Artillery Discussion Thread

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 08 Feb 2011 13:22

Nihat wrote:
merlin wrote:Perhaps its not cutting edge to make a 155mm gun, but it sure is to make a one that is reliable, accurate and has long life. Automation, user friendliness, designed for abuse, designed for quick repair and a host of other such qualities are what make it cutting edge. How many of the countries listed above have them all in their 155mm gun designs?
but we've got to make a start somewhere. We've made a start with LCA, we'll move on to advance tech. like AMCA and AURA in reasonably quick time. The first step is always the hardest.

Oh by all means yes. I just don't agree with the notion that building a really good 155mm gun system is easy. It may be doable but its definitely not easy.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 08 Feb 2011 13:52

^^^ havent we built the Arjun gun ourselves, it is a 120mm manual loader configuration with stabilisation, ofcourse it is not fired in regular modes in whch guns are used nevertheless the Arjun effort has definitely given us some good info on gun metallaurgy and trigger/accuracy systems. I guess three years is a reasonable estimate for a reasonably complex gun. Army should go for it for their own good.

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 08 Feb 2011 15:51

I'll love to see a Howitzer with Made in India tag. But imvho as on today DRDO neither have the initial technology nor manpower with relevant experience to embark and deliver a competitive product in time to compliment IA's battle readiness.

A better option will be to split the numbers, have some quick inductions with TOT, and use the inputs from there to develop our own machine. It will provide some breathing time to drdo as well as an in hand modern system to test and learn from.

We should definitely support swadesi, but it will be foolish to leave IA with its current inventory for 5 more years.

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 08 Feb 2011 16:19

Any news on the self-propelled guns procurement?

I heard from somewhere that the Archer was out, could someone confirm?

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 08 Feb 2011 17:21

merlin wrote: Oh by all means yes. I just don't agree with the notion that building a really good 155mm gun system is easy. It may be doable but its definitely not easy.

Of course it won't be easy - but neither were INSAS, Pinaka, or the NBC Recce Vehicle, all of which are fulfilling front-line roles in the very same Army today. These, like a 155 howitzer, are critical components of the Army's war-fighting ability and I'm sure that it wasn't 'halwa' to create them [to use a schoolyard term

] - yet they were done, though there are foreign equivalents available. Indeed in the case of Pinaka, the Smerch has also been ordered to cover a long-range requirement. Similarly, while it wouldn't be easy, it would have beeen imperative to have had a 'vanilla' 155/39 to replace all older 105/130 guns by the early 1990's.

Such a vanilla 155 would be towed, not necessarily have an APS, or even advanced targeting systems - basically, it would be the base M198: M198

Compared to the FH77B's F1 (by 1985 standards), the M198 really is a NASCAR racer - engine, cabin, roll bars, and GO. This should and very easily COULD have been done. The fact that there hasn't even been a serious attempt - well either the Army didn't want to support an indigenous effort, or the MoD babus showed some 'financial acumen'... or we've been shafted good and proper by someone, somewhere. I really don't know which it is.

negi · Post by **negi** » 08 Feb 2011 18:37

Arjun's 120mm rifled gun is manufactured by the ~~OFB~~(or is it ARDE still ?) so is the 120mm SB for T-90(under license).

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 08 Feb 2011 18:38

Probably a combination of all three

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 Feb 2011 19:19

Key thing is for private firms to integrate and assist in development of the gun. Have severe doubts on OFB capability on that score. A pretty OK small arms design - INSAS - has not got mindspace it deserves thanks to chalta hain treatment by OFB. Armed Forces want weapon systems to be world class in every respect, utility, fit and finish etc, thanks to exports. BEL, HAL have taken note. OFB, not so much.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 09 Feb 2011 00:59

this situation with our IA refusing to go for average complexity indigenous systems reminds me of a quote
"impossible best is the enemy of possible good"

and then "there is nothing impossible, it is just that something that is termed impossible takes a little longer to become possible"

DRDO should work on a gun out of its own funds and present a credible alternative in the next 2-3 years the army anwyays would have no choice by that time

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Feb 2011 01:15

They will call it sceince project and kill it.

Instead DRDO should work with IA to draw up requirements and develop it from IA funds. Right now IA has nothing to lose if it rejects the stuff. And can even appear superior being. No pain at all for being a jackass.

They should have some accountabilty for changing the Arjun specs so many times. Maybe the pain is to keep looking foolish everytime the PM asks can you do this after each Paki terrorist attack and answer next six months!

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 09 Feb 2011 03:34

its wonder to that our country producing guns for last few hundred years and they can't produce 155mm gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rajas ... 004-00.JPG

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 09 Feb 2011 06:25

I think it was Ramana who pointed out that the OFB had developed a 175 MM gun and it was rejected by the army in the past. If that was a home grown effort, then their is no reason why a 155 MM cant be done at home. It is just that the Army has to call for it.

The Army not doing so is puzzling.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 09 Feb 2011 06:26

Baldev wrote:its wonder to that our country producing guns for last few hundred years and they can't produce 155mm gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rajas ... 004-00.JPG

How do you know that the Rajas did not get foreign help to do so. Perhaps from the US or the USSR

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 09 Feb 2011 06:34

Pratyush wrote:
Baldev wrote:its wonder to that our country producing guns for last few hundred years and they can't produce 155mm gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rajas ... 004-00.JPG
How do you know that the Rajas did not get foreign help to do so. Perhaps from the US or the USSR

ab main kya kahoon??

well those gunes pre existed US and USSR,UK

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 09 Feb 2011 08:16

Why is everyone saying that India has not developed artillery guns?

Has everyone forgotten the OFB 105mm Field Gun hain?

Here is an interesting snippet: Click

The Indian Ordnance Factories' 105 mm Light Field Gun (LFG) bears a resemblance to the now BAE Systems Global Combat Systems 105 mm Light Gun. This is partly due to the fact that both were derived from the same 105 mm L13 gun used on the Vickers FV433 Abbot self-propelled gun.
...
The first 105 mm barrel, developed in India from the British original, was used on the 105 mm Field Gun Mk 1. This uses tubular bow trails similar to those of the British now BAE Systems Global Combat Systems 105 mm Light Gun.By early 1996, a total of 533 105 mm LFGs had been manufactured for the Indian Army.

Description
To reduce weight the weapon has been constructed using light, high-strength alloy steels giving a weight in action of 2,380 kg.The ordnance consists of a monobloc autofrettaged barrel with a vertical, sliding, hand-operated breech block. Firing is electrical. The cradle, saddle and undercarriage are lightweight fabricated structures. Other features include spring-type balancing gears, a telescopic type of hydropneumatic recuperator, a suspension system and bow-shaped tubular trails.
...
The LFG can be parachute dropped and carried by helicopter.The 105 mm Light Field Gun fires separate ammunition produced by the Indian Ordnance
...
Projectiles include HE, smoke, base ejection, star and HESH (High Explosive Squash Head). Maximum range is 17,200 m. The normal rate of fire is 4 rds/min and the intense rate of fire is 6 rds/min for up to 10 minutes. The sustained fire rate is one round every 2 minutes for up to 2 hours.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 09 Feb 2011 09:31

yeah I read those posts above and was too disgusted to reply to the "not even building blocks are in place" part.

For the record, We have developed and mass manufactured 105 mm weapons, created prototype 185 mm weapons in the past, upgunned M-46s , have an upgrade for the Fh-77, mounted denel on arjun which by the way did involve some ToT for the gun itself.

Not to mention developed a 120 mm gun for the Arjun that is more powerful than what the T-90 possesses.
for the 120mm development.
http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfoc ... /arjun.htm

I am sorry to say but of late a lot of trash is posted on BRF and posters get away with tripe that has been dealt with several times in the past. I think its not the late nineties or early 2000s anymore and a lot of the "grumpy old men" are either too busy with middle/old age or have left the forum to be around to bitch slap nonsensical posts.

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 09 Feb 2011 15:34

D Roy wrote:For the record, We have developed and mass manufactured 105 mm weapons, created prototype 185 mm weapons in the past, upgunned M-46s , have an upgrade for the Fh-77, mounted denel on arjun which by the way did involve some ToT for the gun itself.

Not to mention developed a 120 mm gun for the Arjun that is more powerful than what the T-90 possesses.
for the 120mm development.
http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfoc ... /arjun.htm

There is no argument here - the whole debate rather, was prompted by someone (I think rohitvats) asking how many nations actually had their own reasonably modern 155 models. And the lists followed. Then merlin said:

merlin wrote:Perhaps its not cutting edge to make a 155mm gun, but it sure is to make a one that is reliable, accurate and has long life. Automation, user friendliness, designed for abuse, designed for quick repair and a host of other such qualities are what make it cutting edge. How many of the countries listed above have them all in their 155mm gun designs?

In reply to which I pointed out a reasonable path that could have been taken, IMHO:

Jaeger wrote:Such a vanilla 155 would be towed, not necessarily have an APS, or even advanced targeting systems - basically, it would be the base M198: M198

Compared to the FH77B's F1 (by 1985 standards), the M198 really is a NASCAR racer - engine, cabin, roll bars, and GO. This should and very easily COULD have been done. The fact that there hasn't even been a serious attempt - well either the Army didn't want to support an indigenous effort, or the MoD babus showed some 'financial acumen'... or we've been shafted good and proper by someone, somewhere. I really don't know which it is.

So, this should contextualise this comment:

Jaeger wrote:The fact is this: we do not have a gun. Not even a basic building block to start with. Why not? Bells and whistles can be added, but why are we unable to even create a manually-loaded 39 cal (i.e. 20 years behind the times) 155mm howitzer?

The point I am making is that we do not have a reasonably modern 155mm gun - nor a basic 155mm to begin with Yes, we have created a 175mm prototype. Yes we have created a 105mm LFG. But that is irrelevant to my point, which is: where is the 155mm we should have had as a basis on which to create advanced variants with improved capabilities?

Nowhere have I run down capabilities, only results. And I've pointed out that I don't know who's to blame - the Army, the Babu's/MoD or certain vested interests.

D Roy wrote:yeah I read those posts above and was too disgusted to reply to the "not even building blocks are in place" part.

Perhaps if you had understood context, you would've been spared the feeling.

D Roy wrote:I am sorry to say but of late a lot of trash is posted on BRF and posters get away with tripe that has been dealt with several times in the past.

I think it's got to do with the fact that a lot of people aren't bothering to read, understand and contextualise before whipping out their err commentary. I don't if this applies only to oldsters or newbies.

D Roy wrote: I think its not the late nineties or early 2000s anymore and a lot of the "grumpy old men" are either too busy with middle/old age or have left the forum to be around to bitch slap nonsensical posts.

Well there is at least one "grumpy old man" left but unfortunately age (I'm guessing from the "bah when I was a young 'un" tone) has affected his ability to understand and therefore we are privy to the sad spectacle of someone trying bitchslap something that doesn't exist.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Feb 2011 16:40

The key reason why we have no home built large gun is because,as Air Cmde. Jasjit Singh wrote in a piece,the IN has its own future requirements planned well ahead and its own design bureau and corps of naval constructors.It monitors the progress of every warship from design to production stage.

Now had the IA many moons ago told the MOD/DRDO that a key requirement was to develop a series of field guns,SPs,light-weight howitzers,etc.,and the ammo for it as well,we would've had our own home designed and built artillery today.Why we also didn't go in for licensed production of the Bofors gun too beats me! This was when we were in a heavy licence-production era of MIGs,Jaguars,T-72s,etc.Had we at least acquired the technology/rights to licence produce Bofors 155mm guns,regardless of the scam,we would not be in the sad situ we are right now.

I think there was a fine article in the thread on Harry's sad demise about the country's heritage in metallurgy and manufacturing cannons.We all know about Tipu's rockets.It is a very sad commentary on the myopic mindset of the MOD/babudom/and even some minds in the IA,that we still are groping in the dark for an infantry rifle,dumping INSAS, wanting a heavier calibre rifle now apart from artillery needs,that too when we have a standing army of about a million men,lakhs of paras too-a huge market for our indigenous industry.

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 09 Feb 2011 19:18

Jaeger wrote:Yes, we have created a 175mm prototype. Yes we have created a 105mm LFG.

and

D Roy wrote:Not to mention developed a 120 mm gun for the Arjun that is more powerful than what the T-90 possesses.
for the 120mm development. http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfoc ... /arjun.htm

So why not use what we already have? Something is better than nothing. At least until the homegrown 155mm solution comes to take its place.

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 09 Feb 2011 21:26

Of course we are using what we have. The issue is that a] the numbers are not enough and b] what we have is not of the calibre that we (the IA) self-avowedly want to standardise on: 155mm.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 09 Feb 2011 21:54

nor a basic 155mm to begin with

Oh but we do. we have denel's work to begin with. And don't be so hung up on 155 mm in any case. Artillery of several calibers has been demonstrated including 155 mm with the M-46 upgrade.

And now let me tell you something that a grumpy old man can tell you - work is ongoing on a 155 mm gun with inputs from the past. expect to hear about it this year.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Feb 2011 22:26

D Roy, the M-46 upgrade is shoddy and doesn't work. Hence only a limited number were re-barelled.

As for Denel, the scoundrel Renuka Chowdary sunk the deal and is no where to be seen now.

She effectively shut it down and the IA was left agape.

The Bofors tech transfer was already paid for and it was to be made in India and then INC's Rajiv Gandhi bribe news broke and even though money was paid the mfg was not taken up.

Evenif the technology was slected the Politicians have repeatedly sunk the gun acquisition on one pretext or the other. And IA never made fuss and just muddled along.

Realising that imported guns will be a distant dream no IA chief ever decided lets give the local designers a chance as a hedge. All they did was run down local capability and want some thing they cant get without GUBO.

The problem is they want US guns and they wont come unless India submits to US. In which case the guns will be for parades and demonstrations. Is that what they want?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Feb 2011 22:53

D Roy I just saw your post on BHE and its plans to make 127mm guns for navy.

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 10 Feb 2011 02:19

Jaeger wrote:Of course we are using what we have. The issue is that a] the numbers are not enough and b] what we have is not of the calibre that we (the IA) self-avowedly want to standardise on: 155mm.

We can fill some gaps with ordering more numbers of Pinaka MBRLs for the time being. Being truck mounted they have the mobility advantage as against a slow moving towed gun. The situation is not the same as unkil against telibunnies or a limited isolated zone conflict like kargil wherein the enemy is paralyzed and isolated in position due to enemy reluctance to acknowledge its involvement. In a full fledged war with quick moving forces and air and missile support there should be little place for "dug in" gunmen fixed in a position or slow to move. We should go for more Pinakas to fill the temporary gaps. With newer propellants being developed, even the range of the rockets could be enhanced. Perhaps a silly pooch, Is there such a thing as LGB kit for MBRL rockets?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Feb 2011 02:55

The improved Pinaka has guidance module in the front end with its own guidance and steering.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Feb 2011 08:42

a cheap 155mm or 205mm short barrel pack howitzer type thing mounted on a T72 or arjun chassis would be a good tool to pound villages and fortifications from short range , low on range but high on HE. this could be issued in small units to infantry divisions without the huha of indep artillery brigades and such. their role would be to support and protect infantry in a direct fire or short range "lob the kitchen sink" role...a mortar-mki if you will. no need for any sophisticated laying stuff, use old fashioned kit to reduce cost and opex.

this is something we should be able to locally make and manufacture in short order. the ponderous 120mm mortar would be outclassed, outmoved and outfired by this thing.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Feb 2011 11:22

GD there is a beast called 160mm Mortar from FSU. since ammo is quite precious in mountains i might be good to develop some guidance.
I also like the Vulcano shell

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 10 Feb 2011 13:00

D Roy wrote:
nor a basic 155mm to begin with
Oh but we do. we have denel's work to begin with. And don't be so hung up on 155 mm in any case. Artillery of several calibers has been demonstrated including 155 mm with the M-46 upgrade.

I'm not personally hung up on 155mm. It's not like I have a fetish about 6 inches or something

. It's my understanding - please correct me if I'm wrong - that the IA is intent on standardising on that calibre. So that's why I mention it. Also, as Ramana mentioned, the M-46 upgrade (OFB calls it Metamorphosis) has been plagued by quality issues, last I heard, and because of the M-46's limited elevation capability, is not the most useful in mountains.

In any case the whole point that I've been trying to make all this while is not whether we have the capability. Please understand this, I can't keep repeating it. My whole question has been: why haven't we fielded reasonable numbers of a piece of equipment that is a fundamental necessity, in a calibre that we have already identified as suited to our needs? And thus, I said:

Jaeger wrote:well either the Army didn't want to support an indigenous effort, or the MoD babus showed some 'financial acumen'... or we've been shafted good and proper by someone, somewhere. I really don't know which it is.

and

Jaeger wrote:Nowhere have I run down capabilities, only results. And I've pointed out that I don't know who's to blame - the Army, the Babu's/MoD or certain vested interests.

D Roy wrote:And now let me tell you something that a grumpy old man can tell you - work is ongoing on a 155 mm gun with inputs from the past. expect to hear about it this year.

That's great to know. Really, it is. I look forward to hearing about it most expectantly, and this is a good note on which to terminate this discussion.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Feb 2011 11:35

ramana wrote:<SNIP>
The problem is they want US guns and they wont come unless India submits to US. In which case the guns will be for parades and demonstrations. Is that what they want?

Can you elaborate which US Guns does India Army want? AFAIK, there is no product worth the look from the US Stable, save for the M777 and that is already in pipeline.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 11 Feb 2011 11:37

Bofors-type guns may again be made indigenously

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 11 Feb 2011 11:47

^^ But there is no Swedish bofors now? Its owned by unkil.

Is this another way of having a FMS sale? Also its only unkil left in the race, with everyone else in (MOD) black list.

Coincidence, maybe.

P.S. by this logic IN could have exercised option for more HDW submarines as we had TOT deal with them, NO?

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 11 Feb 2011 12:03

Sid wrote:^^ But there is no Swedish bofors now? Its owned by unkil.

The title says Bofors-type. Just a little wait for indigenous solution should suffice. If IA was really worried they would have themselves approached drdo earlier given the accusations that plagued overseas gun procurements. Any temporary shortfall for the time being should be filled with more orders for Pinaka MBRLs

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 11 Feb 2011 12:22

Arya Sumantra wrote:
Sid wrote:^^ But there is no Swedish bofors now? Its owned by unkil.
The title says Bofors-type. Just a little wait for indigenous solution should suffice. If IA was really worried they would have themselves approached drdo earlier given the accusations that plagued overseas gun procurements. Any temporary shortfall for the time being should be filled with more orders for Pinaka MBRLs

article says it will be made using TOT that we had with sweden at that time.

when OFB actually absorbed the technology for bofors using this TOT? and since we had it from begining why place orders now?

or article is a DDM.

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 11 Feb 2011 12:41

^^There is a distinct possibility of this report being somewhat accurate - I definitely remember a prototype of an FH77B re-barreled to 45cal. by OFB and offered as an upgrade - was it at Defexpo?

There could be couple of interpretations of the DDM-lingo:
1. OFB will conduct in-house upgrade of extant IA FH-77B's from 39cal. to 45cal. (The article is inaccurate in stating that the 77B's are already 45 cal. They are not, they are currently 39cal.) So basically, this is a version of the Metamorphosis upgrade that was carried out on the M-46's.

2. OFB has reverse-engineered the FH-77B and can produce the reverse-engineered product in 45cal.

3. IA, OFB and MoD have somehow 'reactivated' the original license-production contract and are going to fulfill it, while incorporating the calibre upgrade.

Which one is it? D Roy, is this relevant to your statement:

D Roy wrote:work is ongoing on a 155 mm gun with inputs from the past. expect to hear about it this year.

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 11 Feb 2011 12:43

^^Overall, I'm inclined (and hopeful) to think that option 2 is the likely one. In which case, AoA!

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 11 Feb 2011 12:54

My guess is that the stalled FH-77 upgrade contest between BAE and OFB has been resolved to the latter favor(or option 1 as per Jaeger). As far as completely indigenous guns goes, the only news we heard of is that DRDO is still working on the Bhim. Nothing on towed guns.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 14 Feb 2011 07:52

Someone is desperately trying to scuttle artillery plans ....

US Howitzer field trial report leaked, Army seizes computers in probe

In what the Army suspects is a case of “commercial espionage,” pages have been leaked from the classified report of the just-concluded field trial of the M777 ultra-light Howitzer that India plans to buy from the United States this year.

The Army Headquarters has ordered the Director General Military Intelligence (DGMI) to conduct an inquiry.
...
...
Five pages of this report mysteriously reached the Army Headquarters last month alongwith a note urging it to scrap the US order.

Typed in bold letters, the note threatens Army Chief General V K Singh that he would meet the same fate as that of his predecessor in the Adarsh Housing Society scam if the military went ahead with the US gun deal.

The probe, which will include examination of phonecall data records as well, is in a key stage and those behind the leak are expected to be identified soon, sources said.
...
...
The Army Headquarters, sources said, has no plans to slow down the acquisition process and will defend its choice when the case is taken up by the Defence Acquisition Council headed by Defence Minister A K Antony. The final word on the acquisition is with the Cabinet Committee on Security.

...
...

sum · Post by **sum** » 14 Feb 2011 08:50

Holy %#^, even the M-777s are now going to be scrapped?

Hell, now am convinced that even if DRDO comes up with a plain vanilla 155 mm which is even 300% inferior to the super-dooper GSQRs of the IA, the IA should take them and start deploying.

Am convinced that there might never, ever be a 155 mm gun ever inducted by a foreign source going the way this is going and IA may end up with 0 155 mm guns on hand by 2020-2030!!!!

Even FMS deals seem to be getting scuttled now.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 14 Feb 2011 08:57

^^^ DRDO better get its gun working quickly, they are the only one who cannot pay and who will slog with no end in sight to meet all the staff requirements

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Feb 2011 09:07

wow, letter threatening the army chief is a new low in the great game. hard to id who exactly are the sharks in the dark water these days.

and this was supposed to be a single vendor FMS deal