Artillery: News & Discussion

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13156
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby pankajs » 13 Oct 2014 12:10

I think at some point in the future we can expect Modi to ensure mass induction of indigenous products that are good enough. He needs time to get to the root of the issue i.e poor acceptance of indigenous products, hear out both sides, get the issues resolved and then big time induction. Along with tackling the mindset within the forces he has to change the work culture at MOD, DRDO, OFB and defense PSUs. All that will not happen with a single line order from the top.

Before the end of his first term I expect to see the start of mass induction of a lot of indigenous defense products i.e Mass induction of Arjun Tank, etc.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18863
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 13 Oct 2014 13:15

first we need a full time def min. i sincerely wonder if jaitley ji can handle two demanding portfolios without risking his health.

nash
BRFite
Posts: 861
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nash » 13 Oct 2014 13:41

Some time I wonder what if NaMo takes charge of DefMin also and has a round of meetings with consumer, developer and manufacture to iron out all the issue. It can do wonder to projects like LCA, Arjun, various artillery systems, etc.

PS: He already has space, Atomic and other smaller dept.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2707
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby JTull » 13 Oct 2014 15:01

Karan M wrote:first we need a full time def min. i sincerely wonder if jaitley ji can handle two demanding portfolios without risking his health.


He's a long-term diabetic, so his health didn't deteriorate overnight. The gastric band surgery, he had during his first hospitalisation, is a common remedy and was planned ahead. Perhaps the second hospitalisation was just a follow-up. Not aware if it was planned or not.

By all accounts, his health and activity level should improve a lot after this surgery. He has been known to be a keen walker anyway.

Besides, I've not seen any evidence that his work has suffered in anyway. The budget came out on time and more defence projects, tie-ups, ministry clearances have been announced in last 3 months than perhaps Anthonyji managed in 5 years.

All info on his health matters is publicly available.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18863
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 13 Oct 2014 18:38

Work suffering is one thing, but pressures on health may tell (I hope not). Handling two full time mins issues that crop up 24/7 thanks to the PRC/Pak guys and the rot that exists thanks to that worthless idiot MMS (make peace to Pak expert) and mr do nothing Antony will require far more than usual effort.

rakall
BRFite
Posts: 798
Joined: 10 May 2005 10:26

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rakall » 13 Oct 2014 21:11

JTull wrote:
Karan M wrote:first we need a full time def min. i sincerely wonder if jaitley ji can handle two demanding portfolios without risking his health.


He's a long-term diabetic, so his health didn't deteriorate overnight. The gastric band surgery, he had during his first hospitalisation, is a common remedy and was planned ahead. Perhaps the second hospitalisation was just a follow-up. Not aware if it was planned or not.

By all accounts, his health and activity level should improve a lot after this surgery. He has been known to be a keen walker anyway.

Besides, I've not seen any evidence that his work has suffered in anyway. The budget came out on time and more defence projects, tie-ups, ministry clearances have been announced in last 3 months than perhaps Anthonyji managed in 5 years.

All info on his health matters is publicly available.



He contracted a respiratory infection while recovering from the first operation... was admitted in a private hospital where he was not isolated - was receiving a lot of guests.. His situation was deteriorating.. got serious even !!

PM paid him a visit before leaving for US.. and after discussions nudged Jaitley's (reluctant) family to shift him to AIIMS into an isolation ward... and then things went smoothly..

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_20317 » 13 Oct 2014 21:44

Singha wrote:can someone tell how the fabled "25 litre chamber" is the current gold std in 155/52 in terms of range vs presumably other smaller chamber?
what chamber is being referred here?

my idea was the shell goes in, followed by the modular cylindrical charges which are also 155mm in diameter and boom.
does 25ltr chamber mean its longer and more charges can be fed in behind the shell to improve the muzzle velocity for longer range?


I would like to believe that given certain parameters, every gun would have a sweet spot in terms of chamber size, pressure achieved and barrel length. Mortars for example give a very high pressure for a very short time and hence the acceleration part of the force ergo pressure gets killed.

You would like to have higher velocity for your projectile for longer with a smoother pressure release, in your Howitzer. Hence compared to a Mortar, Bigger Chamber with sufficient Chamber-Barrel ratio > Better acceleration management > Also longer Barrel length > Bigger gas buildup before the projectile has traveled enough in a slower manner > Ability to push for longer distance (meters) in a smoother fashion probably even for smaller times if a fast burn is achieved > thus giving higher yet smoother initial acceleration for projectile in side the barrel > Higher force for same size of shell base for longer > Fuller buildup of pressure for the whole Chamber-Barrel system.

See the figures in this http://publications.drdo.gov.in/ojs/index.php/dsj/article/viewFile/2281/1237. Mujhe bhi sirf pictures hi samaj mein aati hain.

So yes if they say 25 ltr is gold standard then i guess it is.


Singha wrote:also what is the usefulness of a muzzle velocity radar? does it give the exact speed of shell and hence builds up a data bank of {speed,barrel elevation,charges} that is more accurate than static tables provided by the OEM or army test center.....deviation as barrel wears etc?

unlike hitting a jihadi with a stick, artillery esp this massed coordinated fire thing seems like a highly technical field needing lots of math calculated in real time by the control systems.


I think that is why they have the muzzle velocity radar fashioned in the way it is for Dhanush. But I wonder how important that really is. There still is no way of understanding properly the atmosphere. Even if you are able to measure not just the exit velocity but also the downrange velocity, you still have to contend with the velocity changes after highest point which is still going to be ruled by Pawan Deva. The older styles of velocity measurements could have been automated too (or so I guess). Besides how would a battery with all 6 howitzers having the MVR fare against 5 dumb and 1 MVR battery. I guess the cost is not so big a factor hence the wish list of MVR on every gun.

Shayed jaroori hoga.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 13 Oct 2014 23:12

Muzzle Velocity measurement improves long range accuracy.

In addition,

Improves probability of first round hit which in-turn results in faster response time for Troop/Battery Fire-For-Effect

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2707
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby JTull » 14 Oct 2014 01:29

Thanks rakall.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 14 Oct 2014 10:57

In Addition,

First and foremost BiMCS was designed for the barrel length of 52 calibres and projectile chamber of the volume of 23 litres. Based on the ballistic tests of these modules we can say that the BiMCS can be used also in weapon systems with the barrel length of 39, 45 and 47 calibres and with the projectile chamber volume from 18 to 25 litres, which cover a wide range of weapon systems being in service.


Gun Barrel
Calibre: 155 mm
Gun barrel length: L52 (8.06 m)
Compared with the 155 mm howitzer 77B, this gun barrel is about 2 metres longer which improves the range of fire.
Chamber volume: 25 litre
The choice of chamber volume is a deviation from JBMoU which has a 23-litre chamber volume. The reason for this is to facilitate firing heavier rounds with the highest charge without exceeding the gun barrel’s maximum pressure level.

Maximum length is 1000 mm and maximum weight 50 kg to facilitate firing with the highest charge. This is an improvement on the comparable JBMoU barrel. In fact a complete charge system was developed specifically for the gun and its automated load system. This charge system is the Uniflex 2 modular charge. It has 7 increments one of which is a ½ increment giving 12 different charges which can be fired. The theory was that 52 cal barrels should only need 6 charge sizes (ie base + up to 5 standard size modules). Of course 25 Litre isn't JBMoU compliant but and this may be the reason for the half size increments used at lower charges (the larger chamber means lack of range overlap between whole charges).

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7979
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Indranil » 24 Oct 2014 10:16


negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby negi » 24 Oct 2014 15:44

^ Perfect opportunity for academic institutions to partner and contribute to DRDO projects , the opening base amount of <1 lakh INR for tender will not attract a lot of CFD people from private industry as they command a pretty high remuneration.

In fact the government needs to realize that if they want such work done for ridiculously low amount then they need to directly tap into top engineering colleges and proactively engage them in such projects , students with fire in belly and not looking for monetary benefits but good work are a better fit for this kind of job , a small CFD firm will not do this kind of work for even INR 2 lakh.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13156
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby pankajs » 03 Nov 2014 11:25

Saurav Jha @SJha1618 · 11h 11 hours ago

Alright. It seems that the Army has already committed to buying some ATAGS to begin with. Yup things are getting better in this segment.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13156
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby pankajs » 03 Nov 2014 11:28

http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/tenders/vie ... Micro=7128

1. Customised Fire Control Software for Advanced Towed Artillery Gun System (ATAGS)
2)Tactical Computer for Advanced Towed Artillery Gun System (ATAGS)

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1605
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 03 Nov 2014 20:00

Singha wrote:can someone tell how the fabled "25 litre chamber" is the current gold std in 155/52 in terms of range vs presumably other smaller chamber?
what chamber is being referred here?

my idea was the shell goes in, followed by the modular cylindrical charges which are also 155mm in diameter and boom.
does 25ltr chamber mean its longer and more charges can be fed in behind the shell to improve the muzzle velocity for longer range?



25 liter refers to volume of chamber for the shell and the charge. 23 liters is the NATO standard for 52 caliber gun.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004armaments/DayII/SessionII/09Kruger_52_Cal_Leap_Ahead.pdf
^^ Page 6 clearly explains the performance parameter comparison on G6 23 liter and 25 liter version. The difference is clearly 20% more for the 25 liter variant. Too bad the deal with Denel fell through, otherwise Bhim with T6 turret would have been the most impressive artillery system across the board.

What I do not understand though is that the ATAGS brochure states the volume as "23 liter or 25 liter", not sure which one are they making.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Will » 06 Nov 2014 00:09

Any idea what happened to the tender for the two types of guns for which trails were completed? Were bids opened?

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 14 Nov 2014 03:14

From the Rafale thread:
srai wrote:India's Defense Spending Boost Won't Be As High, Sources Say
The MoD needs to finalize contracts worth $20 billion in the 2014-2015 timeframe, including:
■$600 million for light howitzer guns from BAE Systems...
"...any cutback in artillery guns...are not recommended.”

M-777 is still very much on the table and all talk about it being scrapped is bakwas. Scrapping M-777 is as good as scrapping the new mountain strike corps.

Glacial pace of MoD on Kalyani guns being scoped out (due to pressure from PSU unions most likely) means we won't see any local 155mm light howitzers for years. Our need is immediate.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4400
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 14 Nov 2014 05:23

^^^

Last quoted price was for around $800 million for 145 M-777 guns. This was deemed too expensive. The original budget allocated was around $500 million.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_26622 » 22 Nov 2014 16:00

NEWS - 800 155 mm guns budgeted - http://idrw.org/?p=47566. Some movement finally is good news. Looking at all the import options listed - quite remarkable that the most easiest+cheapest one is MISSED i.e. Mount a Dhanush on a TATA or Ashok Leyland chassis and get going ..

Cheap because no royalty to be paid upfront and over life time - commonality driven savings with existing 155 mm Bofors guns.

800 guns @ 15000 cr is almost 20 crore per gun versus 1260 crore for 114 Dhanus is approx 11 crore (small prod run, imported APU@rip off prices and PSU overhead inclusive). Net difference is 10 crore. Curious to know since when did a heavy truck cost 10 crores a piece? Top of line TATA/Leyand or bloated TATRA model is within two crores a piece (http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/rs-14 ... cks-190634)

Bottom line - We should get 1500 towed/mounted guns for 15000 crores @ 10 crore a piece. Why do we like to overpay exactly double ?
Last edited by member_26622 on 22 Nov 2014 16:29, edited 1 time in total.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7716
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 22 Nov 2014 16:19

nik wrote:NEWS - 800 155 mm guns budgeted - http://idrw.org/?p=47566. Some movement finally is good news. Looking at all the import options listed - quite remarkable that the most easiest+cheapest one is MISSED i.e. Mount a Dhanush on a TATA or Ashok Leyland chassis and get going ..

Cheap because no royalty to be paid upfront and over life time - commonality driven savings with existing 155 mm Bofors guns. 800 guns @ 15000 cr is almost 20 crore per gun versus 1260 crore for 114 Dhanus is approx 11 crore (small prod run, imported APU@rip off prices and PSU overhead inclusive). Net difference is 10 crore. Curious to know since when did a heavy truck cost 10 crores a piece? Top of line TATA/Leyand or bloated TATRA model is within two crores a piece (http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/rs-14 ... cks-190634) Bottom line - We should get 1500 towed/mounted guns for 15000 crores @ 10 crore a piece. Why do we like to overpay exactly double ? Is it the brown skin overhead ?


MOD HAT ON

Bottom line is this: I'm done with these continuous rants about anything and everything which does not fill your narrow POV of what is right and wrong. On top of it, you feel it OK to come and write whatever you feel w/o bothering to pause and find out what can be plausible reasons for whatever you choose to rant against. And the foul language is NOT WELCOME here. There is no content except whining. It does not add anything.

Long story short - This goes out for everyone on Military Threads. If you feel strongly about a subject, please put some research into your posts and share your POV backed by some data for everybody's consumption. A little whining and ranting and venting pent up emotions is understandable but not this continuous bile. Where threads are reduced to nothing but one liners bereft of any content.

The reports will be summarily deleted and users warned.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_26622 » 22 Nov 2014 16:27

rohitvats wrote:
nik wrote:NEWS - 800 155 mm guns budgeted - http://idrw.org/?p=47566. Some movement finally is good news. Looking at all the import options listed - quite remarkable that the most easiest+cheapest one is MISSED i.e. Mount a Dhanush on a TATA or Ashok Leyland chassis and get going ..

Cheap because no royalty to be paid upfront and over life time - commonality driven savings with existing 155 mm Bofors guns. 800 guns @ 15000 cr is almost 20 crore per gun versus 1260 crore for 114 Dhanus is approx 11 crore (small prod run, imported APU@rip off prices and PSU overhead inclusive). Net difference is 10 crore. Curious to know since when did a heavy truck cost 10 crores a piece? Top of line TATA/Leyand or bloated TATRA model is within two crores a piece (http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/rs-14 ... cks-190634) Bottom line - We should get 1500 towed/mounted guns for 15000 crores @ 10 crore a piece. Why do we like to overpay exactly double ? Is it the brown skin overhead ?


MOD HAT ON

Bottom line is this: I'm done with these continuous rants about anything and everything which does not fill your narrow POV of what is right and wrong. On top of it, you feel it OK to come and write whatever you feel w/o bothering to pause and find out what can be plausible reasons for whatever you choose to rant against. And the foul language is NOT WELCOME here. There is no content except whining. It does not add anything.

Long story short - This goes out for everyone on Military Threads. If you feel strongly about a subject, please put some research into your posts and share your POV backed by some data for everybody's consumption. A little whining and ranting and venting pent up emotions is understandable but not this continuous bile. Where threads are reduced to nothing but one liners bereft of any content.

The reports will be summarily deleted and users warned.


Could you disseminate the post - which part was objectionable and which part was a rant?

I did a cost analysis and provided source links to back it up - things are that obvious.

Apart from the last 'brown skin comment' - I don't see why you want to summarily delete the whole post.

UPDATE - Self deleted the Brown Skin Overhead rant ( 6 words out of 168 i.e under 5%)

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Will » 22 Nov 2014 16:35

Interesting that the Archer is also listed. This is all very well but what happened to the towed and tracked systems that cleared trials a few months back. DAC clearing stuff is one thing. When is the CCS going to clear stuff and the deals actually going to be signed. The DAC has been clearing things left right and centre but haven't seen any news of the CCS clearing anything and deals being signed till now.

nash
BRFite
Posts: 861
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nash » 22 Nov 2014 17:21

Hopefully IA get their artillery this time.

Manohar Parrikar fires for Army's new artillery guns

Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... aign=cppst

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2597
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 22 Nov 2014 17:26

nik wrote:NEWS - 800 155 mm guns budgeted - http://idrw.org/?p=47566. Some movement finally is good news. Looking at all the import options listed - quite remarkable that the most easiest+cheapest one is MISSED i.e. Mount a Dhanush on a TATA or Ashok Leyland chassis and get going ..

Cheap because no royalty to be paid upfront and over life time - commonality driven savings with existing 155 mm Bofors guns.

800 guns @ 15000 cr is almost 20 crore per gun versus 1260 crore for 114 Dhanus is approx 11 crore (small prod run, imported APU@rip off prices and PSU overhead inclusive). Net difference is 10 crore. Curious to know since when did a heavy truck cost 10 crores a piece? Top of line TATA/Leyand or bloated TATRA model is within two crores a piece (http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/rs-14 ... cks-190634)

Bottom line - We should get 1500 towed/mounted guns for 15000 crores @ 10 crore a piece. Why do we like to overpay exactly double ?

Rs 15000 crores (or 20cr/gun) is actually the allocated amount, the final cost could be be much higher. For example, as per wiki, the the Indonesian Nexter Caesar deal for 37 units in 2012 cost them 240 million $, that translates to about 40 Crores a piece. Also Out of the 800 units, 200 are to be direct imports, which is far greater than the numbers the home countries have bought themselves. The French have ordered ~ 70 Caesars and the Swedes only 32 Archers.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7716
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 23 Nov 2014 00:04

nik wrote: Could you disseminate the post - which part was objectionable and which part was a rant? I did a cost analysis and provided source links to back it up - things are that obvious. Apart from the last 'brown skin comment' - I don't see why you want to summarily delete the whole post. UPDATE - Self deleted the Brown Skin Overhead rant ( 6 words out of 168 i.e under 5%)


Cost analysis? Diving up cost and unit numbers is a cost analysis to make the assertion that you made?

How about this:

- Do we know what 15,000 crore will get us? Do we get only the guns or do we get some ammunition as well as domestic manufacture of ammunition of these guns will take couple of years to materialize.

- 75% of guns will be manufactured in India. Have you factored in the point about Indian company having to establish greenfield manufacturing plant in India to produce these guns?

- How does OFB compare on the above point? An organization with sunk infrastructure cost which has already been recovered over donkey years.

- The Dhanush cost INR 14 Crore a piece and not INR 10 Crore as your calculation above
(As per this TOI Report: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Desi-Bofors-howitzer-undergoes-final-trials-in-major-boost-to-indigenization/articleshow/36856813.cms).

- Compared to a 155/45 Caliber gun which is supposed to be 80% indigenous and being produced by an established organization, a latest 155/52 Cal gun produced in a new manufacturing plant and which would have element of royalty+foreign vendors, costing 30% more is hardly surprising.

Long story short - If a gun produced by OFB costs INR 14 Crore (and that too for a 155/45 Caliber), then rest assured, anything you buy from abroad which is the latest technology and which needs new manufacturing facility, will cost more.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The questions you should be asking are these:

- Can GOI 'lease' OFB gun manufacturing facility to private party and help to keep the cost of manufacturing low?

- Per unit gun cost being quoted on internet for contenders for this requirement is ~USD 4.0-5.0 million; that is around INR 24-30 Crore per gun (but these numbers are basis very low order base and contracts which also covered ammunition sale). So, how are we going to get them guns for INR 18-20 Crore per piece?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20422
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 23 Nov 2014 05:08

The decision on the arty must bring about a massive sigh of relief from the IA.,as far as SP arty is concerned,we should adopt the modular approach that other nations like Russia have adopted for decades,using the T-72 chassis for a variety of specialized vehicles/guns and are doing the same with their new Armata MBT ,spawning a similar range of options including mounting their 152mm guns on the same chassis.The Arjun MK-2 chassis should be the basis for our variants too.The SP arty requirement should make use of this.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8149
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 23 Nov 2014 05:22

But the question i keep on asking my self is. What is the difference between a mounted gun and a self propelled gun. In the Indian context. This seems to be an overlap in capicity, with the IA's self propelled purchase still pending.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_22539 » 23 Nov 2014 08:57

^I think self-propelled describes fully armored tank-like chassis, while mounted involves a truck chassis or some semi-armored off road variant.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7310
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nachiket » 23 Nov 2014 09:00

Mounted Gun:

Image

Self Propelled Gun:

Image

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7310
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nachiket » 23 Nov 2014 09:02

But I think what Pratyush is asking is if the IA really needs both types or can we do without one or the other. I don't know. Someone like Rohitvats or Vaibhav can answer that.
Last edited by nachiket on 23 Nov 2014 11:56, edited 1 time in total.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7716
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 23 Nov 2014 10:48

Pratyush wrote:But the question i keep on asking my self is. What is the difference between a mounted gun and a self propelled gun. In the Indian context. This seems to be an overlap in capicity, with the IA's self propelled purchase still pending.


Both Mounted Gun System and Self Propelled (Tracked or Wheeled) are essentially the same - SELF PROPELLED. They move on their own power and do not rely on a Field Artillery Tractor (FAT).

MGS is a more modern term as SP howitzer is a term which has been used for Tracked guns which are expected to keep pace with armored columns. Where Towed Guns would otherwise have a problem going.

Coming to why have SP Tracked, Wheeled and MGS - I think this all depends on terrain and war-fighting philosophy. My understanding of evolution of MGS in western armies is because requirement of enhanced mobility for their guns as well as expeditionary commitments of these nations. Plus, a need to reduce the logistic foot-print. And only very few nations in Europe (like Germany) now have any decent size mechanized force. So, overall requirement for SP-Tracked is limited.

And while a SP Arty brings attributes like mobility and protection for the crews, it is not an ideal solution. For one, they're too heavy to permit easy deployment across the globe. And second, they're an over-kill.

MGS is a more ideal solution in terms of logistic foot-print and ease of deployment. Not to mention the cost.

In Indian case, MGS fills role between SP-Tracked/Wheeled and Towed Guns. IA requires 100 SP-Tracked and 180 SP Wheeled guns.

While bulk of SP-Tracked/Wheeled are expected to be with armor heavy formations like armored divisions, MGS gives flexibility to fill out other armor centric formations like RAPID and (I) Armor Brigades. Not to forget Artillery Divisions. The former would've otherwise required investment in more expensive SP-Tracked platforms.

Further, MGS and Towed Guns allows IA to mix and match these in a given formation depending on requirement of terrain and role.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 23 Nov 2014 11:06

Parrikar clears Rs 15,750 cr plan for 814 artillery guns
Defers Avro replacement, purchase of basic trainer aircraft


http://www.tribuneindia.com/2014/20141123/main1.htm

New Delhi, November 22
The Defence Ministry today revived its plan to procure additional artillery guns for the Army but deferred two critical purchases of the Indian Air Force — additional basic trainers for trainee pilots and replacement for the 50-year-old Avro transporters.

The decisions were taken after new Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar chaired his maiden meeting of the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) this morning.

The DAC cleared the proposal to acquire 814 truck-mounted 155mm/52 calibre artillery guns for Rs 15,750 crore. In the past 25 years, the ministry cancelled tenders for such artillery guns six times due to blacklisting, allegations of corruption and single vendor scenario. Purchase in single vendor situation was not allowed till the defence procurement procedure (DPP) was amended in May 2013.

Today, the ministry decided to revive the artillery gun programme and said it will send out a fresh request for proposal which would be open to public as well as private companies.

The chances of the tender getting through are better as Indian companies are already working in tandem with their partners. L&T has a tie-up with Nexter of France, TATA with Denel of South Africa while Pune-based Kalyani group has a tie-up with Elbit of Israel. The Russians are already working with the Ordnance Factory Board.

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. It will be the second major artillery programme since the 1987 Bofors deal.

The first in this programme would be Dhanush or indigenous Bofors, which is in its final stages. The Director General Quality Assurance (DGQA) is carrying out final metallurgy tests before the gun is inducted. The Ordnance Factory Board, a unit of the Ministry of Defence, has produced the gun and the Army has ordered 144 of these with the provision to get another 400.

The decision today is a part of the Army’s Field Artillery Rationalisation Plan (FARP) formulated in 1999 that aims to have around 3,000 guns of assorted capabilities to equip around 200 artillery regiments. The DAC, meanwhile, deferred the decision on Tata Sons and Airbus to replace IAF's fleet of 56 Avro transport planes and also procurement of additional 106 Swiss Pilatus basic trainer aircraft. In case of Avro, a request for proposal was sent out to eight global companies. Except one, all companies have expressing their inability to participate in bidding, making it single vendor situation.

The proposal to acquire additional 106 Swiss Pilatus basic trainer aircraft for the IAF at an estimated cost of Rs 8,200 crore has also been deferred. The IAF is already flying the Swiss plane and has argued that it cannot have two sets of trainers.

714 to be made in India

The artillery guns will be procured as per the “buy and make” procedure
100 such guns will be bought off the shelf while 714 would be made in India
The Army has not acquired artillery guns after the Bofors scam in 1987
Ministry to issue a fresh request for proposal which will be open to public as well as private companies

First purchase in 25 yrs

In the past 25 years, the Defence Ministry has cancelled tenders for the purchase of artillery guns six times because of blacklisting, allegations of corruption and single vendor scenario. Purchase in single vendor situation was not allowed till the defence procurement procedure was amended by the government in May 2013.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7716
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 23 Nov 2014 11:42

So, as against earlier number of 200+615, we've 100+715 procurement structure. Which means almost 88% of guns will be manufactured in India. I hope by the time first 100 guns are delivered, Indian manufacturing plant would be up and running.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1605
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 23 Nov 2014 13:08

Why import the first 100 guns, haven't the private players "developed" the guns by themselves as their press releases say ;)

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Sagar G » 23 Nov 2014 13:17

Thakur_B wrote:Why import the first 100 guns, haven't the private players "developed" the guns by themselves as their press releases say ;)


Ouch !!! :mrgreen:

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1605
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 23 Nov 2014 13:31

All jokes aside, Tata's repackaged Denel T-5 is a very serious and a very potent contender that has the capacity to blow the competition out. I also get a feeling that over a long run, army will cut down its requirement of towed guns and go for greater number of truck mounted guns. With Denel's de-blacklisting, it will provide significant commonality with Bhim/T6 if revived.
http://www.defencenow.com/news/453/indi ... -life.html

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Viv S » 23 Nov 2014 13:43

Austin wrote:The chances of the tender getting through are better as Indian companies are already working in tandem with their partners. L&T has a tie-up with Nexter of France, TATA with Denel of South Africa while Pune-based Kalyani group has a tie-up with Elbit of Israel. The Russians are already working with the Ordnance Factory Board.


What on? AFAIK their portfolio doesn't include any truck mounted howitzers.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2597
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 23 Nov 2014 17:48

Thakur_B wrote:Why import the first 100 guns, haven't the private players "developed" the guns by themselves as their press releases say ;)

The contract is just a gift wrapped present for the foreign armament companies. How many artillery pieces have companies like Denel and Bofors manufactured in the past years? Their order books range from Zero to a few dozen. I wonder how (and under whose influence) they come up with with such requirements. Hopefully they have not included clauses that make it mandatory for the first batch is imported like in the Avro replacement tender.
Thakur_B wrote:All jokes aside, Tata's repackaged Denel T-5 is a very serious and a very potent contender that has the capacity to blow the competition out. I also get a feeling that over a long run, army will cut down its requirement of towed guns and go for greater number of truck mounted guns. With Denel's de-blacklisting, it will provide significant commonality with Bhim/T6 if revived.
http://www.defencenow.com/news/453/indi ... -life.html

The Denel T-5 was after all originally developed for India.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_26622 » 23 Nov 2014 18:59

@ Rohitvats

Let me start by saying
1. You have a POV as clearly shown in your post and an IMPORT bias for speed. Both fit the short sightedness (some will say it as st*pidty) in OUR 'global procurement' approach rather than building local capability and save money approach - aptly shown by Chinese who are able to field 3x more at lower cost that us.
If things don't fit your POV then you 'crudely' start abusing posters with MOD hat on/off and threats of getting banned. I do not want to engage you further for this reason.

2. You come up with great 'use' cases but that is about it - lacking in DESIGN and MNFR by a long mile. Look below for my comments in italics

rohitvats wrote:
nik wrote: Could you disseminate the post - which part was objectionable and which part was a rant? I did a cost analysis and provided source links to back it up - things are that obvious. Apart from the last 'brown skin comment' - I don't see why you want to summarily delete the whole post. UPDATE - Self deleted the Brown Skin Overhead rant ( 6 words out of 168 i.e under 5%)


Cost analysis? Diving up cost and unit numbers is a cost analysis to make the assertion that you made?

How about this:

- Do we know what 15,000 crore will get us? Do we get only the guns or do we get some ammunition as well as domestic manufacture of ammunition of these guns will take couple of years to materialize.

>> You perennially bring in TIME to muddy up the water. Only 'direct' IMPORTS win in this case. DOMESTIC manufacture and 'SOME' ammunition should result in double costs or lower costs? No one would have shifted manufacturing to China if it would have not been cheaper. Making in India should be cheaper isn't it?

- 75% of guns will be manufactured in India. Have you factored in the point about Indian company having to establish greenfield manufacturing plant in India to produce these guns?

>> May I ask how many green field manufacturing projects cost sheet have you looked at? And do you even understand what involves greenfield manufacturing? Don't throw things around just because most folks on BR understand design while lack manufacturing backgrounds.

Final assembly and key machining or final machining only is expected from this new facility. Any one sane will continue to outsource forging and rough machining to likes of Bharat forge. 800 guns over 4 to 5 years is not mass manufacturing level, still follows batch manufacturing processes.

Some Perspective - Extra cost is 800 guns*10 crore rupees which is 1.3 billion USD. You are now approaching cost of setting up a semi FAB. Let me remind you this is just metal guns - not even titanium kind, plenty of expertise in India to make this happen has been there since a decade or two ago. We have crossed this hump and even a PSU can build Guns using drawings, so a private company will do far far better.

- How does OFB compare on the above point? An organization with sunk infrastructure cost which has already been recovered over donkey years.

>> Irrelevant if you consider elements which go in to making Guns/Cars/Trucks > Throwing Infrastructure cost is again muddying the water. We have this capability in India since we do not ride around in bullock carts anymore. I will recommend taking a key part like chamber and understanding manufacturing process. Everything to the point of final or rough machining will be outsourced to an 'existing' heavy forging shop. Visit a forging facility in Pune and you will get the idea. Final machining will involve standard machines as the quantity is nowhere near mass production rate where trade off in initial investment and unit cost makes sense. Plenty of sources for these type of machines and skilled people are available - unlike setting up a FAB. And yes, I have started from drawings and delivered actual part (prototype or production), established vendors, done costing for something a lot more complicated ... to come to this conclusion.

- The Dhanush cost INR 14 Crore a piece and not INR 10 Crore as your calculation above
(As per this TOI Report: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Desi-Bofors-howitzer-undergoes-final-trials-in-major-boost-to-indigenization/articleshow/36856813.cms).

>> You are depending on math done by a journalist. Bad going by how our newspapers are bought out by Importistas. Look at actual contract costs > The OFB has already been given an order of over Rs 1,260 crore to make 114 howitzers. That is 11 crores including an imported APU and a measly order size.

- Compared to a 155/45 Caliber gun which is supposed to be 80% indigenous and being produced by an established organization, a latest 155/52 Cal gun produced in a new manufacturing plant and which would have element of royalty+foreign vendors, costing 30% more is hardly surprising.

>> 30 % more is incorrect. It's 100% more and easy to say with 'it's not my money' attitude. Every $ more on royalty+foreign vendors means less for fielding more quantity. Go learn some things from Chinese who were able to rebuke Russians. Flawed thinking again - don't let your services bias result in a handicap.

Long story short - If a gun produced by OFB costs INR 14 Crore (and that too for a 155/45 Caliber), then rest assured, anything you buy from abroad which is the latest technology and which needs new manufacturing facility, will cost more.

>> What is this fascination with latest technology and buying from abroad ? High handed comment not withstanding - This is not a high tech 5th gen jet fighter. Artillery guns have been mastered, improved and what not in the prior century by multiple countries, not a 21st century thing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The questions you should be asking are these:

- Can GOI 'lease' OFB gun manufacturing facility to private party and help to keep the cost of manufacturing low?

>> On one hand you say OFB is an antique unit which still can get a gun out for 11 crores and then on other hand you want to invest in a modern manufacturing facility to make same quality gun by spending 20 plus crores? Make up your mind please.

- Per unit gun cost being quoted on internet for contenders for this requirement is ~USD 4.0-5.0 million; that is around INR 24-30 Crore per gun (but these numbers are basis very low order base and contracts which also covered ammunition sale). So, how are we going to get them guns for INR 18-20 Crore per piece?

>> This is good joke and says a lot about you overall business understanding. Compare First world - under 100 unit manufacturing costs, shift to third world - 10x more unit order and say how are we able to get at lower costs? Mangoes (appples are poor) and Oranges comparison does not get you far.



MY SUMMARY >> OFB with 114 unit order and an APU costs 11 crores (APU is an Engine end of day-1/3rd of truck cost), New order for 800 plus guns mounted on a 1 crore truck costs 20 crores? Walk to a sane person and ask which one would you buy. Simplifying further - same TV online is half price over high end mall shop, where would you buy with your own money? Guess where an average Indian will buy - not a high roller please

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1605
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 23 Nov 2014 19:26

Austin wrote:Parrikar clears Rs 15,750 cr plan for 814 artillery guns
Defers Avro replacement, purchase of basic trainer aircraft


http://www.tribuneindia.com/2014/20141123/main1.htm


The chances of the tender getting through are better as Indian companies are already working in tandem with their partners. L&T has a tie-up with Nexter of France, TATA with Denel of South Africa while Pune-based Kalyani group has a tie-up with Elbit of Israel. The Russians are already working with the Ordnance Factory Board.


So the competitors are more or less clear.
Mahindra-BAE: Archer
L&T Ashok Leyland Nexter: Caesar
Tata-Denel: T5
Punj Lloyd-Yugoimport SDPR: 155mm version of Nora B-52
OFB-Rosoboronexport: Unknown system. Probably on lines of what's displayed in this video.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azJq9YyaktE[/youtube]


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests