Artillery: News & Discussion

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ShauryaT » 21 Apr 2016 07:45

ATAGS is planned to be under 12 tons and if so transportable by Chinooks. It will be 155mm. Not sure of caliber. Also an out of the box solution that I really like is air borne artillery, like a 105 mm fired from a C130J. Along with the momentum of the aircraft and the fact that the shell does not have to fight gravity, it would do a the job of a 155 mm and not to mention, maneuverable.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 21 Apr 2016 08:21

I dont know about our 105 IFG but the american M119 105 is definitely capable of high angle fire and is hence a howitzer
Image

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 21 Apr 2016 08:28

add later - and so is our IFG - so its wrong statement
either one is downgrading to 105mm to be heli lifted and losing range and I read these also cannot fire onto the reverse slopes

Image

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 21 Apr 2016 08:30

infact both the guns seem to be the same with minor diffs.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 22 Apr 2016 19:51

rohitvats wrote:
tsarkar wrote: While previous generation artillery used limber based towing, newer artillery with longer barrels are carried by tank transporters that they climb via ramps using their APU. Those without APU are winched up.<SNIP>


Artillery guns are not carried on transporters like tanks or IFV.

They're towed behind dedicated vehicles called Field Artillery Tractors (FAT). Bofors used to come with Scania FAT which had nice compartment for troops. Russian M-46 was/is pulled by KRAZ 6x6. The venerable 105mm was towed behind the 3-ton Shaktiman earlier. New Ashok Leyland vehicles must be doing that now. Your 120mm mortars were/are pulled 1-ton vehicles.

Interestingly, India has placed large order with TATA for 6x6 FAT; it would not be incorrect to premise that many of the older FAT with M-46 or even Bofors are being replaced by Indian vehicles.

Rohit, my response was to a particular query as to how longer barreled artillery like M777A2 under development will be transported, viz,
Surya wrote:towing and carrying it will become interesting
and not what the Indian Army does.

Now, guns need carriages. One of the reasons Europeans were successful in battles in India was because of their standardized artillery guns and standard gun carriages that could be easily transported by mules or oxen. This gave their infantry amazing fire support. In his book, "Solstice at Panipat", Uday Kulkarni laments on the lack of standardized artillery and gun carriages in India. He quotes Maratha commander Raghunath Rao stating how his gun carriages broke down hampering artillery movement.

Emphasizing the importance of gun carriages is the fact that the second Ordnance Factory established in India was Gun Carriage Agency in 1801

http://ofbindia.gov.in/index.php?wh=history&lang=en
In 1787 a gun powder factory was established at Ishapore which started production from 1791 ( at which location Rifle Factory was established in 1904). In 1801 a Gun Carriage Agency at Cossipore, Kolkata (presently known as Gun & Shell Factory, Cossipore) was established and production started from 18th March, 1802.


The Jabalpur factory is still called Gun Carriage Factory (GCF).

Now, guns use trails, that are raised on limber, and thereafter towed by mules or oxen and after mechanization, field artillery tractors. This hasn't changed for 300-500 years.

However, with artillery barrels becoming longer, towing has become challenging. How does the barrel not scrape the ground?

One solution the Bofors FH-77 offers is by having the gun mounted higher up in the gun carriage baseplate and have much larger wheels. However, that structure increases weight.

Check out the low baseplate of this M777 here https://i.ytimg.com/vi/RB1jyNwhgrM/maxresdefault.jpg vis a vis the higher baseplate of http://www.mdc.idv.tw/mdc/army/fh77b-1.jpg

Other problem that has come to light in the last decade is the amount of electronics mounted on the gun, like Gun Alignment and Positioning System with sensitive gyros, Muzzle Velocity Radar, Ballistic Computer, etc. Now, while a gun muzzle and breach is covered to prevent ingestion of dirt & debris while towing, it can be rough on the electronics.

Which is why for long distance travel, they're loaded onto trailers like this http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/be471c3855934 ... cypba7.jpg

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vasu raya » 22 Apr 2016 19:59

ShauryaT,
12 tons by Chinook is for normal altitudes, the payload gets low as the altitude increases per Vivek Ahuja, which is where the M-777 at 4 tons comes in, one would love to see a isoform map for the Himalayas on how high a weight can be lifted using existing heli borne transport. I have a pet theory about using the auto gyro design for para dropping and precision landing of tonnage.

ok Singha saab, about the high angle fire limitation of the 105mm, I picked up from your post :-), anyways I don't know the range of 105mm, and the explosive power is probably less than the 155mm, so making DU rounds for it makes it as effective as a 155mm shell? though this approach shouldn't warrant an ecological disaster as you aren't fighting away from home.

Then the C-130J firing cannons, I believe people have been talking about CAS and its maneuverability in the mountains as well as survivability of the platform from manpads. Even the Chinook was taken down in Afghanistan recently. Other that that its about providing sufficient effective bulk head to the guns recoil and maybe one can whittle down to an An-32 sized aircraft, the accessible one. The An-32 are notorious in bad weather though as was witnessed in the recent crash in Arunachal Pradesh.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4008
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby deejay » 22 Apr 2016 21:54

vasu raya wrote:ShauryaT,
12 tons by Chinook is for normal altitudes, the payload gets low as the altitude increases per Vivek Ahuja, which is where the M-777 at 4 tons comes in, one would love to see a isoform map for the Himalayas on how high a weight can be lifted using existing heli borne transport. I have a pet theory about using the auto gyro design for para dropping and precision landing of tonnage.

ok Singha saab, about the high angle fire limitation of the 105mm, I picked up from your post :-), anyways I don't know the range of 105mm, and the explosive power is probably less than the 155mm, so making DU rounds for it makes it as effective as a 155mm shell? though this approach shouldn't warrant an ecological disaster as you aren't fighting away from home.

Then the C-130J firing cannons, I believe people have been talking about CAS and its maneuverability in the mountains as well as survivability of the platform from manpads. Even the Chinook was taken down in Afghanistan recently. Other that that its about providing sufficient effective bulk head to the guns recoil and maybe one can whittle down to an An-32 sized aircraft, the accessible one. The An-32 are notorious in bad weather though as was witnessed in the recent crash in Arunachal Pradesh.


As a thumb rule, the lowest pass on the highest Himalayan ridgeline is at 5.7 kms (khardung La, Nia La) etc. All gun positions are actually lower. Therefore the highest ridgeline can be cleared comfortably at 5.7 kms altitude.

Tibet plains are at 05 kms or lower in most parts but rarely below 4.5 kms NE, E and SE of Kashmir. Hence, at most places guns will need to be dropped at altitude range of 4.5 kms - 5 kms.

Sikkim - Arunachal border with China - Most places Chinese are at lower heights than NE of our positions in J&K. Border crossing from Kibittoo to China in the Walong axis is at 02 kms.

These are all pressure altitudes. Exact helicopter performance will depend on existing density altitude.

Arunachal weather will humble anything. An 32 otherwise is fine.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vasu raya » 22 Apr 2016 22:54

Thanks deejay, the Chinook with M777 at lowest density altitude perhaps at certain time of the day like the IL-76 take offs from Leh
or with ATAGS at 12 tons with highest density altitude is the current baseline for 155mm howitzers to be heli transported anywhere needed in the mountain range.

not sure if pressure altitude can range the helicopter performance between 4 and 12 tons, it seems to be a big range, though lowering the weight only improves logistics. Narrowing the terrain band or time band only makes it easier for the enemy.

not sure if the comment on An-32 was in the context of using it as airborne artillery in the mountains or just the platform.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4008
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby deejay » 23 Apr 2016 09:35

^^^ Pressure Altitude and Density Altitude is same in standard lapse rate conditions. Increase in temp means greater Density Altitude and in India mostly conditions are in this range.

I have not known variations large enough in Pressure and Density Altitude to make difference in AUW (All Up Weight) of more than few 100 kgs in a Mi 17 1V.

Arunachal Weather can change in a moment. So comment was more on Arunachal Weather and not the platform as such. Other capabilities such as Max AUW, turn radius. EW systems etc would perhaps be more important in selecting the best aircraft for the role. :)

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vasu raya » 23 Apr 2016 20:36

I can almost smell the whiff of AC-130 Ghost rider in your post, but to even consider a transport for such a role, one should be teeming with transports, any C-130j would be better utilized for a logistics role.

Ghostrider’s Big Gun: AC-130J Gets 105 ASAP; Laser Later

“To keep the legacy aircraft is not an exceeding lot of money,” he said, though he did not give a specific figure. “There’s a few [avionics] I have to replace; if we keep flying them I’ve got to put [new] outer wings on ’em. But it’s not a significant amount of money.”

