Artillery: News & Discussion

[Singha]

getting L&T and Bharat Forge to make parts for the Dhanush & ATAGS and even parallel production lines is the only way forward if we want to develop pvt sector for defence and MII.

just reserving 100% of the malai for fat cat OFB to do as they please is the kind of regressive step that shows no mentality to reform anything and caving in to a loud unionbazi....no better than west bengal state govt policies.
this is one the criticisms of Namo, that he wants to fix anything broken in govt sector rather than totally withdraw in some areas.

we need to speed up induction, not some joke of 2-5/gun production rate - airbus produces that many A350 per month and LM produced some 36 F16 a month at its peak, this is a far simpler product.

or let OFB produce dhanush but the two pvt players entirely produce ATAGS.

Namo needs to deliver on this, the stakes are huge.

parts of OFB itself need to be sold off to private players with Govt just retaining a golden stake and veto on ownership change - same as snecma, dassault, saab, thyssen krupp though its tough to mention them in same breath. US takes another line of not even having a official stake but Congress can veto any deal civilian or commercial like it did for huawei commerical deals and the military is tightly integrated with the OEMs via program offices.

[Rishi_Tri]

getting L&T and Bharat Forge to make parts for the Dhanush & ATAGS and even parallel production lines is the only way forward if we want to develop pvt sector for defence and MII.

just reserving 100% of the malai for fat cat OFB to do as they please is the kind of regressive step that shows no mentality to reform anything and caving in to a loud unionbazi....no better than west bengal state govt policies.
this is one the criticisms of Namo, that he wants to fix anything broken in govt sector rather than totally withdraw in some areas.

we need to speed up induction, not some joke of 2-5/gun production rate - airbus produces that many A350 per month and LM produced some 36 F16 a month at its peak, this is a far simpler product.

or let OFB produce dhanush but the two pvt players entirely produce ATAGS.

Namo needs to deliver on this, the stakes are huge.

parts of OFB itself need to be sold off to private players with Govt just retaining a golden stake and veto on ownership change - same as snecma, dassault, saab, thyssen krupp though its tough to mention them in same breath. US takes another line of not even having a official stake but Congress can veto any deal civilian or commercial like it did for huawei commerical deals and the military is tightly integrated with the OEMs via program offices.

I know I am going to get kicked out for crying hoarse on this but couldn't agree more. Modi can really make a difference. Hope he does.

As to Unions, I think the worst example is GTRE. I remember seeing banners, calling for strikes at GTRE for months on end. This for a project of actual National Importance.

Thankfully the banners are gone but things eventually told on GTRE. It didn't become another ISRO when it really could have by now. It still can.

[Indranil]

The exploitation trials are done after the induction. LCA/Rafale, all will go through exploitation trials, but after induction.

[srai]

^^^
They would have been doing that for a year now since squadron formation. By the time another 1.5 years have passed (i.e. typical 2.5 years of "exploitation"), they will have the full squadron strength of LCA airframes. We will be reading about it in 2019/2020.

[JayS]

But trials are over. This is some new thing called user exploitation trials. Never done before.

This was always done. Typically first batch from production is tested not for functionality & performance but for operationalization.


Going by what MiG-29K, P-8I & Dhruv went through, that a professional fighting force does, the IAF 45 squadron formation with Tejas SP-1 & SP-2 got a complete waiver from these operationalizing activities for H&D purposes.

All of this is available openly in the internet and despite people choosing to wear blinkers and preach false conspiracy theories, the truth will still prevail.

Anyways in India, if a student fails, parents like Dhritarashtra, Gandhari & Lalu Prasad Yadav blame the invigilator and examiner for failing their baby!

BTW, the MiG-29K met its AoA, ITR, STR, speed, range, payload specifications. Where it suffers is extremely poor manufacturing quality and much less then specified reliability. For assessing Tejas on these issues, sufficient numbers are not even there in service.

Thanks a lot Tsarkar for this info. Please correct me if I am wrong in understanding this. To put it in layman language, while the test matrix for the prototype testing is a well defined set of tests to test certain parameters under well defined operating conditions, these "user exploitation" can be equated to "throwing around" the product as the user pleases to see what all it can do, and to get the feel how well it can do it, while still remaining in the certified operating envelop.

OT here, but I disagree on LCA being totally waived off from "user exploitation" trials. I suppose IAF will still carry it out. Yes, Squadron formation might have been done ahead of it, but this is definitely not unprecedented in Defense aviation. As IR pointed out, induction does not need to be linked to "user exploitation" trials and can happen post-induction. Arguably, a fighter jet is a far more complicated system than a howitzer and needs a far more nuanced approach to development. So while it may be OK to hold production of Dhanush for a while for "user exploitation" tests, it may not be so for a fighter.

[Marten]

This was always done. Typically first batch from production is tested not for functionality & performance but for operationalization.


Going by what MiG-29K, P-8I & Dhruv went through, that a professional fighting force does, the IAF 45 squadron formation with Tejas SP-1 & SP-2 got a complete waiver from these operationalizing activities for H&D purposes.

All of this is available openly in the internet and despite people choosing to wear blinkers and preach false conspiracy theories, the truth will still prevail.

Anyways in India, if a student fails, parents like Dhritarashtra, Gandhari & Lalu Prasad Yadav blame the invigilator and examiner for failing their baby!

BTW, the MiG-29K met its AoA, ITR, STR, speed, range, payload specifications. Where it suffers is extremely poor manufacturing quality and much less then specified reliability. For assessing Tejas on these issues, sufficient numbers are not even there in service.

Thanks a lot Tsarkar for this info. Please correct me if I am wrong in understanding this. To put it in layman language, while the test matrix for the prototype testing is a well defined set of tests to test certain parameters under well defined operating conditions, these "user exploitation" can be equated to "throwing around" the product as the user pleases to see what all it can do, and to get the feel how well it can do it, while still remaining in the certified operating envelop.

OT here, but I disagree on LCA being totally waived off from "user exploitation" trials. I suppose IAF will still carry it out. Yes, Squadron formation might have been done ahead of it, but this is definitely not unprecedented in Defense aviation. As IR pointed out, induction does not need to be linked to "user exploitation" trials and can happen post-induction. Arguably, a fighter jet is a far more complicated system than a howitzer and needs a far more nuanced approach to development. So while it may be OK to hold production of Dhanush for a while for "user exploitation" tests, it may not be so for a fighter.

About Tejas "user exploitation" trials -- one would expect that AVM Sandeep Singh and team from ASTE would be mentioned in this context.
Admins, apologies for the OT.

[tsarkar]

Thanks a lot Tsarkar for this info. Please correct me if I am wrong in understanding this. To put it in layman language, while the test matrix for the prototype testing is a well defined set of tests to test certain parameters under well defined operating conditions, these "user exploitation" can be equated to "throwing around" the product as the user pleases to see what all it can do, and to get the feel how well it can do it, while still remaining in the certified operating envelop.

Yes, you get the gist, but its certainly not "throwing around as the user pleases", but developing a method to do its required task and if any tweaking of the system is required, so that normal users don't have to learn by trial and error in urgent combat situation.

For example, Search & Rescue - what altitudes to fly, what ranges to fly, what duration to loiter?

Sniper Operations - again, at what altitude and distance from target should the pilot hover? Should the pilot hover or should he slowly circle or should he make passes? Is the craft holding steady for the sniper to fire or does the helo require more vibration dampening?

In case of Dhanush Battery Fire, at what ranges does the battery saturate x by x area? Is any tweaking of the gun required to better that?

Such data is useful to field commanders - they can destroy a Paki attack at a Forming Up Place. The field commander will know Dhanush Battery can neutralize x by y area at z km away.

Any tweaking required can be incorporated as systems enter mass production.

The best example of exploitation were the initial 18 Su-30K loan aircraft.

Also, only those in production and just about to be widely deployed are exploited. No one exploits experimental equipment. Exploitation is a healthy sign of widespread use to follow.

[srai]

Any tweaking required can be incorporated as systems enter mass production.

It's not simple to keep tweaking complex products entering production as that could potentially impact supply chains with parts changes and retesting. They can, however, be continuously improved over time post induction.

[JayS]

Any tweaking required can be incorporated as systems enter mass production.

It's not simple to keep tweaking complex products entering production as that could potentially impact supply chains with parts changes and retesting. They can, however, be continuously improved over time post induction.

True, its not always possible to implement changes in short term and they have to wait, sometimes for years, depending on the complexity and lead time involved. I have shared some stuff related to PW engine problems on A320NEO in civil aviation thread. Even as the engine was being designed some issues were known but the first iteration was pushed to service with due restrictions and it would be years before some of those issues will be completely taken care of. Production cannot wait until such time when all the issues are removed. Else even GE/PW/RR will take as much time to bring out one engine as GTRE is taking for Kaveri. But certainly some critical issues have to be handled on priority basis. The whole business is handled by mutual understanding between various OEMs/Suppliers involved, the customer and the certification agencies.

[tsarkar]

It's not simple to keep tweaking complex products entering production as that could potentially impact supply chains with parts changes and retesting. They can, however, be continuously improved over time post induction.

True, its not always possible to implement changes in short term and they have to wait, sometimes for years, depending on the complexity and lead time involved. I have shared some stuff related to PW engine problems on A320NEO in civil aviation thread. Even as the engine was being designed some issues were known but the first iteration was pushed to service with due restrictions and it would be years before some of those issues will be completely taken care of. Production cannot wait until such time when all the issues are removed. Else even GE/PW/RR will take as much time to bring out one engine as GTRE is taking for Kaveri. But certainly some critical issues have to be handled on priority basis. The whole business is handled by mutual understanding between various OEMs/Suppliers involved, the customer and the certification agencies.

^^ Then one would end up with the MiG-29K, where prototypes built by Design Bureau worked well, but production models have quality issues.

Without IFTU, the reliability issues highlighted by CAG would've never been discovered early on.

One would rather have a barrel burst and rectify the causes early on when supply chain is relatively smaller than barrels bursting all over borders in crises situations when supply chain is relatively larger.

As I said earlier, exploitation is a healthy sign of widespread use to follow.

[srai]

^^^
What you are referring to is quality control of production aka barrel bursting of Limited serial production unit during exploitation. Different issue.

From the design pov, it would have been sound if it passed all R&D testing with user involvement to meet specified requirements. To get yo production, it would have proved basic things like firing x number of rounds per barrel in various modes satisfying user requirements. They would have also tested the gun to its design limits and beyond. Any design limitations would be known and the user would have accepted the limitation to have given the green light for production with the expectation they will be resolved in future. SOP would be prepared accordingly.

[tsarkar]

[quote="srai"]^^^
What you are referring to is quality control of production aka barrel bursting of Limited serial production unit during exploitation. Different issue.

From the design pov, it would have been sound if it passed all R&D testing with user involvement to meet specified requirements. To get yo production, it would have proved basic things like firing x number of rounds per barrel in various modes satisfying user requirements. They would have also tested the gun to its design limits and beyond. Any design limitations would be known and the user would have accepted the limitation to have given the green light for production with the expectation they will be resolved in future. SOP would be prepared accordingly.[/quote]

And how does one verify that production processes are sound and finished products fulfill SoP?

[Cybaru]

And how does one verify that production processes are sound and finished products fulfill SoP?

The issue seems the round rather than the gun.

You can do proof test of an item before induction to understand wear and tear, design max etc, but generally you create other processes to ensure quality from production issues. Most of the units in proof test will probably be instrumented. It is a continuous learning process and you can't stop production. You notate the limits and institute regular checks to ensure quality is maintained over the complete life cycle of the product. Read more here.

http://www.bmpcoe.org/bestpractices/pdf/watva.pdf

[ramana]

Cybaru, I think it was the fuze. The fact the round exploded shows it was made good.
The M572 is standard 155mm fuze designed by US. it has super-quick factory setting.
Its supposed to get armed ~61m (~200 feet) from the muzzle.

I finally read the scribd document posted by tasrkar.
It is noted that the fuze can initiate prematurely when its is fired with high muzzle velocity.
The South Africans had to modify the fuze for the longer barreled GCH-45 guns.
Incidentally 45 refers to calibers which is same as the Dhanush which is also 45 calibers long.


The other five guns in the battery trials did ok.

Lets wait for the Court of Inquiry to complete and tell their reporters.

----
What kind of fuze is used for the BAE 155-52 guns?

[Cybaru]

Yeah, agreed Ramana. Thats what I said too. I posted the link to the document in response to another question.

[ramana]

Cybaru, Lets look at the fuzes design data.
M572 PD and its shortcomings
What fuzes are used for similar 155-45 cal guns.
For 155-52 cal guns.

I suspect the ERFB shells have different fuzes.
And for above user exploitation trials what charge was used in that gun of interest?

[ramana]

tsarkar, trying to catch you while go of line.

If you Google for fuze M572 PD problems you get two pdfs:

1) 'Dynamic Analysis of Safing and Arming System for PD Fuze M572E2'. This one gives details of how they analyzed an issue with the Fuze
2) 'The Design of a Spin Stabilized Fuze' by Van Den Berg is a Denel project to design an alternate low cost fuze. Talks of issues being overcome with this design.

One requirement common to all these is that SAD acts only with minimum spin of 2000 rpm.
Its possible super quick flash setting was not changed (this is the factory setting) which makes it armed and ready to go after meeting the 2000 rpm. Moreover this disables the normal delay setting which is for after impact.

very fascinating field to learn about.

[JayS]

^^ Then one would end up with the MiG-29K, where prototypes built by Design Bureau worked well, but production models have quality issues.

Without IFTU, the reliability issues highlighted by CAG would've never been discovered early on.

One would rather have a barrel burst and rectify the causes early on when supply chain is relatively smaller than barrels bursting all over borders in crises situations when supply chain is relatively larger.

As I said earlier, exploitation is a healthy sign of widespread use to follow.

And how does one verify that production processes are sound and finished products fulfill SoP?

In addition to what srai and cybaru said, here are my thoughts. To start with I would say, if you have critical issues like barrel burst after prototype testing, there is something wrong with the design process/philosophy itself and not the manufacturing only.

The point you raise about production quality is a very valid one. But IMO the production quality issues should be sorted out in Tech Demonstrator, Prototype, Limited Serial Production phases (for relatively less complicated systems such as guns only prototype stage might be sufficient while something like a Fighter/Engines/Radars more steps might be necessary). As I have replied to one of your post in LCA thread, we should not consider design and manufacturing as two separate entities. Perhaps this philosophy of segregation of design and production comes from Russia (this works in an environment where design and manufacturing guys work in close collaboration without prejudices or inter-organisational egos coming in ways. In India, this does not work even for intra-organisational segregation). But in western (in want of better word, to differentiate from Russian approach, but not necessarily only western people invented it) design philosophy, manufacturing issues are resolved right during the design phase. While designers fine tune the design, side by side the manufacturing engineers fine tune the processes to get the best possible output. The manufacturing process reliability or quality issues should not be there on the production ready models. [The recent trend in fact is to "Design for Manufacturing" where the intended manufacturing process capabilities and variations are taken into account right at the design phase. In this one does not design a Nominal Design (e.g. perfect circle) but an average design (an oval/ellipse) that is producible with reliability with given manufacturing processes. This way the non-conformances are reduced because a majority of them are already factored in during sizing in design phase]. But again, as anyone might say, this is also in an ideal world. Real world situations differ somewhat. We need to choose one and follow one philosophy and align our processes to that. We cannot have a mishmash of various things, where we design using one approach and test with another and expect results like a 3rd one gives. IMO, the western approach is a better one and gives better results. If we have to copy, we should copy that.

User exploitation tests should not be for testing manufacturing reliability. That should be done in the prototype testing. While first few prototypes can be manufactured with whichever process possible, the later prototypes should be built by the intended mass production processes, so that the manufacturing is also validated along with the performance. Yes, user exploitation tests might uncover design issues or manufacturing issues with production units which were missed or could not have been anticipated earlier. Those defects can be handled based on the criticality and technical difficulties along with economic and time factors taken into consideration by all the stakeholders. Some should be taken care of immediately, some can be deferred and some have to be passed over. Waiting for 100% bug free product is an endless game, and an impractical one. This is how its done in the countries who are successful in engineering today.

Having said that, I think we all agree that there are severe short-comings with OFB's manufacturing capabilities. In such exceptional case, I would agree with IA's approach for doing extra tests just to ensure production quality. But IMO, IA should have taken up those parallel to the prototype testing by demanding for additional prototypes coming out of production line. In a way IA is doing the same thing now as well, but its the time which is critical and the serial approach slows down the development time. Again, this same thinking can not be applied carte blanche everywhere. Its very important for systems to get into operation. One typically ends up with a better and more robust product in 2-3 less than perfect iterations rather than by spending equivalent time in coming up with the perfect product in one shot. But we have to understand and accept that there will be issues in production version no matter how much efforts the design puts, simply because of the nature of manufacturing engineering. No one in the world has capability to predict/simulate manufacturing processes a priory as well as we can do with structural performance, aerodynamics or other such engineering equivalents. It will be decades before we can have such capability. In such scenario one has to evaluate the return on the investment of the efforts put in to resolve issues before the actual serial production starts. (In Auto industry, for example, its very common to have teething issues with new vehicles from initial manufacturing batches. So one should avoid buying brand new launched vehicles, especially the first of the family of design, if you do not want any headache).

I think, We are in this quandary in aerospace/defense sector because while we picked a lot of things from multiple sources, we neither copied things properly in a holistic manner, nor came up with a holistic system which would be assimilation of all those things but a system in itself nor developed our own system of working. Its like, you can either get inspired by some painting and try to come up with your own based on that (what US/USSR did with German tech looted after WW2), or you can simply copy a good painting brush-stoke to brush stroke (what China is doing). But at least in both of above, the final painting looks like a painting, What we did is copy paste multiple paintings in bits and pieces, and ended up with an ugly collage instead of a painting.

[srai]

+1 JayS

[Bala Vignesh]

I think, We are in this quandary in aerospace/defense sector because while we picked a lot of things from multiple sources, we neither copied things properly in a holistic manner, nor came up with a holistic system which would be assimilation of all those things but a system in itself nor developed our own system of working. Its like, you can either get inspired by some painting and try to come up with your own based on that (what US/USSR did with German tech looted after WW2), you can simply copy a good painting brush-stoke to brush stroke (what China is doing). But at least in both of above, the final painting looks like a painting, What we did is copy paste multiple paintings in bits and pieces, and ended up with an ugly collage instead of a painting.

Sorry about the OT, but I guess the root of the issue is in the very nature of our organisations, be it DPSU or Armed forces or any beurocracy. There is no policy or strict adherence to it in case the policy does exist, on joint working with all the stakeholders in a project. Most of our joint working is driven by personalities of the top leaders of the organisation and their personal relationship with each other. Unless this issue is resolved and the resolution enforced stringently and dilligently, we will continue facing this issue for eons to come.

[ashthor]

http://www.economictimes.indiatimes.com ... 694586.cms

NAGPUR: The indigenously built Dhanush - the 155mm artillery guns developed on the lines of the famed Bofors howitzers - has failed yet again after reaching the last phase of tests.

In a test fire undertaken last week, a shell hit the muzzle brake, a source privy to the development said. The muzzle brake is the component fitted on the top of the barrel. It helps in reducing the recoil created when a shell is fired.
Sources said the gun had faced a similar issue in the test fires carried out in May this year.

The guns are being manufactured at Gun Carriage Factory at Jabalpur.

Sources said questions were being raised now about the barrel's design. One of the suggestions is an increased diameter for the muzzle so that the shell can freely fly out.

[Kakarat]

Dhanush fails at the tip again

However, sources say a number of similar incidents have happened in the original 155mm Bofors guns too, despite the higher diameter in it. Even the Israeli 130mm gun upgraded to 155mm indigenously has seen similar problems. The muzzle brake in this gun has a smaller diameter as compared to Dhanush.

"Only Dhanush cannot be faulted for a faulty muzzle brake as there have been numerous instances of muzzle breach in the original Bofors guns too. But the guns were continued by the Army," said a source privy to the development.

"There have been times when the entire team of suppliers of ammunition from South Africa had to camp at the Army headquarters. In the end, it was concluded that there was no fault in the ammunition. This means that the gun has to be blamed," the source said.

Even the guns by Soltam, an Israeli firm, has seen such problems, the source said.

It seems to be a design issue with the original Bofors guns too but still the DDMs call Dhanush a failure

[negi]

Wait let us analyse this even from a 4th grader's perspective .

conclusion being reached: Gun failed
observation: shell hit the muzzle break when leaving the barrel

Question is how many times this happened on the gun ?
Did this happen with all the guns of this make ?
Does this happen randomly or only when gun is employed to fire in continuous mode ?

If some shells left the gun without issues then shouldn't we also raise questions about quality of shell (projectile and charge) ?
Could it be because of high rate of fire ? i.e. rapid rate of fire causes the barrel to obviously distort enough to cause the nth projectile to wobble a wee bit and hence hit the muzzle break ?

One more thing to note is Dhanush is 52 cals where as Bofors was 39 cals (not sure if we upgraded all of them but max we managed was 45 I guess) ; longer the barrel higher the probability of such issues.

[Karan M]

if the issue exists with other guns, then the stability of the shell while in flight is the key issue. its deviating & hitting the muzzle.

[JayS]

Wait let us analyse this even from a 4th grader's perspective .

conclusion being reached: Gun failed
observation: shell hit the muzzle break when leaving the barrel

Question is how many times this happened on the gun ?
Did this happen with all the guns of this make ?
Does this happen randomly or only when gun is employed to fire in continuous mode ?

If some shells left the gun without issues then shouldn't we also raise questions about quality of shell (projectile and charge) ?
Could it be because of high rate of fire ? i.e. rapid rate of fire causes the barrel to obviously distort enough to cause the nth projectile to wobble a wee bit and hence hit the muzzle break ?

One more thing to note is Dhanush is 52 cals where as Bofors was 39 cals (not sure if we upgraded all of them but max we managed was 45 I guess) ; longer the barrel higher the probability of such issues.

Current Dhanush is 45cal. 52cal is next version.

I don't trust these DDM reports. There can be n number of parameters causing the parameters. Unless we have more info from reliable sources its useless to draw conclusions. But its saying this is second such issue with similar one happening in May this year. I had posted link to the news from 27th May which was referring to that incidence. But I suppose the point you mentioned about distortion after n number of firings or higher rate of firing seems a plausible one. If the issue was existing with Bofors and new gun simply extended same barrel design then the distortion is only going to be aggravated.

[JayS]

if the issue exists with other guns, then the stability of the shell while in flight is the key issue. its deviating & hitting the muzzle.

Hasn't it been reported that Dhanush has been demonstrating very good accuracy..? If this particular issue was a systematic issue, it should shown up on a larger scale. This could be a issue related to some marginal point on the operating envelop.

[Karan M]

Accuracy has to be maintained over a large user trial. The IA tests guns repeatedly to ensure reliable operation. When firing at say the tenth round, this issue crops up, then it can be fixed. However, if it is random, then its a bigger problem. The fact its happened twice is alarming & I think OFB should quickly come up with a workable fix (eg larger barrel opening) rather than sit & argue with IA over how it happens to other guns too. That is a recipe for rejection by Army since OFB's issues with QA are legendary, and if handmade pieces (LSP) show these issues, 144 from a production batch will be a wasted expenditure from IA POV.

[JayS]

Accuracy has to be maintained over a large user trial. The IA tests guns repeatedly to ensure reliable operation. When firing at say the tenth round, this issue crops up, then it can be fixed. However, if it is random, then its a bigger problem. The fact its happened twice is alarming & I think OFB should quickly come up with a workable fix (eg larger barrel opening) rather than sit & argue with IA over how it happens to other guns too. That is a recipe for rejection by Army since OFB's issues with QA are legendary, and if handmade pieces (LSP) show these issues, 144 from a production batch will be a wasted expenditure from IA POV.

What can be the downside of increasing the muzzle inner diameter..? If there are no negative impact then it should be a fairly easy fix to implement. But from the look of it, my uneducated guesstimate it the issue is not so trivial and neither the solution.

[Pratyush]

This shell hitting the muzzel could be a result of either if the 2 situation.

The deformation of the barrel due to over heating.
The deformation of the shell due to rapid exceleration.

Both are very serious issues.

[Cosmo_R]

getting L&T and Bharat Forge to make parts for the Dhanush & ATAGS and even parallel production lines is the only way forward if we want to develop pvt sector for defence and MII.

just reserving 100% of the malai for fat cat OFB to do as they please is the kind of regressive step that shows no mentality to reform anything and caving in to a loud unionbazi....no better than west bengal state govt policies.
this is one the criticisms of Namo, that he wants to fix anything broken in govt sector rather than totally withdraw in some areas.

we need to speed up induction, not some joke of 2-5/gun production rate - airbus produces that many A350 per month and LM produced some 36 F16 a month at its peak, this is a far simpler product.

or let OFB produce dhanush but the two pvt players entirely produce ATAGS.

Namo needs to deliver on this, the stakes are huge.

parts of OFB itself need to be sold off to private players with Govt just retaining a golden stake and veto on ownership change - same as snecma, dassault, saab, thyssen krupp though its tough to mention them in same breath. US takes another line of not even having a official stake but Congress can veto any deal civilian or commercial like it did for huawei commerical deals and the military is tightly integrated with the OEMs via program offices.

+1. However, would like to see zero govt stake because any stake at all leaves it open to political interference.

"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand."

Milton Friedman

[ramana]

The common to all these muzzle brake issues is the M572 PD fuze. And 45 calibers barrel.

The Fuze has design deficiency. Pick setting disables the delay fire mechanism. It arms when 2000 rpm achieved. 45 calibers length just makes it.
M572 is great Fuze for 39 calibers.

Google for M572 Fuze problems. Plenty of analysis.

[ragupta]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 702371.cms
Fake Chinese spares for indigenised Bofors guns: CBI FIR

NEW DELHI: China-made parts camouflaged as 'Made in Germany' found their way to the production line of indigenised Bofors guns used by the army, prompting the CBI to file a case against a Delhi-based company.
Besides Sidh Sales Syndicate, the CBI also registered a case against unidentified officials of the Guns Carriage Factory (GCF), Jabalpur, under criminal conspiracy, cheating and forgery for supplying fake and cheap China-made spares passing off as Made in Germany for Dhanush guns, the FIR alleged.

Also reported by Zeenews
http://zeenews.india.com/india/fake-chi ... 25791.html

[A Deshmukh]

another reason for delay in induction?

[Rishi_Tri]

Delay in induction, perhaps yes. But reason, perhaps not. This is an age old problem and afflicts all services. Know of cases first hand.

Can be flipped around to say that - given genuine components, the weapons wont fail, if the components are the reason.

[Gyan]

I don't think shell can "hit" the muzzle brake. The barrel bore & muzzle brake have same internal diameter and continue to "hold" the shell till it exits. Incidentally how many imported barrels of T-72/90 have burst till date? More than 100 or less than 100?

[ramana]

Fake Chinese parts sold as German made original parts for Dhanush



OFB and DRDO need to revamp the supplier chain inspections and certification.

First Nirbhay had recycled components leading to test missile failure.
Remedy was the supplier provides another component free of charge! Should be debarred and shut down.

Now we have an importer supplying fake Chinese parts as German made and who knows what were the results?
He didnt know whom he was paying?
OFB needs to have a senior person be the spokesman on this issue.

[Singha]

Cup of shame boileth over

Honda churns out a million cars with repeatable excellence and we cannot manage 144 guns

We need to send a delegation to north korea to learn basics

I was discussing offline with a cabal of brf members. I feel that ofb must be sliced up and sold off to pvt cos a mix of indian and very tough korean japani taskmaster cos. Reduce people by 50% and make the rest deliver.

Otherwise the descent into the abyss continues. Sub par loosey goosey work is not acceptable in isro so why is it ok in ofb?

[ramana]

I think this is a new failure and not the previous shell detonation past muzzle brake egress.

We need more data.
So far what we know is that
From Economic Times article posted above

NAGPUR: The indigenously built Dhanush - the 155mm artillery guns developed on the lines of the famed Bofors howitzers - has failed yet again after reaching the last phase of tests.

In a test fire undertaken last week, a shell hit the muzzle brake, a source privy to the development said. The muzzle brake is the component fitted on the top of the barrel. It helps in reducing the recoil created when a shell is fired.

Clearly this is is different than the May 2017 firing trial where the shell exploded right past the muzzle brake.

Root cause for that must have been identified and the trials resumed. So that incident does not count.
Nor does the previous case where there was shell burst in the barrel which was attributed to the shell

This incident is a new one and could be a gun issue.
The shell hitting the muzzle could be due to barrel distortion.
Do we know how many firings were done for this gun
The muzzle brake diameter is larger than the Israeli 155mm upgrade of Russian 130mm guns. Shows lessons learned by OFB

Nagpur: After a similar incident two months ago, Dhanush — the indigenous version of the 155mm guns developed in lines with the famed Bofors howitzers — has missed the mark. For the third time, the guns have failed after reaching the last phase of tests.
In May when six guns were being fired at one go, a shell hit the muzzle brake in one of the pieces. After that another round of trials was planned in July. Last week when the test fires were being undertaken, again a shell hit the muzzle brake, bringing the whole process back to square one. The guns are being manufactured at Gun Carriage Factory in Jabalpur.

Muzzle brake is the component fitted on the top of the barrel. It helps in reducing the recoil created when a shell is fired.

An inquiry will have to be conducted now as questions are being raised about the barrel's design. One of the theories is that the diameter of the muzzle needs to be increased to the original level so that the shell can freely fly out.
However, sources say a number of similar incidents have happened in the original 155mm Bofors guns too, despite the higher diameter in it. Even the Israeli 130mm gun upgraded to 155mm indigenously has seen similar problems. The muzzle brake in this gun has a smaller diameter as compared to Dhanush.

"Only Dhanush cannot be faulted for a faulty muzzle brake as there have been numerous instances of muzzle breach in the original Bofors guns too. But the guns were continued by the Army," said a source privy to the development.

{Bad attitude. Whats needed is to fix the Dhanush issue and not talk about other failures. Very unhelpful attitude.}

"There have been times when the entire team of suppliers of ammunition from South Africa had to camp at the Army headquarters. In the end, it was concluded that there was no fault in the ammunition. This means that the gun has to be blamed," the source said.

Even the guns by Soltam, an Israeli firm, has seen such problems, the source said.

Muzzle breach is not a new problem in artillery systems but it is certainly not desirable. There are higher chances of shell hitting the muzzle in a gun with a longer range as more power is added to the ammunition. But Bofors, which has lower range as compared to Dhanush, too was susceptible to muzzle hits. Once it happens, the shell cannot travel full range, explained a source.

Last week's incident has pushed back the process of inducting indigenous guns to the Army. These were the last rounds of trials. Rather, Dhanush had already passed the regular user-trials. In normal course after user-trials, the guns could be inducted in the Army. However, another step of user-exploitation has been introduced for Dhanush. Under this, further trials were held only to familiarize the forces with Dhanush.

We know these same guns passed user-trials. The user exploitation trials (UET)are in battery mode and we heard 300 rounds would be fired in this set of trials.
What is the projected barrel life for the Dhanush? How many firings and how many during intense firings?

Reason is the barrel could have distorted as its extra long. 45 calibers vs 39 calibers. A case of heat treatment issue that shows up as the barrel length distortion.

[ramana]

GD, Making long barrel guns is not a auto mfg issue.
Even US had barrel cracks, bursts and premature firings in their gun/howitzers.
Barrels rated for 1000 firings were limited to 400 firings due to fatigue from continuous firings.
This happened in Vietnam.
Google for 175mm guns barrel burst

[vish_mulay]

CBI begins probe into 'supply of Chinese parts' for manufacture of Dhanush guns

http://m.timesofindia.com/india/cbi-beg ... 703381.cms