FEM/FEA softwares. Most probably ANSYS.
So they are using some commercial software. I thought generally institutes make their own softwares for such simulations.
FEM/FEA softwares. Most probably ANSYS.
For FEA/FEM softwares the most important thing is the availability of a data library. Data libraries are built with a large number of trial and error type experiments. The more data you have, more accurate your simulations become. With a reasonably large number of experiments(i.e. a large data library) and enough computing power, simulations can become extremely accurate. This is why commercial softwares are often preferred, as they have millions of users around the world and thus a huge data library.So they are using some commercial software. I thought generally institutes make their own softwares for such simulations.
For FEA/FEM softwares the most important thing is the availability of a data library. Data libraries are built with a large number of trial and error type experiments. The more data you have, more accurate your simulations become. With a reasonably large number of experiments(i.e. a large data library) and enough computing power, simulations can become extremely accurate. This is why commercial softwares are often preferred, as they have millions of users around the world and thus a huge data library.
Most commercial FEA/FEM softwares can be categorised as :
1. Student grade : I use them sometimes. Reasonably accurate very good for beginners. Used in small engineering projects, nothing major.
2. Intermediate/general research grade : For simulating various fluid fields and reference frames. Reasonably advanced software, used in more complex projects.
3. Industry grade : Highest grade available. Very industry specific(ex : automobile, marine etc.). Most military hardware can be designed using this.
Now if you find yourself doing a project that stretches beyond this(like designing ballistic missiles et al), you have to make your own software. Using our own software is always the last ditch as it can be expensive and might not give out satisfactory results.
anything on APS?Efforts onto the new tank seem to be gathering steam. Since we saw the recent naming conundrum with tanks(Arjun Mk1, Mk1A, Mk2, FRCV, GNMBT etc.), I will just post this here.
A comparative study of various tanks by DRDO(not sure what projectile was chosen for the comparison) :
View attachment 12523
I doubt the Pakistani MBT-2000 has an engine with 12,000 hp, its likely to be 1,200 hp.
Here is the chosen configuration for the new tank :
View attachment 12524
Let's look at the various aspects of the tank :
Armour :
The new tank is going to have modular frontal and side armour allowing the users to mount/dis-mount ERA armour panels depending on need.
View attachment 12525
Of course, there will be integral armour too. Probably made with a combination of nickel free High Nitrogen Steel(HNS) and carbon fibre composites.
Here is an example of armour panel made of HNS :
View attachment 12530View attachment 12531
Of course composites are to be used too as armour. They have been subjected to some testing :
View attachment 12526
View attachment 12527
Al‐Cu‐Mg based AA2519 alloy is also an option available for the job :
View attachment 12532
continued in the posts below.....
That's always the downside to using commercial softwares. But its not insurmountable, for example all you have to do is to break up the whole system into a lot of small components then design the small components to be large and large components to be small. That's how we used to do it back in the day, it was effective as scale had little to do with fluid field interactions.For sensitive stuff people write their own codes. This is normal in any drdo equivalent institute worldwide. The problem with commercial softwares is not just its expensive.but often those softwares also double up as spy softwares.
I doubt we will take any help from abroad. Ashhok Leyland is already designing clutches of the engine.I hope they make it in specs comparable or close to armata or take help from Russians if needed to get things done.
ARDE/TBRL has a APS program ongoing. There was also a IDEX challenge on it.anything on APS?
Is this APS capable of defeating or degrading APFSDS rounds? and how long before we see first tank prototype.That's always the downside to using commercial softwares. But its not insurmountable, for example all you have to do is to break up the whole system into a lot of small components then design the small components to be large and large components to be small. That's how we used to do it back in the day, it was effective as scale had little to do with fluid field interactions.
I doubt we will take any help from abroad. Ashhok Leyland is already designing clutches of the engine.
ARDE/TBRL has a APS program ongoing. There was also a IDEX challenge on it.
We already have off-route mines :
View attachment 12570
In due course of time this tech will morph into a APS. Some prototypes are ready and tested already :
View attachment 12571
The pic above states "with suitable detection system mounted on MBTs" or in other words we need to mount mini radars on tanks. This pic is a few years old :
View attachment 12572
The square mast on the T72 CIA is a Battlefield Surveillance Radar(BFSR). Now the BFSR might not be the best fit for this role, but its still a good radar mounting experiment.
The technologies for APS has existed with us for a while. Give it some time we will get there.
Yes.Is this APS capable of defeating or degrading APFSDS rounds?
Hard to say. The engine is arguably the most time consuming venture. The gun and its auto-loader is also quite complex. At least a year to go to anything physical.and how long before we see first tank prototype.
may be that's why tot was bought in recent t90 deal?
Nect Gen Main Battle Tank
DRDO needs a budget of $10 bn considering they work on so many projects.may be that's why tot was bought in recent t90 deal?