Artillery: News & Discussion

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5095
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: 16509
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: 3258
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: 2594
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: 2594
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: 8152
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: 1607
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: 592
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: 13223
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

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2910
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 25 Nov 2014 18:30

^^ His original gun was GC-45 - Gun Canada 45 calibers by modifying existing US design. Although his home nation Canada didn't care about it, he still named it Canada.

Exported to Israel and that is now the Soltam series.

Exported to South Africa that is now the Denel series and was jailed for violating anti-apartheid UN arms embargo.

Thereafter built a factory with Austrian & Belgium interests that exported to China. No one objected.

Finally sold to Iraq, including via South African production, and the Israelis bumped him off.

He wanted to launch satellites using artillery. Unfortunately, ended up a victim of politics.

The Austrian factory is useless, since no one in Europe wants guns, so they sold it lock, stock & barrel to Kalyani.

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 20:12

the bofors design is not based on his I think, the recoil and support legs structure is different.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1607
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 25 Nov 2014 20:27

mody wrote: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.


Actually, the gun system being offered by Bharat forge for mounted gun system is a version of Israeli ATMOS.
Bharat Forge and Elbit Systems are also offering variants of the ATMOS, as part of the JV’s growing portfolio. Elbit Systems is the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of the ATMOS. (Soltam, the original designer of ATMOS is currently part of Elbit Systems Land Systems division). ATMOS has also been deployed with a number of armies, including Azerbaijan, Cameroon, Uganda and, most recently Thailand, which has received a new low-profile version of the ATMOS. The Israel Defense Forces are also interested, but as happened with many armies in recent years, spending on artillery modernization has been delayed. ATMOS has been developed as an autonomous and open system that can be integrated on every suitable truck, a concept that was proven even in ‘limited editions’ comprising a small number of trucks.

http://defense-update.com/20140207_bharat_forge.html#.VHShVfmUd0E

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.


I won't be surprised if the framework for a mounted gun system (say, AMAGS?) using the same gun, is in design stage as well.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8152
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 26 Nov 2014 09:01

Thakur_B,

As is usual for BRF, some one brought in the Kalyani portfolio, and all started focusing on the lineage of the one particular gun, rather than the particular offering for a specific project.

You are right about the Atmos with the Israeli's.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54013
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 26 Nov 2014 20:33

The GC-45 is based on his research that having a barrel length of 45 calibers gives the system adequate volume to expand the gases behind the shell. Earlier shorter barrels were wasting the energy in muzzle flash. This imparts more kinetic energy to the shell giving it longer range.
South Africa needed the GC-45 to outrange the 122mm FSU (via Cuba) rockets arming the Angola rebels.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1607
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 11 Dec 2014 19:12

ARDE is calling out tenders for an assortment of forgings for making about 10 ATAGS prototypes.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7717
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 18 Dec 2014 16:56

I have deliberately waited for a long while before replying to your post. I was hoping that your post and the news about MOD clearing purchase of Mounted Gun System would trigger some more debate on the subject. Which I was hoping will help to bring out more on this subject. Though not to the extent I was hoping, but some of it has happened. And we’re better off because of that.
Now, coming to points raised by you.

@nik wrote:

Let me start by saying:

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.


The only bias I’ve is the operational readiness of the armed forces. They’ve already lost out on generational change which should have been complete by 1999-2000. Most of the requirements you see were projected in mid-1980s to change from older generation equipment to new one.

Hence, there is a ‘speed’ bias. Because any delay in development/procurement of a weapon system impinges on the operational performance of the armed forces. It is not a matter of coincidence that any new equipment being developed which does not have precedence in the armed forces faces lesser pressure than say, something like IJT or LCA. Dhruv is a very fine example of the same, as is the Light Combat Helicopter. Compare this with clamor for induction of LUH which will replace an existing system.

Indigenous development is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end.

Coming to the Chinese model, it is very easy to quote one aspect of Chinese MIL-IND Complex w/o looking at a bigger picture. Before the Chinese learnt to develop fighter aircraft and tanks, they’d mastered the art of developing atomic and thermonuclear weapons. Not to forget, they had a political leadership which could say ‘it would not matter if China lost 300 million people in a nuclear war’.

Armed forces are but one of the pillars of national security. Chinese ensured they developed other pillars till the time their economy permitted to compete in conventional sphere with their adversaries. The fact that J-10 features same Diverterless Supersonic Inlet (DSI) as F-35 or Chinese stole secrets of W-88 nuclear warhead is example of a national strategy. Not some isolated incident.

By all means ban import of foreign equipment and wait till the time domestic MIL-IND complex starts to deliver. But when you do that, be ready to ensure other elements of national security are capable enough and you have a political leadership to take the blame if yellow matter hits the fan and we don’t come out smelling of roses.

Till then, pardon me if I root for armed forces to have weapon systems delivered to them on time – whether through domestic MIL-IND Complex or imported route.

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.


If you think a POV needs to be allowed to stand on the forum simply because it exists, then you’re sadly mistaken. It needs to have rationality to it. Not to mention the small issue of language.

>> 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?


The entire mess in our MIL-IND Complex is because people tend to miss the small things called ‘Time’ and ‘Quality’. And secondly, to those on ground who will actually be using those systems and have been waiting for them for decade+ now, ‘time’ element is of utmost important. If you think bringing in the parameter of ‘time’ means muddying the water, then you’ve much to learn before you make these sanctimonious statements.

As for manufacturing in India costing less, I again ask you, do you know what will INR 15,000 Crore get us? No you don’t. Only thing you’ve done is divvy up the number to arrive at per unit cost of the gun. For all we know, this INR 15,000 Crore is ‘fly-away’ cost of the gun rather than a simple per unit cost of the gun.

>> 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.


I take the point about completely new facility.

However, you make it seem that all that is required to produce the gun is existence of forging capability. It matters not that ‘what’ and ‘how’ behind it is the key. Otherwise, likes of Bharat Forge would not have had to import the whole production line for the Austrian gun or the complete gun itself.

BTW, here is an excerpt from the press-release on agreement between Nexter and L&T on CAESAR MGS:

The partnership between L&T and Nexter is based on delivering the best solution and value to the Indian Army. According to the agreements signed between L&T and Nexter, the latter will transfer the production of sub-assemblies of TRAJAN® (TGS) and CAESAR® (MGS) and the final integration of both systems to L&T in India. The engineering customisation of the systems to fulfil specific Indian requirements will be accomplished together by L&T and Nexter. L&T and NS are looking forward to extending the cooperation for these artillery programs for Indian MoD to other opportunities, globally.

So, most of the production is happening in India. And while it may not require creation of completely new manufacturing facility, it won’t be a simple case of tweaking existing processes for this new production either.

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.


First – the cost per gun from OFB is 14 Crore. And that is from a quote of OFB official in the same report. Not some journalist’s mathematical skills.

Second – if ability to make howitzers was a done thing, then DRDO would not have taken 4+ years to deliver on a prototype of ATAGS nor had Bharat Forge to import a foreign gun and the whole facility lock, stock and barrel. Also, PSU which has built those guns using only ‘drawings’ has been the sole manufacturer of guns in India for decades now.

You’re over simplifying the case here.

>> 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. <SNIP>


You’re again over simplifying the case here. As if the distributed production capability in civilian space is same as a dedicated production facility under Defense PSU. And will yield same level of cost advantages. There is a reason that all the Indian companies vying for howitzer contract of various types have in house forging capability – from L&T to Mahindra to TATA. And of course, Bharat Forge. You don’t bid for something when the most important capability for its production rests with third party.

All these companies would’ve done an assessment of their own capability and that present in the larger Indian manufacturing system. It is not as if only the ‘know-how’ behind the manufacturing is absent while all other aspects of production exist.

But these companies still don’t compare with kind of facility which OFB like Gun Carriage Factory has had for decades. Anything produced by a private entity will be at a mark-up to what OFB/DPSU charge for the very same system.

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.


I have answered this before as well. The per unit cost is from quote of an OFB official.

>> 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.


Chinese did not rebuke Russians because of their conventional army. It was because of their willingness to go toe-to-toe on nuclear front and to absorb horrendous casualties in bargain.

Let the services take a call on the mix of quantity and quality. And the ‘number’ required is not an independent variable. It is dependent on many other factors. If we need ‘X’ units of certain quality and can afford them, then I don’t think argument for ‘X + Delta’ of inferior quality at same price merits any argument.

Also, assuming it costs INR 12 Crore per gun at OFB (if APU is available at more affordable cost), that is the base line in terms of price. Anything being manufactured afresh with new facilities will cost more that this gun.

>> 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.


There is no fetish from buying from abroad – the only thing that matters is for the troops to get their weapon system on time.
And this is the first step for India to develop its gun – either through private or public sector. Hardly matters what others have been doing for decades.

>> 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.


You need to spend some time understanding other person’s post.

Can you tell me where have I called OFB’s gun manufacturing capability as antique? My point was with respect to using existing infrastructure of OFB to manufacture whatever gun is finally selected. Given that OFB already has a standing infra, this should help to keep the per gun price low.

>> 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. .


You again missed the part where I had mentioned the fact that high per unit cost is basis low order + other aspects sewn into the deal. Question is, does the scale and location of manufacture itself determine 35%-65% reduction in per unit cost?

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1607
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 20 Dec 2014 05:54

I hope movement happens on the tracked artillery front as well. The possible contenders as of now are

L&T - Samsung : K9 Thunder
Tata SED - HSW (Poland) : AHS Krab
BEML - DMD (Slovakia) : Arzu
OFB(?) - Rosoboron Export : Unknown

BEML was the integrator on the Bhim project. Now that Denel is legit again, maybe they should revive the Bhim instead of starting all over again.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7717
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 21 Dec 2014 19:22

^^^If you ask me, the best way forward is this:

1. MGS - Buy the MGS from TATA SED - this way, the order will go to a genuine Indian company which I am hoping has gone beyond screw-driver aspect when it comes to development of this gun. In case of other Indian companies in consortium with foreign OEM, I really don't think there will be genuine transfer of technology. If India is not a net gainer in terms of technology, we will be again running to foreign OEM for next round of development.

2. Tracked SP: Work with TATA SED (now that they have link back to Denel) and revive Bhim project. One will also achieve commonality between MGS and Tracked SP gun. Good for logistics and maintenance.

3. Towed Gun: Induct OFB 155/45 Bofors as an interim measure till ATAGS comes on line. This should help to replace the oldest artillery pieces in the inventory. By the time ATAGS becomes ready of induction, Dhanush should have replaced 35%-40% of older guns. Dhanush guns can then be replaced towards fag end of ATAGS production.

Development of ATAGS with Bharat Forge and TATA SED would mean that whole development remains within the country and these firms will gain from participating in production of this gun.

The above should keep the multiplicity of guns to minimum and ensure commonality in spare parts. And best of all, country is a net gainer in terms of technology for development of an artillery gun.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1607
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 22 Dec 2014 20:41

^^ In my opinion
MGS: Let the winner be picked out of open competition. DRDO should tie up with BEML, the only major player left out for truck mounted version of ATAGS, AMAGS(?), to further spice up the competition that already includes Mahindra, L&T, OFB, Tata, Punj Lloyd, Bharat Forge.
Tracked: BEML-Denel vs L&T-Samsung, a strong tested design vs a strong dedicated domestic player. Discount minnows like Poles and Slovaks. The requirement is small anyways, and Tata's offering with the Poles shares the same roots as Samsung K9 thunder. The poles themselves took help from Koreans.
Towed: Open license to all domestic companies (Mahindra, Tata, OFB, BEML, L&T, Bharat Forge, Punj Lloyd) for the ATAGS design, minimum of 3 lines to deliver 1800 guns in 10 years, open export license for all qualifiers. Replace 105mm IFG with Dhanush, BSF and ITBP to order Dhanush to replace their IFG as well.
Ultra Light: Fund Kalyani's ultra light gun, negotiate hard for license production M777 using Kalyani's gun as a bargaining chip. Two manufacturing lines preferable.

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 385
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby dinesh_kimar » 10 Jan 2015 18:56

Friends,
after many years of search, i have finally found a pic of ARDE 75/25 pack howitzer.

Here is it:http://imgur.com/9mAqF11

i found it on DRDO's Website, where 2 new e-books have been put up, with lots of good info on GTX Engine, CVRDE, Radars, etc.

(PS To Karan M and all inde R&D buffs: "Go get 'em , tiger!!")

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 955
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sivab » 11 Jan 2015 02:55

http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/DRD ... -ebook.pdf


Enhanced Range Rocket (Pinaka Mk-II)-Development of Propellant Grain and Igniter for Rocket
Motor
Propellant composition with 5 per cent RDX has been developed and scaled-up to batch size of 850
kg. Twenty-six motors have been processed and fivestatic firingswere conducted at ambient temperature.
Seventeen motors were given for flight trials at ITR, Balasore


Multi Barrel Rocket Launcher System–Pinaka Mk-II
To enhance the range of the existing Pinaka rockets from 39 km to 60 km, development of Pinaka
Mk-II rocket has been taken up. Structural and ground resonance tests and lining of motor tubes have
been completed. Static trials have been conducted for batch proof of cast motors. Three stabilizer
assembly has been qualifi d for integration. Three dynamic trials were conducted for design validation.
Design finalisation based on analysis of the trial results is being carried out


155 mm/52 Calibre Advanced Towed Artillery Gun System
The aim of the project is to design and develop state-of-the-art 155m/52 Cal Advanced Towed
Artillery Gun System (ATAGS) for artillery of Indian Army. Detailed system engineering has been
carried out considering advanced features enumerated in draft PSQR. The sub-system level design,
documentation and review of the gun structure, automation and control system have been completed.
Predictive ballistic solutions have been worked out and design and review of all components of ordnance
and recoil system have been completed. Manufacturing contract for gun barrel has been placed. Other
hardware sub-systems are under realisation. Industrial interaction workshop was held for identification
of major potential industries in the nation for efficient manufacture of the gun systems to meet the
system requirements.


GPS/INS Guidance and Control Kit and Glide Fin Kit for 450 kg HSLD Bomb
Ground mechanical adaptation trials of the kit with Jaguar Darin-II were conducted successfully.
Using avionics and seeker for PG kit for 450 kg High Speed Low Drag (HSLD) aircraft bomb, captive
trials have been successfully completed at ITR. The seeker locked-on and tracked the target during the
captive flight.


New Family of Munitions
Under this project, seven types of munitions have been designed and developed by DRDO, viz.,
Nipun, Vibhav, Vishal, Parth, Prachand, Ulka and Abha to improve the existing munitions and enhance
its performance. User-assisted technical trials (UATT) for NIPUN have been successfully completed.
Trials with 15 sets of prototypes of Vibhav have been successfully completed. Explosive train trials with
actual fuze components of Vibhav have been successfully completed.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Vipul » 16 Jan 2015 21:52

US offers India guns for anti-China strike force .

Ahead of its President Barack Obama's visit to India this month, US offers key defence deal to India with a Make in India’ spin.

US offers to make the M777 artillery guns in India under Transfer of Technology and enable India to have an airborne artillery division. The M777 is the world's most successful 155 mm artillery gun which can be carried under a chopper on to mountain posts. It has been used effectively in the Afghan War, and also in Iraq

Ultra Light artillery guns like the M777 are urgently required to give teeth and firepower to Indian Army formations deployed along long disputed Himalayan boundaries with China and Pakistan. It is central to arming India's new Mountain Strike Corps, with which India hopes to deter China. This artillery gun is made of titanium, which drastically reduces its weight as compared to other artillery guns, and enables it to be carried in aircraft to distant mountainous posts.

India has an initial requirement of 145 ultra-light howitzers, and the total requirement is expected to be about 450 guns. The US has offered the sale of 145 M777 guns Made in India at a cost of about $ 750 m.

This deal had stalled last year due to issues over price and offsets (counter-trade obligations on the US). It was then offered as a direct import under a Government-to-Government sale under the US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) route.

The US and the owners of the M777 manufacturing company, British Aerospace Systems have re-opened dialogue with India and changed their offsets offer to make it complaint with Indian requirements. The price has also been pegged at about $150 m lower than what was previously understood.In its fresh bid to revive the deal ahead of the Obama visit, the US has sweetened the deal by offering to shift the assembly line of the gun to India.

If India says yes to this deal, the M777 will be the first new artillery gun to be bought by India after the Bofors guns in the tainted 1986 deal. This will also significantly ramp up Indian capability to make modern artillery guns.

Lack of artillery firepower is a big gap in the Indian Army capability.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2598
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 17 Jan 2015 10:07

Vipul wrote:US offers India guns for anti-China strike force .

If India says yes to this deal, the M777 will be the first new artillery gun to be bought by India after the Bofors guns in the tainted 1986 deal. This will also significantly ramp up Indian capability to make modern artillery guns.

Lack of artillery firepower is a big gap in the Indian Army capability.

Were the OFB Dhanush not ordered?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7717
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 17 Jan 2015 10:44

Vipul wrote:<SNIP>
US offers to make the M777 artillery guns in India under Transfer of Technology and enable India to have an airborne artillery division.

How do these idiots come up with such gems? :roll:

This artillery gun is made of titanium, which drastically reduces its weight as compared to other artillery guns, and enables it to be carried in aircraft to distant mountainous posts.

This is another BS...we're not talking about fire-bases along the border like Afghanistan.

<SNIP>

member_28932
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_28932 » 17 Jan 2015 10:51

abhik wrote:Were the OFB Dhanush not ordered?


Here is the article in IDRW org stating that DRDO gun design is ready and Manufacturing contract for the gun barrel has been placed.

All sub system designs are ready and engineering part is completely over.

http://idrw.org/?p=55869

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1607
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 17 Jan 2015 20:35

abhik wrote:Were the OFB Dhanush not ordered?


Not yet.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16509
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby NRao » 17 Jan 2015 23:36

rohitvats wrote:
Vipul wrote:<SNIP>
US offers to make the M777 artillery guns in India under Transfer of Technology and enable India to have an airborne artillery division.

How do these idiots come up with such gems? :roll:

This artillery gun is made of titanium, which drastically reduces its weight as compared to other artillery guns, and enables it to be carried in aircraft to distant mountainous posts.

This is another BS...we're not talking about fire-bases along the border like Afghanistan.

<SNIP>


Prefect Inglish on-lee:

airborne = Helicopter

distant mountainous posts = mountains facing China

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

Anyways, wonder if this new "offer" makes more/any sense.

nvishal
BRFite
Posts: 781
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:03

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nvishal » 18 Jan 2015 20:58

Modis made in india(MII) initiative stalls many india-US agreements.

MII killed the prospect of a M777 purchase. This new offer to shift the assembly line to india could also be out of budget.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 18 Jan 2015 22:34

It's Make In India, kind of like a Seagate hard drive plant in Malaysia or Singapore. Taiwan and Korea started like this too before China. Modi is savvy enough to know that this is the fastest way forward. ULH is in a completely different class from OFB Dhanush and this M777 offer is a huge development which means we can export and service the guns too. I guess Modi will jump on it.

BAE Systems offers to make 'ultralight' guns in India
The new proposal, which dovetails with the "Make in India" initiative, offers to build more components in India for the 155-millimetre/39-calibre M777 ULH. In another major step forward, BAE Systems has offered to build the gun in a plant in India. This would become the global assembly, integration and test (AIT) centre for the M777 once the US plant at Hattiesburg, Mississippi shuts down.

Eric Leiderman
BRFite
Posts: 364
Joined: 26 Nov 2010 08:56

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Eric Leiderman » 19 Jan 2015 00:37

Depends on price,hope the French sage is sending a message

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Gyan » 19 Jan 2015 07:27

It is very good deal almost similar to making us Global supplier of Hawk super advanced trainer.

alexis
BRFite
Posts: 462
Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby alexis » 19 Jan 2015 09:12

^^
But it will kill the Bharat Forge light gun! we should be cautious about these unsolicited offers.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4402
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 19 Jan 2015 11:18

^^^

"Make in India" at the expense of "Made in India"!


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest