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.
Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kersi D » 03 Dec 2012 21:42

rkirankr wrote:A noob question, If IA looks at the gun and says no I want more Natashas, but the pakis look at the gun and say, we want it, can Tatas sell it to them?


It shows that PA is smarter than IA.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kersi D » 03 Dec 2012 21:43

nits wrote:We can go for comparative Trial between Tata's and Ordnance Factory Board Gun Trial... :idea:


Will kit be a Arjun vs T 90S type contest ?

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kersi D » 03 Dec 2012 21:46

The arty contest is one event where Russia is absent. I understand that they do not have any 155 mm arty though they have tried (thru MP Renuka Chaudhary) to push their 152 mm gun.

My dirty wicked mind tell me that IA/MOD is repeatedly delaying the purchase of any 155 mm arty SO THAT RUSSIA CAN OFFER US A SUITABLE EQUIPMENT.

:(( :((

And of course we have to pay for its "development", it will be shipped to India for trials and then we will have to pay for the improvements.

:(( :(( :((

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 03 Dec 2012 22:00

I remember 15 years ago an Arty chap saying Denel guns were far superior than anything else on the market. Would be commendable if Tata has managed to absorb the technology and develop+manufacture a similar product in India. This is exactly what DPSUs were supposed to do over many decades.

Many in this forum question the willingness of the Private Sector to invest. Well, I'm sure SED would've invested significantly on this.

At the least, it should receive a fair trial, and if the product has significant indigenous content and minimal foreign dependency, then should be ordered in numbers.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sarabpal.s » 03 Dec 2012 23:03

Some more details of TATA gun

it is based on Denel G5 52

Entered service -
Crew 6 men
Dimensions and weight
Weight 28 t
Length 10.1 m
Width 2.9 m
Height 3.48 m
Armament
Main gun 155-mm
Barrel length 52 calibers
Machine guns -
Maximum firing range 55 km
Maximum rate of fire 8 rpm
Elevation range - 3 to + 75 degrees
Traverse range 80 / 360 degrees
Ammunition load
Main gun 27 rounds
Machine guns -
Mobility
Engine diesel
Engine power 355 hp
Maximum road speed 85 km/h
Range 600 km
Maneuverability
Gradient 40%
Side slope 25%
Vertical step 0.6 m
Trench 2 m
Fording 1.4 m

The T5-52 truck mounted gun-howitzer was developed by Denel Land Systems. First prototype of this artillery system was revealed in 2002. It is a South African counterpart to the French Caesar truck-mounted howitzer, developed to meet the potential requirements of India. Development of this artillery system is completed, however there were no confirmed sales.

The T5 was previously dubbed the Condor and was armed with a 155-mm / L45 weapon. The second model, the T5-52, utilizes the G5-2000 towed howitzer top carriage. This artillery system is compatible with standard NATO 155-mm ammunition. Projectiles are fed automatically onto the rammer tray from the magazine. Charge loading is semi-automatic.

Maximum range of fire is 42.5 km with rocket assisted projectile and 55 km with V-LAP or velocity enhanced projectile, developed by Denel. The T5-52 is capable of MRSI or multiple round simultaneous impact firing. It can fire up to six rounds to hit the target simultaneously. This artillery system can fire in 360° arc, however it has to return to the 80° arc to simplify the loading process. Vehicle has a direct firing capability.

The T5-52 has an operating crew of four and additional four crew members to prepare and supply the ammunition. A crew of four can bring the gun into or out of action within 60 seconds.

The T5-52 is mounted on the modified 8x8 Tatra T815 WN truck chassis. This truck is manufactured in India under license. Vehicle is powered by a turbocharged diesel engine, developing 355 hp. To provide a more stable firing platform, this truck has three stabilizer blades. Cab of this artillery system is unarmored, however protection against 5.56-mm rounds can be fitted as an option

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 03 Dec 2012 23:03

Kersi D wrote:The arty contest is one event where Russia is absent. I understand that they do not have any 155 mm arty though they have tried (thru MP Renuka Chaudhary) to push their 152 mm gun.My dirty wicked mind tell me that IA/MOD is repeatedly delaying the purchase of any 155 mm arty SO THAT RUSSIA CAN OFFER US A SUITABLE EQUIPMENT.

:(( :((

And of course we have to pay for its "development", it will be shipped to India for trials and then we will have to pay for the improvements.

:(( :(( :((


Kersi, the Russian gun was rejected by the Army in late 90s itself because of the barrel diameter issue. No chance of it coming into picture at all. Even then, the tracked gun of choice was Denel T6 mounted on Arjun chassis (after T-72 chassis could not absorb the pressure generated by sustained firing of the gun). And for the wheeled SPH we had the Denel G6.

Considering that the bulk of order is concentrated in the towed and mounted gun-systems, the aim should be to have common gun for these requirements. The tracked and wheeled SPH should come from same platform - like the Rheinmetall PzH 2000 and its wheeled cousin. Ideal situation would be for all the platforms to share one common gun - but then, when you don't manufacture your own system, there is not much you can do.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8100
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nachiket » 04 Dec 2012 00:29

nits wrote:We can go for comparative Trial between Tata's and Ordnance Factory Board Gun Trial... :idea:


The OFB gun is a towed one. Tata has a self-propelled gun. The IA needs both. Although technically, Tata can sell the same gun in a towed version.

member_23651
BRFite
Posts: 317
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_23651 » 04 Dec 2012 02:10

Really Glad, at least after long await Army would be spoiled by arty choices provided from within India by Indian Companies. With Tata arty being unveiled, Kalyani Arty and Ashok Leyland Arty are the next to be seen as shown in Defense Expo 2012

OT: one thing I am really curious about is: whether Tata 8x8 has all wheel independent suspension like Tatra or not?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Indranil » 04 Dec 2012 04:35

Does anybody know what Tata's proposition is with regard to the 155/52mm Self Propelled Gun (Tracked)?

They list it as a product on the TATA Power SED site.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Indranil » 04 Dec 2012 05:21

sarabpal.s wrote:Some more details of TATA gun

it is based on Denel G5 52

Mobility
Engine diesel
Engine power 355 hp
Maximum road speed 85 km/h
Range 600 km
Maneuverability
Gradient 40%
Side slope 25%
Vertical step 0.6 m
Trench 2 m
Fording 1.4 m



Since the carrier is not the 8x8 Tatra T815, here are the details of the Tata 8x8 Missile Carrier

http://www.tatamotors.com/pdf/defence-expo-2012-background-note.pdf
Tata Motors has developed an indigenous high mobility, all-terrain and all-wheel drive, Tata LPTA 3138 8x8 vehicle, specifically for various all terrain application like Command & control unit, Missile carrier, MHC Radar Station, Missile firing platform, etc. The vehicle is equipped with state-of-the-art Electronic Controlled heavy-duty engine. The vehicle has high mobility features like Anti-locking Braking System (ABS), Central Tyre Inflation System (CTIS), Auxiliary Gear box, with high & low speed mode and differential locks system.

• Power to weight Ratio of 10KW/Ton
• 375 HP @ 2100 RPM (higher than the T815)
• 1550 Nm @ 1300 to 1400 Rpm
• Manual transmission system with 10 forward and 3 reverse gears
• Gradeability of 30 Deg under full load(lower than the T815)
• Max Speed of 80 KMPH in top gear(lower than the T815)
• trench crossing ability of 2000 mm(at par with the T815)
• Vertical Step climbing ability of 500 mm(lower than the T815)
• Fordability of 1200 mm with stop and 1400 mm with pass(at par with the T815)
• Ground clearance of 400 mm
• Payload of 18 Tons

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Indranil » 04 Dec 2012 10:31

AnantS wrote:OT: one thing I am really curious about is: whether Tata 8x8 has all wheel independent suspension like Tatra or not?

I was also very interested to know about this. However, if you are speaking of the half axles in the Tatra, then I don't think that TATA's LPTAs have similar suspension.

Most probably the LPTAs have the suspension from TACO Henderickson.

A list of 8X8s here.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 04 Dec 2012 10:50

Arty is one area where cheen funded vested interests will try very hard to derail.

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kersi D » 04 Dec 2012 13:44

[/quote] Kersi, the Russian gun was rejected by the Army in late 90s itself because of the barrel diameter issue. No chance of it coming into picture at all. [/quote]

I am hoping the same

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kersi D » 04 Dec 2012 13:45

Singha wrote:Arty is one area where cheen funded vested interests will try very hard to derail.


Renuka Chaudhary has already started the process several years ago !!!

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kersi D » 04 Dec 2012 13:48

rohitvats wrote:
Kersi D wrote:The arty contest is one event where Russia is absent. I understand that they do not have any 155 mm arty though they have tried (thru MP Renuka Chaudhary) to push their 152 mm gun.My dirty wicked mind tell me that IA/MOD is repeatedly delaying the purchase of any 155 mm arty SO THAT RUSSIA CAN OFFER US A SUITABLE EQUIPMENT.

:(( :((

And of course we have to pay for its "development", it will be shipped to India for trials and then we will have to pay for the improvements.

:(( :(( :((


Kersi, the Russian gun was rejected by the Army in late 90s itself because of the barrel diameter issue. No chance of it coming into picture at all. Even then, the tracked gun of choice was Denel T6 mounted on Arjun chassis (after T-72 chassis could not absorb the pressure generated by sustained firing of the gun). And for the wheeled SPH we had the Denel G6.

Considering that the bulk of order is concentrated in the towed and mounted gun-systems, the aim should be to have common gun for these requirements. The tracked and wheeled SPH should come from same platform - like the Rheinmetall PzH 2000 and its wheeled cousin. Ideal situation would be for all the platforms to share one common gun - but then, when you don't manufacture your own system, there is not much you can do.


Even if all the three systesm use different guns in should not be a problem if they can use the same ammo shells and same charges.

K

P.S.
Rohit
A stupid question. Can ammo for a 155 mm/45 calibre gun of make X be used in 155 mm /52 calibre gun of make Y ? Do these shells have combustible cases ?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8308
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 04 Dec 2012 14:01

^^^

The answer is yes, the same design of 155 MM shell can fired from different barrels. The difference in the shells performance having being fired from a different barrel length, will have to be compensated by adjusting the firing table accordingly.

Shells are designated according to the standards set by the users. At the moment the majority of the arty arms are using the Nato standard 155 mm design for both the barrel and the shell. The exception being the Sweds, But their gun is compatible with the Nato standard shell and charges.

Will
BRFite
Posts: 637
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Will » 04 Dec 2012 14:15

This really came as a bolt from the blue. A welcome bolt at that :) But wonder if vested interests will let this gun go further. The army and babu lobby interested in imports and the DRDO (developing its own system even though its towed) will try their best to throw a spanner in the works :| even though the army seems to be coming around to the fact that they might well have to go in for indigenous efforts on the arty front.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby krishnan » 04 Dec 2012 14:21

Is this tata thing a SPG ???? i dont think its towed arty

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 04 Dec 2012 21:38

To me its not clear as to what work Tata has done on it other than if I may say crudely "cut-pasting" the Denel gun from the original Tatra truck to one of its own make. It is also not very clear as to what the work share will be between Denel and Tata if they do win a contract. If it is on the same lines as the BEML agreement with the Slovakians(?) where only the carrier(i.e. the truck) is made in India but the actual gun itself is completely imported, I think there will be hardly anything to cheer about.
Will wrote:This really came as a bolt from the blue. A welcome bolt at that :) But wonder if vested interests will let this gun go further. The army and babu lobby interested in imports and the DRDO (developing its own system even though its towed) will try their best to throw a spanner in the works :| even though the army seems to be coming around to the fact that they might well have to go in for indigenous efforts on the arty front.

Will for all practical purposes this is an imported system, That too from a company that is blacklisted(or was it un-blacklisted?). So it is quite conceivable that the "lobby interested in import" itself is pushing it.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby SaiK » 04 Dec 2012 21:40

why would you all not think tatas+denel combo itself is not one of the vested interest group? in a game of filthy transactions, i am sure they know how to play it as dirty as possible. otoh, it is really a sorry state of affairs that each poster here feels that vested interest groups are respected bodies and guides both our freedom and security. it is so painful to read this.

Will
BRFite
Posts: 637
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Will » 04 Dec 2012 22:00

abhik wrote:To me its not clear as to what work Tata has done on it other than if I may say crudely "cut-pasting" the Denel gun from the original Tatra truck to one of its own make. It is also not very clear as to what the work share will be between Denel and Tata if they do win a contract. If it is on the same lines as the BEML agreement with the Slovakians(?) where only the carrier(i.e. the truck) is made in India but the actual gun itself is completely imported, I think there will be hardly anything to cheer about.
Will wrote:This really came as a bolt from the blue. A welcome bolt at that :) But wonder if vested interests will let this gun go further. The army and babu lobby interested in imports and the DRDO (developing its own system even though its towed) will try their best to throw a spanner in the works :| even though the army seems to be coming around to the fact that they might well have to go in for indigenous efforts on the arty front.

Will for all practical purposes this is an imported system, That too from a company that is blacklisted(or was it un-blacklisted?). So it is quite conceivable that the "lobby interested in import" itself is pushing it.


Well yea maybe :). No one can doubt the capability of the Denel gun.If it comes with complete TOT(doubt the govt would allow import of parts/kits from Denel) and manufactured by TATA right down to the last bolt then why not. Its a start and the IA needs guns desperately.

SAIK the question is not of blaming organisations but of getting guns into actual service(which no has been able to for the past 25 years for one reason or the other). Its the foot soilder that needs the arty guns desperately - so get them by "hook or by crook" but get them into service >:)

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8100
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nachiket » 04 Dec 2012 22:23

abhik wrote:To me its not clear as to what work Tata has done on it other than if I may say crudely "cut-pasting" the Denel gun from the original Tatra truck to one of its own make. It is also not very clear as to what the work share will be between Denel and Tata if they do win a contract. If it is on the same lines as the BEML agreement with the Slovakians(?) where only the carrier(i.e. the truck) is made in India but the actual gun itself is completely imported, I think there will be hardly anything to cheer about.

Will for all practical purposes this is an imported system, That too from a company that is blacklisted(or was it un-blacklisted?). So it is quite conceivable that the "lobby interested in import" itself is pushing it.


Who cares? Leave aside the Chinese, even the PA has more SPH systems than the IA. The situation is that bad. If the IA buys this it will be a lungi-dance moment regardless of whether the gun was made in South Africa or Timbuktu. If this "cut-paste" helps us get around the stupid MoD blacklist (which was a knee jerk reaction to corruption allegations which hurt no one besides the IA), then more power to Tata.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby SaiK » 04 Dec 2012 22:35

will, let it be by hook rather. if there is a need, it must be fulfilled. this is where we need to delink CAG, purchase policy etc.. where GoI write the contracts in such a way, all corruptions will only incur expenses like in liquidated damages rather holding up the use of the product which fulfills requirements.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 04 Dec 2012 22:59

Me thinks this aspect of foreign gun-manufacturers partnering with Indian companies is to hedge against the stupid black-listing spree which tends to engulf MOD every time acquisition of major weapon system is underway.

While it is that much easier to blacklist foreign companies, doing so to Indian partnered consortium will be difficult. After all, the influence and levers of TATA and Mahindra or Bharat Forge run deep in the Indian establishment. Also, while initially a certain percentage of main gun may come off the shelf from foreign partner, given the quantum of order, rest are likely to be manufactured in India. As someone said, just get the goddamn guns...

member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_23370 » 04 Dec 2012 23:40

Order 1000 pieces and another 1000 of the OFB gun already.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Indranil » 05 Dec 2012 00:07

abhik wrote:To me its not clear as to what work Tata has done on it other than if I may say crudely "cut-pasting" the Denel gun from the original Tatra truck to one of its own make. It is also not very clear as to what the work share will be between Denel and Tata if they do win a contract.

abhik wrote:Will for all practical purposes this is an imported system, That too from a company that is blacklisted(or was it un-blacklisted?). So it is quite conceivable that the "lobby interested in import" itself is pushing it.

It is not so easy to cut copy paste the biggest of artillery guns from one truck bed to another. But they did it in 2 years. Which is good. Plus these trucks would be very serviceable (Tata says at every Tata truck service center).

Paanwala news doing the rounds in other forums:
Okie guys did some asking around and it seems like this gun was made in India( yes you read that right) the molds and other forging equipment was brought over from SA and was forged here at home under the guidance of DENEL engineers as well as the local SDRE TATA team. the barrel and much of the other metal bits can be made in bulk here now, what is still being imported is the fire control mechanism . though much of that has already been indigenised by TATA SED.
more as and when i can ferret stuff out.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby SaiK » 05 Dec 2012 00:18

rohitvats wrote:As someone said, just get the goddamn guns...

It is hard to be suffering at the hands of our loophole filled setup with corruption, and satisfying the requirements.. and once "getting sick" threshold broken, we all turn into blind eyes to corruption. And this is exactly the corrupting institution wants.. make it sick, so that they get their business going.

It is equally important stop corruption... forever. q: why are we turning blind eyes for correcting the process?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Indranil » 05 Dec 2012 01:18

^^^ You should ask this question to the Raksha Mantri. Ajai shukla reports that no MoD official is in jail for having accepted a bribe (not even former OFB Chairman Ghosh).

Charges against Denel could never be substantiated. In fact the blacklisting of Denel has never been officially communicated to Denel. Go figure ;-)
Last edited by Indranil on 05 Dec 2012 06:19, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Vipul » 05 Dec 2012 04:39

Forging is what Bharat Forge excels at (Largest forging company in Asia and 2nd largest in the world) and atleast what TATA has done should be easily doable for the Kalyani's.IIRC they have bought in a couple of Guns from their partner for the venture - Voest Alpine to test/improvise/reverse-engineer and have invested or plan to invest Rs 200 Crs for an assembly plant.

Any news/updates on the BEML-Zuzana tie-up for the SPG's?

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby SaiK » 05 Dec 2012 07:57

In a land which is premised on "satyameva jayate", the only thing they have to do is ensure everything starts with a truth value.. so, that can be even done for blacklisting, giving a false positive. It is like saying, you are not in...cause certain positives (may be negatives for non-babus) are not fulfilled., and suddenly they are not out, cause of DDM as TV umpire can be fogged by disruptive technologies.

It is a never ending story on the correction process, but the fact is, we have to begin that story, as none is contemplating on the corrections. Every body and commission setup, goes up to a certain point, as prescribed and washes its hands off!.

Fundamental change would be to say: no purchase can stopped for bribery reason or reasons anything other than technical or operational issues with the purchased equipment or artillery. It is as simple as that.. and it does not need even a scratch back time.

We have setup up processes that can't be seen in logs of transactions.. and some just disappears in thin air after a DDM flashpoint. Rest of the story goes like, beating the head against the wall, and corrections in a loop issues.

The major problem is the number of right thinking people is way smaller than non-right thinking people, and are getting mauled by the setup. Sorry, this needs correction at every level, position, place and transitions.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12408
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Aditya_V » 05 Dec 2012 11:10

indranilroy wrote:^^^ You should ask this question to the Raksha Mantri. Ajai shukla reports that no MoD official is in jail for having accepted a bribe (not even former OFB Chairman Ghosh).

Charges against Denel could never be substantiated. In fact the blacklisting of Denel has never been officially communicated to Denel. Go figure ;-)


The Denel Contract , the Barak -1 missile were all cancelled to continue the presecption that under Gearge Fernandes was the Uber corrupt Def. MIn and Anthony under UPA is a Saint.

The Denel Anti- material rifles were also causing lot of Takleef to Paki soliers in LOC and order was withdrawn at the behest of the Aman ki Asha crowd.

Poor Retired Naval admirals names were rubbed in the dirt so that public perceptions for political gains were made

The truth even in the Telhelka the only guilty were those part of MOD/ARMY in the INC instittuted corrupt system from 1947- 1998.

If media is to be belived defence corruption began in 1998 and ended in 2004, there was no corruption before or after this.

No examination on the mess the INC has made of defence is ever investigated or why uber clean and not politically well connected Suresh Kalmadi types introduced a resolution in Parliment to Kill the LCA project?

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2033
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby srin » 05 Dec 2012 11:23

CAG Report

3.2 Unfruitful expenditure on development of Modular Charge
System for field guns

Defence Research and Development Organisation undertook a
Technology Development project for development of modular charge
system for 105 mm and 130 mm guns based on a request by the Director
General of Artillery. However, on successful completion of the project
the Artillery expressed lack of interest in the technology, resulting in
unfruitful expenditure of ` 13.48 crore.

Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) undertakes
competence build up projects known as Technology Demonstration (TD)/
Research & Development (R&D)/Science and Technology (S&T)/
Infrastructure Development Projects in a given area of research or to solve
specific problems arising out of Staff projects, taken up to meet specified
requirements of the Armed Forces. TD Projects are planned to establish
technologies which would find application in Staff projects in future.
In the field of artillery guns, modular charge system was considered desirable
over the existing bagged charge system in view the advantages such as
automation, less wear and tear of barrel, etc. DRDO took up an S&T project in
2002 to develop competence in the field of modular charge system for 155 mm
gun. However, it was only after completion of the development work in
November 2006 that the DRDO informed of the project to the Director
General of Artillery, the eventual beneficiary. When the issue was discussed in
a meeting held in the same month under the chairmanship of the Defence
Secretary it was decided to close the S&T project and to undertake a TD
project for development of modular charge system for 105 mm and 130 mm
guns. The overriding consideration for this was that the technology for
production of the charge system for 155 mm guns had already been imported
by the Ordnance Factory Board.
Pursuant to the above decision, in December 2007, the Ministry of Defence
D(R&D) sanctioned the TD Project for completion by December 2010. DRDO
assigned the project to High Energy Materials Research Laboratory
(HEMRL), which in 2002, had taken up the S&T project for competence build
up for the modular charge system for 155 mm guns and completed the same in
November 2006.


After 15 months of the sanction of the project at the behest of the DG
Artillery, the School of Artillery carried out a feasibility study in March 2009,
in regard to TD Project, and found that it would not be cost effective to change
over to modular charge system in view of the planned phasing out of 105/130
mm guns in less than two decades. However, HEMRL was allowed to
continue with the TD project on hand.
HEMRL developed the systems by spending ` 13.48 crore and after successful
technical trials offered both the systems (105/130 mm) in September 2010 to
the users for user trials.
However, at that stage DG Artillery showed disinterest
in the system since the field guns were nearing the end of their life cycle and
were likely to be de-inducted from service over next 7 to 10 years. This had
rendered the entire efforts and expenditure of ` 13.48 crore unfruitful.
In reply to audit observation, the DG Artillery stated (May 2012) that DRDO
had been asked to undertake the project at no cost implication to the Army and
the systems were not accepted as the DRDO did not adhere to the timeline of
January 2009 for offering the systems for user trials.
On the contrary, the
DRDO HQ stated (July 2012) that the Army had been associated at each stage
of development and informed of the progress. The argument of the DG
Artillery for not accepting the systems and attributing it to the delay of about
20 months in offering modular charge system for trials lacks conviction. As
the 105/130 mm guns were already planned to be phased out, this delay alone
could not have contributed to their decision to not switch over to modular
charge system. Clearly, the DG Artillery did not make a serious effort to
assess the likely benefits of the TD Projects before asking the DRDO to
undertake the TD project.
The necessity of DRDO undertaking an S&T project in December 2002 for
development of the modular charge system for 155 mm guns when such
competence had already been acquired by OFB is also questionable.
The finger pointing by two organisations both under the Ministry of Defence,
DRDO which is responsible for indigenisation and Army which is expected to
put such indigenous weapons system to use, indicates that both the
organisations within the same Ministry have been operating in silos. The
unfruitful expenditure of ` 13.48 crore only highlights the need for the
Ministry to take urgent drastic measures to ensure synergy between DRDO
and the Defence Services so that each Rupee spent on the country’s defence
gives the optimum return.
The case was referred to the Ministry in March 2012; their reply was awaited
as of July 2012.

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 » 05 Dec 2012 11:39

MOD is one of the most if not the most corrupt ministries; it's modus operandi over the years has remained unchanged i.e. cover up all acts of omission by a minister/babu or even systemic by putting the entire blame on 'foreign hand' (a la TSP) and blacklist the vendor so that there is no room for investigation.

The small players like defense personnel if caught in the midst of ruckus get court marshaled immediately .

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4066
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby kit » 05 Dec 2012 18:39

No surprise.Its one of the ways the ruling party can get funds not in millions but in billions.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 09 Dec 2012 01:51

My analysis on Artillery Divisions in Indian Army.

http://vatsrohit.blogspot.in/2012/12/artillery-divisions-in-indian-army.html

I've tried to cover the philosophy behind having artillery divisions in first place and likely equipment profile. Will try and address the composition of the same in next post on artillery divisions.

Bouquets and brickbats are welcome...!!!

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7007
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Anujan » 10 Dec 2012 12:07

DDM report on the tata gun


Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1694
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Khalsa » 10 Dec 2012 13:05

Have some questions regarding the TATA 155 mm gun.

Is it a TATA truck all the time ? I ask this because I saw a different truck when I see picture of testing abroad etc.
Is the barrel design completely of Indian origin or was it a joint venture or reverse engineered
I am guessing the ballistics and computers are also made by us ?

Otherwise looking good. It might have been the best thing for the Govt run design bureaus and departments.
If the government wants to save them then it better get on with it else the private companies are knocking on the door.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Indranil » 10 Dec 2012 21:01

No the trucks are different. The ones in the pictures from the weapon trials are two variants of the Tatra 815 8X8.

The barrel design is not of Indian origin. Tata bought the design. We do not know for sure if the manufacturing has been done in India or not. There are rumors floating around that it has been.

Ballistics and computers are by Tata Power SED.

Tatas display Indian Bofors

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 10 Dec 2012 23:18

From the above link
..While claiming that 55% of the gun is indigenous, Tata admits that key barrel and metallurgy technologies have been purchased from foreign sources..

"The critical thing is ballistics know-how. No foreign supplier will part with this. It was only after we mastered this technology did we embark on the big gun project,"

It seems the Tatas have the electronics and the platform but there is still some ambiguity on the "key barrel and metallurgy technologies". Contrasting this with the kalyani project which is likely to check the barrel, metallurgy department.
Just thinking aloud here, may be they could tie up and complement each other. Replace the denel gun with the Noricum based one that the Kalyanis plan to make(may be easier to do considering that they both have the same parentage). Would hate to see either of the companies which are actually investing their own money (with no guarantee of returns at this stage) loosing out at the contest stage.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1694
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Khalsa » 11 Dec 2012 02:15

Thanks Indran

key barrel and metallurgy technologies

This is key. Oh well we are on our way to a good artillery system.
Next learnings will be metallurgy. Since we produced the barrel of our Indian Field Guns (I hope) we not too far off.

Good going and Kudos.
This could be framework for good world class Artillery system.

Although I still gravitate towards the Bhim, if for no other reason then for the fact that it is mounted on Arjun Chasis.

But this one with TATA gives us best of both worlds.
Now we just someone to sign off and get on with it.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests