Artillery Discussion Thread

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
member_20296
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 42
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_20296 » 07 Mar 2013 06:48

Nice Development :D such technologies should be internalized on a time bound basis, Rifles, Field guns, Rockets, Tracked and Non Tracked combat vehicles, Bombs, Shells of all kind. Not a dime should go out of country for purchasing these comparatively simpler equipments.

It will be nice to breed engineers for defense equipment line itself, catch them young groom them well, and we will be a front line defense equipment manufacturing country.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36292
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby SaiK » 07 Mar 2013 07:31

well it is nicer only because of it reduces corruptions and bureaucracy to get the weapons to forces. ToT is the way to go, but at the same time total indigenous aspects must be the core r&d and production model for the future.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby shiv » 07 Mar 2013 07:35

Raghuraj wrote:It will be nice to breed engineers for defense equipment line itself, catch them young groom them well, and we will be a front line defense equipment manufacturing country.

Also Indian corporates (PSU) need to learn how to be accountable and sympathetic to defence needs and the Armed forces will have to learn to adjust to the vagaries of domestic supply. The experience cannot be guaranteed to be happy, but it is a necessary one - like a 7 foot man marrying a 4 foot 4 inch woman.

I think India the nation has suffered from the consequences of the twin issues of callousness and shoddiness among the civilian defence production companies and an utter contempt for them among many defence brass. There is no other go = they have to learn to work with each other.

I was amazed to read the story of that mortar where the army requested features that were unavailable anywhere in the world. I don't know why the PSU did not tell the army this, but they tried and failed. Only after that did the army accept that it was unavailable anywhere in the world and agreed to import mortars with lesser specs from abroad. Why didn't the army and PSU agree for lesse specs right at the beginning?

The armed forces simply have to learn to manage with what we can produce in our country. The situation reads like tough shit to me but what is the option?

A comment made to me by someone at the Nag ATGM stall in Aero India 2011 was that the 4 km range missile was working but the army now wanted 7 km because that is the standard. I don't know who was bluffing but the story sounds like the way the armed forces and PSUs hate each other and would be happy not to have to deal with each other at all. Close down PSUs and import everything. That is what we were like in 1947 anyway.
Last edited by shiv on 07 Mar 2013 07:35, edited 1 time in total.

pentaiah
BRFite
Posts: 1676
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby pentaiah » 07 Mar 2013 07:35

Helicopters are highly vulnerable

Uncle is in a different kettle

He has complete dominance in ECM EW

Others can protect slow speed assets like Helicopters unless complete sanitized air space is guaranteed
by Rambha, Katrina M2k Tejas etc

We need anti tank missiles with top kill ability and heavy duty artillery of all kinds in addition doctrine wise IA is very conventional and conservative as well, while innovative at application of the tools at hand

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby shiv » 07 Mar 2013 07:46

pentaiah wrote:We need anti tank missiles with top kill ability and heavy duty artillery of all kinds in addition doctrine wise IA is very conventional and conservative as well, while innovative at application of the tools at hand


There are philosophical differences in the way a conventional army might fight versus what the US might do.

Imagine a point in a battle where an advance is being held up by a machine gun position. The tried and tested way is the way many armies, including the Indian army have done - i.e to send a couple of men to silence the machine gun - risking their lives

The way the US does it now seems to be that the soldiers being held back by the gun emplacement either illuminate the target with laser, or they accurately measure its coordinates and transmit the info to a UAV or AWACS which then requests an already loitering fighter to target the emplacement with a PGM using laser designation, or GPS based targeting

Anyone would say the US method is better, but if we don't have access to the US's means armies will do what needs to be done and men will be lost

In the case of Indian army the losses would be two men and 2 grenades

In the case of the US, no men lost but the action was possible because of comm equipment, UAV, 24x7 circling AWACS. GPS satellites, ability to call on fighters with PGMs.

This is how the Taliban have fought the US

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 07 Mar 2013 07:52

before I get excited by the 114 count order there exists the small tasks of passing user trials.

knowing how our trials go on and on and on

I will wait.....

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66410
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 07 Mar 2013 07:52

also the apache was supposed to be the big white hope in serbia war when the air campaign was unable to locate and destroy hidden serb assets (they later shifted to bombing water treatment and power plants as "dual use" to increase civilian suffering and pressure the milosevic govt).

its track record over a 20 something day deployment was zero combat missions, 2 fatal crashes on a training mission and a inglorious withdrawal shortly thereafter under the statement that serb manpad elements, the hilly terrain and power lines were dangerous for this wonder weapon to operate in :rotfl:

>> superior target acqusition and fire control, IR signature suppression, twin engines

er every gunship helo incl LCH has IR sig suppression , LCH also has twin engines..and all this superior stuff is just bookish knowledge...we dont have a apache pilot here to tell us what is the real capability and weak points of the paper spec we read on the web. same goes for LCH, we know nothing of its avionics and sensor's real capabilities.

pentaiah
BRFite
Posts: 1676
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby pentaiah » 07 Mar 2013 08:15

Shiv ji completely agree
The reason I got uncle into picture is the so called Apache is designed and developed the way US wants to fight wars, and how it perceives its strength in technology.

Some here want that Apache to integrate into our systems at the expense of our over all portfolio
Enemy potential his doctrine and of course the terrain.

Anybody recall the number of Apaches grounded during gulf war because they could not stand desert storm ( pun intended)

Doctrine training tactics terrain political objectives man power value system of the society all count

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 879
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Mihir » 07 Mar 2013 08:32

Singha wrote:also the apache was supposed to be the big white hope in serbia war when the air campaign was unable to locate and destroy hidden serb assets (they later shifted to bombing water treatment and power plants as "dual use" to increase civilian suffering and pressure the milosevic govt).

They failed in Kosovo for the same reason that they failed in Karbala - doctrine. They thought they could get helicopters to conduct deep strikes and interdiction against dispersed Serb forces. The difficulty of that task was compounded by bad intelligence and a relatively strong SHORAD system that previous air attacks had not degraded. And BTW, the Apaches were brought in because fixed wing aircraft had difficulty locating, much less destroying, the pockets of resistance. Your 300 Brimstone and CBU-105 equipped planes would fare little better in that scenario :roll:. Maybe an AN-32G (Now that was some bird, what? :mrgreen:) is what is truly needed.

Nowhere does anyone claim that it was the Apache's flaws that led to the failure of Task Force Hawk. That bringing in something akin to an LCH would magically deliver success.

Like I said, your posts suggest that we should be doing away with helicopters altogether. I don't think that's a very good idea.

Singha wrote:superior target acqusition and fire control, IR signature suppression, twin engines

er every gunship helo incl LCH has IR sig suppression , LCH also has twin engines..

Point taken on the twin engines. But IR suppression? I'll wait for public domain confirmation of that. A more sophisticated targeting and weapons suite? I think not. Not right now, in any case.

Singha wrote:and all this superior stuff is just bookish knowledge...we dont have a apache pilot here to tell us what is the real capability and weak points of the paper spec we read on the web. same goes for LCH, we know nothing of its avionics and sensor's real capabilities.

Bookish knowledge... paper spec... all that's just hand waving. We don't have an Arjun tank driver or an LCA pilot on BRF either, but we still discuss those weapons in detail, no?
Last edited by Mihir on 07 Mar 2013 10:46, edited 2 times in total.

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 948
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby KrishnaK » 07 Mar 2013 09:15

pentaiah wrote:Uncle is in a different kettle. He has complete dominance in ECM EW

Said uncle came up with the Apaches to fight off a Soviet armoured invasion. All this dominance business didn't exist then.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3170
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_20317 » 07 Mar 2013 09:32

milindc wrote:Desi Bofors to plug gap in Army’s long-range firepower
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Desi-Bofors-to-plug-gap-in-Armys-long-range-firepower/articleshow/18841177.cms

OFB has developed two prototypes of the 155mm\45-calibre guns, one with 68% indigenous parts and the other with 46%, that have been "satisfactorily tested in validation firings" in Pokran and Balasore over the last five months

<sniped>

"user-trials" in June [that would be 3 months away]

<sniped>

The Army has projected an initial requirement for 414 of these guns, each of which will cost over Rs 11 crore, as part of its long-delayed artillery modernization programme. [~2 million USD to a gun]




Thanks boss, great news to start the day with.

Wish the research establishment would start working on a 105 mm - 11 piece - 1.5 ton - 8000 rounds life barrel @ ~0.75 mil USD and another with 4000 rounds life @ some obscene charcoal cheap prices - for exports.
Last edited by member_20317 on 07 Mar 2013 09:40, edited 1 time in total.

member_20296
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 42
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_20296 » 07 Mar 2013 09:35

Bringing my humble Tax Payer point back, it will be good if we buy more indigenous stuff and save precious money, but having said that I will be ready to pay double the tax if foreign machinery increases survivability of our soldiers in battle.

Ideal approach is a good mix of both lethality and indigenousness and taking control of what we use in battle so that we don't look beyond borders for spares and ammunition.

In support of Apache purchase: A sword is only as good as the hands using it. and in Support of LCH: a dagger used with strategy, skill and precision will rein supreme over a lethal looking sword in trained hands, means having weapon is one thing and knowing to use it to produce desired result is another.

Though a question for gurus
Find N in following equation :D
Cost of 1 Apache = Cost of LCH X N
Please find M in below equation :D
Now Arms carried by 1 Apache = Arms Carried by 1 LCH X M

Now lets get the bang for buck coefficient for each million spent on LHS and RHS which option gives us more fire power :D

Sorry to annoy so many I know things are not as simple as portrayed by above example.

Now on bamboozling tax payers money in Augusta kinda things, they say you fool me once shame on you and if you foll me twice shame on me :D its been on me side for quite a number of years now but wait and see it becoming tougher by every deal.

Jai Hind :D

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby shiv » 07 Mar 2013 09:43

Raghuraj wrote:Find N in following equation :D
Cost of 1 Apache = Cost of LCH X N
Please find M in below equation :D
Now Arms carried by 1 Apache = Arms Carried by 1 LCH X M


Let me complicate the issue

Cost of closing down Apache production line/layoffs = X
Cost of gifting Apaches to assorted Paki like states and keeping line open = X/m
Cost of supporting USA job force by India buying Apaches = X/n

Assuming X>m and X>n, which is greater X/m or X/n?

If X/n>X/m then we should buy Apaches.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 07 Mar 2013 09:47

Raja Bose wrote:We are equipping our choppers with arty guns? :-?



Image

Darth Singha's personal transport onlee.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66410
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 07 Mar 2013 09:50

^ dont show that awesome thing to the DGMF...they will tweak the RFP for Arjun yet again to match that :rotfl:

They thought they could get helicopters to conduct deep strikes and interdiction against dispersed Serb forces. The difficulty of that task was compounded by bad intelligence and a relatively strong SHORAD system that previous air attacks had not degraded.

:oops: and that is precisely the situation vs TSP and Cheen we will face because no way is IAF strong enough to attain total air superiority over these (unlike the NATO over serbia). IAF is claiming it will do SEAD/DEAD - how in this situation?


And BTW, the Apaches were brought in because fixed wing aircraft had difficulty locating, much less destroying, the pockets of resistance. Your 300 Brimstone and CBU-105 equipped planes would fare little better in that scenario.


:oops: yes and the apache will penetrate 300km inside TSP at treetop level or high subsonic like the rafa/jags/tejas/m2k and drop 16 hellfires on a enemy formation streaming to the front before escaping at supersonic speed, while still retaining 2 AAMs each for self-defence shots?

let us agree to disagree and call it a day as this debate is not going anywhere.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 879
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Mihir » 07 Mar 2013 10:54

Singha wrote:They thought they could get helicopters to conduct deep strikes and interdiction against dispersed Serb forces. The difficulty of that task was compounded by bad intelligence and a relatively strong SHORAD system that previous air attacks had not degraded.

:oops: and that is precisely the situation vs TSP and Cheen we will face because no way is IAF strong enough to attain total air superiority over these (unlike the NATO over serbia).

Sigh, let's make this a little easier to understand, shall we? CAS ≠ deep interdiction. Heavy attack chopper good at CAS. No good at deep interdiction. Simple, ja?

As long as the IA/IAF don't insist on using a platform (one that they procured after user trials, mind you :roll:) to fulfill a role it is ill suited for, we'll be fine. Unless you want to argue that the helicopter itself has been rendered obsolete by advances in military technology, and should be allowed to gracefully retire once and for all.

Singha wrote:IAF is claiming it will do SEAD/DEAD - how in this situation?

You obviously seem to be fully aware of the specifics of the SEAD/DEAD missions the IAF has in mind for the LCH (not the Apache). Why don't you share with the rest of us what these are, and why these will involve deep operations and little else?

Singha wrote:And BTW, the Apaches were brought in because fixed wing aircraft had difficulty locating, much less destroying, the pockets of resistance. Your 300 Brimstone and CBU-105 equipped planes would fare little better in that scenario.

:oops: yes and the apache will penetrate 300km inside TSP at treetop level or high subsonic like the rafa/jags/tejas/m2k and drop 16 hellfires on a enemy formation streaming to the front before escaping at supersonic speed, while still retaining 2 AAMs each for self-defence shots?

Er, nobody claimed that the Apache will be sued to penetrate "300km inside TSP at treetop level". It is being procured for a very specific role - air support for the strike corps - and excels in that role. If you have evidence that the Apache is a spectacular failure at close air support, and that the LCH would be a better option instead, let us have it instead of all the hand-waving and strawman arguments.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vina » 07 Mar 2013 11:18

TOI(Let) says that the MoD due to "all the scams" has placed on order for the OFB 155mm howitzer (based on bofors drawings and upgraded electronics, whatever).

atreya
BRFite
Posts: 542
Joined: 11 Dec 2008 16:33

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby atreya » 07 Mar 2013 11:21

Err, shouldn't the mods step in and move the entire discussion to Military Aviation or better, the LCH dhaaga? Leaving aside the few replies regarding Bofors in between

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3170
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_20317 » 07 Mar 2013 11:31

If Saint Anthony does this one thing right. Handing over a big order to OFB and possibly also some funds getting into OFB, I would say his tenure would be a success despite everything. Since last 25-30 year this joke of an arty acquisition has been going on with no end in sight.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4257
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kartik » 07 Mar 2013 11:45

Surya wrote:before I get excited by the 114 count order there exists the small tasks of passing user trials.

knowing how our trials go on and on and on

I will wait.....


This time around, they have no other options. and this is after all an upgrade of the the proven FH-77B, so the user trials should hopefully not throw up any new surprise requirements that the original FH-77B didn't fulfill.

The original requirement for 414 of these guns should hopefully come through in the second part of the order.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6808
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nachiket » 07 Mar 2013 11:53

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5477&start=2800

^^That is the Helicopters thread if everybody has forgotten.

vishnu.nv
BRFite
Posts: 168
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 19:32

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vishnu.nv » 07 Mar 2013 13:39

Regarding helicopters
IMHO we lived this far without Apaches, and I don’t think a squadron of gold plated apaches will make that much difference. Note that only half of these have the long bow radar. A war time loses will be high as far as chopper fleet is concerned for IA/IAF, this is mainly because of the proliferation of quality manpad’s in PA/PAF. We should be concentrating in getting the choppers (LCH, Rudra etc) in numbers and getting these assets to standard through upgrades based on the operational performance.
As far as the LCH not in production view point, we haven’t retired our MI-35’s yet. We could live another 3-4 years without Apaches, as we are doing the same without artillery guns, LUH and MRCA. Interact with HAL, get things up to the speed and get it in to production.
The apaches are of high standards and a huge success as far as American AF/Army is concerned. We need to work on LCH and make it to the Apache standards, buying gold plated won’t help our economy or war fighting capability in long run.

This is puerly my view point

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66410
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 07 Mar 2013 13:59

imo if stopgaps are needed or just to beef numbers up we can ask Khan if ahem getting 100 of these off the boneyard is feasible
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/supcobra/

a proven product like the C130J.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7619
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 07 Mar 2013 14:15

Kartik wrote:
Surya wrote:before I get excited by the 114 count order there exists the small tasks of passing user trials.

knowing how our trials go on and on and on

I will wait.....


This time around, they have no other options. and this is after all an upgrade of the the proven FH-77B, so the user trials should hopefully not throw up any new surprise requirements that the original FH-77B didn't fulfill.

The original requirement for 414 of these guns should hopefully come through in the second part of the order.


I think you've misunderstood his point.

114 is the number of LCH requirement projected by the Indian Army.

But then, this is Artillery thread.... :mrgreen:

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7619
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 07 Mar 2013 14:39

vishnu.nv wrote:Regarding helicopters

IMHO we lived this far without Apaches, and I don’t think a squadron of gold plated apaches will make that much difference.

Good to hear from you after a long time.

As for the impact of Apaches given the numbers being acquired - well, attack helicopters in our service or that in service of PA (AH-1 Cobra) are considered to be an important threat to armored columns of both nations. Apaches simply take the threat to a new level with the kind of technological advancement they bring. Also, IAF has had only 2 x Squadrons of Mi-35 for quite some while - between IA and IAF, they might have well felt that given the threat scenario, heavy attack helicopters of this type and number suffices. And one on one replacement of Mi-35 with AH-64D would be OK to meet the threat scenario currently available and likely to present itself in future. Threat scenario which is best tackled by helicopter of AH-64D type.


Note that only half of these have the long bow radar.

Longbow Apaches can share targeting information with those without Longbow Apaches. And this actually shows that IAF has done a detailed analysis of threat scenario. Had purchase of Apaches been a mindless exercise of the kind being insinuated here on BRF, IAF would have spent another couple of hundred million dollars and asked for 22 Longbow sets.

A war time loses will be high as far as chopper fleet is concerned for IA/IAF, this is mainly because of the proliferation of quality manpad’s in PA/PAF.

Which actually means that you need a dedicated hunter-killer machine to ensure you take out enemy targets while suffering minimum damage. The AN/APG-78 set ensures that Apaches can achieve their missions with best possible results.

We should be concentrating in getting the choppers (LCH, Rudra etc) in numbers and getting these assets to standard through upgrades based on the operational performance.

Well, 179 LCH are already confirmed by IA and IAF. 60 Rudra have been ordered for by the IA. And this is only an initial number. So, why the whine about numbers? But for the Strike Corps, all other Corps from NE to North to Gujarat are going to have their Combat Aviation Bde centered around LCH. What more do the Services need to do to prove their 'credentials' as far as this chopper is concerned?

As far as the LCH not in production view point, we haven’t retired our MI-35’s yet.

We don't know how long in the tooth Mi-35 are really.

We could live another 3-4 years without Apaches, as we are doing the same without artillery guns, LUH and MRCA. Interact with HAL, get things up to the speed and get it in to production. The apaches are of high standards and a huge success as far as American AF/Army is concerned. We need to work on LCH and make it to the Apache standards, buying gold plated won’t help our economy or war fighting capability in long run.

You need to understand a fundamental point - the LIGHT in LCH is there for a reason. In its present form, LCH cannot be considered as alternative for heavy attack helicopters like Apaches or Tiger. Development and Production of LCH are different from requirement for Apaches. This is one point which people do not seem to be getting. Import of Apaches has not withheld the development and induction of LCH. And in numbers. This is not Arjun versus T-90. Where deal for T-90 has impeded the induction of Arjun in numbers.

Apaches are a sub-set of overall requirement of attack helicopters. A LCH cannot simply morph into something like Tiger or Apache through iterative development. Any Indian development in this domain of heavy attack helicopter will have to be a fresh program.

Development and subsequent induction of LCH meets the larger requirement for Attack Helicopters by IA. Requirement which does not require an Apache or Tiger class of helicopters.


This is puerly my view point

And the above is mine. :)


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19836
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 07 Mar 2013 16:21

The MI-35 proved itself in our African peacekeeping missions .There was a very colourful report a few years ago where our boys-a large number, who were trapped by rebels in some remorete outpost (I can't remember whic country at the moment),made a unique escape travelling a couple of hundred kms I think on foot, through inhospitabel jungle,pursued by the rebels,under cover all the way by our attack helos,whch according to western sources/reports did a fantastic job by "shooting everything that moved" .They gave such a pasting to the rebels who never attacked an Indian post again.The Brits later copied our example and id something similar.

The uniqueness of the MI-35 is that it can also carry a significant number of troops who can be flown right into action where needed to mop up or support troops already on the ground.

Bck to the thread.Today's media informs us that an order for 110+ FH-77B/Bofors guns of 45 cal. will be made by the OFB and that two versions with dffering % of foreign components have already been made/tested.The ultra-light BAe/Bofors artillery in an FMS sale for the mountains is also being processed asap,to be signed by the summer.Both good news for the enormously delayed artillery req. for the IA.

The UPA is going to be damned anway,whichever action or inaction it takes.If it squats indecisively and in fear,it will be consigned to hell for endangering the military/country.If it does take decisions,it will be damned for kickbacks galore.Sn (Sinner,not Saint!),Sn. Anthony might as well take decisions at speed as at least he will keep the armed forces happy (and hopefully their votes),and his wheeler-dealer firang and desi pals of the UPA in filthy lucre.In any case the UPA/Cong is going to get booted out come 2014 or earlier,with such a reluctant clown...sorry,crown prince to led them against the Modi/BJP juggernaut.So what he/they worry?

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 07 Mar 2013 19:46

This time around, they have no other options. and this is after all an upgrade of the the proven FH-77B, so the user trials should hopefully not throw up any new surprise requirements that the original FH-77B didn't fulf


Kartik

you are a brave soul to bet on this :mrgreen:

but for the Army's sake i hope so

atreya
BRFite
Posts: 542
Joined: 11 Dec 2008 16:33

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby atreya » 07 Mar 2013 21:10

The MI-35 proved itself in our African peacekeeping missions .There was a very colourful report a few years ago where our boys-a large number, who were trapped by rebels in some remorete outpost (I can't remember whic country at the moment),made a unique escape travelling a couple of hundred kms I think on foot, through inhospitabel jungle,pursued by the rebels,under cover all the way by our attack helos,whch according to western sources/reports did a fantastic job by "shooting everything that moved" .They gave such a pasting to the rebels who never attacked an Indian post again.The Brits later copied our example and id something similar.


That was in Sierra Leone and you are right, Mi-35 did do an amazing job there. The unit involved was a Gorkha Rifles unit, I think. Not only with IAF, but also in the hands of some experienced PMCs who inflicted pretty heavy damage on rebels there.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 07 Mar 2013 21:48

at least keep the missions equal at some level - each machine has advantages and disadvantages.



Mi 35s firing on rag tag militias

vs Apaches taking on Rats and mujahids across with manpads, baktar, and enough 12.7 to 23 mm calibre weaponds offloaded from the afghan circuit

2 different ball games

you want to discuss

then line up the Mi 35 and Apache against the same force and see what it can do.

member_22906
BRFite
Posts: 306
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_22906 » 07 Mar 2013 21:52

^^
+1

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66410
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 07 Mar 2013 21:53

The mi35 operating as a hunter killer pair with one guy on attack and one going around is a impressive sight.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 07 Mar 2013 21:59

The uniqueness of the MI-35 is that it can also carry a significant number of troops who can be flown right into action where needed to mop up or support troops already on the ground.


unfortunately this sounded great on paper and warsaw pact exercises but not too practical in Afghanisthan

Mi 8s still carried troops

the rear troop compartment however helped to carry technical people or additional machine gunners

The 35 is still a lovely beast

I would still want it for years even with the Apaches (spares etc being not a problem)

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 07 Mar 2013 22:02

@Singha
aha a little bit of nostalgia time

the clip from Company 9 of the Mi 24s(35s) in Ferghan valley is a beauty (from 7:47 )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbwMuZ7sf-c


A Mi 35 hovering - hmmmm :mrgreen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2uxDTgzgQg

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 07 Mar 2013 22:09

sheesh - just realised this is arty thread

sigh - ok no more on helos

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2415
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 09 Mar 2013 14:42

vishnu.nv wrote:Regarding helicopters
IMHO we lived this far without Apaches, and I don’t think a squadron of gold plated apaches will make that much difference. Note that only half of these have the long bow radar. A war time loses will be high as far as chopper fleet is concerned for IA/IAF, this is mainly because of the proliferation of quality manpad’s in PA/PAF. We should be concentrating in getting the choppers (LCH, Rudra etc) in numbers and getting these assets to standard through upgrades based on the operational performance.
As far as the LCH not in production view point, we haven’t retired our MI-35’s yet. We could live another 3-4 years without Apaches, as we are doing the same without artillery guns, LUH and MRCA. Interact with HAL, get things up to the speed and get it in to production.
The apaches are of high standards and a huge success as far as American AF/Army is concerned. We need to work on LCH and make it to the Apache standards, buying gold plated won’t help our economy or war fighting capability in long run.

This is puerly my view point


I agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16191
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby NRao » 09 Mar 2013 20:02

Time to kill.

IMHO we lived this far without Apaches,


There could be a number of reasons for going with the US product and not all would be military related - some will be political and yet others commercial. I cannot say, but I would guess none of us would have a complete picture of such events.

But, I find this argument to be diluting (some others have made similar arguments in other threads) - it is tangential and very quickly drags a perfectly good discussion into the nether world.

and I don’t think a squadron of gold plated apaches will make that much difference.


I JUST googled to find that India could/would/should be ordering more Apaches!!! This time for the Army. How many? Do not know - there could be figures out there, but I did not chase that (yet).

Note that only half of these have the long bow radar.


Nothing to be alarmed about - not all are expected to have the Longbow radar.

The "Longbow" (1997ish) is a "modified" Apache. They are networked and if need be work as a group.

A war time loses will be high as far as chopper fleet is concerned for IA/IAF, this is mainly because of the proliferation of quality manpad’s in PA/PAF.


I think there were discussions on this matter. It sure is a concern, but if it is a major concern, then perhaps the Longbow/Apache is among the best to handle it at the moment. ?????????


We should be concentrating in getting the choppers (LCH, Rudra etc) in numbers and getting these assets to standard through upgrades based on the operational performance.


Been hearing that for eons. But, such efforts take a lot of time. Does not mean that India go after a lot more Apaches, but, until such helos are proven there will always be a gap to be filled.

As far as the LCH not in production view point, we haven’t retired our MI-35’s yet.


In that case why did the IAF ask for the Apache type of a helo? That too twice. (Just curious.)

We could live another 3-4 years without Apaches, as we are doing the same without artillery guns, LUH and MRCA.


Oh, that diluting and distracting argument again!!!! What has not living with the MMRCA or guns to do with living with Apaches?

Interact with HAL, get things up to the speed and get it in to production.
The apaches are of high standards and a huge success as far as American AF/Army is concerned. We need to work on LCH and make it to the Apache standards, buying gold plated won’t help our economy or war fighting capability in long run.


IA/IAF do not have the luxury to wait for events to happen and at times they have to dictate the ground situation. I have not followed the Apache acquire (A Russian helo was rejected?), but certainly the someone saw the need for such machines.

On "gold plated", what is not? The FGFA too is. So is Vicky - double gold plated - even the wires are made of gold. And the Rafale will take the cake I bet. They ALL are.

However, said this about 10 years ago: there will be convergence of interests between India and the US until 2045ish and circumstances will force the two to come together - no matter what anyone thinks. Russia will gravitate towards China (it used to be the other way around) and Indo-Russo relations will be luke warm. We can see that being reflected in both the FGFA and the MTA deals. IMHO, IN will have a Russian tilt and the other two a Western one.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19836
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 11 Mar 2013 13:12

Leaving "tilts" as reasons for this acquisition,the manner in which the specs are drawn up are these days in Q,as with the AW deal.Nevertheless,the Apache has more combat experience than the MI-28,but as I've posted earlier,a high attrition rate especially to "dumb" RPG rounds.I wonder why the KA-52 Black Shark,the Tiger,etc., were not considered though.

This brings into Q,who is it meant for,the IAF or IA? The IAF's reluctance to support troops on the ground as top priority,has in the past generated considerable heartburn from '71 onwards.We've had the late FM Sam himself saying that he did not get full cooperation from ACM PCL.The IAF is still engaged in a abttle wiht the IA over the helo spolis.There is a groundswell of expert opinion that attack helos and other light rotary armed assets should be under an army's operational control,so that they can the better be integrated into field commanders' battleplans.Calling the IAF and getting permission every time an attack helo is required is ludicrous in today's NCW scenario. In fact, a masterplan should be drawn up for the role of a full-fledged Army Air Corps and its required aviation assets,which will provide integral support to the ground troops and be independent of any IAF troop/eqpt/ lift capability.

In executing such a plan,the IAF should restrain itself from shooting down a genuine requirement of our armed forces.esp/ the IA.It has enough on its head and should focus and further its plans for a space-based capability.It took decades earlier for the IN to wrest the LRMP Super-Connies from the IAF,acquire Sea Harriers and maintain its Fleet Air Arm,where plans for a replacement for the Vikrant even had to be labelled as the "Air Defence Ship" instead of what it actually is a carrier,to deflect the IAF's itch to bomb it to smithereens!

Since this is the artillery discussion,what further details -good news ,about the decisons to acquire iindigenous made Bofors artillery and BAe lightweight artillery from the US?

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1724
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby srin » 11 Mar 2013 18:09

Phillip, are you implying that only Apaches are vulnerable to RPGs, and not Ka-52 ?

RPG-29 can defeat the armour of a main-battle tank, so helicopters would be goners if hit in the right place.

But that's not going to stop anyone from using either attack helicopters or tanks.

tushar_m
BRFite
Posts: 724
Joined: 22 Sep 2010 21:07

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby tushar_m » 11 Mar 2013 18:18

is it possible that apache will be flown by group leader with 3 LCH & will direct the attack & take care of sensitive or hard targets while LCH will be for attack & increase the number of helo presence in conflicting area.

also there is a video of RPG-29 killing M1A2 in middle east easily , so how can Apaches or any halo for instance can survive the direct hit

Sriman
BRFite
Posts: 1858
Joined: 02 Mar 2009 11:38
Location: Committee for the Promotion of Vice and the Prevention of Virtue

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Sriman » 11 Mar 2013 18:48

Artillery thread!! :!:


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: manoj_niketa and 49 guests