ok … not discussing what might end up in the FRCV project … but instead finding the rationale behind a design choice. The design’s there with a purpose, right?
If it ends up in a platform or not is a separate discussion.
Like Burlak had dual flow coz, the turret was to be mated to existing hulls. The existing hulls had the older carousel which limited the length of darts. Bustle allows longer darts. But a smaller bustle restricts the total amount of rounds carried. (Similar to Leo 2s/Leclercs having extra ammo in hull.)
So, retaining the carousel loader and implementing dual flow, alleviates the issues.
Similarly, what might be the reason behind a bespoke dual flow system? If the new system is meant to be an upgrade for the huge Bhisma fleet. Makes sense à la Burlak 2.0
But for an entirely new MBT? That’s where the head scratching comes.
Coz every professional design has a reason behind it and a justification to support it. Especially if it’s going for a patent.
As I see it, this patent rather solves the issue of reloading the bustle storage in Leopard and Leclerc which should have a loader to reload it. Now that the tank design is moving toward a crew that is entirely separated from the turret, it is necessary to have a system that can access all the ammo stored in the tank and without a loader you would also need to have some sort of system identifying the type of ammunition being loaded in the barrel which I think can be done much better with the carousal based autoloaders.
Moreover, in the patent they state that they wanted to build a system that could reload the gun at any angle required as most of the current systems involve some kind of restriction to reload a gun by the autoloader.
You can find more in this patent link
That’s a great idea and I would personally suggest an Indian nation and Asean sub tree together put into one. As china and Asean don’t get along so India and Asean would be a perfect fit together.
Loading screen material. HAL Rudra and Arjun Mk 1