Artillery Discussion Thread

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 21 Mar 2012 22:45

Ramana, I for one was in love with the Bhim and was very upset to see it fall between the cracks. It's hard to believe that the IA can go a quarter of a century with no new artillery and not be near naked in this area. If even after suffering so many invasions, rape and pillaging this is the attitude toward defense... woe is India.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Mar 2012 06:19

imo we should mount the gun turret on wheeled truck chassis and not on tracked vehicle to save on cost. a few mil will be saved per unit. if Stallion trucks carrying the bulk of indian infantry can operate in the desert , these trucks with x-country suspension should have no issues. opex will also be low (smaller & simpler engine, cheaper spares)
and road mobility higher without the need for flatbed semi trailers to haul them around.

that way the SP tracked thing can be cancelled and only truck mounted guns used.

--
Another new idea is lighter versions of self-propelled systems. The AGM (Artillery Gun Module) self-propelled gun puts the 12.5 ton PzH 2000 turret on a lighter armored vehicle or heavy truck. The turret contains a fully automated loading system and 30 155mm shells and propellant charges. There is only a two man crew, one of them enters the firing information and the shell is loaded and fired in the proper direction. Mounted on the same chassis as the U.S. MLRS rocket launcher, the AGM weighs 27 tons. If you mount it on a heavy (6x6) truck, it weighs about 23 tons.

Czech Data SP gun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWpTk5I3TKk

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 22 Mar 2012 07:22

vic wrote:Chacko, we hope you are able to find out more about these important developments and post the info!

Yes I will.

vic · Post by **vic** » 22 Mar 2012 09:12

Indigenous manufacture of Artillery will be very good news as it provide orders of upto US$ 10 Billion for Indian manufactering sector in next 10-20 years

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 22 Mar 2012 11:13

Snehashis wrote:
ramana wrote:So what is needed to make a cargo shell from the existing types in OFB capability?

IMI is expected to provide the TOT to manufacture them at Nalanda. Also a desi 130 mm cargo shell is undergoing user acceptance trials.

Its look like Denel actually transferred the technology for the cargo shells. It is very much in production at OFB. Here's a picture of it found on another forum.

Excuse my dumb question. What is a cargo shell ? Where is it used ? Advantages ?

K

koti · Post by **koti** » 22 Mar 2012 11:19

Saab,

As indicated before, the possibilities of the cargo shell will be exploited to the maximum and this shell may have bomblets, mines, illuminating/smoke cannisters - and sensor modules incorporated in it.

Link

Snehashis · Post by **Snehashis** » 22 Mar 2012 12:57

Kersi D wrote:
Excuse my dumb question. What is a cargo shell ? Where is it used ? Advantages ?

K

Kersi, a cargo shell can can carry grenades and can deploy anti personnel / anti armour mines. Also it is possible to modify it to a nuke artillery.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 22 Mar 2012 18:13

Snehashis wrote:
Kersi D wrote:
Excuse my dumb question. What is a cargo shell ? Where is it used ? Advantages ?

K

Kersi, a cargo shell can can carry grenades and can deploy anti personnel / anti armour mines. Also it is possible to modify it to a nuke artillery.

Thanks

vic · Post by **vic** » 25 Mar 2012 10:57

Another vital project of the OFAJ is 105 mm shells HEER, which has a projectile mass of 16 kgs and is of 593 m length. HEER has a range of 20.4 Km with super charge, they added.

This is a very important development, it seems that after pinning for import of every kind, now we are getting down to improving indigenous systems. I have repeatedly said that any 155mm system including M777 is very heavy for mountains/helos and we need to improve our 105mm guns. This HEER shell seems an important development as it will deliver more explosive at longer range. If coupled with BB, the range should increase even more, say 24-25km. In mountains due to altitude the effective range may be as great as 30km.

I think that till we develop our light 155mm guns we should use 105mm guns + single pod Pinaka/Prahaar for mountain areas.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 25 Mar 2012 11:20

We should stop the fixation of high caliber guns in mountains. It is better to use GPS aided rockets. For example, Bofors in Kargil were with effective fire, but still suffered on account of precision impact. A gps enabled short range rocket could have made more impact. I am open to changing my mind on this if some good examples can be given on how Bofors managed to neutralize enemy other than "effective fire" where it pinned down the enemy. 160mm shells were more potent than what Bofors could deliver. We can work on rocket assisted mortars with GPS. Just like air dropped PGM kits, we can develop kits for the mortars too. We don't have to lug the guns around and there will be more mobility.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 25 Mar 2012 11:38

Artillery in the mountains relies on saturation and volume to defeat the enemy. Precision while desirable, has limited effect due to the small size of the targets. Air burst and cluster munitions continue to be relevant. The cost of PGMs is a limiting factor as well.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 25 Mar 2012 11:52

A rocket assisted gps mortar is artillery. So is Agni-5. I am not debating need of artillery. I am trying to rethink use of 155mm guns in mountains.

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 25 Mar 2012 12:29

GPS signals would be very weak in mountains.I have reservations with GPS guided ones.How about a laser guided ones and illuminated by the UAV.

Snehashis · Post by **Snehashis** » 25 Mar 2012 12:46

prabhug wrote:GPS signals would be very weak in mountains.I have reservations with GPS guided ones.How about a laser guided ones and illuminated by the UAV.

Laser guided munitions will be a better option since unkil will stop GPS signals in the conflict zone. Also LGMs are more accurate than GPS ones.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 25 Mar 2012 12:50

chackojoseph wrote:A rocket assisted gps mortar is artillery. So is Agni-5. I am not debating need of artillery. I am trying to rethink use of 155mm guns in mountains.

In the automotive world there is a saying "There is no replacement of displacement".

155 mm power is needed to crack fortifications where 105 mm doesnt make a difference even on direct hit.

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 25 Mar 2012 13:08

With the poliferation of UAV's normal shells can be made to bear on tagets with a lot more accuracy than spotters of yore. Knowing how stingy we are when it comes to stockpiling ordinance, especially the high end type, a brace of normal shells can have the same accuracy as Laser or gps guided mutions. Since they are cheap once the target is hit you can pulverise him with repeated hits in a very cost effective manner. Hence 90% of the munitions will be the bread and butter kind 5% the exotic variety, and possibly the remainder with rockets and missiles.
Thats just what I think the mix is , It may not be factual or accurate as far as percentages go.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 25 Mar 2012 15:34

Cool. Interesting responses.

I know, this is not the best source, makes a good read though Israel Replaces 155mm Guns With Smart Rockets

Trajectory Control system with radio is cheaper than GPS equipped.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 25 Mar 2012 23:35

^^^ hmmm ... would need to have a stockpile of lakhs of rockets of range say 50 km. Don't know if it can be done at reasonable cost. Indigenous guided artillery shells may be a cheaper option.

It seems that the rocket launcher would be just as big as an artillery piece, and the rockets themselves would significantly larger in size than a shell.

PS: Gen VK Singh says the indigenous artillery program is well on its way - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxx3GtGT ... r_embedded

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 26 Mar 2012 04:14

In the u tube clip court marshall II The Chief states that a new gun has been developed and approx 400 rounds fired. They were talking of the Bofors 155/39 before that so I am assuming that this gun is the same caliber.
I am sure this question has been asked and answered before, However how many rounds before the barrel needs replacement?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 26 Mar 2012 10:22

Pranav wrote:^^^ hmmm ... would need to have a stockpile of lakhs of rockets of range say 50 km. Don't know if it can be done at reasonable cost. Indigenous guided artillery shells may be a cheaper option.

It seems that the rocket launcher would be just as big as an artillery piece, and the rockets themselves would significantly larger in size than a shell.

PS: Gen VK Singh says the indigenous artillery program is well on its way - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxx3GtGT ... r_embedded

One thing about costs. A kit can have a RATO with option of GPS/laser designator or course correction module, which can save costs depending upon use in an area. We can use this kit for multiple caliber weapons and not get restricted to 155mm shells to suit a particular weapon.

The MBRLS form with course correction on rockets will enable to strike better. In kargil. the gun positioning was a challenge and I don't see any better on mountains in future. Then there was air burst munitions for taking out Bofors crew, which can be lessened in case of a better protected environment like a armoured cabin.

vic · Post by **vic** » 26 Mar 2012 10:36

Aditya G wrote: In the automotive world there is a saying "There is no replacement of displacement".

155 mm power is needed to crack fortifications where 105 mm doesnt make a difference even on direct hit.

We are saying heavy displacement/fire power will be provided by Pinaka and Prahaaar

vic · Post by **vic** » 26 Mar 2012 11:15

Indian 155 gun (39 caliber?) is ready and has already fired 450 rounds. Army is satisfied. Next version of 45/52 caliber will be made by DRDO+OFB combine. For other technology (ULH??) tech will be imported (guns will be made in India) and tech will be absorbed with help of Pvt sector. Note:- He placed lot of emphasis that tech (not guns) should be imported. 25 year plan for artillery modernization approved.

Must watch after 13 min, it seems VKS reading BRF, note his comments at min 17.30 min to 18.30 super, If you are BRF must watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxx3GtGT ... r_embedded[/quote]

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 26 Mar 2012 11:38

The host asked if import of Artillery will be there? Gen said no.

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 26 Mar 2012 11:44

I would say the following would make 155mm guns

1.Battle field management system
2.Wind speed ,location radar and damage assessment system
3.Electronic programmable shell detonation.
4.shells which can be used with laser pointing

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 26 Mar 2012 13:49

good hit on brochuritis and flying concept by Gen.VKS

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 26 Mar 2012 16:23

There is no replacement of artillery.....the major consideration is the weight of the shell...105mm shell is considered to be inadequate in mountains and one needs the heavier shell. As for Prahaar or Pinaka...they are meant as support for specific tasks and not replace line artillery. Plus, there is the expense angle with both the rocket artillery and any sort of guided round(s). We can develop a M777 type of 155/39 cal gun, there would be nothing to beat the same. Plus, don't forget that against the chicoms, we'd be fighting over a flat terrain (mostly). There you need the heavy firepower of 155/39 cal equipped brigades.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 26 Mar 2012 20:40

Hi Rohit, it is also my perception that IA does not require tracked 155mm SPH either, at least not in vast numbers:

1. In mountains, movement is restricted as it is. The cover is provided by natural terrain.
2. In plains our armour does not intend to drive into Pakistan more than 30-40 kms at max. Artillery fire can be provided by static or wheeled SPH.

M777 + OFB + IMI kits should be enough

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 27 Mar 2012 00:28

rohitvats wrote:There is no replacement of artillery.....the major consideration is the weight of the shell...105mm shell is considered to be inadequate in mountains and one needs the heavier shell. As for Prahaar or Pinaka...they are meant as support for specific tasks and not replace line artillery. Plus, there is the expense angle with both the rocket artillery and any sort of guided round(s). We can develop a M777 type of 155/39 cal gun, there would be nothing to beat the same. Plus, don't forget that against the chicoms, we'd be fighting over a flat terrain (mostly). There you need the heavy firepower of 155/39 cal equipped brigades.

I kind of agree with Chacko here.. Reasons being:

1. Indian political position on both of our contentious borders is "brittle". Any medium scale territory loss will be seen as a political loss (unless accompanied by other large scale territory gains). Unfortunate aspect of all the hyper patriotism going around. We will probably not be able to conduct a war of maneuver.
2. If a war of attrition is likely, then arty. duels will be the order of the day.
3. Technological advances, such as near real time military networks, artillery location radars, smart artillery rounds (excaliber, krasnopol), fast/automatic laying, have made counter battery fire lethal, and almost all of our artillery today is vulnerable. The M46s cant be used anywhere except the plains, and are horrifically exposed to counter battery fire. The Bofors shoot and scoot is more like shoot and crawl in todays scenario. Others see this too.. hence the state of the art today is Archer like systems, highly mobile, relatively light(er) weight, and crew in a cab protected from airbursts.

On the other hand, we have indigenous MLRS technology, thats as mobile as any archer system and can be made as survivable as the archer as well. Incorporating GPS/laser type guidance in these rockets will be far easier than incorporating the same in an artillery shell, because of two orders of magnitude greater g-forces in tube artillery. This extra engineering required for the 'smart shells' will probably make the MLRS more cost effective than tube launched arty!

Further, because of its very nature, the MLRS can do a lot more shoot before it actually has to scoot to avoid counter battery fire!

Lastly, in mountains and for air dropped forces, smaller versions of the MLRS (even single tube versions) can be developed, which will be just as lethal with smart rounds.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 27 Mar 2012 02:49

how about met data? firing tables need to be adjusted accordingly, with a different round/fuze setting/different caliber, one can't assume making a gun or upscaling a gun from one caliber to another is a walk in a park! Apart from the above, and what's listed here one needs to take into account the means info will be sent. If comms are used, will existing one's suffice or will new ones need to be developed based on the newer "near real time mil net." It will certainly be intersting to see the amount of titanium that is being used in upscaling and the rate of fire considering it is being operated in hot & high alts!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Mar 2012 07:43

MLRS alone is not a soln. even khan with ample choices keeps a substantial number of M109 SP and towed artillery and uses them seriously.

kg-to-kg, I dont think a Grad rocket packs the punch of a 105 or 155mm shell. when you need to demolish certain areas, heavy artillery is probably much better while MLRS is best for wide area attacks on exposed stuff

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 27 Mar 2012 08:02

A grad rocket warhead weighs around 20kg. A Pinaka warhead weighs about 100kg, more than twice as much as a 155mm shell.

MLRS was a wide area attack weapon, when its accuracy could not be ensured.

Now, with GPS/laser guidance, the rockets can be as accurate as a GPS/laser guided tube launched arty. Further, GPS guidance kits for these rockets will be far easier (and thus cheaper) to manufacture because of the lower stresses the rockets are subject to. Even the Khan, with all his jing-bang, makes only low triple digit GPS guided shells per month.

Lastly, the MLRS platforms are available to us. So is GPS/Glonass and in future, IRNSS. Modern tube launched arty is not. Ofb brand Bofors clones are 25 years too late to the party and are only slightly less vulnerable to counter battery fire as compared to plain jane M46.

A Pinaka with an armoured cab, and GPS guided rockets will be an archer class weapon system, and we are more than halfway there!

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 27 Mar 2012 08:16

Singha,

No one is advocating discontinuation of 155mm. However, a pure trajectory shell in mountainous area is a liability and Kargil is a witness to that. A suitable MLRS, like single tube being advocated above, with course corrector is better suited. There will be less emphasis on the need to take positions, prepare ground etc. Find suitable (not optimum) place, shoot and scoot. Shell will do its own manoeuvrings to reach the target.

schowdhuri · Post by **schowdhuri** » 27 Mar 2012 08:26

Many years back I remember being struck by the fact that when medium arty fired 15-20kms away, after the flash & smoke of the shell landing there was nothing to see. A BM21 rocket left a big black hole on the mountain face. A medium arty battery (or even regt) would not come close to a single BM21 firing a salvo. The problem with BM21 was cost & accuracy. With Pinaka the gap between the two should be much more.

member_22906 · Post by **member_22906** » 27 Mar 2012 09:37

chackojoseph wrote:Singha,

No one is advocating discontinuation of 155mm. However, a pure trajectory shell in mountainous area is a liability and Kargil is a witness to that. A suitable MLRS, like single tube being advocated above, with course corrector is better suited. There will be less emphasis on the need to take positions, prepare ground etc. Find suitable (not optimum) place, shoot and scoot. Shell will do its own manoeuvrings to reach the target.

We need to understand what exactly is this MLRS going to do in mountains (even with the bells & whistles GPS etc.). Is it infantry support, counter-battery fire, direct fire or area saturation? MLRS are fine (with GPS etc.) for engaging his value assets and saturation fire for a limited period. We need to see the logistics trail it makes with the sheer size of rockets, reloads, and other support requirements. Its going to be huge if we have to dig in and engage a well entrentched enemy.

We need to remember the cost, logistcis and ease of usage in our scenario planning

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 27 Mar 2012 10:05

^^^^ What in your opinion is a high value and low value target in a war that 155mm arty and GPS enavled MBRLS can take on?

I will clear my definition. I don't see a low value target in mountains which is well dug in.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Mar 2012 10:34

after the salvo how long does a MLRS launcher need to relocate, reload and move back into a firing mode?

a tube gun on a truck like archer can unload a dozen shells , move and be ready to fire the next salvo a few seconds after arriving by lowering its anchor jacks.
it can do this all day.

to substitute MLRS for tubes we need a khan std logisitical tail to move forward large numbers of reloads on a continuous basis as the rocket packs are quite bulky compared to shells. also wrt GPS , who is going to find the GPS co-ordinates of even bunkers and stuff and feed them back continuously? can a fwd artillery spotter point some "laser" at a bunker and get back the GPS coordinates? (I dont know)

member_22906 · Post by **member_22906** » 27 Mar 2012 10:38

^^^ High value: Makeshift ammo dump, supply lines, HQ etc

Low value: dug in troops, standard fortifications etc (now don't beat me with the arguement that these are equally important, its a call we take to decide what is an appropriate weapon for an appropriate target)

Value of the target is a function of what the battle objectives are. Prioritization is the key so I can't give a clear categorization since it'll be a function of the battle plans. But surely can state that all battle plans will have a classification of primary and secondary objectives

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 27 Mar 2012 10:48

A dug in troop in mountain can no way be low value, IMO. See, that was Kargil war about. Dug in men took 10 + days, few hundred soldiers, arms n ammo and international attention.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 27 Mar 2012 11:01

Singha wrote:after the salvo how long does a MLRS launcher need to relocate, reload and move back into a firing mode?

a tube gun on a truck like archer can unload a dozen shells , move and be ready to fire the next salvo a few seconds after arriving by lowering its anchor jacks.
it can do this all day.

Let us assume that an archer like system was available to India. (A very big assumption, considering we have blacklisted everyone and their uncle). An Archer carries about 20 rounds in its magazine, ready to fire, and another 20 in its turret. After that it needs a reload.

A Pinaka carries 12 rockets ready to fire, and can be reloaded with another 12 in 15 minutes, using the reload vehicle. Similar to an Archer.. It can also unload all 12 rockets in 40 seconds. Much faster than any tube arty. The relocation and moving into a firing mode will be as quick as any self propelled gun.

to substitute MLRS for tubes we need a khan std logisitical tail to move forward large numbers of reloads on a continuous basis as the rocket packs are quite bulky compared to shells.

Not if you have smart rounds.. that will reduce the number of rounds required to defeat any target. For comparison, a 155mm shell weighs 40kg, and the propellant weighs 10-20kg. 60kg for a round. The Pinaka rocket weights 276kg, but it also carries a warhead that's twice the size of the 155mm shell.

also wrt GPS , who is going to find the GPS co-ordinates of even bunkers and stuff and feed them back continuously? can a fwd artillery spotter point some "laser" at a bunker and get back the GPS coordinates? (I dont know)

I would imagine its possible for a spotter to provide GPS coordinates to the battery.

Look, I agree that MLRS cant replace tube arty in *all* possible roles, particularly when you want to put a lot of rounds reasonably accurately downrange. But we are not going to get modern tube arty (archer type) any time soon. The most modern piece available to us is nearly obsolete. On the other hand, we have good MLRS, which can be made to do many of the tube arty roles, with smart rounds.

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 27 Mar 2012 11:15

Craig Alpert wrote:how about met data? firing tables need to be adjusted accordingly, with a different round/fuze setting/different caliber, one can't assume making a gun or upscaling a gun from one caliber to another is a walk in a park! Apart from the above, and what's listed here one needs to take into account the means info will be sent. If comms are used, will existing one's suffice or will new ones need to be developed based on the newer "near real time mil net." It will certainly be intersting to see the amount of titanium that is being used in upscaling and the rate of fire considering it is being operated in hot & high alts!

As i have said earlier we should have multifunctional radar at a battery level(for weather and weapon location and battle field damage assessment) and battle management software for having the control.