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.
Bhaskar
BRFite
Posts: 202
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 23:46

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Bhaskar » 28 Jan 2010 00:32

Nihat wrote:It's not so much a case of wether we'll be allowed or not but more likely one of wether India wants to pit the US guns on TSP side against US guns on Indian side too , TSP have already had a taste of Bofors , why deprive them of that.


145 is a good start. I still was hoping the number to be up around 300 for these lightweight Howitzers. Once Again, Good Start Indeed.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby RoyG » 28 Jan 2010 00:59


Bhaskar
BRFite
Posts: 202
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 23:46

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Bhaskar » 28 Jan 2010 02:12

US okays howitzers worth $647 million for India

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 506969.cms

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6944
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Anujan » 28 Jan 2010 02:50

tejas wrote:The total artillery order will probably be at least 2000 guns total. I just think 145 light guns is too light for my liking.


Wading into RFP's, Re-RFPs, Re-Re-RFPs, RFI's and trials, these are the numbers that I came up with.

We are looking for:

* 140 Light guns (order fulfilled by FMS from Unkil)

* 120-200 Tracked SP artillery (Bhim was considered to be the front runner. Demonstrated 8rnds/min peak, 2 rnds/min sustained, 6rns simultaneous impact at 25km, 20 rounds in ready to fire, 40 rounds total storage. Arjun chassis, Denel Turret+gun. A total of 160 rounds were fired in trials). Till....Denel got blacklisted for paying bribes. :|

* 180-250 Wheeled SP artillery (they made a pig's breakfast of this)

* 400 Towed guns to be bought outright, followed by TOT and indigenous manufacture of 1100 guns (or more). 350th round of trials are going on for this.

A total of around 840 guns min and 1600 guns max

pgbhat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4081
Joined: 16 Dec 2008 21:47
Location: Hayden's Ferry

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby pgbhat » 28 Jan 2010 03:00

M777 LWH on future weapons

tejas
BRFite
Posts: 768
Joined: 31 Mar 2008 04:47

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby tejas » 28 Jan 2010 04:17

Hi Anujan. With your figures I am getting 1940 min and 2090 max. Am I missing something :?: BTW the 2000 figure was off the top of my head and partially pulled out of my musarraf. So I was not far off the mark :mrgreen:

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9965
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sum » 28 Jan 2010 08:59

nirav wrote:
merlin wrote:I doubt we will be allowed to deploy the light arty bought via FMS on the western front. Only on the eastern. There will be the usual end user restrictions which we will agree to.


What sense does it make buying them then if it cant be used on the western front ?

I don't think deployment of the artillery would require approval from US ...
There would be a crazy media hue and cry if the artillery couldn't be deployed on the western front ...

It would be a significant compromise on the operational deployment plans of the Army !
UNACCEPTABLE !

Boss, if the FMS doesn't go through, there will be NO guns to fight with, forget restrictions like being used on one front only etc.

I would any day take these restrictions and get something in hand rather than be left without anything to fight with ( this situation has come to pass thanks to our netas and babus with little spinelessness of the IA top brass also)

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9965
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sum » 28 Jan 2010 09:01

* 120-200 Tracked SP artillery (Bhim was considered to be the front runner. Demonstrated 8rnds/min peak, 2 rnds/min sustained, 6rns simultaneous impact at 25km, 20 rounds in ready to fire, 40 rounds total storage. Arjun chassis, Denel Turret+gun. A total of 160 rounds were fired in trials). Till....Denel got blacklisted for paying bribes. :|

Thanks to Renuka Choudary for that!!!! :x :x

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1845
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby uddu » 28 Jan 2010 09:06

Why not sign a govt-to-govt deal with the South African govt to produce Bhim in India.

sourab_c
BRFite
Posts: 187
Joined: 14 Feb 2009 18:07
Location: around

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sourab_c » 28 Jan 2010 09:25

sum wrote:Boss, if the FMS doesn't go through, there will be NO guns to fight with, forget restrictions like being used on one front only etc.

I would any day take these restrictions and get something in hand rather than be left without anything to fight with ( this situation has come to pass thanks to our netas and babus with little spinelessness of the IA top brass also)



Even if we deploy these guns in the eastern front only, it frees up our other guns that we can deploy in the west (even though I doubt if we have any room to free any sort of hardware at this point).

In addition, it is very hard to enforce restrictions on an artillery gun, unlike more sophisticated hardware like fighter jets etc, artillery guns do not rely on IFF and hence, if the need does arises , we can always deploy these guns in the west too. Lets not be too critical here, we have some very bright people working in the government who know what they're doing.

Willy
BRFite
Posts: 283
Joined: 18 Jan 2005 01:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Willy » 28 Jan 2010 09:41

About high time. In the current sad situation we cant crib on who got knocked out and which was the best guns - as long as some are coming in at last.

This whole defence procurement rigmarole of tendering and trials is just not working. Not one major purchase has gone through , through this route. The competition always seems to be able to get the front runner blacklisted.


:(
Last edited by Willy on 28 Jan 2010 11:44, edited 1 time in total.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6944
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Anujan » 28 Jan 2010 11:38

tejas wrote:Hi Anujan. With your figures I am getting 1940 min and 2090 max. Am I missing something :?: BTW the 2000 figure was off the top of my head and partially pulled out of my musarraf. So I was not far off the mark :mrgreen:


You are right, I indulged in some madrassa math :oops:

Uddu-ji, Bhim was being built in circa 2000. If it were adopted them, we would have seen BFMS/Arty guns networking by now in Bhim.

But there are better guns (with glossier brochures) for tracked SP now. A trial is inevitable....

pkudva
BRFite
Posts: 164
Joined: 23 Jul 2008 13:57

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby pkudva » 28 Jan 2010 11:51

Although the report only mentions about the notification to the US Congress on the supply, there are very less chances that it will be blocked.

We hope the deal will be signed within this financial fiscal to ensure the capital expenditure is made the best use of.

I was wondering what is the amount of the capital expenditure we have utilised in this fiscal as no major or big deals were signed.

C-10 deal will be good if we sign
additional phalcon will be great
Gorkskov should be sealed

I have all my money during defence expo 2010.

amol.p
BRFite
Posts: 302
Joined: 14 Sep 2006 18:15
Location: pune

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby amol.p » 28 Jan 2010 12:49

The M777 ultra-lightweight towed 155mm howitzer has an integrated digital fire control system, and can fire all existing 155mm projectiles. Nothing new there. What is new is the fact that this 9,700 pound howitzer saves over 6,000 pounds of weight by making extensive use of titanium and advanced aluminum alloys, allowing it to be carried by Marine Corps MV-22 tilt-rotor aircraft or medium helicopters, and/or airdropped by C-130 aircraft. The new gun is a joint program between the US Army and Marine Corps to replace existing 155mm M198s, and will perform fire support for U.S. Marine Air Ground Task Forces and U.S. Army Stryker Brigade Combat Teams.

Britain is also an M777 LWH development partner, but Canada became the first country to field it in combat via an emergency buy before their 2006 “Operation Archer” deployment to Afghanistan. This is DID’s new FOCUS article covering the M777 program


http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/M77 ... zer-04829/

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2020
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nirav » 28 Jan 2010 15:32

sum wrote:
nirav wrote:What sense does it make buying them then if it cant be used on the western front ?

I don't think deployment of the artillery would require approval from US ...
There would be a crazy media hue and cry if the artillery couldn't be deployed on the western front ...

It would be a significant compromise on the operational deployment plans of the Army !
UNACCEPTABLE !

Boss, if the FMS doesn't go through, there will be NO guns to fight with, forget restrictions like being used on one front only etc.

I would any day take these restrictions and get something in hand rather than be left without anything to fight with ( this situation has come to pass thanks to our netas and babus with little spinelessness of the IA top brass also)


It is not as if we are going to war with Pakistan as soon as the guns arrive..
If the army could manage during Kargil, i think in peace time, they should be able to manage ...

I dont think we as a country are going to the Khans for Baksheesh or aid ...
So there is really no need to accept such 'restrictive' conditions...


Accepting such restrictions would set a bad precedent as far as future arms deals with the Khans are concerned ..
You speak about IA top brass spinelessness w.r.t. our Babus and Netas ...

By taking these restrictions, you are fine with the COUNTRY showing "spinelessness" to the Americans ?! :shock:

On a side note, I think we ought to wait for concrete details ... this particular discussion about "restrictions" started on the 'doubts' of a poster, and not something written in the DSCA notofication ...

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9965
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sum » 28 Jan 2010 15:44


It is not as if we are going to war with Pakistan as soon as the guns arrive..
If the army could manage during Kargil, i think in peace time, they should be able to manage ...

Sir,
you might be right but you forget that we have added ZILCH since Kargil ( the soltam conversions dont seem to have done too well and Smerch/Pinaka cant be transported everywher, esp on the eastern front)and more of the guns would have been cannibalised /worn out in the last 10+ years. Also, there is the China factor this time around. There is no chance of artillery arriving for next 5+ years atleast going by our trials drama. So, honestly, in a position of weakness(self created, of course), we have no option but to take whatever is realistically feasible.

Its not just about going to war tomorrow but if our hand is forced by more Paki perifidy, we should have options to attack instead of backing out citing lack of equipment

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1061
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kailash » 28 Jan 2010 15:49

Hope we get some kind of manufacturing expertise with Titanium - as part of ToT.

How difficult is it to reverse engineer or design a howitzer from scratch? We have ToT on Russian guns fit on T-90 - how different is the material compositions of the tank gun and howitzer gun?

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2020
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nirav » 28 Jan 2010 16:10

sum wrote:

It is not as if we are going to war with Pakistan as soon as the guns arrive..
If the army could manage during Kargil, i think in peace time, they should be able to manage ...

Sir,
you might be right but you forget that we have added ZILCH since Kargil ( the soltam conversions dont seem to have done too well and Smerch/Pinaka cant be transported everywher, esp on the eastern front)and more of the guns would have been cannibalised /worn out in the last 10+ years. Also, there is the China factor this time around. There is no chance of artillery arriving for next 5+ years atleast going by our trials drama. So, honestly, in a position of weakness(self created, of course), we have no option but to take whatever is realistically feasible.

Its not just about going to war tomorrow but if our hand is forced by more Paki perifidy, we should have options to attack instead of backing out citing lack of equipment


Well, I just want to make sure that we as a country are already in a position of self created weakness, We shouldn't be making the folly by negotiating from a position of weakness for an OFFENSIVE weapons system so as to agree to put restrictions on usage/deployment of the system ...

In that case, we are better off with the ST light guns which we can also pick up ....

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2020
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nirav » 28 Jan 2010 16:16

ramana wrote:Can they start a R&D program now atleast?


So that we dont have to start from scratch and reinvent the wheel, i guess it would make sense to develop on the tech we already had in our country decades ago !

Guess this is more appropriate for the whine thread ! :oops:

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9965
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sum » 28 Jan 2010 17:32

In that case, we are better off with the ST light guns which we can also pick up ....

True, but ST is blacklisted and Shri Antony is refusing to allow it to participate.
So, bird in hand ( even if neutered) is better than two in the bush. :oops:

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby krishnan » 28 Jan 2010 17:49

R&D for what? The entire idea of these deals is to make India stop such R&D and make us depended buyer. Keep buying from them

Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1143
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Samay » 28 Jan 2010 18:28

^^ and to send back the money($$), hard earned by Indians,specially through services......... this is a sinister exercise, procuring weapons from usa is one part of it.
Remember usa will be the first country to provide counter weapon system to pakis :evil:
.
.
.
.
.
They(drdo) could have jointly developed artillery systems with ruskies in these 20 yrs, anyways..... :roll:

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby shiv » 28 Jan 2010 19:17

sum wrote:
In that case, we are better off with the ST light guns which we can also pick up ....

True, but ST is blacklisted and Shri Antony is refusing to allow it to participate.
So, bird in hand ( even if neutered) is better than two in the bush. :oops:


The thing to remember is that no matter how corrupt we accuse our netas of being - at least some of them are not corrupt. But 100% of arms exporters are corrupt and WILL offer kickbacks because for many countries (KS, Pakistan) - accepting a kickback is the normal routine.

India is struggling to get past that and at least some of the delays and bans are to put the kickback giving system out of gear.

anuraghchauhan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 13
Joined: 25 Sep 2009 21:04

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby anuraghchauhan » 28 Jan 2010 20:08

ASHINGTON: Asserting that its sale to India will "improve interoperability with US Soldiers and Marines," the US defense agency tasked with transfer of military hardware and promoting military-to-military ties has notified the US Congress of the Obama administration's intention to sell 145 M777 Howitzers to India in a deal worth $ 647 million.

The mandatory notification follows a request from India for the light-weight towed Howitzer with Laser Inertial Artillery Pointing Systems (LINAPS), the first major artillery purchase by New Delhi after the star-crossed Bofors deal going back to the 1980s.


http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/US-okays-howitzers-worth-647-million-for-India/articleshow/5506969.cms

a good start by indian govt

Rupesh
BRFite
Posts: 869
Joined: 05 Jul 2008 19:14
Location: Somewhere in South Central India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Rupesh » 28 Jan 2010 22:39

Why are we debating restrictions on using M777, there has been no info about khan restricting where we use it. It seems someone has pulled it of their musharraf and the rest of the Jirga folllowed suit.

(Unless Abduls are using this as an excuse to increase post count :mrgreen: )

pgbhat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4081
Joined: 16 Dec 2008 21:47
Location: Hayden's Ferry

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby pgbhat » 28 Jan 2010 22:42

^
Let me take a stab at it. Unkil has a kill switch on the on board computer of the artillery which is remote controlled by someone in pentagon. :mrgreen:

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 422
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Prabu » 29 Jan 2010 01:04

[quote=]R&D for what? The entire idea of these deals is to make India stop such R&D and make us depended buyer. Keep buying from them[/quote]

It does NOT matter from where we buy, but what we buy ! We suffered huge casualities in kargil due to ineffective artilery ! (and ofcourse non availabilty of weopon locating radars!)
Bofors came in handy though ! IA has suffered without any new guns for more than 25 years now !! Its high time we buy new guns and upgrade ! Any move in this direction rapidly is welcome.

Nihat
BRFite
Posts: 1175
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Nihat » 29 Jan 2010 01:41

When should our forces expect these howitzers to be delived , genrally speaking whats the lead time between order and delivery for Arty systems.

Rupesh
BRFite
Posts: 869
Joined: 05 Jul 2008 19:14
Location: Somewhere in South Central India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Rupesh » 29 Jan 2010 02:25

^^^
IIRC we have not ordered the systems yet. Its onlee a possibility that we will order, subject to a Green signal from GOTUS.

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Craig Alpert » 29 Jan 2010 05:12

Murky Competition for $2B India Howitzer Order May End Soon… Or Not
Jan 26/10: The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency announces [PDF] India’s formal request to buy 145 M777 155mm Light-Weight Towed Howitzers with Laser Inertial Artillery Pointing Systems (LINAPS), warranties, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, maintenance, personnel training and training equipment, and U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance and support.

The estimated cost is $647 million, but a DSCA announcement is not a contract. In this case, it may not even be an intended sale. DSCA requests can be issued as a way of ensuring that the way is clear for a contract, if a competition continues, and if that vendor requiring American arms export approvals turns out to be the winner.

If the 9,700 pound/ 4,400 kg, part-titanium M777 should win a re-started competition against the likes of ST Kinetics’ Pegasus semi-mobile lightweight howitzer, the principal contractors will be BAE of Hattiesburg, MS; Watervliet Arsenal of Watervliet, NY; Seiler Instrument Company of St Louis, MO; Triumph Actuation Systems of Bloomfield, CT; Taylor Devices of North Tonawanda, NY; Hutchinson Industries of Trenton, NJ; and Selex in Edinburgh, United Kingdom.

Uncharacteristically for India, the DSCA says that there are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale. Implementation of this proposed sale will require annual trips to India involving up to 8 U.S. Government and contractor representatives for technical reviews/support, training, and in-country trials, over a period of approximately 2 years.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pranav » 04 Feb 2010 08:45

Next-generation Artillery?

The muzzle velocity of a typical 155mm artillery shell is something like Mach 2.5, and the range is upto 40km.

What would be nice is to have a small ramjet engine and fins/wings incorporated into the shell, with enough fuel for about 60 seconds. That should increase the range to around 100km. Also incorporate capability for GPS and laser guidance. If stealth features can be incorporated to evade weapon-locating radars, all the better.

This package would be much cheaper than BrahMos. And if we had had anything like that in Kargil, the war would have been over in 48 hours. Imagine the possibilities for cheaply targeting militant camps, bridges etc.
Last edited by Pranav on 04 Feb 2010 12:45, edited 2 times 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 Feb 2010 09:13

they were experimenting with such a shell for the 155mm next gen cannon mounted on Stryker.

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199 ... power.html

The U.S. Army is testing a supersonic projectile that could drastically increase the killing power of future tanks.

The Armaments Research Development and Engineering Center, at Picatinny Arsenal, N.J., will test a supersonic combustion ramjet--scramjet--designed to improve the penetrating power of tank guns.

The scramjet, like common jet engines, burns fuel mixed with compressed atmospheric oxygen. However, unlike traditional jets, the scramjet has no compressor disks or other moving parts to compress the air. Hot air entering the scramjet inlets at four times the speed of sound, ignites the fuel and sustains combustion, so the scramjet itself contains pure fuel without wasting weight and volume of a separate oxidizer.

As it emerges ignited from a cannon barrel, a scramjet-powered tank round could produce thrust in flight to extend its range or sustain its penetrating power all the way to the target.

Compared to unpowered kinetic energy tank rounds that slow down and lose penetrating power to aerodynamic drag, a scramjet powered round could sustain its tank-penetrating power over longer ranges, or enable a smaller, lighter gun to achieve the same result.

Laboratory flight tests of a 101 mm demonstrator engine, scheduled from April to July of this year, may lead to a live-fire demonstration of a 120 mm round in a tank gun by 2005. Army researchers believe a scramjet-powered kinetic energy penetrating round will help give lighter fighting platforms an improved large caliber, direct fire capability.

With no moving parts, the scramjet engine burns fuel with the compressed, superheated air encountered at Mach 5--the muzzle velocity of existing tank guns.

Timing fuel combustion to the desired flight profile makes it possible to sustain the kinetic energy and penetrating power of tank rounds at extended ranges in direct-fire applications. Alternatively, the scramjet could extend the range of cannon rounds for indirect fires.

Unlike rockets, the scramjet wastes no fuel volume carrying oxidizer. "It's a way to provide more thrust per pound of round," explains Joe Snyder, aerospace engineer at the ARDEC Advanced Systems Concepts Office.

Accelerated to Mach 5 by the time it leaves the 120 mm gun of the Abrams tank, the standard M829A2 kinetic-energy round uses a finned "dart" to penetrate opposing tank armor and devastate the crew compartment without an explosive warhead. In Operation Desert Storm, one such penetrator reportedly pierced two Iraqi T-72 tanks parked side-by-side. Despite their acknowledged effectiveness, kinetic-energy rounds lose about 100 miles-per-second velocity over 2 kilometers, due to drag.

Since kinetic energy declines with the square of the velocity, armor penetration falls off at extended ranges. A scramjet propelled round could sustain the velocity and penetrating power of a tank gun round all the way to its target.

Oversight for the Picatinny ARDEC is transitioning from the Tank and Automotive Armaments Command to the new Research, Development and Engineering Command, but the center remains the research focal point for gun armament systems.

The ARDEC Advanced Systems Concepts Office broadened a scramjet program initiated by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Office of Naval Research.

Tyrus Cobb, chief of the ASCO requirements analysis division explains, "That's what we're all about, looking at futuristic stuff that will enhance our armament applications."

Scramjet technology has potential applications in anti-ship missiles and other platforms. Allied Aerospace received a contract under the DARPA/Navy Small Business Innovative Research program to demonstrate scramjets in the supersonic wind tunnel at the Arnold Engineering and Development Center at Tullahoma, Tenn.

"We were looking to find a means to test scramjets in flight for lower cost," explains vice president of engineering Robert Bakos. He notes a gun-launched scramjet could be tested in the 1,000-foot tunnel at the AEDC for a fraction of the cost of a rocket-boosted vehicle.

Four test firings from a 101 mm light gas gun in July 2001 proved a scramjet engine could sustain Mach 7 in thin air at a simulated 100,000-foot altitude. Informal networking by engineers at the Picatinny ASCO and DARPA resulted in a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with Allied Aerospace to produce a "gun-hardened" engine for Mach 5 launch at sea level.

The company first demonstrated scramjet technology in 1961 and has worked on the National Aerospace Plaine, the Hyper-X, and other hypersonic research applications. Subsonic ramjets transition to supersonic scramjets around Mach 5--five times the speed of sound. Fuel metered into the hypersonic airstream ignites spontaneously. According to Bakos, "What you're trying to do is control the supersonic flow through the engine, and add heat to it, and make it produce thrust. It's a delicate balance of many opposing large forces."

The demonstrator engine burned gaseous ethylene in eight combustion chambers. Engineers optimized the scramjet inlet ducts and fuel injectors for a Mach 7 flight with 10,000 G acceleration. The Army's follow-on effort refines the design to withstand the 60,000 G load of a main tank gun and the sustained heat of hypersonic flight. "You're flying very fast with a lot of heat transferred to the vehicle," observes Bakos. "The vehicle has to sustain those loads without weakening."

In DARPA tests, the 101 mm (4-inch) diameter titanium demonstrator engine flew 260 feet before it vaporized on impact with the steel plates at the end of the test tunnel. Though the missile shape was aerodynamically unstable, the engine produced thrust throughout its 30-meter flight. "There wasn't enough time for the projectile to turn over," says Snyder.

The ARDEC-sponsored demonstration will combine a refined motor with a penetrator, stabilizing fins and discarding sabot designed by Army engineers at Picatinny.

Building a scramjet round able to withstand acceleration forces six times those encountered in the original demonstration presents design and material challenges. Simply thickening the walls between the combustion chambers would reduce fuel volume and air flow. High strength materials are essential to produce a gun-hardened scramjet round. Target throw weight of the engine plus penetrator is 23 pounds. "We're looking to lighten-up anywhere we can," says Snyder.

The ARDEC demonstration in the Arnold tunnel calls for two unpowered aerodynamic shapes of a representative mass to validate the important stabilizing fins. Three scramjet-powered rounds will then test the integration of the engine, penetrator and fins. A four-piece composite sabot like that used on standard tank rounds seals the gun tube to capture the pressure from burning launch propellants and increase muzzle velocity, then breaks away in flight.

The powered rounds are expected to travel the full 1,000-foot length of the test tunnel at Mach 5 at sea level (1,700 miles per second). Successful demonstrations may lead to a tactical 120 mm round development program for the Future Combat System's tank-like mounted combat system. Similar rounds could be incorporated in the Stryker brigade mobile gun system and Abrams tank
, officials said. Advanced Systems Concepts Office director Eugene Del Coco, explains, "You can continue to improve the performance of existing weapons systems by adding new munitions and new technology."

The test engine continues to use gaseous ethylene fuel for its short tunnel flight. A useable scramjet-powered kinetic-energy round would require solid propellant to reach 4 km or more, and to provide a safe, easily-handled round with a shelf life of 20 years or longer. The ARDEC Energetic Materials branch will evaluate alternative fuels for tactical trials, and Allied Aerospace is working with Alliant Tech Systems to identify suitable solid propellants.

The ideal line-of-sight, direct-fire kinetic energy round might discard its motor after fuel burn out to eliminate parasitic drag on the penetrator. While the current goal is a 120 mm round to fit future and existing guns, the technology could potentially boost the velocity and increase the lethality of smaller rounds to support development of smaller guns carried by lighter, more agile vehicles.

kaangeya
BRFite
Posts: 139
Joined: 03 Mar 2008 02:34

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby kaangeya » 04 Feb 2010 09:33

We suffered huge casualities in kargil due to ineffective artilery !
:eek:

What are you smoking? ARTY broke the back of the flight infantry

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 04 Feb 2010 12:03

kaangeya wrote:
We suffered huge casualities in kargil due to ineffective artilery !
:eek:

What are you smoking? ARTY broke the back of the flight infantry


Indian Army fights as ONE.

It is incorrect to say that one did better than the other.

Lakhwinder and the Arty did a great work, but to feel the infantry poodle faked would be unfortunate!

bhayana
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 12
Joined: 04 Feb 2010 13:22

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby bhayana » 04 Feb 2010 13:51

pgbhat wrote:M777 LWH on future weapons

The arty. modernisation program started by Late Gen. Sunderjee laid stress upon the fire power and the mobility. Bofors being highly mobile Late Gen. Sunderjee selected the gun with the best mobility considering the fact that The US had Developed a Fire locating radar and would be providing the same to the Pakistan any time in the future , so a gun system with the fastest rate of engagement and dis-engagement was stressed upon. Today it is a open fact that PAkistan has the Ammerican WLR which it would engage when the hostility breaks.

M777 as seen here does not seem to a highly mobile weapon considering ,if the guns are engaged in the western sector or kargil like sector when the Pakis would be locating our fire and counter attack based on that data of the WLR is carried out. The STK gun does have a better mobility in terms of the shoot and scoot aspect, but looses out to the M777 on the weight aspect.

M777 has only seen action in the US war on Afgan. where the gun units have faced no or very little(small arms )fire.These guns when used aganist a adversary who is capable to locate the guns and counterfire with high accuracy is the question to be answered by the IA when they deploy these guns in that region. The ULH concept was developed by the west to move swiftly in and out of the war zone where they would not be facing a highly modern, accurate and swift enemy. Which i think does not hold good in terms of the India who intends to use these guns aganist the PAkis or the Chinese .

Srivastav
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 24 Jan 2009 17:23
Location: where the polar bears live

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Srivastav » 04 Feb 2010 14:23

RayC wrote:Indian Army fights as ONE.

It is incorrect to say that one did better than the other.

Lakhwinder and the Arty did a great work, but to feel the infantry poodle faked would be unfortunate!


Rayc sir, i am pretty sure he means that the artillery broke the back of "northern light infantry".

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7699
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 04 Feb 2010 14:24

^^^
The arty. modernisation program started by Late Gen. Sunderjee laid stress upon the fire power and the mobility. Bofors being highly mobile Late Gen. Sunderjee selected the gun with the best mobility considering the fact that The US had Developed a Fire locating radar and would be providing the same to the Pakistan any time in the future , so a gun system with the fastest rate of engagement and dis-engagement was stressed upon. Today it is a open fact that PAkistan has the Ammerican WLR which it would engage when the hostility breaks.


Good Sir, if we use your argument of the WLR to be the nemesis of a towed gun system, no towed system can survive. IA is actually ordering large quantity of towed 155mm guns, not withstanding the APU. Is the APU on a towed gun a surety of safety against Counter Battery fire? But this actually is a moot point in our argument.

M777 as seen here does not seem to a highly mobile weapon considering ,if the guns are engaged in the western sector or kargil like sector when the Pakis would be locating our fire and counter attack based on that data of the WLR is carried out. The STK gun does have a better mobility in terms of the shoot and scoot aspect, but looses out to the M777 on the weight aspect.


The ULWH has been especially bought to equip the mountain formation on the Chinese front. May be, as numbers grow, formation in Kashmir may also receive them. And inspite of PA having the WLR during Kargil, how many guns did we loose in CBF? And that too in restricted space where real estate was a premium and it was not easy to identify and prepare alternate gun sights?

M777 has only seen action in the US war on Afgan. where the gun units have faced no or very little(small arms )fire.These guns when used aganist a adversary who is capable to locate the guns and counterfire with high accuracy is the question to be answered by the IA when they deploy these guns in that region. The ULH concept was developed by the west to move swiftly in and out of the war zone where they would not be facing a highly modern, accurate and swift enemy. Which i think does not hold good in terms of the India who intends to use these guns aganist the PAkis or the Chinese .


Please to read the article below on the development philosophy of ULWH in UA Army:

The Lightweight 155 (LW 155), formerly known as the Advanced Towed Cannon System (ATCAS), LW 155 will replace all US Marine Corps (USMC) cannon systems and be used as a direct support weapon. The US Army (Army) will use the system as a general support weapon in the light forces and as a direct support weapon for the Light Cavalry Regiment replacing all of the M198 155mm towed howitzers.

The lightweight 155mm howitzer (XM777) will be a great improvement over the M198 in terms of capability, due in large part to its Automated Fire Control System. The XM777's biggest drawback remains the fact that it is a towed system with the same large logistical footprint as the M198. The two largest detractors of towed artillery are the amount of lift necessary for ship to shore movement of the battery, and the difficulties of employment in an urban environment (turning radius, crew survivability, greater time and space needed to employ the gun).

The Marine Corps has a valid, approved, high priority requirement for an advanced towed lightweight 155mm howitzer that meets increased operational thresholds for mobility, survivability, deployability, and sustainability in an expeditionary environment. The Army shares this fire support requirement in the interest of its light forces


Full article here:http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/lw155.htm

Anantz
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 90
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 13:33
Location: Bangalore
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Anantz » 04 Feb 2010 14:37

@ Rohitvats

Compairing both the M777 and the SLWH Pegasus, which one do you think would be more ideally suited for IA requirements? While the M777 would be light weight making it able to be carried into battlefield most probably by even the Mi17; the SLWH is a tad heavy only able to be carried by the CH47/Mi26 class helicopter. However, the SLWH does have its own APU which might come in pretty handy, at the restricted space in the mountains where they will be primarily deployed. Considering the M777 will not have any APU, moving it around will require either a Towing vehicle which adds to the overhead, or for a helicopter to be brought in and out everytime it needs to be moved! However, even though the SLWH is a tad heavier requiring a heavier helo to put it into battle, it would be able to use its APU to shoot and scoot or move to a different location in the battle.

TIA

Willy
BRFite
Posts: 283
Joined: 18 Jan 2005 01:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Willy » 04 Feb 2010 15:17

The ULWH has been especially bought to equip the mountain formation on the Chinese front. May be, as numbers grow, formation in Kashmir may also receive them. And inspite of PA having the WLR during Kargil, how many guns did we loose in CBF? And that too in restricted space where real estate was a premium and it was not easy to identify and prepare alternate gun sights?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

We did loose a lot of soilder in the vicinity of the guns as a result of counter fire by the Paki's as a result of their WLR's

bhayana
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 12
Joined: 04 Feb 2010 13:22

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby bhayana » 04 Feb 2010 15:33

r
rohitvats wrote:^^^
The arty. modernisation program started by Late Gen. Sunderjee laid stress upon the fire power and the mobility. Bofors being highly mobile Late Gen. Sunderjee selected the gun with the best mobility considering the fact that The US had Developed a Fire locating radar and would be providing the same to the Pakistan any time in the future , so a gun system with the fastest rate of engagement and dis-engagement was stressed upon. Today it is a open fact that PAkistan has the Ammerican WLR which it would engage when the hostility breaks.


Good Sir, if we use your argument of the WLR to be the nemesis of a towed gun system, no towed system can survive. IA is actually ordering large quantity of towed 155mm guns, not withstanding the APU. Is the APU on a towed gun a surety of safety against Counter Battery fire? But this actually is a moot point in our argument.

[color=#0000FF](Concentrating on the western front)The Apu on the gun system not ony automates its firing process but engagement and disengagement process which includes the speed of it to be in and out of action . The apu in case of the CBF would allow the Gun crew to move the gun to such a possition that the CBF when comes after a while does not harm the men and the machine. So the scoot aspect of the gun has to be considered when deploying a Gun Like M777 In the Western front where we know that our fire can be ranged and countered in no time.[/color]

M777 as seen here does not seem to a highly mobile weapon considering ,if the guns are engaged in the western sector or kargil like sector when the Pakis would be locating our fire and counter attack based on that data of the WLR is carried out. The STK gun does have a better mobility in terms of the shoot and scoot aspect, but looses out to the M777 on the weight aspect.




The ULWH has been especially bought to equip the mountain formation on the Chinese front. May be, as numbers grow, formation in Kashmir may also receive them. And inspite of PA having the WLR during Kargil, how many guns did we loose in CBF? And that too in restricted space where real estate was a premium and it was not easy to identify and prepare alternate gun sights?

As far as my Knowledge goes the 99 conflict saw the deployment of the Arty guns and the use of them in a direct(line of sight ) fire mode and as compared to the tradational role the Field Arty has to play that of Indirect fire . This is the reason why inspite of the pakis having the WLR they could not dammage even a single gun possition of ours. Secondaly the Pak arty was possitioned on the other side of the mountains along with the WLR's , which would only function only when they can detect the projectiles , for which either the IA should have fired across the mountains at the PAkis possition or the Paki WLR should have been on the top o fthe mountain so that the data of the INdian Gun possition could be relayed back to its Arty for A CBF.



M777 has only seen action in the US war on Afgan. where the gun units have faced no or very little(small arms )fire.These guns when used aganist a adversary who is capable to locate the guns and counterfire with high accuracy is the question to be answered by the IA when they deploy these guns in that region. The ULH concept was developed by the west to move swiftly in and out of the war zone where they would not be facing a highly modern, accurate and swift enemy. Which i think does not hold good in terms of the India who intends to use these guns aganist the PAkis or the Chinese .


Please to read the article below on the development philosophy of ULWH in UA Army:

The Lightweight 155 (LW 155), formerly known as the Advanced Towed Cannon System (ATCAS), LW 155 will replace all US Marine Corps (USMC) cannon systems and be used as a direct support weapon. The US Army (Army) will use the system as a general support weapon in the light forces and as a direct support weapon for the Light Cavalry Regiment replacing all of the M198 155mm towed howitzers.

The lightweight 155mm howitzer (XM777) will be a great improvement over the M198 in terms of capability, due in large part to its Automated Fire Control System. The XM777's biggest drawback remains the fact that it is a towed system with the same large logistical footprint as the M198. The two largest detractors of towed artillery are the amount of lift necessary for ship to shore movement of the battery, and the difficulties of employment in an urban environment (turning radius, crew survivability, greater time and space needed to employ the gun).

The Marine Corps has a valid, approved, high priority requirement for an advanced towed lightweight 155mm howitzer that meets increased operational thresholds for mobility, survivability, deployability, and sustainability in an expeditionary environment. The Army shares this fire support requirement in the interest of its light forces


Full article here:http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/lw155.htm




A UL Gun system which is not automated ( needs manual loading of the shell and the charge along with the ramming), not able to survive a CBF because of its non scoot property , would the IA like to find its men is a battle situation where after some time its men and machines are sitting ducks for the enemy. As mentioned in the uS requirement it says that the US forces require this equp for its expeditionary enviro, by which they mean it should be 155mm and light in nature because they are on a expedition pounding hostile nations after the USAF has rendered useless the capabality of the other army to counter attack with rocket artillery or conventional artillery. The US in the past as seen has not started the war from the ground but first , missiled its enemy,bombed from air , inflicted dammage on th e otherside so that its ground forces could take its objective with little resistance , if any little resistance it faces in some pockets it can call for light gun systems like the M777 for the softening of the same. India on the other had has to deal with a 2nd kind of a war if is not all out but, a selective where it cannot open other fronts because of one reason or the other , cannot call for the other wings of the armed forces , cannot cross international boundaries, in other words cannot missile as the US does cannot Bomb from the air as the US does. So it has to deal with the 2nd kind of the war with its hand s tied, where it would be facing a battle ready grould forces armed with equp. like the WLS'S. And possitioning guns like the M777 would not be a wise decission by the IA in the western sector.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests