Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

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.
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2026
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 06 Jun 2017 10:45

abhik wrote:
rohitvats wrote:
Because both had put money into artillery systems much before DRDO came into picture with ATAGS. TATA Power SED with Denel and Bharat Forge with their purchase of Austrian gun. ATAGS has come online in double quick time because of substantial inputs from these two companies. And that's why each of them has been asked to develop a model each.

DRDO collaboration with L&T and TATA Power SED on Pinaka has been a success story. Same model with ATAGS will ensure that the gun is produced in required timeline and with required quality standards.

Any sources or links?

You may Google up news for what Rohit said.

To add to what Rohit said, they spent time in acquiring know how and knowledge of industrial manufacturing - that is very tough because of technology denial and (then) restrictive GoI policies. This knowledge helped DRDO develop two prototypes of ATAGS quickly and should help expediting manufacturing - unlike the challenges faced by HAL in ramping up Tejas production.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2026
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 06 Jun 2017 10:50

Most people see QRSAM or other systems photos and think all is hunky dory not realising setting up production and quality control is a bigger beast to tame. These are specialised fields by themselves as important as R&D. Before Pinaka, Akash & Dhruv, no one paid interest to them and overtime was deemed more important. The pains in productionizing these would fill a whole book.

Marten
BRFite
Posts: 1778
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Marten » 06 Jun 2017 11:42

tsarkar wrote:Most people see QRSAM or other systems photos and think all is hunky dory not realising setting up production and quality control is a bigger beast to tame. These are specialised fields by themselves as important as R&D. Before Pinaka, Akash & Dhruv, no one paid interest to them and overtime was deemed more important. The pains in productionizing these would fill a whole book.

Sir, it would be good to learn about the productionizing issues typically faced on new products (be they eventually successful or not). Would you mind taking one product (other than Dhruv which has been covered very well by several folks) and helping us understand how both users and production teams have to adapt to eventually succeed?

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14088
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 06 Jun 2017 14:19

Given the quantum of programs we have successfully productionized, QRSAM won't be a huge challenge of the order of LCA. Plus all the usual pvt & public sector suspects will be involved. Plus one dude who always manages to get the groom high on weed, slapped by the bride and get it caught on camera. OFB..

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 58763
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: X,L,S,VHF band radars fully on

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 06 Jun 2017 14:56

at any cost we must get ngarm, saaw, garud+amma, nirbhay, astra mk1, A5, brahmos-A, helina sorted out and productionzed in VOLUME in the next 5 yrs. and the astra mk2, akash-ng, qrsam, brahmos-M in the next slot of 5-10 yrs.

whichever size of boot needs to be applied, whatever funds and resources need to be thrown at the problems, whatever be the summer temp 20C or 60C, however many 1:1 browbeating sessions with Namo needed ...

abhik
BRFite
Posts: 1916
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 06 Jun 2017 18:29

OFB had the Dhanush in testing by the time ATAGS started, plus the Tata gun uses OFB barrel, so I don't see how OFB was at a disadvantage compared to the private players.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2026
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 06 Jun 2017 20:25

Marten wrote:
tsarkar wrote:Most people see QRSAM or other systems photos and think all is hunky dory not realising setting up production and quality control is a bigger beast to tame. These are specialised fields by themselves as important as R&D. Before Pinaka, Akash & Dhruv, no one paid interest to them and overtime was deemed more important. The pains in productionizing these would fill a whole book.

Sir, it would be good to learn about the productionizing issues typically faced on new products (be they eventually successful or not). Would you mind taking one product (other than Dhruv which has been covered very well by several folks) and helping us understand how both users and production teams have to adapt to eventually succeed?

Hello Marten, Pinaka is a great example with 2+2+6+12 regiments, eventually replacing Grad and Smerch, with DRDO, OFB, L&T, Tata and IA working together to evolve and expand rocket production from 1000 a year to 5000 a year. A detailed story needs time to put together, so I'll ask for some time until the weekend.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 852579.cms

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14088
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 06 Jun 2017 23:50

Singha wrote:at any cost we must get ngarm, saaw, garud+amma, nirbhay, astra mk1, A5, brahmos-A, helina sorted out and productionzed in VOLUME in the next 5 yrs. and the astra mk2, akash-ng, qrsam, brahmos-M in the next slot of 5-10 yrs.

whichever size of boot needs to be applied, whatever funds and resources need to be thrown at the problems, whatever be the summer temp 20C or 60C, however many 1:1 browbeating sessions with Namo needed ...


Your thoughts to Modi's ear.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7571
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 07 Jun 2017 02:41

abhik wrote:OFB had the Dhanush in testing by the time ATAGS started, plus the Tata gun uses OFB barrel, so I don't see how OFB was at a disadvantage compared to the private players.


Which TATA gun uses which OFB barrel? ATAGS is independent of Dhanush system. TATA had demonstrated MGS based on Denel T5 155/52 caliber some time back. Both BF and TATA are most likely using DRDO developed barrel for their respective prototypes.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7571
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 07 Jun 2017 02:48

tsarkar wrote: Hello Marten, Pinaka is a great example with 2+2+6+12 regiments, eventually replacing Grad and Smerch, with DRDO, OFB, L&T, Tata and IA working together to evolve and expand rocket production from 1000 a year to 5000 a year. A detailed story needs time to put together, so I'll ask for some time until the weekend.<SNIP>


Actually, Pinaka system clearly shows what is the Achilles heel of defense production in India - OFB.

DRDO developed a system, transferred it to private sector (L&T and TATA Power SED) and production of the system was a success all the way. IA had asked for this structure.

Now, comes the OFB. Cannot produce the rockets in desired numbers. Has quality issues with the rockets. And PROPELLANT.

See this September 2016 report. Don't bother about the SMERCH nonsense but see how OFB has screwed up rocket production.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/Army-reluctant-to-take-over-Pinaka/articleshow/53991553.cms

This is why IA is vary of anything and everything that comes from OFB stable. Give the order to a private entity like L&T and I'm sure problems will be resolved. Or won't arise to begin with.

Half the bad name which DRDO gets is because of shoddy production by OFB.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 651
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Manish_P » 07 Jun 2017 12:24

Several times i am thankful to Tsarkar and Rohitvats for bringing a factual balance to the discussions.

In frustrated angst, it is easy to quickly put blame on either end of the spectrum - either the designer (DRDO, ADA et al) or the end-user (the armed forces), completely forgetting that there are many other links in between - ministeries, babus, production, storeage, logistics and what not.

GopiD
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 90
Joined: 18 Jul 2011 14:57

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby GopiD » 07 Jun 2017 16:09

rohitvats wrote:
tsarkar wrote: Hello Marten, Pinaka is a great example with 2+2+6+12 regiments, eventually replacing Grad and Smerch, with DRDO, OFB, L&T, Tata and IA working together to evolve and expand rocket production from 1000 a year to 5000 a year. A detailed story needs time to put together, so I'll ask for some time until the weekend.<SNIP>


Actually, Pinaka system clearly shows what is the Achilles heel of defense production in India - OFB.

DRDO developed a system, transferred it to private sector (L&T and TATA Power SED) and production of the system was a success all the way. IA had asked for this structure.

Now, comes the OFB. Cannot produce the rockets in desired numbers. Has quality issues with the rockets. And PROPELLANT.

See this September 2016 report. Don't bother about the SMERCH nonsense but see how OFB has screwed up rocket production.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/Army-reluctant-to-take-over-Pinaka/articleshow/53991553.cms

This is why IA is vary of anything and everything that comes from OFB stable. Give the order to a private entity like L&T and I'm sure problems will be resolved. Or won't arise to begin with.

Half the bad name which DRDO gets is because of shoddy production by OFB.



I had a chaiwala in OFB, qualified as a lawyer but employed in ammunition testing :roll:
Seems like the OFB chaps would often bypass production processes to save time and sneak out during the extra time on hand to do their own house-hold chores (don't think all of them did it). He would quote like 80% failure rate of propellants in many production lots.

Spoke to the chaiwala a month back and was informed of the impending privatisation of four OFB factories. I googled this at that time, but couldn't find any source, but turned out to be true after a month :lol:
Seems like the OFB chaps are mighty upset. They are claiming national security compromise due to privatisation :rotfl:

jayasimha
BRFite
Posts: 333
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 17:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby jayasimha » 07 Jun 2017 17:14


Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 987
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kakarat » 24 Jun 2017 21:19

Video of trials of M-777 that recently arrived in India


Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3058
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Rakesh » 25 Jun 2017 06:53

^^^^
Guess what the Artillery Corps is doing right now?

Indian Army Conducts Field Trial Of Newly Acquired M777 Howitzer In Pokhran
https://swarajyamag.com/insta/indian-ar ... in-pokhran

Think about this for a second. We just bought a foreign howitzer and are now field testing it. And what about our desi howitzers? We field tested them first and then placed orders. This is like the joke I once heard.

Q. What is the difference between a Regular man and Superman?
A. Regular Man wears his underwear first and then his pants. Superman wears his pants first and then wears his underwear.

We are Superman! :)

Image

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9360
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sum » 25 Jun 2017 07:11

I had read that these are just range calibration rounds in the plains and trials were done in mountains before ordering (since they are intented for the mountains) .

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32516
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby shiv » 25 Jun 2017 07:17

Can anyone explain to me what "field trial" means?

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1692
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby uddu » 25 Jun 2017 07:18

sum wrote:I had read that these are just range calibration rounds in the plains and trials were done in mountains before ordering (since they are intented for the mountains) .


That's strange. Tested for only the mountains? When we have every other indigenous weapon system..go for trials every years from Leh to Thar to the plains to the sea level testing..may be even underwater testing. And when they finally come out successful...the Requirement changes and import continues.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2026
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 25 Jun 2017 08:38

Rakesh wrote:^^^^
Guess what the Artillery Corps is doing right now?

Indian Army Conducts Field Trial Of Newly Acquired M777 Howitzer In Pokhran
https://swarajyamag.com/insta/indian-ar ... in-pokhran

Think about this for a second. We just bought a foreign howitzer and are now field testing it. And what about our desi howitzers? We field tested them first and then placed orders. This is like the joke I once heard.

Q. What is the difference between a Regular man and Superman?
A. Regular Man wears his underwear first and then his pants. Superman wears his pants first and then wears his underwear.

We are Superman! :)

Image


Rakesh, you need to understand the difference between development testing and user acceptance testing.

Indian systems undergo long development testing and thereafter user evaluation/acceptance testing, the sum of which appears long. Any deficiencies found during development testing are rectified and re-tested. BR members do not segregate between development and user testing.

Foreign systems TOO undergo long development trials IN THEIR HOME COUNTRIES and thereafter user evaluation/acceptance trials in India.

Since the BR members only read about the user testing, they incorrectly end up thinking the testing of foreign systems is shorter and lesser, completely ignoring the development trials already having taken place in home country and whose data is shared during user testing that can be validated in a few tests rather than whole cycle of original test.

When Edison developed a light bulb, he did 1000 iterations of development testing. When we buy light bulb, we test once at the shop. We don't need to do the full set of development trials that Edison did. However, when we develop Tejas, then we need to do 1000 iterations of development testing.

For development testing of Tejas AoA, ITR & STR, the aircraft envelope is gradually expanded over, say, 10 development flights. For Rafale AoA, ITR & STR, it too required the same number of development flights - in France. When IAF tests a certified Rafale, it has certification data and can verify AoA, ITR and STR in a single flight.

BR members reading the testing incorrectly think, Rafale 1 flight Tejas 10 flights not understanding the difference between development testing and user acceptance testing and not accounting for development testing time & effort in home country. Going by this Lahori Logic, BR members should do all 1000 development tests that do into developing a light bulb when buying a light bulb :D
Last edited by tsarkar on 25 Jun 2017 08:46, edited 3 times in total.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2026
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 25 Jun 2017 08:44

shiv wrote:Can anyone explain to me what "field trial" means?

Field Trails is an all encompassing term, but in context of M777, it's preparation of ballistic tables and Standard Operating Precedures for regular units. The same is being done for Dhanush too.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32516
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby shiv » 25 Jun 2017 08:48

tsarkar wrote:
shiv wrote:Can anyone explain to me what "field trial" means?

Field Trails is an all encompassing term, but in context of M777, it's preparation of ballistic tables and Standard Operating Precedures for regular units. The same is being done for Dhanush too.

Thank you. So it is not about importing first and then finding out if it works.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3058
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Rakesh » 25 Jun 2017 08:53

tsarkar: okie dokie. My bad :lol:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16635
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 25 Jun 2017 12:53

OFB have just failed the IA's rifle test too! the failures of the OFB should've seen heads roll a long time ago. Our problem is that there is simply no accountability for incompetence. The PM we're told though is selecting competent,honest officers for key posts,to get results. The DPSUs need abreath of fresh air and HR to get them to deliver and on time.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1692
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby uddu » 25 Jun 2017 16:34

We are assuming that they tested their weapon in the searing heat at Noon when temperature soars to the level when the tank and the dune next to it will have the same temperature.. Only in India we do such test. Even Russian bombs dropped failed to explode and the blame is on the Tejas. :lol: Imported weapons may actually worse than OFB's. Who knows.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5401
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby brar_w » 25 Jun 2017 16:55

Rakesh wrote:tsarkar: okie dokie. My bad :lol:


Since this has been mentioned off and on multiple times it needs to be cleared up and TS did a good job explaining this in the context of what was being done in reference to this particular system. Although I am not informed about Indian MOD,and armed forces SOP but internationally most import weapons system evaluation includes access to detailed classified and non-classified T&E data that the potential customer uses to establish whether the weapon has been tested in the appropriate environment and envelope and if so how extensive that testing was.

This may be then followed by seeking evaluation trials of the system at some extreme margins of the envelope at an appropriate facility but that depends upon the confidence in the system, and the OEM and program office backing it. In the US there is a chain of protocol that an OEM follows as part of the classified process through which it can not only share detailed information (always through military or government channels) and then further lease range facilities (or seek permission to provide test examples at end users domestic range facilities) as and when required. Some of these could be as straight forward as envelope demonstration by an operating service at its range, or they could be as diverse as asking the OEM to put together actual embedding of operators and evaluators on the said platform either on an operational deployment or under actual wargaming scenarios to fully get a sense of the system.

One example of the latter is the Royal Navy essentially fielding a P-8 unit embedded with the USN- P-8As and operating it long before it shortlisted and eventually planned to order that platform. They did a similar extended embed with the Australian Wedgetail AWACS aircraft as part of their assesment of its capabilities. I believe they spent an entire Red Flag embedded with that crew.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4821
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby jamwal » 26 Jun 2017 14:21

http://thestrategictimes.com/indian-lig ... idnt-quit/
Indian Light Field Gun : The 105 mm that didn’t quit.
Since the Bofors Scam, no artillery piece was ordered for approximately 3 decades, and in that time our Artillery arm suffered to horrendous degrees, our SPG capabilities were completely demolished while towed suffered, although due to indigenous productions of a few light canons, our artillery capabilities wasn’t completely obliterated.


One of the workhorse of the Field Artillery arm, is the IFG/LFG or Indian Light Field Gun 105mm. Used en-masse by the army in past conflicts like Kargil , the gun maintains its dominance even now, it was introduced in 1980s and is considered one of the best in the world in terms of weight and its range which even surpasses Russian equivalent 122-mm D-30 field guns. Kargil was limelight of Bofors but in the shadows lurked the IFG providing suppressive fire support to the Infantry and, well remained the most used one in the war.



IFG/LFG has some serious advantages in northern and NE borders albeit the fact that it causes less damage than an 155mm against well protected structures like steel reinforced bunkers . The mountainous terrain allows only light guns to be transported there. Only other gun which can be airlifted there with helicopters is M777 ULH and the possible ULH designed by Kalyani Group. But IFG/LFG still has more ways to reach desired position than the ULH. And due to limited numbers and large size of the M777, this gun still will be required to cover the entire Indo-Chinese border and northern borders with Pakistan.


Image


Image
The last order of the IFG/LFG was for about 150 guns for Mountain Strike Corps, while the deal for 155mm M777 was being worked out.



And we have enough of this artillery. With about 2400 units of the gun in service, it would be foolish to ignore its upgrade potential as proper upgradation can act as a force multiplier and the gun could continue to serve.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4821
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby jamwal » 26 Jun 2017 14:24

http://thestrategictimes.com/bharat-for ... llery-gun/
Bharat Forge Garuda – 105 Artillery Gun

Image
Garuda 105 is ultra-light gun system which utilizes the high end Soft Recoil Technology. This allows the weapon (gun) to be placed on light vehicles and nonstandard platforms, including aircraft and coastal and river patrol watercraft. This high tech system which was developed and manufactured in a record time of 08 months is a force multiplier for the forward forces and will prove to be a complete game changer in the realm of weapon system



Extremely light weight (<1000 KGS) as compared to IFG/LFG (>3000 KGS)
Based on 105 mm Indian Field Gun
Incorporates state of the art Soft Recoil Technology
Digit Fire Control
Mounted on all terrain vehicle with all terrain maneuverability
Adaptable for fitment on any in service light vehicle
Ease of mounting to any other prime mover
Lower maintenance cost , less number of parts
High reliability and easily maintainable
Forward multiplier for forward elements
In collaboration with Mandus Group


TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

Caliber : 155mm/39
Weight : 4500 KGS
Range : 22.4 km unassisted , 30 km assisted
Traverse : 25 degrees left/right
Elevation : -3° to +70°
Rate of Fire : INTENSE – 4 rounds/minutes for 3 minutes , SUSTAINED – 1 to 2 rounds/minutes , limited by tube temperature
Emplacement : less than 3 minutes
Displacement : less than 3 minutes
Crew Size : minimum 5
Mobility : Urban Roads > 55 mph , Cross Country > 15 mph , air portable

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1375
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vasu raya » 26 Jun 2017 23:45

OMG!!! 8 months timeframe :eek: :eek:

IAF should do the rest of the honors and mount it on an An-32, Gen. Bikram Singh recently mentioned the need for a AC-130 type gunship...

ragupta
BRFite
Posts: 294
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ragupta » 27 Jun 2017 00:32

vasu raya wrote:OMG!!! 8 months timeframe :eek: :eek:

IAF should do the rest of the honors and mount it on an An-32, Gen. Bikram Singh recently mentioned the need for a AC-130 type gunship...


IA will reject it, saying it was developed too fast, it does not meet our long development cycle, one of the several staff criteria to make sure nothing indigenous gets inducted, no matter how good it is :-)

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2005
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nirav » 27 Jun 2017 00:43

Have they mounted the gun on a Hummvee !?
Looks like it!

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1375
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vasu raya » 27 Jun 2017 01:09

ragupta wrote:IA will reject it, saying it was developed too fast, it does not meet our long development cycle, one of the several staff criteria to make sure nothing indigenous gets inducted, no matter how good it is :-)


I get your feeling, however given their stellar performance in paki bunker busting, IA or Army Aviation Corps will not pass this up

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 315
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ArjunPandit » 27 Jun 2017 02:57

vasu raya wrote:
ragupta wrote:IA will reject it, saying it was developed too fast, it does not meet our long development cycle, one of the several staff criteria to make sure nothing indigenous gets inducted, no matter how good it is :-)


I get your feeling, however given their stellar performance in paki bunker busting, IA or Army Aviation Corps will not pass this up


1. With such large numbers already present in inventory, it doesnt look like a large order will be in offing, esp when their focus will be on big stick. Let's hope this doesnt go down the drain.
2. Bharat forge seems to be the most innovative company in this area, kudos to them

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46724
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 27 Jun 2017 04:19

I think better 105 mm shells and better fuzes would be useful to make it more effective.

Eg.
1)a proximity fuze with variable height of brust (HOB) and
2) a shell with large sized pellets to get the troops hiding in sangars etc.

E.g. http://www.gd-ots.com/LCA_105mm_M1130.html

3) A guided shell with GPS fuze. To take out bunkers accurately.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 58763
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: X,L,S,VHF band radars fully on

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 27 Jun 2017 05:00

The mandus group already had the system ready. Whatever was needed for indian mkting was done in 8 months thats all.

The syrians woukd love this..but exporting licensed us tech there would be no no unless we bought the entire rights to this system.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 58763
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: X,L,S,VHF band radars fully on

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 27 Jun 2017 05:02

Video from 5 years ago

https://youtu.be/iZ0IxAGsUjo

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1375
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vasu raya » 27 Jun 2017 05:11

if this is something they can support without reaching out overseas then its ok, the heavier 105mm guns can be shipped out to Afghanistan, exporting older inventory while these light weight ones are brought in, simplifies logistics, at under one ton they can go one piece under slung with Mi-17s

Bishwa
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Bishwa » 27 Jun 2017 07:18

jamwal wrote:http://thestrategictimes.com/bharat-forge-garuda-105-artillery-gun/
Bharat Forge Garuda – 105 Artillery Gun
Garuda 105 is ultra-light gun system which utilizes the high end Soft Recoil Technology.
Extremely light weight (<1000 KGS) as compared to IFG/LFG (>3000 KGS)
Based on 105 mm Indian Field Gun


TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

Caliber : 155mm/39
Weight : 4500 KGS
e
[/quote]


Jamwal, the specs says "Caliber : 155mm/39". Yet it says it is based on 105mmm Indian Field Gun and is also named Garuda 105.

Is its caliber 155mm or 105mm?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 58763
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: X,L,S,VHF band radars fully on

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 27 Jun 2017 07:32

it is 105.

someone said 105 is not good enough to take out stone sangars and concreted bunkers though.

might be a useful asset in the himalayas to support the more ponderous 155 pieces. a mobile fire support with direct fire capability also.

Bishwa
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Bishwa » 27 Jun 2017 07:55

If it is 105mm and based on the IFG, it is hard to believe it can do 22km range unassisted and 30 km assisted.

IFG is rated at 17km max range as per online article https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/ifg.htm

but i may be mistaken

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32516
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby shiv » 27 Jun 2017 09:13

Bishwa wrote:If it is 105mm and based on the IFG, it is hard to believe it can do 22km range unassisted and 30 km assisted.

IFG is rated at 17km max range as per online article https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/ifg.htm

but i may be mistaken

In high altitude areas maybe?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AlapArya, Devendra, Google [Bot], shivatar and 26 guests