Artillery: News & Discussion

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_26622 » 25 Jul 2014 11:06

We should involve DRDO/TATA/WALCHANDNAGAR - all desi shops in the trials. May be retain the guns in India ( easy to throw some nonsense re-export or customs crap).

It will be good for them to see and learn from these trials - may be incorporate ideas in to our own version of tracked/towed/horse drawn/heli-lift/ballon floating version (just like the chinese morphed japanese+french+canadian bullet train tech to build a best of the world 'chinese' bullet train !

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8070
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 25 Jul 2014 11:45

Guys, lets us be optimistic, that this time the 155MM competition will not result in all the vendors be blacklisted. As OFB cant be black listed. :P

On a serious note, I hope that the Kalyani team, is provided the incentive to develop the 155 ULH, they are proposing to develop.

On a serious note - 2, I am totally lost, with the IA arty requirements on having what are essentially 2 types of SPH. Under 2 different names. The will only serve to split the order between the 2 making the tracked one super expensive to buy. Not to mention, at barely 100 guns, not provde the incentive to the vendor to start local assembly.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13098
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby negi » 25 Jul 2014 14:48

The issue is two fold i.e. kind of a chicken and egg problem if you will; of all the 3 services IA is largest both in terms of manpower and logistical footprint and unfortunately it lags the other 2 in terms of reforms and modernization be it it's structure, culture or even equipment , hence it has highest inertia amongst the 3 when it comes to moving from bideshi to swadeshi. Having said that the import lobby in the MOD and IA also get strength from the fact that likes of OFB (unlike the Mazagon and GRSE for IN or even HAL for IAF ) are topping the charts from bottom in terms of producing even very basic dal-roti stuff like 1970s vintage Arty rounds leave alone a relatively modern system like Pinaka. Remember unlike the IN and IAF IA does not have the luxury of missing action during peacetime , they need live rounds be it for MMG, Assault rifles, medium calibre AA rounds , mortar and mountain Arty even as we speak in areas near the border. If OFB fails to produce them in desired quantity and upto a minimum std. it will be difficult to dislodge a very well rooted and established import lobby .

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8070
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 25 Jul 2014 15:13

The solution could well be to allow the Pvt sector industry to compete totally in the domestic defense production setup. This could be done in the following steps.

1) JV with foreign vendors, this will replicate the current model. But with PVT sector players.
2) The IA releasing a minimum set of requirements that must be met by any system. The pvt sector in collaboration with the DRDO, produces it. Again this is a replication of the current setup. Just with Pvt. players.

But for either to work. The services must stop being the user of the systems only. They need to start developing institutional frameworks as what capabilities may be required 10/20 30 years down the line and how to go about accomplishing them. This will require reforms in the way the MOD functions. Cause in the absence of civilian guidelines and active Civilian & Military partnership. This will only result in chaos.

There are no easy solutions but with the willingness to develop the capacity at the top. The intentions can quickly be translated in the results.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Sagar G » 25 Jul 2014 19:02

indranilroy wrote:@Sagar G, I have never met Rohit in person.


As the saying goes "Great saaheb's (P.B.U.S.) think alike".

As farmaaned we must now get back to Saaheb, Artillery and Army. I eagerly wait for the next farmaan of saaheb's.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 25 Jul 2014 20:59

155 ULH is tooo heavy for Indian wartime heli lift capacity. It was classic case of GSQR tailoring to create a requirement for import. We will have to dis assemble and air drop 105mm LFGs and use long range of Prahaar, Pinaka 3 etc for touching inaccessible fire fight zones.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3227
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kakkaji » 26 Jul 2014 08:46

So, how did the Dhanush summer trials go? Any official or Chaiwala news?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66591
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 26 Jul 2014 09:55

if the M777 is not purchased, do we really have a special need for the expensive Chinooks? to replace the small number of Mi26?

imo if we need a heavy lifter, why not the new CH53K of which USMC has put in a 120 order, perhaps we can get our 20 from their order via FMS. now thats a takkar ka muqabla with the Mi26.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 26 Jul 2014 11:14

Apache, Ch-47s, ULH are all over costly equipment which are really not needed.

saptarishi
BRFite
Posts: 269
Joined: 05 May 2007 01:20
Location: ghaziabad
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby saptarishi » 26 Jul 2014 18:37

the great Indian artillery saga is very confusing characterised by n number of rfp/rfi/trials , blacklisting and army's dilemma. plus pakistan and chinese army have a good artillery force. pakistan has acquired large numbers of paladins ( old yet potent 155mm tracked) and also ordered the panter turkish howitzer... china seems to be miles ahead.....just tried to summarize the whole thing.

indian artillery requirement

Light Howitzers : 145 155mm/39 calibre . m777 selected. fms route after singapore kinetics was banned. status: cancelled.

Tracked howitzers : 100 155mm/52 calibre. competitors L&T/SAMSUNG TECHWIN K9 Thunder and BEML/KONSTRUCTA ARZU. trials over.

Towed Howitzers : 1580 155mm/52 calibre. 400 off the shelf and 1180 manufactured in india with licence. competitors Nexter/L&T Trajan (towed version of the Caesar gun with L&T providing the lower portion ) and Soltam/Bharat Forge Athos 2052 ( bharat forge a mere integrator). trials complete

Mounted Howitzer : 814 155mm/52 calibre truck mounted. 180 to be purchased off the shelf and the rest to be manufactured in India. competitors Nexter/L&T/Ashok Leyland Caesar ( Nexter to provide the gun, L&T-the lead integrator and Ashok Leyland to provide its Stallion truck as the platform) and Soltam/ Bharat Forge/ Tatra Atmos 2000-( Soltam-gun, Bharat Forge -the integrator, Tatra -truck) and TATA POWER SED INDIGENOUS GUN with denel's technology. status - undergoing trials

So this makes the total number 2639.

plus there are three more programs:-

1)up-gunning of 130mm to 155m- Bharat Forge/Soltam and Nexter/L&T in fray.
2) Dhanush 155mm/45 calibre (indigenous up-gunned bofors) -116 ordered . army can order a total of 416 guns to replace the old bofors.
3) Indigenous 155mm/52 calibre Towed Gun effort- DRDO/OFB in lead ..Bharat Forge, L&T and Tata Power all helping out DRDO with their expertise.

ambitions programs and efforts, but unfortunately too much confusion ,delays in decision making dogging the whole artillery program for years

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7645
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 26 Jul 2014 20:35

merlin wrote:
rohitvats wrote: I'm telling you this as a moderator : go easy on the language you use for the armed forces. Your right to crtiticize Services does not come with leeway to use terms as 'Import Generals' or any other such nonsense. I've said enough number number of times and will not repeat again. Mind it.


Friendly advice. Moderating a thread you are a participant in is not a good idea.


I know where you're coming from but my post stands as a moderator irrespective of whether I am/was part of debate.

It has to do with a basic decency and protocol of posting especially when it comes to Services - and I think my stand as a poster earlier and than as a moderator is pretty clear on this aspect. That post is out of line with decency expected on BRF when it comes to Services and would be called out irrespective of thread.

My comment was on the language and not content of the post - many before him and after him on the same thread have criticized the IA for these trials and the artillery procurement saga. But being able to criticize the Services does not come with leeway to start randomly calling names or use derogatory language. One can make his point without resorting to such language.

If one has specific example and data-point, please go ahead and criticize the individual as well. But this casual approach of painting everyone with same brush is not welcome.

And I don't need 'moderator' privilege to counter any contrary opinion or post - whether coming from more knowledgeable posters who actually back their POV with data-points or pretty much potty-mouth types who simply froth at the mouth.

I hope I've made my stand clear.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7645
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 26 Jul 2014 20:48

SanjayC wrote: Problem is, he prevents people from airing views he doesn't like.


Name calling and cussing is not exactly airing 'contrary views'.

No one has stopped you, and will stop you, from having certain POV - but that is not a leeway to use the language you did. I matters not to me what you stand is on a topic or to any moderator for that matter of fact - but language does. And that will be called out without fail. So, please remember that henceforth.

We curse here politicians and bureaucrats all day. MMS is called a US stooge and a traitor. Bureaucrats are called worthless babus. A special thread has been opened where we can rant all we can about Modi. So what is so special about Generals that we have to be extra respectful, especially when we see some of them actively thwarting an Indian MIC from emerging?


Now, there're many things wrong with Services including a fair amount of corruption and nepotism but we've not reached a stage where a language used by you is more likely to hold than not. God save us if we ever reach that stage. So, going ahead, please keep that in mind.

The saga of Arjun is all before us and how cold the generals have been towards it for no reason. Same with artillery gun offerings from Indian private companies. Same with the next upgrade of the Insas gun.


And IA has been criticized proper on the Arjun import saga. Your's truly actually got his 'spurs' on BRF on that thread. But the arguments made against IA were factual and based on some painstaking research. No flying of the handle and branding everyone as 'this' or that. Doing so does not add anything to debate or your position on the topic.

On the Artillery gun saga - had you bothered to check, there's only ONE Private firm with an offering in the entire competition - TATA SED. It's the OFB which is developing/has developed Dhanush and DRDO which is working on advanced 155/52 gun.

Now, considering all this is happening, it begs a question - why did not MOD cancel these trials? After all, won't be the first time it has done so.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1082
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby RKumar » 26 Jul 2014 21:25

rohitvats wrote:
And I don't need 'moderator' privilege to counter any contrary opinion or post - whether coming from more knowledgeable posters who actually back their POV with data-points or pretty much potty-mouth types who simply froth at the mouth.

I hope I've made my stand clear.


Rohit you are fighting a losing war.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7645
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 26 Jul 2014 21:27

saptarishi wrote: indian artillery requirement


Thanks for the summary.

Light Howitzers : 145 155mm/39 calibre . m777 selected. fms route after singapore kinetics was banned. status: cancelled.


While the IA has felt the need for lighter heavier caliber gun for mountains, this particular requirement it seems was CREATED between some people at AHQ and MOD. General VKS mentions that GSQR was tailor made for Singapore Gun. When M777 was to be trialed with VKS in-charge, AHQ informed the Defense Secretary that M777 would not meet the GSQR because some points added to suit ST Gun did not have such relevance and it would be wrong to accept M777 to meet the same. Defense Secretary refused to budge and M777 supposedly 'failed' the trials on some parameters.

Tracked howitzers : 100 155mm/52 calibre. competitors L&T/SAMSUNG TECHWIN K9 Thunder and BEML/KONSTRUCTA ARZU. trials over.


They should resurrect the BHIM. Period. If TATA can deal with DENEL for the MOUNTED GUN SYTEM (MGS) then what is the problem with MOD allowing this combination to go through? BTW, the BEML gun turret has been offered with T-72 or Arjun hull. Though, I doubt T-72 hull can manage the 155/52 turret and associated forces of recoil. It was rejected for BHIM because hull had developed cracks and that is how Arjun hull came into picture.

Wheeled Howitzer - There is an additional category of wheeled howitzers like South African G6. This amounts for 180 guns and is supposed to be for areas where tracked platforms aren't too great. BEML is offering wheeled version of their gun as well.

This is the one: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Slovakia_army_867.jpg

Towed Howitzers : 1580 155mm/52 calibre. 400 off the shelf and 1180 manufactured in india with licence. competitors Nexter/L&T Trajan (towed version of the Caesar gun with L&T providing the lower portion ) and Soltam/Bharat Forge Athos 2052 ( bharat forge a mere integrator). trials complete


With Dhanush in pipeline and DRDO working on an Advanced Towed Artillery Gun System, these trials don't make sense. Unless, MOD and DRDO know something we don't.
Mounted Howitzer : 814 155mm/52 calibre truck mounted. 180 to be purchased off the shelf and the rest to be manufactured in India. competitors Nexter/L&T/Ashok Leyland Caesar ( Nexter to provide the gun, L&T-the lead integrator and Ashok Leyland to provide its Stallion truck as the platform) and Soltam/ Bharat Forge/ Tatra Atmos 2000-( Soltam-gun, Bharat Forge -the integrator, Tatra -truck) and TATA POWER SED INDIGENOUS GUN with denel's technology. status - undergoing trials


Frankly, they should be looking at mating Dhanush with a TATRA or Ashok Leyland platform. Though, only concern could be in terms of weight of the total system.

For example, this is the comparison between CAESAR and DENEL T5-52 (from which TATA SED MGS is derived):

Weight - 18.5 t - 28 t
Length (gun forward) - 10 m - 10.1 m
Hull length - ~ 7 m -
Width - 2.5 m - 2.9 m
Height - 3.26 m - 3.48 m

SanjayC
BRFite
Posts: 1557
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby SanjayC » 26 Jul 2014 21:46

rohitvats wrote:Name calling and cussing is not exactly airing 'contrary views'.


Calling Generals who blindly go for imports as "Import Generals" is not exactly "name calling" and "cussing" and "potty mouth." You are exaggerating to hide your own attitude problem. This was not the first time you have hounded posters critical of army's import fetish. Respect has to be earned, not dictated by command. For example, I have not seen any poster badmouth Navy for its import fetish. Navy gets proper respect, without anyone's prodding, for its role in indigenizing navy armaments.

Don't want to continue this discussion further. Feel free to breathe down people's neck. Most of good posters have already fled this board. Threads move slow because of lack of posters. Returning after 12 hours, I can only see two or three new posts in each thread. You make sure the rest aren't around for long either.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 26 Jul 2014 22:20

SanjayC wrote:
rohitvats wrote:Name calling and cussing is not exactly airing 'contrary views'.


Calling Generals who blindly go for imports ...

AFAIK, nobody has ever substantiated this yet and it is at best a wild, unfounded and extremely prejudiced accusation. What we do know is that there are no guns--repeat: NO GUNS--available from non-import sources (read: desi) till date. Yes, there are PROJECTS that are in various stages of development and testing but no arty systems that can be put on the field TODAY. Besides, you forget that the generals by themselves can do diddly squat. They need the far heavier (and much less transparent and accountable) clout of the MoD babus to get anything done. Considering that it is the army guys who stand to actually get killed because of the lack of guns, I would bend waaaaay over to their side in any argument. So I would be careful in pointing only to the generals because they are small potatoes in the scheme of things.
Last edited by Victor on 26 Jul 2014 22:24, edited 1 time in total.

member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_23694 » 26 Jul 2014 22:23

Navy gets proper respect, without anyone's prodding, for its role in indigenizing navy armaments.


Just on facts :
- Navy did not wait for N-LCA and went for imported Mig 29 K since it was required now. Will go for N-LCA when available .
- Navy uses imported gas turbine engines for its new ships.
- Radars are imported
- Air defense system on ships are imported [ was there corruption concerns raised then ?]
- Helos on ships are planned to be imported

Yes Navy has a better track record for indigenous development [design, hull, steel, some sensors]. But at the same time navy is pragmatic and goes for import substitute as the need arises and without any hesitation and without anyone raising any concern.
if we skip the ATV which is a strategic program and had Russian help , Navy still has to import submarines and right now planning to send two kilo class subs to Russia for upgrades

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 26 Jul 2014 22:31

Regarding navy, I would suspect that the greater level of indigenization is more due to the lower level of technology needed than intent. As noted above, the navy still imports its guns and aircraft because they need a level of tech that simply hasn't been mastered enough in-house yet. It's not apples and oranges to equate navy, army and air force in this manner.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2045
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby John » 26 Jul 2014 22:40

dhiraj wrote:- Navy did not wait for N-LCA and went for imported Mig 29 K since it was required now. Will go for N-LCA when available .
- Navy uses imported gas turbine engines for its new ships.
- Radars are imported
- Air defense system on ships are imported [ was there corruption concerns raised then ?]
- Helos on ships are planned to be imported

- Given the snail pace of Naval LCA program it was right decision.
- Indigenous GT are unlikely considering there are only 3 manufacturers that build them even china imports their GTs from Ukraine.
- Actually most radars are built indigenously under license few exception being Fregat and El/M radars.
- That will change once Barak-8 and QRSAM come into picture.
- Unless we have 10 Ton helo design we can leverage building a local variant is unlikely.
Last edited by John on 27 Jul 2014 00:00, edited 1 time in total.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7645
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 26 Jul 2014 22:44

Moderator Hat-On: Let us stick to the topic. There has been enough derailment already. Please take your views on other topics to more relevant thread. Thanks.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_26622 » 26 Jul 2014 23:12

@ Victor - Like the 'low tech' joke, signs of desperation growing as foreign deal making is not happening at required pace huh?

Navy is miles ahead of Army and light years ahead of Imported air force in terms of 'sustained' war fighting capability.

Navy does not import platforms but sub-systems - Level 1 design and build is done in India at least
Army imports Tanks - and even their shells, even looking for importing basic rifles now.
Air Force imports everything except underwear (euphemistically but not far from reality)

The real reason Navy has made decent progress (until the Scorpene saga) is a combination of 'Fight to Win' attitude and smaller 'Budget' per km of coverage. They just have a large coastline for the budget to defend. Army has the largest budget but spends it all looking at western front - shortsightedness or plain old 'St***d' after the 1962 debacle. Imported air force - thoroughly spoilt but they did not take on the Chinese air force to get a grounding. All in all, Army should have leading the way instead of Navy showing the light.

Kargil exposed Indian army's farce when we had to go begging for support within a week of a 'localized' conflict. Situation likely worse today as we have to even import tank shells > Russians are having a royal screwfest in India.

Air Force - less said the better but expect them to fold or start doing Jugaad within a couple of days in to a sizable conflict.

The real problem is giving 40 billion (sixth and soon third largest spender) and been paki centric. That is akin to spoiling your kids n times over.

Shift the goal to taking on china with same budget and then we are making them work hard. They will go for value for money but need to do a purge first

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_26622 » 26 Jul 2014 23:13

Just saw the order from mods - prior post happened in parallel. Back to topic!

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2452
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 27 Jul 2014 00:16

rohitvats wrote:
Towed Howitzers : 1580 155mm/52 calibre. 400 off the shelf and 1180 manufactured in india with licence. competitors Nexter/L&T Trajan (towed version of the Caesar gun with L&T providing the lower portion ) and Soltam/Bharat Forge Athos 2052 ( bharat forge a mere integrator). trials complete


With Dhanush in pipeline and DRDO working on an Advanced Towed Artillery Gun System, these trials don't make sense. Unless, MOD and DRDO know something we don't.

More likely the process started long before Dhanush cleared the trials and its in auto-pilot since. Hopefully it doesn't take a life of its own like the MRCA.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18056
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 27 Jul 2014 02:48

Comparing the Navy to the IAF/IA is mistaken, because the fact is the IN is far ahead of the two services in terms of indigenization because they have a focus on it from the brass itself & by now its institutionalized. In other words, its not a simple- trial/buy- get TOT & let PSUs do it business.

First, the Navy actually designs its own ships along with the shipyards. They have their own internal design team set up which trains & absorbs the latest practices & works with designers abroad and in the state shipyards to make sure platform designs are upto spec. Several of our latest ships have the direct hands on input of the Navy & the Navy is proud to include them in service. The IA has been busy rejecting the EME input derived Arjun one way or the other & even the INSAS. They care little for the overall input of their own folks which goes into the programs, because they are not involved end to end, which is what the Navy does.

Second, the Navy ensures its weapons designs & configurations are roadmapped across the board through specialist groups like the WEESE which make the requirements for & assist in integration of complex sensors & fitments onto platforms. Today the vast bulk of complex C3I systems are are made locally for the Navy, as are sonars (the Navy is supporting even towed array sonar programs despite their multiple delays and challenges and delayed imports till it became clear the program could not deliver & even now supports the program - and you don't see any of the attacks that one saw for the Arjun etc!). The Navy gives a chance for a local program wherever possible - without rancour - seeing the future, not the present. The NLCA is a perfect example as is the Revathi radar on the newly launched ASW ships.

Third, the Navy has an institutionalized program management structure that deputes program managers for multiple programs - local & foreign assisted/built to make sure naval interests are met & also to provide crucial input without delays. Naval PM teams manage warship building, sensor programs to many others. Its no coincidence that a decade before the IA ever got the Samyukta, there were ships already with Naval EW fits.

Fourth, the Navy on its own seeks out & pushes for indigenous programs, no matter how challenging, whether at public or private facilities & even encourages new capability build up. It pushed Walchandnagar industries to get into precision manufacturing from being an oil producer. Today it makes gears for naval ships to the Arihant.

Fifth, the Navy imports when there is no local alternative available, even if it is unhappy with the current state of affairs. It will take a MK1 and have it moved to a MK2 or a MK3, but it will persevere. It is this approach which truly marks it as unique. It was the Navy which pushed for a Naval ALH even though it was not really ideal for its needs. The Navy which asked for a Naval version of the LCA. The Navy which let PSUs work on towed sonars etc even though they were nowhere near the original requirements. In each of these, the Navy spent its own money, sent its people, and refused to mock/attack the respective programs. Even its criticism has been measured "yes, delays are harmful etc", not the sort of pointless commentary we have seen elsewhere.

In short, way back, the Navy decided it would be a builders Navy & it is working towards that. There is hardly a single program where the Navy does sees a local option and does not go for it.

If the IA/IAF need to be likewise, they have to decide, mandate wise, that their vision is to be builders Army and a builders AF - so to speak. Then things will change. Right now, they have chosen the path of being "demanding customers". That is a crucial difference, because their programs are ad hoc & run individually, not by a sort of mandate at AHQ etc of going local primarily and driving that.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_22539 » 27 Jul 2014 08:51

^Brilliant post as usual. The apologists need to cool down. Truth really does sting when you are in the wrong and standing up for injustice will put you in the way of criticism. One cannot be both judge and lawyer at the same time. It is time to pick one or the other.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7645
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 27 Jul 2014 11:48

Arun Menon wrote:^Brilliant post as usual. The apologists need to cool down. Truth really does sting when you are in the wrong and standing up for injustice will put you in the way of criticism. One cannot be both judge and lawyer at the same time. It is time to pick one or the other.


And you need to pipe down and stop passing these gratuitous comments.

Don't conflate fact based post(s) by someone like Karan with nonsense that gets peddled here in garb of supporting indigenous defense industry. Do you see the contrast in language between someone who actually knows something and empty vessels who simply rant and rave? If these posters made an effort to reach 10% of the factual content of Karan's post, this forum would be that much more richer in content.

Till that happens, potty mouth behavior wil be called out. And censured.

So, raise your game and put togethet coherent posts based on some research. And indulge in as much criticism as you want.

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby geeth » 27 Jul 2014 13:52

I don't know about Airforce, but the state of affairs in the Army is their own making. I would even go ahead and say Some of the decisions that Army takes is suspect and may have involved corrupt practices. Arjun is a case study by itself. And the MES, the less said the better. I deal with them on a day to day basis. So, if the public in this forum feels suspicious about some of the Army's decisions, then blame the Army - it is their own making.

If they wanted, Army could have involved themselves much more in indigenous programmes than what is seen or published. They seem to have an attitudinal problem with Indigenous products.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 27 Jul 2014 18:45

Curious:has the army ever wanted to take over OFB/CVRDE out of frustration like IAF wanted to take over HAL? If the navy has been so good at "indigenization", wonder why the MoD didnt allow the same to happen in aircraft and guns. The IAF started and ran its own aircraft factory in Kanpur making the Avro but MoD promptly took it over and gave it to HALsaying its not the IAF's job to make aircraft. We see the result-- mass off-the-shelf purchases of transport aircraft since. The army must be far more frustrated. While the OFB has not produced a usable gun yet, even imports have been blacklisted one after another with the net result-- no guns at all.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18056
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 27 Jul 2014 19:01

Question is simply whether a rtd person from IA can actually manage OFB, let alone CVRDE to make a disruptive change (design & development being even harder than running a built to print institution). The basic challenges remain as they are at the customer end (changing requirements, urgent issues) and the supplier (labor problems, redtape), and the authority for that particular leader will be the same as before. The Navy - lets be clear here - took over/sent senior rtd officers to manage the shipyards, because the shipyards were not performing optimally! The Navy - and this is where the difference lies, proactively stepped in & navigated the bureaucracy to get its own people in. But it has not been ideal. When the shipyard structure (labor unions, flawed contracts) is messed up, they can only do so much.

In the case of the IA, right the issues are that First, the IA officers would not have the requisite experience, and Second, the institutional problems remain. All we would be doing is parachuting in folks who can make relations better between customer & supplier, true - but the larger challenges remain. OFB will not become better until it is reformed from within.

Also, problem is the Army has been challenged by manufacturing in its own inhouse BRDs. They have been falling behind and have been unable to meet the same targets OFB fails on - production timeliness (can be matched to efficiency) and quality (IA BRD made items failed much earlier than required). The problem. The challenges they quote are almost word to word what OFB notes - old machinery, lack of skilled resources etc. Net, its not commitment that makes the difference (even while noting IA run shops will be more committed than an OFB one).

Ideally, manufacturing really needs to be in the hands of manufacturing dedicated orgs - L&T, TATA etc run with less bureaucracy. OFB & BRDs both share the bureaucracy issue. Any step out of the paperwork line gets the experts from CAG etc to give gyaan on "infructous expense" and torpedo the efforts in scandal.

Where the IA can step up is create a program management office that works within these orgs -

1. Create transparency - information flows quickly, accurately
2. Decisions taken quickly & with IA involvement
3. Create a pool of experienced personnel who don't have to retire and we lose out on their experience
4. IA "owns" the product

Running the entire place is beside the point. First, liberalize the place so that whosoever runs it runs it well. Second, have dedicated program management teams from IA

Finally, after this is done, create a second group which acts as an impartial test & qualification agency. This is aspirational. When you (one day) have hundreds of vendors, it helps to have a bunch of folks completely apart from the vendor-PSU-private/public debate who can evaluate equipment without being forced into decisions and are completely impartial.

This is the level of program management and infrastructure that exists in UK, Israel, France (three countries where I sought examples). Which is why a long way back we started buying from them but we have to start replicating it too. Otherwise its perennial reliance.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7645
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 27 Jul 2014 19:13

As per submission of Vice Chief of Army Staff in front of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defense (I think 2012), Army has constituted a GSQR Cell in AHQ which will be responsible for all GSQRs emanating from IA. It will be manned by a select group of officers and they'd be responsible for coordinating with all stakeholders.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18056
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 27 Jul 2014 19:22

Thats a good step, I hope they extend it to making a program management office/function within IA (put it within each group and have it manned/run by EME if necessary). I wish that one day every IA officer has some exposure to this function or even advances in it.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8070
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 28 Jul 2014 10:19

rohitvats wrote:As per submission of Vice Chief of Army Staff in front of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defense (I think 2012), Army has constituted a GSQR Cell in AHQ which will be responsible for all GSQRs emanating from IA. It will be manned by a select group of officers and they'd be responsible for coordinating with all stakeholders.


This is a welcome initiative from the IA. If taken to the logical conclusion. It will go a long way in reducing import dependency, when coupled with the reforms in the MOD procurement system. Along with a clearly articulated vision of the Indian military, by the civilian command authority.

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 337
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby dinesh_kimar » 29 Jul 2014 18:58

Kalyani Systems have shown 3 types of gun on their site

http://www.kalyanigroup.com/ArtillerySystems.asp

Also, they have supplied more than 2 million rounds of artillery to OFB and DRDO.

I think Karan M and other jingos will like their site, which shows items supplied for LCA Kaveri Engine, Naval Docks, etc.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_26622 » 30 Jul 2014 03:53

^^^^

Just did a wiki comparison on Paki and Chinese artillery nos with ours.

On Paki front - it's like going to a party with only pants on.
On Chinese front - it's like going to a party with only socks on.

Seriously outgunned in numerical strength. What is stopping us from ordering 1000 units of Dhanush and Kalyani guns. The urgency seems to be missing altogether.

If the army is not game then let BSF have them. We need to pound the Paki rats back in to their holes anyways.

A 155 mm gun every KM - firing every time they try to infiltrate is best message for Paki bozo generals.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16283
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby NRao » 30 Jul 2014 04:19

All that built up confidence ........................ what do you do with that?

A gun every KM?

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 30 Jul 2014 06:43

C-130 Spectre uses what looks like a soft-recoil 105mm howitzer like the Kalyani Garuda to pound and terrorize the Taliban while staying out of Anza manpad range. We could outfit a couple of aging Il-76s with digital fire control and all-weather targeting. Would be handy in preparation for the Taliban onslaught on Kashmir come spring of 2015.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby RoyG » 30 Jul 2014 06:46

dinesh_kumar wrote:Kalyani Systems have shown 3 types of gun on their site

http://www.kalyanigroup.com/ArtillerySystems.asp

Also, they have supplied more than 2 million rounds of artillery to OFB and DRDO.

I think Karan M and other jingos will like their site, which shows items supplied for LCA Kaveri Engine, Naval Docks, etc.


:lol:

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 337
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby dinesh_kimar » 30 Jul 2014 19:45

The Indigenous 155MM Gun [ taken from Indian Defence Review]

As mentioned above, the Transfer of Technology of the Bofors was available with the OFB. However, the Bofors was not indigenised with the OFB blaming the army for not forwarding such a demand, which by itself does not stand to logic as numerous developments have been done in the past by the DRDO and OFB without prior reference to the armed forces. However, reportedly the technology was being utilised for the production of spare barrels, breech block and certain other critical parts of the gun. The technology was also utilised for production of ammunition. With a view to open an alternative avenue for procurement of the 155mm gun system, OFB has, in recent times, been given the opportunity to develop the gun indigenously in keeping with the long term aim of achieving self-reliance. The private sector is being extensively urged to source components and sub-systems for this. The initial trials had caused barrel bursts during firing but improved metallurgy should help get over the problem. In the long term, it should be possible to meet the 155mm gun requirements indigenously.


The above are the general points, and in the R&D Thread, i have posted some major points about manufacture of the Bofors barrel.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_26622 » 30 Jul 2014 21:42

What matters is where the rubber meets the road. So desi alternatives are useless unless a bare minimum order for 1000 guns to be delivered within 5 years from both Kalyani and OFB is there ~ 2000 guns? Place an order subject to meeting clear specs and transfer risk on the supplier. These guys are not sitting in Swiss/Italian/UK 'mother'land to run away with the money anyways.

All this talk and no action is not surprising. Even dedicating 0.5% of Army budget on developing local sourced alternatives could have saved us from the predicament we are in today.

Start of sarcasm - Guess what they (MOD/Babus/Army - corrupt leadership) want are guns with barrels wrapped in $bills and firing swiss milk chocolate instead - End of sarcasm

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18056
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 31 Jul 2014 03:36

dinesh_kumar wrote:Kalyani Systems have shown 3 types of gun on their site

http://www.kalyanigroup.com/ArtillerySystems.asp

Also, they have supplied more than 2 million rounds of artillery to OFB and DRDO.

I think Karan M and other jingos will like their site, which shows items supplied for LCA Kaveri Engine, Naval Docks, etc.


Thanks, interesting stuff. Can you post a link to the 2 million rounds bit? I presume they supplied cast rounds to the OFB (unless DRDO was involved in some QA or design aspect?). Were these 155mm?


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests