Artillery: News & Discussion

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 17 Oct 2013 19:02

vic wrote:Even if T-72 barrels manufactured at OFB burst due to incorrect manufactering process, it is still not explain why did Russian barrels burst(?). I could not find anywhere in the CAG report that Russian barrels burst due to defective Indian ammunition. Pls point out the line, I may have missed it.

Also Army has still not placed firm order for indigenous 144 Bofors Howitzers. It is still at proposal or intent stage.


If I use your line of argument, nowhere has it been reported - either in CAG Reports or print media - that Russian barrels burst due to QC/manufacturing issue at their end. So, all must be fine, no?

Fact of the matter is that we don't know for SURE - but there is circumstantial evidence to show that defective ammunition did lead to barrel bursting. The issue of defective barrels was reported first and then arose the issue of defective ammunition.

I have no intention of getting into pissing contest - I pasted these articles to set the record straight using a respectable source.

Everything wrong with DPSU or Mil-Ind Complex on this board gets attributed to Services - it is easy to pass accusation on Services w/o having the onus to prove anything.

Time we stopped this 24 x 7 blame game and looked at a matter more objectively rather than make everything into desi-imported game.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2997
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kanson » 17 Oct 2013 19:36

Few CAG reports could give us complete picture? Lets see..

From 2003 CAG report..

Subsequent investigation by the Directorate General of Quality Assurance revealed that certain lots of the ammunition were of a hybrid version and the remaining lots were of an indigenous version. In January 2002, the Army Headquarters decided all ammunition of the hybrid version would be declared unserviceable and back loaded to the Ordnance Factory Board, while the rejected lots of its indigenous version would be replaced free of cost.
----
The defective ammunition not yet having been rectified, the investment of Rs 607.43 crore on its manufacture had been rendered idle and unproductive, apart from the additional investments that will be necessary for their rectification/replacement.


So existing shells were not rectified.

(From CAG 2010-2011 linked in previous post)Between 2001 and 2003, shells were procured from IMI which army says are defect free. Only those from OFB assembled were defective which were not cleared.

So effectively, for any trial conducted between 2003 to 2006, Army should have used the IMI shells procured. But the minister answered in Parliment that there were 14(imported T-72) and 12(local T-72) barrel bursts between 2003 and 2006. So what it conveys?

Army says IMI shells are defect free but barrel burst happened so this is not due to ammunition, right? So why should we keep blaming that all the bursts are only due to defective shells?

Probably OFB member is right in saying, "Although after valiant efforts some details of heat-treatment processes were obtained and implemented, there is no knowing that the problem has, indeed, been licked, since Russia does not share ‘know why"...... right?

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 17 Oct 2013 20:24

Kanson wrote:Few CAG reports could give us complete picture? Lets see..

From 2003 CAG report..

Subsequent investigation by the Directorate General of Quality Assurance revealed that certain lots of the ammunition were of a hybrid version and the remaining lots were of an indigenous version. In January 2002, the Army Headquarters decided all ammunition of the hybrid version would be declared unserviceable and back loaded to the Ordnance Factory Board, while the rejected lots of its indigenous version would be replaced free of cost.
----
The defective ammunition not yet having been rectified, the investment of Rs 607.43 crore on its manufacture had been rendered idle and unproductive, apart from the additional investments that will be necessary for their rectification/replacement.


So existing shells were not rectified.

(From CAG 2010-2011 linked in previous post)Between 2001 and 2003, shells were procured from IMI which army says are defect free. Only those from OFB assembled were defective which were not cleared.

So effectively, for any trial conducted between 2003 to 2006, Army should have used the IMI shells procured. But the minister answered in Parliament that there were 14(imported T-72) and 12(local T-72) barrel bursts between 2003 and 2006. So what it conveys?

Army says IMI shells are defect free but barrel burst happened so this is not due to ammunition, right? So why should we keep blaming that all the bursts are only due to defective shells?

Probably OFB member is right in saying, "Although after valiant efforts some details of heat-treatment processes were obtained and implemented, there is no knowing that the problem has, indeed, been licked, since Russia does not share ‘know why"...... right?


Kanson - you're trying to get into unnecessary pissing contest here.

The fact of the matter is that the author of the Hindu article linked by you was economical with the fact. As was your earlier statement saying that OFB wrote back saying they had followed procedure(s). When they had not.

The author very conveniently mentions that both Russian and Indian made barrel have bursts in same line - alluding that it is a wider phenomenon and OFB did no wrong in the manufacturing process. While the reality is for everyone to see as per CAG Report(s). Further, to say that Russians played hard-ball and technical process was obtained only after much negotiations is itself incorrect - the CAG Report clearly says that OFB overlooked the directive to use higher temperature from day one - they even went against the inputs of QA team and stuck to using lower temperature leading to defective barrels.

Coming to tank ammunition issue - The basis of your assertion is that IA would have used ONLY IMI made APFSDS ammunition in intervening period of 2003--2006 for its T-72 tanks - which is NOT the case. Because had that been the case, IA tank fleet would have had only 46,000 IMI supplied Mk-1 AFPSDS rounds in its inventory. For both war and peace time training.

Fact of the matter is that OFB has been supplying such ammunition of IA earlier as well - part of which came under scanner. And that is why VK Singh spoke about OFB made ammunition as likely cause of barrel bursting in T-72 tanks.

For the author to brush aside IA's concern as 'IA appears to believe' is plain condescending. And shows why there is no love lost between OFB and Services.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54009
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 17 Oct 2013 21:33

My understanding reading the CAG reports on the Tank Gun
- Issues with ammo assembled by OFB from imported components from IMI
- Multiple issues with the shell: shell comes apart from the casing, casing gets partial burnt in the barrel.
- No issues with IMI made ammo

No solution at OFB in sight.

issues with tank gun barrel
- Both Indian and Russian made barrels have problems.

The second problem is highlighted from the first one.

But how does the shell burst in the barrel is not explained. I would think its from the fuze funtioning inadvertently thinking it left the barrel.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 17 Oct 2013 21:42

ramana wrote: <SNIP>

issues with tank gun barrel
- Both Indian and Russian made barrels have problems.

The second problem is highlighted from the first one. <SNIP>


The Indian barrels bursting has been pointed to wrong process in late 90s or early 2000s.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54009
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 17 Oct 2013 22:07

The barrel won't burst unless its plugged. Is the case being made that just the pressure from the cartridge was enough to burst the barrel?

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 17 Oct 2013 22:11

ramana wrote:The barrel won't burst unless its plugged. Is the case being made that just the pressure from the cartridge was enough to burst the barrel?


If this excerpt from CAG Report that I linked about defective barrels is correct, then that may well be the case.

Director General Ordnance Factories manufactured 770 barrels for T-72 tanks deviating from critical heat treatment schedule for tempering of barrels without consulting the original designer. This resulted in manufacture of defective barrels. 11 barrels burst in firing from tanks causing accidents. 454 defective barrels valued at Rs 44 crore were held in stock and the remaining 305 barrels fitted in the tanks were under process of investigation as of June 1999

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8151
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 17 Oct 2013 22:14

^^^^

I dont believe that we have the stats for the guns which burst the barrel. As to how many shots had been fired from them at the time of recorded failure.

IIRC, the 72s gun barrel had a service life of 120 to 150 shots.

That being the case. If the barrel needed changing and still was used. This would result in failure.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54009
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 17 Oct 2013 22:21

Rohitvats,
I agree. That would indicate it was the heat treatment issue that caused the under strength barrels. Most likely same with the Russian made barrels as the stats are equally likely.

In my mind I was confusing with HE shells which explode and APFDS which dont explode. Hence the comments on fuzes etc.

The T72 barrels were bursting even when APFDS were being fired whch clearly shows its a casse of understrength barrel.
Off ocurse there is another problem with the shells itself!!!

So now what is the issue with the OFB made 155mm/45 cal guns?

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 17 Oct 2013 22:27

No wonder the forces call the DPSUs the "Paki secret weapon". I was told by a col with pain in his eyes that our enemies had a better handle on weapons and ammo.

It's amazing that this dysfunctional system has dragged on for decades in the most dangerous neighborhood in the world and we are still arguing about whose fault it is. There seems to be no attempt at all at fixing the problem. To me the problem is black and white--it is people who are to blame, not institutions. People need to be made accountable, the right people need to be hired and the wrong people need to be fired. Success and merit need to be rewarded and encouraged, repeated failure needs to be punished without mercy. In our DPSUs this is impossible.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18869
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 17 Oct 2013 22:37

ramana wrote:My understanding reading the CAG reports on the Tank Gun
- Issues with ammo assembled by OFB from imported components from IMI
- Multiple issues with the shell: shell comes apart from the casing, casing gets partial burnt in the barrel.
- No issues with IMI made ammo

No solution at OFB in sight.

issues with tank gun barrel
- Both Indian and Russian made barrels have problems.

The second problem is highlighted from the first one.

But how does the shell burst in the barrel is not explained. I would think its from the fuze funtioning inadvertently thinking it left the barrel.


No, not that straight forward.

First, the exploding ammo issue happened with 125mm Mk1 Ammo. These were rounds designed by ARDE, penetrator from HAPP trichy with DRDO tot and to be made at OFB. OFB used existing sources of propellant which it had contracted for from East Europe for its previous 125mm ammo of Russian origin which it was intending to make. These rounds when kept in the sun, since they came packaged in paper and wooden boxes, leaked propellant. The cartridge case was not brass but cellulose per latest standards to reduce weight and improve combustion. These hybrid rounds exploded in the tank. Subsequent QA recommended propellant change, improved storage conditions and hybrid rounds to be scrapped, local design rounds with complete local design to be rectified.

In the meanwhile with op vijay looming, IA imported 46000 rounds from IMI. These were found to be better in performance than the existing Mk1 round. In what can only be described as a blunder, IA opted for IMI round license manufacture at OFB while having the local round dropped completely (it should have been kept on as a RandD program at least with IA involvement). IMI round TOT turned out to be a farce. The deal did not even transfer penetrator tech and only envisaged blanks to be given to OFB, to be machined and assembled into rounds. In trials, these ToT rounds flopped. OFB did not even wait for fault rectification but went ahead and got more assemblies in.

The same thing happened with Poland which too first tried out these rounds under a JV and finally dropped them and went to Germany for better tech.

In the meanwhile, ex OFB chairman was indicted in a scandal and all deals under his tenure were scrapped. Now Army was without any source of 125mm KE rounds.

So they ran back to Russia for BM42 an older gen round and immediate import. This due to controversy from VK Singhs letter. Now ARDE had persisted and had developed a Mk2 version of its round. This was languishing for past few years as neither Army nor OFB were interested in it. With imported rounds unavailable, this round was dusted off and for past couple of years is now again an active program, with an improved version now entering user trials. An improved version because program now seeks to match what is available from IMI off the shelf as versus IMI version which was under TOT and hence earlier benchmark for developed Mk2 round.

In the meanwhile biggest winners are the Russians, because the BM42 round is not only in mass production for IA, but recognizing the round itself is old and hence unlikely to be very future proof, the IA has doubled down on INVAR missiles for its T-90 fleet to handle heavy ERA equipped tanks.

About the only good thing from this mess is that a local Mk2 round will now be available.

Coming to barrels- the interesting thing is that R Sundaram writes that the Russians did not provide know why. CAG mentions a reference to some protocol with Russia which did not involve the original designer or manufacturer that OFB cites to explain its chalta hain attitude towards lower temp heat tempering. OFB claims it had to do this since proper machinery in India was unavailable. Net, we know for a fact that the Indian made T-72 barrel issue was due to improper mfg.

We know from two sources that subsequently,the issue was diagnosed and original temp restored.

Now another question is that whether imported barrels also burst and if so, why?

That would indicate both OFB and imported barrels had QA issues.

In 2006, under Project MAPLE OFB also developed its own T-72 barrel, made two prototypes and shipped them off to IMI for Israel to tailor the propellant for the TOT round.

We now hear that even T-72 barrels will be imported. This can be due to two reasons.. Either MAPLE failed or that since we are now importing Russian rounds for the T series fleet, it makes sense to re equip the older fleet with compatible barrels.

Each Russian gun comes with its own sustainable MPA and compatible rounds. Newer guns as on the t-90 can reportedly sustain 30 percent more chamber pressure than earlier ones. Indian T-72s are pretty old. They even lack stabilized FCS and hence would field that gen guns like the 2A46 versus 2A46M1.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18869
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 17 Oct 2013 22:52

Victor wrote:No wonder the forces call the DPSUs the "Paki secret weapon". I was told by a col with pain in his eyes that our enemies had a better handle on ...


Judging by reports that have come out from time to time, the Pakistanis are in an equal mess, perhaps more so, because they lack both the mechanism to develop their own stuff and the funds to resort to quick fire imports. Apparently public PR apart, their FSAPDS program has had similar QA issues. And other Chinese TOT programs eg Anza and Bakhtaran Shikan were roundly mocked for under performance when tested in trials and combat (Bosnian war) respectively.
The one good thing is that since our system is public, the OFB underperformance is under increasing pressure. In Pak mil system, everything is owned by their Army, which is a classic case of conflict of interest and hence problems can fester longer without correction.
They assiduously use PR to hide their issues as well. In 2001, AFM a notoriously Pak friendly mag under its then editor, ran a piece noting PAF had almost 90 percent serviceability whereas IAF only had 70 and hence advantage Pak. A few years later we came to know many PAF F-7s were grounder for want of their FIAR Grifo radars. Net, despite their claims of better procurement etc, a large amount of skepticism is warranted.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54009
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 17 Oct 2013 23:16

Wow. So much swirl.
I now remember you stating about the ghar ka na ghatak situation with the IMI rounds in earlier posts.

looks like victims of ad hoc responses to ciris and constant superiority complex.

Now lets getto bottom of the OFB 155mm barrels issue.

First we had Dec 2012 report claiming two guns went through many successful trials witnessed by many gold stars. Also acknowledged that user trials later on were the more gruelling.

In August 2013 we hear about the barrel coming off its mounting. The fault was supposed to be either a defective shell which burst or the again claim of hasty design of adding 0.9m length to the 39 caliber barrel.

Shell burst pegs back a year for OFB made gun

NAGPUR: The project to manufacture Bofors guns indigenously has been set back by at least a year after one got damaged during trial runs held at Pokhran, Rajasthan, in the first week of August. In the project being carried out by the Jabalpur-based Gun Carriage Factory, the gun's barrel came off during the test-fire. No injuries have been reported.

Due to the damage, experts TOI spoke to said that a whole procedure of tests would have to be repeated. But OF sources say they could fix the gun within a few months. The official line so far is that due to a defect in the shell it burst in the barrel itself. A message faxed to OFB in Kolkata for its reaction has gone answered for two days. But insiders told TOI that the accident did take place and an investigation is being carried out.

"We are trying to find out if there was something wrong in the barrel or was it the shell that burst. At times it happens that the shell bursts even before reaching the target. Prima facie it seems this shell has exploded within the barrel itself," the OF sources said.

Another theory doing the rounds, one floated by experts in the army's artillery division which is closely following the affair, is that the accident happened due to a defect in the design of the barrel, which hampered the free movement of the shell. "The new guns were hurriedly designed by increasing the barrel size to add a punch. But certain mechanics applied to ensure better accuracy could have failed. This may have left to a fundamental flaw in the gun's design," they say.

Yet, seniors in the army who will have the final say are not buying the defective design theory yet. OF sources say that problem would most probably be pinned down to the defective shell theory. The artillery division experts feel that had the shell gone off inside the barrel there would have been casualties. :eek: :eek:

The original Bofors guns were of 155mmx39mm calibre which has now been upgraded to 155mmx45mm calibre. This means that the barrel has been increased to pack more power. The count 155mm represents diameter of the barrel and 45mm the number of grooves in it. The barrel's length can be measured by multiplying both the figures. The new gun has a barrel length of 6.9 meters as against 6 meters in the original version.



.....


In same story the writer contradicts himslef. Two places he says the shell burst in the barrel and then the last sentence implies it went off just after emerging from the barrel. Yet net result was the barrel came of its mount. And dont forget these are user trials. Was the shell fuze set correctly and did it perform correctly?

Next we have reports of barrel burst. Is this same incident or a new one ?

....
"The barrel burst during the Army's user trials in August. The trials have been suspended till the OFB and the DGQA (directorate general of quality assurance) conduct a defect identification inquiry into the incident,'' said a source.

The indigenous gun, which is supposed to plug the huge operational gaps in the Army's long-range, high-volume firepower, had done well in its trials till now after being developed by the OFB, Jabalpur.

........
...


So it is the same month of August. Maybe now they noted the barrel burst issue?

And note past trials report by Rajat Pandit:

[url=http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-03-07/india/37531106_1_howitzers-israeli-soltam-singapore-technology-kinetics]Desi Bofors to plug arty gap


....
"Now, the OFB has worked on the original drawings and electronically upgraded the guns to 45-calibre from the original 39-calibre. The new howitzers have a 38-km range compared to the 30-km of the Bofors gun," said an official.

OFB has developed two prototypes of the 155mm45-calibre guns, one with 68% indigenous parts and the other with 46%, that have been "satisfactorily tested in validation firings" in Pokran and Balasore over the last five months.

The "letter of intent" for the 114 howitzers was placed on the OFB "a couple of days ago" to ensure it can begin bulk production after the "user-trials" in June.

....

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 18 Oct 2013 01:53

ramana wrote:Shell burst pegs back a year for OFB made gun

The original Bofors guns were of 155mmx39mm calibre which has now been upgraded to 155mmx45mm calibre. This means that the barrel has been increased to pack more power. The count 155mm represents diameter of the barrel and 45mm the number of grooves in it. The barrel's length can be measured by multiplying both the figures. The new gun has a barrel length of 6.9 meters as against 6 meters in the original version.

Just a nitpick as this is an error and can get confusing: it is not 45mm and 45 is not the number of grooves. 45 is the caliber or length of the barrel arrived at by multiplying it by the bore of the shell. In smaller guns, caliber and bore (and gauge) are synonymous but in larger arty and naval guns caliber refers to barrel length in multiples of the bore. This is further complicated by depth of rifling grooves which gives two different internal diameters, the smaller normally being bore and the larger being caliber. For practical purposes 155mm/45 caliber vs 155mm/39 caliber=longer barrel=higher velocity=flatter trajectory=longer range.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby negi » 18 Oct 2013 03:09

sum wrote:Desi Bofors bursts during trials

India's desi Bofors dream has taken a slight knock. The barrel of the indigenously-developed version of the original Swedish155mm Bofors howitzer, which proved its worth by wreaking havoc against Pakistani intruders during the 1999 Kargil conflict, burst during trials in the Pokhran range in Rajasthan.

The defence ministry had recently placed an order worth over Rs 1,260-crore for acquisition of 114 of the artillery field guns developed by the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB), which has used the designs obtained under the transfer of technology (ToT) provisions in the infamous Rs 1,437-crore Bofors contract of 1986, to develop prototypes of the new guns.

"The barrel burst during the Army's user trials in August. The trials have been suspended till the OFB and the DGQA (directorate general of quality assurance) conduct a defect identification inquiry into the incident,'' said a source.

The indigenous gun, which is supposed to plug the huge operational gaps in the Army's long-range, high-volume firepower, had done well in its trials till now after being developed by the OFB, Jabalpur.


Bofors must have had such thousands of barrel bursts in field trials before the weapon was inducted and even years later bought by India. I mean look at the DDM they make it sound like some freak road accident which could have been avoided by just following some basic road rules. Absence of complete transfer of IP/technology, systemic deficiencies in Indian MIL establishment and funding issues are only going to make things hard for this team and if they make it there eventually it will be despite the GOI just like the IGMDP , Arjun and other successful programs.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2997
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kanson » 18 Oct 2013 03:15

rohitvats wrote:
Kanson - you're trying to get into unnecessary pissing contest here.
It is really unfortunate that you term it that way and name it on me rather than proceeding in the real path to find the truth.

rohitvats wrote:The fact of the matter is that the author of the Hindu article linked by you was economical with the fact. As was your earlier statement saying that OFB wrote back saying they had followed procedure(s). When they had not.

The author very conveniently mentions that both Russian and Indian made barrel have bursts in same line - alluding that it is a wider phenomenon and OFB did no wrong in the manufacturing process. While the reality is for everyone to see as per CAG Report(s). Further, to say that Russians played hard-ball and technical process was obtained only after much negotiations is itself incorrect - the CAG Report clearly says that OFB overlooked the directive to use higher temperature from day one - they even went against the inputs of QA team and stuck to using lower temperature leading to defective barrels.
CAG report doesnt explain everything nor it gives a complete picture. To explain:

Yes, QA Establishment mentioned about the lower temp. But the CAG report says, "The Quality Assurance Establishment had, however, passed these barrels despite their tempering at reduced temperature, as fit for use." Does CAG explain why QA passed these barrels? If there is deviation from the established process, then why QA accepted these? So what we are hearing in these CAG reports is not a complete story. So better to listen to the other side of the story too. This is where the news authored by OFB member is interesting.
OFB wrote:Although after valiant efforts some details of heat-treatment processes were obtained and implemented, there is no knowing that the problem has, indeed, been licked, since Russia does not share ‘know why
He mentioned of Heat-treatment processes that were obtained. Even if I know the exact temperature, without knowing how to do it, that is the exact process, I can't process it. So when CAG says,
In response to Audit observation, Ordnance Factory Board stated in August 1998 that reduced band of heating during tempering was a modification in the technological process to suit Indian conditions of available plant and machinery. The reply is not acceptable since the modification was done without consulting the original designer and subsequent accidents had been directly ascribed to this.
it has to bear in mind the technical problems aforementioned. Russians were not either coming out smell of roses completely. You have to look no further than T-90 barrel tech transfer case to know what it is.
The defects in barrels manufactured for T-72 tanks have been noticed although indigenous manufacture of 125mm gun barrels for T-72 tanks has been established in ordnance factories in accordance with the technology regime of the collaborators (erstwhile Soviet Union) and under the supervision of specialists of the collaborators. The deviations in the critical heat treatment schedule were made in consultation with the approval of the collaborators and the same recorded in the form of a protocol between Ordnance Factory Board and collaborators.
http://pib.nic.in/archieve/lreleng/lyr2001/rnov2001/29112001/r2911200131.html

rohitvats wrote:Coming to tank ammunition issue - The basis of your assertion is that IA would have used ONLY IMI made APFSDS ammunition in intervening period of 2003--2006 for its T-72 tanks - which is NOT the case. Because had that been the case, IA tank fleet would have had only 46,000 IMI supplied Mk-1 AFPSDS rounds in its inventory. For both war and peace time training.

Fact of the matter is that OFB has been supplying such ammunition of IA earlier as well - part of which came under scanner. And that is why VK Singh spoke about OFB made ammunition as likely cause of barrel bursting in T-72 tanks.
Let me make it simple - as you brought forward through CAG reports, IA identified all defective shells and were put aside. But still bursts happened in imported barrels too. That tell us the issue is not entirely with ammunition.

rohitvats wrote:For the author to brush aside IA's concern as 'IA appears to believe' is plain condescending. And shows why there is no love lost between OFB and Services.
If there is no explanation why such bursts occurred in imported barrel after rectifying ammo issue, anyone tends to feel the same way as OFB member did.

(RAO INDERJIT SINGH) MINISTER OF STATE FOR DEFENCE PRODUCTION

(a) & (b): T-72 barrels are being produced under license according to the technical specifications and guidelines provided by the Russian experts. All the barrels are tested and proof fired according to the specified quality standards, before issue to army. However, cases of barrels burst have been reported during exploitation of the T-72 tanks, involving both indigenous as well as imported barrels.

(c) During the last three years, 26 cases of barrel burst (14 with imported barrels and 12 with indigenous barrels) have occurred.
http://164.100.47.5:8080/members/website/quest.asp?qref=116879

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20447
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 18 Oct 2013 04:36

Perhaps the barrel burst,causing it to fall off ,that would explain the contradiction what?!

What an unholy mess.The prime responsibility should rest with those who finalise the contracts,who are responsible for the fine print.What guarantees are there against defective manufacture,gun and ammo,defective design if local production is to be part of the deal,and if local production part of it,supervision by the OEM until several batches of production have been successfully completed? After this the ball will be in the OFB/DPSUs court.In fact this is one of the most straightforward of system acquisitions/local manufacture,as tanks serve for decades,gun barrels and ammo aren't changed frequently either.A straightforward job of producing just two items,gun barrels and ammo,not even the tank.

One Q.The IN's warships are supposedly using Otomelara 76mm main gun,built under licence .Who is successfully making the gun in India? Admittedly it is a much smaller gun,but the issue is the same.What about the main gun on the Arjun? We haven't heard of major problems with it.There seems to be a callous attitude in the DPSUs involved,whose bosses need to be tied to the barrel during testing."Something is absolutely rotten in the state of the OFB".

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 18 Oct 2013 05:00

What has Russia and T-72 got to do with the Bofors gun? OFB has full blueprints and ToT on the Bofors we are told so it's a completely different situation.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Cosmo_R » 18 Oct 2013 05:01

I can claim only to understand a few English words from this article but it seems to be relevant to this debate about exploding barrels

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/pdf/AMPQ8_4ART08.pdf

(pages 5, 6)

Bottom line a M1A1 Abrams tank gun seems to need replacement after 50 shots versus the original estimates of 400.

Seems to be a constant tussle between ever more advanced shells and the barrel boring.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2997
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kanson » 18 Oct 2013 05:25

ramana wrote:In same story the writer contradicts himslef. Two places he says the shell burst in the barrel and then the last sentence implies it went off just after emerging from the barrel. Yet net result was the barrel came of its mount. And dont forget these are user trials. Was the shell fuze set correctly and did it perform correctly?

No Sirji, there is no confusion. Author just mixed the original report with some unknown expert opinion to increase the masala content. For all that we know, these "experts in the army's artillery division which is closely following the affair" could be Manu Pubby or Shiv Aroor. Color coded part is these expert opinion inserted into the original news. If you remove those, it becomes clear.

NAGPUR: The project to manufacture Bofors guns indigenously has been set back by at least a year after one got damaged during trial runs held at Pokhran, Rajasthan, in the first week of August. In the project being carried out by the Jabalpur-based Gun Carriage Factory, the gun's barrel came off during the test-fire. No injuries have been reported.

Due to the damage, experts TOI spoke to said that a whole procedure of tests would have to be repeated. But OF sources say they could fix the gun within a few months. The official line so far is that due to a defect in the shell it burst in the barrel itself. A message faxed to OFB in Kolkata for its reaction has gone answered for two days. But insiders told TOI that the accident did take place and an investigation is being carried out.

"We are trying to find out if there was something wrong in the barrel or was it the shell that burst. At times it happens that the shell bursts even before reaching the target. Prima facie it seems this shell has exploded within the barrel itself," the OF sources said.

Another theory doing the rounds, one floated by experts in the army's artillery division which is closely following the affair, is that the accident happened due to a defect in the design of the barrel, which hampered the free movement of the shell. "The new guns were hurriedly designed by increasing the barrel size to add a punch. But certain mechanics applied to ensure better accuracy could have failed. This may have left to a fundamental flaw in the gun's design," they say.

Yet, seniors in the army who will have the final say are not buying the defective design theory yet. OF sources say that problem would most probably be pinned down to the defective shell theory. The artillery division experts feel that had the shell gone off inside the barrel there would have been casualties.

The original Bofors guns were of 155mmx39mm calibre which has now been upgraded to 155mmx45mm calibre. This means that the barrel has been increased to pack more power. The count 155mm represents diameter of the barrel and 45mm the number of grooves in it. The barrel's length can be measured by multiplying both the figures. The new gun has a barrel length of 6.9 meters as against 6 meters in the original version.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2997
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kanson » 18 Oct 2013 05:42

Philip wrote:What about the main gun on the Arjun? We haven't heard of major problems with it.There seems to be a callous attitude in the DPSUs involved,whose bosses need to be tied to the barrel during testing."Something is absolutely rotten in the state of the OFB".

As if other areas except OFB are abode of heaven and only OFB is in absolutely rotten state?!

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18869
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 18 Oct 2013 09:28

Of all the DPSUs though, it is OFB that seems to be the worst when the following aspects are all considered:
Worker productivity, infrastructure utilization, planned versus actual delivery, cost performance, and finally quality of products
The first 4 are still excusable, the last is completely inexcusable and where OFB routinely underperforms.
Shri R Sundaram is ex member OFB, but I have to agree that time has come for drastic measures when it comes to OFB, including privatization.

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1792
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby wig » 18 Oct 2013 11:35

Artillery gun hopes go up in smoke - UK vendor shuts production
In what could be a major blow to the Indian Army’s artillery purchase programme and also the efficacy of its newly created specialised mountain strike corps, the gun maker, contracted to supply the specialised light weight artillery guns, has announced that it was shutting its production line in the UK, albeit after waiting for the Ministry of Defence to decide on the matter.

The ultra light howitzer (ULH) M777 are of 155 mm -- the same as Bofors but much lighter. These can be transported by helicopters and placed on mountain ridges quickly. This was supposed to be purchased by India from the US through the foreign military sales route. The gun maker, BaE systems, produces the gun at its plant in the UK. Since the controversy over the purchase of the Bofors erupted in late 1980s, no new artillery gun has been procured by the Army for its artillery.

The discussions for the gun were going on for the past three years. These were at a final stage months before India announced its new mountain strike corps in July.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) had raised serious objections to the purchase of 145 ULHs from the US under an inter-governmental agreement, costing nearly $ 647 million (Rs 3,000 crore approx at today’s dollar valuation).

Besides equipping the upcoming mountain strike corps, the guns were planned to be stationed in the existing seven corps which India has in the Himalayas facing China and Pakistan.

BaE Systems, India, confirmed the stoppage of the ULH production line.

Dean McCumiskey, Managing Director and Chief Executive, BAE Systems in India, said: “We recognise that the discussions between the US Government and the Government of India for purchase of howitzers have not concluded within the extended offer expiry date of October 15”. The company is ready to support consultations between the US and India, he said. October 15 was the final deadline set by the US congressional notification.

The company’s existing orders are nearing completion and it has said it can no longer continue to maintain the same level of staffing meaning thereby it was stalling production.

The delay had been caused after Defence Minister AK Antony ordered a probe to look into an alleged irregularity in conduct of trials of the gun. A technical panel has been tasked with examining all the complaints relating to the procurement.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2013/20131018/main7.htm

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8151
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 18 Oct 2013 11:45

Just thinking out loud.

Now that the plant making the M 777 has been shut, can the plant & machinery be transferred to India. For the production of the weapon in India.

Or is this just a pressure tactic, from BA.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby GeorgeWelch » 18 Oct 2013 11:51

Pratyush wrote:Now that the plant making the M 777 has been shut, can the plant & machinery be transferred to India. For the production of the weapon in India.


For the few that India is looking to buy, not really.

Pratyush wrote:Or is this just a pressure tactic, from BA.


No, they are out of orders.

Similarly the C-17 line is going to close soon because it's out of orders.

The situation may create pressure for you to finish your order, but it's not a 'tactic' or a 'ploy', it's just the truth. Lines can't stay open indefinitely while you dither.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8151
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 18 Oct 2013 11:59

No but picking up the line, gives us the potential to have many more than the 145 that were initially planned. As some reports had indicated that 900 + guns could be eventually be picked up.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 18 Oct 2013 12:07

Artillery gun hopes go up in smoke
* UK vendor shuts production * Decision to hit mountain strike corps efficacy
Ajay Banerjee
Tribune News Service

New Delhi, October 17
In what could be a major blow to the Indian Army’s artillery purchase programme and also the efficacy of its newly created specialised mountain strike corps, the gun maker, contracted to supply the specialised light weight artillery guns, has announced that it was shutting its production line in the UK, albeit after waiting for the Ministry of Defence to decide on the matter.

The ultra light howitzer (ULH) M777 are of 155 mm -- the same as Bofors but much lighter. These can be transported by helicopters and placed on mountain ridges quickly. This was supposed to be purchased by India from the US through the foreign military sales route. The gun maker, BaE systems, produces the gun at its plant in the UK. Since the controversy over the purchase of the Bofors erupted in late 1980s, no new artillery gun has been procured by the Army for its artillery.

The discussions for the gun were going on for the past three years. These were at a final stage months before India announced its new mountain strike corps in July.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) had raised serious objections to the purchase of 145 ULHs from the US under an inter-governmental agreement, costing nearly $ 647 million (Rs 3,000 crore approx at today’s dollar valuation).

Besides equipping the upcoming mountain strike corps, the guns were planned to be stationed in the existing seven corps which India has in the Himalayas facing China and Pakistan.

BaE Systems, India, confirmed the stoppage of the ULH production line.

Dean McCumiskey, Managing Director and Chief Executive, BAE Systems in India, said: “We recognise that the discussions between the US Government and the Government of India for purchase of howitzers have not concluded within the extended offer expiry date of October 15”. The company is ready to support consultations between the US and India, he said. October 15 was the final deadline set by the US congressional notification.

The company’s existing orders are nearing completion and it has said it can no longer continue to maintain the same level of staffing meaning thereby it was stalling production.

The delay had been caused after Defence Minister AK Antony ordered a probe to look into an alleged irregularity in conduct of trials of the gun. A technical panel has been tasked with examining all the complaints relating to the procurement.

Lighter than Bofors

* The ultra light howitzer (ULH) M777s are of 155 mm -- the same as Bofors (see pic) but much lighter.

* These can be transported by helicopters and quickly placed on mountain ridges.

* The guns were planned to be stationed in all the seven corps in the Himalayas facing China and Pakistan.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2524
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby darshhan » 18 Oct 2013 13:33

While in short term the move to shut down the UK plant will definitely impact our artillery procurement plan, this will probably have a positive repercussion as far as self sufficiency is considered.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby negi » 18 Oct 2013 18:12

Well OFB's demons are for it to fight can't say much about that but one weird thing is I have rarely seen openings for grad Engg. or pure sciences types in OFB in employment news or other sarkari papers, HAL, BHEL, BEL and DRDO on the other hand splash such requirements all over the papers at least once/twice a year. My question being how does OFB go about recruiting it' major workforce ? I fear that it could be primarily jaan-pehchaan , sifarsih, pita-putra and chacha-bhateeja types affair this is a bane of all our navratnas , I see a lot of nepotism there and this needs to be addressed.

For a start what needs to be done is the 1st stage filtering criteria should be something like a GATE score the said organisation can later interview or screen candidates using it's own process an exam like GATE will filter the chacha-bhateeja types out who get into a PSU just because they have a relative working there.

On our desi Arty I think what needs to happen is we need to put the damn thing in service if the FH77B goes through it's barrels in say 'n' number of rounds we need to be happy with desi stuff even if it needs a barrel change in say 'n/2' number of rounds and then work towards life extension for next year or two. Shells going off in a barrel is not acceptable however from what we know from open source that is an issue with shells and not the gun as such.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 18 Oct 2013 19:21

darshhan wrote:While in short term the move to shut down the UK plant will definitely impact our artillery procurement plan, this will probably have a positive repercussion as far as self sufficiency is considered.

Yes our Navratna PSUs will now surely master the titanium alloy tech that will give us an ultralight 155mm gun. Never mind that they can't make a straight copy from blueprints with full ToT without barrels falling off and blowing up.

The M777 would have given us a crucial advantage in the mountains despite being outnumbered 10-to-1 in arty pieces but we have decided to examine in detail if it really works and whether the Americans, Canadians, Australians are just blowing smoke. It is a given that we will get the guns, maybe under Modi, but we will now pay twice as much. Sometimes I wonder if the plan is to engineer a war and make sure Modi loses it. Then the Italians can rule what's left for another 50 years.

member_27862
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_27862 » 18 Oct 2013 20:09

Gents, while all the smoke on our 125mm smooth bore ammo import is settling down, do we have any other option beside the BM42 FSAPDS AT round which as per you all is the mainstay of our Armoured formations now. Yes ARDE has something of a Mk2 version of the same, which I suspect is the desi version of the BM42M penetrator developed by the Ruskies sometime in mid 90s. But is there no better option for us ?

I recall reading sometime back that majority of Iraqi BM42 rounds fired by Iraqi T72s in the first gulf war, failed to even dent the Abrams frontal Chobham armour. Yes the Tungsten penetrator was blamed and the BM42M may have a better penetrator, but seriously guys, with the 125mm gun going to be the mainstay of our armoured formations in the T90 and the T72S, we need a better round than that......we need to bugger the Ruskies for a better round if we can't make one.... And please let's forget the Israelis and their economically attractive packages......or if nothing works lets call the boys from Ludhiana, they can even reverse engineer the moon :)

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Sagar G » 18 Oct 2013 20:18

negi wrote:Well OFB's demons are for it to fight can't say much about that but one weird thing is I have rarely seen openings for grad Engg. or pure sciences types in OFB in employment news or other sarkari papers, HAL, BHEL, BEL and DRDO on the other hand splash such requirements all over the papers at least once/twice a year. My question being how does OFB go about recruiting it' major workforce ? I fear that it could be primarily jaan-pehchaan , sifarsih, pita-putra and chacha-bhateeja types affair this is a bane of all our navratnas , I see a lot of nepotism there and this needs to be addressed.

For a start what needs to be done is the 1st stage filtering criteria should be something like a GATE score the said organisation can later interview or screen candidates using it's own process an exam like GATE will filter the chacha-bhateeja types out who get into a PSU just because they have a relative working there.


You are absolutely wrong about the recruitment process, in OF's right from the machine operator level to the higher ups there are exams held to fullfill the vacany although I agree that there is "chacha bhatija jugaad" as well happening in there but it's largely limited to the lower levels where the respective factory has authority to fulfill the vacancy from local junta. It's not that jugaad isn't being applied at the higher levels but it's very difficult (not impossible though). UPSC conducts exams for the posts of Class A Officers in OF's. Navratnas also conduct exams each and every year to take in management trainess/ engineers so your assertion that there is widespread nepotism there is largely misplaced and without any factual basis. Also lately PSU's have got into MOU's with GATE to take in engineers and more PSU's are to follow suit though I don't know whether OFB will also start doing the same. Note that this "chacha bhatija jugaad" is not a problem affecting OF's only but each and every organization in India including our defence forces. If you know about any single organization in India which is free from this disease then please point it out to me cause I haven't found one yet. The problems affecting OF's and navratna's go way more deeper than nepotism.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Sagar G » 18 Oct 2013 20:23

wig wrote:Artillery gun hopes go up in smoke - UK vendor shuts production


Well nothing surprising here the IA needs to get it's vision straight and start looking for indigenous solutions instead of looking for silver bullets from abroad which either don't arrive or have issues with them. Even if IA starts today in a decade it might have a ULH gun, the chances of this happening is more than this tender going through.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Sagar G » 18 Oct 2013 20:26

There seems to be a callous attitude in the DPSUs involved,whose bosses need to be tied to the barrel during testing."Something is absolutely rotten in the state of the OFB".


Oh wow what quality of discussion masallah !!!! Someone needs to visit the psychiatrist.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Sagar G » 18 Oct 2013 20:47

Field Gun Factory supplied 770 barrels to the Central Ordnance Depot Jabalpur between 1992 and 1996. The Quality Assurance Establishment had, however, passed these barrels despite their tempering at reduced temperature, as fit for use. Department of Defence Production and Supplies paid Rs 74.67 crore inclusive of price escalation to Mishra Dattu Nigam Limited.

11 barrels cracked/ burst during firing causing accidents

Foreign specialists attributed accidents to deviation in tempering temperature


Quality Assurance Establishment

Please click on the link go, to there site, take a look at the list of DG's since 27 SEP 1957 to till date posted there and tell me what you think of this situation now.

Kanson boss you have hit the nail on the head this issue is not just about the heat treatment process since the barrels are checked for the required metallurgical properties and if found against specifications then should have been rejected but they weren't and that too under the watchful eyes of an establishment run by defence forces themselves. I wonder why weren't any Indian specialists consulted for the same to know whether the lower temp. tempering caused the barrels to burst prematurely. For the record GM of the OF concerned has the authority to change specifications to get the eventual product given it doesn't have any negative impact. Now only if we had access to better documents than this half baked CAG report.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18869
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 18 Oct 2013 20:48

Pratyush wrote:Just thinking out loud.

Now that the plant making the M 777 has been shut, can the plant & machinery be transferred to India. For the production of the weapon in India.

Or is this just a pressure tactic, from BA.


Shri Antony is infamous for not doing anything and just sitting on procurement - costs go up and production lines shut down. All to safeguard his own "reputation".
It took the leak of VK Singhs letter for even basic details concerning the parlous state of IA ammo stocks to become public and the MOD forced to order ammo.
Shri Antony has presided over the (dis)armament of the Indian services..

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby negi » 18 Oct 2013 20:48

Sagar G wrote:
You are absolutely wrong about the recruitment process, in OF's right from the machine operator level to the higher ups there are exams held to fullfill the vacany although I agree that there is "chacha bhatija jugaad" as well happening in there but it's largely limited to the lower levels where the respective factory has authority to fulfill the vacancy from local junta. It's not that jugaad isn't being applied at the higher levels but it's very difficult (not impossible though). UPSC conducts exams for the posts of Class A Officers in OF's. Navratnas also conduct exams each and every year to take in management trainess/ engineers so your assertion that there is widespread nepotism there is largely misplaced and without any factual basis. Also lately PSU's have got into MOU's with GATE to take in engineers and more PSU's are to follow suit though I don't know whether OFB will also start doing the same. Note that this "chacha bhatija jugaad" is not a problem affecting OF's only but each and every organization in India including our defence forces. If you know about any single organization in India which is free from this disease then please point it out to me cause I haven't found one yet. The problems affecting OF's and navratna's go way more deeper than nepotism.

I have appeared for UPSC exams in the past so I know what I am talking about; yes forces are also affected by this and I have said that earlier in recruitment dhaga but that is a discussion for separate thread. The UPSC exams are opaque the conducting body and the panel that interviews are known before hand (I know this cause I have known folks who sit on the panel in person) so even if they are competent if someone asks for a favour there is a likelihood of stuff being exchanged. GATE on the other hand is a too big an exam to get rigged for papers do not go to certain 'xyz' for evaluation one will have to be a really big dilli billi to get his son's paper's evaluated in a certain manner. The requirements for one to make a cut in DRDO or ISRO for that matter are pretty stringent at least the first level screening weeds out a lot of candidates I know that DRDO asks for GATE scrored for I did apply to them in the distant past, my question was does OFB screen out candidates based on GATE ? If it is their internal selection process it is going to be a case of a bad apple selecting another .
Last edited by negi on 18 Oct 2013 20:51, edited 2 times in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18869
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 18 Oct 2013 20:49

Sagar G wrote:
Field Gun Factory supplied 770 barrels to the Central Ordnance Depot Jabalpur between 1992 and 1996. The Quality Assurance Establishment had, however, passed these barrels despite their tempering at reduced temperature, as fit for use. Department of Defence Production and Supplies paid Rs 74.67 crore inclusive of price escalation to Mishra Dattu Nigam Limited.

11 barrels cracked/ burst during firing causing accidents

Foreign specialists attributed accidents to deviation in tempering temperature


Quality Assurance Establishment

Please click on the link go, to there site, take a look at the list of DG's since 27 SEP 1957 to till date posted there and tell me what you think of this situation now.

Kanson boss you have hit the nail on the head this issue is not just about the heat treatment process since the barrels are checked for the required metallurgical properties and if found against specifications then should have been rejected but they weren't and that too under the watchful eyes of an establishment run by defence forces themselves. I wonder why weren't any Indian specialists consulted for the same to know whether the lower temp. tempering caused the barrels to burst prematurely. For the record GM of the OF concerned has the authority to change specifications to get the eventual product given it doesn't have any negative impact. Now only if we had access to better documents than this half baked CAG report.


Actually CAG mentions that DGQA rejected the barrels but OFB claimed that it had permission from the Russians to do the tempering at a lower temperature. Subsequently, the Russians noted that the original designer/manufacturer had not been consulted and hence the OFB method was wrong. OFB claims it did it because it did not have the machinery to temper at higher termperatures.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18869
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 18 Oct 2013 21:05

sameerjoshi wrote:Gents, while all the smoke on our 125mm smooth bore ammo import is settling down, do we have any other option beside the BM42 FSAPDS AT round which as per you all is the mainstay of our Armoured formations now. Yes ARDE has something of a Mk2 version of the same, which I suspect is the desi version of the BM42M penetrator developed by the Ruskies sometime in mid 90s. But is there no better option for us ?


The BM42 APFSDS is the only one available from a non sanctioned supplier. Both IMI and Rheinmetall have been blacklisted by the MOD.
The MK2 round is not based on the BM42M (where would we ever get that from?) but an improved version of the earlier MK2, which was originally designed to match the IMI CL3254M which was introduced by OFB around 2005.

I recall reading sometime back that majority of Iraqi BM42 rounds fired by Iraqi T72s in the first gulf war, failed to even dent the Abrams frontal Chobham armour. Yes the Tungsten penetrator was blamed and the BM42M may have a better penetrator, but seriously guys, with the 125mm gun going to be the mainstay of our armoured formations in the T90 and the T72S, we need a better round than that


The Iraqis did not have the BM42. Lets be clear here - the BM42 is not a bad round, its just that its been superceded by newer rounds since the Russians effectively plateaued in their ammo development through the 90's-early 2000s due to economic troubles. Their newer rounds remain in trials and have not gone into series production.

The Iraqis had the much earlier 3BM-17/18 rounds.
http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html

.....we need to bugger the Ruskies for a better round if we can't make one.... And please let's forget the Israelis and their economically attractive packages......or if nothing works lets call the boys from Ludhiana, they can even reverse engineer the moon :)


First, the 125mm round is in advanced stage of development. Please look at this:
viewtopic.php?p=1518429#p1518429

FSAPDS ammunition is the most lethal kinetic energy ammunition, capable of destroying all known tank armour up to direct shooting range. The 125 mm FSAPDS (soft core) ammunition has been successfully designed and developed for enhancing the fire power of existing T-72 tank. For T series tanks FSAPDS. DRDO has developed a soft core FSAPDS Mk I for For T72 Russian tanks. Technical trials for Mark II have been done and user trials are on. Production should begin by 2015. After 2015 we will be able to reduce import dependency. For Arjun FSAPDS is totally developed by ARDE.


Second, you are severely underestimating how complex FSAPDS design and development, and finally manufacture is. It requires the most complex design ability, plus advances in metallurgy, composite materials and finally, production is another kettle of fish altogether. HAPP was set up at Trichy by DRDO to manufacture the KE projectile assemblies and even that went through a lot of challenges in getting the tech ready. Then there are challenges in propellants, casings etc and even the sabot. Net - getting FSAPDS production up and running is a non trivial task, and in fact India is one of the few countries even attempting such an effort on its own and with its own FSAPDS program, as versus merely license producing

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Sagar G » 18 Oct 2013 21:14

Karan M wrote:Actually CAG mentions that DGQA rejected the barrels but OFB claimed that it had permission from the Russians to do the tempering at a lower temperature. Subsequently, the Russians noted that the original designer/manufacturer had not been consulted and hence the OFB method was wrong. OFB claims it did it because it did not have the machinery to temper at higher termperatures.


CAG say's

The responsibility for quality assurance of items manufactured in Ordnance factories rests with the manufacturing factory. Director General Quality Assurance and Inspectorates under him are responsible for surveillance, quality audit and final acceptance inspection. In surveillance check of barrels during manufacture in Field Gun Factory, Kanpur in 1990, when one of the barrels broke in the straightening operation, the Quality Assurance Establishment (Field Gun), notified the Factory that to avoid such breakage, the heat treatment should be carried out at 520�C-570�C as provided by designer. The Field Gun Factory Kanpur however, continued tempering the forgings at reduced temperature even below 430�C, on the plea that the protocol signed by it with Russian team in 1985, permitted the heat treatment at lower range.


Either OF is lying about this "Russian team" or they have what they claim and since I don't see the CAG saying that they don't have that signed protocol then we can they that they had the same. So if it wasn't the original designer then who the hell were these Russians ??? DGQA must have asked for the same document as well since they had also asked OF to follow the original specification and I don't think that a mere verbal assurance from OF might have sufficed them regarding heat treatment at low temperature.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests