loading and targeting. Targeting will have to go 100% virtual. Rather than praising DRDO for not getting stuck and boldly choosing a path to follow, we all shame them, just because we failed to improve logistics. Shipping tanks via railway isn`t a big issue, it can be accomplished easily. Also if land to air missiles can be moved then it can be done with the tanks too. Also about Arjun`s engine reliability, well everyone praises Abraham, well not many know that the biggest issue with Abraham during gulf war was that it got stuck because of sand collecting inside idlers and rotors. Basically a shiny new Abraham will get stuck and get jammed within 20-30minutes of running. Solution was simple, put a rubber sleeve of the sides to stop the sand. But solution was ONLY and ONLY reached by actual use and not with blind testing. It was the similar issue with Arjun, there was a problem with the engine, which was found during actual use and not testing, fact is that it got corrected and not just left. All the vehicles added to the thread so far are greatly disadvantaged and have not been designed to proper B7+ armour specifications. Or should I say, like always Asian manufacturers have saved money during manufacturing. For any vehicle that is meant to even remotely go over a mine. Under body protection is MUST and best way to provide is using a V shaped cover to cover undercarriage. V shape simply reflects a mine/IED`s power to sides of the vehicle and protects the crew inside. On average ¼” thick Steel plating in V shape is up-to 5times better than to simply bolt a 4” thick steel plating undercarriage. It represents both weight and money saving. Similarity whole body shape can be kept at angles. It is almost double the cost to manufacture but it also increase armour strength by 10fold. Reason it is so expensive and time consuming is because of stainless steel welding, since to achieve these angles, simple bending and shaping is never enough. Also a big advantage of Angled body structure is DUAL ARMOUR or TILED ARMOUR or Explosive Armour. These all work in a similar pattern but with different techniques and different materials. As far as I know, not a single military vehicle used by INDIAN Armed Forces utilizes these. Reason being these are double the cost. In actual use these armours provide up-to 50times more protection by a direct hit. Double armour works on a physics principle or surface area. Outer armour layer is kept fairly thick but is penetrate able by even a light shell. But shells break as soon as they hit the outer layer and instead of fast moving, high momentum single fragment, shells break into 1000 small fragments. These fragments hit more surface area, hence momentum and energy is divided. Also a fair chunk of momentum and energy is lost on penetrating the outer skin which simply means internal shell is not penetrated at all. At most it has a dent in it. On the other hand, if same spot is hit again, then internal skin will give away. In Tiled armour, tiles are used inside the layers to further slow down fragments. Usually these tiles are filled with gel which dries as soon as it comes in contact with air, as a result armour is still there if another shell hits same spot but it is weaker than previous hit. In explosive armour, small charges are inserted into the layers of the armour. If a shell hits the outer skin/layer, charge goes off and energy is diverted towards the shell which in turns literally throws back the shell away from the vehicle. Usually charge is placed in a round bell type structure so as to focus the energy away from the vehicle. Also there is huge number of issues hindering development of weapons/vehicles in-house. Biggest reason being diplomatic contracts between Russia and India. We are capable of developing almost all of the required weapons in-house but when out idiot ministers make contracts with Russia and other countries to buy outdated weapons/vehicle/tanks/jets/carriers we end up putting money towards repairs. Also there are 1000 different angles a weapon/vehicle needs to be tested and examined before launch and something’s are simply missed or they just don`t pop up during testing. For example, 1kg of thermite is better/cheaper/more effective than 1tonne of TNT, if sole purpose if to go through a 20” stainless steel door. Similarly 4-5 charges with 5kg of thermite each are more effective in order to sink an aircraft carrier than to use 1000 sticks of TNT. Only difference being, Thermite will not KILL any person onboard while a charge of TNT will KILL everyone abroad. Cost difference here is ridiculous, thermite should come around 1000 times cheaper to manufacture than TNT and the biggest fact, Thermite can be made from recycled materials like aluminium and iron, since all it needs is aluminium powder and iron oxide (rusted iron). Now why don`t we use Thermite during a war?? During a war, point is to KILL as many soldiers as possible so as to de-motivate the opposite side rather than destroy their capacity. Also there is no way China going to attack India, biggest reason being China fears to have a war with any country at this particular time. China wants Thailand back but hasn`t used power till now. Simple reason is China is going to be the next super power before INDIA and other countries will do whatever possible to stop it. If China attacks India, well it gives reason for everyone to go against China. And since whole economy is dependent on rest of the worlds manufacturing demands, China cannot even think of attacking India. Australia for that matter is going to be with India, since they are gaining over 6 billion AUD from Indian students. China cannot let that happen just because that means China will get no more uranium from Australia. It is a very complex issue than just adding more troops to the border line. Sorry about the rant guys. If you think I am in wrong here please correct me. Thanks |
![]() | ![]() |
|
![]() | #47 | |
BHPian ![]() Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Gr. Noida Aka Gurrator Naveda
Posts: 193
Thanked: 5 Times
| Quote:
You said lot more than I could due to my fairly limited knowledge on this subject. Let me add one other thing though. :- Guys, with all the corruption in this country. And especially in Arms deals and why do we doubt our Scientists when their work is rejected by people most prone to corruption. Our scientists have allowed India to reach the moon, then why do we doubt them when it comes to thing as simple as a Tank(Compared to space launch vehicle). At least I will doubt Babus over Scientists any day, how else can Lockheed Martin's India head can get his hands over the confidential MOD files relating to $20 Billion MMRCA project ? | |
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | #48 | |||||
BHPian ![]() Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Gr. Noida Aka Gurrator Naveda
Posts: 193
Thanked: 5 Times
| Quote:
And you blame DRDO for the feature creeps. And how do you suggest that DRDO develop capability if they aren't going to be trusted for their first try in most of the projects named ? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That is why America gives many countries money to buy arms from themselves. Last edited by anmol2k4 : 27th October 2009 at 00:06. | |||||
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | #49 |
Team-BHP Support ![]() ![]() Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Hyderabad
Posts: 5,907
Thanked: 2,746 Times
| anmol24k, so essentially you are saying that a consumer should buy whatever the manufacturer produces just because of some misplaced jingoism about patriotism? Will you be willing to get on to a passenger aircraft that has dodgy credentials when it comes to reliability or any other quality aspects that have not been met? I guess no. How do you then expect the army, air force etc to put in their money in buying stuff which they know does not meet all their requirements? Particularly, when it is their men who are on the line? Sorry, but I can not really agree with you here. In certain cases the stakes are too high to fall for some chest-thumping jingoism. DRDO is fighting it out in a space which is highly competitive and demands extreme accuracy. You can not expect them to make products which are not at par with the latest and still managing to sell them. An INSAS rifle getting stuck at the crucial moment, or a fuse blowing off when it should not can all lead to an instant death of the valiant guy who has put his life at stake to fight for our homeland. And you wish to put some substandard weaponry in his hand in the name of indigenous effort! Even if armed forces were to accept such weapon systems you know what will happen in the real battle field? The tank column will get bogged down, the rifle will fail to fire, the aircraft will blow off mid air... and soon with that happening frequently in the battlefield our soldiers will revolt (but obviously) and if they decide to leave their posts and run away (you can not expect them to be the slaughter goats) as it happened in 1962. Soon your chinese and pakistanis will march in and then all your economic theory will also go for a toss my friend. Some things in life are non-negotiable. And security of the homeland is one such, IMHO. |
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | #50 |
BHPian ![]() Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Coimbatore / Bangalore / New York
Posts: 717
Thanked: 14 Times
| I am not sure whether it is just me, but I feel in INDIA we lack the fundamentals. Lets consider engines. Right from mopeds, to motorcycles to cars, planes and missiles none of the indian companies have matured in the art of producing world class engines. Here are few projects I can think of where our engines are not good enough. 1) LCA - Kaveri Engine 2) GSLV - Cryogenic Engine 3) Re-entry vehicles - Ramjet/Scramjet engines 4) INS Arihant - Mini nuclear power plant anything else? How hard it is to buy and integrate these technologies? I know it is very difficult to get technologies like cryogenic engines, etc. But none of indian car companies like TATA, mahindra, etc. posses capabilities to produce a good engine. TATA and Mahindra diesel engines are produced with Austrian help and now TATA vista cars have the Italian engine. Can someone explain the various difficulties to mastering the engine technology right from cars to these complex vehicles? |
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | #51 | ||||
BHPian ![]() Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Gr. Noida Aka Gurrator Naveda
Posts: 193
Thanked: 5 Times
| Quote:
Forget Indian stuff,Army finds faults in German engine and Israeli fire control system while faults in obsolete Russian tank are ignored which had trouble in the heat of Thar desert where these tanks would be operated. Why such favoritism ? Why is Army having uncompromisable attitude when it comes to Arjun while flaws of Bhishma are ignored ? As far as requirements are concerned, Army Chief have declared Arjun satisfactory. Would he say that if it didn't meet their requirements ? Zappo, the Costumer is not going to give the order. The order is going to be given by a ring of babus who will never have to fight for this country and will most probably retire early and will lead comfortable life all thanks to gifts from Russia with love. Quote:
And kindly read following recent articles :- The Associated Press: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight Weapons: Jammed Rifles And Other Obsessions Kindly tell me what is better alternative to INSAS when even M-16 is jamming in dusty environments. Quote:
To clear out any doubts, DRDO even roped in independent experts to review the tank. And the expert was none other than legendary Maj Gen Yossi Ben-Hanan who designed Israel’s successful Merkava tank, kindly read his views on Arjun. I am posting an article by Ajai Shukla, a very well known and trusted defense journalist. It is slightly big but will help a lot to clear out some doubts about Arjun. Broadsword: Nailing some more falsehoods about the Arjun tank... and some about the T-90! Quote:
BTW following picture is of T-90, do you find it to be flawless ? Destroyed+T-90S+MBT+in+Georgia.jpg (image) On the other hand when Arjun's Kanchan armor was tested by firing APFDS at point blank range from a T-72, it was found to be impenetrable. I rest my case. Last edited by anmol2k4 : 27th October 2009 at 02:12. | ||||
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | #52 | |
BHPian ![]() Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Gr. Noida Aka Gurrator Naveda
Posts: 193
Thanked: 5 Times
| gslv mk2 Quote:
| |
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | #53 |
Team-BHP Support ![]() ![]() Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Hyderabad
Posts: 5,907
Thanked: 2,746 Times
| anmol2k4, I can only say that for every such write-up you can also find 2 more write-ups which will run counter to it. The problem is that someone sitting outside the field will never know where lies the truth. In such circumstances you have to go with what the real users have to say. In this case if our military is not very confident of an ammunition system then we have to go with them. Just to prove the point we can not thrust something which they feel will definitely fail them in the battlefield. Also, remember that Arjun is now slowly getting accepted after all these years. Maybe it has started weighing in more on the right side now. However the point still remains that the debate is not about one Arjun per se. It is about the way DRDO functions. In todays dynamic theater of a warfield the armed forces can not keep sitting on their haunches forever waiting for the DRDO to deliver. Arjun was conceived when I was a kid. That it took so long to fructify (I now have a kid ![]() And just to balance the facts, ALH was inducted with comparatively much more ease even though it is also an Indian product. Going by the logic that anything Indian is an anathema to our armed forces it should have also suffered the same fate. However it succeeded. In fact there is another thought provoking side to it. Not only the armed forces inducted this helicopter (in suitable avatars) but it has also evinced lot of interest amongst other friendly forces which want to place orders for it. Is ALH a 100% problem free product? No, it also had some problems (like while landing on inclines) but they were quickly sorted out and it has succeded in general not only here in this country but has also clicked with the foreign forces. Remember, when another country is paying the hard cash to buy from you they will only do so if the product is competitive in all ways (not just in cost). And ALH has succeeded that test to a good extent. Why does the DRDO then not participate in similar marketing exercises abroad (there are huge defence expos held across the world every year) and prove it's worth? Say, if the Arjun is so unique and has so many advantages over its contemporary weapon systems then it should find a market abroad easily. Right? So then what stops DRDO from trying that route? |
![]() | ![]() |
The following BHPian Thanks Zappo for this useful post: | SmartCat |
![]() | #54 | ||
BHPian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Melbourne
Posts: 24
Thanked: 0 Times
| Quote:
Quote:
There is a tiny winy problem with developing engines, doesn`t matter how you develop, you end up using someone else`s patents and then with research & development cost and manufacturing cost you end you end up stuck with both logistics and patent fees nightmare and even after selling 1Lakh cars you are still in huge debt. Answer is simple buy an engine from someone who has done everything from start. For example GM, they had so many branches and so many roots and so many R&D departments. Now they developed Alloytec for basic sedans and used it in US+Canda+UK(vaxhaull)+UAE+China+Germany+Australia all different names with different chassis and shell developed for local consumer and markets. Now since that engine has been so popular and as been sold in many versions and in millions, R&D and other patent costs are no there anymore. Now Tata can choose to spend 1billion to make a similar engine or buy fair bit of stock for forseable future with that 1 billion. Similar is the mobile phone market. The reason why NOKIA is still here is R&D and patent fees. If NOKIA shuts its doors tonight and shuts all the factories, it will immidietely go into profit within 3months from only and only previously agreed contracts with other cell phone manufacturers and recieving patent fees from them PER CELL PHONE basis. Apple is the only company not paying the patents and NOKIA is now suing them for 10+ patents and its going to be one ugly battle. INS Arihant is a Submarine and engine is just not a simple nuclear reactor. It becomes very very complex, using the wrong valve release lever can cause a major problem for everyone. Same theory applies here, develop a new system from scratch or just buy plans/actual system from Russia and then develop upon it. Its better to buy plans and then go from there. Also there is a tiny issue with 40% enriched uranium, its not that readily available and since france has put the biggest dent in it, seconded by US, its harder to develop a PWR system and the fact that it needs upto 3 stage of heat transfer makes things way harder, its like throwing a spanner into engine block and making sure it goes directly to the sump without hitting anything else. Re-entry vehicles - Ramjet/Scramjet engines are gone, not powerful enough, not flexible enough, not worth it in simple terms. There are only 2 successful ramjets in my openion, Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593 used in Concorde and its from 1976, had quite few issues and is not used anymore and no developments were made on the platform anymore. Pratt & Whitney J58-P4 used on blackbird sr71, again retired even when there is an actual need for the system, since only other drone available to fly at similar altitudes is Predator series, actually even they cannot go so high and are obviously snails compared to blackbird. Ramjets/Scramjets are obsolete. They are definately still used but only as SECOND STAGE units when there is enough heat and pressure is available from first turbine/rocket motor. For re-entry actual rocket engine is way way better, preferably Liquid feul based. GSLV - Cryogenic Engines are not easy to operate and successful launch is not easy again, major reason being load on the pumps itself. They need to work in a harsh environment and expansion needs to be minimum. Problem is when you introduce rubber seals in Cryogenic engines, things start to go bye bye and another issue, you are making such and expensive engine with parts so complex and precise, yet it will be used only once when it should be used again and again. Biggest reason why NASA and everyone else wants to solely rely on a mix of Liquid and Solid systems. Liquid systems for re-entry and control while Solid systems for running against earth`s gravity. LCA - Kaveri Engine, well this is what i am talking about, developing in house, you set targets and sometimes you miss them. Its wiser to simply buy plans from others and develop upon them. Just to develop one engine, we need inhouse turbine development systems, advanced 3D systems (i have seen one in Australia, its quite basic but used 6000 Ibm blade servers running 24hrs to provide processing power to 1 terminal). Simply put its VERY EXPENSIVE and yet out ministers want to develop inhouse. Yes we can, sure it WILL cost a lot to do so. I gotta run now, very very late for work. Please point and correct me if i am wrong anywhere. Cheers | ||
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | #55 | |
BANNED Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: India
Posts: 985
Thanked: 1,012 Times
| Quote:
Infact, when it comes to defense 4x4, isn't uglier the better? or they supposed to represent an exotic beauty? ![]() The first image on Page 1 is acceptably modern and looks good to me for a light weight armored vehicle. 30 year old H1 Hummer designs are past their age and are outdated. (now sold to Chinese company, for whatever reason) Last edited by aerohit : 27th October 2009 at 03:29. | |
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | #56 | |
Team-BHP Support ![]() ![]() Join Date: May 2004 Location: Bangalore
Posts: 20,373
Thanked: 17,305 Times
| Quote:
![]() | |
![]() | ![]() |
|
![]() | #57 | |
BHPian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Melbourne
Posts: 24
Thanked: 0 Times
| Quote:
Too hard to manufacture. Need to be very precise not only with valves and tubing but considering right conditions to launch so as to minimis thermal expansion. Too many resources used to manufacture and oo many variables on the loose end. All this for one purpose over solid state boosters. So one can sht off the engine if needed which isn't the best feature considering all the resources will be used to get he rocket off the ground only and only once. It's not reusable, technically it's the best engine for recycling but the way it has been implemented it's one off use and it's wasteful this way. Other than that too many risks involved since rubber seals(technically it's silicon and aerogels) give up very easily. Just a small amount of snow can knock out all the external seals under 20minutes. Compared to solid state boosters which are consider very very reliable since the shape of the external nozzles contr the flow of hot gases rather than computer based fly-by-wire used in liquid propelled rockets. Also all th major disasters with rockets happened with liquid based rockets. Who can forget inital tubes dveloped by Nazis running on liquid rubber extracts and alcohol. I can write an essay on advantages and disadvantages. Problem is the actual use here rather than the engine itself. It makes no sense to use a liquid propellant based engine in once off rocket propulsion compared to solid state boosters. Hope what I wrote made sense. Again point and correct me if i am Wrong. Thanks | |
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | #58 |
Team-BHP Support ![]() ![]() | GSLV is actually quite good. Compared to DRDO, ISRO has actually done what it was supposed to do. However the less said about DRDO, the better. |
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | #59 |
Team-BHP Support ![]() ![]() | I recommend Tom Clancy's non fiction work Armored Cav: A Guided Tour of an Armored Cavalry Regiment (1994) Its a must read for anyone even remotely interested in this subject. Its not a very big book. Just under 400 e-pages(I read pdf's on my mobile). It takes your thru the development of tanks, guns, howitzers and so on. Also thru the life of a Officer. Read it. |
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | #60 | ||||||
BHPian ![]() Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Gr. Noida Aka Gurrator Naveda
Posts: 193
Thanked: 5 Times
| Quote:
And as he is a journalist, he(unlike me) is not penning down his opinion rather he is reporting on facts. And facts can be proven wrong, but i haven't seen anyone (even Army) refuting those facts. And can you please tell me why is that unlike Russian-Chinese-Pakistani-American-French our Indian Army is always short of confidence when it comes to Made in India product ? Don't you think corruption plays any role ? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Please read the scan of the latest issue of Vayu, of Army's latest excuses for trashing Indigenous effort. http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/2825/xcag7.jpg In fact our Navy also made similar excuses so that they can buy stuff which can get them nice gifts from Foreigners, and that ended up debated in Parliament where Defense minister overruled the Babus. BTW Correct me if I am wrong, HAL have sold ~75 of Dhruvs. That is a humiliating figure for the what is considered most successful product. Also, the other countries don't pay cash for our Dhruvs. We give them 100% subsidy which buys a supporter and contributes to the Indian Military-Industrial complex. In fact recently we failed to transfer funds to some nation which was to buy ALH, you can google it. And if our Defense forces like and support ALH then why are they planning to buy ACH from outside when one based on Dhruv is ready ? | ||||||
![]() | ![]() |
![]() |