Bharat Rakshak

For air defense it might be interesting to use gun-launched missiles, something like the Lahat, for example.

It should exit the barrel at say Mach 3 and maybe have a passive radar / infrared seeker.

if we want a heavy duty backup for Spyder, I suppose a truck mounted kashtan-M(guns only) system might be the best bet.

but it will need clear fields of fire to really be effective in anti missile/PGM role and spent shells by the 1000s falling on nearby residential areas wont be welcome...

I believe some members are confusing between L40/60 and L40/70

L40/60 120 rpm
L40/70 240 rpm
2A42 240 rpm
ZSU-23-2 360 rpm
Phalnax 750 rpm per barrel
AK-630 850 rpm per barrel

There are approx numbers from memory, but L40/70 is the basis for a highly effective CIWS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARDO and the latest ICV's in the world - Swedish CV90 and Korean and our Abhay are armed with L40/70

Ammo like http://ofb.gov.in/products/data/ammunition/mc/14.htm further increase lethality in the CIWS role.

While developing an AD gun system, the gun is the least challenging part of the system. The challenges are in the gun drives, stabilization, FCS and integration of all of these. I believe DRDO efforts were centered around converting the BMP 2A42 30 mm gun to AA. These efforts were resued in the Medak gun arming IN and ICG patrol ships.

L40/70 as a gun is a highly effective weapon. The challenges are in building an effective AD system around it.

Dear tsarkar, can you share some information on the Naval Coast Batteries of the Indian Navy and their status today? What is their equipment and mission?

Dear Aditya,

That would require a lot of information to collect. Also, my memories are a snapshot rather than a continuous flow of history of those units.

However, as a quick summary, during my time, they were known as Mobile Missile Coastal Battery (MMCB) and there are <<later deleted actual number>> such units in service across India equipped with the Rubezh system, guarding major harbours and economically significant installations by the sea. Any Dwarka type attack would be met by this system.

There were plans to replace them with BrahMos but not sure how far this has progressed given IA priority in inducting BrahMos batteries and Rubezh still having some life left in them.

There are also AD units under the Naval Coastal Battery equipped with single & twin L40/60, 70 and MANPADS, again defending major IN Bases. I have seen the twin L40/70s only in IN service, but then I have very limited view of IAF and IA.

Here are some pictures from the Internet
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian-ca ... -face.html
http://worldwide-defence.blogspot.in/20 ... fence.html

Edited later - One keeps learning new things everyday. I never knew NCBs operated 105 mm guns but apparently Naval Coast Battery, Mormugao does. http://www.goa.gov.in/pdf/Firing%20Practice.pdf

Here is some history http://mod.nic.in/samachar/dec1-01/html/ch9.htm

Its interesting that some of the posters are bringing up the issue of engaging aerial targets in residential/built-up areas and consequent collateral damage. One can easily get confused by the deployment of ZU-23-2 in residential areas as seen in many Mid-East conflicts as being standard gun deployment but that is primarily in ground-role and extremely limited AD role or rather in 'spray & pray' role. In any professional army a whole load of planning, recce goes before AD weapon systems are even considered for deployment in order to ensure that they have enveloping arcs, good cover, ease of deployment/disengagement and most importantly good field of fire and ground-clutter effect. Generally, AD weapons systems are deployed in open spaces much further out from built-up areas but now some weapon systems like MANPADS do get deployed as they are independent weapon systems that are usually not integrated into any AD grid. Collateral damage from AD weapon will be a really bad example of AD weapon deployment and somebody's head will definitely roll e.g. an entire AD unit was route-marched when during firing exercise they damaged the target-towing aircraft.

^^
+1

Moreover, if you placing it on your building means that your enemy has already got complete air supremacy and you have limited to no AD grid left.

IIRC, this was used in conflicts like Bosnia in anti-infantry/anti-people direct fire mode very effectively

Reposted after removing some typos and with some additional comments in RED

From CAG Report

For indigenization of technology for AD Gun, GSQR was framed by the Army
in October 1985. DDRD in May 1986 sanctioned a Technology
Demonstration project for design and development of Towed AD Gun,
ammunition system and associated technology (Sharp shooter) at an estimated
cost of 9.44 crore with the PDC of 5 years. The project was completed in
September 1992 at a cost of 8.24 crore, after achieving rate of fire of 1200
rounds per minutes as against rate of 1000 rounds per minute specified in the
GSQR. Therefore the achievement was better than GSQR and delivered in reasonable time.

Later, (Army sits quiet for one decade then revises the GSQR) a Staff Project
(SL-PX-2K referred to at Sl No 4 below) was taken up in September 2000 for 17.70 crore to
improve upon the rate of fire to 2000 rounds per minute. The project had to be foreclosed after an
expenditure of 14.68 lakh as the Army again changed the parameters of the gun.

A total of nine changes in the GSQR were made impacting the basic
parameters of the gun system such as caliber, rate of fire, size, number of
barrels, weight etc. as detailed below:

1. GSQR 554 of October 1985
All weather, 30 mm, Towed, Multi-barrel, Rate Of Fire
(ROF) not less than 1000 rpm
RDS–PX-86/ARD-826 in May 1986 for 9.44 crore.
Successfully completed inSeptember 1992 at a cost of 8.24 crore.

2. No Revised QR. DRDO unilaterally decided to develop item with enhanced
specifications to Multi-barrel, Gatling Gun with ROF 4200 rpm.
Army in October 1995 suggested two types of AD guns.
One with weight around 1000 – 1500 Kg and other weighing 4000–5000 Kg with ROF 1000–2000 rounds in each case.
RDR-PX-93/ARD-984 in August 1993 for 1.98 crore.
Since Gatling gun did not meet the user requirement the project was foreclosed in October 1995 at an expenditure of 48.5 lakh

3. Draft GSQR of May 1997
30 mm, Towed, Single Barrel, ROF not less than 1000 rpm, and Weight not more than
1500 Kg. July 1998, Twin Barrel Gun, ROF 2000 rpm
Weight 3500 – 3800 Kg
RDX-PX-97/ARD-1080 in August 1997 for 9.85 core.
Closed in April 2000 at an expenditure of 51.19 lakh.

4. GSQR 767 of January 2000
Fair weather, 30 mm, Two Barrel, Towed AD Gun,
Weight 3500–3800 Kg and ROF 2000 rpm
SL-PX-2K/ARD-1148 in September 2000 for 17.70 crore.

Due to decision of the Army to
upgrade in service 40 mm L/70 and 23mm ZU Gun, Project
foreclosed in October 2001 at a cost of 14.68 lakh.

Note that Army prefers upgrade of 50 year old technology/equipment rather than
ordering indigenous equipment

5. GSQR 910 of October 2002As a common successor to
L/70 and 23mm ZU Gun. All weather, Two Barrel, ROF not less than 1000 per
Barrel Amended in May 2004. No project undertaken as GSQR
was revised in September 2004

GSQR revised thrice in 2 years, what major technological advances took place
so many times in 2 years in the world, one wonders??

6. GSQR 998 of September 2004
All weather, Towed/HMV mounted, 30/35mm, Two
Barrel with ROF 1000 rpm and Weight about 4.5 ton
Amended in August 2006 Light Weight Air Defence Gun

No project undertaken as the GSQR was amended in August
2006 and revised GSQR superseding all the previous
GSQRs was received in January 2007

7. GSQR 1166 Received in January 2007 to replace L/70 and
23mm ZU Gun Towed, HMV mounted, ROF 1000 rpm and weight Not <
6000 Kg No project undertaken till date by ARDE

GSQR revised thrice in 2 years, what major technological advances took place
so many times in 2 years in the world, one wonders??

Thank God they got the message,
that indigenous products are not wanted.

In August 2010 the User Directorate in Army HQ stated that revisions to
GSQR in this case had become essential, as the features had become outdated
during preceding 20 years and the proposed gun system was required to relate
to the envisaged air threat. The User categorically denied any responsibility
for the failure in development by DRDO and insisted that they had not agreed
to any dilution in specifications of most critical of the GSQR parameters.

Consequently, even though three R&D projects and one Staff project were
undertaken by the laboratory, the AD Gun system could not be developed by
DRDO to satisfy the frequently revised requirements of the Users . This
resulted in their mid-way closure after incurring an expenditure of 9.38 crore
on the staff project in addition to the expenditure on the technology demonstration project.

Ministry in its reply agreed with the audit contention of non
finalization/frequent changes to QR leading to failure to develop a Gun system
acceptable to the Users.

Hence DRDO, Mod, CAG all accept that conduct of Army was unreasonable but Army fobs them off
with bald, vague and non-specific, routine, standard reply which has been used to kill lot of
indigenous projects including Arjun

Does this repeated and massive changes in GSQRs indicate love for import (of Tungushkas, Oerlikon 30mm revolver gun, foreign component based upgrade of ZU 23mm & 40 mm L/70 ??).[/quote]

The simple answer to this is that NO imports will be allowed. If the army than suffers operationally the higher ups starving the jawans of equipment should be placed at the front lines and in harms way before anyone else. The fact that the IA wants to "upgrade" POS like the T-72 makes me want to puke. So WW2 era equipment that is upgraded is better than indigenous???? Yeah, to the buyers Swiss bank acct.

Depressing read ( esp the comments)

OK. Mister smarty-pants, can you please tell me what the IA should do with the T-72 in service? For starters, let me give you some numbers to base your assertions - there are about 2,400 odd T-72 in IA service.

Since, the IA decision to upgrade T-72 makes you puke, I'm sure you've a strong alternative backed by proper analysis which you feel is superior and makes more sense than IA's plan. How about laying it out here?

I'll await your answer.

Re artillery acquisition,
Gen VK Singh has himself stated in an NDTV interview (Feb 2011) that IA has been more at fault in this case. He said that if IA keeps on changing requirements and keeps asking for the moon, things will not get done. He further stated that this problem from IA side had been recognized and corrected.

http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/the-bu ... ief/190986

Watch from 33:00 onwards.

How about Tank-Ex (Karna) if the Arjun is simply too heavy for logistics even though just about every western tank outweighs the Arjun. Obviously with numbers this large Avadi will not be sufficient. So now would be a good time to let the pvt. sector (M&M, Tatas) open separate lines as well. If we are to have a heavy/light
tank mix I would prefer Arjun mkxx/FMBT and Karna. Obviiously there will be teething problems with Karna but those can be solved locally on following production batches.

Is the history of the T-72 so stellar that we should be upgrading an upgraded T-62?

There is Pantsyr S1 which uses long ranged missiles 57E6 missiles but the only thing is price tag 20+ million per system which makes it more expensive than Spyder (which comprises of 4 launchers and radar unit).

Thanks. Not able to ID this missile:

Volna (naval Pechora) used in SNF ships, minus the booster
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5299/542 ... 6baa2b.jpg
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/51 ... 21sg7.jpg/

well the general may not be exactly right.. army can keep changing requirements as a user. hence they have every right to change, and must change.

that is not the problem.. they can't change in the middle of acceptance, to add in features, other than validate and verify on the already specified requirements.. all changes must be followed up for the next batch of requirements.

the previous batches must be of the older specs, and can be upgraded later on. that is more sustainable model, that is very basic and logical for even aams to follow this model.

it is extremely surprising that we would not appreciate that type of development practice. i don't think it is ignorance.

it must be the hands of few people, who have the power to make decisions. nothing else other them, ajints, mutus and mptps. /sorry.

The IA does not know how to support indigenous R&D through iterative development approach. It does not seem to understand that products can be continuously evolved and improved upon. If one looks at the IA's inventory history, the IA tends to wait a long time to do any updates on existing inventory, and sometimes no updates occur before inventory retirements.

Like a lot of problematic customers, the IA does not quite know what it wants, and when it sees a product (as per its original requirements) it gets more ideas and want those features before any orders placed. It seems to do it at least a few times over for all indigenous projects. However, it is more lenient in its requirements & acceptance criteria when it comes to foreign maal.

It would seem through the Arjun MBT project the DRDO is slowly teaching the IA on iterative development approach. First batch Mk.1 meeting original specifications; second batch Mk.2 with 90 improvements requested by the IA; and already a talk of Mk.3 variant. Also, with expertise attained in R&D of a MBT, DRDO is able to push back on the IA's impossible requirements for its FMBT telling them exactly why it is not possible. It is hoped that the younger generation officers as they move up the ranks will be able to adopt this iterative approach having seen how it works.

I had pointed that there might be some motivated intention to delay indigenus Air Defence Gun project.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 943713.cms

CBI sources said they have been able to verify the evidence of a payment of $530,000 from Rheinmetall Air Defence (RAD), Zurich, to Verma's company in the US.

IIRC the US had a tracked vehicle mounted vulcan AD system - not sure if still in use
i guess resupply of ammo is a big issue with these rapid fire systems

Still confused...If the howitzer is still under development, what was Gen.V.K.Singh mentioning about when he said 400 rounds had been fired successfully from Desi howitzer? Was that just a reverse-engineered Bofors taken from the blue prints by OFB and this is another parallel program?


Why only 140? Wasnt the requirement posted as more than 500 as per earlier reports?

exactly but not RVed as india paid for it as part of TOT. this was being referred to by Gen. V K Singh. OFB is experimenting (based on bofors design) upgunned howitzers from 39cal (present bofors gun) to 42/45cal AFAIK.

DRDO one is ARDE headed which is 155mm 52 cal which will take time.

@sum, from what I've come to understand about purchases by the Services, it seems that these happen in approved batches - this takes into account the budget outlay, production capacity and absorption rate of the Services. For example, take the case of Pinaka System. While the IA is well on its way to induct many system in 2012-2017 Defense Plan, the orders and inductions are in batches.

20mm. Army does not want that. they are set on 35 mm. Oerlikon ( now RT AD) has long held that this the optimal caliber for AD.

Assured order

I'll be surprised if Army finishes trials within 5 years of it's development. Indian Army placing orders for an "Made In India" product is a fool's dream

^click


So they did scrap the bhim project.

I second that!!

Is the pic above taken in India?



Even this part is confusing since in Jan, there were reports of it being re-started ( even Chacko-ji or someone else had alluded to something like this quoting their chaiwallahs):

India’s Self-Propelled Artillery Project ‘Bhim’ To Get a New Lease of Life

I have said this before, but it has become a matter for laughter? When it is a question of the life of my men and myself, I have every right to ask for the best and nothing but the best. It is the duty of the nation to provide me that. Whether it is is homegrown, screw-drivered or imported, is of little concern to me in the battlefield. There is a long list of products successfully inducted in the Army. However if the need arises, time and again it has been proved that the Army fights with what it has got than wait for better stuff; history has numerous records of this.

the gun seems to have a longer barrel than traditional fh77, maybe the 45cal being tested out..the guys in red jumpsuits could be OFB employees or contractors hired from ranks of ex-IA artillery corps while the blue suits are engineers monitoring it.

(added later) - the blue suits appear to be goras looking very closely...

^^No its the fh-2000 from ST Kinetics.

rahul bedi would say that is Indian made firang puraana maal - fh-77bs.

You're missing the point? The nation is grateful to the soldier and his valor. Tell us why the Arjun which is the better weapon (demonstrated by the Army in comparative trials) received orders of only 124 tanks (for accepted Mark I) and a theoretical order for another 124 (after Arjun II clears trials in 2112) while the T-90 which came up second best has received orders of 1500 tanks?

You may find some hint in the appropriate thread. Still, there is no need to generalise. Each case can be discussed on its merits alone.

Nelson saar,
It's the ordinary Jawan and sometimes his immediate commanding officer, a Major, Captain etc who do the actual fighting and sometimes make the supreme sacrifice. It's the people who are in charge of choosing weapons for them have made the procurement a laughing matter. Just read about Arjun, INSAS, artillery, anti-aircraft gun mentioned above and dozens of other similar cases not just related to arms procurement. Army is rotting due to corruption and these are only the visible symptoms. Sure, you want the best for your men. BUt when you observe the cases I've mentioned it's quite obvious that we are suffering either due to incompetence or corruption or both. My feeling for military personnel is same as yours but there are issues which have to be addressed. MOD, CAG, PMO, Army procurement, a lot of people in these departments are crooks and it'll be dishonest to call them by any other name

Very true

IIRC, if the IN had persisted with the same attitude as IA, we would never have reached the stage of having a home-built world class INS Satpura, Shivalik , IAC-1 etc since the initial Desi products like Nilgiri, SONAR etc weren't super-duper but IN persisted and worked with designers to iteratively improve designs till we reached the stage we are now instead of crossing their arms 30 years back and saying that "bring us world class else dont bother".

The reason why the IN is successful is that they have their own design bureau. And thus they 'own' the whole process including the final product.

IA lacks the culture of 'ownership' towards end results, it has developed a culture of sychophancy. And today the highest post in IA is occupied by a person who is a prime example of that sychophancy culture.

Wait, their will be more large purchases like the Javelin. How much money changes hands is anybody's guess.