Artillery Discussion Thread

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Ramesh » 07 Feb 2009 23:38

This thread is intended to be a place for discussion on issues related to Indian Artillery. The news and discussion related to artillery tends to get buried in the never ending discussion on Arjun in Artillery and armour thread.

As a starting point for discussion few links are given below:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/index.php?page=shop.browse&category_id=10&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=26

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/artillery.htm

The official website of the Regiment of Artillery:
http://indianarmy.nic.in/arms/index_arty.htm

Modernisation plan of artillery:
http://landwarfareindia.org/index.php?action=details&m_id=70

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby ramana » 08 Feb 2009 13:19

I agree.
dated but relevant.

BAE and ST Kinetics to bid for ultra-light guns

BAE Systems, ST Kinetics to bid for Indian Army's 155mm ultra-light howitzer contract news

15 March 2008

BAE Systems and Singapore Technologies (ST) Kinetics will submit rival bids to supply the Indian Army with 140 ultra-light 155 mm/39 cal howitzers. However, the two systems are not scheduled to enter trials until 2009, when they will be tested in the Rajasthan desert and at high altitudes.

The companies expect to make their bids by 7 April.

According to industry sources, both companies are also negotiating collaborative agreements with local companies to jointly build the howitzers under licence in order to meet mandatory offset obligations of 30 per cent of the overall contract value.

BAE Systems is offering its M777 155 mm/39 cal towed howitzer, which weighs less than 4,220 kg.


ST's rival system, the Pegasus 155 mm/39 cal lightweight howitzer weighs 5,400 kg.

The M777 howitzer is a towed artillery piece developed by British Vickers group, and is produced by BAE Systems Land Systems in the US. It will eventually replace the M198 howitzer in the United States Marine Corps and United States Army service by 2010.

The M777 is also being used by the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery, and has been used in action in Afghanistan along with the associated GPS-guided "Excalibur" ammunition.

It is also being assessed in trials by the British Army as a candidate for replacing the L118 Light Gun in some regiments.

M777 specifications
Length:
30.4 ft (9275 mm) in tow
33.5 ft (10210 mm) firing mode

Width:
9.1 ft (2770 mm) in tow
12.2 ft (3720 mm) firing mode

Height: 7.4 ft (2260 mm) in tow
Barrel life: 2650 firings
Maximum effective range:
conventional ammunition (unassisted): 24.7 km,
rocket-assisted projectile: 30 km,

Rate of fire:
5 round/min, rapid
2 round/min, sustained

Pegasus 155mm/39 cal lightweight howitzer

Weighing only 5.4 tonnes, the Pegasus SLWH is the world's first 39-calibre 155 mm with self-propelled capability that is air-transportable by a C130 and CH47. The Pegasus SLWH 39-calibre barrel is mounted on a specially designed lightweight structure that enables towing by medium sized vehicles like trucks, etc.

Equipped with an auxillary power unit (APU), the SLWH Pegasus is capable of power traverse and ammunition loading operations as well as self propelled functions.

Technical Specifications
Calibre
155 mm 39 calibre

Rate of fire
3 rounds (rds) in 24 sec (Burst)
4 rds/min (Max.)
2 rds/min for 30min (Sustain)

Heli-transportable
Self-propelled mode
Range
19 km (M107)
30 km (ERFB BB)

Lightweight structure

With an ammunition loading system for a high rate of fire, the Pegasus SLWH also delivers extended range projectiles of up to 30 km range.

Together with ST Kinetics' 155mm Improved Conventional Munition (ICM) rounds, the system provides rapid deployment forces with an immense force multiplier effect.



Dont know who uses ST Kinetics model?

ticky
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 89
Joined: 06 Apr 2008 13:13

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby ticky » 08 Feb 2009 14:02

Dont know who uses ST Kinetics model?


Singapore, as per wiki.

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 15:37

X posting from armour thread.
Nitesh wrote:Russia to deliver another 18 Smerch rocket launchers to India

01/ 10/ 2008

MOSCOW, October 1 (RIA Novosti) - Russia will deliver an additional 18 Smerch multiple rocket launch systems to India, the state-run arms exporter said on Wednesday.

"This agreement was reached during the Russian defense minister's recent visit to Delhi," Nikolai Dimidyuk of Rosoboronexport said.

The Smerch MRLS can effectively engage any type of target within a range of 20 to 90 kilometers, and is operated by a crew of three servicemen.

Russia is soon to start delivering 38 Smerch-M 9À52-2 MRLSs to India under a $450 million contract signed two years ago.

In August, Rosoboronexport signed a $300 million contract for the delivery of additional Smerch systems.

http://www.en.rian.ru/russia/20081001/117357923.html

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 15:40

x-posting from armour and artillery thread:
Raj Malhotra wrote:Does it mean 38+24+18 = 80 launchers for smerch now?

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 15:42

A series of x-postings from artillery and armour thread:

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 15:42

pkudva wrote:It may be only 38+24 as recently a new deal for 300$ million was signed in Aug 2008 so it should for a total of 62 units and moreover , the figures mentioned may be wrong.
Secondly Russia has already started delivery the first batch of Smerch Units as per the deal which was signed in 2005,so they cannot say that they will start the delivery soon.
Earlier it was reported that they have already completed the delivery of the first batch.
It was also informed that the second phase of delivery will be completed by 2010.

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 15:43

vivek_ahuja wrote:Pardon me if I am wrong, but doesn't it seem like a ridiculously low number of launchers for an Army the size India has? I mean, it makes sense if the Army is waiting for the Pinaka Mk-II type vehicle for taking over the heavier class MLRS requirement, but in the meantime, the numbers seem to be more for show, than part of an actual strategic concept of waging war. Sorry for having to say so.

-Vivek

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 15:44

vavinash wrote:I have to agree with vivek 80 Smerch is barely enough for out western border. We need atleast 200 for IA and hopefully the rest will be made up by Pinaka-II. With the chinks doing a echha copy of the Smerch and passing it onto the pakis IA cannot afford to sit quiet.

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 15:45

Santosh wrote:38 Smerch for $450 million. Thats almost $12 million per copy. LCA was supposed to cost like $20 million per copy. Hmmmm. Does anyone know how many rockets it comes with?

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 15:46

Rahul M wrote:
vivek_ahuja wrote:Pardon me if I am wrong, but doesn't it seem like a ridiculously low number of launchers for an Army the size India has? I mean, it makes sense if the Army is waiting for the Pinaka Mk-II type vehicle for taking over the heavier class MLRS requirement, but in the meantime, the numbers seem to be more for show, than part of an actual strategic concept of waging war. Sorry for having to say so.

-Vivek

20 would make about one regiment, correct ?

I would guess that they are raising one regiment each for the 3 strike corps, for the moment.

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 15:47

Rupak wrote:It's 3 batteries of 4 each, total 12 per regiment in case of the Smerch.

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 15:47

Rahul M wrote:thanks boss. this means about 5/6 regiments w/o reserves.

also, IA refused the russki drone that came with it. what will they use instead, nishant ?

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 15:48

Vivek K wrote:What's the cost of the Pinaka? Any estimates of the price and comparison of Pinaka II with Smerch?

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 15:49

srai wrote:
Vivek K wrote:What's the cost of the Pinaka? Any estimates of the price and comparison of Pinaka II with Smerch?


214mm PINAKA MBRL
...
Tata Power's Advanced Material Division and Larsen & Tubro's Heavy Engineering Division were awarded a contract worth Rs 200 crore (US $45 million) by Army HQ, on 29 March 2006, to produce 40 Pinaka MRBLs each.
...

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 15:50

vivek_ahuja wrote:
srai wrote:Here's some info on a new version of Pinaka MBRL:

214mm PINAKA MBRL


That's the one I was talking about as the Mk-II version (with all the bells and whistles so to speak).

srai wrote:According to the Army ORBAT page, there are around 150+ 122mm BM-21/LRAR. So you can do the math as to how many are required to replace the BM-21s.


I wasn't talking about replacing BM-21s. That's going on already with the Pinaka. But even if we replace all of the BM-21s with the Pinaka variants (Note: You have the Mk-I version now, but these will get upgraded to Mk-II down the line), it still does not address the original question:

There is a long, medium and short range requirement that needs to be met. In the long range requirement, the number of Smerch launchers seems low. In addition, what about attrition replacements? You can bet the enemy will accord a high amount of attention to taking out these units. The point being that with a front a thousand kilometer long, that 80+ number of Smerch MRLs seem to be spread really low anyway. If in addition they take losses or require maintenance etc, you get to see how thinly spread they really are.

Now when the Pinaka Mk-II version comes along, this capability gap reduces since the Pinaka then transfers itself from the medium range category to the long range one. But then what happens to the Medium range requirement? If the Army is depending on the Pinaka to shift back and forth between long range and medium range requirements using varying munition types then that could work. Or else they should increase the numbers and allow a simultaneous long and medium range weapons platform to be at the disposal of the field commanders.

As always, of course, I am open for correction on the matter. As it turns out, I am a proponent for providing devastating and heavy firepower at all of our commander's fingertips. So I could be biased against the dual use flexibility of the Pinaka! :)

-Vivek

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 15:51

pkudva wrote:Guys,we should not forget either 62 or 80 units will be procured in completely assembled condition.But there was also a media report saying that there will be Transfer of Technology so it definately we can manufacture them in India too as the same way as T-90.
Pinaka MK-2 will definately come as the periodic testings do take place to test for new rockets with enhanced ranges. presently the range is in between 39km-45km.I think they will try to increase the range upto 120km as we have smerch which can cover the distance between 70km-90km.
we also have to consider wether either pinaka or smerch can be used in himalayan regions or desert region. There may be planning where pinaka will be used in deserts and smerch in himalayan regions or vice versa. Its just a guess.

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 15:52

srai wrote:
vivek_ahuja wrote:...

The point being that with a front a thousand kilometer long, that 80+ number of Smerch MRLs seem to be spread really low anyway. If in addition they take losses or require maintenance etc, you get to see how thinly spread they really are.

...
-Vivek


The border maybe 1000 kilometer long but not the front necessarily. Armies don't tend to spread in long linear lines along the border. They will pick their spot(s) and move through in relative concentration.

Yes the numbers are quite low but if you think about what the IA had prior to these 80 Smerch MRLS then you'll realize it is a big leap. One can be sure that there will be more coming in due time. For one thing, there is a tendency among the IA (and Indian Armed forces in general) to place initial orders in small batch quantities. The follow on order typically is much larger and repeated over.

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 15:53

Malay wrote:Thats falling into the Pakistani syndrome-comparing with what we had before and thinking we'r much better off. We need to compare in terms of what others have acquired as well in that timeframe as well. We know that the Chinese have large quantities of MRLS-we know they will use them liberally if they have them-that puts our arty's at a disadvantage unless we too use MLRS liberally-for that we need quantity.

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 15:54

satya wrote:Regarding Smerch MBRL in IA , need to keep in mind a few things b4 we consider the 'small number' being ordered :

1. IA initially ordered 39 or so launchers , making up 3 regiments ( 12 per regt.) and it was decided to use it as a Corps level weapon .

2. IA need to develop and find tune its arty. warfare doctrine with the induction of a new weapon system in form of Smerch , pls dont its doctrine place with existing Grad MBRLs for both are lot different in terms of range, accuracy and effectiveness to name a few factors . It takes take , iirc when BMP IFVs were introduced , it took IA almost 5 + years to have an effective doctrine in place . Not sure but i think there was an article regarding induction and finetuning the strategy as per new weapon in BR Monitor . So once IA actually has an operational Smerch regt. and validate its use in field exercises only then will it know the actual numbers required not b4 .

3. Pinaka MK-2 is also in pipeline and is suppose to be inducted sometimes btw 2010-2015 time frame and provides at min. wht Smerch is already offering .

4. Going by limited number initially , IA top brass intends to use it in its offensive ops ( tht drastically brings down the numbers required ) . Secondly , how many 2 sq. kms or more enemy formations , we see available tht require massive numbers , not to forget the cost factor

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 15:55

satya wrote:Regarding Smerch MBRL in IA , need to keep in mind a few things b4 we consider the 'small number' being ordered :

1. IA initially ordered 39 or so launchers , making up 3 regiments ( 12 per regt.) and it was decided to use it as a Corps level weapon .

2. IA need to develop and find tune its arty. warfare doctrine with the induction of a new weapon system in form of Smerch , pls dont its doctrine place with existing Grad MBRLs for both are lot different in terms of range, accuracy and effectiveness to name a few factors . It takes take , iirc when BMP IFVs were introduced , it took IA almost 5 + years to have an effective doctrine in place . Not sure but i think there was an article regarding induction and finetuning the strategy as per new weapon in BR Monitor . So once IA actually has an operational Smerch regt. and validate its use in field exercises only then will it know the actual numbers required not b4 .

3. Pinaka MK-2 is also in pipeline and is suppose to be inducted sometimes btw 2010-2015 time frame and provides at min. wht Smerch is already offering .

4. Going by limited number initially , IA top brass intends to use it in its offensive ops ( tht drastically brings down the numbers required ) . Secondly , how many 2 sq. kms or more enemy formations , we see available tht require massive numbers , not to forget the cost factor

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 15:56

Philip wrote:Some time ago,I mentioned the article where the IA's firepower doctrine was to follow the Russian/Soviet "100 gun" system,where overwhelming firepower on the battlefield would sufficiently degrade the enemy's forces.We see here the hint of a layered system of artillery,from close ranges upto almost the range of our Prithvi missiles,using field artillery,SPs,MBRls-Pinaka and Smerch.

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 15:57

abhischekcc wrote:I had presented a single sheet paper during the BRF bangalore meet on the same topic - the reason for the popularity of the 100 gun concept over the NATO 60-gun concept is the 'suction effect' - very effectively kills all oxygen breathing life in a given radius - best way to destroy enemies in holed up defensive positions.

Soviets had an aggresive posture in western Europe, hence needed an offensive artillery strategy. India has adopted the same strategy vis-a-vis pakistan now, which is good. We were going to use the G6s in an offensive thrust against pakistan - that's why the britishers sabotaged the deal.

more later.

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 15:57

Iam wrote:
abhischekcc wrote: We were going to use the G6s in an offensive thrust against pakistan - that's why the britishers sabotaged the deal.

more later.


I like to know about the above. How did we (british) sabotage the Indian Denel deal? This is new to me.

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 15:58

abhischekcc wrote:India had signed a contract for anti-material rifles with Denel before the G6 deal.

After the G6 deal, a sh!t storm was raised about bribery in the anti-material rifles deal. This stroy first broke in a British newsagency (Guardian, I think). This was used as a pretence by the Indian bureaucracy for blacklisting the firm, and cancelling the G6 deal.

It was necessary to cancel the G6 deal, otherwise India would finally have the ability to split pakistan into two. And this is not desired by Whitehall. They need pakistan to keep India in check.

It was not just the Anglo-Americans involved in the sabotage. It couldn;t have been done without inside help.

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 15:59

Rahul M wrote:current woman affairs minister renuka chowdhury was instrumental in raising the hue and cry that led to cancellation of the denel deal.
Renuka lobbied for babus, Army officers against Denel

she had reportedly also lobbied for russian guns before this incident.

:roll:

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 16:00

Iam wrote:
abhischekcc wrote:India had signed a contract for anti-material rifles with Denel before the G6 deal.

After the G6 deal, a sh!t storm was raised about bribery in the anti-material rifles deal. This stroy first broke in a British newsagency (Guardian, I think). This was used as a pretence by the Indian bureaucracy for blacklisting the firm, and cancelling the G6 deal.

It was necessary to cancel the G6 deal, otherwise India would finally have the ability to split pakistan into two. And this is not desired by Whitehall. They need pakistan to keep India in check.

It was not just the Anglo-Americans involved in the sabotage. It couldn;t have been done without inside help.


I sincerely doubt you conclusion/perception that a single platform inventory could help splitting another nation ( pakistan ) aremd forces which simply undermines the ability of Indian soldier ( and to some extent the whole army ). You have done (split pak ) in the past ( 1972-4 ) without any much help from western artillery guns or antimaterial rifles. Please brush up your literature on how warefare works. You can bring down a regime simply by propagande.

The amount of corruption that emanates from Indian bureaucracy ( happens in britain as well and any other developed nation ), political parties and heavy handedness of russians in the defence procurement since the cold war, begs me to differ on this point. Guardian ( or for that matter any news paper ) writes a lot of articles to sell newsprint. We even have panorama and few other programs on BBC, which have more quality content in them then the combined British news paper industry. Then it would take just a lame escuse for an Indian govt to value it's investigation based on a newspaper article.
It would require Britain media to have much control over Indian politicians. Heck India even refused to accept the aid that Britain would donate in the guise of development aid ( now all know what that aid package is meant for, let me spell it out, to further british interest ). Given the way the Hawk deal was pushed through, it would take more than a news paper article and cannon fodder to bring that deal down.

Please refer to the original Indian army requirements, regarding tracked and wheeled artillery etc.

Why hasn't the bofors gun ( after much test ) been bought as it has met army requirements.?

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 16:00

astal wrote:Rahul M and Abhischekcc et al,

Regarding the deal with Denel, I was of the opinion that something very sinister was going on in the background. Though the Indian government canceled all dealings with Denel using the fig leaf of bribery in anti material rifles, something recently has come up that might put the matter in a better perspective.

Iirc it was pointed out in one of the strategic threads, by Ramana, that the South African government started defense co-operation with Pakistan including technology transfer. If this was the case, our foreign ministry may have been 'shocked' and canceled the Denel deal out of spite.

IMHO this was a grave mistake similar to the cancellation of the Bofors deal on allegations of corruption. We should have let the Denel deal though and then went slow on dealing with South Africa until they overcame their Pakistan obsession. In the end, it is the army and the countries' defense preparedness that is suffering. The Denel deal would also have been a shot in the arm for the Arjun as they used a common engine and other parts (iirc the whole chassis).

Reading the tea leaves for future artillery purchases, the current UPA govt cannot buy from Bofors for historical reasons. Additionally, since they are the only vendor approved by the army, they will charge a very high price and babus hate one vendor situations. Either we will have to wait for Soltam to fix their problems, absolve Denel and restart co-operation with SA, buy whatever Russia offers or have a change in governing party.

Playing politics with weapons has cost the country dearly. Luckily the Government seems to have woken up lately and not let allegations of corruption derail the Scorpene and Barak-2 deals.

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 16:02

Rahul M wrote:denel affair is almost proof of the clout of the russian lobby in Indian establishment.

the bhim would have been an excellent step forward for both army and desi RnD, not to mention it used the arjun chasis. perhaps that was also a factor.

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 16:02

abhischekcc wrote:Here are my views:

1. G6 deal was for 280 guns. Given that IA has "re-adopted" the 100-gun concept, and that s tandard military doctrine calls for 40% of the strike force to be kept as reserve, it means that a force for 140 guns (100+40) would be sufficient for one assault front. So 280 is good for 2 fronts.

2. If you look at the histroy of Indo-Pak armour maneuver, you will see that neither country was able to dominate 2 fronts (Punjab, J&K or Rajasthan) at the same time. So, an assault by one country on one front was easily countered by the other country by threatening to open a second front.

3. A 100-gun pinpoint assault on one front removes oxygen from a given area, in effect killing all soldiers in that area. This is highly effective in destroying entrenched defensive positions. The 100-gun assault gives a gauranteed destruction of enemy forces. This is what makes it such an effective replacement for mini-nukes.

4. Given the fact that G6 is completely mobile (unlike Bofors, which is partially mobile), they can travel along with a tank thrust into pakistan without slowing down the speed of the invasion. THIS IS WHAT SCARES THE PAKIS AND THEIR MASTERS IN WHITEHALL AND FOGGY BOTTOM.


Now, combine the elements. G6 is an assault system that gaurantees the destruction of pakistani defences, not only near the border, but several hundred kilometers deep, and on two fronts. It would have enabled India to chop Pakistan into tqo WITHOUT GOING NUCLEAR.

And that's the reason the G6 deal was a threat to the national security of US and UK. :mrgreen:

-------------
Iam,
I came to the conclusion that the deal was zapped by Anglo-Americans because of their interest in maintaining a parity between India and Pak. I had not considered the Russian interest, yet.

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 16:04

abhischekcc wrote:Bharadwaj,

The MRCA deal is next in line. I hope to god that the Congress loses the next elections or we will be tied to American empire for the next generation.

I have been crying hoarse since several years that the Indian resource US is most interested in are the India Armed Forces - they need them to fight against the Chinese and the Muslim world.

Why the hell should we fight other people's wars?

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 16:05

Philip wrote:Abc,that was a good point,the ability to strike,penetrate and surge into enemy territory rapidly,without resort to nukes of any kind.The key Q now is where is the IA going to get its firepower from.I really do not see why we cannot obtain more Bofors guns,as the co. is now a BAe asset.That should stop the critics.It also makes sense to obtain more of the same (providing the new guns fit the bill),rather than buy a new system and the other key factor of ammo and ammo production locally.

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 16:05

abhischekcc wrote:Philip, IIRC, IA is planning to purchase 2300 guns - 800 semi-SP and 1500 towed.

But they will not make up for the loss of the G6s.

India is just too full of Mir Jafars these days. One of them is the one who was 'honored' in Washington recently.

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 16:06

Bharadwaj wrote:
abhischekcc wrote:Bharadwaj,

The MRCA deal is next in line. I hope to god that the Congress loses the next elections or we will be tied to American empire for the next generation.


One does get the scary feeling that MRCA is just the start of this show with hercules/poseidon being something of a teaser. Tanks,guns etc will be a natural progression.

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 16:07

Mihir.D wrote:Does anybody know why the PzH 2000 was not in the race ?

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 16:08

Baljeet wrote:
Mihir.D wrote:Does anybody know why the PzH 2000 was not in the race ?

Because Germans have become the beacon of humanity--they can't shake off their Nazi past that is still lingering in their Psyche. Their naivette has blinded the pragmatism. Germans think Pakistanis are struggling for survival against big bad India. There was a politician who once said, Kinder instat Inder (kids before Indians)--it was for denying visas to Indian Software Engineers but the message is loud and clear.

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 16:09

satya wrote:Seem like we are in some sort of competition with our western neighbour in conspiracy theories . A few more very naive observations :

1. 100 Gun concept was used by Russians from a defensive position ie to lure the german offensive thrust inside the killing zone and was not used in pre-emptive offensive attack initially and 'sucessfully' . IA used the 100 gun concept again from a defensive position in Kargil not in offensive oriented doctrine . Not sure how this fits in Cold start doctrine iirc based on multiple incursions ( if not reading wrong multiple surely doesnt mean only 2 broad fronts but rather 5-6 incursions by offensive IBGs inside enemy territories , so if those 280 guns are suppose to be used in 100 gun per front , all PA has to do is to scatter its assets wide enough not to come under the oxygen -sucking 100 gun barrage as per my very naive understanding of defensive ops )

2. Another issue , if IA wanted to use denel G6 in 100 gun concept only , couldnt it be done much better by Smerch and Pinaka batteries more effectively ? Or only G6 has some special shell used tht cant be found anywhere else ?

3. If going by TSP-India equal equal strategy only then it means , any future SPH tht IA will acquire will be of inferior technology and will come so late tht by then TSP will be the same old TFTA again . Again only time can tell but going by RFIs being sent for 105mm howitzers , it doesnt seem IA is looking for outdated technology.

4. Germans never said no to selling arms to India , all India need to do is approach them . Pls do remember , a major chunk of German economy is export based . IIRC, there were media reports of Rhinemetal in preliminary talks or offered some sort of joint venture for R&D and production for a host of armoured vehicles.
OT, Germans are not tht sentimental types , they are just greedy as any other nation , show them the money , they will follow you atleast the old generation. Young ( whtever left if at all other than Turks ) is good for nothing .

5. When originally Gen. Sunderji validated his doctrine , i dont think he had G6 in mind or he made a doctrin bifurcating TSP after 15 yrs or so , when first doctrine was accepted . Also , IA knows how our Neta-Babu nexus works and when they make a doctrine , they do so keeping in mind such issues .

There was an article in SAAG , where it was stated tht ' Cold Doctrine' was validated and 'fine tuned' , again pls note it was done in complete absence of all these new SPHs and other equipments .
SO b4 losing your sleep over IA's incompetence and 'everything wrong' with our Babus ( cant understand going by the sheer competition to clear the civil service examination ) , pls do remember they have lot more information about actual TSPA strength and their own , pls do give them some credit if not all.


Just my rambles , but pls dont make statements purely from your fears and conspiracy theory making brain working overtime.

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 16:11

bart wrote:Because Germans have become the beacon of humanity--they can't shake off their Nazi past that is still lingering in their Psyche. Their naivette has blinded the pragmatism. Germans think Pakistanis are struggling for survival against big bad India. There was a politician who once said, Kinder instat Inder (kids before Indians)--it was for denying visas to Indian Software Engineers but the message is loud and clear.


More likely it was too expensive or the Army and the MOD wanted to stick to the tried and tested Bofors.[/quote]

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 16:12

bart wrote:
abhischekcc wrote:
4. Given the fact that G6 is completely mobile (unlike Bofors, which is partially mobile), they can travel along with a tank thrust into pakistan without slowing down the speed of the invasion. THIS IS WHAT SCARES THE PAKIS AND THEIR MASTERS IN WHITEHALL AND FOGGY BOTTOM.



G6 is just a gun. It so happens that the SA army has preferred to use a wheeled variant of it. Google for any of the top artillery systems, you will find that they come with options to be mounted on various platforms, including wheeled (like the G6), tracked and towed. This is available for Bofors, GIAT, Israeli, Russian etc guns. You even have ultra-light guns that can be moved quickly by helicopter. Any of those systems would have worked fine. The problem does not lie with the MOD not selecting G6 but with it not selecting/buying ANY new artillery.

And going by your fanciful logic of 100s of G6 traveling into Pakistan with a Tank charge, will they all be going on the highway that the difference between the tracked tank and the wheeled G6 will not be felt? Would the wheeled G6 be capable of climbing sand dunes or fording an irrigation canal like the tanks? Or would the PZH-2000 or any number of tracked artillery not be even better than the G6?

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Artillery

Postby Ramesh » 08 Feb 2009 16:14

soutikghosh wrote:
Rupesh wrote: [b]Bofors-UAE's continuous ongoing refurbishment of the Indian armed forces' http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-3611793,flstry-1.cms


What is Bofors-UAE ?


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 30 guests