KF51 Panther
(Rheinmetall/Wikimedia)
India’s
Future Ready Combat Vehicle (FRCV) is a highly ambitious project aiming to have
a main battle tank (MBT) capable of withstand emerging and future threats of
the mid to late twenty first centuries. Since the commencement of the project,
many have raised their eyebrows concerning the feasibility of the desired
requirements. The technical parameters published with the RFI for the project
have appeared impractical for the critic. Besides, many have expressed fear of
the discontinuation of the Arjun series main battle tank in favour of a
platform with yet unproven technologies, which might be a grave mistake! We
will try to analyse all these main concerns. To have an in-depth yet easier
understanding, we will split the series into two parts. In this issue, we will
focus on what some analysts believe is the biggest concern regarding the FRCV:
will the lighter platform compromise crew protection?
FRCV
parameter
The
FRCV requirement caps the combat weight (CW) at 55±5% tons. It means the mass
of the tank with all of the whistles and bells, including ammunition, fuel and
fluids, equipment for optical and acoustic situational awareness, and defensive
aid, should not cross 58 tonnes. Clearly, the dry weight of the platform will
be even lighter. In comparison, the current Arjun Mk.1A has an all-up weight of
68 tonnes and is likely to go further with the possible future integration of
an Active Protection System (APS). The Arjun Mk.1A has improved protection and
enhanced crew safety compared to its predecessor. The criticism vis-a-vis
insufficient protection for FRCV in the absence of thicker armour!
Who
controls the weight?
Now,
many factors can decide the dry weight: the overall transportability for rapid
development in combat zones, the maximum protection you can achieve according
to your transportability, affordability with the existing infrastructure, the
feasible power pack to provide uninterrupted mobility in harsh conditions, and
logistical prowess are a few to be named. Generally, it’s believed that to have
enhanced protection for the crew, there should be good and thick armour. With
the increased thickness, the weight will automatically go up. So, the heavier
the platform, the better the protection for the crew, but it slaps a penalty on
transportability, which itself limits deployment. Similarly, a comparatively
lighter platform would be much easier to deploy but might lack similar
protection. The culminating CW during a conflict is likely to be much higher
than during peacetime. This is to enhance the survivability; modifications will
be needed accordingly with time amidst conflict. This could be understood with
the latest example of the T-90M. According to Russian sources, the T-90M is a
48 tonne platform, but the war with Ukraine has steered an extensive
modification, hulking it up to more than 52 tonnes!
MEHEL on 8×8 Stryker (US
Army/Wikimedia)
How
weight goes up
A
platform might gain weight during its long service life. For example, in the
American Abrams series, the earliest M1 was originally a 54.5-tonne-only
platform, whereas the latest M1A2 SepV4 has bulked up to 70 tonnes! During the
long service of a tank, newer, improved light armour material is integrated,
which otherwise might decrease the weight, but for even enhanced protection,
the line-of-sight (LOS) thickness of the armour package also gets increased,
resulting in a higher CW. And, as we have discussed earlier, during the conflict,
add-ons might further increase the AUW. All of these factors are inevitable.
So, the focus should be rather on designing such a platform, which will require
negligible changes to the dimensions according to the changes in weight. This
will also ensure minimal to no change in the design. However, with enhanced
weight, a more powerful power pack (and, if necessary, a mobility package) will
be needed.
Why
Western MBTs are so heavy
While
the Russian tanks (and Japanese tanks) are lighter than the 60 tonnes, the
Western or west-influenced modern tanks are quite heavy. If we look at the
weight, the M1A2 Abrams SepV3 is a 66.6 tonne platform; similarly, the
Challenger 3 is a 66 tonne; the Merkava 4 Barak is heavier than 65 tonne; the
future improved variant of K2 is more than 62 tonne; the Altay T1 is a 65
tonne; the Leopard 2A7 is a 64.3 tonne; the Leclerc XLR is a 63 tonne; and the
Arjun Mk 1A is a 65.5 tonne (excluding the TWMP) platform. Western design
focuses on both crew comfort and enhanced crew safety. With an improved armour
package, they keep enhancing LOS thickness to withstand the latest KE (APFSDS)
and HEAT (ATGM) threats. And an add-on to Western design is a regular feature.
For example, enhancements to the protection of the LFP (lower front panel) of
the tank for better safety against IED, integration of NERA to defeat modern
heat, and use of APS to counter ATGM. With the necessary add-ons, GVW (gross
vehicle weight) will go up!
KNDS EMBT- the predecessor of
MGCS (KNDS France)
In
search of a lighter solution
Without
compromising the protection, the weight of a tank could be reduced in at least
four ways: by adopting multi-layer protection, using lighter materials,
modularity and design.
Multi-layer
protection
All
modern tanks have adopted add-on armour like ERA or NERA. Modular armour blocks
might decrease the need for thicker armour in the turret or hull. Besides, with
continuous improvement, a more effective APS will provide a robust solution
against HEAT rounds, even a top-attack one. However, the emergence of loitering
munitions and drones has made it a big challenge to have an effective C-UAS
solution. In the future, there might be an integrated solution against both the
anti-tank warhead and drones. Directed energy has already taken pace in this
field. High-energy lasers in the future might totally replace the traditional
hard-kill APS solution. This could also reduce the weight significantly.
Lighter
materials
No
single material can provide the same degree of immunity against all kinds of
anti-tank threats. Hence, a prudent combination of both metal and non-metal
materials is used. Metal can be found in a wide range of applications, like RHA
(rolled homogeneous armour), HHS (high-hardness steel), DU (depleted uranium),
or titanium alloy. While ceramic, fibreglass, polymer, or any other composite
forms the non-metalic part. Different components could be used for various
add-on armours. So, the easiest way to reduce weight without compromising
protection is to adopt newer, lighter materials. And here, the importance of
different ceramic matrixes and carbon materials has increased. Besides, high nitrogen
steel (HNS) could be an effective alternative to the existing RHA. The use of
aluminium instead of steel in wheels or the integration of advanced rubber composite
into tracks will also be helpful. Besides, instead of traditional reactive
armour, adaptation of new kinds of add-on armour (ex: electric armour) could
also reduce the weight. The objective of advanced metallurgy is to decrease
weight, enhance protection, reduce heat signature, minimise noise and
vibration, and, at the same time, be a cost-effective solution.
Modularity
The
modularity will not only enable the user to add or remove armour blocks according
to the specific threat but will also allow fast replacement of the specific
damaged part.
Changes
in design
Instead
of a manually controlled one, if an unmanned turret is adopted, it does two
things. One, the turret profile could be significantly smaller, reducing the
weight, and two, by shifting the entire crew to the hull, the security could be
enhanced. The Abrams TTB, Abrams X, KF-51 and T-14 have already demonstrated
it. Besides, many other nations also focus on unmanned turrets for their future
tanks.
Abrams Block III TTB (US Army Armour and Cavalry
Collection/Wikimedia)
FRCV
is not alone in the group
With
the emergence of newer threats, many nations have actually initiated projects
for a lighter tank with dynamic defensive aid and enhanced mobility to
withstand the ever changing nature of the threat. India eyes next generation
materials that could be used for light weighting the armour.
While
Russia’s latest T-14 is a 55-tonne platform, AbramsX is reported to be a mere,
and the KF- and the KF-51 Panther is a 59-tonne platform. The AbramsX, however,
is still a technology demonstrator, but the KF-51 has been pitched for export.
Recently, two next-gen MBT programmes have taken pace. Both the M1E3 (US) and
MGCS (France and Germany) aim to enhance existing capability without adding
weight. While M1E3 (future M1A3) will cap it at 55 tonnes, the MGCS eyes will
be even lighter (50 tonnes)! Both of these platforms are envisioned to be
realities by the 2030s, just as India’s FRCV. So, India’s FRCV will not be the
only one in such a group.
In
the next issue, we will discuss concerns related to firepower, protection, crew
and feasibility vis-à-vis Arjun.
Article by Sankalan Chattopadhyay
(Twitter/X @vinoddx9)