Artillery: News & Discussion

mody
BRFite
Posts: 493
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby mody » 19 Jan 2015 12:15

The original offer for 145 M777 guns increased by about $ 200 million, when the potential order from India got delayed, citing re-start cost of the assembly plant. Wonder how much the guns will now cost, if assembly line doesn't only have to be re-started, but also has to be shifted to India.

The answer actually lies in the news report itself. The offer would probably be valid if we plan to purchase atleast 450 guns, instead of 145 as per the original plan. Offcourse the plant would be used to offer guns to other potential customers around the world, as well, if we plan to buy a minimum of 450 guns.

Good artillery guns seem to be well within the capabilities of DRDO and some of the Indian private sector players. In my opinion, no need to buy any more guns from any foreign company.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2645
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 19 Jan 2015 19:59

alexis wrote:^^
But it will kill the Bharat Forge light gun! we should be cautious about these unsolicited offers.

Bharat Forge light gun is based on a totally different technology--soft recoil-- which hasn't been adopted by any other country. Not even USA, its home country. It is a stretch to expect IA to buy it. The main USP is small footprint and weight but at the expense of range. Only the 105mm is ready and I hope IA uses it wherever it can but it is not a replacement for a conventional gun. Not even the 155mm version when it comes.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2645
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 19 Jan 2015 20:26

mody wrote:The offer would probably be valid if we plan to purchase atleast 450 guns, instead of 145 as per the original plan.

The way I read it, there need not be any minimum number beyond 145 but if the 145 were arrived at because of cost considerations, the IA may very well opt for more. An ultralight 155mm gun is a big advantage in more than the moutains.

However ULH is 155/45 and the army has an explicit need for 155/52 to match the range of paki and chinese guns in the plains. The need is for 3000 new guns and there is plenty to go around even if army opts for 500 ULH.

What is all this rona dhona for? We get to see up close how the most advanced guns in the world are made! (For this reason alone, I hope it does't go to OFB who couldn't/wouldn't make a gun even when they were quietly sitting on the blueprints for 30 years and the army was running from pillar to post for new guns. The utter idiocy is unbelievable :evil: ). And imagine the Saudis sending their guns to India for repair!

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2645
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 19 Jan 2015 20:40

srai wrote:^^^

"Make in India" at the expense of "Made in India"!

Made in India implies from ground up, including design. Which gun meets or will meet this criteria?

The best thing that can happen for India is if BAe ties up with Kalyani. I would suspect their motives if they tied up with a known dud like OFB.

Besides this is only one type of gun and it cannot replace 80% of army needs. What's stopping India from "made-ing "?

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2600
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby JTull » 20 Jan 2015 12:44

Victor, that's not necessarily the case. If you look at the clothes sold by large retailers in West, most of the fabric in 'Made in' China, Bangladesh, Etc clothes are actually from India and the designs from the big western retailers. The 'Made in' label is applied by the last person where they put it all together.

Make in India campaign is directed at manufacturers. We've some great designers evidenced by the outsourcing design/shops setup by many international majors in Bangalore, but we lack the capability to efficiently productionise many of our ideas as evidenced by HAL and Tejas saga.

Also, GDP and employment will see big jump due to Make in India. The design-only approach predominantly needs highly skilled scientists/engineers whereas Make in India will allow more of the rest to participate in the forthcoming boom.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 493
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby mody » 20 Jan 2015 14:22

Victor the M777 ULH is 155/39 and not 155/45 as you state. Also, Kalyani 105 mm 4x4 vehicle mounted gun has a soft recoil system, giving us a weapon similar to a recoiless 105 mm howitzer. There are very few details about under development light weight 155 mm as yet and hence I do not know where you got the soft recoil stuff from. If you have any source, please provide.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1379
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 20 Jan 2015 18:13

mody wrote:Victor the M777 ULH is 155/39 and not 155/45 as you state. Also, Kalyani 105 mm 4x4 vehicle mounted gun has a soft recoil system, giving us a weapon similar to a recoiless 105 mm howitzer. There are very few details about under development light weight 155 mm as yet and hence I do not know where you got the soft recoil stuff from. If you have any source, please provide.


It is listed on Mansus' website.
http://www.mandusgroup.com/news.php?topic=details&ni=15
Kalyani's poster has the same image.

I kind of agree with Victor. To expect Kalyani to match BAE level tech is foolhardy. From their other artillery propositions it is evident that Kalyani is entirely dependent on their foreign partners for designing their guns. Although they can be more than competent to manufacture these guns. An imported gun in hand is better than an imported gun on drawing board.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2645
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 20 Jan 2015 20:03

My slip re 39/45. Kalyani has the experience as a major supplier of forgings to the global auto oems. It also does titanium casting in-house which should qualify it as the leading contender for m777 mfg if it happens. BAe will probably be the major shareholder.

maz
Webmaster BR
Posts: 336
Joined: 03 Dec 2000 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby maz » 20 Jan 2015 20:51

Need some help with translation guys. what is the number of the brahmos msl regt that took part in the army day parade? Is it 881 Msl Regt? or 88165 Msl Regt?

Please go to 10.55 in the below video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGnrjm2IaQg

thanks

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7619
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 20 Jan 2015 22:24

maz wrote:Need some help with translation guys. what is the number of the brahmos msl regt that took part in the army day parade? Is it 881 Msl Regt? or 88165 Msl Regt?

Please go to 10.55 in the below video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGnrjm2IaQg
thanks


Maz - that is 881 Missile Regiment. And the vehicle carried formation sign of 41 Artillery Division. The Pinaka contingent was from 1890 Rocket Regiment and this was from 42 Artillery Division.

BTW, for consumption of others (Karan, d_Berwal etc), the BEL radar contingent was from 28 AD Regiment and 332 AD Regiment. And commentator mentions that these are used for tactical control of assets. So, an AD unit armed even with L-70 guns can at least see much much far and build its own understanding of air situation. When this is tied to something like ADGES with AWACS, the gun actually sits in center of three concentric circles of increasing radius. An AD unit would know about enemy formation which is 100+ km out.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7389
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Indranil » 20 Jan 2015 22:34

Victor wrote:My slip re 39/45. Kalyani has the experience as a major supplier of forgings to the global auto oems. It also does titanium casting in-house which should qualify it as the leading contender for m777 mfg if it happens. BAe will probably be the major shareholder.

I say, let BAE collaborate with anybody but Kalyani (and OFB). Let there be a competition. Let the best gun win. This will keep the prices low and also remove the chance of BAE playing smart-pants like Dassault later.

maz
Webmaster BR
Posts: 336
Joined: 03 Dec 2000 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby maz » 20 Jan 2015 23:35

Rohitvats, I was hoping you'd read the post. Thanks. 881 seems to be a new sequence - the other Brahmos units being 861, 862, etc. Perhaps this regt is equipped with a new block of B'mos?? Any idea whats up?

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2401
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 20 Jan 2015 23:52

BTW why leave out the ST kinetics Pegasus?

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1379
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 21 Jan 2015 06:14

abhik wrote:BTW why leave out the ST kinetics Pegasus?


Too heavy compared to M777.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2401
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 21 Jan 2015 07:12

How is it too heavy?

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1379
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 21 Jan 2015 07:15

abhik wrote:How is it too heavy?


5.4 tons v/s 3.4 tons of M777.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7619
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 21 Jan 2015 09:55

maz wrote:Rohitvats, I was hoping you'd read the post. Thanks. 881 seems to be a new sequence - the other Brahmos units being 861, 862, etc. Perhaps this regt is equipped with a new block of B'mos?? Any idea whats up?


You're welcome. Anything related to ORBAT raises my antennae... :mrgreen:

Coming to Brahmos numbering - I don't think we have 86X series. Numbers I have are 861 and 881 Missile Regiments which have been in existence since 2012 at least. Third Regiment was forming as of last year with the advanced version to take out targets in mountainous areas.

Frankly, IA's numbering of it's Rocket and Missile Regiments doesn't seem to follow a pattern - at least, not discernible to mango man like me.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2401
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 21 Jan 2015 17:49

Thakur_B wrote:
abhik wrote:How is it too heavy?


5.4 tons v/s 3.4 tons of M777.

Is there a requirement that it will have to be below x kg?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19837
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 21 Jan 2015 18:21

I don't know whether this report was posted earlier ,or any of the allegations in it.Food for thought.

How the Indian Army lost its Catapult
January 11, 2015 Rakesh Krishnan Simha

By mating a Russian howitzer with a locally built tank chassis, India was on the verge of developing its own long-range artillery. But suddenly and inexplicably the new gun was scuttled.

India’s ambition to become a great power has never been matched by its willingness to spend hard cash on its military. The previous government in particular ran defence preparedness into the ground by keeping the military starved of operational funds, with A.K. Antony probably deserving the title of Pakistan’s best defence minister ever.

The critical howitzer shortage facing the Indian Army is a glaring example of the Indian leadership’s cavalier approach towards defence. While New Delhi splurges on shameful extravaganzas such as the Commonwealth Games, the Indian Army has not purchased a single artillery gun since the Bofors scandal broke in the late 1980s.

Artillery is a key element of warfare. For the decisive Battle for Berlin in 1945, the Russians threw a total of 41,600 guns and mortars at the Germans. Alex Popov of the 5th Shock Army wrote: “The amount of equipment deployed for the Berlin operation was so huge I simply cannot describe it and I was there.” Marshal Georgy Zhukov wrote in his memoirs that it was the rain of three million shells that broke German resolve to hold on to Berlin at all costs. “As prisoners later told us, the great artillery barrage at night was what they had least expected,” he wrote.

Similarly, in the 1999 Kargil War it was the Bofors 155mm gun that sent the Pakistanis scurrying from their positions in the high mountains. Because of its long range, accuracy, high rate of fire and mobility, the Indian Army was able to take out Pakistani positions quickly based on real time intelligence inputs.

Despite the critical impact of artillery systems in war, India hasn’t replaced the over 200 (of the original 410) Bofors guns that have been lost due to attrition and cannibalisation.

Quick fix

But even as the bureaucrats and politicians fiddled, the army brass resorted to Indian jugaad (innovative fix) in order to keep the artillery forces battle ready. Going by the adage that the army fights with the weapons it has rather – than the weapons it wants – the Indian Army asked the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) to use available assets to develop a self-propelled gun (SPG).

In order to fulfil the interim and immediate requirements of the army, the DRDO’s Combat Vehicle Research & Development Establishment (CVRDE) developed an SPG by mating the Russian built M-46 130mm howitzer with the Arjun MK-I tank chassis. This new artillery system, which was on show at Defexpo 2014 is known as the Arjun Catapult MK-II.

The Catapult has side and front armoured walls protecting the gun compartment, providing the crew with armour protection of STANAG level II. Its main weapon, the M-46, was originally a manually loaded, towed 130mm howitzer. Manufactured in Russia in the 1950s, it was one of the longest range artillery systems around, with a range of more than 27 km.

But curiously, after 100 of the Arjun Catapults were produced, the army did not ask for further enhancements to the system and today India continues to seek high calibre artillery systems from foreign vendors.

Because of the army’s about turn, the DRDO team working on the gun has lost development continuity. Weapons get better with each successive iteration, and in fact the Arjun Catapult MK-II is an improvement on the Catapult MK-I fashioned in the early 1980s by mounting the M46 gun onto the Indian-built Vijayanta tank.

There were other spinoffs from the project. Private defence contractors like Tata, L&T and Bharat Forge were involved in locally upgrading the M46 guns to 155mm, which increased the range from 26 km to 39 km.

These private players were also developing their own 155mm howitzers in collaboration with overseas defence companies, while also collaborating with the DRDO’s Armament Research & Development Establishment in Pune to design a 155mm Advanced Towed Artillery Gun System with a 50-km strike range.

All plans were nixed by the cancellation of the Catapult and the new government’s decision in November 2014 to purchase 155 mm guns with a range of 40 km under the “Buy & Make Indian” programme. The plan is to acquire 814 guns for the Indian Army – 100 would be acquired off the shelf while the remainder of the 714 guns would be made in India.

So instead of developing a gun with a 50 km range, the army is shooting for an artillery system with a much lower range. It happens only in India.

The real big guns

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that the only people to gain from the DRDO’s failure are foreign manufacturers.
Indeed, it is intriguing that DRDO projects such as the Agni series intermediate range ballistic missiles (which are banned from the international export market) have been extremely successful, while others such as tanks, aircraft, helicopters and short range missiles (all of which are readily available) are rejected by the defence forces for not being up to scratch.

But then how can any weapons platform attain world class standards if it is not accepted by the military, if the designers do not get feedback, if the engineers and scientists are demoralised. The first generation of any weapon will have faults because weapons are tested in extreme environments. To repeatedly fail them at the first sign of trouble points to sabotage.

For, let’s be clear about one thing. The Indian Army’s primary enemy is the Pakistan Army, not the US Army. We do not need world class weapons to fight a corrupt, slothful and incompetent army that has lost four wars against India. We need affordable and rugged weapons that can be produced in large numbers and easily replaced during wartime.

And think about it. If India can send a successful interplanetary probe to Mars, discover water on the Moon, build nuclear powered submarines and develop supersonic missiles such as the BrahMos, then the rejection of the home made Catapult is clearly suspicious.

Perhaps the dodgiest case is that of the Arjun tank, which has been under development for nearly 40 years. In 2008 the DRDO had to install a black box in the indigenous battle tank following an alleged attempt to "sabotage" its engine. The instrument was installed after the Indian Army termed the winter trial of the Arjun tank a "failure".

According to a DRDO official, "The German company Renk AG supplying the engines for the Arjun tank stumbled upon the tinkering with its engines after a complaint from the Indian Army that the tank's gear box failed during its winter trials. Following this we have installed an instrument similar to the data recorder or black box in aircraft that would record all the information related to the engines.”

The then minister of state for defence (production) Rao Inderjit Singh also hinted at a conspiracy. “The possibility of sabotage needs to be examined,” he said. “The engines fitted in the tanks were German and were performing well for the past 15 years. I wonder what has happened to them overnight.”

Nearly every weapon produced by DRDO has been rejected by the defence forces, forcing the government to release funds for imports. Take the Augusta Westland scandal. Initially, former air chief marshal S.P. Tyagi was under investigation for allegedly tweaking the technical requirements of VVIP helicopters. Later it transpired that the specifications were changed prior to Tyagi’s tenure on the orders of Brajesh Mishra, the National Security Adviser, who was reporting directly to former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

The scandal shows that it is in the interests of a clique comprising the military brass, politicians and middlemen to scuttle indigenous defence projects.[b] R.S.N. Singh, a former military intelligence officer who later served in the Research & Analysis Wing, writes in Canary Trap about the “Chandigarh Gang” that surfaced as the “mainstay of the international arms lobby” during the decade long UPA rule. “This gang is not necessarily in Chandigarh alone, but nevertheless is centered around it,” Singh writes. “It comprises some retired officers, politicians, journalists and prominent newspapers.”
[/b]

http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2015/01/11/how ... 40743.html

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2645
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 21 Jan 2015 22:14

abhik wrote:
Thakur_B wrote:
5.4 tons v/s 3.4 tons of M777.

Is there a requirement that it will have to be below x kg?

AFAIK, the main requirement is the ability to carry the gun, its ammo and crew to Himalayan peaks with a helicopter. 2 tons lighter means the gun can be located x thousand feet higher, increasing range by y miles and with z more rounds of ammo. The other factor is cost and I wonder if this is a great concern when we are jockeying for advantage against the chinese, specially with only 145 or so guns.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66417
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 22 Jan 2015 07:08

imo even the M777 will mostly be hauled by road if ever inducted. supplying ammo by air to a place where no roads exist is just not possible with the firing rates of todays guns.

so even the st kinetics will work, as does the fh77b

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1379
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 22 Jan 2015 07:25

Singha wrote:imo even the M777 will mostly be hauled by road if ever inducted. supplying ammo by air to a place where no roads exist is just not possible with the firing rates of todays guns.

so even the st kinetics will work, as does the fh77b


Fh77B is 11.5 tons. DRDO ATAGS is supposed to be 12 tons. Even when helicopter lifts are not possible one has to think of transportation by AN32 and C-130, where they can carry more M777 per sortie than any other type. Even if restricted by size, the payload advantage will allow carriage of more ammunition per sorties.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66417
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 22 Jan 2015 07:50

sir when you want to unleash a multi regimental co-ordinated fire to break up cheen combined arms divisional level thrusts , one is talking of 1000s of rds unloaded / hr .... good roads are the only thing that hacks it in such scenario. for 'routine' cross border shelling anything will do.

if we ever want to hold on to the tiny sliver of aksai chin we have left ie daulat beg oldie, we need atleast a summer road to that place for heavy trucks to haul and stockpile ammo and rockets.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7619
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 22 Jan 2015 09:22

Philip wrote:I don't know whether this report was posted earlier ,or any of the allegations in it.Food for thought.

How the Indian Army lost its Catapult
January 11, 2015 Rakesh Krishnan Simha

By mating a Russian howitzer with a locally built tank chassis, India was on the verge of developing its own long-range artillery. But suddenly and inexplicably the new gun was scuttled.

India’s ambition to become a great power has never been matched by its willingness to spend hard cash on its military. The previous government in particular ran defence preparedness into the ground by keeping the military starved of operational funds, with A.K. Antony probably deserving the title of Pakistan’s best defence minister ever.

The critical howitzer shortage facing the Indian Army is a glaring example of the Indian leadership’s cavalier approach towards defence. While New Delhi splurges on shameful extravaganzas such as the Commonwealth Games, the Indian Army has not purchased a single artillery gun since the Bofors scandal broke in the late 1980s.

Artillery is a key element of warfare. For the decisive Battle for Berlin in 1945, the Russians threw a total of 41,600 guns and mortars at the Germans. Alex Popov of the 5th Shock Army wrote: “The amount of equipment deployed for the Berlin operation was so huge I simply cannot describe it and I was there.” Marshal Georgy Zhukov wrote in his memoirs that it was the rain of three million shells that broke German resolve to hold on to Berlin at all costs. “As prisoners later told us, the great artillery barrage at night was what they had least expected,” he wrote.

Similarly, in the 1999 Kargil War it was the Bofors 155mm gun that sent the Pakistanis scurrying from their positions in the high mountains. Because of its long range, accuracy, high rate of fire and mobility, the Indian Army was able to take out Pakistani positions quickly based on real time intelligence inputs.

Despite the critical impact of artillery systems in war, India hasn’t replaced the over 200 (of the original 410) Bofors guns that have been lost due to attrition and cannibalisation.

Quick fix

But even as the bureaucrats and politicians fiddled, the army brass resorted to Indian jugaad (innovative fix) in order to keep the artillery forces battle ready. Going by the adage that the army fights with the weapons it has rather – than the weapons it wants – the Indian Army asked the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) to use available assets to develop a self-propelled gun (SPG).

In order to fulfil the interim and immediate requirements of the army, the DRDO’s Combat Vehicle Research & Development Establishment (CVRDE) developed an SPG by mating the Russian built M-46 130mm howitzer with the Arjun MK-I tank chassis. This new artillery system, which was on show at Defexpo 2014 is known as the Arjun Catapult MK-II.

The Catapult has side and front armoured walls protecting the gun compartment, providing the crew with armour protection of STANAG level II. Its main weapon, the M-46, was originally a manually loaded, towed 130mm howitzer. Manufactured in Russia in the 1950s, it was one of the longest range artillery systems around, with a range of more than 27 km.

But curiously, after 100 of the Arjun Catapults were produced, the army did not ask for further enhancements to the system and today India continues to seek high calibre artillery systems from foreign vendors.

Because of the army’s about turn, the DRDO team working on the gun has lost development continuity. Weapons get better with each successive iteration, and in fact the Arjun Catapult MK-II is an improvement on the Catapult MK-I fashioned in the early 1980s by mounting the M46 gun onto the Indian-built Vijayanta tank.

There were other spinoffs from the project. Private defence contractors like Tata, L&T and Bharat Forge were involved in locally upgrading the M46 guns to 155mm, which increased the range from 26 km to 39 km.

These private players were also developing their own 155mm howitzers in collaboration with overseas defence companies, while also collaborating with the DRDO’s Armament Research & Development Establishment in Pune to design a 155mm Advanced Towed Artillery Gun System with a 50-km strike range.

All plans were nixed by the cancellation of the Catapult and the new government’s decision in November 2014 to purchase 155 mm guns with a range of 40 km under the “Buy & Make Indian” programme. The plan is to acquire 814 guns for the Indian Army – 100 would be acquired off the shelf while the remainder of the 714 guns would be made in India.

So instead of developing a gun with a 50 km range, the army is shooting for an artillery system with a much lower range. It happens only in India.

The real big guns

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that the only people to gain from the DRDO’s failure are foreign manufacturers.
<SNIP>


The above has to be the most stupid article ever...'India was on the verge of developing SP Gun because we mated M-46 to Arjun chassis'? Complete BS.

I'm glad that someone decided to pull the plug on this system...That article is nothing but a rant w/o any grounding in facts. IA ordering 815 MGS - which is a separate category under FARP - is said to be reason behind them not ordering more Catapult MkII? And the part about BF and L&T working on M-46 upgrade has nothing to do with Catapult MkII but is a separate program.

The only reason this article was written with whining about DRDO+indigenous development because a system based on 'Russian' equipment was not developed further and Russians have no play in most of FARP tender.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8052
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 22 Jan 2015 09:32

I have never understood the persistent fetish of fighting a war with the PRC with helo born ammo resupply for the 155s on the BRF. The only solution to the logistics problem is to built up stocks during peace time (Hope that they don't get taken out in the first few days).

Or have all weather good quality roads with plenty of bridging equipment for culverts (if that's the term). With the ability to drive trucks with 5 or 10 load. Right up the rear of the battle zones.

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 22 Jan 2015 10:42

Just my 2 paisa....

One of the many reasons Mountain Divisions have an extra complement of Combat Engineers and Logistic Troops in the form of GREF RCC(Road Const Coy)/BCC(Bridge Const Coy) and Civ GT Battalions.

On the Dirang-Tawang-Bumla axis for example, culverts would need back-up bailey bridges deployed to maintain road heads. AFAIK a single truss bailey which dot the entire stretch are in the MLC 20 Class (Non-reinforced). Nothing beyond a couple of 10 tonners are going to pass through that at a time. You have also to take into consideration that all equipment must first cross the passes at Sela (14,000ft) to gain access to the Bomdila valley and later Bumla (17,000ft) IIRC.

A superior road connectivity with tunnels etc to connect valley floors (which is being constructed now) would go a long way in compressing deployment and resupply times than fancy helipads which at those altitudes are highly reliant on prayers and good weather.

member_22906
BRFite
Posts: 306
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_22906 » 22 Jan 2015 11:25

^^
You are right and I got the basic drift, but a minor nitpick.

Bomdila comes before Sela (if you are approaching from Misamari, Assam). Bumla would be after Sela & Tawang

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 22 Jan 2015 11:44

Sorry....I meant Bomdir.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66417
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 22 Jan 2015 12:28

we could definitely use SFW AT & HE bomblets dropped from pinaka rockets. quite useful & economical in targetting high value armour and logistical nodes/convoys on a 1-800 basis.

we certainly will not be able to deliver the amt of shells into staging areas in the mountains the way we can in the plains. so economy and smartness is best.

if Obama is keen on some defence JVs this could be one area to bring up.

also the IA had floated a tender for some 9 EMB145/G500 type jets to house SAR/GMTI radar platform. no word or trace of that since the news of tender.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1379
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 22 Jan 2015 17:59

Singha wrote:we could definitely use SFW AT & HE bomblets dropped from pinaka rockets. quite useful & economical in targetting high value armour and logistical nodes/convoys on a 1-800 basis.

we certainly will not be able to deliver the amt of shells into staging areas in the mountains the way we can in the plains. so economy and smartness is best.

if Obama is keen on some defence JVs this could be one area to bring up.

also the IA had floated a tender for some 9 EMB145/G500 type jets to house SAR/GMTI radar platform. no word or trace of that since the news of tender.


There was also a move to mount GMTI radars on Dhruv. That too disappeared without a trace. UK is looking to retire its Sentinel aircrafts, IAF should make a move on them. They are essentially brand new, delivered in 2008 only.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2645
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 23 Jan 2015 02:24

We seem to keep forgetting that the ULH is a very small, specialized order 100% for the mountain strike corps aimed 100% at China, not for any lob-shells-over-the-border corps, not even for a mountain corps. MSC is an aggressive formation based on high mobility so it can go anywhere, even where there are no roads, and not give any clues on where it will strike. So there will be no dug-in positions or thousands of shells. Shoot and scoot onlee.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Cosmo_R » 23 Jan 2015 05:39

@Pratyush ^^^ "I have never understood the persistent fetish of fighting a war with the PRC with helo born ammo resupply for the 155s on the BRF. The only solution to the logistics problem is to built up stocks during peace time (Hope that they don't get taken out in the first few days). "

For my part I have never understood this whole Tibetan plateau, massive tank battles and air combat stuff.

The PRC will attack to give us a bloody nose and show us our place. We must be prepared to have a massively disproportionate conventional response followed by a red line: we are willing to go nuclear and you have more to lose than we (the Nixon "crazy man" in the 1973 Sinai war strategy).

The nuke red line strategy works for NOKO and it works for pakiz.

It's optics. Any such incident will last 2 days and you fire everything you've got to give the other guy a bloodier nose.

This is not going to be 1962 nor is it going to be a 2 week affair.

But we have to plan for it. No tentative escalations. You attack, we explode (stuff on you). Plus change the nature of our engagement on Tibet and Sinkiang.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66417
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 23 Jan 2015 06:41

that would indicate the entire front needs to be militarized on the scale of the Korean DMZ or the old east german border, with a 155mm piece poking its ugly snout of caves and holes every 10m :)
someone presses a button and 5000 artillery pieces start unloading at max rate in general direction of cheen.

but it cannot be done over such hostile terrain and 2000km of front.

member_28971
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 2
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_28971 » 23 Jan 2015 15:26

I'm pretty sure their will be a lot of utilities for M777, due to its light wieght. Even during piece time it will be transported using road network as far as possible. But Having a Helo borm artillery will give the army a lot of choice for firing positions. Road can go as far as near the mountains in most cases, so Army will have to settle for positions behind the mountains, but if Helo drop is possible then Army can have position near the top or across the slope in more spread out manner, which gives better survival chances during counter fire. I'm quite sure that right now the Army is not having that many Artillery pieces on the mountains excepts for 105mm LFG.

Also during the attrition battles/forward movement across the Chinese border, such Artillery will give more advantage of quickly moving them to better firing positions. In war one can not always hope to stand/hold in the same positions always.

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 907
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sivab » 25 Jan 2015 07:48

Livefist @livefist · 11h 11 hours ago

India's @DPIDRDO Pinaka Mk.2 multi-rocket system successfully tested last month. Range upped from 38km to 60km!


Image

Picklu
BRFite
Posts: 1926
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Picklu » 27 Jan 2015 17:38

Which Mirakkel causes the range of Pinaka to increase by more than 50%? Is there a change in dimension of the rockets or fuel composition? Will be new rockets be compatible with old pinaka or will they need new launcher/loader/other support systems?

The nation wants to know. Modi jawab do.

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

A Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 1141
Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby A Sharma » 27 Jan 2015 18:15

DRDO Newsletter

On Pinaka2

The rocket incorporates a high performance solid rocket propulsion system and advanced stabiliser system with six flat fin configuration developed by ARDE. The energetic propellant has been developed by High Energy Materials Research Laboratory (HEMRL), Pune. Pinaka Mk-II uses in-service warheads and fuzes and existing ground systems with minor modifications in Launcher, Loader Cum Replenishment (LCR) vehicle, Replenishment vehicle (RV) and Battery Command Post. Demonstration of the strike capability of Pinaka Mk-II rocket beyond 60 km is a landmark in the field of unguided rocket artillery.

Another milestone was reached when turbo generator- based Electronic Time Fuzes for artillery rockets developed in-house functioned satisfactorily, meeting the designed parameters during the dynamic trials. Flight performance of the entire mission, covering from low range to high range along with turbo generator based ET Fuze was captured by telemetry and tracking radars of PXE and ITR achieving all the mission objectives.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2032
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby John » 27 Jan 2015 21:34

Picklu wrote:Which Mirakkel causes the range of Pinaka to increase by more than 50%? Is there a change in dimension of the rockets or fuel composition? Will be new rockets be compatible with old pinaka or will they need new launcher/loader/other support systems?


Same dimensions' as Pinaka.

ravip
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ravip » 27 Jan 2015 21:58

Mk2 has some rdx base propellent. Giving it more range.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2032
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby John » 28 Jan 2015 08:39

Back when prahaar was first tested there was lot of chest beating from the other side that it was counter Nasr. But as I said it is pinaka mk 2 and ii that are true counter, a salvo of them would cheaply take out any hidden tactical ballistic missile launchers. Easily making Nasr missile obsolete one reason unkil went away from Tbm as Soviets started packing hundreds of mrl across the border.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests