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.
Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Brando » 22 Oct 2012 13:59

Vivek K wrote:You are critical of the process - i.e. reverse engineering. Why? That is dorky!


How is this "reverse engineering" ?? As far as I'm aware, India PAID for the schematics of the gun so that it could manufacture it under license in India.

Is this untrue ? Is the OFB illegally copying the Bofors gun design ??

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_22539 » 22 Oct 2012 17:57

^^Apparently the TOT was not complete, thanks to the mess Sonia and her friends caused. I hear that the rest of the technology was reverse engineered/developed by OFB without any help from Bofors. So, I guess you could call it reverse engineering.

Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Shrinivasan » 24 Oct 2012 01:15

Arun Menon wrote:^^Apparently the TOT was not complete, thanks to the mess Sonia and her friends caused. I hear that the rest of the technology was reverse engineered/developed by OFB without any help from Bofors. So, I guess you could call it reverse engineering.

The whole Bofors Fisaco is a testament to "How not to conduct a procurement process", funnily the IA selected the GIAT gun, it is the politicos which tilted the deal toward Bofors (Sweden was very close to Desh, Rajiv and Olaf Palme were bum chums) and so it was perceived / projected as a safe bet / sanction proof purchase. The rest is history...

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4068
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby kit » 24 Oct 2012 09:49

Brando wrote:
Vivek K wrote:You are critical of the process - i.e. reverse engineering. Why? That is dorky!


How is this "reverse engineering" ?? As far as I'm aware, India PAID for the schematics of the gun so that it could manufacture it under license in India.

Is this untrue ? Is the OFB illegally copying the Bofors gun design ??


the chinese would be laughing sh## !

Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Shrinivasan » 24 Oct 2012 22:09

I was reading the recently published Rand paper on the Air War in Kargil, one info which caught my eye was that IA fired 250,000 arty shells and MBRL rockets, using just 700 arty peices. That's a phenomenal rate of fire, that too without WLRs or forward controllers for the most part.
Think how effective they can be in 2015 with an array of UAVs, SAR equipped Sats and WLRs!!!

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 25 Oct 2012 23:20

Shrinivasan wrote:I was reading the recently published Rand paper on the Air War in Kargil, one info which caught my eye was that IA fired 250,000 arty shells and MBRL rockets, using just 700 arty peices. That's a phenomenal rate of fire, that too without WLRs or forward controllers for the most part. Think how effective they can be in 2015 with an array of UAVs, SAR equipped Sats and WLRs!!!


Srinivasan, the use of artillery and density of deployment of the guns was THE biggest factor in India's favor. This level of artillery support is unprecedented in the sub-continent. Western armies and especially Soviets worked towards generating such mass volume of fire. For example, it is not uncommon for a US Army Corps to have 3-4 Corps Artillery Bdes to be deployed as per required.

BTW, the highlighted part is incorrect. You do injustice (unknowingly) to brave men of the Artillery and at many time, SF.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 26 Oct 2012 00:02

forward controllers for the most part


I think you are posting this thinking it somehow shows fighting against the odds


but thats not true

there were controllers - many slipping into dangerous locations to provide control

Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Shrinivasan » 26 Oct 2012 11:41

rohitvats wrote:
Shrinivasan wrote:that too without WLRs or forward controllers for the most part.

BTW, the highlighted part is incorrect. You do injustice (unknowingly) to brave men of the Artillery and at many time, SF.
I think you missed the "for the most part", we had forward controllers only after capture of some ridges. before that, it was we had infantry, SF as well as recon troops getting as close to enemy lines are possible (many times risking themselves fatally). on traverse/reverse slopes, we had not way of observation.. which is where UAVs and SAR enabled sats would help.
Did IA have WLRs in kargil? i am not sure?

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 26 Oct 2012 11:50

we had no wlr prior to the antpq37 purchase post-kargil.

even UAV within indian airspace are useless for the deep valleys and reverse slopes . same for JSTARS or other manned GMTI platforms.

SAR and IMINT sats with multiple ones in same orbital planes covering the dynamic duo to our north to guarantee quick revisits is the only way out.

for the vast flatlands of tibet once u leave the himalayas behind, JSTARS is a game changer, same for the plains.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2734
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby darshhan » 26 Oct 2012 16:01

Shrinivasan wrote: I think you missed the "for the most part", we had forward controllers only after capture of some ridges. before that, it was we had infantry, SF as well as recon troops getting as close to enemy lines are possible (many times risking themselves fatally). on traverse/reverse slopes, we had not way of observation.. which is where UAVs and SAR enabled sats would help.
Did IA have WLRs in kargil? i am not sure?


Rumor has it that during Kargil war SF had crossed and were operating behind the enemy lines on more than one occasion. I do not know how true this was or what was the means of ingress. But I wouldn't be surprised if this was true.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10102
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sum » 26 Oct 2012 16:23

^^ Well, a relative of a chaiwallah was in SF and he had personally done one such mission and was hit with some shrapnel and had come back across the LoC virtually holding his guts in his hands to prevent it from falling out :eek: :eek:

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 26 Oct 2012 17:12

And these men risked life and limb so abv and his gang could show "statsmenship" and not cross one meter across the loc for iaf. Iaf could have chased and harassed the paf from that region far enough for our men to seek better routes and also demolish the supply chain in depth.

Bill clinton would have hung the munna out to dry for atleast a week while we went in and slapped them around. He had no reason to jump in immediately to save the pig.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 26 Oct 2012 17:49

to be fair "it was not one meter' :mrgreen:

a little nudge and wink was allowed

nakul
BRFite
Posts: 1251
Joined: 31 Aug 2011 10:39

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nakul » 26 Oct 2012 17:51

^^^

The Carnegie report did mention a few targets being bombed by the IAF without giving away too much details. 2 + 2 = ???

member_22906
BRFite
Posts: 305
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_22906 » 26 Oct 2012 21:13

Shrinivasan wrote: I think you missed the "for the most part", we had forward controllers only after capture of some ridges. before that, it was we had infantry, SF as well as recon troops getting as close to enemy lines are possible (many times risking themselves fatally). on traverse/reverse slopes, we had not way of observation..


OP officers from Arty are assigned to the the infantry battalions. These are the guys who move along with the infantry while directing Arty fire. So in other words, if infantry is moving and arty is providing supporting fire, then it these OP officers that provide the coordinates to direct that fire

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7008
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Anujan » 26 Oct 2012 22:36

Don't know if ABV not moving one meter beyond LoC had more benefits than costs. It was certainly not for aman ki asha.

Imagine what would have happened if we moved in without kicking them out of the ridges. Pakis would have mobilized the bums and raised a huge hue and cry. We would have to publicly mobilize as well. Then everyone from UN to eyerope would sing the peace tune and intervene except we would have lost territory.

By not crossing LoC, we had then exactly where we wanted and gave them a huge GUBO. if nawaz wasn't hasty, the pakis themselves would have known what kind of downhill skiier their army is. Ultimately mush coup was all about protecting his and the army's backside and H&D.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 27 Oct 2012 08:54

I meant IAF crossing the border and demolishing the PAF that was massed there to protect H&D and bombarding the PA support bases and arty units in some depth like upto Skardu which is 90km from the LOC. by some accounts 80% of PAF had been massed into the northern area. we could have started a air campaign hitting mil targets in the northern area and dared them to escalate into infra targets or into other sectors.

I believe like all bullies they would have backed down asap and whimpered for peace sooner, with their men leaving the heights tails tucked firmly between their legs.

at that point there was a historical high disparity in quality and strength between the two air forces.

as it stands, PAF escaped with H&D intact, and the PA did not suffer much overt losses on TV since whatever our artillery managed to strike was not public on their side, their jihadis in the heights were always expendable pawns from the NLI in civvy clothes.....and drawn from the northern areas units to contain any failure outside of the 'core' pakjabi regiments.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2330
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vivek_ahuja » 27 Oct 2012 09:21

Singha,

I think you are underestimating the Paki perfidy and overestimating the Indian Government's ability to control it in front of the world media. The Pakis have been effectively using this one single advantage that they have very effectively for the last 50 years when it comes to the Kashmir issue. I agree with Anujan when he says that staying behind our borders and getting the job done was a stronger kick in the nuts to the Pakis and Musharraf in particular than what would have happened if we had escalated exactly the way they expected us to.

-Vivek

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7008
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Anujan » 27 Oct 2012 11:10

Yes Singha-ji, I understand.

But we have a disadvantage vis-a-vis Pakistan. Their army does not care about their soldiers or their citizens. Ours do.

Imagine the scenario. India bombs Skardu. Pakis set off a warning "nuclear test" in Chagai hills. What happens next? Indians can go out and assure everyone that if Pakis strike, we will glass them. But then there will be mass panic inside and outside the country. Recall that the government could not stand firm in the face of shrill media and populace even during something relatively minor (in comparison) like the IC814 hijack. Families were on dharna demanding the terrorists be released, news media was going nuts. The swiss currency fellow in the plane was causing an international takleef. What if they threaten nuclear retaliation? At that time, they didnt have missile deliverable bums (not sure if they have it even now), so they would claim that destroying their aircraft is destroying their deterrence and hence is threatening.....

On the other hand, Two can play a farce. Pakis claimed that it was the "Mujahideen" fighting in the hills over whom they had no control. Indians were slaughtering Pakistani "non state actors" and "mujahideen" inside Indian territory. So why does Pakistan need to rustle up their nukes? We didnt cross the border or kill a single Pakistani army fellow did we? We were just halaing the "Mujahideen".

Now we can debate if that bought us any benefits for the costs that imposed on our brave sons. But I do believe that it was a valid course of action and certainly no aman-ki-asha (like canceling the Vijay Divas celebrations last year).

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 27 Oct 2012 12:46

^^^I second that. Remember, this was in 1999 and Services were in not too great a shape. As a solace, the PA/PAF/PN were in worse shape. Uncle's dollars had not started flowing in yet. However, what this also meant that the holding power of PA would have been that much lower and a 'Chagai' would have happened much faster.

And there would have been no point crossing the LOC in Kargil w/o opening other fronts - this would have allowed PA to increase force levels in the area and negate any Indian advantage. They got caught in their own trap of mujaheddin farce - they could not openly and to their best extent support these freedom fighters;and the ever present threat of IA crossing over would have meant that other sub-sectors in battle area needed to be manned and guarded 24x7.

sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 345
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sarabpal.s » 27 Oct 2012 14:32

Anujan wrote:Yes Singha-ji, I understand.

Recall that the government could not stand firm in the face of shrill media and populace even during something relatively minor (in comparison) like the IC814 hijack. Families were on dharna demanding the terrorists be released, news media was going nuts.

Very True
Also dont forget Neta factor.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vasu raya » 27 Oct 2012 21:51

Even if the Kargil intrusion was by NLI camouflaged as Mujahideen, the moment PA started using their artillery in conjunction with US provided WLRs, their cover is blown and the premise of not crossing the LOC is invalid, at this point even if the enemy took the initiative IAF could have cleared up their artillery positions threatening our soldiers without IA crossing the LOC. The artillery duel was costly in terms of human lives.

Anyways, hopefully the booster assisted Sudarshan* comes online soon with enough standoff range bringing all typical 30-50km tube artillery into target zone, while this is good for fixed wing aircraft for rotary assets,

a small diameter bomb with a booster could be used, it can be loaded on high altitude capable Rudra and LCH

On Mi-17s, the Pinaka rockets modified such that it is released into the slip stream, a small booster is fired and a nose cap gives it the required angled orientation** and then blown off***, the small booster is dropped and the actual rocket takes off, the terminal stage is satnav guided

* it should evolve into GPS\GLONASS\IRNSS guided rounded in terminology as satnav guided
** this is provided by the trajectory correction system on the chopper which receives its co-ordinates feed from airborne GMTI/WLR radars or Apache or simply from the NCW
*** we have seen this launch sequence in Brahmos already

AAC owns these and hence doesn't need fixed wing aircraft, in addition they are on the economic side.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7008
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Anujan » 28 Oct 2012 02:31

OT but wanted to add this.

The basic problem in India-Pak deterrence is that it does not resemble other deterrence. US and Soviet were averse to even a single highly populated city of theirs being nuke bummed. Because as someone put it "There are not enough bulldozers" (to clear the bodies). They knew that it would set their economy and civilization back by several decades at least, why they deal with cleanup and fallout.

Pakistan is not like US or the Soviets. I would argue that in terms of civilization being set back, the Jiahd factory that they have created in FATA and NWFP far exceeds the destruction of even a nuke in Peshawar. There is no human resource development or infrastructure development or economic integration of that region whatsoever. So Pakis are pretty much ready to sign off a huge swath of their country in return for a few dollars or a for causing pain to their adversaries. They dont care about nuclear escalation because they dont care about its consequences (a few abduls halaled when jernails and kernails are safe and their kids in UK and the US? why do they care?).

That is why India should have a covert capabilities to strike where it hurts the most. Bump off a few Jernails on a regular basis. Leak details in pure green newspapers about the escapades of the princelings in UK and US....

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3482
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Aditya G » 28 Oct 2012 12:05

Singha wrote:I meant IAF crossing the border and demolishing the PAF that was massed there to protect H&D and bombarding the PA support bases and arty units in some depth like upto Skardu which is 90km from the LOC. by some accounts 80% of PAF had been massed into the northern area. we could have started a air campaign hitting mil targets in the northern area and dared them to escalate into infra targets or into other sectors.


Dear Singha, you are speculating is a "revenge" air campaign - there are 2 issues with this:

1. PAF had no direct involvement in the invasion itself. Even the heliborne operations were performed by Pak Army aviation command. Therefore, even destruction of their air force had minimal bearing on the ground. Even though PAF was at their weakest in this time frame, we would have still lost lives and equipment - would that have been worth the the revenge?

2. IAF approach from Day-1 was to control the escalation. Theorists in GoI/IAF are inclined to keep escalation to the lowest* Counter air operations are perceived to jump the escalation ladder. That was the reason why IAF insisted on Raksha Mantiri's approval before going in - that too in own territory. From Air Cmde Tufail's article - it is clear that even the PAF was 'smart' and did not give us any excuse to cross the border. Had they made a mistake then I doubt ABV could have held back IAF.

At the time Air Marshal Patney wanted to cross over - but as I believe ACM Tipnis and GoI were against it.

In hindsight - we are the ones who won and came out with H&D intact. I have no regrets from the 1999 events but wish we could have done more in 2002.

* ACM Kitcha was the only one chief who believed that air option was less escalatory as it did not require a land invasion. I recall him saying that we have the capability to strike 150 Kms (?) from the border without crossing it and that this capability should be used.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 28 Oct 2012 21:35

Well, with the advent of Smerch and Pinaka, a 100 kms depth from the FEBA can be targeted. And this is 'tactical' onleee....

Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pranav » 29 Oct 2012 08:10

Singha wrote:Bill clinton would have hung the munna out to dry for atleast a week while we went in and slapped them around. He had no reason to jump in immediately to save the pig.


I would say the US and EU were on the Paki side. The Pak interest was to escalate the situation to nuclear level, and US / EU were just waiting on the sidelines to step in and back Pak.

Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pranav » 29 Oct 2012 10:06

There is a need for expeditious development of guided artillery shells (like Excalibur), induction of Prahaar in large numbers, stand off boosted LGB's, UAV's with target acquisition capabilities etc to deal with any future Kargil-like situation.
Last edited by Pranav on 29 Oct 2012 10:08, edited 2 times in total.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7008
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Anujan » 29 Oct 2012 10:06

Several opportunities were provided for Nawaz after the Kargil attacks for them to rein in the army, but he squandered it.

George Fernandes and Jaswanth Singh gave Nawaz a clean chit and told people that he had nothing to do with Kargil and fully supported ABV initiated peace process. Even though it sent a few non-thinking SDREs into a tizzy, that was the right thing to do. Nawaz could have seized the moment and painted his army (Mush in particular) as trigger happy losers who lost the lives of their soldiers and brought the country to the brink of nuke annihilation. Not crossing the LoC also had an element of trying to drive a wedge between common Pakistani abdul and the army (We have no takleef with you, just your army who want to go on adventures).

Unfortunately, the way Nawaz went around defanging the army (without getting the blessings of Saudi, US, kernails and Jernails in the lower levels) nearly got him a lampost. Partly I think because the rest of the army was afraid that numerous heads were about to roll.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 29 Oct 2012 10:26

perhaps Nawaz could have engineered a "hostile takeover" of the board by weaning some 5-6 of the 13 corps commanders to his putsch gang with US blessings, esp the key karachi, lahore and Ibad garrisson commanders.

but is doubtful, each level has something to owe the next level up for getting to such high positions. they were all mushrador loyalists and proteges probably, with a couple peers who were afraid of him.

he chose the right time, but erred in not having F-18 hornets directly escort the Mushrador plane to Saudi for offloading and exile, while he chaired a meeting of the corps commandus to announce the start of the revolution.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby negi » 29 Oct 2012 15:22

Anujan wrote:Yes Singha-ji, I understand.
But we have a disadvantage vis-a-vis Pakistan. Their army does not care about their soldiers or their citizens. Ours do.

That is not exactly the case, IA's job is not to do the sentiment analysis when at war it follows orders from the executive. There is a reason why the tendency to question orders from top is nipped in the bud from the day you join the academy. Obviously I do not wish to make it look like a B&W thing but fwiw imo our incation/action (whatever one may wish to call) has more to do with GOI's tendency to view view all such issues from election/votes perspective i.e look at short term effects.

As for the point about media being a factor, well one of the key aspects of a functioning democracy is it has a system of checks and balances where it can make a clear distinction between NEWS and sensationalist journalism and reign in the rogue elements , unfortunately in case of our country the GoI itself encourages the latter. Felicitation of likes of Burkha Dutt is a case in point , I am sure the services and IN in particular have a different opinion about the same.

Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Shrinivasan » 31 Oct 2012 07:37

Pranav wrote:There is a need for expeditious development of guided artillery shells (like Excalibur), induction of Prahaar in large numbers, stand off boosted LGB's, UAV's with target acquisition capabilities etc to deal with any future Kargil-like situation.
Couple of large railway wagons with a dozen prahaars or Brahmos would serve as saturation attack weapons, they can be taken deep into Punjab and Gujarat and unleashed on the TSPA formations... TSP AF bases and the rust buckets.. Before even the first manned fighters are airborne.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54825
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 31 Oct 2012 21:10

Anujan wrote:Several opportunities were provided for Nawaz after the Kargil attacks for them to rein in the army, but he squandered it.

George Fernandes and Jaswanth Singh gave Nawaz a clean chit and told people that he had nothing to do with Kargil and fully supported ABV initiated peace process. Even though it sent a few non-thinking SDREs into a tizzy, that was the right thing to do. Nawaz could have seized the moment and painted his army (Mush in particular) as trigger happy losers who lost the lives of their soldiers and brought the country to the brink of nuke annihilation. Not crossing the LoC also had an element of trying to drive a wedge between common Pakistani abdul and the army (We have no takleef with you, just your army who want to go on adventures).

Unfortunately, the way Nawaz went around defanging the army (without getting the blessings of Saudi, US, kernails and Jernails in the lower levels) nearly got him a lampost. Partly I think because the rest of the army was afraid that numerous heads were about to roll.



I think India conveyed an ultimatium to Badmash to get rid of Mushy or face the mridangam. That was the reason he acted without consulting the 3.5 fiends.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54825
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 31 Oct 2012 21:13

Pranav wrote:
Singha wrote:Bill clinton would have hung the munna out to dry for atleast a week while we went in and slapped them around. He had no reason to jump in immediately to save the pig.


I would say the US and EU were on the Paki side. The Pak interest was to escalate the situation to nuclear level, and US / EU were just waiting on the sidelines to step in and back Pak.



I too think the TSP launched the Kargil gamble with some assurances from the 3.5 fiends. its to India's credit that they did not succeed. PRC was a bystander to pick up the pieces in case something happens.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10102
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sum » 14 Nov 2012 12:19

India All Set For First Howitzer Buy Since Bofors

This is history. Except I still don't want to say it until there's a contract award. The US Government has been sent a formal Letter of Request by the Indian MoD for 145 BAE Systems M777 ultra-light howitzers, which, along with associated equipment, could be worth upwards of $650-million. The Indian MoD formally declared its interest in the system to the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency in January 2006.

Apart from the guns themselves, the deal includes "Laser Inertial Artillery Pointing Systems (LINAPS), warranty, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, maintenance, personnel training and training equipment, U.S.Government and contractor representatives’ technical assistance, engineering and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support."


Lets see if it happens!

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 14 Nov 2012 12:29

and it took 6 yrs to even send that letter for a system proven by USMC units in afghaistan.

saje
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 89
Joined: 08 Oct 2010 16:28
Location: Bangalore

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby saje » 14 Nov 2012 13:36

Very complicated mechanism this - 'Laser Inertial Artillery Pointing Systems (LINAPS)', thing! Seems like the IA has very high expectations from this baby wherever it's going to be used!

Image

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Vipul » 24 Nov 2012 20:19

DRDO to develop 155 mm field gun.

Indian defence scientists have embarked on developing an indigenous 155 mm field gun. The project involves an investment of Rs 300-400 crore.

The ambitious project has been kick-started this year with the Armaments Research and Development Establishment as the nodal agency. The Ordnance Factories and private industry would be involved in the development and production, according to V.K. Saraswat, Director-General of the Defence Research and Development Organisation

The indigenous gun will have better firepower, higher penetration capabilities and autonomous features. It will take a couple of years to demonstrate the first prototype version. At present the development and production partners as well as automation requirements have been identified and work is in progress, he said.

In the last 25 years, India has not produced its own field gun. The last field gun, the Bofors Howitzer, bought from the Swedish firm in the mid-1980’s, raised a big controversy. While the gun performed well in the Kargil conflict in the late 1990’s, off the battlefield it took a heavy political toll. It also resulted in no import and indigenous effort.

Further, several global vendors were blacklisted for various reasons. There are just one or two options to buy, hence it is imperative to make our own gun argues V.K. Saraswat.

In the past the defence research organisation led by the armaments establishment designed and developed the 120 mm rifle bore guns for the MBT Arjun (tanks). The last gun developed was the 105 mm type till the Bofors gun was introduced.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 24 Nov 2012 20:56

the budget as usual sounds highly unrealistic. one cannot even get a proper pistol for that figure anymore.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5215
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby jamwal » 24 Nov 2012 21:02

Are field guns and howitzers the same thing ? :oops:

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Bala Vignesh » 24 Nov 2012 21:06

^^ Nope.. field guns don't have the capability to fire in high angles which the howitzers can do..


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests