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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 25 Mar 2017 06:40

Don't discount Cheeni satellite imagery with frequent revisits

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 884
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Manish_P » 25 Mar 2017 10:25

Once the spotters were barbecued, Paki artillery became useless.


Hmm. So it is quiet possible that the claimed effectiveness of the WLR of the pakis could well have been a blind. Only difference is that we admitted it, they wont, as is their wont.

And if i understand correctly, the first thing to do would be to knock out their eyes - spotters/WLR/recce aircraft/satellite (increasing order of difficulty and escalation).

Actually the first thing to do would be to spot their spotters. Quiet and small battlefield operable UAVs would help.

And i found some precedence -

To Help Guide Artillery Rounds, Russia Deploys the Drone

Russian army artillery units use Takhion mini-UAV to perform reconnaissance missions

Not the most effective definitely, not yet perfected for sure, at best a jugaad perhaps, but worth it if it helps your soldiers

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added later - The american's are trying it out as well - Marines Test UAVs for Artillery Calls for Fire
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well i got answers to a lot of questions. Back to the regular thread now.
Last edited by Manish_P on 25 Mar 2017 15:10, edited 1 time in total.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2114
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby kit » 25 Mar 2017 15:04

Manish_P wrote:
Once the spotters were barbecued, Paki artillery became useless.


Hmm. So it is quiet possible that the claimed effectiveness of the WLR of the pakis could well have been a blind. Only difference is that we admitted it, they wont, as is their wont.

And if i understand correctly, the first thing to do would be to knock out their eyes - spotters/WLR/recce aircraft/satellite (increasing order of difficulty and escalation).

Actually the first thing to do would be to spot their spotters. Quiet and small battlefield operable UAVs would help.

And i found some precedence -

To Help Guide Artillery Rounds, Russia Deploys the Drone

Russian army artillery units use Takhion mini-UAV to perform reconnaissance missions

Not the most effective definitely, not yet perfected for sure, at best a jugaad perhaps, but worth it if it helps your soldiers


wonder if the Pakistani counter artillery radars can be jammed by an Indian UAV ..even localized jammers might work ..wasnt there an indian UAV with tactical networking capabilities

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5890
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby brar_w » 25 Mar 2017 16:52

You'd have to jam something from pretty good stand off range or altitude to stay outside VSHORAAD and SHORAAD envelope which I assume they would field to protect these critical sensors. You could also try to geolocate them even if on reverser slopes and putting a weapon on target. Here is what the Swedes are working on - http://saab.com/it/land/weapon-systems/ ... eter-bomb/

mody
BRFite
Posts: 323
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby mody » 25 Mar 2017 18:07

For AN/TPQ-37 the purchase got delayed because India was asking for a new updated version and US was not willing to part with the same.
Before the contract could be finalized, Pokhran-II happened and all deals were off. Post the lifting of sanctions, the WLR purchase was the fist defense purchase from the US. The timelines given above by Brar_w from Janes confirm the same. The deal was to be finalized in 1st half of 1998.

However, the pre-1998 apprehensions about the actual performance of the AN/TPQ-37 probably bore fruit and we have not had much success with it.
There were some reports over the past couple of years of the 12 radars being in-operational due to want of some spares. The radars are now obsolete and the US maybe doesn't have the spares ready (doubtful), or with our own WLRs coming online, which offer a much better performance, we do not want to spend on spares from the US>

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 25 Mar 2017 19:33

Prem Kumar wrote:The other pathetic situation is that "even after knowing that our casualties & Paki casualties were max inflicted by artillery", IA went through its summer trials. hot & high, cold & low trials etc for a decade & a half after Kargil!


What is actually pathetic is when we allow our prejudices coupled with half-baked knowledge to make such posts.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 25 Mar 2017 19:49

Funny how the comment about lack of WLR BY INDIAN ARMY leading to high casualty rates morphed into discussion about effectiveness of WLR from Pakistan Army's perspective.

It never occurred to anyone that WLR with IA could've allowed them to neutralize PA artillery through counter-battery fire. Or interfere with their fire-plans. Especially, when we did not have luxury of Observation Post (OP) sitting on mountain-top. I don't know how many know this but one of the prime tasks given to SF detachments in Kargil was to serve as Forward Observation Officers (FOO). As the IA took one peak/ridge-line after another, arty FOO moved with the infantry.

Induction of Bofors into the theater meant that IA out-gunned everything in PA's arsenal and allowed them to engage targets in depth.

Prem Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 1986
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Prem Kumar » 25 Mar 2017 22:47

rohitvats wrote:
Prem Kumar wrote:The other pathetic situation is that "even after knowing that our casualties & Paki casualties were max inflicted by artillery", IA went through its summer trials. hot & high, cold & low trials etc for a decade & a half after Kargil!


What is actually pathetic is when we allow our prejudices coupled with half-baked knowledge to make such posts.


The lack of artillery induction is staring at our faces. The IA must admit its share of the blame (though UPA's MOD must share a larger portion). I don't recall any COAS sticking his neck out to demand artillery with urgency. In addition to the nonsensical trials, successive chiefs have also "gone with the flow" rather than raise a stink. If you have reasons why IA is completely above blame, make your case. I don't care for your flame bait

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 25 Mar 2017 23:54

Prem Kumar wrote:
rohitvats wrote:
What is actually pathetic is when we allow our prejudices coupled with half-baked knowledge to make such posts.


The lack of artillery induction is staring at our faces. The IA must admit its share of the blame (though UPA's MOD must share a larger portion). I don't recall any COAS sticking his neck out to demand artillery with urgency. In addition to the nonsensical trials, successive chiefs have also "gone with the flow" rather than raise a stink. If you have reasons why IA is completely above blame, make your case. I don't care for your flame bait


Don't make idiotic statements simply because you're ignorant of the matter.

First, lack of new artillery induction is not same as lack of artillery. Heck, whats more is that IA actually changed its structure from more field regiments (105mm) to more medium regiments (130mm). Except for M109A5 (with assisted projectile)in PA service and its own Chinese copy, this weapon out-ranges all guns in PA artillery.

As for induction of new artillery, if the usual shit had not hit the fan, tracked SP should have been operational now for 10+ years. The towed artillery piece was repeatedly stymied by the MOD and RM. With successive army chief's left hand wringing.

And only on BRF are trials called nonsensical. Which is a very good example of how most discussions happen with high percentage of emotions than any bit of research.

BTW, here is a 2007 report on the main towed gun selection:

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2007/07/army-can-forget-about-new-towed.html

Posting in full so that we don't have more keyboard warriors making stupid statements:

The government’s decision to re-tender the towed artillery competition (450 guns) has come as a deep shock to the Army, notwithstanding indications from the government that it was the Army that had found the trials unsatisfactory and unsuccessful and recommended a re-tender. The Army has never asked for a re-tendered competition ever for any weapon system. Fresh rounds of trials have always been the recourse, but not a completely fresh competition. With the government’s decision to re-tender, the purchase procedure for 400 guns to arm about five regiments gets pushed back by another three-four years. To put that in perspective, this competition began in February 2002.

Anyway, the Army’s broad parameters for the guns were that they should be fully automated, easy and quick to deploy and re-deploy (gun-and-run capability), easy and quick to fire, armed with a fully automated sight and with an onboard ballistic computer for system accuracy and consistency.

After two rounds of trials in 2002 and 2003, the blackballing of South African firm Denel and the elimination of two other firms, the Soltam 155-mm ATHOS 2052 towed gun and the Bofors FH77 B05 L52 were downselected for the third round of trials in late 2004. The parameters that the two guns were tested under included mobility, firing range, firing accuracy and consistency, sustained fire and burst fire, maintenance tests and environmental tests. They were called back for an unprecedented fourth round of trials in 2006, this time the trials took place in November in Mahajan Field Firing Range (MFFR) and Leh.

I have personally seen the 2006 trial report (the MFFR part) and the 2004 trial report, and in both, the Bofors gun notched up better scores. The propaganda ran thick. What would happen if Bofors got the deal? Would a Congress-led government really be stupid enough to think that it can hand a defence deal to Bofors again? Who cares whether the selection process was fair or not? So what if the Bofors gun is technologically superior to the other competitors? These were questions that were doing the busy rounds last year.

Army chief General JJ Singh assured some of us reporters on the sidelines of a press conference about seven months ago that the artillery deal would shortly be concluded and that the last round of trials had been “conclusive”. He didn’t however say if there would be another round of trials. He was echoing what the Army’s Directorate of Weapons & Equipment (DW&E) had reasonably concluded after four rounds of trials — that while both guns had certain problems, the Bofors one was much simpler to iron out and came closest to set down staff requirements. The Army chief was apprised of this and was therefore clear that the Army’s decision would be taken up by the government.

Obviously the government cannot now say that it has decided to call of the deal because of any other reason except the Army’s dissatisfaction. Did the Army change its mind at the last minute? Possible, but highly unlikely. Maybe it’s really not that complicated at all. Maybe it’s just a sound government well aware that the Bofors scam of 1980s will never lose its vitality. Why give anyone another? Maybe the government simply told the Army that its findings were “unacceptable” and that things needed to be reworked.

What about the Israel factor? It’s all a bit neat. Soltam has much to gain from the re-tendering, as it does the new healthy India-Israel dynamic. Will the new deal really be fair? Maybe the UPA government will be bundled out of office by the time the new tender is concluded. Maybe by that time it’ll have to explain the the huge waste of the Army’s time for nothing. Meanwhile, the Army can neatly fold the artillery rationalisation plan and put it away for “future reference”.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5737
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Indranil » 26 Mar 2017 10:46

Guys. How difficult is it to state your points without hostility? Everybody will enjoy it much more.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2500
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kashi » 26 Mar 2017 11:49

The financial year is coming to an end and I was hoping that MoD would have signed the Vajra contract by now At least that was L&T Chief AM Naik had claimed earlier this year

https://www.bloombergquint.com/business ... ys-am-naik

But nothing on this it seems.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10672
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Gagan » 26 Mar 2017 20:03

Baba Kalyani has an Aluminium Barrel 900 kg truck mounted 105mm field gun

MoD and IA need to look at this.
He is also building a Titanium 155mm 39 cal ultralight howitzer that weighs 4.5 T (M-777 weighs 4.2 T)

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 26 Mar 2017 20:43

Vested interests ensure even those who could be favoured national champions have to fight tenders with insincere foreig players with local marketing and natasha offices.

Does samsung rheinmetall or norinco needs to compete in global tenders?

Did boeing not scuttle the tanker deal despite airbus promising to make those airframes in wichita kansas? Thats power

Goi must serve india not foreign govts and good conduct certis for screwing ourselves

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Gyan » 26 Mar 2017 22:14

I don't think "aluminium" barrel is possible. Other components can be of aluminium.

jayasimha
BRFite
Posts: 400
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 17:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby jayasimha » 27 Mar 2017 17:58

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease. ... lid=154790

Press Information Bureau
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
02-December-2016 14:30 IST
Ultra Light Howitzers

Under the terms of the Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) signed with the US Government for supply of 145 ULH, 25 guns will be inducted in Fully Formed condition and the balance 120 guns will be assembled in India. Government has placed an indent on Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) for procurement of Qty. 114 155-MM Dhanush artillery guns.

Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) has accorded Acceptance of Necessity (AoN) for procurement of integrated Tracked Self Propelled (SP) 155mm artillery guns on 26.02.2008.

This information was given by Minister of State for Defence Dr. Subhash Bhamre in a written reply to Shri B Senguttuvan in Lok Sabha today.

DM/NAMPI/RAJ

jayasimha
BRFite
Posts: 400
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 17:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby jayasimha » 27 Mar 2017 17:59

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/mbErel.aspx?relid=158191

ReleasesPhotosFeaturesInvitationsPress Information Bureau
Government Of India
Ministry of Defence
(07-February, 2017 16:44 IST )

Expanding Defence manufacturing base in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh


A proposal to expand manufacturing base in the defence establishment including manufacturing arms, wheels etc. In Jabalpur as it has a very large area engaged in ordnance manufacturing and therefore, Madhya Pradesh has immense potential in that area. The following Ordnance Factories located in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh have undertaken productionisation of certain defence items, the details of which are enumerated below:

• Gun Carriage Factory (GCF): GCF has been identified to manufacture and assemble 155mm x 45 Cal Gun ‘Dhanush’. An indent of 114 Guns has already been placed on OFB.


• Vehicle Factory Jabalpur (VFJ): VFJ has developed 4 x 4 Mine Protected Vehicle (MPV) to meet the requirement of Army and Ministry of Home Affairs. VFJ is also involved in development and production of 6 x 6 Modernized Mine Protected Vehicle (MMPV).


• In Ordnance Factory Khamaria (OFK), new products like 125mm FSAPDS Tank Ammunition, 84mm HEAT 751 (with tandem warhead), HEDP 502 & Smoke 469C, Pre-fragmented Air Bombs etc. are being productionised at OFK, Jabalpur.

This information was given by Minister of State for Defence Dr. Subhash Bhamre in a written reply to Shri Vivek K Tankha in Rajya Sabha today.


DM/NAMPI/Ranjan




(Release ID :158191)

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1410
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby manjgu » 27 Mar 2017 18:51

why would Shri Vivek T Tankha be interested in what is being manufactured in Jabalpur?

ManuJ
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 258
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ManuJ » 28 Mar 2017 02:37

manjgu wrote:why would Shri Vivek T Tankha be interested in what is being manufactured in Jabalpur?

Tankha is from Jabalpur

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 28 Mar 2017 03:15

Looks like Dhanush user 'exploitation' trials again next month.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 741780.cms


JABALPUR: Dhanush, the Indian 155mm howitzer based on the Bofors gun design, will go for another testfire next month before being inducted into the Indian Army, five years after the project was launched. Dhanush, which has a better range and modern functioning as compared to the original Bofors gun, has been developed by Gun Carriage Factory (GCF), Jabalpur.

The gun was put on display by the GCF on the occasion of Ordnance Factory Day on Saturday.

Bofors is of 155x39 calibre. But Dhanush is of 155x45 calibre which gives it a better range of 38km, 10km more than the Bofors. Six Dhanush guns are already with the Army but yet to be officially taken in. The guns have been taken for what is being termed as "user exploitation".

Sources said such an arrangement has been made for the first time. User exploitation means the Army will use it extensively. With this, it will get accustomed to the weapon system and any changes that may be required can be pointed out to the manufacturer. "At the same time, a user evaluation, which is done to confirm that the gun fundamentally meets the Army's specification, is also underway independently by a different team," sources said.
.
{Hope this wont turn out to be Arjun redux were suggestions to improve were given and basically killed it. The suggestions for improvement have to be justified and approved by Chief of Army staff for accountability.}

.
After clearing all the tests, it is expected that the first batch of 18 Dhanush guns will be sent to the Army for induction in 2017-18.

The test fire will be held at Pokhran in Rajasthan next month with around 300 rounds of firing and this may be the final round under the "user exploitation". The previous testfire was held at Siachen where the gun was able to fire accurately with even pinpointing bunkers. The rounds could hit the target with minute precision.

"This has boosted the confidence of GCF team which is now waiting for the next trials," the sources said.

The firing will be conducted under the "user exploitation" mandate. In the meantime, results of the user evaluation are expected in July. The six guns will be sent back to the GCF for incorporating the suggested changes. :((

Subsequently, another 12 guns will be ready to be finally sent to the Army. GCF originally has a mandate to make 114 Dhanush guns. "Orders for the remaining 96 will depend on the clearance of the first 18," the sources said and added the GCF plans to make 35 to 40 guns each year.

Meanwhile, there was an issue related to radiated emissions from the guns during the last trials under user evaluation. During the firing, there should be no emissions from one gun to another. :?: The problem has been solved and the results of further tests are expected in July.


Production of the guns continues at the GCF so that there is no time lag. The user evaluation is done in four stages covering aspects like maintainability apart from firing. With most of hurdles getting cleared, the GCF is hopeful of getting the final clearance under the user evaluation too.




I am keeping fingers crossed till the July.

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
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 » 28 Mar 2017 04:15

^Are you wishing for an Indian defeat so a few folks from DGMF will come to their senses?

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Rakesh » 28 Mar 2017 04:42

Bheeshma: Please edit your post. That is in poor light. I know, the situation is frustrating.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3555
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 28 Mar 2017 04:50

ramana wrote:Looks like Dhanush user 'exploitation' trials again next month.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 741780.cms

...

Sources said such an arrangement has been made for the first time. User exploitation means the Army will use it extensively. With this, it will get accustomed to the weapon system and any changes that may be required can be pointed out to the manufacturer. "At the same time, a user evaluation, which is done to confirm that the gun fundamentally meets the Army's specification, is also underway independently by a different team," sources said.
.
{Hope this wont turn out to be Arjun redux were suggestions to improve were given and basically killed it. The suggestions for improvement have to be justified and approved by Chief of Army staff for accountability.}

.
After clearing all the tests, it is expected that the first batch of 18 Dhanush guns will be sent to the Army for induction in 2017-18.

...

"This has boosted the confidence of GCF team which is now waiting for the next trials," the sources said.

The firing will be conducted under the "user exploitation" mandate. In the meantime, results of the user evaluation are expected in July. The six guns will be sent back to the GCF for incorporating the suggested changes. :((

Subsequently, another 12 guns will be ready to be finally sent to the Army. GCF originally has a mandate to make 114 Dhanush guns. "Orders for the remaining 96 will depend on the clearance of the first 18," the sources said and added the GCF plans to make 35 to 40 guns each year.

...
Production of the guns continues at the GCF so that there is no time lag. The user evaluation is done in four stages covering aspects like maintainability apart from firing. With most of hurdles getting cleared, the GCF is hopeful of getting the final clearance under the user evaluation too.




I am keeping fingers crossed till the July.


With all these "double" user evaluation going on, the IA needs to order more than 114 Dhanush guns. What's with the partly order? Hopefully, not Arjun MBT redux.

nachiket
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5818
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Location: Соединенные Штаты Америки

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nachiket » 28 Mar 2017 05:01

srai wrote:With all these "double" user evaluation going on, the IA needs to order more than 114 Dhanush guns. What's with the partly order? Hopefully, not Arjun MBT redux.

I think they are looking at Dhanush as an interim purchase till ATAGS is ready for induction. By the time the 114th Dhanush is built, ATAGS should be (hopefully) already in production. All subsequent orders would be for ATAGS only.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3555
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 28 Mar 2017 05:11

nachiket wrote:
srai wrote:With all these "double" user evaluation going on, the IA needs to order more than 114 Dhanush guns. What's with the partly order? Hopefully, not Arjun MBT redux.

I think they are looking at Dhanush as an interim purchase till ATAGS is ready for induction. By the time the 114th Dhanush is built, ATAGS should be (hopefully) already in production. All subsequent orders would be for ATAGS only.


Given the lessons from Arjun MBT Mk.2, ATAGS could possibly take a while after endless rounds of trial and goal-post shifting. Look at Arjun MBT production line. It's been sitting idle for more than 4 years now waiting for Mk.2. The initial order of 124 Mk.1 was way too little for production viability. I see the same mistake being repeated here. You need to have overlapping of production so that there is gradual shift from one to another and investments are not wasteful. Production lead times (24-36 months) need to be cratered for if there is to be continuity without disruptions.

Like the large MBT quantities, the IA has a requirement for some 3000-4000 155mm artillery pieces in different variations. Even if ATAGS is ready in a few years, it will take a long while to produce all the guns. Remember the IA hasn't inducted new 155m artillery guns since Bofors.

nachiket
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5818
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Location: Соединенные Штаты Америки

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nachiket » 28 Mar 2017 05:46

srai wrote:Given the lessons from Arjun MBT Mk.2, ATAGS could possibly take a while after endless rounds of trial and goal-post shifting. Look at Arjun MBT production line. It's been sitting idle for more than 4 years now waiting for Mk.2. The initial order of 124 Mk.1 was way too little for production viability. I see the same mistake being repeated here. You need to have overlapping of production so that there is gradual shift from one to another and investments are not wasteful. Production lead times (24-36 months) need to be cratered for if there is to be continuity without disruptions.

Like the large MBT quantities, the IA has a requirement for some 3000-4000 155mm artillery pieces in different variations. Even if ATAGS is ready in a few years, it will take a long while to produce all the guns. Remember the IA hasn't inducted new 155m artillery guns since Bofors.

I don't think the Arjun case can be compared to artillery acquisition. What the IA did (and continues to do) to the Arjun is intentional. They do not want the tank but having wasted the taxpayer's time and money for so long they do not want to be the ones to just come out and say "we don't want it, so scrap it" and then face the brickbats. They have a ready alternative in the T-90 anyway and there is no glaring deficiency in our tank strength vis a vis Pak or China for now.

The case of Artillery is different. IA is not responsible for the current situation. That blame falls squarely on the MoD and their repeated cancellations of tenders, blacklisting of firms on a whim, a general tendency to not make any decisions whatsoever on acquisitions and the fact that it took us this long to figure out that we had all the blueprints and could have produced a Bofors copy anytime we wanted (without the new stuff in Dhanush). IA is desperate for new artillery, any artillery, doesn't matter where it comes from. They will not delay it without reason unlike what they did to the Arjun.

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
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 » 28 Mar 2017 06:09

I do not think they suddenly found the blueprints, knowing our system, OFB must have sat on it until a dynamic risk taker turned up and said let's start the dialog. IA arms are vying for capital expenditure and this is where it matters whether the chief is from infantry, arty, armoured, or peasantry.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3555
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 28 Mar 2017 06:29

nanchiket,

The IA had 4 separate rounds of 155mm artillery trials with foreign gun makers over the course of a decade. None of them were able to meet the IA's requirements. So you can't squarely put the blame on the MoD only ;)

Besides, India was able to design & develop 105mm guns but somehow they never moved on to 155mm. Instead, foreign solution was sought as a saviour even after the Bofors scandal in the late 1980s. Lots of lost opportunities and the blame goes all around.

ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 492
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramdas » 28 Mar 2017 07:22

The best solution is to ban all artillery imports for the army and force the new artillery guns: Dhanush as well as the ATAGS (whenever it is ready) down the Army's throat in sufficient numbers (several hundreds to begin with). The MOD must act here. This endless cycle of trials is a sign of corruption. The Army will learn to fight with what it has got as long as what it has got is much better than the existing 105 mm/130 mm pieces.

Bheeshma
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 22:01

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Bheeshma » 28 Mar 2017 08:01

Well someone already removed my post. But unless IA takes indigenous products seriously they are destined for defeat. Its just a fact.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2008
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 28 Mar 2017 08:53

^^^
It won't be a defeat for IA, but for the country.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3555
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 28 Mar 2017 09:08

nachiket wrote:...and the fact that it took us this long to figure out that we had all the blueprints and could have produced a Bofors copy anytime we wanted (without the new stuff in Dhanush). ...


Contrary to this popular belief, which makes a great catchy headlines/story about incompetence of OFB, they did not forget about the blueprints. GCF was actively trying to "reverse-engineer" it over two-decades building Bofors spare parts and components using the design documents. By the time GCF was officially given the go ahead by DAC, it had accumulated two-decades plus of knowledge on the Bofors. Plus, other institutional knowledge on gun design, development and production of its own 105mm guns and its involvement in Soltam upgrade of 130mm to 155mm and other modernization efforts on the Bofors. That is how Dhanush came about in a relatively short period of time once funding and "official blessings" were given.

‘Desi Bofors’ to be first showcased in Republic Day parade
Updated: Jan 22, 2017 11:54 IST
...
“The ‘Dhanush’ project has received support and active cooperation from other ordinance factories and PSUs such as SAIL, BEL, and many private sector companies. Their support has made the project a huge success,” the official said.

The gun, a towed howitzer, has been developed by Ordnance Factory Board (OFB), Kolkata, after going through the design and documents running into over 12,000 pages which were given to India under the first phase of ‘Transfer of Technology’ (ToT) as part of the Bofors gun deal in the late 1980s.

The Swedish Bofors company (now owned by Britain’s BAE System) could not complete the ToT for the 155-mm howitzer with 39 calibre to India as the deal got embroiled in a major political row over alleged kickbacks.

Subsequently, OFB struggled for long to produce the howitzer indigenously despite the fact that it has manufactured and supplied several components or spare parts to keep the Bofors howitzers operational in India, especially during the Kargil War.

The army had been desperately looking for 155-mm howitzers for more than a decade now. It had roped in an Israeli company, Soltam, to upgrade the imported, Russian-made 130-mm gun to 155-mm at GCF. But the project, after the upgraded gun’s trial, ran into hot water, the official claimed.

Five years ago, the Defence Acquisition Council had decided to look for artillery guns within the country and asked OFB to start manufacturing howitzers.

Towards that end, former Defence Minister A K Antony flagged off a 155-mm gun manufacturing facility at GCF on September 22, 2012.
...

Bheeshma
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 22:01

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Bheeshma » 28 Mar 2017 09:15

Yes and IA must be made aware of it. So if the gun has to be forced down their throats so be it.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Rakesh » 28 Mar 2017 09:26

Then the same must hold true for Arjun no? Why did that not happen?

Politicians have no clue.

nachiket
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5818
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Location: Соединенные Штаты Америки

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nachiket » 28 Mar 2017 09:35

Bheeshma wrote:Yes and IA must be made aware of it. So if the gun has to be forced down their throats so be it.

What is the point of barking about "forcing it down their throats" when the IA has already placed an initial order for it?

Bheeshma
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 22:01

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Bheeshma » 28 Mar 2017 09:37

Did you read the report? Then why moan about Arjun after all they did place an order for it?

nachiket
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5818
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Location: Соединенные Штаты Америки

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nachiket » 28 Mar 2017 09:45

srai wrote:nachiket,

The IA had 4 separate rounds of 155mm artillery trials with foreign gun makers over the course of a decade. None of them were able to meet the IA's requirements. So you can't squarely put the blame on the MoD only ;)

This ignores the fact that many of those tenders ran into trouble because of corruption allegations involving Denel, STK etc. and tenders being cancelled because if it. This was due to MoD knee-jerk reactions to news articles citing anonymous sources and St. Antony's desire to maintain his personal integrity at the cost of everything else.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3555
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 28 Mar 2017 09:51

^^^
The blame goes beyond just one of the actors: MoD, IA, OFB, DRDO, GoI or foreign companies/agents. All must take the blame.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 28 Mar 2017 10:02

The amount of ignorance at display because people cannot see beyond their jaundiced view is staggering :roll:

And to think this is a military forum where people are supposed to back-up their assertions with some bit of research/data-point than go by pure emotions which have no basis in reality.

Everyone in the Services is corrupt, every action is suspect because script does not run as per the wishes of some uber-patriots on this forum. It is easy to use same jaded arguments every time things don't happen as desired. Because it is easy to make these asinine one line comments than spent even 5-minutes looking for answer to your query.

We're sure 'ahead of curve'...

chandrabhan
BRFite
Posts: 190
Joined: 23 Jul 2008 10:59

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby chandrabhan » 28 Mar 2017 17:47

I have been following (like all of us) this artillery saga but somehow just cant understand this trial that trial and then once more.. Whether some gun is radiating or not is baffling.. Crazy it is to see trials after trials..
A gun barrel that doesn't burst and can lob the shell miles away is far better than fighting with stones..

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 28 Mar 2017 18:29

chandrabhan wrote:I have been following (like all of us) this artillery saga but somehow just cant understand this trial that trial and then once more.. Whether some gun is radiating or not is baffling.. Crazy it is to see trials after trials..A gun barrel that doesn't burst and can lob the shell miles away is far better than fighting with stones..


This trial after trial seems an endless exercise because no one bothers to read the fine print and understand the underlying process. Which is funny because everyone on BRF has been exposed to details of mother of trials - IOC and FOC of Tejas. Each weapon system undergoes a somewhat similar set of trials.

Dhanush as a weapon platform would've been first trialed by R&D establishment to proof the concept - from basics to test whether the weapon system works at all to testing it in different environments and under different kind of stresses arising out of different operational scenarios. Everything claimed under performance of the gun - from sustained fire mode to burst fire mode to rapid fire more to mobility to laying time of the gun, everything has to be proofed by the R&D establishment.

However, there are two very important developments which happened in case of Dhanush.

(a) Dhanush itself came into being because General VK Singh and his DG Arty asked MOD on the status of blueprints and got MOD to sanction development of a gun basis these blueprints.

(b) IA established a joint team with R&D establishment (personnel posted to Jabalpur) and was involved with them all the way during the development process itself. Army personnel from Arty Regiment were involved in all the trials from day one. A designated Medium Regiment carried out all the trials and gave user feedback to R&D establishment in real time.

However, best of prototypes have been laid to waste if the production quality does not meet required standard.

So, after the gun was given A-OK basis the development trials and order for 114 guns was placed, OFB manufactured a certain number (4 or 6, I don't remember) and these were handed over to Army for trials. It is these guns from pre-production series which are being trialed now to ensure that production variants meet the performance as was achieved during developments.

If these had been imports, all these processes would've happened in OEM country and we'd have simply trialed them in hot and cold weather conditions.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brar_w, srinebula and 51 guests