As for the J-model, the first two aircraft will not have the 105mm gun installed. That’ll have to be retrofitted later. “About the third plane, we cut in the 105,” Heithold said. “Technology-wise, this is not a tough thing to do.” AFSOC will simply pull the cannon off retiring aircraft and install them on the Js.


The way they went about the program, when mapped to the Indian context, we would have chosen the An-32 as they are available in plenty and the upgraded An-32 are now more suitable for mountain flying. DRDO's CMDS can go in. For the armed forces to invest they already have a PoC in the Ghost rider so replicating is possible, and there is no stealth involved LOL.

The mod limits the cannon to direct firing mode though, indirect mode is better for aircraft survival.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4008
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby deejay » 23 Apr 2016 21:57

^^^ I recall some An 32 bombing run practices in similar terrain. Back then there was no talk of C 130 in India. :)

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2395
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby VinodTK » 22 May 2016 02:34

Advanced Pinaka with new technology test fired

BHUBANESWAR: The defence officials on Friday tested a new technology in a bid to incorporate ‘guidance system’ in the advanced version of indigenously built Pinaka rocket system.

The new technology in Pinaka was successfully tested from a defence base off the Odisha coast. Two rounds of the rocket were fired from the test range of Proof and Experimental Establishment (PXE) at Chandipur-on-sea
Defence sources said the rockets were fired from a multi-barrel rocket launcher (MBRL) at 11.35 am and 01.15 pm. The tests were conducted by both the PXE and Integrated Test Range (ITR). The mission validated all parameters as coordinated by the Pinaka team.

“Since guided Pinaka is coming up in future, they are capturing data for further analysis. The data would be useful for the future guided flight. However, both the tests were successful as they had a good flight,” said a defence official denying to divulge details about the new technology.

The tracking radars have monitored the movements of the rockets till the point of impact. The advanced version of the rocket system has proved its efficiency and capability. The source informed that two more rounds of test have been planned on Monday.

As per the specification, the MBRL can fire 12 rockets with 1.2 tonne of high explosives within 44 seconds and destroy a target area of four sqkm at a time. The quick reaction time and high rate of fire of the system gives an edge to the Army during a low-intensity conflict situation.

Pinaka is the first indigenous rocket system successfully designed, developed and produced by the ARDE with the help of private industries. The system’s capability to incorporate several types of warheads makes it deadly for the enemy as it can even destroy their solid structures and bunkers.

An earlier version of the rocket system, which has undergone several tough tests since 1995, has been inducted into the armed forces while the present trials are being conducted with some improvements in the system. The rocket system has been developed to neutralise large areas with rapid salvos.

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sivab » 29 May 2016 20:39

[youtube]watch?v=pvqC4cbTgkk[/youtube]

@14:10 MP says Dhanush is already inducted. It will be mass produced next year after winter trials.

A Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 1155
Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby A Sharma » 30 May 2016 19:45

Not sure if posted before

Army to subject desi howitzers to further tests

Nagpur: Further proving awaits the indigenous 155mm gun (howitzer) before finally being inducted into Indian Army. After Jabalpur-based Gun Carriage Factory (GCF), dispatched the first batch of three guns to the Army, certain issues seem to have cropped up during the test firing held over a month ago. Sources said there were problems in the loading system that the army wanted addressed.
With the changes done, the batch was once again sent to the army from GCF on Wednesday. A senior official in the GCF said the guns would now be put to user exploitation test to be conducted by the Army alone. Only after that they will finally be accepted.

The Army will be initially taking six guns from the GCF. If pieces meet army's expectation, a bulk production contract of 114 will be given. So far the army has only given an in-principle approval for 114 guns to be made by the GCF.

The next batch of three guns is expected to be sent in a couple of months, sources said. Several hiccups delayed the induction of the indigenous howitzers . It was planned to dispatch the first batch by November last year, but was finally sent over a month ago. Even earlier, the army had suggested certain changes in the guns that delayed the process. The guns were sent back to the factory after the test firing held over a month ago.


In 2013, indigenisation process took a major setback when barrel of the gun exploded during the test fire. It set the entire process back by a year. Another round of trials took place and the guns were finally passed but minor issues continued to crop up, said a source.

Sources in the GCF said the issues with loading system were minor and had been addressed. The factory took up indigenisation work in 2011 after the attempts to buy new guns from the global market failed. The factory had the designs of Bofors guns procured from Sweden in 1984. These were used as a base to develop an indigenous weapon system. As against the 155x39 mm calibre original Bofors guns, the GCF came up with a bigger 155x45 mm version. The army needs to replenish its artillery systems as the existing lot procured from Sweden is aging.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 30 May 2016 20:46

Good thing no foreign gorichamri gun is possible. Test all you want but it's either this or nothing

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2484
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Vivek K » 30 May 2016 21:57

The IA needs a shakeup. It seems that corruption is very deep rooted in it. This is not healthy for national security. The IA must uphold the nation's goals and not vice versa.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 30 May 2016 22:35

Singha wrote:Good thing no foreign gorichamri gun is possible. Test all you want but it's either this or nothing


test it to the point its reliable and IA buys a 1000 of them.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2484
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Vivek K » 30 May 2016 23:04

Karan is it unreliability or the Arjun saga all over again? You could buy 1000s of these for the price of a few 100 imported guns.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Cybaru » 30 May 2016 23:36

I think these 114 will atleast make it in Parrikar's term. Question is will Arjun Mk-2 really see a production like it is supposed to in the 800-2000 range it is supposed to?

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 30 May 2016 23:36

Vivek K wrote:The IA needs a shakeup. It seems that corruption is very deep rooted in it. This is not healthy for national security. The IA must uphold the nation's goals and not vice versa.


Resident Raja Harischandra of BRF has spoken!

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2110
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Picklu » 31 May 2016 09:28

Karan M wrote:
Singha wrote:Good thing no foreign gorichamri gun is possible. Test all you want but it's either this or nothing


test it to the point its reliable and IA buys a 1000 of them.


Karan M, So far the buying 1000 of them has not materialized for any major platform barring dhruv, Akash and some radar system. For Akash and radars also, the numbers are impressive only considering the previous state. The numbers are not so great if you consider the number of the systems they are replacing or a country like India needs.

Always a large enough portion is kept aside to placate the foreign vendors (example - Mi-17, QRSAM & MRSAM). I simply call it "hafta" because that is exactly what it is in reality.

The modus operandi of IA/IAF etc has always been "not today". They have no compulsion to promise large numbers in future with some upgrade but never an actual concrete order for current time with the current level of completeness.

Same is the case of LCA MK1, Arjun MK1 and now Dhanush.

Call me cynical but I am not sure LCA MK1A, Arjun MK2 etc are done deals yet. In both cases, IAF and IA has simply kicked the can in future with the promise of pot of gold for a few upgrades.

We saw how the Arjun mk2 is now being delayed with excessive smoke issue of LAHAT and the new order is contingent upon fixing the same of a foreign missile or come up with a desi alternative even when all other upgrades are done and the requirement of missile from tank itself is still controversial and definitely not essential.

We will see whether they really materialize or the case is again like Dhanush where the LSP and testing cycle continues.
Last edited by Picklu on 31 May 2016 09:34, edited 1 time in total.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Cybaru » 31 May 2016 09:31

Yeah, they play fetch me a rock game. Oh thats not the right size, why don't you go out and fetch me another rock, ad infinitum.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 31 May 2016 09:57

Singha wrote:Good thing no foreign gorichamri gun is possible. Test all you want but it's either this or nothing

AFAIK the tender for the towed and mounted 155mm artillery totaling about 2000 (?) guns is still on going.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 31 May 2016 10:00

Vivek K wrote:The IA needs a shakeup. It seems that corruption is very deep rooted in it. This is not healthy for national security. The IA must uphold the nation's goals and not vice versa.


disbanding the DGMF and starting some new institution seems to be the only way out . Russis own the place, perhaps even the signs are in cryillic like on some goa beach towns :shock:

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6886
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby habal » 31 May 2016 10:59

the nexus is between procurement wing and political entities with additional 'inputs' from arms dealers. Seemed particularly severe during Congress regime but I doubt AK Antony's presence any procurement was possible.

BJP can change all that and make it fait accompli, just select indigenous alternatives and force it down the throat of IA/IAF etc and their discretion should only be limited towards testing and deciding range of weaponry.

btw no news on BRF of arms depot fire at Pulgaon ?? Or if it's there I cannot see it.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4008
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby deejay » 31 May 2016 12:04

habal wrote:the nexus is between procurement wing and political entities with additional 'inputs' from arms dealers. Seemed particularly severe during Congress regime but I doubt AK Antony's presence any procurement was possible.

BJP can change all that and make it fait accompli, just select indigenous alternatives and force it down the throat of IA/IAF etc and their discretion should only be limited towards testing and deciding range of weaponry.

btw no news on BRF of arms depot fire at Pulgaon ?? Or if it's there I cannot see it.


:evil:

Just try this attitude. There are limits. Civilians will better back off. IA is on frontlines. Needs permission to fire back when attacked. Has its hands tied back. IA wins, civilians surrender. Civilians won't let IA counter. No IA/IAF/IN rep on Pay Commissions. And then you want to shove things down military throats? Samajh kya rakha hai apne?

We are not your slaves. IA/IAF/IN have the domain expertise and will decide. First get your civilian babus in MOD in line.

What crap!

DexterM
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 372
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby DexterM » 31 May 2016 12:43

Deejay saar, I would not go that far.

What habal said might annoy you and should be left to the admins to deal with. However, as a past member of the services, one would expect better from you. BRF has become more lenient of the talk that incites you (or rohit, for example), but in general no one on the board would expect to abuse the forces and get away with it. On the other hand, you are set a much higher moral standard, and having lived up to it during service, are also expected to maintain it forever. So the you vs. we line is not the right approach to this specific argument.

FWIW, I do agree MOD needs to shape up. However, selection of indigenous alternatives where equal or marginally less capable than imported options must be based on a long term plan. Some sections of IA deserve flak for not doing what the IN does, but we civvies are hardly need to be mouthing off in this manner. I have done so too in the past, and would like to unreservedly apologize for such drivel where it appears.

All said, let's focus on the specific offensive text on folks that do not want local alternatives where these are already proven. I support making an example of anyone found corrupt - in either MoD or the forces.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1629
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 31 May 2016 12:47

Deejay,

Plus a 100. Problem is that in our country people like talking and their knowledge and experience is inversely proportional to their decibel levels. This comes out of ego - and fools and cowards have the biggest egos. These guys have no idea what it feels to cradle a dying Jawan in your arms and what it feels when a corrupt SDM wants to free a terrorist that you have captured after suffering casualties which should never have happened. And then when you slap that corrupt SDM in front of everyone and he wets his pants and slinks away. Our bureaucracy is so corrupt that it will sell its mother if given a chance. I have seen it all levels especially at Secy to Govt of India. And frankly we have reached the limits of our tolerance.

Habal et all I have told several times on BR that army wants Bhrat forge guns but is not been given permission to test them. I have given a hundred other examples but people like you like hearing the sounds of your own voices so much that you say facts be damed. You care two hoots about the nation but just want to be heard on this forum as it satisfies your ego.

Deejay, I think people like you and me should leave this forum. Clearly domain expertise and national service and experience is frowned upon here.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1629
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 31 May 2016 12:48

Deejay,

Plus a 100. Problem is that in our country people like talking and their knowledge and experience is inversely proportional to their decibel levels. This comes out of ego - and fools and cowards have the biggest egos. These guys have no idea what it feels to cradle a dying Jawan in your arms and what it feels when a corrupt SDM wants to free a terrorist that you have captured after suffering casualties which should never have happened. And then when you slap that corrupt SDM in front of everyone and he wets his pants and slinks away. Our bureaucracy is so corrupt that it will sell its mother if given a chance. I have seen it all levels especially at Secy to Govt of India. And frankly we have reached the limits of our tolerance.

Habal et all I have told several times on BR that army wants Bhrat forge guns but is not been given permission to test them. I have given a hundred other examples but people like you like hearing the sounds of your own voices so much that you say facts be damed. You care two hoots about the nation but just want to be heard on this forum as it satisfies your ego.

Deejay, I think people like you and me should leave this forum. Clearly domain expertise and national service and experience is frowned upon here.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4008
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby deejay » 31 May 2016 13:06

Akshay Kapoor wrote:Deejay,

...
Deejay, I think people like you and me should leave this forum. Clearly domain expertise and national service and experience is frowned upon here.


On days like this...

Anger boils over. I've tried being polite and responding with reason. It only encourages a greater abuse. People fancy India being a military power but think their military men are some low lives. Some one wants to shake the IA, someone else wants to shove things down its throat.

As a helicopter pilot, I've flown many teams (Ministers and babus) on their joy rides. They stand next to a Mi 17 and ask - Can it carry a nuclear bomb? Standing next to field gun - Where do you fit the missile?

The same folks have asked - Will we win if Pakistan attacks? They get mighty upset if their head bumps the door of a Mi 17 but give orders to the military on whether or not we should fire back.

I think FM Manekshaw said something like they don't know the difference between a Gorilla and guerrilla or was it mortar and a motor?

Are these the people who will tell us what is good for us? Hundreds if not thousands of posts on keeping fauj in control, not a post on what if this govt falls, what then? No one sees any need of controlling their "key happy" fingers but control the fauj.

A gun in which the loader malfunctioned cannot be re-trialed, that too after confirmed orders. IA does not have a right as user to see if what it is buying is functional?

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby shiv » 31 May 2016 13:58

Akshay Kapoor wrote:Deejay, I think people like you and me should leave this forum. Clearly domain expertise and national service and experience is frowned upon here.

Akshay domain expertise is not frowned upon here - it is just not expected or valued because we are a timepass forum. It is best for wannabe fighter pilots like me or wannabe generals. Not so much for the real thing. Long ago BRF became a timepass forum where there is a little bit of everything for everyone. So when one is sitting in one's den surfing the net, BRF offers advice on romance, cooking investments etc and oh by the way there is a military forum when I can poop a bit till the next time I appear.

I can only speak for myself - but every time I hear someone say "We must invite this person to BRF" my heart sinks and I think "Oh crap - if this person (usually a domain expert) comes on to BRF he will be talking to people who are not really much better informed than the minster who asks where the atom bomb will be carried on the helicopter. He will be ripped apart by a horde of self styled domain experts on everything under the sun". He will never reappear.

As far as I am concerned - I take the attitude that this is now a public place like a bus. If I think I know something I say it. If someone else looks like he knows something I read and take it FWIW. Yeah I do get irritated when rhetorical argument is used a as substitute for facts - and that is where I really come into my own because once you enter the rhetorical argument game you can argue forever and screw the facts. Some people like to win arguments. Heck so do I - so arguing is the main purpose of this forum. Not learning. Everyone arguing wants the other person to accept his version of reality and will get more and more angry and insulting if you don't agree. Most sensible people bow out - but a few like me are born with a tendency to say "If you want to act like an asshole so do I"

Ideally people post opinions and unless they are insulting someone the thing to do is to accept it as an opinion, state a counter opinion if there is one and leave it at that. If they are insulting report the post to admins and if the guy is a persistent irritant put him on your ignore list. If the other guy has this deep urge to argue against your opinion and claim "My opinion is bigger than yours" then we end up getting posts that simply increase post count with no information exchange. But that is where BRF is today a set of general chitchat forums attached to a defence site. The military discussion forum is just one of many forums for timepass without the tight attention to quality it used to get 15 years ago when the founders of the site itself played an active role on the forum and there was nothing to pass the time on this site unless you were hooked to military matters.

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6886
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby habal » 31 May 2016 14:05

You are expecting me to address you as a superior officer with jee huzoor and yes sir on an online forum where one gets opportunity to air a few opinions. That is problem of your expectation from this medium rather than my fault at articulating the problem. As fact stand on ground, IA does not have Bharat Forge Gun, neither does it induct any Indian weapon in large quantity. INSAS yes, it is visible, but lot of grumble. And all manner of special forces opt for boutique weapons anyways. Steyr Aug was ready to sell it's entire plant, we did not want it. M2K ready to sell it's entire assembly line, we do not want it.

So problem is not with aam forces personnel, it is with those people who are entrusted with responsibility to make decisions. The nexus is in MoD, Arms Dealers, Procurement and that chain can only be broken if transparent policies are in place. Piece meal buying of a few thousand light guns here or there, or buying some boutique bullet proof jackets or Night vision equipment is not the problem.

Bit ticket items and that are strategic cannot be bought in bulk from foreign entity. That practice needs to be stopped. It doesn't make strategic sense anymore to buy stuff from people who killed our prime ministers and nuclear scientists. And that country has many allies (western) which are our 'alternate suppliers'. It is like an Ajit joke, main rape nahin karoonga, lekin mera dost ek raat guzarega .. And Russia is like an abla nari who get shafted by one and all. We need our own stuff in place. And screw all these jokers, and middlemen & con artists to whose credit we will keep deciding on key issues till kingdom come.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 31 May 2016 14:22

deejay wrote:I've tried being polite and responding with reason. It only encourages a greater abuse.

I understand you completely. Sometime back, I happened to post a factual statement that we got significant Russian help in design of INS Arihant powerplant, and was viciously personally attacked by posters like rabid characters from Lord of the Flies. And I'm someone who has actually been on that submarine, unlike other posters.

While patriotism is fine, emotions need to be balanced by reason. When members are unable to do so, moderation is required.

Many members don't know that HAL did not have design expertise to develop a transmission to leverage the higher output of Shakti engine on Cheetal/Chetan, and hence performance was not improved despite fitting a higher power engine. Instead of understanding the facts, they immaturely think of conspiracy theories and Natashas.

Similarly they blamed HPT-32 Deepak engine for its failure instead of acknowledging design failure, even when pointed out Navy BN-2 Islanders with the same engine served immaculately for three decades and thereafter donated to Myanmar. So surely the engine is not at fault.

Or that Tejas IOC-1 was just a PR exercise.

Having said that, there are reasonable members too, and so I post for those who see reason and ignore the irrational ones.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Indranil » 31 May 2016 22:05

MODERATOR NOTE: Everybody is welcome to BRF.

Civilians: From here on, be very careful of what you say about our armed forces. BRF needs some house-keeping and it starts now. Quite a few of you have tresspassed a line here. I am not punishing you because it has been our (the moderators') fault to let it slide down to this level. But, you have been warned now. Criticize, but be civil. Criticize using technical points showcasing where the IA/IAF have done wrong. Opinions and language like "shove it down IA/IAF" will earn each one of you a really long van-vass, really fast.

Serving/ex-service officials: You guys have earned real hard experience and our respect. Please don't lower yourself by responding to lowly posts in kind. Also, please don't take the higher horse because you have served. You know better than others that not all apples in the IA/IAF basket are perfectly fine. If you find a post which berates our forces without reason (supported by true facts), correct them. If the conversation degrades, flag it. The moderators can easily take care of the poster from there on.

tsarkar wrote:Having said that, there are reasonable members too, and so I post for those who see reason and ignore the irrational ones.

Well said sir. That is probably the best statement I have read here today. I will work on some pruning from now on. The irrational ones need to be limited and got rid off.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 31 May 2016 22:28

@deejay, with all due respect, I think there is a misunderstanding in what the role/responsibilities of the political leadership and those of the armed forces. If the political leadership (who ostensibly cant tell the difference between a motor and a mortar) decides that the future strategic needs of the country can be meet only by indigenous weapons, its for the armed forces to get in line - or have it "shoved down their throats" if they are so unwilling. Now that doesn't mean that the politicians will decide the specifications etc. of the guns, tanks, fighters etc but they are well within their right to say that you can have any gun/tank/fighter as long as it is Indian.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 31 May 2016 22:49

Vivek K wrote:Karan is it unreliability or the Arjun saga all over again? You could buy 1000s of these for the price of a few 100 imported guns.


Picklu, vivek et al.

i mean look, OFB's production issues are known. i dont want to say its all their issue. i have long believed it suits certain groups to have our indigenous programs hobbled and all those who speak up vociferously for them either hit a brick wall (and give up) or are limited in terms of what they can manage.

IMHO, we need to get the dhanush to the point the IA says this is a rock solid weapon and we want it again and again. yes, parrikar et al can intervene, but look at the record of IA and pinaka and ACCCS - they are not unreasonable with capabilities that deliver bang and are good.

IMHO, we just need to ensure ammo + 155mm outmatches what the opponent has and is rock solid reliable.

if dhanush (and if memory serves its 45 cal) + BB Ammo range is greater what TSP/PRC field, then by all means take 114 and move a firm higher order tranche to 155mm/52 cal.

if ofb says that 114 is too small an order for the production to be viable then yes, parrikar should intervene and ask IA to see if it can replace some more obsolete 105mm with 155mm 45 cal.

in that i agree with you. but only if the the dhanush is soldier/weather/common issue proof. it should be available all the time.

nothing frustrates me (IMHO) more than good designs languishing because we didnt handle the final manufacturability aspect fully, .. and this is where when we fix things, we do fix them, unlike the imported toys like T-90 which we cant touch because russia has a fit or something else will void the warranty.

see, after pinaka mk1 (4 regiments), more regiments of pinaka mk2 are coming.
similarly if dhanush & ammo work, IMHO IA WILL order it. because where else will they get such a cost effective unit? and one which works. main thing is to involve IA fully and work on changing their belief that the local OFB guys will deliver per what they want and when they need it.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 31 May 2016 23:15

its interesting to see complaints of "rabid folks" and what not, when one side takes care to present only facts.. and its assumed of course that the other side can get away with such assertions, merely because those who respond are constantly civil, can be taken for granted & abused .. then posh complaints of viciousness and what not.

heh. if name dropping was important one could even mention "who and what" who lead these sort of programs informed what exactly but for the sake of forum democrum & the fact its gauche.. it wasn't done. lets be clear here, some folks like deejay & akshay get respect because they don't demand it. lets be clear what that entails. i understand their occasional ire and heck, i'd be glad to have a beer with such level headed folks anytime. wish more folks were like them.
Last edited by Karan M on 01 Jun 2016 22:31, edited 2 times in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 31 May 2016 23:24

abhik wrote:@deejay, with all due respect, I think there is a misunderstanding in what the role/responsibilities of the political leadership and those of the armed forces. If the political leadership (who ostensibly cant tell the difference between a motor and a mortar) decides that the future strategic needs of the country can be meet only by indigenous weapons, its for the armed forces to get in line - or have it "shoved down their throats" if they are so unwilling. Now that doesn't mean that the politicians will decide the specifications etc. of the guns, tanks, fighters etc but they are well within their right to say that you can have any gun/tank/fighter as long as it is Indian.


there is a flip side too. what will you do, if there is no corresponding capability that is indian?

there is no indian equivalent of IL-76, or C-17 or Mi-17 or S-70.

even in areas where there are successes (eg sonars), we have the occasional long running, huge challenge - take towed array sonars for instance.

now, the point i am making is the political leadership has to do more than just ask services to buy Indian. it has to

1. create the atmosphere and resource availability that allows indian products to thrive
2. ensure a fair play atmosphere where armed forces and weapons developers work together
3. ensure the products are available & if challenges are there, balance the issue (eg LUH and temporary import of some foreign unit; or ALTAS sonar while ATAS continues)
4. make sure there is healthy availability of both public and private solutions with GOI assisting for "indianization" such as making india specific software etc and not relying on quick fix imports
5. all 1-4 together as part of a group effort (IDS) to ensure there is synergy.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2484
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Vivek K » 01 Jun 2016 00:26

Karan M wrote:.....
IMHO, we need to get the dhanush to the point the IA says this is a rock solid weapon and we want it again and again. yes, parrikar et al can intervene, but look at the record of IA and pinaka and ACCCS - they are not unreasonable with capabilities that deliver bang and are good.

IMHO, we just need to ensure ammo + 155mm outmatches what the opponent has and is rock solid reliable.

if dhanush (and if memory serves its 45 cal) + BB Ammo range is greater what TSP/PRC field, then by all means take 114 and move a firm higher order tranche to 155mm/52 cal.
......

in that i agree with you. but only if the the dhanush is soldier/weather/common issue proof. it should be available all the time.

nothing frustrates me (IMHO) more than good designs languishing because we didnt handle the final manufacturability aspect fully, .. and this is where when we fix things, we do fix them, unlike the imported toys like T-90 which we cant touch because russia has a fit or something else will void the warranty.

..


The solution has to have IA's ownership and then everything can be resolved. If IA will sit back and lay criticism on OFB alone, that will not be a solution. If OFB cannot produce to the required quality, IA should demand a private player or players to be given the job of producing Dhanush. But there cannot be any going back from the Dhanush. It is the armed forces' responsibility to help develop and sustain the Indian MIC. And if this is successful, then the Dhanush could be exported as well.

Also, IA's record of procuring Artillery has been dismal. Therefore, this may be the only route of IA getting new artillery.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 01 Jun 2016 01:37

This seems to be the ATAGs program.
At 140 confirmed orders and more later, its ok. Not 140 as the standard.
http://www.rediff.com/news/report/army- ... 120610.htm


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests