Artillery: News & Discussion

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19658
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 06 Dec 2013 16:19

navneeet wrote:http://epaper.patrika.com/c/2023710

news about desi bofors in a vernacular newspaper


Winter trials in Sikkim by IA, till Jan. Followed by summer trials presumably. Good progress.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 06 Dec 2013 17:39

It seems that 100 rounds have been fired in the present round of trials. IIRC, even during the tenure of VK Singh, around 450 rounds had been fired. So my guess is that by now, atleast 5 prototypes have been built and around 1000 rounds have been fired over last couple of years.

Arjun chassis based 130mm SPG seems like a good idea. The SPG would be cheap, light, mobile and quickly available. Though I wonder, why did they not mount the 155mm Metamorphosis upgrade of 130mm gun.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19658
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 06 Dec 2013 18:04

Its just a quick conversion of Catapult on a better chassis. Thats why only 40 units.
Good example of jugaad - reusing existing Catapult guns etc.

Once this new 155mm gets proven, possibilities open up. There must have been some issues with Metamorphosis which scuppered it.. havent heard about it for years now.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby RoyG » 06 Dec 2013 18:08

IMO, looks like the turret is locked into place backward. What a POS! We decided to mount a 130mm howitzer on arjun chassis which has offers limited protection, firepower(no MRSI capability), and range compared to the denel-arjun system which came to fruition over a decade ago. How long are we going keep convincing ourselves that inferior system a good system (cheap, light, mobile, and quickly available? :roll: )

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19658
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 06 Dec 2013 18:11

Rants and all are very well, but fact remains - there are no SPG in service today. By doing this, IA gets 40 guns to accompany its strike formations. Thats 40 guns it didnt have after it retired its Catapults. With the mess that IA arty procurement is, this is a step up.
Biggest issue is the lack of a cabin, which means its not really NBC capable..but then thats an issue 90% of our current arty has as well.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4484
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby putnanja » 06 Dec 2013 20:02

Karan M wrote:Rants and all are very well, but fact remains - there are no SPG in service today. By doing this, IA gets 40 guns to accompany its strike formations. Thats 40 guns it didnt have after it retired its Catapults. With the mess that IA arty procurement is, this is a step up.
Biggest issue is the lack of a cabin, which means its not really NBC capable..but then thats an issue 90% of our current arty has as well.


That was my thinking as well, along with the fact that the operators will be exposed to sharpnels etc of counter-battery, and bad ergonomics. Can arjun support the adidtional weight of a proper cabin with sufficient protection?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 06 Dec 2013 20:12

yeah ofcourse can and did mount the Denel T5 turret.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19658
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 06 Dec 2013 20:24

putnanja wrote:
Karan M wrote:Rants and all are very well, but fact remains - there are no SPG in service today. By doing this, IA gets 40 guns to accompany its strike formations. Thats 40 guns it didnt have after it retired its Catapults. With the mess that IA arty procurement is, this is a step up.
Biggest issue is the lack of a cabin, which means its not really NBC capable..but then thats an issue 90% of our current arty has as well.


That was my thinking as well, along with the fact that the operators will be exposed to sharpnels etc of counter-battery, and bad ergonomics. Can arjun support the adidtional weight of a proper cabin with sufficient protection?


yup..as singha said

http://www.military-today.com/artillery/bhim.jpg
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... 3/0474.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-it7EHmVkjX8/T ... 1600/1.JPG
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sQzA7Fd2XkY/T ... 1600/3.JPG

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 07 Dec 2013 08:15

Protected cabins only make sense if we have protected ammo carriers, fuel carriers, air defense, perimete security etc. also. Anyway, Tracked vehicles improve mobility in difficult terrain which is step up from wheeled vehicles. So till we have all bells and whistles, a few trinkets are better which are 1/10 th the cost and can reach in areas where no Bhim can, due to almost 15 tons lighter weight. In any case, Arty would be around 20 km away from frontline action.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12261
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Aditya_V » 07 Dec 2013 08:46

Just a stupid question, that is photo of catapult on Arjun chassis and not the old catapult on Vijayanta chassis.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19658
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 07 Dec 2013 10:03

yes

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 07 Dec 2013 12:01

Not to forget how the Artillery procurement system works:-

http://www.caravanmagazine.in/print/3878

Six months later, the CBI filed an FIR against Choudhrie, which provides an account of how he successfully won the contract in the face of blatant irregularities in the process. The details are bland, but they give a pretty good sense of how a powerful middleman could then bend the system to his liking.

At the end of that year, the Israeli company Soltam—whose directors included Choudhrie, according to the CBI—sent an unsolicited offer to the MoD for the contract, even though India had not yet formulated the required SQR or issued a request for proposals. Though “a proper analysis of the Soltam proposal was not done”, the MoD asked Soltam to send their gun for trials; they sent a gun that they had not yet tested themselves, which the FIR calls “an untested and unproven prototype”.

The gun performed poorly, and “various wings of Army including DRDO raised serious objections”, which were “deliberately suppressed and ignored”, while a faulty evaluation report favouring Soltam was prepared.

Over the next several years, competing proposals at lower or comparable prices, from Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Finland, South Africa and India’s own Ordnance Factory Board were rejected “on one pretext or another ... No effort was made to shortlist the various possible sources and a single vendor situation was deliberately created.” Finally, a false report was prepared to secure the approval of the Cabinet Committee on Security, while frequent meetings were held between representatives of Soltam and army and MoD officials, “in gross violation of the DPP.” According to the CBI, Choudhrie received a payment of $156,940 (equivalent to Rs. 1.3 crore today) from Soltam in March 2000 as commission in the deal

[/quote]

Indigenous Artillery systems do not require an armoured turret, they need a moneyed pimp=Arms dealer

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby koti » 11 Dec 2013 09:29

:)
Despite Delay, Indian Buy of Howitzers Remains on Track
Ministry of Defence sources said the contract will be signed in the financial year ending March 31

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12261
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Aditya_V » 11 Dec 2013 10:24

I wish the same committment is shown for indigenous Howitzers. We need to manufacture the 155mm shells in Nalanda and we need nos, 145 is not going to be a game changer.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8266
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 11 Dec 2013 20:04

How, the plant was shut down. So how will the guns be made.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12261
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Aditya_V » 11 Dec 2013 20:26

Simple foot anther few hundred million USD to restart production. An indegenious gun would have never been acquired unless it repeatedly met Army tests but does not apply to Foreign maal.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 11 Dec 2013 21:48

Pratyush wrote:How, the plant was shut down. So how will the guns be made.

It's called the butt-scratching premium payment (BSPP) which numbskull MoD is familiar with. Very common.

From the article:
three-year delay since clearance was granted to buy the guns from the US subsidiary of BAE Systems.....Anonymous complaints to the Defence Ministry regarding the process have delayed finalizing the contract, officials said.

Morons still haven't figured out that all the pakis have to do is call anonymously to kill any weapon and the MoD will oblige in order to keep their lungis clean.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2379
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby VinodTK » 20 Dec 2013 06:08

An army in search of artillery
Despite the efficacy of artillery firepower unleashed by the Bofors howitzers during Kargil, the Army’s longstanding Field Artillery Rationalisation Plan stands stymied

God, Napoleon said, fights on the side with the best artillery. The legendary French general’s foot and horse artillery repeatedly demonstrated its lethal capacity against his European adversaries by degrading their formidable formations before his cavalry and infantry moved in to victoriously conclude the fighting.

But applying Napoleon’s adage to the Indian Army’s prevailing dismal artillery profile is absurd.

It would preclude God’s cooperation to the Artillery Directorate, whose 180-odd field regiments employ six different gun calibres, a majority of them obsolete.

And if that were not enough cause for worry in an increasingly turbulent region, the Army’s catastrophic artillery woes just got progressively worse.
:
:
:

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19658
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 20 Dec 2013 06:23

VK Singh makes the point that after IA utilized its funds effectively, a crucial acquisitions post was deliberately left unfilled so that IA procurement was stalled. Shades of stymieing Cold Start/Arty Plan? Those who have the book may comment further

A Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 1152
Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby A Sharma » 21 Dec 2013 18:49

Successful test of Pinaka

Four months after a failed attempt, India’s indigenously developed Pinaka Mark-II rocket system was successfully tested from a defence base off the Odisha coast. At least six rockets were fired from a multi-barrel rocket launcher (MBRL) from Chandipur-on-sea on Thursday.

Defence sources said the rockets were test fired from the testing range of Proof and Experimental Establishment (PXE). The successful trials were morale booster for the Pune-based Armament Research and Development Establishment (ARDE) of DRDO which conducted the tests.

Pinaka, which has undergone several tough tests since 1995, has been inducted into the armed forces and the trials were conducted with some improvements in the system. The unguided rocket system has been developed to neutralise large areas with rapid salvos.

The older version of the rocket system has a strike range of 40 km while its advanced version can strike a target beyond 55 km and is capable of acting as a force-multiplier. It has been developed to supplement artillery guns. The system can be operated in four modes - autonomous, stand-alone, remote and manual.

The rocket launcher can fire 12 rockets with 1.2 tonne of high explosives within 44 seconds and destroy a target area of 3.9 sq km at a time. The quick reaction time and high rate of fire of the system gives an edge to the Army during a low-intensity conflict situation.

This rocket system’s capability to incorporate several types of warheads made it deadly for the enemy as it could even destroy solid structures and bunkers.

On August 7, two rounds of second generation Pinaka rocket were test-fired from a multi-barrel rocket launcher which had failed to provide the result as expected by the mission team. The rockets reportedly could not cover the expected distance and some of their sub-systems too did not function properly.

However, in July similar trials of the Pinaka Mark-II version from Chandhan area in Pokhran field firing range of Rajasthan were stated as successful by the DRDO. The trials were conducted by the DRDO and Indian Army.

LakshO
BRFite
Posts: 210
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby LakshO » 21 Dec 2013 20:30

Aditya_V wrote:I wish the same committment is shown for indigenous Howitzers. We need to manufacture the 155mm shells in Nalanda and we need nos, 145 is not going to be a game changer.


I read sometime back about a artillery gun manufactured by the Tatas. Any news on that :?:

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 505
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby dinesh_kimar » 31 Dec 2013 11:32

Greetings to All !

Have been a lurker for some time, before deciding to jump abroad. Among others, Arty Discussion Thread is a favourite.
Help reqd from all Gurus:

> 75/25 Pack Artillery designed by ARDE; any pics available of the same? Googled for it, but havent found it, so please help.

> Is the 75/25 Arty Gun still used? Various sites on net mention a 76mm Yugoslav Gun for Mountain Requirements.

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 505
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby dinesh_kimar » 31 Dec 2013 11:59

There is a famous post on BR Forums about Artillery Gun Development and Reverse Engineering chappatis to find the Material Composition.

My take (speculation only): ARDE has enough M.Tech and Phds on its Staff (Core Development People who understand Research), who have access to various Journals and Technical Papers in the relevant field, and composition of materials used in various Guns are available.Its people. incl. Chief Anil Datar was responsible for the 105mm IFG project, and has required expertise. Material used for Barrel may not be so critical (GCF Jabalpur OF Kanpur lists "155mm Spare Gun Barrel" as on of its products). More critical may be the following:
> Mechanisms for Recoil
> Carriage
> Powered APU (pref. diesel?) which can work in freezing conditions (Rubber seals, Bearings and Lubrication Oils , as well as Diesel Fuel used, should possess Special Properties).

So, IMHO, still some way to go before we see a desi APU equipped 155mm Howitzer (equiv. to Bofors) Better to try for basic 155mm Towed Gun with suitable FAT for motive requirements.
Last edited by dinesh_kimar on 01 Jan 2014 11:38, edited 1 time in total.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 31 Dec 2013 20:49

The primary artillery of USA, Russia and China is non-automated towed artillery. Why automation is so important for us?

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2575
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby darshhan » 31 Dec 2013 20:58

vic wrote:The primary artillery of USA, Russia and China is non-automated towed artillery. Why automation is so important for us?


Probably 'cause our defence procurement officials are extremely voracious readers of brochures.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2575
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby darshhan » 31 Dec 2013 21:00

By the way Indian Defence Procurement system is a very good example of " Perfect being the enemy of good enough"

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 01 Jan 2014 10:25

Automated towed artillery was European development as manpower is very costly and perhaps unavailable. It is not required in Indian context. We have found no use for shoot and scoot or for high firing rates for last 25 years. We should develop non automated 155mm towed artillery for rapid and cost effective induction

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 505
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby dinesh_kimar » 01 Jan 2014 11:46

OF Kanpur lists the following:

>130/155MM UG MK-I ORDNANCE
>Bofors Spare Barrel
>BARREL WITH MECHANISM FOR 155MM FH 45 Cal
>BARREL WITH MECHANISM FOR 155MM FH 39 Cal

As per info from Kunal Biswas (DFI Forums), Bofors ToT did not yield satisfactory knowhow to build both barrel and breech (Breech Problem?) Then, OFB tried a 45 Cal on their own, but not successful. Then, under collabration of Soltam of Israel, 45 Cal Barrel + Breech was done, but again unsatisfactory (Barrrel problem?). Then, mixing and matching the Good Working Barrel + Good Working Breech,now in 45 Cal, we got a 45 Cal Barrel + Breech.

(Thats wat i understood of this circus, please forgive me for any confusion.)

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3086
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 05 Jan 2014 08:49

^^ From what I've been told, Bhim T-6's performance was among the best in the world and IA wanted it in significant numbers. Its procurement was under the purview of Director General of Artillery, and they were very optimistic about it like BrahMos & Pinaka.

South Africa had a very innovative arms industry that faced uncertain future post apartheid. They were willing to collaborate at attractive ToT & commercial terms. Post Kargil, NDA ruled GoI had embarked on significant modernization.

Unfortunately, someone published unsubstantiated corruption allegations in an obscure South African newspaper. The government of the day did the obvious - butchered the product. The investigation yielded nothing. SA started working with Pakistan and the Ra'ad ALCM came out of it. Even in those days, it was obvious that it was the work of Pak Intelligence, but there was political advantage to be taken from that.

Even more poignant was the case of the Denel NTW-20 whose ToT was completed and was manufactured as OFB Vidhwansak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denel_NTW-20
http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/we ... add_10.htm

At Kargil, an anti material rifle penetrating Pakistani stone sangars at standoff range would have been invaluable. 7.62mm MMG fire was not effective, and our men had to get within hand-to-hand range to lob grenades to clear, at a high cost.

Sadly, given no dearth of Generals willing to satisfy political masters, the requirement was dropped. Today, AMRs are not in widespead use in any service.

Even in coastal security operations, an AMR shot can disable engine or steering of a suspected pirate / terrorist vessel with negligible collateral damage. Today, it requires a spray of 12.7 mm HMG fire.

member_28041
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_28041 » 05 Jan 2014 12:19

tsarkar wrote:^^ From what I've been told, Bhim T-6's performance was among the best in the world and IA wanted it in significant numbers. Its procurement was under the purview of Director General of Artillery, and they were very optimistic about it like BrahMos & Pinaka.

South Africa had a very innovative arms industry that faced uncertain future post apartheid. They were willing to collaborate at attractive ToT & commercial terms. Post Kargil, NDA ruled GoI had embarked on significant modernization.

Unfortunately, someone published unsubstantiated corruption allegations in an obscure South African newspaper. The government of the day did the obvious - butchered the product. The investigation yielded nothing. SA started working with Pakistan and the Ra'ad ALCM came out of it. Even in those days, it was obvious that it was the work of Pak Intelligence, but there was political advantage to be taken from that.

Even more poignant was the case of the Denel NTW-20 whose ToT was completed and was manufactured as OFB Vidhwansak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denel_NTW-20
http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/we ... add_10.htm

At Kargil, an anti material rifle penetrating Pakistani stone sangars at standoff range would have been invaluable. 7.62mm MMG fire was not effective, and our men had to get within hand-to-hand range to lob grenades to clear, at a high cost.

Sadly, given no dearth of Generals willing to satisfy political masters, the requirement was dropped. Today, AMRs are not in widespead use in any service.

Even in coastal security operations, an AMR shot can disable engine or steering of a suspected pirate / terrorist vessel with negligible collateral damage. Today, it requires a spray of 12.7 mm HMG fire.



After the deal for Denel NTW-20 was cancelled. OFB developed its own version called Vidhwansak.
Has this been accepted by the Army yet?
The wiki says Army did not accept this due to "weight" issues.
The weight of the original NTW-20 is given as : 31 kg
The weight of indian Vidhwansask is given as : 25 kg


So what is this issue of weight with Vidhwansask? They did not accept this because it weighted LESS then the original NTW-20? :roll:
Or does the indian 1kg is more than 1000grams???? :lol:

Is this another case of dumping an excellent indian product?? :evil:

The price of Vidhwansask is less than half the price of the original NTW-20 .

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 505
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby dinesh_kimar » 06 Jan 2014 11:03

When CVRDE put up that pic of 130mm SPG on Arjun , they had another one on website of BMP based vehicle called "Fire Control System of Catapult" or something similar.

Also, there is pic of Shakthi Artillery Command and Control System on the web (someone's blog i think), along with Project Karan 155mm upgrade project and pic of Pinaka 2 Launcher.

Request some Gurus pls post the pics here, i dont know how to do.

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 505
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby dinesh_kimar » 06 Jan 2014 11:09

OT, but Vidhwansask has 12.7 Caliber apart from 14.5 and 20mm, which NTW 20 has not.
Also , it can be broken down into 2 pieces , of 15 kg and 10 kg, to be carried by a 2 man team, which is where Army weight issues may have come up. BSF is happy, and ordered abt 400 nos., it seems.(Which points to being used in fixed position in dug out bunker , and not for patrol?)

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12261
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Aditya_V » 06 Jan 2014 12:02

The cancellation of the Denel anti material rifles and Nalanda manufacture of 155mm without any proof was more part of requests for Aman Ki asha than actual corruption.

This was due to Paki casualties in Parakram, it was this bending which these forces thought can lead to handing over Siachen to Pakis.

I hope this is brought to the knowledge of the general public.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 06 Jan 2014 12:39

yes I also read the Pakis were upset with the Denels because we could pick them off at standoff ranges with zero warning. it was a CBM to withdraw these 1000 original imported rifles from service.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20880
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 06 Jan 2014 12:52

Does the AK in "St.Anthony's" initials stand for "Artillery Kaput"?!

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 505
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby dinesh_kimar » 06 Jan 2014 19:08

By the way, NTW 20 designer, one Tony Neophytou from S Africa, is no longer with Denel, and is interested to provide "Work Assistance, Consultancy, Paid, Unpaid", etc.

(I wonder if im wasting my time.)

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19658
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 06 Jan 2014 19:51

Aditya_V wrote:The cancellation of the Denel anti material rifles and Nalanda manufacture of 155mm without any proof was more part of requests for Aman Ki asha than actual corruption.

This was due to Paki casualties in Parakram, it was this bending which these forces thought can lead to handing over Siachen to Pakis.

I hope this is brought to the knowledge of the general public.


Aditya, Singha

Any link for this? Any sources? I wouldnt be surprised if this sort of thing actually happened.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 06 Jan 2014 20:59

I am not able to find the source, but it seems we inducted just 300 of the 1000 ordered and there are problems in importing its ammo per the link below
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... associates

just as anything which increases the superiority of the IA , can be used in low intensity conflict and inflicts pain on PA is very allergic to the americans and their TSPian friends (155mm , any desi project intended for IA overmatch like arjun), this one too was surely targeted in a systematic way.

the nature of politics in this land is that people can wander around naked and shit in anyone's garden, but the DHOTI must remain spotlessly clean after the deed is done

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7907
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nachiket » 06 Jan 2014 21:07

I have always blamed the MoD for overreacting. Random articles in obscure newspapers which allege corruption are enough for them to cancel all deals and blacklist the company. It is but obvious that our enemies are going to exploit this. It basically costs them next to nothing to halt IA's modernization. But the worthies at the MoD are way too interested in covering their own musharraf's to realize this and mend their ways. Nobody cares about the impact on national security.
Last edited by nachiket on 06 Jan 2014 21:08, edited 1 time in total.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Lalmohan » 06 Jan 2014 21:08

werent there similar unsubstantiated letters related to MMRCA?


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest