Artillery: News & Discussion

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19835
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 30 Sep 2015 18:22

surya true, but then i dont want a CAG report 10 years later saying the gun was out of service because IA didn't take enuff spares and spares were too expensive etc

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1653
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Sid » 30 Sep 2015 18:28

A bird in hand is better then two in bush. Its about time we induct "something", which is better then "nothing". Once things get rolling, knowing L&T and given a chance, you can expect newer iterations quite often independent from Samsung.

Tata's are good too, but L&T and Korean K9 is the only combo which was never blacklisted anywhere.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby RoyG » 30 Sep 2015 18:29

While I'm happy that we're moving forward, this whole artillery selection process shows that we still don't have a well thought out strategy for promoting indigenous designs. We could have easily brought Bhim back into the picture which is superior to the K9. The T6 with its MRSI can put 5 rounds on target while the K9 can only put 3. From wiki, it says that the K9 ran into some issues while countering NK artillery. Almost everything besides maybe the engine and the gun could have been quickly entered production. Oh well...

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 30 Sep 2015 18:53

CAG will be CAG

I am not yet ready to clap till I see the damn things in service

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6435
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Supratik » 30 Sep 2015 19:50

From a non-expert reading all your discussions for the last 10 yrs. Thank God finally.

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2033
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby srin » 30 Sep 2015 19:56

How are we doing on the ammo production ? Is the Nalanda factory for bimodular charge still a dead duck ?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby shiv » 30 Sep 2015 20:04

srin wrote:How are we doing on the ammo production ? Is the Nalanda factory for bimodular charge still a dead duck ?

For what it is worth - from OFB
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5A54mBq-88

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 30 Sep 2015 20:31

srin, There was a DRDO Techfocus paragraph on local industry technology transfer for BMCS as Nalanda OFB is not up to snuff.
Will try to locate it.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3609
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Paul » 30 Sep 2015 20:40

SoKos have hit the ground running the India-Pak arms market. Selling 155mm ammo factory to Pak and SPHs to India

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19835
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 30 Sep 2015 20:53

Wonder where we are with this? Lack of clear direction from MOD led to multiple tenders for multiple kinds of guns and no commonality.. anyways let something come in!!

----
From Nov 2014.
Manohar Parrikar clears proposal to acquire 814 artillery guns for Rs 15,750 crore for Indian Army
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-ma ... my-2037489
In a fresh bid to break the Bofors jinx, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar on Saturday cleared proposal to acquire 814 artillery guns for Rs 15,750 crore while deferring decision on joint bid by Tata Sons and Airbus to replace IAF's Avro transport fleet and also procurement of 106 Swiss Pilatus basic trainer aircraft. The artillery guns would be procured as per the "Buy and Make" procedure introduced last year under which 100 such guns would be bought off the shelf while 714 would be made in India. The Indian Army has not acquired artillery guns in the past three decades after the Bofors scam surfaced in 1986. Sources said at least six tenders have been issued so far but were cancelled due to a number of reasons including blacklisting and single vendor scenario. The plans to acquire such guns were first mooted under Army's Field Artillery Rationalisation Plan (FARP) formulated in 1999. The decisions were taken after Parrikar chaired his maiden meeting of the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) here this morning. Defence Ministry sources said the DAC has cleared the long pending proposal to acquire 814 mounted guns of 155mm/52 calibre.

Sources said a fresh Request for Proposal (RFP) would be issued for the procurement which will be open to public as well as private companies. The Indian private companies that are likely to make a bid for this project include L&T, TATA and Bharat Forge. "The Indian company, when selected, will be the lead partner now. They can either show their ability to make the product completely here or tie-up with a foreign firm and build the guns here," a source said.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19835
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 30 Sep 2015 22:28

Indigenization of the gun is key

Saurav Jha:
L&T says that they have managed to get genuine tech transfer from Samsung for the K9.

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories ... roduce.htm

"As the lead partner, L&T will indigenously produce the self-propelled howitzer, thereby contributing to self-reliance in the defence sector. As part of the co-operation agreement between the two companies, STW will provide key technologies to L&T for localization of the K9 Thunder," said M. V. Kotwal, President, Heavy Engineering, and Member, L&T Board.

During the production phase, the joint offering would have an over 50 percent indigenous content, including components like fire control systems, communication systems, and life support systems which have already been used in India. This phase will also include significant localization of hull/turret structure and major subsystems, Kotwal added.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 30 Sep 2015 22:32

Wow M.V. Kotwal is still there!!!! He used to be in Powai works in late 1970s.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby RoyG » 01 Oct 2015 04:38

Karan M wrote:Indigenization of the gun is key

Saurav Jha:
L&T says that they have managed to get genuine tech transfer from Samsung for the K9.

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories ... roduce.htm

"As the lead partner, L&T will indigenously produce the self-propelled howitzer, thereby contributing to self-reliance in the defence sector. As part of the co-operation agreement between the two companies, STW will provide key technologies to L&T for localization of the K9 Thunder," said M. V. Kotwal, President, Heavy Engineering, and Member, L&T Board.

During the production phase, the joint offering would have an over 50 percent indigenous content, including components like fire control systems, communication systems, and life support systems which have already been used in India. This phase will also include significant localization of hull/turret structure and major subsystems, Kotwal added.


Bhim should be resurrected and handed over to another private which could give L&T some competition.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby uddu » 01 Oct 2015 05:52

Let them continue with whatever they have. The Bhim can come later when the DRDO's on gun can be fitted on the Arjun chassis and tested. That possibly may take 5 more years and that can be mass manufactured by Private player like L&T.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3287
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kakkaji » 01 Oct 2015 06:13

Given the army's lack of enthusiasm towards the Arjun, it is unlikely to support the revival of the Bhim.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 01 Oct 2015 11:18

Kakkaji wrote:Given the army's lack of enthusiasm towards the Arjun, it is unlikely to support the revival of the Bhim.


A small data point for you - Bhim became a realty because Army wanted it to be. Had IA had its way, Bhim would've been the standard Tracked SP gun for more than a decade now.

Another point - It does not matter whether IA likes Arjun or not when it comes to using the chassis for the gun turret. Simply put, ONLY the Arjun chassis can mount a 155/45 or 52 Caliber gun and is strong enough to withstand the pressure/stresses which firing of the gun produces. Even during initial trials, the idea was to mount the gun on T-72 hull for obvious reason. But the hull could not handle the stresses generated during the firing of the gun and developer cracks. That is how the Arjun hull came into picture.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 01 Oct 2015 11:49

^^^

AFAIR, there were reports of the IA wanting to divert the chasis of its original (or it felt "coerced" to) order of 124 Arjun MBT Mk.1 to be used for Bhim instead. That would have killed the Arjun MBT program.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 01 Oct 2015 11:52

is the K9 based off a Soko tank chassis or a purpose built chassis?
the 6 road wheels and their gaps looks same as K2 panther tank they operate - equivalent in shape size and looks to the Leclerc.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3626
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kashi » 01 Oct 2015 16:53

RoyG wrote:Bhim should be resurrected and handed over to another private which could give L&T some competition.


Especially if the focus is on indigenisation...

But as udduji pointed out, if the plans are to mount a DRDO developed gun on Arjun chassis, maybe we'll see Bhim recruited in large numbers.

As an ignorant fanboy, unable to recognise the difference between towed and self-propelled artillery induction :oops: and hoping that we get something in... anything, I find myself getting greedy.

Dhanush, M777, Vajra, Bhim, Tata gun...get everything in!!!

(Of course hoping that logistical issues take care of themselves :wink: )

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 01 Oct 2015 17:37

Karan M wrote:Now we will have 1 gun type for SPG, 1 gun type for wheeled, 3 for regular (if not more), Bofors, Dhanush, ATAGS and then one more for towed.. :lol:

Best to cancel the wheeled and make it K-9 too and combine towed and regular self propelled ones if not already done.


Yeah ... similar to the IAF combat aircraft with 40 of this, 36 of another, 60 of that etc ;)

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 01 Oct 2015 20:35

srai wrote:^^^

AFAIR, there were reports of the IA wanting to divert the chasis of its original (or it felt "coerced" to) order of 124 Arjun MBT Mk.1 to be used for Bhim instead. That would have killed the Arjun MBT program.


There was no such development. You need to look at the timeline. Bhim came into picture (1998-99) much before Arjun even managed to reach full regiment worth of tanks in IA.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3472
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Aditya G » 01 Oct 2015 22:56

rohitvats wrote:
Kakkaji wrote:Given the army's lack of enthusiasm towards the Arjun, it is unlikely to support the revival of the Bhim.


A small data point for you - Bhim became a realty because Army wanted it to be. Had IA had its way, Bhim would've been the standard Tracked SP gun for more than a decade now.

Another point - It does not matter whether IA likes Arjun or not when it comes to using the chassis for the gun turret. Simply put, ONLY the Arjun chassis can mount a 155/45 or 52 Caliber gun and is strong enough to withstand the pressure/stresses which firing of the gun produces. Even during initial trials, the idea was to mount the gun on T-72 hull for obvious reason. But the hull could not handle the stresses generated during the firing of the gun and developer cracks. That is how the Arjun hull came into picture.


Folks: Lets not forget that IA is buying Catapult 130 mm. So bhim's spirit does live :wink:

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19835
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 01 Oct 2015 23:19

No comparison between the two...apart from hull and powertrain...Catapult is a shed with gun on top of an Arjun hull versus the integrated platform Bhim was.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 02 Oct 2015 03:51

rohitvats wrote:
srai wrote:^^^

AFAIR, there were reports of the IA wanting to divert the chasis of its original (or it felt "coerced" to) order of 124 Arjun MBT Mk.1 to be used for Bhim instead. That would have killed the Arjun MBT program.


There was no such development. You need to look at the timeline. Bhim came into picture (1998-99) much before Arjun even managed to reach full regiment worth of tanks in IA.


You are probably right.

I think this may have been the article I read a long time ago (~2002) [note: written by Rahul Bedi though so as we all know now we can't take his journalism seriously]:

Arms manufacturers are vying with one another to sell India new weapon systems.
...
The MoD has cleared 124 Arjuns for series production, but military sources said that with the arrival of the Russian T-90s main battle tank, its chassis would now be "diverted" to Bhim. The Army wants to acquire around 100 to 120 SP 155mm weapon systems in completed condition or as kits and build indigenously the remaining 400 to 450 in order to arm around 30 mechanised infantry regiments. These systems are meant to counter some 150 American M109A2 SP guns with the Pakistan Army.

The Army, meanwhile, has rejected Arjun, which continues to face problems with its fire control system and gun accuracy at battle ranges and has poor operational mobility because of its weight and width. The manufacturers of its German MTU 838 Ka-510, 1,400 hp diesel engine have also raised their price, significantly adding to the MBT's overall cost of around Rs.15 crores to Rs.20 crores each. The 310 Russian T-90s tanks that India has bought and which it plans to build indigenously under licence at the Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi in Tamil Nadu are priced at around $1.02 million apiece.
...

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 935
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sankum » 07 Oct 2015 13:38

Samsung-L&T win Rs 12,500 crore artillery contract
The army requires at least three K-9 Vajra regiments for each of its three armoured divisions, and another regiment for each of the independent armoured brigades in the three strike corps. The eventual requirement, therefore, is of 12 regiments of tracked SP guns, i.e. 252 K-9 Vajra systems.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 07 Oct 2015 13:47

100 SP Arty guns always seemed as a piddly order...12 regiments, even if concentrated in Strike Corps, makes much more sense.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19835
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 07 Oct 2015 13:51

With that number we bloody well make teh gun instead of ancillaries and then claim it exceeds offsets.
For 350 the Turks are making even the screws locally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-155_Firtina

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3609
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Paul » 08 Oct 2015 11:18

Turkey has the backing of the NATO supply chain. WHat do we have?

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 08 Oct 2015 20:31

If we go by the report, L&T has gone and adopted the easy way without actually manufacturing the hull, engine or the transmission. The Allison auto transmission is a derivative of the one on M1 Abrams. They could have helped get a back door for the FMBT programme and help the engineering conglomerate get a firm footing.

Such things need to be prioritised and mandated by the MoD with some foresight. This creeping incremental procurement which is easy for the MoD to execute also needs to be looked into and we let off the OEM on much easier terms. We could afterall match Turkey's SP artillery numbers.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3626
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kashi » 09 Oct 2015 06:36

vaibhav.n wrote:If we go by the report, L&T has gone and adopted the easy way without actually manufacturing the hull, engine or the transmission. The Allison auto transmission is a derivative of the one on M1 Abrams. They could have helped get a back door for the FMBT programme and help the engineering conglomerate get a firm footing.

Such things need to be prioritised and mandated by the MoD with some foresight. This creeping incremental procurement which is easy for the MoD to execute also needs to be looked into and we let off the OEM on much easier terms. We could afterall match Turkey's SP artillery numbers.


Thanks for the info. Do we know how that compares with what Tata/Denel were offering? I mean the level of specilaisation that TATA had acquired in this.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Gyan » 09 Oct 2015 10:22

This seems like a suspicious tender win. All others have lost on technical grounds hence Samsung product wins without any comparison of financial terms. Samsung howitzer seems a very costly product and it seems like Eurocopter like tender once again. LT has no capacity or intend to absorb imp technology like engine, transmission, gun, ammo, sensors etc so its just screwdrivergiri. We should invite proposals to interface Dhanush with Arjun chassis rather than go for such costly, suspicious screwdrivergiri solutions. All this is in background to the fact that inspite of super duper urgent requirement for towed howitzers, the orders for Dhanush are stuck at 114 ie Rs. 1500 crores while a heavy costly non urgent product ie Samsung howitzer gets preferential treatment + orders for Rs. 5000 crores.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Gyan » 09 Oct 2015 10:25

Karan M wrote:With that number we bloody well make teh gun instead of ancillaries and then claim it exceeds offsets.
For 350 the Turks are making even the screws locally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-155_Firtina


Turkey even makes screws locally but we make only the screwdrivers locally. :rotfl:

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Gyan » 09 Oct 2015 10:25

vaibhav.n wrote:If we go by the report, L&T has gone and adopted the easy way without actually manufacturing the hull, engine or the transmission. The Allison auto transmission is a derivative of the one on M1 Abrams. They could have helped get a back door for the FMBT programme and help the engineering conglomerate get a firm footing.

Such things need to be prioritised and mandated by the MoD with some foresight. This creeping incremental procurement which is easy for the MoD to execute also needs to be looked into and we let off the OEM on much easier terms. We could afterall match Turkey's SP artillery numbers.


+1

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Gyan » 09 Oct 2015 10:27

Paul wrote:Turkey has the backing of the NATO supply chain. WHat do we have?


We have tender term manupulation to favor preferred seller. I bet tenders were drafted and released during UPA regime.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3609
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Paul » 09 Oct 2015 12:46

The key aspects are the turret, the Cannon, and the FCS. If L&T can master this it can mate the turret with the Bhim chassis for the next tranche of the SPH order

member_27581
BRFite
Posts: 230
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_27581 » 09 Nov 2015 15:32

http://strategypage.com/htmw/htart/articles/20151103.aspx


South Korea Does What The Americans Cannot

South Korea recently sold a hundred of its locally designed and made K9 155mm self-propelled howitzers to India for about $7.5 million each. South Korea has already sold 350 K9s to Turkey and 120 to Poland. While superficially similar to the American M109 the K9 is a heaver (46 tons versus 28 for the M109), carries more ammo and has twice the range (up to 56 kilometers in part because of a barrel that is a third longer). There is more automation on the K9, so it has a crew of five versus six on the M-109. South Korea thus joins Germany in their effort to build a suitable replacement for the elderly M109 design. To get the Indian sale South Korea had to agree to have the K9s assembled in India from South Korean components. This sale gives South Korea an edge in obtaining an even larger contract to supply India with several thousand towed 155mm howitzers. Because of corruption and political problems the Indian Army has not been able to buy any new artillery since the 1980s. The chief competitor for the Indian contract was Russia which offered its similar 42 ton 2S19. The K-9 won on the basis of technical capabilities, field tests and a South Korean reputation for quality and reliability.
.....


No ToT? Links below mention ToT, hope this is one of those random reports rather than anything else...
Karan M wrote:Saurav Jha:
L&T says that they have managed to get genuine tech transfer from Samsung for the K9.

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories ... roduce.htm

"As the lead partner, L&T will indigenously produce the self-propelled howitzer, thereby contributing to self-reliance in the defence sector. As part of the co-operation agreement between the two companies, STW will provide key technologies to L&T for localization of the K9 Thunder," said M. V. Kotwal, President, Heavy Engineering, and Member, L&T Board.

During the production phase, the joint offering would have an over 50 percent indigenous content, including components like fire control systems, communication systems, and life support systems which have already been used in India. This phase will also include significant localization of hull/turret structure and major subsystems, Kotwal added.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19835
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 09 Nov 2015 15:46

Please don't rely on Strategy Page.. its a news aggregator and editorializes heavily on India.. the India Strat article is a direct quote.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby SaiK » 09 Nov 2015 21:29

the strategy page is more on the canine barks than what lead to the strategic decisions. the edits abruptly stops half way through. yeah, coffee time.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Viv S » 16 Nov 2015 16:33

The previous off-the-shelf purchase was priced at $885 million (up from $660 million) for 145 guns. We're now apparently getting a licensed production deal with the possibility of exports for $700 million. While the details haven't been released yet, prima facie the MoD seems to have done a good job.


With gun assembly plant, defence gets a ‘Make in India’ project

The ministry had given BAE Systems, the manufacturer of M777 artillery guns, till October 31 to submit its offset agreements with local companies

In what is likely to be the first major ‘Make in India’ project in defence, the defence ministry is about to sign a deal with the US government to assemble 145 BAE Systems M777 155mm/39mm calibre lightweight howitzers in India.

Estimated to be worth $700 million, the deal is being done through the Foreign Military Sales route and a draft Letter of Acceptance (LoA) has been agreed upon between the Pentagon and the defence ministry.

The ministry had given BAE Systems, the manufacturer of M777 artillery guns, till October 31 to submit its offset agreements with local companies.

This includes the Indian company to whom BAE Systems will transfer its M777 assembly, integration and test (AIT) facilities from Hattiesburg, Mississippi (US).

BAE Systems has entered into MoUs with over 40 Indian companies to fulfill the offset requirement, which are 30 per cent of the contract value. The Indian partner for the AIT facilities, where 70 per cent of M777 gun’s assembly will be completed, is yet to be announced.

“Several companies have the capabilities to perform such work and BAE Systems is evaluating proposals. Establishing an AIT facility in India will lay a foundation to expand future work content in India, potentially leading to M777s for India and for possible export,” Mark Simpkins, Vice-President & General Manager-India, BAE Systems, told The Indian Express.

The LoA is expected to be inked later this year, nearly eight years after the M777 purchase was mooted during the UPA-1 regime. The Army hopes to get the first guns within six months of the signing of the LOA, so it can work out the Range Table Development and start training the artillery units.

The draft LoA — which contains delivery schedules, guarantees, after-sales technical services and spares support — was sent by Pentagon in August this year after defence ministry issued a letter of request in June. A fresh LoA had to be negotiated after an earlier LoA was cancelled in October 2013 due to differences over gun’s pricing. Price had become a major factor after defence ministry’s delay in placing the order of the M777 gun. With no other global orders, BAE Systems had, in 2013, suspended its facilities at Barrow-in-Furness, northern England, where around 30 per cent of the gun is fabricated.

According to defence ministry sources, the overall price for M777 now is around 6-8 percent above the price previously offered in 2013. But the previous LoA did not have any provision for assembling the guns in India. With the AIT facilities included now, defence ministry sees the current deal as a totally different one.

Weighing only 4,200 kg, the M777 gun is a lightweight howitzer which can be carried via a sling on the Chinook helicopters. India had signed the deal for 15 Chinook helicopters during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the US in September.

The light weight of M777 guns comes from its barrel made out of Titanium and other proprietary metallurgical technologies held by the United States. Even for the guns which will be assembled in India, the barrel will continue to be manufactured at the US government facility at Watervliet Arsenal near New York.

The acquisition of M777 guns has acquired utmost priority because of shortfalls of artillery guns needed to equip army’s new Mountain Strike Corps on China border, which is currently being raised as per schedule. The shortfall in combat equipment for units deployed on China border in Eastern Command was on the agenda of the army commanders’ conference earlier this month.

According to some senior army officers present in the conference, the lack of artillery guns – particularly the delayed acquisition of lightweight M777 howitzers – had led to a heated discussion about their availability
.

Will
BRFite
Posts: 637
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Will » 16 Nov 2015 20:26

I think someone did a good job on getting the Pegasus banned. If reports are anything to go by it was the preferred light howitzer and superior to the Amriki one. Also instead of just screwdriver assembly India would have been in a better position to negotiate with Singapore on co-development.

Having said that , high time India gets its act right and starts manufacturing its on gun systems.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests