Artillery: News & Discussion

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 19 Mar 2014 19:39

Pratyush wrote:Rohit, there was a report some time ago, regarding the variations planned by drdo for the prahar/ pragiti. A twin launcher and quad launcher were amongst the variations. I dont know, if it will actually be executed by the drdo.

Having said so, when I said a precision guided shell, I did not have prahar in mind. Was thinking of the 155.


What ever be the variation planned by DRDO for Prahaar missile, it will not be used by a Brigade. That is for sure.

A tactical missile like Prahaar is akin to a sniper but with a very long range - meant to take out high value targets which will have an impact on the immediate battle. It is NOT a replacement for Laser designated rounds like Copperhead or INS/GPS based guided rounds. Tube artillery is about volume and area while Prahaar is a precision weapon.

We as a nation still don't have Rocket Artillery at Division Arty level and people are fantasizing about brigades with Prahaar missile. :roll:

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 19 Mar 2014 19:41

vic wrote:The pimps of import lobby like ONLY imported solutions and refuse to see emerging trends even though they post with multiple IDs. <SNIP>


While I don't give damn about your posts, the bolded part is crossing the line...and I'm reporting this post.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Paul » 19 Mar 2014 20:08

Telegraph

Dhanush heads for summer trials

KINSUK BASU
Calcutta, March 18: Dhanush, a derivative of the Bofors gun, has cleared the winter trials in Sikkim and is headed for a final round of tests in the Rajasthan deserts this summer.

If it clears the last round of trials on accuracy, range and rate of fire, it could find its way into the Indian army by year-end.

Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) officials said a move was under way to transport the Dhanush to Rajasthan from Sikkim, where the winter trials ended yesterday.

“We have put together a special project team to look into different aspects of the product, including the cradle, barrel and the hydraulic and electrical systems. Once the last round of trials is complete, we will supply the guns to the forces by this year-end,” said M.C. Bansal, the chairperson of the Calcutta-headquartered OFB.

“We have an order to supply 114 such guns to the army.”

For nearly three decades, the army has not added a big gun to its armoury. The Bofors guns, bought in 1987, have kept the artillery going.

The Dhanush is being developed at the Gun Carriage Factory in Jabalpur. It has a 155mm barrel that is 6.975 metres long. The longer barrel ensures a longer range, an OFB official said.

Work on version 2 of the Dhanush was also under way, officials said. “The sub-systems for this product are being developed and once this gun fires successfully, work on the next-generation Dhanush would gather momentum.”

Other officials said work to develop better mine-protected vehicles was going on at the OFB’s research facility in Medak in Andhra Pradesh.

Sources said the new MPVs would be able to withstand stronger mine blasts and provide “an improvised seating system to take in greater shock and give better options for firing back at the enemy”.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2454
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby John » 20 Mar 2014 02:03

vic wrote:The pimps of import lobby like ONLY imported solutions and refuse to see emerging trends even though they post with multiple IDs. The proposal of DRDO with the similar products emerging abroad are given below:-


I have no idea what the latest rant is about there is no indication that IA is interested in Tornado and not to mention there are several systems that already fill in that purpose (most notable being Brahmos). Not to mention Brahmos-M will further augment providing a cheaper and smaller replacement of Brahmos once that comes into picture..

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19680
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 20 Mar 2014 02:50

brahmos has a seeker and an expensive ramjet system (imported) and will be far more expensive than prahaar. albeit more flexible thanks to a seeker.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2454
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby John » 20 Mar 2014 03:43

Yes also Brahmos should offer higher accuracy, terminal velocity and much harder to intercept, would be critical against PLA which is inducting large number of SHORAD systems and supposedly even working on system similar to Iron dome. Yes ideally it would make sense to buy Prahaar but IA doesn't have infinite resource much rather save the money for Pinaka IIs and DRDO focus on LR variant to replace Smerch.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19680
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 20 Mar 2014 04:49

Prahar will replace Prithvi 1s so IA should induct it. Pinaka 2 - 60 km, Smerch- 90 km. Brahmos -290 km. Whats in between? Trading PLA/PA BM attacks with Brahmos will bankrupt us. Prahaar at 150 km is perfect, and also with tailored trajectory will be very hard to intercept. Brahmos can be kept for high value targets.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2454
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby John » 20 Mar 2014 06:32

Karan M wrote:Trading PLA/PA BM attacks with Brahmos will bankrupt us. Prahaar at 150 km is perfect,

Not sure what you are saying M-9 range is far too much to counter with Prahaar. IMO Pinaka LR will fill in at 80-120 km there is no real need for missile between that and Brahmos IMO. Especially once Nirbhay comes into picture which should cost much less than Prahaar once a desi engine has been fitted in. TLAM were found to be cheaper and more accurate/effective than ATACMS during prior conflicts.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19680
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 20 Mar 2014 08:06

you are mixing up things and are quite mistaken to boot, who cares about countering m-9 with prahar?

we are talking of IA being able to handle targets 150 km away rather than spending expensive brahmos for every target beyond smerch range and without the larger logistics of the prithvi.

pinaka LR is not 120 km, but is 60 km. its a pinaka upgrade not some radically new system.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_5Fqc5MZe4o/U ... MBRL-1.JPG
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jSQHSxZwtHg/U ... MBRL-2.JPG
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/8043/pinaka2.jpg

nirbhay is a 1000 km class missile with a turbofan engine and you think it will be cheaper than prahaar??
http://media.newindianexpress.com/artic ... rbhay1.jpg
in which world please?? it will likely field some tercom/terminal seeker system over time, raising its cost.

prahaar is a relatively cost effective derivative of the AAD (wich means economies of scale) dependent mostly on an onboard INS/GPS/GLONASS and ground fixes (if implemented) making it suitable for its role.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2454
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby John » 20 Mar 2014 08:16

Wasn't referring to Pinaka Mk II but 120 Km range variant which was reported on 2008 granted we haven't heard about it in a while.

Karan M wrote:nirbhay is a 1000 km class missile with a turbofan engine and you think it will be cheaper than prahaar??
http://media.newindianexpress.com/artic ... rbhay1.jpg
in which world please?? it will likely field some tercom/terminal seeker system over time, raising its cost.

Yes turbofan engine cruise missile would be cheaper than a 1.5 Ton solid fueled missile if they both are mass produced and use indigenous technology. As i mentioned ATACMS 1A (160 km ranged variant) is priced at around 1.5 million vs TLAM which is around 700,000 to 1 million (quote 2007 figures prices). What former offers is superior speed which we already have in Brahmos.

Karan M wrote:we are talking of IA being able to handle targets 150 km away rather than spending expensive brahmos for every target beyond smerch range and without the larger logistics of the prithvi.

We have no idea how much Prahaar will cost if ATACMS is any indicator it would be around 1 to 2 million where as Brahmos is quoted at 10 crores+ (lets say 4 million), so the difference price isn't that much considering later has higher terminal velocity, more accurate and not to mention less chance of being intercepted.

I know its fun to play armchair quarter back and slam IA for not procuring Prahaar, i am pretty sure they are people far more intelligent who have done cost analysis and choose not to pursue the system for now.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 20 Mar 2014 09:58

Fingers crossed for the summer trials of the Dhanush. Once trials are completed, a quick dilivery of the required numbers of the gun.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19680
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 20 Mar 2014 10:19

my goodness John, you are the one playing armchair quarterback here with all sorts of dodgy assumptions.

did IA inform you its not procuring prahaar?

if so, where is your insistence coming from that it wont be procured, when DRDO has gone on record stating it will replace prithvi and will be evaluated by IA post some mods.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/new ... 866081.ece

of course chander, being completely unaware of what the IA plans for merely says:

The under-development Prahar missile would be offered to the Army for user trials very soon and after its acceptance, it is planned to be part of its Corps of Artillery.

John wrote:Wasn't referring to Pinaka Mk II but 120 Km range variant which was reported on 2008 granted we haven't heard about it in a while.


where is this mythical 120 km missile pray tell us? why would DRDO develop a new 120 km Pinaka when the Prahaar is already ready and offers better performance?

cant you even see the gaps in your statements/logic?

a) no confirmed reports of any 120 km pinaka exist
b) 150 km prahaar exists with the starting range of 60 km (what a coincidence, the max range of the pinaka 2), is developed for a reason & yet you insist that a 120 km pinaka will come about and be superior.
c) common sense would suggest that very LR Pinaka was actually this program

http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... -adex-2013

and of course DRDO is doing this as well, for giggles, with no clear interest in the system, right?

The DRDO is also developing a 6x6 TEL fitted with two missiles and an 8x8 launcher fitted with four missiles. The 6x6 TEL is designed to be deployed in high-altitude, mountainous regions, which in India's case would presumably include the Jammu and Kashmir region and the Himalayas.


John wrote:Yes turbofan engine cruise missile would be cheaper than a 1.5 Ton solid fueled missile if they both are mass produced and use indigenous technology. As i mentioned ATACMS 1A (160 km ranged variant) is priced at around 1.5 million vs TLAM which is around 700,000 to 1 million (quote 2007 figures prices). What former offers is superior speed which we already have in Brahmos.


this is just pure mix and match stuff, which ignores the reality that

a) no indigenous turbofan for the nirbhay is ready yet
b) there is no sense in using a 1000 km class missile for a mission which requires a mere 150 km one
c) your cost estimates from a different country are irrelevant for india since india is leveraging its own BMD interceptor design/infra for economies of scale and will have to invest substantially in testing, and validating its turbofan engine for which it does not enjoy economies of scale either!

We have no idea how much Prahaar will cost if ATACMS is any indicator it would be around 1 to 2 million where as Brahmos is quoted at 10 crores+ (lets say 4 million), so the difference price isn't that much considering later has higher terminal velocity, more accurate and not to mention less chance of being intercepted.


the pakistanis or the chinese are not going to be fielding a plethora of iron dome or davids sling type systems to intercept any BM the class of prahaar. if they do so, they break their own banks.
besides which:

DRDO wrote:The missile system has capability of deployment in stand-alone mode or centralised mode. its effective and intelligent end trajectory maneuvreing, Pragati defeats detection by any weapon locating radar.


Pragati being the upgraded prahar variant shown at ADEX.
good luck in using conventional AD systems in tracking this missile.

--
net, you dont know the capabilities of the system, are playing fast and loose with cost estimates, are making completely unrealistic assumptions about existence of a separate pinaka 2 (which btw common sense suggests was nothing else but this program) and are insisting the IA wont procure this system, when reports suggest that they intend to procure it, to complement their prithvis with even the AF picking up a few.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 21 Mar 2014 09:21

People are getting beyond themselves here....

One simple question - inspite of 'higher' cost of ATACMS does the US Army operate this missile in addition to TLAM or not? And more importantly, which formations controlled GLCM in US as compared to ATACMS?

Compared to long range TLAM (operated by US Navy), the ATACMS is part of Division Artillery Brigade and Corps Artillery Brigade...in our case, the Pinaka 1/2 and Prahaar are similarly going to be part of Artillery Divisions. A cruise missile is most likely to be held by Missile Group(s) under SFC or some other centralized authority and will be part of integrated offensive strategy between the three services. I expect the Air Force to be the first customer of this missile.

Prahaar is our Tactical Missile to be used to influence battle in real time...it will be used to target objectives will have more immediate impact on ongoing battle.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 22 Mar 2014 09:11

Re Karan

Pls read a little more about the emerging trend for use of MBRL and you will appreciate how the technology is leading a change. 30 years ago the use of computers was rare but now they are everywhere. Would it make sense to buy millions of sophisticated mechanical typewriters in this day and age? Similarly heavy howitzers are going out and their role is being taken over by MBRLs. Indian army has ordered only 40 launchers for Pinaka and have asked for higher performance for remaining proposed 60 launchers. Prahaar is being restricted to semi strategic role while it should and can be used for tactical battles right down to company level.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 22 Mar 2014 12:39

You mean that the IA needs to get rid of the direct fire support weapons at the company level and get Prahar, in their place.

Or you mean to say at the Corps level, prahar will be useful. And ought to be inducted in large numbers.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 22 Mar 2014 13:21

I am not saying Army has to get rid of anything. I am saying that the requirement of heavy howitzers has to be reduced and some roles have to taken over by Pinaka and Prahaar. MBRLs are no longer, only corps level artillery to be used for mass attack on area targets. MBRLs have to be organically embedded down the chain so that even Company and Battalions can call for fire support. It would be like CAS but in the hands off army.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 22 Mar 2014 18:39

vic wrote:I am not saying Army has to get rid of anything. I am saying that the requirement of heavy howitzers has to be reduced and some roles have to taken over by Pinaka and Prahaar. MBRLs are no longer, only corps level artillery to be used for mass attack on area targets. MBRLs have to be organically embedded down the chain so that even Company and Battalions can call for fire support. It would be like CAS but in the hands off army.


Its very agreeable.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 25 Mar 2014 18:23

vic wrote:I am not saying Army has to get rid of anything. I am saying that the requirement of heavy howitzers has to be reduced and some roles have to taken over by Pinaka and Prahaar. MBRLs are no longer, only corps level artillery to be used for mass attack on area targets. MBRLs have to be organically embedded down the chain so that even Company and Battalions can call for fire support. It would be like CAS but in the hands off army.


How can you ever envision the idea of using Tactical Ballistic Missiles to support a Rifle Company in the attack.You have failed to consider the fact that each level of sub-unit has deployment frontages and depths while in advance or defence.

Let me put this simply:

1. What is the Operational Frontage for a Rifle Company in the assault?

2. What is the CEP and Blast Radius of a Prahaar Missile which carries a 200 Kg Warhead.

How do you coincide with points #1 and #2?


An Artillery offensive in support of an Infantry Assault is divided typically divided into three phases:

1. Preparatory Fires
2. Support Fires
3. Depth Fires

Artillery Fires will continue to change in fire missions and shift to smaller calibers as your own Infantry will slowly close distance with the enemy and will cease completely as they prepare for the final charge and shift fire support to target the enemy rear to support the above mentioned breakthrough.

Want do you do if the Infantry Battalion must deliver a concentrated attack with two Rifle Companies due to terrain considerations or has immediate and subsequent objectives that are close at hand? Now look at the reasons why Rocket Artillery are ideally used only for Division level Objectives. How is this so difficult to understand?

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_20317 » 27 Mar 2014 23:04

Found this video on the net and around 1:20 (the first firing in the video).

Notice how the lighter gun+larger surface contact+gravel ground+shorter spades etc., end up making a ski out of a howitzer.

I had never expected to see something like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npTGqg5v-mc

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 27 Mar 2014 23:35

how is this munna perched on hilltops (dropped off by chinooks) expected to survive area bombardments by WS1/WS2 MLRS cued by WLRs?

while we due to lack of roads cannot get a single smerch system into some places, they have luxury of flat tibet terrain to drive in heavy MLRS and launch surprise attacks from upto 300km away.

some form of LR airborne GMTI cum WLR sensor platform is a must - yesterday - because ground based WLR will have limited utility unless perched on very strategic place like chumar post overlooking tibet plateau from above.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2617
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Cybaru » 28 Mar 2014 00:27

If munna is at a peak, be rest assured all other WLR bits have been chewed off! And if there is any gun on the other end, its on a sight of a air borne unit with a big one coming its way. This is just to pound the riff raff faithfuls without needing to refuel or take bio breaks! ;)

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby NRao » 28 Mar 2014 00:54

I think we need to start taking "network centric" and such things like "GPS artillery shells" a wee bit more seriously. In a serious war they should play a greater role here on out - for serious players.

IMHO of course.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 28 Mar 2014 07:12

those US troopers can take all day, the biggest threat they face is 81mm mortars sneaking up on their base from 3km away.

I am not seeing any urgency to get airborne GMTI+WLR tied to long range Prahaar and MLRS units for country battery work.

I expect the old digging trenches is the plan. it wont work, not with the payload of the big WS1 type units. delayed action magnetic mines delivered will render the whole area hazardous even if scooted and wanted to sneak back in later.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 28 Mar 2014 08:35

The main difference between conventional MBRL and Prahaar is that Prahaar is a PGM. Think- how would Kargill war would be fought with or without Prahaar.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 28 Mar 2014 09:47

leaving aside Prahaar, even a couple regiments of Pinaka with TCS & WLR firing at high angles and then scooting would have wasted the masses of TSP artillery which I believe were insolently lined up hubcap to hubcap in open areas like shingo river due to our lack of any WLR and accurate area fire weapon.

we are fully committed to giving ourself a very hard time in the next war. MMS, DGMF, MOD and co have made sure of that.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 28 Mar 2014 16:10

Prahaar can hit targets with pin point accuracy on reverse side of mountain slopes.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 28 Mar 2014 18:49

It may beable to do that and all that you claim. But the more important question is this, where the targeting information going to come from.

Is it

WLR.
RPV
Satalite.

Or what, in the absence of required numbers providing targeting information. The prahar will be just an expensive toy. Which is some thing that you dont seem to understand.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 28 Mar 2014 21:57

What is the cost of Prahaar compared to deploying and using a massive barrage of 155mm shells which may not even targets on reach reverse slope? What will be cost of manpower making frontal assaults or flanking attacks?

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 29 Mar 2014 05:25

Why the fixation on prahar. We need a whole gamut of capabilities at the battle field level. Prahar may represent the top end but the bottom end would have to be the 81 / 120 mm mortar and the guns. Supported by whole gamut of recee assets.

He point remains that the recee assets of the IA remain grossly in adequate. For them to accurately utilise prahar

What you seem to not understand is that, no recee no target. No target, == no kill == wasted prahar shot.

member_28526
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 25
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_28526 » 29 Mar 2014 08:56

Is Smerch able to fire ATACMS? Do we have any ATACMS?

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 29 Mar 2014 10:24

^ no and no.

prahaar is our atacms.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 29 Mar 2014 10:55

vic wrote:What is the cost of Prahaar compared to deploying and using a massive barrage of 155mm shells which may not even targets on reach reverse slope? What will be cost of manpower making frontal assaults or flanking attacks?



Ques 1. What are Mortars there for in case the enemy chooses to defilade, essentially to protect themselves from arty assaults?

Ques 2. Why would the enemy infantry vacate a dominating position along the ridge lines to create a reverse slope defence? Only to be used as target practice by own infantry?

Sooo many questions....sooo little answers!!

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 29 Mar 2014 11:55

Ans to q1.

mortars are weak in range and payload. Also in mountains a miss by 5m of any tubed shell makes it hit ground way off due to slopes and render nonlethal.

masses of area weapons and guided shells better effect in mountains.

the 50,000 shells we launched in Kargil did precious little to the squatters on top. Troops still had to fight them on top.
other than poisoning the snow and covering our approach, this wild shelling did not vaporize their positions.

here is a very ingenious WW2 soviet 8" howitzer on a tiny vehicle, pulled by a small tractor..its also seen at 0 elevation blasting at buildings...just the kind of thing we need to open corridors in built up areas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xHcpgaPuPQ

I wonder if the M777 could be permanently put on such a platform, it could pretty much negotiate any road given the tracked vehicle....

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 29 Mar 2014 17:16

Mortars and 105mm LFG will continue to remain fully relevant in mountains but the requirement of 155 "heavy" automated towed, wheeled, tracked artillery has to be "reduced" as lot of roles are better met by Prahaar. India fired around 250,000 rounds by 155mm howitzer in Kargill which are equivalent in cost to 5000-10,000 Prahaar rounds. Now pray tell me, what would have achieved the results better? One can continue to rationlise why mechanical typewriters are better than computers but it does not stand to march of progress.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 29 Mar 2014 19:22

The Prahaar will unfortunately never be as cost effective as we may need it to be so as to be employed liberally, given its high performance exocit ABM heritage. Its high maneuverability, thrust vectoring etc are basically useless expenses on a short range missile. While its a good short term solution I think it would be worthwhile to look at guided rockets like the American GMLRS which cost about 100k USD a piece. While they are much smaller and shorter ranged than the Prahaar a Smerch sized artillery rocket with GPS guidance should be able to do most of what is expected at a much lesser cost. And AFAIK a GPS guided version of the pinaka is already in the works.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 30 Mar 2014 08:53

good to know. pinaka as a vehicle for this would be nice....maybe like the atacms use the same launcher form factor but a fatter rocket with less rounds per TEL. instead of 12 small rockets have just 2 of the fatties.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 03 Apr 2014 17:55

Singha wrote:Ans to q1.
mortars are weak in range and payload. Also in mountains a miss by 5m of any tubed shell makes it hit ground way off due to slopes and render nonlethal.
masses of area weapons and guided shells better effect in mountains.
the 50,000 shells we launched in Kargil did precious little to the squatters on top. Troops still had to fight them on top.
other than poisoning the snow and covering our approach, this wild shelling did not vaporize their positions.


Sorry, just saw your post. Anyways.

1. Mountain Warfare emphasizes extremely heavily on Artillery Fires as there is little available by way to support actual manoeuvre. Even the US Military emphasizes the use of Field Artillery as the preferred mode to provide close support as an Air-Support effort is likely to be ineffective.

2. Mountains, also reversely make traditional methods of counter-artillery targeting less effective. Sound Ranging is confused by echoes, Flash Spotting is generally very difficult and WLR also have difficulties with their usual mode of operations due to the terrain. Which leaves then to exploitation by UAV's which depends on how dense the AD environment is.

3. The Mortar Platoon is arguably the single most powerful organic element available to an Infantry Battalion CO. With a maximum rate of fire of 20 Rounds, an 8 Gun Mortar Platoon can possibly put 160 rounds in the first minute on a target area.

But I digress, There was a contention that Ballistic Missiles could be used to provide Preparatory/Support fires for an advancing Rifle Company. The actual incredulous nature of the argument notwithstanding as to where we could provide the logistics on a scale if a Division sized formation was tasked to advance we would be lobbing Ballistic Missiles every 2 Minutes.

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2469
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby manjgu » 03 Apr 2014 20:03

only a armchair warrior will say mortars are not effective in the mountains. they provide flexibility, mobility ..is man portable, ability to lob shells over crests and immediate support to the infantry at both very close and medium ranges ( i think in mountains a 81 mm mortar shell could go over 6 to 7 km maybe even farther). it has its own importance ...

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_20317 » 03 Apr 2014 21:30

Mortars are good no doubt. But yeh dil mange kuch more.

Image

Look at all that energy travelling ahead of the shell. I would rather prefer a lower charge on a 105 with a radical redesign that would allow it to go upto say >85* elevation.

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2025
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby srin » 03 Apr 2014 21:32

Mortars played a huge role in battle of Rezang La, when terrain prevented artillery support


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests