PA TANKS comparison with contempory tanks

[LCA]

Welcome

DRDO scientists build a bridge with brains

Prasad Kulkarni | TNN

Pune: It’s the first such project in the world, claim scientists of the Research and Development Establishment (Engineers), a laboratory of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), Pune. The scientists are developing a lightweight, carbon fibre ‘smart’ bridge, which will be strong enough to hold a fully loaded battle tank.
“We have been working on the project for five years now and it has been successfully completed,” said Makarand Joshi, one of the scientists involved. The eight-member team includes scientists Giridhar Singh, Mayur Godbole, Rahul Harshe and technician Felix Barla, as well as other supporting staff.
“This is the only structure of its kind anywhere in the world,” he proclaimed. The only other bridge that could be compared to this is the one in the US. “That bridge is 13 meters long, but has been developed with the help of a private company,” he said. “The speciality of our bridge is that we have developed it entirely on our own. Our bridge is 5 metres long. We also plan to build a 24-metre bridge in the future.”
According to Joshi, part of the bridge is currently at the laboratory, while one part has been sent to the National Aerospace Laboratory (NAL), Bangalore, for testing. After testing both parts, the bridge will be joined together in the Pune laboratory. Thereafter, the test of whether the bridge will withstand a fully loaded battle tank will be carried out. This is most likely to take place in July, said Joshi.
The bridge is made of carbon-epoxy materials and is 30% lighter than aluminium. The cost of building the bridge is almost the same as that of an aluminium bridge, but the expenses occurred on maintenance of the carbon composite material bridge will be lower, said Joshi. The bridge weighs just 1.2 tonnes, but should be able to carry the load of a 70-tonne battle tank, he added.
Explaining why it was called a ‘smart’ bridge, scientist Mayur Godbole said, “This bridge can monitor itself. Fibre optic sensors have been embedded in the bridge to achieve this smartness. It can assess the weight/load on it and manage its durability accordingly. The bridge can also be operated by remote. There is no need to depute men at the bridge to monitor it.”



I think this will play a important role in the transportation of tanks like Arjun.

 

[Hellfire]

Welcome

DRDO scientists build a bridge with brains

Prasad Kulkarni | TNN

Pune: It’s the first such project in the world, claim scientists of the Research and Development Establishment (Engineers), a laboratory of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), Pune. The scientists are developing a lightweight, carbon fibre ‘smart’ bridge, which will be strong enough to hold a fully loaded battle tank.
“We have been working on the project for five years now and it has been successfully completed,” said Makarand Joshi, one of the scientists involved. The eight-member team includes scientists Giridhar Singh, Mayur Godbole, Rahul Harshe and technician Felix Barla, as well as other supporting staff.
“This is the only structure of its kind anywhere in the world,” he proclaimed. The only other bridge that could be compared to this is the one in the US. “That bridge is 13 meters long, but has been developed with the help of a private company,” he said. “The speciality of our bridge is that we have developed it entirely on our own. Our bridge is 5 metres long. We also plan to build a 24-metre bridge in the future.”
According to Joshi, part of the bridge is currently at the laboratory, while one part has been sent to the National Aerospace Laboratory (NAL), Bangalore, for testing. After testing both parts, the bridge will be joined together in the Pune laboratory. Thereafter, the test of whether the bridge will withstand a fully loaded battle tank will be carried out. This is most likely to take place in July, said Joshi.
The bridge is made of carbon-epoxy materials and is 30% lighter than aluminium. The cost of building the bridge is almost the same as that of an aluminium bridge, but the expenses occurred on maintenance of the carbon composite material bridge will be lower, said Joshi. The bridge weighs just 1.2 tonnes, but should be able to carry the load of a 70-tonne battle tank, he added.
Explaining why it was called a ‘smart’ bridge, scientist Mayur Godbole said, “This bridge can monitor itself. Fibre optic sensors have been embedded in the bridge to achieve this smartness. It can assess the weight/load on it and manage its durability accordingly. The bridge can also be operated by remote. There is no need to depute men at the bridge to monitor it.”



I think this will play a important role in the transportation of tanks like Arjun.

severely doubt it ..... this is just a TD .... like Tank-X concept of DRDO .... evolution of the tech will take place .... for now arjun specific bridging equipment is sarvatra class ......

 

[zraver]

Sure, that's possible. But I think it's rather impractical. The Abrams is actually even too heavy for most European bridges and during the Cold War key bridges were reinforced specifically to handle the load of the heavier Abrams versions. If you can't use any of the existing bridges but have to build your own bridge that can handle 70t of capacity on the go you are seriously hurting your offensive capabilities. And if Pakistan needs heavy pillboxes it would be far cheaper to buy cement from China .

So in Pakistan only one loaded truck at a time is allowed on a bridge? @ trucks would exceed 80 tons.

70 ton tanks are for nations that are hyper-sensitive to casualties. It is really much more practical to use an autoloader to reduce the number of potential casualties in a tank and make sure you have a powerful gun + quality munitions. Keep some good armor on there with a keen eye on the law of diminishing returns.

Hogwash. 3 man crews are for countries that would rather save a dollar than save a life. Contrary to myth, the frontal aspect of a Western MBT is not much bigger than that of a T-series and the slab siding actually reduces the area that has to be put under armor.

More importantly, 4 man crews greatly increase combat effectiveness and equipment readiness rates. Most T series tanks only have 2 men to do all the maintenance and care for the tank. The commander being busy with other duties. A Western MBT has 3 men for those same jobs, except of course they don't have to maintenance on the auto loader, just feed him. More people to do less work= more sleep.

Sleep, and the amount of it has a direct bearing on combat performance. A crew that is running on 4 hours a night will fight better for longer than a crew averaging 3 hours a night.

The only drawback to 4 man crews are peace time personnel and training costs.

For a nation like Pakistan, the name of the game is cost effectiveness - the 20/80 rule. 20% of the cost, 80% of the effectiveness and that's precisely the direction Pakistan seems to be going with the Al-Khalid and JF-17, while building up embargo proof access to these weapons. If India wants to spend 80% more to get that last 20%, let them do so. It will be of marginal effectiveness in any war and they will blow their size advantage.

vis a vis AK vs the Arjun should it ever go into production. the 4 man crew adds a huge combat advantage as critical as the gun/ammo combo.

However, in some key areas, you can't follow the 20/80 rule. The software necessary to data link tanks (and other platforms) together... you want to spend the extra 80% of cost on, because that is a serious force multiplier.

So is the 4th crewmember. The Soviet Union went to the 3 man crew to reduce size (no longer applicable) and reduce peace time costs. It was not done for any other and thus still relevant reasons.

 

[Munir]

The jet engine of the A1 is terrible. I think they can make a missile to homes on that...

 

[Hellfire]

The jet engine of the A1 is terrible. I think they can make a missile to homes on that...

we are talking about tanks with gas turbine engines .... not aircrafts with jet engine ... remember?

 

[zraver]

we are talking about tanks with gas turbine engines .... not aircrafts with jet engine ... remember?

The Abrams still has a massive thermal bloom. You can diffuse it to an extent, but only to an extent.

 

[Hellfire]

The Abrams still has a massive thermal bloom. You can diffuse it to an extent, but only to an extent.

while posting atleast one should have the basics right ..... kindly do read about the dimensions of the M1A series as also of the contemporary Soviet based tanks and please do elaborate on how there is a "massive" thermal image obtained with respect to T series of tanks or AK1.

Al-Khalid

Wt: 48 tonnes

Length: 10.07 M

Width: 3.50 M

Height: 2.40 M


M1 Abrams

Wt: 67.6 tonnes

Length: 9.77 M

Width: 3.66 M

Height: 2.44 M



T-90

Wt: 46.5 tonnes

Length: 9.53 M

Width: 3.78 M

Height: 2.22 M


Arjun

Wt: 58.6 tonnes

Length: 10.638 M

Width: 3.86 M

Height: 2.32 M

 

[S-2]

"...while posting atleast one should have the basics right..."

I'd be a bit more circumspect with Zraver, Mr. Arm-chair General 160 I.Q. M.D.

He used to be a pretty good M1A1 tank commander. Doesn't have as much time now that he's finishing up his history degree in the states.

Sorta an unusually bright guy as tankers go. I sincerely hope that you're not letting that huge I.Q. of yours again run rampant just when I was really enjoying your expositions on Kashmir.

If he replies (and we hope he does) you might get a nice de-classified lesson on thermal imaging (function of two inputs-target heat and sensor quality) and surface exposure as a function of slope.

 

[Hellfire]

Dear S-2

"...while posting atleast one should have the basics right..."

I meant what I said and it was meant for the post where you had jet engines being sought after by missiles instead of Gas Turbine Engine on M1 (the former being a derivative of the latter and latter of the ICE - Internal Combustion Engine) Now if by logical extension one was to write an ICE for M1, he would be laughed off the forum, come on be specific now that you know what the stuff on M1 is ..... and Jet Engines are conventionally associated with being used in Missiles, UAVs etc. Maybe wrong here....

Sorta an unusually bright guy as tankers go. I sincerely hope that you're not letting that huge I.Q. of yours again run rampant just when I was really enjoying your expositions on Kashmir.

Am glad you found them entertaining dont have time to let that go running nowadays ... kind of stuck with workload


If he replies (and we hope he does) you might get a nice de-classified lesson on thermal imaging (function of two inputs-target heat and sensor quality) and surface exposure as a function of slope.

oh sure am looking forward to a reply now that you have told me his background, it would be good and enlightening from someone who knows the stuff - as have this confounded thing called a Gamma Camera in Medical Diagnostics which I cant understand and the same is based on the principles of thermal imagery.


Also would like to discuss the concept of Brayton Cycle and its efficiency parameters with respect to Otto & Diesel Engines as also the principle of thermal emission, reflection and transmission governing the laws of thermography (and their impact on imaging in battlefield scenario of deserts in South Asia) as also the concept of geothermal energy and parameters governing imagery with solid ground in desert as a background which has plenty of readioactive Potassium, Radon, Thorium and Uranium particles in sand.

In addition I think the fact that the term more apt here would be thermal signature/image and not Thermal "Bloom" which is academically more associated with propogation of LASER ...... anyways will look forward to learning something new definitely ....

 

[zraver]

while posting atleast one should have the basics right ..... kindly do read about the dimensions of the M1A series as also of the contemporary Soviet based tanks and please do elaborate on how there is a "massive" thermal image obtained with respect to T series of tanks or AK1.

Width: 3.50 M

Height: 2.40 M

frotnal area= 8.4

M1 Abrams

Width: 3.66 M

Height: 2.44 M

frontal area= 8.9

T-90


Width: 3.78 M

Height: 2.22 M

Area= 8.3


Arjun


Width: 3.86 M

Height: 2.32 M

area= 8.56

Total frontal aspect area (target) swing between the 4 is less than 1 meter- at 1000m that is not even a factor. However the Abrams and Arjun with the slab sides have a total area smaller than the T type AK and the T-90. l have less area than /. Thus for the same weight in armor in a given location the armor of the slab sided MBT's can be thicker.

The Abrams uses a turbine engine developed from a helicopter engine. Its exhaust is massive. Its a multi-fuel engine and can run anything up to jet fuel. Walk behind an M1 and you'll have the scars on your unprotected skin for life. The whole *** end of an Abrams gets hot. If you put the diffusers on to reduce the signature you risk causing grass fires (I've done it). IIRC the exhaust of the Abrams is like 1500 deg Fahrenheit. If there was an IR seeking anti-tank missile the Abrams would be an ideal target.

This is and the fuel consumption issue are offset to a great extent by the power on demand. The turbine is actually down rated from what it could do (3500+hp) this also improves reliability. The turbine is also very quiet. You wont hear an M1 until its within a couple hundred meters vs kilometer plus for many tanks depending on conditions. In an area where visibility is limited sound is very important. Add to that the Abrams superior thermal vision and it can see its enemy before it is noticed.

Also of note, no tank is very good at hiding its thermal signature except at two times a day when an un-run tank matches ambient temps. Tanks heat up at different rates and to different levels than natural materials. A sunny day that will heat a rock to 100 deg will heat a tank to 125 deg providing exceptional standout.

PS- S-2, I was just a crew member. M-60A3TTS (MOS 19E), M1IP, M1A1 (MOS 19K), (+ M1A2 sword project member for KSA post Gulf war). Did some time at Knox as a member of the 1ATB (cadre), also had the secondary MOS 63T (Bradley Hull Systems mechanic)

 

[S-2]

"I was just a crew member."

No. You were an "Army of one"

I like your resume'. There's no B.S. there. You'd be technically expert and thus competent to comment.

 

[zraver]

"I was just a crew member."

No. You were an "Army of one"

I like your resume'. There's no B.S. there. You'd be technically expert and thus competent to comment.

Thanks, its been so long since I've been here people don't know me anymore.

 

[zraver]

Dear S-2

"...while posting atleast one should have the basics right..."

I meant what I said and it was meant for the post where you had jet engines being sought after by missiles instead of Gas Turbine Engine on M1 (the former being a derivative of the latter and latter of the ICE - Internal Combustion Engine) Now if by logical extension one was to write an ICE for M1, he would be laughed off the forum, come on be specific now that you know what the stuff on M1 is ..... and Jet Engines are conventionally associated with being used in Missiles, UAVs etc. Maybe wrong here....

Hate to pull you up short but......

The vast majority of missiles use rocket propulsion via a motor
The Abrams engine is functionally identical to that the powers jets and helicopters. All current engines used to power vehicles are ICE- that is combustion of fuel to create energy happens inside the engine.

oh sure am looking forward to a reply now that you have told me his background, it would be good and enlightening from someone who knows the stuff - as have this confounded thing called a Gamma Camera in Medical Diagnostics which I cant understand and the same is based on the principles of thermal imagery.

gamma as in gamma ray based on the decay of particles inside the body and using the emissiosn of said particles to map/image the body? Ya sorry I understand it in principle but am not going to even try to go farther.

Also would like to discuss the concept of Brayton Cycle and its efficiency parameters with respect to Otto & Diesel Engines

huh... Brayton cycle deals with turbine type engines not reciprocating.

as also the principle of thermal emission, reflection and transmission governing the laws of thermography (and their impact on imaging in battlefield scenario of deserts in South Asia) as also the concept of geothermal energy and parameters governing imagery with solid ground in desert as a background which has plenty of readioactive Potassium, Radon, Thorium and Uranium particles in sand.

You like the big words.... simple answer steel heats up faster, gets hotter and cools off slower than any natural material. Thus excpet for 2 periods every day (if the tank is unmanned and not run) it will always be in contrast to the terrain around it. The amount of radon, uranium, thorium, unobtainium etc simple does not matter, only those things emitting IR energy do. As FLIR imporves so does the imaging ability. On the M1 targets looked like blobs. Imagery was actually better on the M60A3 with its TTS. However the modern systems on the current crop of M1A1D/M1A2 is much better and it is posible to distuinguish a great deal of detail even at long ranges.

In addition I think the fact that the term more apt here would be thermal signature/image and not Thermal "Bloom" which is academically more associated with propogation of LASER ...... anyways will look forward to learning something new definitely ....

No and maybe. No-An Abrams that was sitting cold and fires up the motor will expell a stream of super hot exhaust gases out the back. This is a thermal bloom/plume/ My post was directed specifically to how the engine might make a target for an IR seeker missile or sensor. Maybe- thermal signture does indeed apply to a tank most of the time.

 

[Hellfire]

Hate to pull you up short but......

ah thanks for the reply. And I dont take it as being pulled up short ...... its very informative

The vast majority of missiles use rocket propulsion via a motor
The Abrams engine is functionally identical to that the powers jets and helicopters. All current engines used to power vehicles are ICE- that is combustion of fuel to create energy happens inside the engine.

my post was purely to do with intellectual basis for the same ...... while in general terms a gas turbine engine will normally be associated with vehicles, tanks (original in the British Conqueror in 1950s), yatch/ships (Sir Parsons contribution)etc .. traditionally the aeroderivative is the popular "Jet" which has evolved along lines as you so rightly pointed out with sub-classification of the whole tech into scramjet/ramjet/etc (something which are derivatives from the original jet and now extensively used in missiles as you rightly pointed out) and etc .... so normally one would not associate jet with a tank, that is all .....

huh... Brayton cycle deals with turbine type engines not reciprocating.

I know and so I posted this particular cycle in order that you may expand some more on this cycle which is the theoretical basis for the Gas Turbine Engine as also the relative efficiency and less thermodynamic loss to environment under this cycle with respect to Diesel engine (Diesel has lesser efficiency and greater thermodynamic loss in comparision to Brayton Cycle with entropy change in the whole reaction being similar) and its relative role in thermal signature of M1 Abrams .....


Its not the question of prelidiction for big words or not, that may be due to my background. I maybe mistaken but I think if we were to get into the very fabric of IR seekers and their search spectrum and their evolution and also into the advent of top attack ATGMs with all the additional surveillance techniques being evolved, the whole concept of a relatively larger thermal signature being a better target for a missile sounds a bit redundant as the fact that the sensors in munitions today are able to detect even the faintest of the IR signature renders all the above variety of tanks equally susceptible to IR guided munitions. Anyways thank you very much for this kindness in presenting new information for me. Thanks.

 

[nightcrawler]

New Indian Express, 12 October 2004
Pak claim fires Army to test DRDO's Arjun against Russian T-90
NEW DELHI: The Indian Defence establishment may not like to admit it but Pakistan President Musharraf's claim that their
indigenous Al Khalid main battle tank is superior to the DRDO's Arjun tank has prompted Army headquarters to review the
latter's capabilities. The Army top brass have directed the Armoured Corps to compare the Arjun with the Russian-made T-90,
through extensive trials beginning this month in the Mahajan ranges of Rajasthan. According to South Block sources, the five
Arjun production-series tanks, handed over by the DRDO in August, will be tested against the T-90s before any decision is
taken on inducting more indigenous tanks. It is already clear that the missile-firing T-90, not the Arjun, will be India's main
battle tank. Due to shortage of attack helicopters, the Army has to rely on tanks in case hostilities break out. The Army has
also instructed the DRDO to speed up production of Arjun tanks rather than handing them over in piece-meal basis. But before
placing its next order, it will wait for the result of the Arjun versus T-90 tests this winter.