Artillery: News & Discussion

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8947
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 22 Oct 2018 18:37

nam wrote: The US requirement is different as in, it requires such rounds to provide on demand CAS for troops in places like Afghanistion. A precision artillery round is cheaper than LGB droppped from an airplane. And ofcourse very high availability as it is a artillery system.


It is actually operating in non-permissive environments that is driving this need. The fact that they cannot count on guaranteed access to A-10s or AH-64s to help out with CAS (and the Air Force is busy establishing Air-Superiority over a region), is leading them down the path of wanting to possess organic capability to extend indirect fires via cannon out to 130-150 km and rockets to the 150-200 km objective in the medium to far term. Similarly, ATACMS replacement ups its range from 300+ to 499 km and with the US leaving the INF, the Army will likely also field more land based systems to match the numerical advantage China enjoys with its Medium-Intermediate ranged missiles in the Pacific. It also reduces logistics if you do not need to put forward multiple system types to get a desired effect at range.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8186
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 22 Oct 2018 23:02

What about costs?!!

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8947
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 22 Oct 2018 23:07

Costs of what and what level i.e. the cost of buying a round, or the cost of actually employing it? While the former is fixed the latter can vary considerably with how you deploy and the overall costs you face.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8186
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 22 Oct 2018 23:54

I know that the second one has a lot of variables. So let us stick to the first.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8947
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 23 Oct 2018 00:55

On the first, the rounds should not really be any more expensive (or significantly different) from the ones that are currently on offer. The XM1113 with PGK should cost about the same as another round with PGK, and the Excalibur for ERCA costs the same since it does for the current guns and not require any modifications. When you go beyond this range, you are then no longer competing with Artillery rounds, but have to weight using a different weapon to strike the same target. Will a PG round delivered at 130 km from a M777 cost less or more than a GMLRS for the same target? I don't think so but if I can accomplish the mission using the M777 then I don't have to fly in a HIMARS or alternatively I can do more with less logistical burden.

The ER-GMLRS itself should not cost very different from the current GMLRS which is also guided. Modifications add a tail control section and slightly enlarge the motor and don't really tinker around with the most expensive components such as guidance.

As I have said before in the US thread, these products will be capability enhancements and not capability replacements. You won't use the type of shell unless you have that need just like currently, you do not use a PGK if a dumb round would do (provided logistical constraints are not relevant) and you won't use Excalibur if PGK will do. This is why you procure all three and not use one to replace all. But yes, the US needs are very unique given the expeditionary environment of deployment and the fact that it will likely be at a numerical disadvantage against most peer adversaries in case of a conflict. This does not apply to the same degree for others.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54689
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 23 Oct 2018 01:33

Indranil and nam et al, think in Indian terms.
What is feasible:
India has Dhanush 45 cal, Sarang M-46 upgrade with 45 cal and ATAGS 52 cal, K-9 with 52 Cal, and M-777 with 39 cal.
All fire the M-107 and the ERFA BB/BT shells.
Looking at the user trials looks like ERFA BB/BT shells are the preferred ones.
Of these the ATAGS has max range and M-777 and Bofors the least range.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3487
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby fanne » 23 Oct 2018 06:18

How about this, a super gun (likes of Gun of Navarone, though lesser caliber) that can fire PRECISOULY at 90 KM or 120 KM, placed say 45 KM inside border (reverse slope, in caves etc. and all that), in AP, Sikkim and JK can plummet any PLA or TSPAF movement (which will be against restricted mountain access (almost most of them mapped beforehand)). This can stop rapid advancement of troops, buildup against attacj, stop/slow advancement and breakthrough). Being 45 KM inside border (and reaching 45 to 75 KM inside enemy territory) it will be unit too far. Yes rounds etc. will be very expensive, but very very effective. It will need deep intel, space and airborne recce capability (which current tech can provide, UAV, satellites (micro-satellites - have cheap and 100s of them orbiting, that provide almost constant observation over area), special forces on known way points). This could be a deal braker in mountainous region. E.g. Sikkim being at best 220 Km, one gun (you will have a battery of it) can cover almost 50 KM, 5 guns can cover whole of Sikkim. A unit of 10 guns each, i.e. 50 of these can disrupt PLAAF movement. A vertical dive round can do wonders in narrow passes, covered with tall mountains on both side, but a narrow strip of path, a big round falling direct overhead can make a mincemeat of anything.

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

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby Singha » 23 Oct 2018 06:33

We need to build up numbers as priority1

Development of such er rounds will take another decade from where we are today. We do not have elo drones like sentinel nor low earth mass of satellites or jstars for target location deep behind the lines on mobile targets in real time. That hole meeds filling first . Gun is just one part of story

Massa has everything but the er shell so they can do this fast

sohamn
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 12:56
Location: the Queen of the Angels of Porziuncola
Contact:

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby sohamn » 23 Oct 2018 11:12

fanne wrote:How about this, a super gun (likes of Gun of Navarone, though lesser caliber) that can fire PRECISOULY at 90 KM or 120 KM, placed say 45 KM inside border (reverse slope, in caves etc. and all that), in AP, Sikkim and JK can plummet any PLA or TSPAF movement (which will be against restricted mountain access (almost most of them mapped beforehand)). This can stop rapid advancement of troops, buildup against attacj, stop/slow advancement and breakthrough). Being 45 KM inside border (and reaching 45 to 75 KM inside enemy territory) it will be unit too far. Yes rounds etc. will be very expensive, but very very effective. It will need deep intel, space and airborne recce capability (which current tech can provide, UAV, satellites (micro-satellites - have cheap and 100s of them orbiting, that provide almost constant observation over area), special forces on known way points). This could be a deal braker in mountainous region. E.g. Sikkim being at best 220 Km, one gun (you will have a battery of it) can cover almost 50 KM, 5 guns can cover whole of Sikkim. A unit of 10 guns each, i.e. 50 of these can disrupt PLAAF movement. A vertical dive round can do wonders in narrow passes, covered with tall mountains on both side, but a narrow strip of path, a big round falling direct overhead can make a mincemeat of anything.



super guns were failure in every wars it was used. When you have gps assisted rockets and rocket assisted artillery - you dont need a super expensive super gun.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8186
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 23 Oct 2018 11:20

Ramana Saar, that is exactly the reasoning behind my question.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2389
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 23 Oct 2018 12:35

brar_w wrote:But yes, the US needs are very unique given the expeditionary environment of deployment and the fact that it will likely be at a numerical disadvantage against most peer adversaries in case of a conflict. This does not apply to the same degree for others.


Singha wrote:We do not have elo drones like sentinel nor low earth mass of satellites or jstars for target location deep behind the lines on mobile targets in real time


ramana wrote:Indranil and nam et al, think in Indian terms.


+1

fanne wrote:How about this, a super gun (likes of Gun of Navarone, though lesser caliber) that can fire PRECISOULY at 90 KM or 120 KM, placed say 45 KM inside border (reverse slope, in caves etc. and all that)


Sir, such a non-mobile gun will be a static target once the location is known. It will likely be very difficult and too expensive to defend.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3878
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 23 Oct 2018 13:03

fanne wrote:How about this, a super gun (likes of Gun of Navarone, though lesser caliber) that can fire PRECISOULY at 90 KM or 120 KM, placed say 45 KM inside border (reverse slope, in caves etc. and all that), in AP, Sikkim and JK can plummet any PLA or TSPAF movement (which will be against restricted mountain access (almost most of them mapped beforehand)). ...


The concept of artillery is to provide volume fire and cover large areas. The issues with super guns (even 230mm which Pak has) is that the reload frequency is very low. Pak can load 1 round every 1 or 2 minutes. ATAGS can fire 6 rounds in 30 seconds! Needless to say the volume and area covered is much higher.

So having 155MM in numbers is the right way to go.

In terms of deployment and range, Atags already does what you are describing. However the question of targeting passes is a difficult requirement. ATAGS has high angle of fire, however even a miss by few meters in himalayan pass means the shell falling down in valleys which are hundreds of feet deep. Only motars are really effective.

To target Pak or Chini build up in mountains, the most effective weapon: IAF.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3516
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby ArjunPandit » 23 Oct 2018 13:11

^^Another point I read about super large guns in WW2 era was mobility. They were a logistical nightmare, difficult to move set up and fire. In addition to being targets for enemy sabotage operations as HVTs. Not to forget they will be difficult to hide

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3878
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 23 Oct 2018 13:21

Mobility, logistics of supply large rounds & explosive charge, number of people to manage the gun, reliability , cost etc . All go against large guns.

Ofcourse this argument applies for 155MM against say 105MM. You try to find a balance between firepower and other factors mentioned above.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54689
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 23 Oct 2018 22:31

Indranil wrote:Ramana Saar, that is exactly the reasoning behind my question.


8)
When we started discussion threads up on many types of weapons systems the idea was to focus on India not to tom-tom US and Russian capabilities. We have other threads for that.
The need of the hour is to get more of what is already developed in India and get them to the forces as soon as possible without compromising quality and safety.

I had cursory interest in artillery guns and shells. It was the repeated stories of shell and barrel burst that led me to a six month self study of the issues and thanks to the thread I could get to the root cause quite quickly. There were reports of personnel being injured. Many COIs with blame both OFB and IA. But no definite cause for the accidents.


The 155m M107 shell is basically the French Schneider WWI era shell with a broad copper band to give it more grip. Its made from high tensile steel and is basicall a splinter shell.
The ERFA BB/BT shells are made from ball bearing steel (aka manganese steel) which fractures in a predetermined manner. In addition it has an aerodynamic body that reduces drag and increases range.
its slightly more expensive than the M 107 but both are under $2000/shell.
Again with the current fuzes both can hit massed troops in the open. With PGK type fuzes they can troop transport columns etc.
had IA spearheaded development of the Krasnopol-M type shell in India they could have solved the bunker and tanks problem.
PLA has copied the K-M fuze and is proofing it in Africa!

The ATAGS has demonstrated ~48km range with the ERFA BB/BT. This is that small black poweder motor at the end of the shell that ignites to give more range.
Now as ATAGS has that large 1.5 liters chamber and fires with six charges instead of the normal 4 charges, it is possible to make a slightly longer rocket motor for the BB/BT units to give it more range. But accuracy goes down with range. So even more important to develop the PGK fuze to reduce the error.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54689
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 23 Oct 2018 22:41

ArjunPandit wrote:^^Another point I read about super large guns in WW2 era was mobility. They were a logistical nightmare, difficult to move set up and fire. In addition to being targets for enemy sabotage operations as HVTs. Not to forget they will be difficult to hide



Due to gun barrel wear they shell shad to be numbered in sequence to be fired. Shells were progressively larger at the driving band to make tight fit. Out of sequence would jam in the gun!

The way I look at it is US Army is wary of casualties and wants to keep further and further from battle field. Longer caliber guns have inherent problems of barrel mfg, droop in service and shell burst. And difficulty in negotiating mountain roads.
A service man can tell more areas of difficulty.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3516
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby ArjunPandit » 24 Oct 2018 00:11

ramana wrote:
ArjunPandit wrote:^^Another point I read about super large guns in WW2 era was mobility. They were a logistical nightmare, difficult to move set up and fire. In addition to being targets for enemy sabotage operations as HVTs. Not to forget they will be difficult to hide



Due to gun barrel wear they shell shad to be numbered in sequence to be fired. Shells were progressively larger at the driving band to make tight fit. Out of sequence would jam in the gun!

The way I look at it is US Army is wary of casualties and wants to keep further and further from battle field. Longer caliber guns have inherent problems of barrel mfg, droop in service and shell burst. And difficulty in negotiating mountain roads.
A service man can tell more areas of difficulty.

Interesting point. A large gun (the largest at taht time ) had such large recoil that it was rail mounted.
Here's the link
Schwerer Gustav

Waiting for phillipov to tell some intersting story and brar to tell another side of interesting story.

Talking of big guns, does anyone remeber gerald bull. The guy was even thinking of launching LEO sattelites through arty guns. His association with saddam led him being bumped off by intelligence agencies.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8947
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Oct 2018 00:15

The US wants these weapons because of its expeditionary nature and the expectation that if it gets into a conflict with a peer state it will likely be outgunned and outnumbered so both lethality (longer ranged and/or more precise) and survivability are important. Plus in many cases it is playing catch up. That said, the operators there too are looking into mobility and deployability quite a bit. The M777 team is doing that right now at the proving grounds to see whether they can still deploy using their air assets and then move the system around without giving up a whole lot in terms of that flexibility.

In case of India, some of this won't make sense at all because the logistical burden may not be the same and nor may be the target set and one can leaverage airpower in different ways to provide that extended reach. The US which will have to fight halfway across the world has a very different set of challenges that it must overcome.
Last edited by brar_w on 24 Oct 2018 07:47, edited 1 time in total.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3516
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby ArjunPandit » 24 Oct 2018 00:23

Thanks brar, I sense under DT there is a real sense of awakening/urgency to Chinese issue. While Ombaba talked about pivot and shift of majority of naval assets to pacific, this is real daal roti stuff. Another thing is US is learning from the Korean war experience, where they found millions of chinese ready to die(not sure if its applicable to today's little emperors, still they are the largest army) and the limitations of air power. Not to forget the hard war of WW2 where the artillery eventually was found to be the lord or the grim reaper of war, causing maximum casualities untill little boy and fatman

Rishi_Tri
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby Rishi_Tri » 24 Oct 2018 17:03

Why would one want to develop Artillery with range greater than that of MBRLs. As it is such high range artillery are sort of hybrids of MBRLs and Artillery. MBRLs are way more agile, have more impactful barrage, offer broad ranges, and modern MBRLs are very accurate. Is it the cost?

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1825
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby sudeepj » 24 Oct 2018 21:41

There is a second reason for the interest in 'super guns'. Think of low level conflicts like Afghanistan. Right now, the only option to provide air support to troops is through a drone or an F18, or a B52 carting JDAMs or SDBs. If you have an artillery piece with a range of, say 300 kms, and guided artillery shells, with only a few such pieces garrisoned in bastions and forts, you can provide 'on call' air cover to patrols and ANA troops as and when they need it with a higher availability, faster response times, lower collateral damage, no risk to airframe or pilot and cheaper prices. What is not to like? :)

In the Indian case, if we can elongate the ATAGs barrel by a couple of meters to take full advantage of the larger chamber, or alternatively devise better shells to achieve (say) 70-80kms range, a regiment can take over the role of providing CAS to a division. Cheaper, organic, faster ... Most importantly, all technological components are already available.

It also destroys any chance of the enemy 'outflanking' moves.. You simply turn your tubes in the other direction and thats the end of that. An Indian Division with such long range artillery will have no flanks!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54689
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 24 Oct 2018 23:20

SudeepJ said:

In the Indian case, if we can elongate the ATAGs barrel by a couple of meters to take full advantage of the larger chamber, or alternatively devise better shells to achieve (say) 70-80kms range, a regiment can take over the role of providing CAS to a division. Cheaper, organic, faster ... Most importantly, all technological components are already available.


Longer barrels will restrict deployment to plains only as mountain roads sharp curves won't make the bends.
The goal seems to be to deliver useful punch at long distance. i suggest to develop the BB/BT motor with better propellant as start. then change the motor length.

How about some one digs up what is the specific impulse of the rocket motor sued in the BB/BT motors?
And the chemical composition.
One picture of ATAGS had black smoke indicating a carbon based compound.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2095
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby Picklu » 25 Oct 2018 03:22

Ramana, small nitpick .

The BT/BB stands for boat tail base bleed and is not really a rocket motor. It increases the range of the shell NOT by providing thrust but by reducing drag.

It is a fumer or slow burning charge really, generating gas to fill up the vaccum at the base end of the projectile and thereby reducing drag. So changing the charge or elongating the motor would not increase range necessarily.

Please see below for details

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_bleed

And here is the patent

https://patents.google.com/patent/US7578238

VLAP RA/BB on the other hand is Rocket Assisted Base Bleed. This one provides thrust.

Projectile main characteristics:
Maximum range ~56km
Muzzle velocity ~925m/s
Rocket motor total impulse of : >6500 Ns
Rocket motor propellant charge weight: ~3 kg
Rocket motor specific impulse: >2170 Ns/kg
Projectile total weight: 48 kg
Projectile warhead section weight 30 kg

From here http://www.yugoimport.com/en/proizvodi/ ... base-bleed

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1553
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby Gyan » 25 Oct 2018 09:49

Range is not the only factor for Artillery. What is the range of that famous Jaipur Fort Canon? How many times was it fired?

Why Marathas with heavy canons lost against Abdali? Why Indian missile boats were sent in 1971 against Karachi rather than Frigates with Canons? What were lessons of 1962?

What's the role of MBRLs in 1980s and today? What's changed between 1982 Bofors need and today?

What type of towed artillery was used by USA & Soviets before M777?

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2575
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby darshhan » 25 Oct 2018 10:16

ramana wrote:SudeepJ said:

In the Indian case, if we can elongate the ATAGs barrel by a couple of meters to take full advantage of the larger chamber, or alternatively devise better shells to achieve (say) 70-80kms range, a regiment can take over the role of providing CAS to a division. Cheaper, organic, faster ... Most importantly, all technological components are already available.


Longer barrels will restrict deployment to plains only as mountain roads sharp curves won't make the bends.
The goal seems to be to deliver useful punch at long distance. i suggest to develop the BB/BT motor with better propellant as start. then change the motor length.

How about some one digs up what is the specific impulse of the rocket motor sued in the BB/BT motors?
And the chemical composition.
One picture of ATAGS had black smoke indicating a carbon based compound.


plus the longer barrels would be susceptible to bending during transportation

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12270
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 25 Oct 2018 11:44

Lets get the some 155mm in numbers then we can think of special units.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54689
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 25 Oct 2018 21:00

Picklu Thanks. Yes you are right. What I wanted was the RAP not the drag reduction unit.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2095
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby Picklu » 26 Oct 2018 04:48

ramana wrote:Picklu Thanks. Yes you are right. What I wanted was the RAP not the drag reduction unit.

Don't think we have any RAP in our inventory to test/reverse engineer.
Developing a RAP ab initio would be a major project; the test data required to develop a rocket motor that can withstand a gun launch and still perform accurately is not available to us and no such research is ongoing per open source.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1553
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby Gyan » 26 Oct 2018 13:49

IIRC we initially imported RAP with Bofors gun and BB came later. RAP is costly, decreases explosive content & also decreases accuracy. BB is cheaper & increases accuracy. Now new thing is RAP + BB. Fired from longer tubes in JK we can reach 70-80km range.

But what would be the purpose? At 80km CEP of 500-1000m does it make sense? Why not use MBRL?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54689
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 27 Oct 2018 04:49

Gyan very good thinking. Couple with PGK error correcting fuze for 10m CEP.
Picklu, In that BB unit the holes are angled to give spin. Suppose they are made conical then then it gives nozzle effect to add thrust with same propellant
If any one has a cad program we can draw up the concept.

Image

the unit has 12 angled straight holes at 30 degree interval.
so lets have 8 holes with divergent nozzles at 45 degree intervals. (360/8= 45)
This way all the materials are all qualified.
Next iteration have higher Isp Propellant.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54689
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 27 Oct 2018 05:33

Looks like its already done by Serbia!!!!

http://www.yugoimport.com/en/proizvodi/ ... base-bleed

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1553
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby Gyan » 27 Oct 2018 09:20

Cost of firing 155mm artillery round with 6kg explosive content in forged steel body using RAP, BB, PGK FUZE, propellant, towed artillery, shoot scoot, self protection etc

Vs

Cost of firing a GPS GUIDED MBRL with 100kg warhead filled with tungsten pellets & explosive content of 50kg

Is MBRL still a Corps level weapon? Yes No? Why? Cold start anyone?

Vs Cost of Excalibur type shell

Vs Cost of Kraspanol type shell

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2743
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby JTull » 27 Oct 2018 14:21

Defence Ministry signs Rs 200 crore contract to upgun 130 mm howitzers

Image

In a significant yet cost-effective boost to the Indian Army’s firepower, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has placed a Rs 200 crore order on the state-owned Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) for upgunning the Indian Army’s vintage 130 mm M-46 artillery guns. Significantly, the OFB won the contract in competition with two foreign vendors and their Indian partners.

Fifteen regiments comprising 300 towed artillery pieces will be upgraded to the 155/45 mm calibre in the contract signed between the state-owned Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) and MoD in South Block on October 25. All upgraded guns will be supplied to the Indian Army by 2022.

The upgrade will replace the barrel and breech block and add new sighting systems and a new hydraulic rammer to ease loading of shells. OFB officials term the up-gunning 100 per cent indigenous and a highly cost-effective solution to augment the Army’s firepower. The Sharang upgrade kit costs less than Rs 70 lakh per gun, or less than one-fifth the cost of a brand new towed field artillery piece. The Army had floated an RFP in 2013 to upgun 300 of its M-46 guns. The Army has close to 1000 of the 130 mm guns that were acquired from the former Soviet Union beginning in 1968.

The OFB offer emerged the cheapest edging out contenders from two foreign competitors, a consortium of Punj Lloyd and Yugo Import and Bharat Forge and Soltam. The OFB fully indigenous solution the Sharang’ (Vishnu’s bow) field howitzer bested its competitor in various performance parameters during Field Evaluation Trials at the Pokhran range. The parameters include maximum range, direct fire, the rate of fire, accuracy and consistency made it the only compliant gun after the completion of trials. The gun repeated its performance in the second round of re-confirmatory trials at Pokharan in January this year.

OFB officials say the upgrade not only increases the M-46’s range from the existing 27 km to 39 km but also its lethality (fragmentation pattern) by over 300 per cent. A 155 mm shell has 8 kg of TNT whereas a 130 mm shell that has 3.4 kg of TNT.

Sharang has a combat weight of 8.4 tonnes and a length and width of 11.84 metres and 2.45 metres. The 7 metre-long barrel has a single baffle muzzle brake and horizontal sliding wedge breech block. A semi-automatic operating device enables auto opening of the gun breech and a pneumatic ramming system eases the load on the gun crew who have to ram the projectile in during firing. The gun was developed by the Ordnance Development Centre, Kanpur and produced at the Ordnance Factory Kanpur.

The Army currently has around 180 of the 155 mm field guns that were upgraded by Israeli firm Soltam under Project Karan in 2008. OFB officials say the contract opens up an avenue for them to explore the gun’s export potential.

Correction: An earlier version of this report said the Sharang upgrade kit costs a little over Rs 1 crore per gun. It has been corrected to "costs less than Rs 70 lakh per gun". The error is regretted.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3878
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 27 Oct 2018 14:39

The hydraulic rammer must have come from the Dhanush program.

Dhanush & ATAGS has changed the artillery landscape in India and to imagine we sat on the Bofors blueprints for decades!

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8270
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 27 Oct 2018 14:53

nam wrote:The hydraulic rammer must have come from the Dhanush program.

Dhanush & ATAGS has changed the artillery landscape in India and to imagine we sat on the Bofors blueprints for decades!



The penumatic flick rammer has existed since the soltam gun upgrade of the early 2000s.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3878
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 27 Oct 2018 15:06

Alright, thanks for the correction.

Hope they upgrade up to 500 or more of them.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2095
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby Picklu » 27 Oct 2018 20:41

My understanding is that the bofors blueprints were not complete. The proper ToT for the Breech Block were held back. This is similar to what Suzuki does with gearbox, does not allow Maruthi to cut the umbilical chord.

We got the relevant breech technology from Yehudi land via Soltam upgrade.

Dhanush took off after that with mix and match.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2903
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby Vips » 28 Oct 2018 03:26

nam wrote:Alright, thanks for the correction.

Hope they upgrade up to 500 or more of them.


Yes at 70 Lakhs per gun it is a super economical upgrade to 155MM. No need to just stop at 300 guns.If all the guns are upgraded It will mean less headache in terms of logistics for the army. Ideally now should just have two types of Guns: 105 MM mounted on trucks to care of the niche needs and the heavy 155 type across the tracked, mounted, towed and ULH versions.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54689
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 28 Oct 2018 05:15

Also it gives a chance to innovate further.
You can't innovate what you don't make.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54689
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 28 Oct 2018 05:33

Gyan wrote:Cost of firing 155mm artillery round with 6kg explosive content in forged steel body using RAP, BB, PGK FUZE, propellant, towed artillery, shoot scoot, self protection etc

Vs

Cost of firing a GPS GUIDED MBRL with 100kg warhead filled with tungsten pellets & explosive content of 50kg

Is MBRL still a Corps level weapon? Yes No? Why? Cold start anyone?

Vs Cost of Excalibur type shell

Vs Cost of Kraspanol type shell


Gyan a 155mm shell weighs 43 kg and has ~6 kg explosive. Costs about $2K. Add $10k for fuze. This gives 10m CEP.
Two shells is under $44k.

Lets compare to MBRL?


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests