Artillery: News & Discussion

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7699
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 23 Jun 2015 10:25

Singha wrote:so their autoloaders load the shell and then the charge ? sounds slow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NIaoOabF_0

this CG shows the shell going in first and then another machinery pulls out the base of the charge , throws it away and rams in a fresh charge....pathetic. the magazine looks like two layers - top layer has charge, bottom has shell...and both get loaded as a pair.

leopard2 types feed in this huge long thing...no wonder western/israeli/indian guns with manual loading are superior https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqkyPPx5MtM
note the protective door for the wine rack of shells. it will divert any explosion upward.


One the biggest challenges of the T-90 design is the auto-loader limited length of the ammunition.

Because of the primacy on keeping the tank compact, the ammunition was split into two components. However, this split in ammunition means that main round - the Sabot (Or main rod which hits the enemy tank) - can be of only a certain length. Considering that game in KE tank rounds is that of achieving high Length/Diameter Ratio (L/D ratio), Russian KE ammunition has a upper ceiling. Unless, they can continue to find denser and denser material.

Compared to this, western KE rounds have continued to increase in length.

Sample this range of western KE rounds with increasing length of main sabot:

Image

Comparison between Russian and western rounds. Pic 1 is that of Russian soldier loading the propellant part of two-part ammunition while second is that of a complete western KE round.

Image
Image

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 23 Jun 2015 11:14

good post Rohit . the ability to embed the KE dart deep into the charge also permits the charge itself to be longer and hence more muzzle velocity of the western 120mm guns..and firing a much longer dart....a double win over the separate russian design.

on top of that the americans have used their waste uranium for DU sabots...

I get the strong feeling T-series was designed only for operational deep battle , not for stand up fights...annihilate a area and clear a corridor with massive amts of artillery, rockets and missiles followed by Hind sweeps , smash any strongpoints with tactical nukes and chemical warfare, then release masses of these fast nimble tanks and BMPs deep into the enemy rear to punch aside soft skinned formations, maul the supply chain and generally create mayhem in the back. bypass all strongpoints and keep moving, avoid urban battles, call in tactical nuclear strikes or heavy bombers or wait until corps artillery catches up to clear strongpoints.

unfortunately :(( we have neither the artillery, nor the mech infantry, or VVD or the deep battle doctrine to make a success of the T-series in the way they were designed to do.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11309
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Aditya_V » 23 Jun 2015 11:19

The benefits of thee western system should also be available to Arjun.

Sometimes, I see a whole gamut of persons within and outside who fear India able to fight a war properly and who are afraid of Indian assertiveness even when we are provoked.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1625
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 23 Jun 2015 14:47

^^ Singha, you are bang on right. Their mech forces were referred to as OMGs or Operation Maneouvre Groups. Arty was used for maneouvre by firepower like RV brought out in his blog on our aty divs.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Gyan » 23 Jun 2015 15:15

VinodTK wrote:{url=http://defence.pk/threads/indian-army%E2%80%99s-artillery-modernisation-plans-on-track-60-km-range-light-artillery-is-in-making.381725/}

Indian Army’s Artillery modernisation Plans on Track. 60 KM range light artillery is in making.[/url]
India army boost of 264 artillery regiments. but most of them are equipped with 70’s era 105mm Indian field Gun which are complemented by 130mm M-46 howitzer guns Supplied by the Soviet union in 60’s while these howitzer guns have been upgraded to 155 mm standard now. but this upgraded equipment simply cannot compete with modern Computer aided artillery howitzer guns in today’s modern warfare.

Indian Army’s long-term plan to replace these with 155 mm howitzers recently got a major boost after OFB developed 155mm Howitzers based on specification and manufacturing know how received under Transfer of Technology (TOT) decades ago from Bofors of Sweden, were cleared for production after extended field trials in Sikkim and Rajasthan .

Army will order 114 155mm,45-Calibre Howitzer ” Dhanush ” which will equip a number of medium artillery regiments, the Initial order will be later followed up with 300 Plus more Dhanush guns. idrw.org already has confirmed that later batches of OFB manufactured Dhanush Howitzer will get upgraded 52 caliber barrels from DRDO’s ATAG Program, which will provide better range over existing 45-Calibre barrel.
Improvement game started on Dhanush also.

Advance Towed Artillery Guns System (ATAGS) program

DRDO is also developing a new lightweight 155mm,52 Calibre Howitzers under Advance Towed Artillery Guns System (ATAGS) program which will have an effective shooting range of 60 kilometers while weighing only 12 tonnes. DRDO currently invited Private players like Bharat-forge, L&T, Tata Power SED and Punj-Lloyd to participate in the ATAGS program.

DRDO plans to start working on the first prototype of New Gun from Next year on-wards once sourcing of components is done. DRDO already has frozen design aspect of the gun and plans to offer it for trails by 2018-19 .

M777 155mm/39 towed guns

Defence Acquisition council also recently cleared long delayed ultra light howitzer requirements of Indian Army, when BAE agreed to Produce their M777 155mm/39 towed guns in India after entering into a partnership with an Indian firm. India initially will place orders for 145 guns which later expanded with follow-up repeat orders over a period of time. BAE systems also offered to make India Global center for assembly, integration and testing (AIT) and Sources of Spares for current operators of the gun.

M777 155mm/39 towed guns weighing only 4.2 tonnes compared to conventional 14-16 tonnes of 155mm howitzers are essentially for Mountain warfare and can be ferried under-slung by (Chinook) heavy lift helicopters that the Indian Air Force (IAF) is buying. it will be equipped with proposed XVII Mountain strike Corps especially to be raised for China front for deployment in Mountain terrain.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 23 Jun 2015 19:31

Gd, The fundamental mathematical equation describing the penetration is by Isaac Newton. He shows all things being constant, the depth of penetration is proportional to L/D of the projectile. Short answer is a large L/D concentrates the given force on a small frontal area.
He also showed that depth of penetration is proportional to the relative densities of the projectile and sub-strate. IOW a denser projectile will punch through deeper.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7699
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 24 Jun 2015 05:40

^^^ So, not only did west work on increasing the L/D ratio, they increased the density aspect as well by first working with tungsten and then, Depleted Uranium.

DU has the additional quality of being pyrophoric - so, when DU sabot hits the tank surface, it does not bend like tungsten. Instead, the outer layers burn off keeping the sabot tip sharp allowing it to penetrate further.

Further, when it enters the crew compartment, it burns and spreads spreads sparks+fire all around.

It is said that while tungsten is expensive, DU being side product of nuclear energy field, it comes literally free!

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 877
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Mihir » 25 Jun 2015 18:35

Arun Menon wrote:
Singha wrote:shalav, tank ammo unlike artillery is single piece...no separate charge.


Not for the tincans, one of the reasons why their rounds are so wimpy and lack penetration, short and puny kinetic impactors.


The Challenger-2 uses a two-piece round.

Image

The problem isn't the two-piece round in and of itself. Rather, it is the design of the autoloader that restricts the size of the penetrator that can be used.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2251
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby VinodTK » 28 Jun 2015 04:22

Mahindra Group & BAE Systems join hands again
Two years after BAE Systems pulled out of a joint venture with Mahindra Group, both companies have reportedly joined hands again to make M 777 Ultra Light Howitzers (ULH) for the defence forces. Manufacturing components with an Indian partner for a 1,000-gun order would benefit BAE Systems.

Sources said BAE Systems CEO Ian King will visit India next week to formally announce the joint venture.
:
:
:
:
:

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby koti » 02 Jul 2015 18:53


srin
BRFite
Posts: 1815
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby srin » 06 Jul 2015 08:41

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/finally-a-new-artillery-gun-for-the-army/
A few months after clearing critical trials, the Dhanush artillery guns — also called “Desi Bofors” — have entered the production phase to meet Army’s operational gap of field howitzers. The “Make in India” defence manufacturing project took off with the receipt of Bulk Production Clearance (BPC) from the Army for 144 Dhanush guns. Sources said the Ordnance Factories Board (OFB) has already started the production of indigenously manufactured 155 mm/45 calibre artillery gun.


Yay !
Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur plans to supply 6 guns within 6 months, another 12 within 12 months and another 36 guns within 24 months.
This was decided at the OFB’s General Managers’ strategic conference held last month. The decision raises questions about the Army’s plans to get all 144 guns from the OFB within three years.

:(

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 06 Jul 2015 08:53

beoing delivers 777 faster than that.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_22539 » 06 Jul 2015 09:28

^Come on, thats comparing apples to oranges. Besides, they have got much bigger orders than a pathetic 144. (God, I hate standing up for the OFB).

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Vipul » 06 Jul 2015 16:01

So besides the Dhanush program taken up, is the GCF making any meaningful contribution right now? What is their installed capacity to manufacture the army requirements and what is their total work force?

rkirankr
BRFite
Posts: 773
Joined: 17 Apr 2009 11:05

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rkirankr » 06 Jul 2015 16:30

srin wrote:http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/finally-a-new-artillery-gun-for-the-army/
A few months after clearing critical trials, the Dhanush artillery guns — also called “Desi Bofors” — have entered the production phase to meet Army’s operational gap of field howitzers. The “Make in India” defence manufacturing project took off with the receipt of Bulk Production Clearance (BPC) from the Army for 144 Dhanush guns. Sources said the Ordnance Factories Board (OFB) has already started the production of indigenously manufactured 155 mm/45 calibre artillery gun.


Yay !
Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur plans to supply 6 guns within 6 months, another 12 within 12 months and another 36 guns within 24 months.
This was decided at the OFB’s General Managers’ strategic conference held last month. The decision raises questions about the Army’s plans to get all 144 guns from the OFB within three years.

:(


what is this thing with numbers like 144 etc. Why can't it be 150 or 200, round numbers?

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 06 Jul 2015 21:23

144 Dhanush will make (8) Medium Regiments.

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3415
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby suryag » 10 Jul 2015 16:47


Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8117
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 10 Jul 2015 16:57

If the same guns were made by a foreign entity, would they need to undergo this trial as well??

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2138
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby John » 10 Jul 2015 17:05

Yes if that weren't the case there would have some meaningful procurement of artillery a long long time ago.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5095
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby jamwal » 10 Jul 2015 17:39

Under the first phase, the army will place an order worth over Rs 1,200 crore for 114 such guns with the Ordnance Factories Board.

114 or DDMitis ?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20149
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 10 Jul 2015 18:47

Media reports today said that the indigenous Bofors.Dhanush has completed its trials (almost over) successfully and an order for 110+ is expected in due course. This seems a done decision and kudos to those responsible for it. It will spur acquisition of all types of arty from desi OEMs,both DPSU and pvt. sector.This will be a huge leap forward for indigenous weapons systems.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3097
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby fanne » 10 Jul 2015 18:59

But isn't 114 or 144 guns too huge an order. Perhaps army should lower it to paune ek, sawa ek, dedh or paune do gun?

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1847
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby uddu » 10 Jul 2015 19:24

There is a requirement for 1,580 towed artillery guns. The 114 is the initial order. Once production pickup more order will come

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 10 Jul 2015 19:40

but production wont pick up because of the tiny initial order. ergo, we need forren maal. I see another arjun in the making.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2803
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 10 Jul 2015 20:01

Rahul M wrote:but production wont pick up because of the tiny initial order. ergo, we need forren maal. I see another arjun in the making.

Orders are based on ability to deliver. Forum members make the mistake of thinking that if something passes trials, its production lines will magically appear from heaven to churn out hundreds of guns. No, component suppliers need to be established. Production lines need to be established and scaled up. And the delivery schedule from OFB is -
The Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur, plans to supply 6 guns within 6 months, another 12 within the next one year before ramping up the production.

Even Pinaka started with two regiments. There is a CAG report on the pain & confusion among multiple OFs to set up a production line for 1000 rockets per year. Once the teething troubles were overcome, more batteries were ordered, the production increased to 5000 rockets per year.

Anyways, hopefully the 155 mm guns should replace the 105 mm gun in the production lines...20 years after it was actually supposed to.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 10 Jul 2015 20:16

>> Orders are based on ability to deliver.

and ability to deliver is scaled up depending on the size of order. nobody is going to create a 60/yr assembly line for an order that would then be done in 2 years.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2138
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby John » 10 Jul 2015 20:31

With exception of US, even US only placed an order of 1000 M777s. Do we have any instance of country ordering 1000+ artillery in one order? 1500 Artillery in order is worth over 6 billion dollars (factoring in training, logistic etc). It is easy to be critical of IA for every move and pretend as if they have infinite money to satisfy everyone dreams. In current scope expecting an order of more than 300 guns is unrealistic.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 10 Jul 2015 23:16

the only other armies of comparable volume requirements are russian and chinese and it's a safe bet they have done so. when our requirements have been so far apart from our holdings, the contract should have been framed in a way such that larger orders would be automatic on meeting mutually-agreed standards of the initial 'pilot' order. such a thinking would have allowed the manufacturer to plan ahead and provided a much smoother flow of weapons to the user.
ordering 1000 arty pieces at one go does not mean IA pays all of it upfront, any more than IAF paid the whole $ 10 bn or whateveritcost to the russians in 2000 itself. the IA too did not display any such hesitancy when ordering the T-90 by hundreds.

just because IAF and IA have sometimes bought fighters, missile and rockets squadron by squadron and regiment by regiment, does not mean it's the ideal way to do it. we have in the past suffered major cost escalations because of this habit and haven't been able to leverage what amounted to a large volume purchase. this is also why the shipyards are ordered ships by the navy in batches of 3 or more at a time.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2138
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby John » 10 Jul 2015 23:26

You cannot compare Artillery procurement with Tank they are fall under completely different categories. Hard to compare with scale at which Chinese have done or have any reliable number but their overall artillery procurement is substantially less than purchase of SPH and MRLs these days. Russia barely has just 300 2A65 in service.

Most western countries like France/UK have ordered in similar quantities and vendors have delivered them in year or two, even gulf states which love to buy hundreds of unneeded weapons haven't purchased any more than in batches of 100.

If IA places an order it will tie up xx amount of money and affect future procurement regardless of how the payment is structured.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18654
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 11 Jul 2015 00:19

lol, how are arty procurements different from tanks? are tanks cheaper than tube arty? we have purchased 1657 t-90s without due diligence and do penny packet ordering in gun tubes which has been languishing for ages. makes no sense.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4322
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 11 Jul 2015 06:37

John, what's the overall requirement for the IA versus EU or Gulf nations? Then look at firm orders. Come back and tell us if ordering 100units at a time is sensible?

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 11 Jul 2015 06:42

100 increments make sense only when topping up every 2 yrs on a base of 2000 guns, to cover for retirement of oldest batches.

it makes no sense when we have a need for 2000 fresh guns yesterday.

again holding out for some unobtainium specced 52cal.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2142
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Vivek K » 11 Jul 2015 09:26

Why are we so surprised? This is but an example of two things - a) The yoke of slavery to the West institutionalized in us by 200 yrs of Angrezi hukumat and b) an example of our corrupt nature. There is no point in chest beating over the army and the airforce's love of greased weapon systems. We are like this onlee - corrupt to the core.

A personal example - my father died trying to sell an import substitute product to Indian companies but he and I failed.

The LCA/Arjun/Dhanush are never going to make it. People like Philip are the Mir Qasims of our time. Leading to our ultimate slavery. I will ask my kids to learn Mandarin!

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2803
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 11 Jul 2015 10:23

Rahul M wrote:And ability to deliver is scaled up depending on the size of order. nobody is going to create a 60/yr assembly line for an order that would then be done in 2 years.

This is another incorrectness spread on this forum.

There are two things -

Ability to deliver - ie, setting up a production line - is not based on size of order. That is funded either by Government or factored in the initial order.

Ability to deliver significant quantities - ie, scaling up a production line - requires significant orders.

As the Pinaka example showed, even to deliver two regiments and 1000 rockets/year required significant birthing pains. Once the production line is in place, further orders can be given.

http://www.saiindia.gov.in/english/home ... Chap_8.pdf

Not posting in full, but please read Chapter 8.2. To set up a production line, 9 Ordnance Factories were involved. We've licked the problems, but Dhanush should go through the same pain.
Table showing achievements in issue of targeted supply of rockets
Year Rockets RHE Rockets PF
Target Issue Target Issue
2007-08 240 306 762 Nil
2008-09 204 Nil 816 101
2009-10 162 160 864 84
2010-11 100 204 900 706
Total 706 670 3342 891
The table above shows that the planned annual production of 1000 rockets was yet to be achieved.

Which is why, OFB itself has set the delivery schedule of 6 in 6 months, 12 in 12 months and scaling up thereafter. Even if 10,000 orders were given and infinite money pumped in, the 9 months taken to conceive & deliver a baby or X months required set up a production line are required.

Karan M wrote:we have purchased 1657 t-90s

Total number of T-90 purchased are 347 + 310 + 330.

There were two direct orders in batches of 347 & 310 respectively.

India has taken a license to build 1000 tanks at HVF over time and payment under this contract is for ToT.

However, actual orders placed with HVF are 330. Not sure if this is delivered or further orders have been placed.

As John said, orders of 1000 are meaningless unless its backed by a funding plan. And since future income is not known, future orders are a financial impossibility.

Like the UPA stunt of "approving" OROP without funding or "launching" Project 71 Vikrant before it was ready and then shamelessly cutting off funding for it.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 11 Jul 2015 10:53

err, you basically repeated what I wrote with different wording.

viz.
>> ability to deliver is scaled up depending on the size of order

as against

>> scaling up a production line - requires significant orders.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2803
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 11 Jul 2015 12:03

I was responding to this
Rahul M wrote:but production wont pick up because of the tiny initial order.
A not so tiny order will not help expedite setting up a production line. The tiny order is precisely to help set up the production line. Thereafter large orders could be placed to scale up production. Cant get to step 2 before step 1.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8117
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 11 Jul 2015 12:24

I am always amazed by the argument for small order, as is given by some members on the forum. If this argument was valid. Then the world would never had seen any kind of mass production ever.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 11 Jul 2015 12:43

The original Bofors gun used by the Indian Army is a 155mm/39 caliber gun with a range of 28 kilometers. The Dhanush developed by OFB is 155mm/45 caliber gun with a range of 38 kilometers. Caliber of a howitzer signifies the length of the barrel of the gun with respect to its bore. ‘155mm/39 caliber’ means a gun with a bore diameter of 155mm and a barrel length of 155×39 which is equal to 6045mm. A 155mm/45 caliber gun will have a barrel length of 6975mm.


It has about 80% indigenous content with the barrel being made by OFB. Equipped with computerised fire control system, the Dhanush can fire 8 rounds a minute.


Series production will start at the Gun Carriage Factory in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh at the rate of 3 guns per month. In March 2013, the defence ministry had placed an order worth over Rs 1,260-crore for acquisition of 114 Dhanush subject to its clearing the trials. The order will be completed within 3 years. The total requirement for this gun for the army is put at 414 and the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) will be in a position to ramp up production to 100 guns a year to complete the order by 2020.


Things are looking brighter with the Dhanush clearing trials. Work on version 2 of the Dhanush is already in progress. It is going to be an upgraded version from the current 155mm/45 caliber to 155mm/52 caliber. This is a parallel program that the OFB has undertaken on its own and will compete with the Advanced Towed Artillery System which is a 155mm/52 caliber howitzer which is being developed by India’s Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) in association with Indian private sector companies.


The order for 8 Medium Regiments is till the production line stabilizes, for a total of 23 Medium Regiments in the 45 cal variant, followed by the 52 cal competition.

OFB and state production vs DRDO and private cos will be the first of its kind, but provides OFB with a clear advantage as it would have an established production line for what is essentially an upgraded variant.

The ATAGS on the other hand would be lighter more advanced and possibly expensive as well with more titanium construction........

Link:http://swarajyamag.com/politics/finally-army-to-get-its-dhanush/

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2803
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 11 Jul 2015 15:44

Pratyush wrote:I am always amazed by the argument for small order, as is given by some members on the forum.
And I'm amazed by the selective focus on only the initial order. Initial orders for Pinaka (2 regiments), Akash (2 regiments), Brahmos (1 regiment) for IA was always small to start with. Even IN orders ships in small batches of 3. 3 Type 15 followed by 3 Type 15A followed by 4 Type 15B
Pratyush wrote: If this argument was valid. Then the world would never had seen any kind of mass production ever.
Mass production too follows the batch/block concept. Batches also have the benefit of incremental upgrades & evolutions making it into the next batch.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2024
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Picklu » 11 Jul 2015 15:49

John wrote:You cannot compare Artillery procurement with Tank they are fall under completely different categories. Hard to compare with scale at which Chinese have done or have any reliable number but their overall artillery procurement is substantially less than purchase of SPH and MRLs these days. Russia barely has just 300 2A65 in service.

Most western countries like France/UK have ordered in similar quantities and vendors have delivered them in year or two, even gulf states which love to buy hundreds of unneeded weapons haven't purchased any more than in batches of 100.

If IA places an order it will tie up xx amount of money and affect future procurement regardless of how the payment is structured.


Original Bofors order by IA was for 1600 pieces.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests