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.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby shiv » 07 Jan 2013 09:25

I did a Google search for known failure rates in MRLS systems. The info is not easy to find.

In the case of "normal" space/satellite launched, insurance companies accept a known failure rate of 3% - and these are rockets which are launched with hundreds of personnel in attendance to ensure a safe launch. Still, one in 30 fails

In the case of what is called the M31A1 GMLRS, it is advertised as being 94% reliable. That means one in 16 rockets will fail. Naturally sellers, exporters and brochures will boast about reliability, but like car mileage figures the actual figures will not match what is advertised.

India has had known reliability problems with SMERCH.

What is the failure rate of Pinaka?

Here is a report from Shiv Aroor from Dec 2011 - 13 months ago.
http://livefist.blogspot.in/2011/12/pho ... llery.html
The Indian Army, I am happy to report, is dead pleased with the Pinaka: with three regiments operational and two more in the pipeline, things are looking good.


What has gone wrong in the last 13 months?

KBDagha
BRFite
Posts: 160
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 21:47
Location: Mumbai

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby KBDagha » 07 Jan 2013 16:24

A blog that cannot be named :mrgreen: has a diagrammatic representation of the Indian Future Artillery System and Pinaka Mk II from DRDO expo in Kolkatta.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 07 Jan 2013 16:51

is that a pic of the Arjun mk2 v1 proto in there? albeit some side armour/panels on turret not yet added in that pic.

so Pinaka2 is longer by 25cm and heavier by around 37kg. a good gain if range is 50% more. warhead remain same @ 100kg.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 07 Jan 2013 17:55

shiv wrote:<SNIP>
What has gone wrong in the last 13 months?


Time does not permit me to expand but the problem is not Pinaka system but rockets thereof. The QC issue is with rockets manufactured by OFB. Pinaka is BTW manufactured by private players.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sarabpal.s » 07 Jan 2013 22:07

rohitvats wrote:
shiv wrote:<SNIP>
What has gone wrong in the last 13 months?


Time does not permit me to expand but the problem is not Pinaka system but rockets thereof. The QC issue is with rockets manufactured by OFB. Pinaka is BTW manufactured by private players.

Can't we bring the Ammunition factory directly under Army supervision :?:

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Vipul » 13 Jan 2013 00:42

‘Topchi’ shows delivery, on time every time!

Against the backdrop of the picturesque Bahula and Cone Hills in Devlali last week, rapt audiences watched ‘Topchi’ at the cantonment’s Field Foring Ranges, an annual demonstration that showcases the might of artillery weapons and equipment.

Acquired over six decades ago, these ranges cover an expanse of 100 square kilometers, with a grandstand which offers a panoramic view. This is what they saw.

Once the audience is acquainted with the landmarks at target end (where the rounds fall), the demo started with firing of a 120mm mortar brought on mule-back, unloaded, assembled and made ready to fire in 2 minutes flat! These mortars can also be towed by a jeep, underslung by a helicopter or even carried on manpack basis for short distances. At the event, a Chhetah helicopter achieved a heli-landing of the mortar.

Next came the field guns, which came into service in the early 70s when the 105 mm Indian Field Gun(IFG) was indigenously developed. A few years later, its lighter version was developed, firing the same range of ammunition as its earlier version.

“The harder the fighting and longer the war, the more the infantry and in fact all arms lean on the gunners,” said Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery. Nothing epitomises this better than the range, precision and destructive power of the130 millimeter gun M-46.The ranging power and accuracy of this rugged and robust gun was then seen as it engaged targets with pin–point accuracy. Next to deploy and fire was the 155 mm Field Gun, SOLTAM ie the upgunned version of the 130 mm.with even greater range and lethality.

The maximum applause came next when the massive 155 mm Field Howitzer 77B, popularly called `Bofors’, rolled in. This weapon, with a high rate of fire, accuracy and consistency, also boasts of an auxiliary power unit which enables it to move and deploy independently. Here, twelve tons of weight rotated through 360 degrees, without apparent effort and the gun moved away to its firing platform easily. .Using its automatic loading system, the crane lifts three rounds weighing 170 kg, the climax being the 14 seconds it took to fire the whole burst.

Last came the rockets, the 122 mm Rocket Launcher GRAD BM-21,consisting of 40 tubes, which fire a salvo within 20 seconds, up to a max range of 20.4 km. .More to follow was ‘nape of the earth flying’ by skilled pilots of the Army Aviation Corps, a display of own artillery fire by a searcher UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) and a breathtaking free-fall-drop by Artillery’s elite paratroopers from 30,000 feet.

To follow up the firing came an equipment display-of the latest Surveillance and Target Acquistion(SATA) equipment, including the much-in-demand-Weapon Locating Radars. An array of medium to long range rockets and missiles that have enhanced reach and destructive capability were also showcased, including the Pinaka Multiple Launch Rocket System, the imported SMERCH Rocket System and the DRDO developed Supersonic Cruise Missile-BRAHMOS.

For nearly 2 hours through this demo, one sat spell bound, raising the collective confidence that the Indian Army can deliver On Time, Every Time!

Gurinder P
BRFite
Posts: 209
Joined: 30 Oct 2010 18:11
Location: Beautiful British Columbia

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Gurinder P » 13 Jan 2013 05:35



Good read! With Counter-battery radar the response can be even more devastating and destructive with less ammo used.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21055
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 13 Jan 2013 18:03

The F-mag has a pic of Tata's truck mounted 155mm howitzer.Manufactured with input from an unnamed firang co.Good gowing.Pvt. industry has to be given a chance otherwise expensive imports will bleed us financially forever.There have been in recent times,several articles on the abysmal state of affairs with the OFB,sub-standard ammo made under licence across the board for all kinds of guns and armoured vehicles.The stocks of the same are also at an all-time low,perhaps why the Porkis are being so aggro right now.

SagarAg
BRFite
Posts: 1164
Joined: 12 May 2011 15:51

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby SagarAg » 05 Feb 2013 00:29

Bofors 155mm gun field demo by Indian Army artillery jawans. The sweet sound of firing is just nostalgic. Bang Bang Bang on target. 8)

Ps: Go directly to 6:40 if you just want to see the firing of shells.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10098
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sum » 05 Feb 2013 08:12

^^ What happened to the Desi Bofors? Did the trials go through and was it OK'ed for induction? Suddenly no news from that end after all the noise few months back

schowdhuri
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 15 Dec 2010 12:24

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby schowdhuri » 05 Feb 2013 18:39

SagarAg wrote:Bofors 155mm gun field demo by Indian Army artillery jawans. The sweet sound of firing is just nostalgic. Bang Bang Bang on target. 8)

Ps: Go directly to 6:40 if you just want to see the firing of shells.


Very nostalgic - the area diamond target same as it was 3 decades+ back. Those days the script was read by Capt (now Retd Brig) Gurmeet Kanwal, and if there were VIP's around, I would watch hideen from a Kraz truck :D

Or, watching the firing on weekends (or after school) sitting in SP1 - sigh... those days....

Could not imagine even taking a picture in those days, particularly for the classified 2nd part of demo, let alone a public video.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2395
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby VinodTK » 04 Mar 2013 05:00

Artillery upgrade goes slowly as India moves towards acquiring 145 howitzers from the US
It seems India's new artillery upgrade is not going to happen any time soon.

This is despite early successes in developing Indian version of Bofors and progress in acquiring 145 ultra light howitzers from the US.

A maintainability evaluation team of the army has returned from the US last month and a letter of acceptance for M777 ultra light howitzers is being prepared.
:
:
:

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 04 Mar 2013 09:45

I suggest we cancel costly M777 howitzers and use indigenous Bofors. We can purchase around 1000 guns for the same cost instead of 150 and pre-position them near the border. If we use non-automated indigenous Bofors then we can pre-position and deploy 2000 howitzers near the border. And if we use a basic indigenous 155mm howitzer (equivalent to Russian 2A65) then we can purchase around 4000 pieces for the same amount.

Emergency deployment, gaps can be addressed by 105mm LFG + HEER shells + ALHs.


The M777 + Chinook solution is costly, imported and does not benefit our defense capability in long term, as we need to think of local solutions to our defense problems.

We should also modify & deploy Pinaka in single pod versions on 4x4 and even single rocket versions on jeep mounts to address the light weapon but long range 60km needs.

M777 is made by BAE and their honesty is well documented in Saudi contracts.

Indigenous defense needs must be met by local solutions.
Last edited by vic on 04 Mar 2013 10:38, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 04 Mar 2013 10:08

+1. our needs are too large on the china front to ever be met by imported platinum bullet solutions. we need to emphasise scale at good enough levels over pure platinum quality here.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9869
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 04 Mar 2013 14:08

But do you think our Night watchman PM has guts to do such things??? IA is particularly adicted to fhiranhi maal. After kissing A** of Reds for decades it now wants to do same with Uncle Sam at the simultaniously. They are not interested in Indian things Arjun case is already there for us to see. Our desi capacity never not is discussed by GOI and Defence Ministry and the IA for decades and when it is avaliable also we need Uncle maal. Shame on IA.

SagarAg
BRFite
Posts: 1164
Joined: 12 May 2011 15:51

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby SagarAg » 04 Mar 2013 20:45

Narayana Rao wrote:But do you think our Night watchman PM has guts to do such things??? IA is particularly adicted to fhiranhi maal. After kissing A** of Reds for decades it now wants to do same with Uncle Sam at the simultaniously. They are not interested in Indian things Arjun case is already there for us to see. Our desi capacity never not is discussed by GOI and Defence Ministry and the IA for decades and when it is avaliable also we need Uncle maal. Shame on IA.

Anything indigenous below this level is 'dabba' or unworthy/not capable for our Armed forces barring IN. IN is eons ahead in terms of involvement/support for indigenous development.

Image

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 04 Mar 2013 22:07

AW scam has shown that bribes are paid over more than a decade to distort the decision making, so the policy making itself has been distorted in favor of imports. Army wants to import:-

pistols
Carbines
Assault rifles
Sniper rifles
LMGs
HMGs
Rocket Launchers
RCLs
Anti Material Rifles
AD guns
Mortars
Howitzers
Tanks (anything left---???)

and blondes as side dish.
Last edited by vic on 04 Mar 2013 22:49, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 04 Mar 2013 22:11

vic wrote:I suggest we cancel costly M777 howitzers and use indigenous Bofors....

+1,
I would add the Apache to the list.
If the people who take such decisions were really smart they would have used our new found "strategic partnership" with the US and stocked up on the 2nd hand M109 and M198 howitzers (like Pakistan did) for dirt cheap prices(relatively speaking). But no, we have to put out a tender for small numbers of uber speced brochure maal, and once we the winner is selected(if at all it reaches this state), nearly endless negotiations on price follow.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby SaiK » 04 Mar 2013 22:24

SagarAg wrote:[img]http://imageshack.us/a/img18/1701/25568775.jpg[img]

really well done actually. ;)

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_22906 » 04 Mar 2013 22:30

Why are we all forgetting the context in which M777 were identified as the weapon of choice? Sometime back most people were more than happy that something was better nothing.... With MSC being talked about, it was considered a smart choice... Now comments ranging from "Shame on IA" to linking all import purchases as motivated by bribes etc are very surprising.

I am not supporting every decision that IA makes as gospel truth, but give due where its due and brickbats where deserved. Don't pass summary judgements on the entire service. Sometimes I wonder if we are talking about IA or PA seeing the animosity/hatred on this forum towards IA

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 04 Mar 2013 22:50

vic wrote:I suggest we cancel costly M777 howitzers and use indigenous Bofors. We can purchase around 1000 guns for the same cost instead of 150 and pre-position them near the border. If we use non-automated indigenous Bofors then we can pre-position and deploy 2000 howitzers near the border. And if we use a basic indigenous 155mm howitzer (equivalent to Russian 2A65) then we can purchase around 4000 pieces for the same amount.

As usual, you shoot off your mouth without thinking for a moment and list your pet peeves and completely unworkable solutions.

There is a bloody good reason that IA wanted to go for a light gun which could also afford howitzer like qualities - and that requirement was the ability to move around these guns in the mountains. IA formations in these sectors already the neolithic guns which you want them to have - they wanted something new which can do a better job.

As for positioning guns on the border and all that nonsense, please, at least try and read up something before making such nonsensical comments. What do you think you're talking about here? The SOKO/NOKO border? Look up the map and geography in North-East before making these completely outlandish statements.


Emergency deployment, gaps can be addressed by 105mm LFG + HEER shells + ALHs.

Anything else Herr General would like to recommend?

The M777 + Chinook solution is costly, imported and does not benefit our defense capability in long term, as we need to think of local solutions to our defense problems.

It does not address your pet peeves and hence, the rant.

We should also modify & deploy Pinaka in single pod versions on 4x4 and even single rocket versions on jeep mounts to address the light weapon but long range 60km needs.

What else, shoulder launched Prithvi Missiles and Man-portable Brahmos?

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 04 Mar 2013 22:56

abhik wrote:
vic wrote:I suggest we cancel costly M777 howitzers and use indigenous Bofors....

+1,
I would add the Apache to the list.

If the people who take such decisions were really smart they would have used our new found "strategic partnership" with the US and stocked up on the 2nd hand M109 and M198 howitzers (like Pakistan did) for dirt cheap prices(relatively speaking). But no, we have to put out a tender for small numbers of uber speced brochure maal, and once we the winner is selected(if at all it reaches this state), nearly endless negotiations on price follow.


Since when has an SP Artillery piece become substitute for an Attack Helicopter?

Do you realize that requirement for a squadron of heavy attack helicopters stands on its own merit and is not a OR situation vis-a-vis other weapon systems? And when it comes to effectiveness, a Squadron of Apaches could wipe out an entire SP Arty Regiment in a matter of minutes and then re-arm and go and whoop some tanks in another sector?

And since you like to talk big and pass judgement and without bothering to do some analysis, let me share a little secret - the new Apaches have been paid for by the IAF and are going to IAF as replacement for Mi-24/35. But I'm sure, in the parallel universe that your inhabit, such minor details are lost out.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 04 Mar 2013 23:03

SagarAg wrote:
Narayana Rao wrote:But do you think our Night watchman PM has guts to do such things??? IA is particularly adicted to fhiranhi maal. After kissing A** of Reds for decades it now wants to do same with Uncle Sam at the simultaniously. They are not interested in Indian things Arjun case is already there for us to see. Our desi capacity never not is discussed by GOI and Defence Ministry and the IA for decades and when it is avaliable also we need Uncle maal. Shame on IA.


Anything indigenous below this level is 'dabba' or unworthy/not capable for our Armed forces barring IN. IN is eons ahead in terms of involvement/support for indigenous development.


Is that all you can come up with? A random idiotic image without contributing anything to the topic at hand? Which by the way, is a pattern across all the forums and threads on BRF where ever you've decided to 'contribute'?

One fellow makes a completely obnoxious post without even bothering to do some basic research and every one jumps on the bandwagon and passes judgement.

Since you're a know it all, let me dare you to do the following - Write a one page, well researched article why M777 is a bad choice for the IA and please list out the alternatives.

Take all the time in the world.

Writing one liners and pasting random idiotic images is easy....something like your classroom gossip. Put your money where your moth is and let me see how much substance you have.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 04 Mar 2013 23:14

Admin may note that rohit as usual is using abusive language, I made no personal comment against him. Except foul language and saying, I am wrong he has not contributed anything.

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby koti » 04 Mar 2013 23:20

vic wrote:I suggest we cancel costly M777 howitzers and use indigenous Bofors. We can purchase around 1000 guns for the same cost instead of 150 and pre-position them near the border. If we use non-automated indigenous Bofors then we can pre-position and deploy 2000 howitzers near the border. And if we use a basic indigenous 155mm howitzer (equivalent to Russian 2A65) then we can purchase around 4000 pieces for the same amount.

Emergency deployment, gaps can be addressed by 105mm LFG + HEER shells + ALHs.
...

I can't agree saab. Price apart, Light Artillery was long sought, and this forms the backbone for the two new mountain divisions.
I think we should go ahead with the M777 and if possible ToT for future domestic products.

SagarAg
BRFite
Posts: 1164
Joined: 12 May 2011 15:51

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby SagarAg » 04 Mar 2013 23:41

rohitvats wrote:
SagarAg wrote:
Anything indigenous below this level is 'dabba' or unworthy/not capable for our Armed forces barring IN. IN is eons ahead in terms of involvement/support for indigenous development.


Is that all you can come up with? A random idiotic image without contributing anything to the topic at hand? Which by the way, is a pattern across all the forums and threads on BRF where ever you've decided to 'contribute'?

One fellow makes a completely obnoxious post without even bothering to do some basic research and every one jumps on the bandwagon and passes judgement.

Since you're a know it all, let me dare you to do the following - Write a one page, well researched article why M777 is a bad choice for the IA and please list out the alternatives.

Take all the time in the world.

Writing one liners and pasting random idiotic images is easy....something like your classroom gossip. Put your money where your moth is and let me see how much substance you have.

rohitvats ji are you the middle man in the M777 deal. :mrgreen: Its not about getting the best thing out there. Its about developing the capability from what we have. 145 M777 :rotfl: which are being negotiated or 1450 M777 guns, quantity doesn't matter. If we really want to develop our capability to fight against any adversary the path leads back to home not out there looking somewhere else. The sooner we realize this the better.
As far as contributing to this forum is concerned your above posts shows who is contributing what so no arguments there. :wink:

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 04 Mar 2013 23:54

SagarAg wrote:rohitvats ji are you the middle man in the M777 deal. :mrgreen: Its not about getting the best thing out there. Its about developing the capability from what we have. 145 M777 :rotfl: which are being negotiated or 1450 M777 guns, quantity doesn't matter. If we really want to develop our capability to fight against any adversary the path leads back to home not out there looking somewhere else. The sooner we realize this the better. As far as contributing to this forum is concerned your above posts shows who is contributing what so no arguments there. :wink:


Ah! I see....just as I had suspected, you have very conveniently side-stepped the issue about article on merit or otherwise of purchase of M777. That is what started this whole nonsensical series of posts about domestic production.

But I did expect as much...and you've lived up to your reputation.

As for my contribution to the forum/topic/thread, if a day comes when I start writing posts like yours and start calling them contribution(s), I'd rather quit and not waste peoples time and forum bandwidth.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_22906 » 05 Mar 2013 00:01

Building capability is fine if you have some semblance of military preparedness. OFB and other Indian pvt sector initiatives are very welcome.

However, building capability cannot mean that irrespective of howsoever screwed up your equipment inventory is, you still continue without understanding ground realities... First of all, M777 surely fits the profile that it is intended for (use in mountain areas) due to its light weght and yet retains awesome firepower (155mm 39 calibre guns). Secondly, all the current ventures are for your standard or motorized roles, not mountain terrain

A few folks also mentioned lining up with '000s of guns along the border with China, yet they don't understand the concept of counter battery fire and its defence against that. Ever imagined in static positions what will happen when the other side decides to return the favour? What about your logistic trail in mountains? How are you going to feed the guns with uninterrupted supply of ammo? It would be worthwhile to observe (if possible) how difficult it is to deploy arty in mountains. Gunners will any day trade lightweight equipment with gold if they ever got a choice since it gives them flexibility to look at more options to deploy and shoot & scoot

Quantity surely has a quality, but not mindless quantity for the sake of argument....

SagarAg
BRFite
Posts: 1164
Joined: 12 May 2011 15:51

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby SagarAg » 05 Mar 2013 00:12

rohitvats wrote:
SagarAg wrote:rohitvats ji are you the middle man in the M777 deal. :mrgreen: Its not about getting the best thing out there. Its about developing the capability from what we have. 145 M777 :rotfl: which are being negotiated or 1450 M777 guns, quantity doesn't matter. If we really want to develop our capability to fight against any adversary the path leads back to home not out there looking somewhere else. The sooner we realize this the better. As far as contributing to this forum is concerned your above posts shows who is contributing what so no arguments there. :wink:


Ah! I see....just as I had suspected, you have very conveniently side-stepped the issue about article on merit or otherwise of purchase of M777. That is what started this whole nonsensical series of posts about domestic production.

But I did expect as much...and you've lived up to your reputation.

As for my contribution to the forum/topic/thread, if a day comes when I start writing posts like yours and start calling them contribution(s), I'd rather quit and not waste peoples time and forum bandwidth.

rohitvats ji if my reputation is built by nonsensical series of posts about domestic production then I have to pat my back for achieving this reputation. :D I hope you always remain on this forum and keep posting sensible posts, contributing to people's time and forum bandwidth, as you always have and I will stick around with my nonsense posts for indigenous development and production. :wink:
Last edited by SagarAg on 05 Mar 2013 00:32, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 05 Mar 2013 00:19

rohitvats wrote:
abhik wrote:+1,
I would add the Apache to the list.

If the people who take such decisions were really smart they would have used our new found "strategic partnership" with the US and stocked up on the 2nd hand M109 and M198 howitzers (like Pakistan did) for dirt cheap prices(relatively speaking). But no, we have to put out a tender for small numbers of uber speced brochure maal, and once we the winner is selected(if at all it reaches this state), nearly endless negotiations on price follow.


Since when has an SP Artillery piece become substitute for an Attack Helicopter?
That was not my point, I want the Apache to be cancelled too.
Do you realize that requirement for a squadron of heavy attack helicopters stands on its own merit

No, I do not. Please do explain how the requirement for A (i.e one, not two or three or a dozen) squadron of "heavy" (not "medium" or "light")attack. Does the IA/IAF really have doctrine which specifically calls for "heavy" attack helicopters? And if so exactly how many are required to fulfil this requirement. Is it just 22? If there is no such specific requirement then why not wait a few years more for the LCH? They could have got far more numbers in exchange.
The way I see it the IAF/MoD floated a global tender to replace it existing old Mi's one to one. It held a competition and picked the technically best and also as it turns out an extremely expensive piece of kit. No consideration paid to improving indigenous capability, reducing foreign dependence, getting the best bang for the buck etc. This is classic bureaucracy.
.. a Squadron of Apaches could wipe out an entire SP Arty Regiment in a matter of minutes and then re-arm and go and whoop some tanks in another sector?
:roll: Attack helicopters have their place, but this is rather OTT no?
the new Apaches have been paid for by the IAF and are going to IAF as replacement for Mi-24/35

WRONG, it is being paid for by taxpayer. And in a country like ours even one extra Rupee spent on defence it too many.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 05 Mar 2013 00:42

SagarAg wrote:<SNIP>rohitvats ji if my reputation is built by nonsensical series of posts about domestic production then I have to pat my back for achieving this reputation. :D I hope you always remain on this forum and keep posting sensible posts, contributing to people's time and forum bandwidth, as you always have and I will stick around with my nonsense posts for indigenous production. :wink:


Please don't flatter yourself with the above description.

There are others who have argued about building domestic production capability and called out Services for their folly with respect to imports. But they have done that based on research and by putting together cogent and detailed arguments. Not regurgitating one-liners and shouting the catch all phrase of 'domestic capability' at the drop of the hat.

What you write is, frankly IMO, irritating. You've neither learned anything nor shown any inclination to do so. As for your contribution, again IMO, it is more of noise than proper signal. I'm tempted to compare you to posting and argument style of our very own BRF poster Sanku...but god knows that for his "special ability" of coming up repeatedly with same arguments, he does some serious research. You have to learn that basic aspect of posting.

As for me - well, let the old dogs of war be.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 05 Mar 2013 01:04

abhik wrote: No, I do not. Please do explain how the requirement for A (i.e one, not two or three or a dozen) squadron of "heavy" (not "medium" or "light")attack.

So, you don't know whether IAF or IA has a doctrine (present or long term plan) for attack helicopters and never bothered to even do some basic research on the topic. But you still felt confident to deem the purchase of Apaches and Heavy Attack Helicopters in general as not useful - at least not when compared to purchase of SP Arty. Right?

Do you see the contradiction and sheer chutzpah in your argument? Which, by the way, has become the norm nowadays on BRF? TO SHOOT OFF ONES MOUTH BEFORE BOTHERING TO EVEN DO BASIC RESEARCH.

And while you yourself are clearly trolling here with your one line expert comments, you're asking others to give proof of their argument? How nice. And simple. Let the other person come up with some sort of reasoning...one can always write random one liners and get away.


Does the IA/IAF really have doctrine which specifically calls for "heavy" attack helicopters? And if so exactly how many are required to fulfil this requirement. Is it just 22? If there is no such specific requirement then why not wait a few years more for the LCH? They could have got far more numbers in exchange.

Since your highness has not bother to leave the alternative universe, let me take the pain of pointing out the details - which of course you'd be loathe to dig up yourself.

Point 1 - Long term plan calls for each Corps of the IA to have a Combat Aviation Brigade. For Strike Corps, it would consist of Heavy Attack Helicopters + ALH + Medium Lift Helicopters (Mi-17 class).

Point 2 - The Pivot Corps will have a mix of Rudra + ALH + Mi-17 class helicopters. IA has already placed an order for 60 Rudras for 06 Squadrons with 10 a/c per Squadron

Point 3 - The plan is for a Corps to be able to heli-lift a Company worth of troops, a Command HQ - a Infantry Battalion and AHQ - an Infantry Bde.

Point 4 - IA has projected a requirement for 100+ LCH and of the 114 contracted so far, IIRC, IA will get some 60 odd birds.

Only thing missing from the information matrix is deployment pattern of LCH. My guess is that once LCH comes online, each Corps will have a Attack Helicopter Brigade of LCH + Rudra + Heavy Attack Helicopters for Strike Corps and LCH + 2 x Rudra (or other way around in terms of LCH/Rudra) for Pivot Corps.

Each Division may well get its own R&O Squadron from current 1 per Corps HQ.


The Services have given enough impetus to the domestic Helicopter segment. Number of ALH inducted and ordered and Rudra + LCH planned is a testimony to that.

Nick_S
BRFite
Posts: 516
Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Location: Abbatabad

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Nick_S » 05 Mar 2013 03:49

vic wrote:Tanks (anything left---???)
...


Plus knives.... we need ToT for that too. :roll:

---

OFBs are a bad joke on this country. Why cant they just privatise or disband them?

Nick_S
BRFite
Posts: 516
Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Location: Abbatabad

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Nick_S » 05 Mar 2013 03:57

rohitvats wrote:And when it comes to effectiveness, a Squadron of Apaches could wipe out an entire SP Arty Regiment in a matter of minutes and then re-arm and go and whoop some tanks in another sector?


Sir, is that something that LCH could not do? Maybe we would need more LCH, but given the price difference, thats not a big deal.

Plus taxpayers money would mostly remain in India.

Apaches just seem to be the latest brochuritis disease picked up by the IA & IAF.

Misraji
BRFite
Posts: 401
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Location: USA

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Misraji » 05 Mar 2013 04:38

^^^
Apache is a heavy duty gunship.

It can survive hits from 23mm projectiles as opposed to 12.7mm of LCH
It also has the Longbow radar while LCH does not have one (?? or I have not been able to find any).

The longbow radar (pop up for attack then duck down behind cover) and the heavy armor should enable it to engage enemy armor with much better persistence and confidence.

Heavy attack helicopters have primary responsibility of attacking enemy armor and are assigned to divisions equipped with tanks and heavy fighting vehicles. Light attack helicopters are assigned to divisions that have no tanks and also to units within every division that have a mission involving more reconnaissance than direct attack

An analysis of US Army Helicopter Programs

(Will keep on adding to the list as I find differences)

--Ashish

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 05 Mar 2013 05:46

Iraqi small arms fire over karbala shot up spme 40 apaches of 1st airborne and made them retreat tails tucked firmly between legs after a few hrs of battle. So it might have a 23mm hit rated bathtub but certainly not in the tail boom, engine, optronics pod or radar area. Hit these areas and you mission kill the apache, with need for costly spares back at base.
Plus how good will it do against a automated spaag like say a oerlikon....

Taking hits on thick skin is not an option, just as the lch it will have to avoid getting hit in the first place.

Gurinder P
BRFite
Posts: 209
Joined: 30 Oct 2010 18:11
Location: Beautiful British Columbia

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Gurinder P » 05 Mar 2013 06:10

^ I think that is where a Kamov Ka 50 would have an advantage

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby uddu » 05 Mar 2013 06:16

Nick_S wrote:Heavy attack helicopters have primary responsibility of attacking enemy armor and are assigned to divisions equipped with tanks and heavy fighting vehicles. Light attack helicopters are assigned to divisions that have no tanks and also to units within every division that have a mission involving more reconnaissance than direct attack

This is U.S Army doctrine. Not necessary that we have to rely on the same. The LCH will also be hunting for tanks. Also pls mention the advantages of LCH. The ability to fight in high altitude areas is something that only LCH can do. :)
(Taking a cue from the tank arguments, we cannot forget to mention that being lighter, LCH is better maneuverable than the heavy weight Apache. :) )
Advantages of LCH
1.Stealth.
2.Very good range.
3.High altitude operation.

SagarAg
BRFite
Posts: 1164
Joined: 12 May 2011 15:51

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby SagarAg » 05 Mar 2013 06:29

^ adding to the above list LCH with Helina will be a lethal force to recon with even in desert (tanks) terrain along with Rudra attack helicopter for additional air support. Where Apache fits in combat doctrine is a mystery. Buying 22 Apache for such a high price is just for the heck of buying it. That's it!
Comparing that small fire brought down Mi-17 chopper by the naxals the argument about Apache withstanding heavy fire is anybody's guess.

PS: just realized this is Artillery discussion thread. :lol:

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 05 Mar 2013 08:14

I had proposed alternatives to M777 procurement but Rohit has this style of trying to nip any discussion critical of the army in the bud by personal attacks. He has launched personal attacks on 6-? Posters to prevent this line of discussion by verbose, meaningless, personal attacks which per him are huge contribution to the knowledge base of this forum.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests