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.
Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3706
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karthik S » 31 Oct 2017 10:16

vimal wrote:OT but Singhaji is spot on. I used to lurk in BRF forums reading about LCA when I was just out of college. Now my kids are in school and I'm still reading the same trials, more trials, lsp, limited trials yada , yada etc... Rant over.


:rotfl:

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33667
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby shiv » 31 Oct 2017 10:37

Singha wrote:part of the reason why i drastically reduced my time on mil forms is because NOTHING REALLY HAPPENS!

That is actually a very sensible thing to do.

Have been following defence affairs for 50 years. The idea that "nothing happens" is because that is how it normally is in India. There are nowadays just too many information portals talking varieties of the same shit - i.e nothing. We have reports every single day about nothing. Nothing much happens is pretty much the norm.

And as a result - for the last7-8 years BRF mil forum has become a bean counters paradise. This costs X billion that costs Y million etc. Not surprised that you are bored. We discussed the same crap in a thread called MMRCA for a decade. Didn't anyone notice that nothing was happening?

YouTube and forums do not cut it. The only way to keep updated is to subscribe to a proper journal/magazine dealing in aviation, land warfare, naval systems or strat affairs. But when you get those you don't need BRF any more unless you want to share the information you have with others.

Better to have an inactive forum with quality information when it is available.Meanwhile move on and look for interesting stuff elsewhere. Or subscribe to journals and post interesting titbits

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47895
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 31 Oct 2017 10:53

Bishwa thanks for the info.

So a systematic solution is needed to this problem.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9210
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Aditya_V » 31 Oct 2017 11:00

Singha wrote:so if anyone though the artillery circus was over with dhanush and atags orders they are sorely disappointed.

part of the reason why i drastically reduced my time on mil forms is because NOTHING REALLY HAPPENS @ web scale ! I could return a year later and still see the same topics, cast of characters and arguments on the threads. and anything not geared to web scale cannot shake the world of today.

things are planned for and built, demoed etc but never inducted in numbers to make a difference, initiative is discouraged and punished.

and if inducted very reluctantly so, with a lot of riders and limiter clauses

and with phoren maal so prohibitively costly one cannot even jump up and down about 300 x and 200 y more like 36 x and 20 y

as a country we are yet to realize our own worst enemy is our own lack of streamlined workflow and removal of rent seekers. cheen will cower away to the depths of yunnan if we get our act together...but we never really do


Or maybe there is an entire system out there to keep us from being able to fight a war, at best they want us to have a limited defensive capability to hold ground. Does anyone Remember General Padmanabham, other bold generals, Arjun Tank director mysteriously killed in a car crash.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47895
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 31 Oct 2017 11:04

Gen. Paddy?

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9210
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Aditya_V » 31 Oct 2017 12:45

Yes he was very assertive during Parakram and hence relegated to a quite History.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60358
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 31 Oct 2017 13:16

Aditya is right about the general intent.

Bishwa
BRFite
Posts: 218
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Bishwa » 31 Oct 2017 16:40

ramana wrote:Bishwa thanks for the info.

So a systematic solution is needed to this problem.



The Operation Vajrashakti barrel burst was because the guns were firing at a rate higher than the recommended rate as per reports. It was during the height of the PA attack on Bilafondla.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47895
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 31 Oct 2017 21:32

Lt. Gen. Anajan Mukherjee(R) former DG Arty is the consultant for Dhanush for OFB.
He was the guiding force behind its development while in service.

Per Twitter

So good news.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17584
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 31 Oct 2017 22:53

Was looking at a pic of the ATAGS shown at the R Day parade.One from Kalyani and one from Tatas.The barrels though looked identical.Why the two pieces?Are they in competition or what?

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14454
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 31 Oct 2017 23:15

I wouldn't say nothing happens.

Our indigenous procurements go under the radar, so to speak, and are not highlighted. OFB is the one issue, which will be addressed if the current news about Modi/PMO finally waking up after Doklam, is any indication. Kalyani, Solar Explosives and others will easily supplant OFB. Even the screwdrivergiri is better done at a Dynamatics than an OFB.

Over the past decade, we have procured over a 1500 local BFSRs, over 120 odd proper 3D radar systems built to our own design and have orders for double that number in the pipeline. Our ship EW systems are almost completely local. In IA, EW we have one inducted system and several in trials, already indented for. The Navy EW program has been followed on by another huge one, ship-aircraft which is also in advanced devpt. In IAF, the most complex, fast mover, compact and sophisticated requirement space, all in one, by 2019, we are to have our fighter EW suites roll out. Desi AEW&C has also made progress. In short, in complex, multi-platform programs we have had progress.

Holdouts are land system programs where OFB is involved. Ammo, small arms, tanks, IFVs - ironically areas where our Indian pvt sector has huge experience (industrial chemicals, automotive industry), we are yet to leverage any of that properly. This is a political decision, nothing else.

In aircraft we are still muddling, primarily because its expensive, our MOF is always short of money and AF wants the best aircraft, yesterday and hence imports are always around the corner. The lack of focus on Tejas, the lack of an aware DM is hence bewildering. Its sheer inertia and AF takes a big chunk of the blame for harping on Rafale but shifting to SE when Tejas is readily there, while our politicians go along with easy imports. So much for Make in India. Really disappointed with the Modi Govt for having dropped the ball on Tejas Mk2, with very little news of support for the program.

IMHO, the need of the hour is to start ramping up funding to domestic R&D and private sector, and screw the DPP this DPP that rubbish which has been delaying things. Have any private sector company bid for any program, give DPSUs and R&D both complete freedom to partner with the pvt sector, give a bigger weightage to domestic solutions and let the best man win. Enough of this dilly dallying.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14454
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 31 Oct 2017 23:56

Interesting. Desperate times, desperate measures. Disagree with OFB gent who says rejection on flimsy grounds.
http://i.imgur.com/k5ooDRE.jpg

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47895
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 01 Nov 2017 03:25

It would be nice to know what were the rejections for.
Good that he stated lot size is 1000 rounds.
Will post what should be the sample size from Mil Std 105 for lot size 1000.

For high-value ammo, lot sizes are kept around that number to avoid scrapping large lots.
Standard practice.


Singha is not his usual self.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14454
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 01 Nov 2017 03:49

Perhaps when I get time and if anyone is interested, I can post a comprehensive list of indigenous procurement, which has provided new capabilities to IA/IAF/IN. Many inductions. Steep learning curve, not all successful when inducted but equally many were. Singha's reaction is not surprising because the DDM creates a general sense of despondency & our flawed procurement procedures split orders in penny packets, even so, it bears remarking we have moved many steps ahead.
Our big bugbear is serviceability. In that vein, HAL investing $600 Mn in Su-30 stocks is a momentous event (and Rakesh's rejoicing over it, very appropriate). This one step is a gamechanger and kudos to Shri Parrikar for pushing for it.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47895
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 01 Nov 2017 04:05

Please do. Aso the joint Dhanush Induction Centre step forward.

OFB winning the order to ugrade 300 of the 130mm guns againt stiff competition is allso good news.
November Dhanush UET resume hopefuly with out more issues and on to induction.

Rishi_Tri
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 74
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Rishi_Tri » 01 Nov 2017 04:23

Karan M wrote:Perhaps when I get time and if anyone is interested, I can post a comprehensive list of indigenous procurement, which has provided new capabilities to IA/IAF/IN. Many inductions. Steep learning curve, not all successful when inducted but equally many were. Singha's reaction is not surprising because the DDM creates a general sense of despondency & our flawed procurement procedures split orders in penny packets, even so, it bears remarking we have moved many steps ahead.
Our big bugbear is serviceability. In that vein, HAL investing $600 Mn in Su-30 stocks is a momentous event (and Rakesh's rejoicing over it, very appropriate). This one step is a gamechanger and kudos to Shri Parrikar for pushing for it.


Do post.

For me the biggest test for desi maal is republic day parade - having seen them since being a kid in 80s and still seeing them, range of desi maal that has been accepted is very significant but as is wont; to become a true power need to desize almost all the stuff.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14454
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 01 Nov 2017 04:35

Thanks Ramana. I am particularly heartened by small news items which have long term significance. For instance, how many noted on BR, the T-72s now have Mk2 ERA similar to Kontakt-V of local provenance. Now, while these won't make the T-72s invulnerable by any means, they offer significantly more protection against standard TSP FSAPDS ammo & make the T-72s viable in many tank to tank scenarios. This is a DPSU/DRDO success story and will likely go on all the TISAS tanks and ones with the most life remaining. DRDO is now looking for a private partner with production facilities, and private firms are eligible.

Further, Alpha (whose CMD is ex BEL R&D head, ex IA) has now outfitted many hundred T-72s with TISAS. Effectively, a huge chunk of our T-72 fleet (1000 tanks) are steadily receiving TISAS. Similarly over a thousand BMPs are being upgraded with TI sights. This is both a pvt sector and a procurement success story.

Similarly, DRDO has developed a new commanders TI sight for T-72s. BEL has a new STARS-V radio for tanks. There are new Integrated fire systems.. these are all iterative advances. Significantly, we now have new ammunition for the T-72 fleet, wth the Mango round. While not anywhere near cutting edge, this makes the T-72s viable against most TSP threats bar their latest Al-Khalids or T-80 UDs. At lower engagement ranges (<1km) it may even be sufficient against the tanks above.

In short, there is progress even if not as heavy as we want.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14454
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 01 Nov 2017 04:40

Another thing. Folks may note DRDO 120mm Mk2 FSAPDS recently cleared user trials. This is but 125mm round repackaged for Arjun. Point is we have Mango equivalent capability in India. The Russian round is being purchased on accounts of compatibility with existing Russian tanks & infrastructure (firing tables etc). Its a quick boost. What it also means is the next DRDO round can now progress apace as they have the basic performance worked out for the technology & we have several reports on new tungsten alloys & propellant advances. None of this stuff makes it big ticket news like Rafale purchase etc. But it is essential for actual conflict

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47895
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 01 Nov 2017 05:03

Also Arjun gun is rifled which means the FSAPDS is even more difficult vs smooth bore 125mm APFSDS round.
Is the inner Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot the same?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60358
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 01 Nov 2017 08:48

can a rifled barrel fire smoothbore shell?
it would seem possible albeit will not get the spin imparted by the barrel.

externally what is the visible diff between these two types of shells ?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47895
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 01 Nov 2017 09:41

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour- ... ding_sabot

And see Rohit Vats thread on anti tank rounds.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33667
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby shiv » 01 Nov 2017 09:49

Singha wrote:can a rifled barrel fire smoothbore shell?
it would seem possible albeit will not get the spin imparted by the barrel.

externally what is the visible diff between these two types of shells ?

Not an expert but AFAIK rifled shells have a copper ring near the base which is slightly raised from the surface and this ring engages the rifling. It probably also aids sealing of leakage of propellant gases

A smoothbore shell will have to not engage the rifling leaving a series of gaps in the side corresponding to the troughs of the rifling through which gas leak will occur. That apart - the shell would probably damage the rifling and vice versa because of wobbling.

I guess a smoothbore shell will have to be encased in an outer casing that acts like a rifled shell and engages the rifling but that would restrict the muzzle velocity anyway because rifled shells typically come out at a lower muzzle velocity since some energy is used up in friction as a rotatory movement is imparted to the shell.

Googling for pictures of smoothbore shells throws up mostly sabot-discarding "narrow pointy arrows" that retain muzzle velocity over long distances and penetrate through a narrow puncture

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2602
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby JayS » 01 Nov 2017 11:11

Singha wrote:can a rifled barrel fire smoothbore shell?
it would seem possible albeit will not get the spin imparted by the barrel.

externally what is the visible diff between these two types of shells ?

Wouldnt the internal pressure behind the projectile leak through groves for smooth bore ammo?? It would be significant impact on range, me thinks.

As a side note, good to hear DRDO round for Arjun clearing trials. I saw the news somewhere a few days ago as well. I remember to have visited ARDE while they were working on it in initial phase, some 6-7yrs ago. Likewise some other projects are bearing fruits which were nowhere in news around then. ATAGS being one of them. I agree with Karan. Things are improving on the bottomline. Particularly with current Govt's focus on short term low-hanging fruits, bang for the buck kind of projects such as smart munitions. Since only high ticket imports, and related desi projects are discussed in MSM a whole lot of desi achievements get buried under the propaganda.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 503
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nam » 01 Nov 2017 14:54

Karan M wrote:Thanks Ramana. I am particularly heartened by small news items which have long term significance. For instance, how many noted on BR, the T-72s now have Mk2 ERA similar to Kontakt-V of local provenance. Now, while these won't make the T-72s invulnerable by any means, they offer significantly more protection against standard TSP FSAPDS ammo & make the T-72s viable in many tank to tank scenarios.


Not just ERA upgrade, one of the CVRDE poster mentioned Kanchan armour as well.

So the upgraded T72 should have composite armour, rather than the monkey model armor.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 902
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Gyan » 01 Nov 2017 19:58


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47895
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 01 Nov 2017 21:54



Gyan, Thanks for this link. I always wondered how they fire APFDS from rifled barrel and not interfere with the fins function which requires little to no spin.

In rifled barrels its the obturating ring which is soft material which imparts little or no spin to the sabot round.

Its conceivable that both 120mm and 125mm rounds both have the same core FS round. Its only 2.5mm radial difference (that's 0.1"for the US folks) which can be made up in the sabot dimensions.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 902
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Gyan » 02 Nov 2017 23:36

Leaving aside technical nomenclature. Smoothbore tank cannons use sealing rings to seal the escape of gases. Rifled tank cannons firing sabot rounds use slipping rings which neutralise effect of rifling grooves & reduce spin. Rifled barrels firing He or Heat shells use driving bands or rings to engage with rifling grooves for using spin to improve accuracy.
Smoothbore tank barrels require higher level of finish but are lighter and last longer. Rifled tank barrels are heavier, last less rounds but can be made more accurate with lesser effort theoretically.
There is also a view that pgk type fuses will become so cheap that rifled howitzer barrels may go out of fashion and be replaced by smoothbore howitzers specially in 39 caliber.
The second step might be even these howitzers being replaced by gliding mortar shells with pop out fins.
While long range will be done by MBRLS or missiles.
Recently HIMARS have been mounted on ships.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47895
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 02 Nov 2017 23:44

Gyan, If you read the aerodynamics papers on PGK type canard fuzes, they need the projectile to spin and won't work with rockets which are fin stabilized.
They need some other version for non-spinning projectiles.
Diehl had a 120 mm mortar round with flip-out fins and laser guidance package.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9818
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Vayutuvan » 04 Nov 2017 04:45

I have a basic (may even be stupid) question here. Why are shrink fit the rings? Can't they simply machine them while machining the shell itself? In theory, it is a very simple change to the numerical program.

Two programs for 120 mm and 125 mm will do the trick. Shrink fit might have the problem of the ring expanding due to the heat of friction and might increase balloting. It is a failure mode that probably has been thought about and addressed I am sure.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47895
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 04 Nov 2017 06:18

You want the rings to be softer than the barrel material so they can lubricate the shell as it traverses. So it's shrunk fit. In fact, due to friction the ring locally melts and reduces the coeff of friction.
The failure mode is corrosion due to dissimilar copper alloy and steel. So they recommend phosphate coating the shell to avoid galvanic corrosions.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 902
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Gyan » 04 Nov 2017 09:44

ramana wrote:Gyan, If you read the aerodynamics papers on PGK type canard fuzes, they need the projectile to spin and won't work with rockets which are fin stabilized.
They need some other version for non-spinning projectiles.
Diehl had a 120 mm mortar round with flip-out fins and laser guidance package.


Agree.

I am of the personal view that 155mm Howitzers above 39 caliber is outdated concept. Army resistance is just like Navy which wanted heavy cruisers with huge cannons but was forced to buy missile boats in 1960s. Technology has moved since last 30 years.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9818
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Vayutuvan » 04 Nov 2017 11:08

Ramana ji, thanks. One learns lot of practical stuff everyday on brf.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47895
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 08 Nov 2017 06:43

So when are the Dhanush UET to resume in November?

Eagerly await the results.

Have the decided on root cause for the M-777 shell burst in barrel?

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 954
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 08 Nov 2017 18:05

Apparently Saurav Jha has withdrawn his tweet where he mentioned OFB has beaten out pvt competition for M-46 upgunning tender for 300 guns.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47895
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 09 Nov 2017 00:27

What about this quote from an OFB official (unnamed) that they won the up-gunning contract?

viewtopic.php?p=2226526#p2226526

Katare
BRFite
Posts: 1862
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Katare » 09 Nov 2017 19:37

Admiral, that article of yours was posted on the last page, on Oct 30th and has been the main source of discussion since than. Slipping on BRF duties are we? :mrgreen:

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3949
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Rakesh » 09 Nov 2017 19:55

Aiyoo! Result of Old Monk Rum :)

Will delete. Weird though, article had date stamp of Nov 10th.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5884
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby brar_w » 10 Nov 2017 00:17

Some Short term M777 capability (Moving target attack) -

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47895
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 14 Nov 2017 03:01

Per the frontline, Dhanush trials were to resume in November. Its close to middle of the month any news?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47895
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 14 Nov 2017 03:19

marten once asked the burst pattern of 155mm shell.

I have picture from a Canadian book. Essentially due to the stiffness the nose and base fragment into large pieces and the middle conical and cylindrical portion will fragment into very tiny pieces. The dispersal is spread about 50m for lethality and ~ 100 meters for injuries. The purpose of the fuze is to burst at proper height to give maximum dispersion of fragments.

In addition the ER/BB and BT shells have high fragmentation steel which gives maximum fragment dispersion.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Rakesh, Sumeet and 47 guests