Artillery: News & Discussion

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3696
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nam » 05 May 2018 15:35

BF already has idea on what needs to be done to reduce weight on ATAGS. They have 155MM ULWH. Some of those ideas can be ported to ATAGS.

They can provide options to the Army. Take lighter ATAGS with titanium parts, but more expensive than steel version.

BF is already doing this with ULWH towed. They have both the steel and titanium version.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 05 May 2018 16:01

Kashi wrote:
Cybaru wrote:How does it matter, what the weight is? We have bridges that cant take 17 tons?


More like we lack trucks that can pull 17 tons- or at least that's one of the "explanations" that I have seen parroted around.


we have a range of semi trucks from AL/Tata/Benz/Volvo/Tatra/MM made locally and readily available that can tow 17tons .... they are hauling 40 feet x 8 x 8 containers all over. once an order is placed they can supply 100s of such trucks annually , well ahead of the gun production rate.

they can usually go on grades of 25% under full load. dealers can setup BRDs at wherever the artillery divisions need. no more waiting for unique parts from "rosboronexport" or massa's iffy PMS mood to be good for some khan made parts.

we no longer need extremely x-country tatra trucks for this role I think....the kind of trucks that serve high duty cycles in hot and dusty conditions of mining and construction industry are good enough civilian COTS solution

eg
https://www.volvotrucks.in/en-in/trucks ... tness.html

reeks of sabotage to put a impossible 1/3 weight reduction after all firing tests are done, on the famed "mobility" hook. pretty much all PWD concrete bridges down to village level can take 70 tons of load by design. they are regularly used by illegally overloaded trucks.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 05 May 2018 16:15

if titanium is used cost will skyrocket. I think we lack deposits and mills in india and import the raw billets.
increased cost -> less procurement numbers

meantime those who stand to gain by increasing the M777 and M777-52 will cry from the rooftops about the cost , teething troubles and complexity of atags to get their payday

ragupta
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ragupta » 05 May 2018 19:02

If steel based product can provide the same function and performance at a cheaper cost, then it should be used.
Except for being light weight, what does it offer. India needs the artillery within its own land mass, so transportation issue can be handled by road and other means. As it is artillery are not going to be fired every day, when needed quantity will trump quantity.

ragupta
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ragupta » 05 May 2018 19:04

It is a collasal waste of money, by going for exotic and unnecessary feature, when Army keeps complaining about shortage of money. Soldiers will be better served with smart and functional weapons than with exotic and rarely used feature products.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 05 May 2018 19:38

its time to think and plan big than downsize our systems for the "creaky turd world infra" model

tunnel under the rohtang pass, railway to tawang all of these are coming along or approved. the old boo boo of having to hack it on impossible steep and twisty roads will go away.



GHY - Itanagar shatabdi - 100s of heavy vehicles and tens of wagons of ammo could go in a single BG 10,000t train hauled by couple high power diesel GE WDG4G locos

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2924
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 05 May 2018 20:02

I highly doubt that titanium will be required to reduce weight, but I think they will have to change the design of the gun carriage etc. - they don't look like clean sheet designs, probably ported over from Denel/Austrian design.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2924
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 05 May 2018 20:14

The last mile connectivity will always remain a challenge with the terrain not withstanding the new rail and road links. This is from an article posted a few days ago
Now, 56 years later, the Indian Army still relies largely on its troopers’ guts to defend Kahoo village, the Kibithu sector, the district of Anjaw, the state of Arunachal Pradesh and the republic of India. Kibithu is still connected to the rest of India with nothing more than mule tracks, a footbridge dangling over the cascading Lohit river which a company of troops will take 40 minutes to cross, a country road that gets blocked by landslides for more than 200 days a year and that can barely take a 130mm towed light cannon, and no phone line. Two recent attempts to move the heavier 155mm Bofors guns failed, as the bends on the road are too narrow.

viewtopic.php?p=2267517#p2267517

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3696
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nam » 05 May 2018 20:19

The current version of ATAGS are prototypes. There is obviously room for refinement, nothing wrong in it. IA could agree on getting a production variant of the current version, say 150 or 250 of them.

This should give time to the producers, to provide with a iterated version, with reduced weight steel or more expensive with titanium parts replacing the heavier areas etc. Option should be given to IA with clear pros and cons. BF CEO has mentioned this as he intends to showcase two version of ULWH. 6.5 ton steel version, cheaper to procure and maintain. 4.5 to 5 ton tfta titanium, expensive to buy and maintenance intensive.

Let IA choose which path they want to go. MoD draws a line on the budget, before IA dreams about more TFTA..

We need to built a good, reliable gun in numbers. Then sell them like pancakes to every tom, dick and harry of the world..

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 05 May 2018 20:23

kibithu is 10km north of walong and 2km from the border, but why does bofors need to be sited at kibithu when all these howitzers have adequate range and elevation angle to offer fire support from safer well supplied and camouflaged spots deeper in the interior. none of these can elevate low enough to offer direct fire in a practical manner from higher ground into the valleys.

I would imagine places like kibithu and walong needs lots of agile 105mm in small caves and bunkers, ATGMs, mortars and small IFVs with 20 or 30mm cannons.

if Cheen is able to swarm all over these places with infantry and helicopter gunships the battle would already be lost. Cheen attack will have to be smashed 20km inside Tibet, using howitzers, airstrikes and rockets

its better to have deep attack and flexible defence than hunker down in one spot like japanese did in Iwo jima and tarawa

the entire USP of having a 25 liter chamber and 52 cal is not the prestige of having a huge gun to tow around but to cover more circular area :twisted:
if at all a 155mm piece is needed right at the border checkpoint, the mighty Sinooks can earn their keep airlifting the m777 iphones onsite :oops:

ATAGS/Dhanush, Pinaka and garuda gliding bombs would make a hellacious combo imo if used enmasse

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3696
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nam » 05 May 2018 20:39

If you ask me they should have build a 55/57 caliber ATAGS instead of the 52!

It has a strong base, might as well increase it to 57 caliber.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 05 May 2018 20:47

55 cal is the 5” gun the us navy uses now we ordered for p17a

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2924
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 05 May 2018 21:48

Video: IAF's Chopper Mi-17V5 Airlifts Light Field Gun to Position in High Altitude Arunachal Pradesh (although it not very clear)

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54546
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 07 May 2018 23:28

Twitter reports L&T has delivered 25 K-9 guns.
Remaining 75 guns.

Speculation is 18 guns for the first regiment and rest for the training center.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1981
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kakarat » 08 May 2018 01:03

^I think the twitter report is based on this
L&T to deliver first lot of K9 VAJRA-T guns by the end of May

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54546
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 08 May 2018 01:34

Yes. you are right.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3622
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kashi » 08 May 2018 08:25

I have been trawling for the information but have not come across any suggestions that the Vajra order will go beyond 100.

Are we going to restrict ourselves to 100 Vajras?

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3850
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby hnair » 08 May 2018 09:50

FWIW, had a small dinner chat with a recently retired Colonel from artillery. He is from the Sanjoi Mirpur battle-honor crew. Some insights

1)India's 105mm IFG, based on brit design, has those large springs that causes things to not work as well on the field. Awkward design of handles for gun-laying. Very strenuous, am guessing particularly in harsh weather up in the mountains, where things freeze up

2) russian 130mm is apparently a great design, that lays emphasis on using simple-machine/lever principles, which make it easy to use and less prone to breakdowns on the field. Maybe because their design team has to test this in tundra, they had a better insight than brits

3) FH77 is boss, thanks to automatic gun-laying and though a bit more specialist maintenance is required, is clearly the leader of the pack

4) Lifting up the towing-arms/spades manually is where they separate the men from boys. seems 8 odd folks, from the officer onwards, need to keep their spines ramrod stiff and use only the hamstrings to lift the nearly one-tonne arms and swing it to position. If one does this part wrong, you can get debilitating back issues and screw up the whole gun-team's happiness. Guessing here: this is why the ATAGS, with what looks like even more massive tow-arms than the existing pieces, needed those electric drives on the smaller wheels in the arms. Also reason why Army might be asking for weight reduction, incase of subsystem failure of the drives

5) Accuracy at full range is an issue that is slowly being eliminated by the electronics of newer guns and of course, the pgm-types. So in the past, base-bleed rounds are not used much. Which means most of the LOC duels must have been within 20 kms range or so, using terrain as mask etc.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 08 May 2018 10:44

anything that runs, walks or crawls in the artillery front must immediately be sent to northern and eastern command including the vajras for eastern ladakh or north sikkim.

there is absolutely no point in investing or earmarking anything for TSP when we need to intimidate a foe that is 10X more potent

make it very clear that while they may choose to land the first blow, we will land the last and PERMANENTLY annex some swathes of territory and dare them to escalate into tactical nuclear if they want it back in a second round.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 08 May 2018 16:40

The news from various quarters about arty delivery/dev. is very heartening,especially since there are pct. entities working in parallel with the DPSUs to deliver diff. types.If I remember right,did we not upgrade Sov. era 130mm guns to 155 or 152 mm some time (with israel?) ago as a stop-gap arrangement? If so how many? L&T to hand over the frirt batch of 25 pieces is great news. So is the clip of an MI-17V transporting a light arty piece in the mountains.In the absence of an equivalent infra like what the Chins have in Tibet,our reliance upon helo lift will be very heavy and crucial.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2738
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby JTull » 08 May 2018 16:54

India’s Ordnance Factory Board Banks On In-House Efforts For Growth

OFB’s ability to credibly upgrade legacy designs is further burnished by the fact that its upgrade kit for ‘up-gunning’ old IA 130 mm M-46 field guns to 155 mm / 45 calibre howitzers has been selected by the IA over imported kits being offered by domestic private players. It seems that OFB’s indigenous solution was the only one to actually pass technical muster. At the moment, OFB is awaiting an order for the upgrade of some 300 M-46 units, which it expects to receive soon. The up-gunned M-46s achieve a maximum range of just over 38 km with ERFB-BB rounds.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54546
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 08 May 2018 21:15

Philip wrote:The news from various quarters about arty delivery/dev. is very heartening,especially since there are pct. entities working in parallel with the DPSUs to deliver diff. types.If I remember right,did we not upgrade Sov. era 130mm guns to 155 or 152 mm some time (with israel?) ago as a stop-gap arrangement? If so how many? L&T to hand over the frirt batch of 25 pieces is great news. So is the clip of an MI-17V transporting a light arty piece in the mountains.In the absence of an equivalent infra like what the Chins have in Tibet,our reliance upon helo lift will be very heavy and crucial.



Despite OFB winning this tender for 300 M-46 upgrades, no order has been issued. So again hung in abeyance in MoD. This upgrade is called Sarang.
About another 750 are available.

The 105mm LFG version is capable of being lifted by helicopter.

The Soviet 152mm was offered with re-bored 155mm barrel but didn't make the cut.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54546
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 08 May 2018 21:29

hnair wrote:FWIW, had a small dinner chat with a recently retired Colonel from artillery. He is from the Sanjoi Mirpur battle-honor crew. Some insights

1)India's 105mm IFG, based on brit design, has those large springs that causes things to not work as well on the field. Awkward design of handles for gun-laying. Very strenuous, am guessing particularly in harsh weather up in the mountains, where things freeze up

2) russian 130mm is apparently a great design, that lays emphasis on using simple-machine/lever principles, which make it easy to use and less prone to breakdowns on the field. Maybe because their design team has to test this in tundra, they had a better insight than brits

3) FH77 is boss, thanks to automatic gun-laying and though a bit more specialist maintenance is required, is clearly the leader of the pack

4) Lifting up the towing-arms/spades manually is where they separate the men from boys. seems 8 odd folks, from the officer onwards, need to keep their spines ramrod stiff and use only the hamstrings to lift the nearly one-tonne arms and swing it to position. If one does this part wrong, you can get debilitating back issues and screw up the whole gun-team's happiness. Guessing here: this is why the ATAGS, with what looks like even more massive tow-arms than the existing pieces, needed those electric drives on the smaller wheels in the arms. Also reason why Army might be asking for weight reduction, incase of subsystem failure of the drives

5) Accuracy at full range is an issue that is slowly being eliminated by the electronics of newer guns and of course, the pgm-types. So in the past, base-bleed rounds are not used much. Which means most of the LOC duels must have been within 20 kms range or so, using terrain as mask etc.



Thanks for talking to a real live arty officer.
Russain 130 mm is a Gun Howitzer and has direct fire mode which allows use in plains and mountains for the high angle fire feature. However due to the trails, it has limitation on the elevation angle. Workarounds are there due to ingenuity of Indian soldier but they are workarounds.


A few questions :
The 105mm came in two different designs.

http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/weapons/wlc/3.htm

The earlier version (IFG) had lot of negative feed back.

Is he familiar with the second version of LFG?


Yes electronic location and fire control allows more accurate gun laying.

Regarding electronic fuzes. Now these are more delicate then mechanical fuzes and shell balloting could cause premature fire in the barrel. How does IA control barrel wear as that is only feature under user control.
has he seen this muzzle strike in FH77 as is reported by TOI.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3696
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nam » 08 May 2018 23:54

hnair wrote:4) Lifting up the towing-arms/spades manually is where they separate the men from boys. seems 8 odd folks, from the officer onwards, need to keep their spines ramrod stiff and use only the hamstrings to lift the nearly one-tonne arms and swing it to position. If one does this part wrong, you can get debilitating back issues and screw up the whole gun-team's happiness. Guessing here: this is why the ATAGS, with what looks like even more massive tow-arms than the existing pieces, needed those electric drives on the smaller wheels in the arms. Also reason why Army might be asking for weight reduction, incase of subsystem failure of the drives


ATAGS is suppose to lift 6 rounds, compared to 3 on Bofors. There is no way any such thing can be done manually.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1816
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sudeepj » 09 May 2018 00:06

nam wrote:
sudeepj wrote:Possibly two or three tonnes can be reduced by replacing steel wheels with alloy, replace regular steel in trails with ultra-high-strength steel or titanium. More than that is simply asking for trouble. Meanwhile Pakis have inducted Panter in numbers.. 155mmx52Cal Turkish artillery that outranges any tube that we have today.


Paks don't have Panther. They decided not to induct it due to.... weight!


Numerous source indicate that they have 72 guns built under ToT from Turkey. Even the OEMs web page says Pak ordered their guns..

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3696
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nam » 09 May 2018 00:13

sudeepj wrote:
nam wrote:
Paks don't have Panther. They decided not to induct it due to.... weight!


Numerous source indicate that they have 72 guns built under ToT from Turkey. Even the OEMs web page says Pak ordered their guns..


Comments from Pak fora says, they did not induct it. Couple of them were "gifted" and it is been used as a while elephant.

If they have been license building, by this time they would be shouting from the roof, it is the best thing after bread ever since they touched it.

jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby jaysimha » 09 May 2018 15:12

bit old / known news.........posting for records.

Press Information Bureau
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
05-March-2018 15:00 IST
Supply of Fake Chinese Parts for Dhanush Guns

An anonymous complaint was lodged in one case of procurement of 6 Wire Race Roller Bearing purchased from M/s Sidh Sales Syndicate, Delhi by Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur, being fitted in 155mm x 45 Calibre Gun ‘Dhanush’. As per the purchase order, these bearings were to be sourced from M/s CRB, Germany. Preliminary investigation has revealed that the bearings supplied by M/s Sidh Sales Syndicate, Delhi were manufactured by a Chinese firm and not by M/s CRB, Germany. There is no adverse observation regarding quality of bearings. Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) has further referred the case to CBI, Economic Wing for more detailed enquiry as recommended by Chief Vigilance Officer, OFB. Business dealing with M/s Sidh Sales Syndicate, Delhi has been suspended by OFB.
This information was given by RakshaRajyaMantriDr. Subhash Bhamre in a written reply to ShriC.M. Rameshin Rajya Sabha today.
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=176946
NAo/Nampi/Rajib/HS

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54546
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 09 May 2018 19:15

Yes this case was followed up and new parts procured for the production Dhanush.

Only we haven't heard if the OFB officials were dismissed for their role in spurious parts procurement.

Arun.prabhu
BRFite
Posts: 445
Joined: 28 Aug 2016 19:26

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Arun.prabhu » 10 May 2018 06:59

Not true. You can airdrop anything once and you can lift this weight once and then go into medical retirement with a broken and ruined back.

And in battle, I'm sure that our heroic jawans have done just that if required. Just read the citations of our awards for martial valour. The indomitable human spirit can accomplish supernatural things when driven by sufficient will.

nam wrote:
hnair wrote:4) Lifting up the towing-arms/spades manually is where they separate the men from boys. seems 8 odd folks, from the officer onwards, need to keep their spines ramrod stiff and use only the hamstrings to lift the nearly one-tonne arms and swing it to position. If one does this part wrong, you can get debilitating back issues and screw up the whole gun-team's happiness. Guessing here: this is why the ATAGS, with what looks like even more massive tow-arms than the existing pieces, needed those electric drives on the smaller wheels in the arms. Also reason why Army might be asking for weight reduction, incase of subsystem failure of the drives


ATAGS is suppose to lift 6 rounds, compared to 3 on Bofors. There is no way any such thing can be done manually.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54546
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 10 May 2018 22:47

^^^ Where are you going with your argument?

We want the gun team to deliver effective fire and not suffer broken backs for heroic effort by lifting unnecessary weights.

Arun.prabhu
BRFite
Posts: 445
Joined: 28 Aug 2016 19:26

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Arun.prabhu » 11 May 2018 07:08

nowhere. Just observing that machines break down in battle under fire and when that happens,it falls on our jawans to save the day by being used up.

ramana wrote:^^^ Where are you going with your argument?

We want the gun team to deliver effective fire and not suffer broken backs for heroic effort by lifting unnecessary weights.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3850
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby hnair » 11 May 2018 16:40

nam, what I quoted is not the ordinance loading capability of FH77 or ATAGS (3 shells vs 6), but lifting the very heavy tow-arm manually from towing mode to firing position and vice-versa. Also ordinance-handling crane is a good feature, but can be supplanted during breakdown with a bucket-brigade or human-chain can be used to feed the ammo-tray of the gun, as is the case with the older guns.

ramana wrote:

Thanks for talking to a real live arty officer.
Russain 130 mm is a Gun Howitzer and has direct fire mode which allows use in plains and mountains for the high angle fire feature. However due to the trails, it has limitation on the elevation angle. Workarounds are there due to ingenuity of Indian soldier but they are workarounds.


A few questions :
The 105mm came in two different designs.

http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/weapons/wlc/3.htm

The earlier version (IFG) had lot of negative feed back.

Is he familiar with the second version of LFG?


Yes electronic location and fire control allows more accurate gun laying.

Regarding electronic fuzes. Now these are more delicate then mechanical fuzes and shell balloting could cause premature fire in the barrel. How does IA control barrel wear as that is only feature under user control.
has he seen this muzzle strike in FH77 as is reported by TOI.


ramanaji, a few observations:

I did not clarify, but my assumption is that he was talking about the second version, since he is a mid-90s era cadet. Has served tours in Siachen during bad times.

Btw, the gun laying system's high altitude/extreme cold-weather issues with those coil springs (and other pinions), seem to have been reported in the L118 (and its variants) by both US as well as UK. Net has lots of pics with the those coil springs wrapped in cloth bagging

British:
Image

From wiki, american enhancements in Afghanistan:

Project Manager for Towed Artillery Systems (PM TAS) has developed several upgrades for the M119A3 including digital fire control, increased low temperature capability from −25 to −51 °F (−32 to −46 °C), and the M20 breech. The recoil system is also being upgraded, as the legacy system had reliability issues with the recuperator, buffer, and variable recoil linkage (which sets recoil length based on elevation); it had a lot of moving parts needing constant maintenance and adjustment during operations with high replacement rates of spares that are complex to manufacture and require specialized tooling to assemble, increasing costs and causing availability problems. The redesigned system operates the same, but modifies and simplifies some components, including a new buffer and recuperator with a majority of the components removed, and adds the Suspension Lockout System (SLOS) that fixes recoil length at 25 in (64 cm), which removes variable-recoil hardware, reduces stress on the carriage, and lowers buffer rod forces; the new system reduces cost, number of parts by 40 percent to 75, and overall weight by 45 lb (20 kg).[4]


American troops with the gun (the gunny bag is visible )
Image

Not sure I want to ask about muzzle strike, but will ask if there is any online or open source material about the same, which escaped our searches (eg; videos)

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2380
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby manjgu » 11 May 2018 17:25

isnt the panter weight almost same as ATAGS??

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54546
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 11 May 2018 21:25

So the US improvements were : fixed recoil, new muzzle brake aka buffer/recuperator.
I wish they used the word altitude instead of elevation when talking about guns!

The fixed recoil reduces the complexity and improves reliability. The new muzzle brake reduces the recoil and both are needed together.
DFC improves gun laying accuracy.

Cold weather causes the spring material to go brittle. This causes more recoil forces.
So most likely new spring material which has good tensile strength at that temperature range.

Most spring materials are not used in this low temperature environment.


Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2813
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Vips » 15 May 2018 21:05

Army moving towards procuring mounted gun system, trying to revalidate project.

In its latest efforts to equip its artillery regiments with news guns, the Indian Army is finally moving towards procuring 814 of the ‘mounted gun system’- a gun mounted on a wheeled vehicle- a project worth about Rs 15,750 crore.

The army is trying to ‘re-validate’ the project and seek a fresh Acceptance of Necessity (AoN) from the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) headed by the defence minister, Nirmala Sitharaman, ministry officials explained.

The AoN is the first step towards procuring an equipment. In this case, the AoN for acquiring the 155mm/52 caliber mounted gun system for the army for Rs 15,750 crore was given in November 22, 2014 by the DAC headed by the then defence minister Manohar Parrikar. For the army, the gun is a major requirement, as once procured they will be deployed along the western frontier with Pakistan and the eastern one with China.

“But the Request for Proposal (RFP) was not issued within the validity period of the AoN and so the AoN had lapsed. Therefore the army will revalidate the case and seek a fresh AoN, which will restart the process,” explained officials.


The circus starts again.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54546
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 16 May 2018 01:46

Seems like a joke.
AON has not changed.

Need is still there.

Why was RFP not issued on time?

Just a merry go around with pompous acronyms to delay and increase costs.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2091
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Picklu » 16 May 2018 16:41

Tatra dhanush is now a solid candidate for MGS in MII category. This option was not there earlier.

My wild ass guess off course.

sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 344
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sarabpal.s » 16 May 2018 19:27

Picklu wrote:Tatra dhanush is now a solid candidate for MGS in MII category. This option was not there earlier.

My wild ass guess off course.

They still need to refine it , by removing some unnecessary equipment which is for tow base ,look at the French . also choice of truck should b 6*6 and gun need to base right on top of rear wheels

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8174
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Indranil » 16 May 2018 19:49

The latest french mounted system is a 8X8. So, now “should” our mounted system be 8X8?


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests