Artillery: News & Discussion

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: 4824
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: 7743
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: 898
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: 3090
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: 7743
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: 21231
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: 8434
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: 8207
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: 8207
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: 7743
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: 23387
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: 7743
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: 1841
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: 1841
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: 3090
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: 1841
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]

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5363
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby jamwal » 23 Nov 2014 20:18

Too soon to get hopes up. Only the purchases have been cleared. The fabled summer, winter, monsoon, desert, high altitude, low altitude, mobility, user and most importantly palm greasing trials are still to be done. As much as I'd like to be happy about it, Army and BabooNs have the will and capability to screw this one up too.

rajrang
BRFite
Posts: 415
Joined: 24 Jul 2006 08:08

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rajrang » 23 Nov 2014 21:26

rohitvats wrote:
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.


To add to these comments, I would assume that MGS allows rapid transfer between battle theatres, i.e. movement across hundreds of miles over a countries roadways within hours if not days, for example from the Southern Command to the Western Command. Stationing of guns in the Southern Command for instance will indicate a defensive (non threatening) posture to neighbours, while retaining the capability. This will naturally be good for India which has the world's second longest road network after the US. This capability will however not be necessary for a two-front war given that mountains need a different type of gun (i.e. light guns). Further, MGS could be stationed at relatively greater distances from the borders and quickly moved to locations of need during a war. However, if the roads, especially near the border, are damaged by enemy bombing, then further movement of these guns can be impeded. I would assume that the same is true for SP wheeled guns

SP tracked guns on the other hand, move slower, but are all terrain in their capabilities.

The light artillery such as M777 are transportable by air and are relevant for mountain deployments. Again given that 2/3 of India's borders are mountainous, I would argue that the majority of India's artillery guns should be of the M777 type, preferably wheeled or self propelled. Given that a good portion of India's borders are deserts, with relatively less road density, SP tracked will also be needed. Overall, it seems that approximately 85 or 90% of India's borders are mountainous or deserts, the major exception being the Punjab border. Keeping that in view I wonder if a relatively disproportionate fraction of Indian army resources are dedicated for the Punjab border. In summary, I would argue that India probably needs all gun types with carefully planned purposes for each type. Obviously the army should drive these decisions, not government officials.

Again MGS and SP (wheeled or tracked) have the ability to move after firing, preventing the enemy's ability to neutralize the gun based on location.

I wonder what are the differences (pros and cons) between (a) MSG and SP Wheeled and (b) SP Tracked and a tank.

Perhaps these thoughts have already been analyzed by the regulars on this thread, I just happened to jump into this thread after a long while because of the recent news about the MGS decision.
Last edited by rajrang on 23 Nov 2014 21:42, edited 4 times in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16969
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby NRao » 23 Nov 2014 21:29


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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Will » 23 Nov 2014 21:46

DAC clearing stuff is one thing but the way things usually go, if a deal for a Mounted gun is signed within 5 years it will be a surprise.

Read somewhere that the requirement for the wheeled guns had been cancelled as there were no guns out there that met the requirements. Is this true?

Misraji
BRFite
Posts: 401
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Location: USA

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Misraji » 23 Nov 2014 23:14

Post deleted by moderator - rohitvats

@mishraji - I'll handle this myself. I don't want another flame war here between posters. We've had enough nonsense already across multiple threads.

Misraji
BRFite
Posts: 401
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Location: USA

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Misraji » 24 Nov 2014 00:03

Misraji wrote:Post deleted by moderator - rohitvats
@mishraji - I'll handle this myself. I don't want another flame war here between posters. We've had enough nonsense already across multiple threads.

Acknowledged. Thanks.

--Ashish.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3355
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kakkaji » 24 Nov 2014 06:35

I think in the short-term only the Dhanush can be acquired. All the rest with RFP etc will take time.

I hope the IA orders enough numbers of Dhanush at least to make up for the attrition losses of the originally acquired 39cal Bofors guns. The guns from the new RFPs etc can come later for replacements and increasing the numbers

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2643
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Cybaru » 24 Nov 2014 08:26

This was the Tata gun
https://www.facebook.com/notes/sudhansh ... 4667191006

And there is kalyani group as well correct? Where are things with them?
http://www.kalyanigroup.com/ArtillerySystems.asp

member_24684
BRFite
Posts: 197
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_24684 » 24 Nov 2014 09:01

Cybaru wrote:This was the Tata gun
https://www.facebook.com/notes/sudhansh ... 4667191006

And there is kalyani group as well correct? Where are things with them?
http://www.kalyanigroup.com/ArtillerySystems.asp




i think kalyani teaming up with Israeli Elta

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Viv S » 24 Nov 2014 09:06

SajeevJino wrote:i think kalyani teaming up with Israeli Elta


Elbit.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2643
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Cybaru » 24 Nov 2014 10:40

Didn't they buy some east bloc company and move it to India? The predecessor of Denel?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8434
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 24 Nov 2014 11:13

It was the Austrian GHN that Bharat Forge bought. The 52 cal from its stable is a development of the GHN design.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1841
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 24 Nov 2014 13:34

Pratyush wrote:It was the Austrian GHN that Bharat Forge bought. The 52 cal from its stable is a development of the GHN design.


They purchased the assembly line for, the gun design is essentially from elbit

mody
BRFite
Posts: 819
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby mody » 24 Nov 2014 17:06

The gun design is from GHN. In fact the basic GHN design has been used by Denel and the Chinese to develop their guns.
GHN design was for 155 mm 45 cal. Bharat Forge will be improving the design to 155 mm/52 cal.
Elbit has been roped to help and more importantly for the electronics. The GHN design was dated and Kalyani will be fielding brand new electronics with their offering.

The 155 mm/52 cal gun has been displayed, as Bharat-52. As per Bharat Forge's original plan, the gun was to be ready by end of 2015. There were some reports a few months back, about Bharat Forge not getting clearance to test their guns, at Army Test ranges. There are no other suitable private test ranges available in the country.
The exact current status of the guns is unknown.
All of this is for the Towed version. Didn't know they were going to offer a Mounted version as well.
Also, some reports have suggested that the SP-Wheeled category may be dropped. Only the SP-Tracked category will be pursued by MoD/IA.

Personally I am really confused by DRDO ATAGS program. Not sure where that is going to fit in. If it is really going to be this uber latest gun, why not use it for everything, from towed to SP-tracked to Truck Mounted? The basic gun technology hasn't changed much in the last 10-15 years. Its the electronics and mating the system with the radars etc that has improved. DRDO has most of the these pieces ready and should just concentrate on that.

Actually I would like the see the following:
OFB:
Dhanush - 114 ordered. Increase order by at least another 200-300 guns. Electronics to be as per DRDO ATAGS program.
Upgrade all remaining B-77 Bofors guns, to Dhanush Standard
Upgrade 420 M46 guns to 155 mm/45 cal standard.

Tata SED:
814 Mounted Gun order to be placed with TATA SED. The electronics for the guns to sourced from DRDO ATAGS program.
Tata to get design for G6/T6 guns from Denel.
TATA to manufacture the T6 gun turret and supply to BEML/Avadi for mating with Arjun Chassis.
SP-Tracked to consist of T6 gun turret mounted on Arjun(Bhim Project). Electronics to be from DRDO.

Bharat Forge:
Bharat Forge to get order for 800-1200 Towed guns, as per the Bharat-52 design. The electronics to be from DRDO and Elbit.

The others in the fray don't have much to offer on their own apart from what their foreign partners bring to the table and companies like Mahindra-BAE, will loose out due to the ghosts of Bofors.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14746
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby pankajs » 25 Nov 2014 11:27

http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/busine ... 36923.html
Expect first order for guns in 4-5 years: Bharat Forge
Sonia: If you could start off by telling us what kind of opportunity do you see particularly from this proposal of 814 artillery guns? A: First of all just to clarify this is a great signal from our new defence minister to get industry to participate in the manufacture of defence hardware which is what Prime Minister Modi’s views have been. So this is the first major programme that has now been put into what is well-known as the buy and make India category. Where an Indian company will be the lead and it can get technology from whoever it wants and it needs to manufacture bulk of the products within India. So I look at this mainly as something that is mindset changing process.

As far as this particular project is concerned, this has to go through a fairly elaborate process of RFPs, RFQs, selection of vendors, tryouts and I don’t see the first gun coming out in anything less than five-six years. So it is not like there is an order tomorrow and there is going to be manufacturing happening in two years time. So it is a long process but much needed process. So from an industry perspective I am very pleased that the new defence minister Manohar Parrikar has taken a very quick decision in getting this process started.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 25 Nov 2014 11:48

afaik the original gerard bull genius design was the G5. somehow it found its way to austra(GHN), israel and china(norinco) with or without his consent


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests