Artillery: News & Discussion

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8286
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 13 Feb 2014 08:41

orders from OFB are free form aligations of corruption.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 13 Feb 2014 09:48

Nick_S wrote:Why is IA going for the 45 caliber Dhanush instead of the 52 caliber Tata G6 ?

G6 is supposed to be an excellent gun.


The TATA SED gun is adapted from Denel T5-52 which is the truck-mounted gun from Denel and I think uses the same gun as from T6-52 turret we'd chosen for the Bhim SP Gun. The truck mounted role is a separate category from towed artillery. And constitutes the second largest component of the order.

In an ideal world, the mounted and the tracked gun should be the same for the sake of commonality - but we're likely to see a circus here. We're headed towards a situation where the mounted, towed, tracked and wheeled guns are going to be all different - the ultimate ch@@tiyapa and logistic nightmare.

The way situation is poised now, we're unlikely to see induction of foreign towed 155/52 gun in IA service. The same is 100% going to come from DRDO stable. The 155/45 will come from OFB as interim purchase while truck mounted 155/52 is going to come from imports.

My POV is that if we've thrown the DRDO hat in the ring, the truck mounted gun should also be adapted from their development. As should be the tracked and wheeled SP gun. Let the IA go for more 155/45 OFB guns in the interim period. Will make most sense.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 13 Feb 2014 10:24

Imo ofb should be asked to produce 1000s of the British 25lber and 1000s of the famous French 76mm and that's it. Peasant army stuff. Agile, scrum,light, cheap...saturated. Even cycle plants in Ludhiana can make spare parts.
van giap crushed the tfta French with such kit and careful planning. Noko also follows that rough model.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 13 Feb 2014 10:58

As usual patently dishonest verbose statements by Rohitvats. Army wants 12 tons howitzer of 155/52 caliber from DRDO, is there any howitzer in the world that fulfills that requirement? No. But army wants that from DRDO. If other howitzers are of 13 tons then army should be happy to accept 14-15 ton howitzer of Kayani and allow them to evolve it further. But army for extraneous dishonest reasons to make it difficult for DRDO makes the requirement as 12 tons.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 13 Feb 2014 11:56

vic wrote:As usual patently dishonest verbose statements by Rohitvats.


Please point out to the 'patently dishonest' statements in my post. I'll wait for your response before reporting your post.

Army wants 12 tons howitzer of 155/52 caliber from DRDO, is there any howitzer in the world that fulfills that requirement? No. But army wants that from DRDO. If other howitzers are of 13 tons then army should be happy to accept 14-15 ton howitzer of Kayani and allow them to evolve it further. But army for extraneous dishonest reasons to make it difficult for DRDO makes the requirement as 12 tons.


First, army is not a guinea pig to serve as platform for others to master the learning curve. Your assertion that army should simply be happy with what it is getting is symptomatic of obnoxious thinking which tends to put pursuit of domestic production at a higher pedestal than requirements of the end user. Sorry, doesn't work like that. Where ever DRDO and OFB have stepped up to the table, they have met success with large scale induction of their systems.

Even DRDO which is developing the gun is more confident of delivering the gun and has approached the subject with lot of openness; they are actually going to use the facilities and expertise sitting outside of Defense R&D Labs in private sector to deliver a good product in required time frame.

If the advanced nations developed a 13.1 ton gun in early 2000s then surely India can develop a gun lighter by one ton in 2013-15. The world has moved on and so has technology in all spheres. What the army has asked for is not the moon.

So stop making these inane statements and unnecessary rants.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 13 Feb 2014 12:14

the advanced nations have been making heavy artillery for centuries now. they are far ahead both in automotive sector as well as metallury, not to speak of ballistics.

just as IAF cannot ask for a Raptor spec product from DRDO, but a more realistic Tejas mk2, so too the IA needs to NOT take a union set of the "best of breed" brochures worldwide and making that as the benchmark for DRDO - thats just setting them up to fail.

per wiki
the G5-2000 weights 13.7 tons
turkey panter - 18 tons!
france trf 33cal itself weights 10.5t
singapore FH2000 - 13.2t

I dont see any product out there with 12t and 52cal. if this is the IA spec, they are clearly not being realistic. sure using titanium extensively might help but we are not big producers of titanium unlike the P2 and it will be expensive.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2097
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Picklu » 13 Feb 2014 12:36

^^ Also,
a. DRDO confidence about the achievement of uber spec should be accepted with the usual bucket load of salt. Without that show of confidence, they won't be given the project at all. All DRDO projects, successful or failure, has been preceded by DRDO bravado.
b. Army or for that matter all arms of Indian military has been quite a happy guinea pig when the item is not available for sale from outside. Our N weapons, missiles and BMD systems are proof that we as a nation can survive with desi maal without the cutting edge tech spec (eg w88, polaris or THAAD) then why not extend the same to all other systems?

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 13 Feb 2014 13:03

Picklu wrote:^^ Also,
a. DRDO confidence about the achievement of uber spec should be accepted with the usual bucket load of salt. Without that show of confidence, they won't be given the project at all. All DRDO projects, successful or failure, has been preceded by DRDO bravado.


Even here the fault lies with army/services, right? On the one hand, the domestic R&D set-up cannot deliver what it promises and yet, the services are expected to put up with it in the name of indigenization. It is the Services which are short-changed at the end of the day while no effort is done to ensure such things don't happen. Like one poster said above, IA should be happy with what it gets!

But I feel this is changing and has changed to a large extent - on both sides of the table. DRDO is much more open in terms of private sector participation and Services have better understanding of the development process. Successful products from domestic stable are in service and this has created a much positive outlook. One such segment is RADAR - there is a veritable revolution going in this space and domestic products are fulfilling requirements across the board in army, navy and air force.

b. Army or for that matter all arms of Indian military has been quite a happy guinea pig when the item is not available for sale from outside. Our N weapons, missiles and BMD systems are proof that we as a nation can survive with desi maal without the cutting edge tech spec (eg w88, polaris or THAAD) then why not extend the same to all other systems?


It has been long accepted that domestic R&D set-up will try and master those areas where technology has been denied to us or which fall under the strategic space. The reason DRDO did not get into the artillery saga earlier was because foreign product was available off the shelf and there was no need to develop the wheel again - the TOT through import would have helped the local industry. And more often than not, domestic R&D seems to filling spaces which never existed to begin with in the services.

But that does not mean operational preparedness of the army/services need to be compromised in single minded pursuit of indigenization? I don't think so.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 13 Feb 2014 13:09

Singha wrote:the advanced nations have been making heavy artillery for centuries now. they are far ahead both in automotive sector as well as metallury, not to speak of ballistics.

just as IAF cannot ask for a Raptor spec product from DRDO, but a more realistic Tejas mk2, so too the IA needs to NOT take a union set of the "best of breed" brochures worldwide and making that as the benchmark for DRDO - thats just setting them up to fail.

per wiki
the G5-2000 weights 13.7 tons
turkey panter - 18 tons!
france trf 33cal itself weights 10.5t
singapore FH2000 - 13.2t

I dont see any product out there with 12t and 52cal. if this is the IA spec, they are clearly not being realistic. sure using titanium extensively might help but we are not big producers of titanium unlike the P2 and it will be expensive.


The DRDO is more confident than you're on the development aspect.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2014/02/indian-artillery-guns-make-splash-at.html

Meanwhile, the Defence R&D Organisation is spearheading the Advanced Towed Artillery Gun (ATAG) project, to build an even more powerful 155 millimetre, 52 calibre gun. This gun will range out to 60 kilometres, with a weight of just 12 tonnes, making it ideal for the narrow, twisting roads along which it would have to be transported along Indian’s Himalayan frontiers.


According to S Sundaresh, the DRDO’s chief controller of armaments, the gun’s specifications have already been firmed and its basic design finalized by the Armament R&D Establishment (ARDE) in Pune. He says the gun will be developed as 7 work packages, with each of these sub-systems being developed and manufactured by Indian vendors, including the private sector. The DRDO has already co-opted Bharat Forge, L&T and Tata Power (SED).

“We will place orders on the vendors by mid-2014 and components will start coming in after a year. By 2016, we will begin in-house trials and offer the gun to the army for user trials by early 2017,” says Sundaresh.

So far, the army has assured the DRDO of an order for 114 guns, but that order would go up significantly if the gun proves successful and the on-going international tender for towed guns fails to result in a contract, as all such artillery gun tenders have done over fifteen years.


Further, you don't know what was the development objective of nations which developed those guns; may be they never had the need to develop a 12-ton gun and did not explore the option. The manufacturing technology has moved from the time those guns were developed and with DRDO partnering with private players from word go, I don't know why the objectives cannot be met. If there was an element of unobtanium in IA's requirement, I expect the DRDO to red-flag the issue from word go.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 13 Feb 2014 13:39

Singha, Bofors itself mentions a 12 Ton weight for its FH-77B05 L52. They also reduced the crew size by one man to 5.

Image


While IA GSQR might have been gold-plated, my only contention is when one company meets those requirements the MoD still suffers from fits. A company which has already bent backwards over to accommodate even OFB and BEL in the matrix and additionally have the gun chassis privately built with M&M.

We can invest $6 Billion over just the developmental costs for the FGFA, $14 Billion for the MMRCA contracts or triple costs on the Scorpenes for the IN along with being a single vendor situation.

If the IA wants a Howitzer for a $1.5 Billion Towed Program it has to wait for the DRDO to produce the gun or have a 45 Calibre one shoved up its backside.This for a gun that will remain a standard for the next 20-30 years. Where is the parity?

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby merlin » 13 Feb 2014 15:02

rohitvats wrote:
merlin wrote: Can say the same for you Rohit with your Pavlovian response to any criticism of the IA <SNIP>


You know what is Pavlovian response? It is the tendency to blame Indian Army for all that which ails the Indian Military-Industrial Complex. And throwing around bombastic statements like cleaning the Augustan stables and off with their heads and associated nonsense. It is all very easy to make these inane comments w/o bothering to look into the real problem.


In my mind, IA has to take a big part of the blame for the fact that India does not have a mil-ind complex. Two sagas come to mind, Arty and MBTs. IA, by and large, lacks vision. Ordering Arjuns in large numbers and putting heavy pressure on GoI for upgrading infrastructure to match or ponying up some of their own funds to convert select Class 40 bridges to Class 70 would have been one way of helping an Indian mil-ind complex to build up at least in the land systems space.

rohitvats wrote:All these things are said w/o being objective about the subject at hand or trying to find out the real issues. Your assertion that IA should have asked DRDO to develop a gun 10-year back and maybe, by now we’d have some solution is symptomatic of comments which follow and which are removed from ground situation. Every such scenario is looked into from the ‘indigenous’ versus ‘foreign’ prism with healthy dose of conspiracy theories without giving any heed to operational and transformation requirement of the Army.


Why could not the IA have asked DRDO to develop a towed 155/52 gun 10 years back. If, as you say, 10 years back such systems from foreign vendors were just coming online and not mature then did IA think that they would continue to keep buying foreign systems even when not mature and into the foreseeable future? If the IA had vision they would have asked DRDO to come up with something inductable in 10 years and asked them to partner with Ind private players if they needed additional expertise. The premise being that they could induct these guns for additional numbers assuming all foreign procurement went through and if it didn't (as is the case now) then induct these guns in toto to meet all their requirements.

rohitvats wrote:There are ‘N’ number of structural problems with our entire system including the short-comings from the side of Indian Army in terms of unrealistic GSQR, change in requirement(s), lack of project management and so on and so forth. But to use terms like you and some other posters have done is to take easy way out instead of highlighting the real problem.

Since many have said a lot in response to my post on this artillery saga, I’ll use this post to lay down my thoughts on the subject and address the points raised. Please be advised that I’m not commenting on the ‘Project Management’ business which is tangential to the artillery requirement aspect. And most of what has been said about it applies almost in its entirety to Indian Army for most of the cases.

1. First and foremost, operational preparedness cannot be sacrificed in single minded pursuit of indigenization. Especially in a country like India where we lack strategic culture which can provide clear policy and direction to both services and defense research and production establishment. A China could get away with a mass army equipped with obsolete equipment because its leaders put their faith in nuclear weapons and concentrated on developments of its delivery platform. And with a first use policy to boot. The conventional weakness was balanced out with nuclear aggression.


Without single minded pursuit of indigenization, forget it ever happening even in 30 years. Just see what the Kaveri saga has done. No national program, no single minded pursuit, penny pinching in testing hardware and we are still struggling after two decades. See the focus on Tejas and the fact that we are on the verge of having a credible, comparatively low cost 4-gen airborne fighter platform/system. See the lack of focus on conventional subs and now we have nuclear boats but no conventional sub design and numbers depleting to grave consequences. As far as operational preparedness goes, we all can see how prepared the IA is wrt arty. There has to be balance and the IA attitude with its emphasis on the best of the best of the best and not even a bit less certainly does not a mil ind complex make, nor does it make for operational preparedness unless you say that T90s make for operational preparedness against the Pakis (no overmatch).

I could go on but never mind. IA is doodh ka dhoola so I'll let it pass.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby merlin » 13 Feb 2014 15:08

vaibhav.n the parity in your question is with Pakistan! My CT is that arty procurement from abroad was deliberately stopped on any number of flimsy excuses by MoD as part of "confidence building" with Pakistan through self-neutering. Nothing else explains the sheer madness of not having the required types or numbers of one of the most crucial of items that win wars (or heavily punish in short-of-war situations).

mody
BRFite
Posts: 764
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby mody » 13 Feb 2014 16:29

Rohit my main blame for the army is that the desi bofos clone, even with 39 cal barrel, was achievable 10 years ago.
The army knew this, yet did not act on it. The requirement for Towed artillery is huge. Even if the army was hoping to get the best of the best foreign maal within a few years time, they could have still gone with a stop gap production of 155 mm 39 cal desi bofors guns, right from 2002 timeframe, if they had taken the initiative.

Later OFB showed them a 45 cal barrel, fitted it on a existing bofors gun, but the army refused to proceed with this program.

The army has no confidence in OFB's, justifiable to an extent and also on DRDO. They do not want to take ownership of programs and put in realistic requirements, which can then be incrementally improved. Having indigenous capability for defense production, also translates to military strength of the country.
Sadly army's contribution in this area is has been very poor. The case of 88 or 120 mm mortars is also case in point. So also the saga of APFSDS rounds for the tanks. The list can go on and on.
This is the reason that we continue to import so much of the ammunition, small arms etc.

After all this the result will be that Dhanush if it passes the tests, will be inducted and will be found to be a huge improvement over existing guns in IA inventory. Just imagine, if this had happened 10 years ago.

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 519
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby dinesh_kimar » 13 Feb 2014 19:52

Rohit my main blame for the army is that the desi bofos clone, even with 39 cal barrel, was achievable 10 years ago.
.

Sir, maybe correct, but no one knows the extent of capability 10 years back.

155mm Barrel
2 OFB Units in Kanpur are making "39 Caliber 155mm Barrel Spare" - Field Gun Factory, Kanpur and Ordanance Factory, Kanpur. Barrel Technology was a big effort, with some news coming after 2010 (Kunal Biswas in DFI) that barrel tech had finally stabilised (Bofors + Soltam + OFB Efforts).

Carriage and APU
Even now, directorate of indegenisation, IA, lists critical spares from here: Bearings, Gears, Filters, seals, etc. 10 years back, BAe-Mahindra had offered to supply these items.

Maybe a towed 155mm product (similar to M-46) could have been possible. Build some carriage by EME or other Orgn., assemble the barrel and Breech, and run a test program, to see if working fine, etc. But, 10 years back, who had such vision? Info was scarce, and not well presented and obvious like today.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 13 Feb 2014 19:59

Saw this posted in another form:-
Mandus Ultralight Howitzer with Kalyani/Bharat Forge at the DefExpo-2014
Image

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 13 Feb 2014 20:11

wow thats a light gun. probably will be lot cheaper than M777. but will be roundly rejected due to be 1t heavier than the titanium hulled munna for which we will need to import every nut and precision designed iBolt for the next 50 years.

their 105mm is precisely the kind of highly mobile and fairly simple/cheap artillery we need for the mountains. the 4x4 can get just about anywhere a willys jeep can and can be locally made in the 1000s rather than a few dozen M777 to be hand-delivered wrapped in cotton wool by special chinook sorties :evil:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 042UlZRxEo

another area where IA showed zero initiative is improving the INSAS into a next generation weapon. I am sure they will reject the DRDO project and instead import some H&K or FN product in the millions with license build by OFB with royalties per gun.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Sagar G » 13 Feb 2014 20:48

vic wrote:pic

A Steel based towed non-automated 155mm/39 caliber howitzer suitable for mountain use will normally weight around 6 tons or so. If Army was so desperate for artillery for mountain warfare, it would have directed OFB to start with 155/39 caliber non-automated towed howitzers equivalent to similar US or Russian artillery. Thereafter slowly gone for 155/52 caliber non automated towed artillery and titanium components. But army wants automation + light weight + super long range all in one go from OFB & DRDO.


I have seen that pic before though had somehow missed the Ti-Al use mentioned there but I faintly remember an interview given by either Dattar or Chander where they had talked of using titanium alloy for weight reduction wherever possible so it's on expected lines only. All in all nothing out of the box which is good given that we first need to create a manufacturing base, though the follow on designs are very interesting.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Sagar G » 13 Feb 2014 21:08

Singha wrote:wow thats a light gun. probably will be lot cheaper than M777. but will be roundly rejected due to be 1t heavier than the titanium hulled munna for which we will need to import every nut and precision designed iBolt for the next 50 years.


Ghanta lighter than 1 ton

M777 is the world's first 155mm Howitzer weighing less than 10000 lbs (4218 kg). Selected by the U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Army as their next generation Medium Force weapon, designated M777.


Though you are going too far bringing in weight and other technicalities, IA doesn't need such technicalities to kill indigenous projects first of all it doesn't even give out a proper GSQR and without a proper one DRDO has two choices either to put their own money, work and ultimately see no orders forthcoming from IA and then face the wrath of CAG for working on a project without proper GSQR or to sit on it's ass and do nothing. In both the cases it receives the gali galuch which some of our members have pchaddi in and IA/MoD get their new foreign toy to play around along with freshly minted dollars.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 13 Feb 2014 21:09

Deleted as requested by Ramana.
Last edited by vic on 14 Feb 2014 10:10, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 13 Feb 2014 21:10

abhik wrote:Saw this posted in another form:-
Mandus Ultralight Howitzer with Kalyani/Bharat Forge at the DefExpo-2014

Great find. If it works as advertised, it would fit the requirement for strike corps mobility and range. No reason one American gun would be rejected over another.

Mandus is located in Rock Island, IL, home of Rock Island Arsenal which makes the low recoil 105mm M102 used in C-130 Spectre and Spooky gunships. Its own 105mm is probably based on and made by the same people who made the M102.

Mandus 155/39 is heavier than M777 but it can still be easily carried by a C-130 or Chinook. M777 is 1/3 weight of Bofors 155/39 while Mandus is half the wt. If IA can get 500 of these made in India instead of 145, they will surely go with it. However, it seems to be a "proposed" project so it won't come anytime soon most likely. The strike corps requirement is urgent.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 13 Feb 2014 21:15

Singha wrote:wow thats a light gun. probably will be lot cheaper than M777. but will be roundly rejected due to be 1t heavier than the titanium hulled munna for which we will need to import every nut and precision designed iBolt for the next 50 years.

their 105mm is precisely the kind of highly mobile and fairly simple/cheap artillery we need for the mountains. the 4x4 can get just about anywhere a willys jeep can and can be locally made in the 1000s rather than a few dozen M777 to be hand-delivered wrapped in cotton wool by special chinook sorties :evil:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 042UlZRxEo

another area where IA showed zero initiative is improving the INSAS into a next generation weapon. I am sure they will reject the DRDO project and instead import some H&K or FN product in the millions with license build by OFB with royalties per gun.


M777 weight is more like 4.2 tons

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 13 Feb 2014 21:20

merlin wrote:I could go on but never mind. IA is doodh ka dhoola so I'll let it pass.


Dear Merlin and others,

Thank you for your kind comments on your incompetent or perhaps even anti-national army. Perhaps you have served in the army and given blood and sweat in ops or perhaps you have worked in the MoD or in some other part of GoI ? Or are you that august breed - an armchair warrior with an 'opinion' ? Emboldened by sitting behind a PC and making general statements with little analysis or heaven forbid facts is easy. And sensible. Very sensible.

The idiotic thing to do is to actually join up, get paid a pittance, battle an enemy on your own soil with your govt doing everything possible to make you loose. The idiotic thing to do is to lead troops into action and afterwards hearing from an injured jawan that his ancestral property has been stolen by the local politician. You tell him that CO shaib will write a letter to the DM. He says 'sahib aajkal kaun poochta hai'? You wince and remember stories of a bygone era where a CO's letter would work but he is right. The silly thing to do is to use captured AKs in CI Ops because your INSAS jams, its magazine cracks. You are told that when the weapon was made by the DRDO they had a jeep or a road roller (depending on who is telling the story) go over it and it was fine. But then OFB wiaved its wand and here you are. The silly thing to do is to carry on.

I could go on and on. But whats the point? This is the Indian army. Its supposed to serve in impossible circumstances and make miracles of vision happen despite the babus and the Anthonys and the Manmohan Singhs. And when the inevitable happens then 'sensible' armchair warriors express outrage. After all as Indians, we know we can talk but do not to have to act.

So my friends, keep spewing your venom. Your countrymen in OG are used to getting it from the enemy. Why shouldnt they get it from 'home' ?
Last edited by Akshay Kapoor on 13 Feb 2014 21:31, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 13 Feb 2014 21:29

Akshay Kapoor wrote:
merlin wrote:I could go on but never mind. IA is doodh ka dhoola so I'll let it pass.


Dear Merlin and others,

Thank you for your kind comments on your incompetent or perhaps even anti-national army. Perhaps you have served in the army and given blood and sweat in ops or perhaps you have worked in the MoD or in some other part of GoI ? Or are you that august breed - an armchair warrior with an 'opinion' ? Emboldened by sitting behind a PC and making general statements with little analysis or heaven forbid facts is easy. And sensible. Very sensible.

The idiotic thing to do is to actually join up, get paid a pittance, battle an enemy on your own soil with your govt doing everything possible to make you loose. The idiotic thing to do is to lead troops into action and afterwards hearing from an injured jawan that his ancestral property has been stolen by the local politician. You tell him that CO shaib will write a letter to the DM. He says 'sahib aajkal kaun poochta hai'? You wince and remember stories of a bygone era where a CO's letter would work but he is right. The silly thing to do is to use captured AKs in CI Ops because your INSAS jams, its magazine cracks. You are told that when the weapon was made by the DRDO they had a jeep or a road roller (depending on who is telling the story) go over it and it was fine. But then OFB wiaved its wand and here you are. The silly thing to do is to carry on.

I could go on and on. But whats the point? This is the Indian army. Its supposed to serve in impossible circumstances and make miracles of vision happen despite the babus and the Anthonys and the Manmohan Singhs. And when the inevitable happens then 'sensible' armchair warriors express outrage. After all as Indians, we know we can talk but do not to have to act.

So my friends, keep spewing your venom. Your countrymen in OG are used to getting it from the enemy. Why shouldnt they get it from 'home' ?

Thank you Akshay. Spot on.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9846
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 13 Feb 2014 21:42

We have navy involving with ship design and now we made a carrier. We have IAF though late doing its level best for tejas. But we have IA seeking to import rifles, arti and when presented with a very good MBT do not order it and wants moon. We have not even a single army generals speak out anything on need for nation Mil Industrial capabilities or involve themselves with national weapon development programmes publicly. Had the top people started publically critical about OFB and the gang of labour unions at any point of time say a couple of decades back after libaralisation we could have greater private sector involvement in place now. But they never did.

The END USER is not a customer of the national efforts but part of the nation effort. MOD babus may not but army surely know we can not protect our nation sollly depending on imports. Yet it continue to seek imports even of items for which there are national alternative.

In respect of the Army losing respect etc surly almost ever institutuin got degenerated. But that is not the reason for not getting involved in nation weapon making efforts.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3594
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Paul » 13 Feb 2014 21:43

^^^
Can be loaded on a C130 and deployed in DBO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26auRqvbHck

105mm on a pickup truck. Someone needs to notify the Saudis to pick these up for the FSA.
Last edited by Paul on 13 Feb 2014 21:50, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 13 Feb 2014 21:43

vic wrote:A Steel based towed non-automated 155mm/39 caliber howitzer suitable for mountain use will normally weight around 6 tons or so. If Army was so desperate for artillery for mountain warfare, it would have directed OFB to start with 155/39 caliber non-automated towed howitzers equivalent

I don't think you've thought this through.

The main arty requirement for our new mountain strike corps is a very limited and specialized requirement of only 145 guns. It calls for high mobility and being plunked down anywhere in an area where towed artillery can only cover about 10% of the territory. An ultralight 155mm capable of being carried literally anywhere in the mountains is a huge advantage over an enemy that doesn't have the same capability. The most they can do is counter with smaller guns but get out-ranged. Plus, by being able to relocate them hundreds of miles away within an hour multiplies this advantage. But maybe that's exactly what we don't want, eh?

The barriers to entry are very high because of the advanced engineering, materials and processes, so neither pakis nor Chinese will get these anytime soon. Even if one of the Saudi M777s go missing and find its way to pakiland and thence China, it will still be a long while before they can replicate it. This is a critical force multiplier and we would be making another one of our monumental errors by not getting is quickly.

narmad
BRFite
Posts: 222
Joined: 10 May 2005 09:47
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby narmad » 13 Feb 2014 22:07

Akshay Kapoor wrote:
merlin wrote:I could go on but never mind. IA is doodh ka dhoola so I'll let it pass.


Dear Merlin and others,

Thank you for your kind comments on your incompetent or perhaps even anti-national army. Perhaps you have served in the army and given blood and sweat in ops or perhaps you have worked in the MoD or in some other part of GoI ? Or are you that august breed - an armchair warrior with an 'opinion' ? Emboldened by sitting behind a PC and making general statements with little analysis or heaven forbid facts is easy. And sensible. Very sensible.

The idiotic thing to do is to actually join up, get paid a pittance, battle an enemy on your own soil with your govt doing everything possible to make you loose. The idiotic thing to do is to lead troops into action and afterwards hearing from an injured jawan that his ancestral property has been stolen by the local politician. You tell him that CO shaib will write a letter to the DM. He says 'sahib aajkal kaun poochta hai'? You wince and remember stories of a bygone era where a CO's letter would work but he is right. The silly thing to do is to use captured AKs in CI Ops because your INSAS jams, its magazine cracks. You are told that when the weapon was made by the DRDO they had a jeep or a road roller (depending on who is telling the story) go over it and it was fine. But then OFB wiaved its wand and here you are. The silly thing to do is to carry on.

I could go on and on. But whats the point? This is the Indian army. Its supposed to serve in impossible circumstances and make miracles of vision happen despite the babus and the Anthonys and the Manmohan Singhs. And when the inevitable happens then 'sensible' armchair warriors express outrage. After all as Indians, we know we can talk but do not to have to act.

So my friends, keep spewing your venom. Your countrymen in OG are used to getting it from the enemy. Why shouldnt they get it from 'home' ?




The men you are pointing out are the men in the field.
Everyone has the highest respect for them .

But the issue here is that they are not the ones who decide to import or use local products !!

The problem is way up the chain. The higher ups !!

Please keep this in mind, when the people bash the "ARMY", it is not the jawan / officers in the field.

"ARMY" bashing is for the people sitting in HQ !! leaving office early in the afternoon to go play golf

Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Virupaksha » 13 Feb 2014 22:30

and you know that the first thing which an enemy psy-ops says is

"lions led by wolves"

because well if the lions (soldiers) do not follow in spirit and go beyond what the wolves (officers) orders is defeat.

So please spare me, no no, it is not jawans but officers in golf courses. It was the first line in psyops warfare.

Can you name ONE officer who did that when there was a pending duty?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7989
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nachiket » 13 Feb 2014 22:50

This is from Shukla's report
Meanwhile, the Defence R&D Organisation is spearheading the Advanced Towed Artillery Gun (ATAG) project, to build an even more powerful 155 millimetre, 52 calibre gun. This gun will range out to 60 kilometres, with a weight of just 12 tonnes, making it ideal for the narrow, twisting roads along which it would have to be transported along Indian’s Himalayan frontiers.


60km range?? The FH-77B05 graphic above states its range as 40km. How is DRDO going to achieve a 60km range for a similar gun?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17036
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 13 Feb 2014 22:54

base bleed and other improvements in ammo ?

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2097
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Picklu » 13 Feb 2014 23:01

It has to be other improvements in ammo because FH-77B05 mentions 40 KM with HE base bleed. May be HE ER BB?

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 13 Feb 2014 23:07

mody wrote:Rohit my main blame for the army is that the desi bofos clone, even with 39 cal barrel, was achievable 10 years ago.
The army knew this, yet did not act on it. The requirement for Towed artillery is huge. Even if the army was hoping to get the best of the best foreign maal within a few years time, they could have still gone with a stop gap production of 155 mm 39 cal desi bofors guns, right from 2002 timeframe, if they had taken the initiative.


The problem with your assertion - and similar ones made by others - is that it based on hindsight. Even by Indian standards of defense procurement, the case of arty acquisition is that of an extremely screwed-up program because of extraneous reasons.

Having said that, your argument about asking for new 155/39 caliber gun in 2001 as 'interim' solution presupposes the fact that OFB could deliver such a gun in short time frame. Which is hardly the case. If things had gone as per plan, then even with 4-year period of trials, the order for 155/52 caliber gun could have been placed in 2006. I am expecting the OFB would have taken at least 2-3 years to deliver the product and go through the trial and induction phase.

To say that we wasted 10-years and 'something' could have been done is mere wishful thinking. OFB 'proofed' the 45 caliber barrel in 2007 and starting from 2010 started working on 155/45 Caliber Dhanush - which is likely to enter service next year; that is a 4-year period for you after we've made considerable progress in this field. What makes you think the 155/39 caliber gun would have come in 'quick' time in 2001-2002?

Later OFB showed them a 45 cal barrel, fitted it on a existing bofors gun, but the army refused to proceed with this program.


If the first 45 caliber barrel was proofed in 2007, when was the 155/45 gun shows to IA? Even if it was shown, there was no point in inducting a 45 caliber weapon when competition for 52 caliber gun was own. In spite of all the hoopla about Dhanush gun, only a small number is being inducted - and rightly so. With DRDO developing the larger caliber gun, there is no need to throw money into two different programs when the latter is the definite requirement.

The army has no confidence in OFB's, justifiable to an extent and also on DRDO. They do not want to take ownership of programs and put in realistic requirements, which can then be incrementally improved. Having indigenous capability for defense production, also translates to military strength of the country.


Which is a nice catch-all phrase but does not apply to the artillery saga.

Sadly army's contribution in this area is has been very poor. The case of 88 or 120 mm mortars is also case in point. So also the saga of APFSDS rounds for the tanks. The list can go on and on. This is the reason that we continue to import so much of the ammunition, small arms etc.


So, IA has its fare share of blame when its comes to BBC driver GSOR or project management - but how about looking at each case on its merit rather than make catch all phrases?

It is quite funny that everyone expects IA to do the heavy lifting in addition to its main job. While the defense R&D and OFB are assumed to be all warts and pimple free. Tell me - what has been done to improve the manufacturing at OFB? The APFSDS fiasco would not have happened but for the ultimate ch@@tiayapa by OFB of mixing the charges.

The requirement to maintain operational preparedness of Indian Army and its commitment remain constant - with ever increasing threat complexity. The first job of the IA is to ensure that meets this responsibility - and it will require weapons and equipment for doing its job. Whether Indian or imported.

And indigenous programs cannot be launched for requirements which existed yesterday. If the technology has not been denied and if we can afford it, it needs to be imported ASAP. And let the domestic R&D complex work on next iteration.

After much roller-coaster ride both the IA and DRDO understand the requirement of long term planning - and that is why the Long Term Perspective Plan was drawn up for next 15 years. It clearly lays down the requirements during this period, assessment of our scientific base to provide the solution(s) and areas which R&D set-up needs to target to bring the knowledge gap.

2001-2010 has been the defining period in our R&D and manufacturing space. IA has seen successful and world class product(s) being delivered by DRDO and has move confidence on them - but not OFB. The aspect of BBC driven GSQR seems to have toned down and IA understands the project management bit that much better. It is not there with IN but at least the process has started. The us versus them mentality is much reduced. The DRDO is more mature and does not bite more than it can chew - it has been smart in terms of what it wants to do. Long story short - we're much better positioned now than before.

After all this the result will be that Dhanush if it passes the tests, will be inducted and will be found to be a huge improvement over existing guns in IA inventory. Just imagine, if this had happened 10 years ago.


Well, if the 155/52 caliber gun had been inducted 7-8 years back, it would have been superior to whatever is being inducted from OFB stable now.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 13 Feb 2014 23:10

Sagar G wrote:<SNIP>I have seen that pic before though had somehow missed the Ti-Al use mentioned there but I faintly remember an interview given by either Dattar or Chander where they had talked of using titanium alloy for weight reduction wherever possible so it's on expected lines only. All in all nothing out of the box which is good given that we first need to create a manufacturing base, though the follow on designs are very interesting.


The 52 caliber barrel requires much higher percentage of titanium as compared to 45 caliber one.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Sagar G » 13 Feb 2014 23:23

nachiket wrote:This is from Shukla's report
Meanwhile, the Defence R&D Organisation is spearheading the Advanced Towed Artillery Gun (ATAG) project, to build an even more powerful 155 millimetre, 52 calibre gun. This gun will range out to 60 kilometres, with a weight of just 12 tonnes, making it ideal for the narrow, twisting roads along which it would have to be transported along Indian’s Himalayan frontiers.


60km range?? The FH-77B05 graphic above states its range as 40km. How is DRDO going to achieve a 60km range for a similar gun?


Rahul M wrote:base bleed and other improvements in ammo ?


Picklu wrote:It has to be other improvements in ammo because FH-77B05 mentions 40 KM with HE base bleed. May be HE ER BB?


Image

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54780
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 13 Feb 2014 23:25

vic, Dont' make unnecessary alleagations on Rohitvats. He has the right to defend his views.
Suggest you delete your post.
ramana

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 13 Feb 2014 23:58

Narmad,

Thats another loose statement. I have served in the field and felt all your attacks were aimed at people like me. Every point I made was experienced first hand. Please check what official army timings are. In units in peace stations the day starts at 5.30 with BPET. Office closes at 1.30. The afternoon is for resting. Games start in the afternoon. Are you suggesting we change the whole structure of military life ? Have you ever done a Class 2 Rope or a monkey crawl? Ever fired a weapon ? Ever had to see a battle casualty ? Ever seen an amputee try to run BPET to go back to serve in his unit? Ever heard of Lt Gen Pankaj Joshi, Maj Gen Cardozo, Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi?

I am appalled at the level of ignorance of some posters here.

Some people say the army hates the DRDO. Utter Bullshit. And does the DRDO hate the army? Absolutely not. I have seen it first hand on numerous ocassions in interactions (social). I think this DRDO vs Army fantasy is a creation of some so called enthusiasts who have formed opinions on partial information and half baked press articles. And then your ego makes you defend those opinions as if they were the truth.

Anyway I thinking I am wasting my breath. Sorry, please carry on your abuse. I wont post again.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_22539 » 14 Feb 2014 06:42

^Thanks for that. I hope you keep your word. The IA is not some holy cow that should be protected against the slightest of criticism. Just because you "served in the field" doesn't make you better than any other poster on this forum. The sort of indignation you show at the slightest opposition is reminiscent of the holier than thou attitude in the upper echelons of the IA that is responsible for this mess in the first place (along with other things). So, PLEASE, do not post again. I for one would be quite grateful.
Last edited by Rahul M on 14 Feb 2014 09:34, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: user warned. banned for a month.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20954
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 14 Feb 2014 07:34

The main reason why the desi Bofors was never in anyone's mind is that repeated trials/tenders for firang systems were going on for almost a decade,with the hope that a better more advanced system than the Bofors would be acquired.The games played by rivals to get each other blacklisted scuppered the contests and the MOD/AKA were simply too indecisive ,especially as the "ghost of Bofors" continues to haunt Congresswallahs.Don't blame the IA for the mess.The blame for the mess lies squarely with the MOD.The IA in any case do not run the OFB and how would they know if the OFB was capable of producing the desi Bofors or not,or force the OFB to produce the gun? That responsibility lies with the MOD.

Just as was the case with the AJT,a decision which took over two decades,the IA have been pleading for any bl**dy arty piece to be chosen so that they will be able to wage war when neccessary.After 26 years of obfuscating by the MOD,attempts to shift the blame onto the IA is simply ridiculous and unfair.Their responsibility is to draw up acceptable specs,conduct fair trials of the systems competing and give their findings.The MOD then negotiates on prices,etc.

PS:AKA is now the longest serving Deaf...sorry,Def. Min. in the nation's history.He has had over a decade at the helm to pursue indigenisation,which is shamefully just 30% of our def. budget. Where the hell was he qll these years in pursuing the indigenous Bofors option when the imbroglio on the arty contests occurred? Surely he is the one who should know best what his OFB can produce or not.After all ,all the blessed files are with the MOD,not with the IA,but then as a Jabalpore offical said recently,he cannot tell the difference between the original and upgraded gun!

Antony cut the ribbon. The “155mm” bay in Jabalpore ordnance factory is the assembly line for the Dhanush. So, was the gun already made?

“No,” says the official. But he explains that, at the bay, they showed the components of the gun: the trailer, the carriage, the assembly, the barrel and the breech, the muzzle brake, the cradle and the saddle, the trunnions.

“We just took apart a Bofors for the minister,” the official explained, “and laid it out.”

He smirked: “He (Antony) wouldn’t know the difference between a 39 calibre and a 45 calibre.”

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 14 Feb 2014 07:58

what is the cost differential between a basic 155mm shell vs all these base bleed 40-50km iShells?
unless we find a way to manufacture them cheaply with all parts locally sourced, its kind of pointless to fight about these extended ranges.....we wont have enough to pump out when the time comes. perhaps the higher pressure of longer barrels and basic shells is the only thing we can do.

Hari Sud
BRFite
Posts: 182
Joined: 12 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Hari Sud » 14 Feb 2014 08:01

No, Phillip you got it wrong.

Indian army with endless trials and retrials were able to delay the whole process of acquisitions. The MOD boss had only one fault, he could not end the process of RFP, tender and trials sooner. Army virtually could not conclude which hardware is better for them to acquire hence went on nit picking, which started retrials until the foreign vendors one by one scummbed to the pressure of blacklisting. They may have bribed but not always true. The arms agents were setting one hardware suppliers against other by starting a gossip of bribery. The delays multiplied.

Now Desi Bofor is all what the army will get, hence they have reconciled to it, provided it works. Again endless trials. That is where army could be faulted again.

In fact they should take charge of the Desi Bofor in collaboration with OFB. Later that collaboration should be enhanced to get a better gun indigenously with a few imported parts which meets their requirements.

Just to remind the readers the Pakistani 155/52 guns is a old discarded US gun which they were allowed to acquire and scrounge around for parts and rest they made themselves. The Chinese NORINCO gun 155/52 is the worst gun on this planet.

May be Desi Bofor may come out ahead.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests