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.
JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2295
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby JayS » 28 Mar 2017 18:35

srai wrote:
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.


I was watching a video from DefExpo 2015, I think, where the OFB rep while describing Dhanush mentioned that the Barrel tech was mastered some 7yrs ago (i.e. ~2008 or so) and IA even fired test shots from those barrels made by OFB based on ToT from Bofors.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3423
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 28 Mar 2017 19:16

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..


Let's just hope it doesn't go the way of NAMICA :((

Original
Image

Revision 1
Image

Current Revision
Image

Note: Initial orders are for 13 units only and yet to be given the green light for production.

SandeepS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 40
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 02:34
Location: Cuckoo-land

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby SandeepS » 29 Mar 2017 03:16

rohitvats wrote:
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...



Rohit, I'm afraid its a lost cause as it seems most forum members seem to be trigger-happy like arcade players...why isn't IA immediately replacing Bofors with Dhanush, order it by the 100s and no wait why not place a Dhanush every "x" meters on the border. If IA is not doing what is blatantly obvious to a chest-thumping, uber-patriotic BRF-ite then IA/IAF/IN has to be corrupt, is "Imported Air Force", etc. etc.

What a lot of forum-ites confuse is that IA/AIF/IN does NOT do weapons procurement. The forces only assess equipment that is short-listed by the respective Jt Secy. In other words, DG Arty cannot rock up to Bharat Forge and pick up one of Baba Kalyani's gun to conduct a trial in a chosen location and then sign the cheque next day and induct the weapon the day after. Instead DG Arty will be tasked through chain of command via Jt Secy & Acquisition Manager (Land Systems) to create GSQRs. The GSQRs will be created by a team from Weapons & Equipments Directorate (WE Dte) in the case of IA. Its not for nothing that some of the brightest officers who have passed through Staff College or their equivalent senior arms/tech courses are in Weapons & Equipments Directorate (WE Dte). Depending on the wpn/eqpt being procured, these teams will gather requirements from various field units and would create GSQRs which is peer-reviewed and presented back to DG Arty & his staff officers who will not suffer fools. These GSQRs then land up at Jt Secy who reviews these requirements and in their infinite wisdom can decide to amend, scrap or finalise the GSQR prepared by experts. Then trial plans are submitted to the Jt Secy who reviews & amends/approves it. There are further stages of RFI, RFP, etc which are created by Jt Secy's team and not by WE Dte. Jt Secy then invites the participating OEMs for trials. The no of trials and their parameters are defined and agreed by the Jt Secy and not by WE Dte. WE Dte can make recommendations but the final decision is that of Jt Secy & his team. Have a look at MoD's organisation chart here http://mod.nic.in/forms/Sublink1.aspx?lid=1536&Id=56

Eventually the trials of eqpt is based on the knowledge (formal, informal, tribal), others they have to learn from experience...as they say there is no algorithm for compressing experience. Consequently, Russian eqpt induction has a lot of institutional knowledge base which means that we rejected Soviet AD fire control radars based on experience of P-19s and its ilk but instead trialled Contraves SkyGuard, Ericsson's Giraffe and Signaal's Flycatcher in 80's before finally selecting Flycatcher. OFB produced weapons, equipment and material go through more stringent trials after hard lessons learnt like all brand-new rifles needing the attention of unit armourer as soon as they were unpacked, etc. Or for that matter the stringent multi-stage trials that happened for MMRCA which stood up to scrutiny by all OEMs. Where our jingos take a massive short-cut is to believe that once DRDO has showcased a successful trial to the media, then IA/IAF/IN should immediately induct by '00s or '000s and if they don't then they're corrupt and anti-national. How about looking at how that weapon system will operate in real-world where the lives of our operators could be at risk if it turns out less effective like an excellent tank like Patton getting stuck in muddy fields of Punjab.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3423
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 29 Mar 2017 03:31

^^^

Can you explain the process regarding some specific products like for example Arjun MBT Mk.2 or NAMICA? Those are stuck on a dead-end it seems. Do the Jt Secy & Acquisition Manager consider the quantities that are required for production viability and the lead-times required to produce a product? Also, who is in-charge of product lifecycle management so that enough spares and support are in place for efficient operations with high serviceability? We keep hearing about products after induction experiencing low serviceability rates. That doesn't mean a product is bad necessarily (especially afer proving itself in stringent trials & re-trials) but more that long-term maintenance support is lacking post-induction.

Also it seems with extra trialing of OFB products pre-induction, that is not necessarily going to find quality-related faults post mass production. It seems more appropriate approach would be to have an ongoing independent (3rd party) quality checks while in mass production and before product shipment (random checks). Any faults found during random checks would need to be rectified then and there itself (for that whole batch) before being shipped to a customer.

SandeepS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 40
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 02:34
Location: Cuckoo-land

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby SandeepS » 29 Mar 2017 20:33

I'm afraid I cannot comment on specific eqpt acquisition beyond what is available in public domain. Also I'll advise you not to extrapolate on the basis of one eqpt as that is likely to give you an incorrect and misleading picture.

What I've tried to correct is the notion that IA/IAF/IN has the authority to procure (including trialling) wpns & eqpt. They DO NOT have any authority to procure ANY eqpt, they follow the orders from the relevant Jt Secy in this case JS & AM (Land Systems). If there is anyone ultimately responsible for delays then the buck should stop at that person's desk. I cannot find Adm. Joshi's post-resignation interview where he shared that he didn't have any authority to even reorder new batteries for Kilos, this was reorder and not new eqpt acquisition.

You raised a pertinent point of product lifecycle management i.e. what will be rate of servicing, rate of replacement of key consumables, etc. Various trials are an empirical method of arriving at precisely that lifecycle management for each and every induction. Now you can see for yourself how many trials will be required, depending on the complexity of the eqpt. For some eqpt such information might be available from OEM, for others which are ab-initio development there is no short-cut but to conduct trials for the entire system and its sub-systems...sometimes together and sometimes independently or in various operating modes. Again all these trials, their reports and any requests for re-trials (sometimes there is fall-out between the trial teams comprising of various experts as not everyone agrees...say an EME officer might not agree with the maintainability of the electronics in high humidity of NE while the AD Arty member might think the radar will not perform as per spec for low-flying fast jets in built-up area, these might require re-testing so the eqpt has to go through another trial where those conditions might have to be created by asking for a unit to be taken to high humidity area like Gopalpur-on-sea or a flt of Jags to be requisitioned from IAF for revalidating).

Please don't get me wrong that OFB products go through trials over and above what is planned for other OEMs if they are competing in SAME trial. There have been very few occasions when OFB products have competed in a trial...maybe the recent vehicle trials come to my mind where it was a competitive trial, otherwise they generally don't compete. At the expense of generalising, the quality of OFB products are inconsistent, both at prototype stage and production-stage with lackadaisical approach to the entire process i.e. poor support during the trials, incorrect documentation, disappearing during trials to attend union-related functions, etc. Even DRDO gets nervous once they hand over their successfully development/prototype trialled product to OFB as then they are at the mercy of the OFB production processes. I'm hoping OFB are changing for the better as per media reports regarding recent Dhanush trials...hope the change becomes institutional.

Regarding your suggestion about an independent quality control agency...well that is what DGQA does http://www.dgqadefence.gov.in/toplink.php?id=15. DGQA finds faults, stops shipment, OFB rejects their finding, delays to shipment, AOC or receiving unit questions where is my authorised strength, DGQA relents, shoddy eqpt lands in unit lines, now its IA/IAF/IN who are the evil, anti-national, Import loving somebody elses army/AF/navy for not being able to operationalise the eqpt. What they want is an eqpt that works when required, not a lines/hangar/dock queen. Now not only you have a problem that a unit is under-equipped, but that means that they cannot train their cadres, deploy in time, over-use the remaining eqpt which breaks down and lands up with OFB...net-net the import loving army/AF/navy gets blamed for delays in induction caused by others.

At the rate at which the blame-game is now going on, I don't think that day is too far away when IA/IAF/IN will come with folded hands to MoD mandarins and to jingoes like those in media and some over here on BRF and hand-over the command to them and say do as you please per your infinite wisdom.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby jayasimha » 30 Mar 2017 11:27

SRAI,
You may get some of the answer in the annual reports.

http://ddpmod.gov.in/documents/annual-reports

16-17 reports talks about namica as follows
Anti-Tank Missile ‘PROSPINA’: ‘Nag’ is a 3rd
generation anti-tank missile (ATM) with 'Fire &
Forget' and 'Top Attack' capabilities, which can
be used in day and night. It is deployed on a
specially modified Infantry Command Vehicle
(ICV) BMP-2 vehicle called 'NAMICA'. During
the year, guided flight tests of ‘Nag’ were
carried out with the objective of demonstrating
the range capabilities of IIR Seeker during the
worst time of the day in summer environment.

15-16 report
3rd Generation Anti-Tank Guided Missile
‘Nag’ (PROSPINA): ‘Nag’ having an operation
range of 4 Km is a 3rd generation anti-tank
missile (ATM) with ‘Fire & Forget’ and ‘Top
Attack’ capabilities, which can be used in
day and night. It is deployed on a specially
modified Infantry Command Vehicle (ICV)
BMP-2 vehicle called ‘NAMICA’. HOT test of
‘NAG’ and functional testing of safety arming
mechanism in flight configuration were
completed in October 2015.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3502
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karthik S » 30 Mar 2017 12:18

Good news!

Livefist‏ @livefist
Indian MoD clears $650 million deal with private sector giant L&T for 100 K9 Vajra-T tracked 155mm/52cal artillery systems.

JTull
BRFite
Posts: 1993
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby JTull » 30 Mar 2017 13:11

Karthik S wrote:Good news!

Livefist‏ @livefist
Indian MoD clears $650 million deal with private sector giant L&T for 100 K9 Vajra-T tracked 155mm/52cal artillery systems.


Many of these contracts have been stuck in the Finance Ministry. Hopefully Jaitley will approve more of these. We're finally reaping the benefits of ground work laid by Parrikar.

abhik
BRFite
Posts: 1981
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 30 Mar 2017 17:59

^^^
The actual price should be no less than $1 billion, if they are still quoting the $650 mil figure then I suspect its not a done deal yet.
BTW what exactly is Parrikar being given credit for?

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2295
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby JayS » 30 Mar 2017 18:12

abhik wrote:^^^
The actual price should be no less than $1 billion, if they are still quoting the $650 mil figure then I suspect its not a done deal yet.
BTW what exactly is Parrikar being given credit for?


Putting some sense in MoD..

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2432
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kashi » 30 Mar 2017 19:18

abhik wrote:^^^
The actual price should be no less than $1 billion, if they are still quoting the $650 mil figure then I suspect its not a done deal yet.


Why?

A Rs 4,600-crore order for field guns is expected by next month-end, [Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (L&T) group executive chairman, AM] Naik told


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

By my reckoning 4600 crores should ~700 million USD.

ranjan.rao
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 01:21

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ranjan.rao » 30 Mar 2017 20:39

will the contract drafting follow MOD clearance or has it already taken place?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19479
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 31 Mar 2017 16:39

India's acquisition of 100 K9 SPHs approved
Rahul Bedi, New Delhi - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly

http://www.janes.com/article/69168/indi ... s-approved

India's Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) approved the INR42 billion (USD646 million) procurement of 100 modified South Korean Hanwa Techwin K9 Vajra-T 155 mm/52-calibre tracked self-propelled howitzers (SPHs) for the Indian Army on 29 March.

Officials said the contract for the K9 Vajra (Thunderbolt) SPHs to be built by Techwin's joint venture (JV) with Larsen & Toubro (L&T) at the latter's Telegaon plant near Pune, western India, was to be signed by 31 March: the close of financial year 2016-17.

The SPHs are being procured under the 'Buy Global' category of India's Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) and will comprise 50% indigenous content. This will enable the JV to bypass the mandatory 30% offset investment of the overall contract value into India's defence, internal security, or civil aviation sectors.

Locally developed components will include 14 subsystems, such as the fire control and communication suites, in addition to India indigenously fabricating and machining the K9's hull and turret structure.

The K9 is powered by a German 1,000 hp MTU MT 881 Ka-500 V8 water-cooled diesel engine and driven by a fully automatic US-origin Allison transmission. Operated by a five-man crew, the 47-tonne SPH is capable of firing assorted projectiles to ranges between 18 and 42 km.

The K9's hydro-suspension and high ground clearance ensure mobility across varied terrain.

Constructed of all-welded steel armour and capable of withstanding 14.5 mm armour-piercing shells and 152 mm rounds, the K9's design incorporates an automatic fire control and loading system, a modular azimuth position system, and a powered gun elevation and turret traverse system.

Industry officials said the K9 tender would be the biggest signed with India's private sector for a large military platform and includes the option for an additional 50 guns.

The SPHs' supplementary K10 munitions supply vehicle, built on the K9 platform, is not part of the tender, industry sources have said.

deejay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3369
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby deejay » 31 Mar 2017 16:42

SandeepS wrote:
rohitvats wrote:
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...



Rohit, I'm afraid its a lost cause as it seems most forum members seem to be trigger-happy like arcade players...why isn't IA immediately replacing Bofors with Dhanush, order it by the 100s and no wait why not place a Dhanush every "x" meters on the border. If IA is not doing what is blatantly obvious to a chest-thumping, uber-patriotic BRF-ite then IA/IAF/IN has to be corrupt, is "Imported Air Force", etc. etc.

What a lot of forum-ites confuse is that IA/AIF/IN does NOT do weapons procurement. The forces only assess equipment that is short-listed by the respective Jt Secy. In other words, DG Arty cannot rock up to Bharat Forge and pick up one of Baba Kalyani's gun to conduct a trial in a chosen location and then sign the cheque next day and induct the weapon the day after. Instead DG Arty will be tasked through chain of command via Jt Secy & Acquisition Manager (Land Systems) to create GSQRs. The GSQRs will be created by a team from Weapons & Equipments Directorate (WE Dte) in the case of IA. Its not for nothing that some of the brightest officers who have passed through Staff College or their equivalent senior arms/tech courses are in Weapons & Equipments Directorate (WE Dte). Depending on the wpn/eqpt being procured, these teams will gather requirements from various field units and would create GSQRs which is peer-reviewed and presented back to DG Arty & his staff officers who will not suffer fools. These GSQRs then land up at Jt Secy who reviews these requirements and in their infinite wisdom can decide to amend, scrap or finalise the GSQR prepared by experts. Then trial plans are submitted to the Jt Secy who reviews & amends/approves it. There are further stages of RFI, RFP, etc which are created by Jt Secy's team and not by WE Dte. Jt Secy then invites the participating OEMs for trials. The no of trials and their parameters are defined and agreed by the Jt Secy and not by WE Dte. WE Dte can make recommendations but the final decision is that of Jt Secy & his team. Have a look at MoD's organisation chart here http://mod.nic.in/forms/Sublink1.aspx?lid=1536&Id=56

Eventually the trials of eqpt is based on the knowledge (formal, informal, tribal), others they have to learn from experience...as they say there is no algorithm for compressing experience. Consequently, Russian eqpt induction has a lot of institutional knowledge base which means that we rejected Soviet AD fire control radars based on experience of P-19s and its ilk but instead trialled Contraves SkyGuard, Ericsson's Giraffe and Signaal's Flycatcher in 80's before finally selecting Flycatcher. OFB produced weapons, equipment and material go through more stringent trials after hard lessons learnt like all brand-new rifles needing the attention of unit armourer as soon as they were unpacked, etc. Or for that matter the stringent multi-stage trials that happened for MMRCA which stood up to scrutiny by all OEMs. Where our jingos take a massive short-cut is to believe that once DRDO has showcased a successful trial to the media, then IA/IAF/IN should immediately induct by '00s or '000s and if they don't then they're corrupt and anti-national. How about looking at how that weapon system will operate in real-world where the lives of our operators could be at risk if it turns out less effective like an excellent tank like Patton getting stuck in muddy fields of Punjab.


SandeepS wrote:I'm afraid I cannot comment on specific eqpt acquisition beyond what is available in public domain. Also I'll advise you not to extrapolate on the basis of one eqpt as that is likely to give you an incorrect and misleading picture.

What I've tried to correct is the notion that IA/IAF/IN has the authority to procure (including trialling) wpns & eqpt. They DO NOT have any authority to procure ANY eqpt, they follow the orders from the relevant Jt Secy in this case JS & AM (Land Systems). If there is anyone ultimately responsible for delays then the buck should stop at that person's desk. I cannot find Adm. Joshi's post-resignation interview where he shared that he didn't have any authority to even reorder new batteries for Kilos, this was reorder and not new eqpt acquisition.

You raised a pertinent point of product lifecycle management i.e. what will be rate of servicing, rate of replacement of key consumables, etc. Various trials are an empirical method of arriving at precisely that lifecycle management for each and every induction. Now you can see for yourself how many trials will be required, depending on the complexity of the eqpt. For some eqpt such information might be available from OEM, for others which are ab-initio development there is no short-cut but to conduct trials for the entire system and its sub-systems...sometimes together and sometimes independently or in various operating modes. Again all these trials, their reports and any requests for re-trials (sometimes there is fall-out between the trial teams comprising of various experts as not everyone agrees...say an EME officer might not agree with the maintainability of the electronics in high humidity of NE while the AD Arty member might think the radar will not perform as per spec for low-flying fast jets in built-up area, these might require re-testing so the eqpt has to go through another trial where those conditions might have to be created by asking for a unit to be taken to high humidity area like Gopalpur-on-sea or a flt of Jags to be requisitioned from IAF for revalidating).

Please don't get me wrong that OFB products go through trials over and above what is planned for other OEMs if they are competing in SAME trial. There have been very few occasions when OFB products have competed in a trial...maybe the recent vehicle trials come to my mind where it was a competitive trial, otherwise they generally don't compete. At the expense of generalising, the quality of OFB products are inconsistent, both at prototype stage and production-stage with lackadaisical approach to the entire process i.e. poor support during the trials, incorrect documentation, disappearing during trials to attend union-related functions, etc. Even DRDO gets nervous once they hand over their successfully development/prototype trialled product to OFB as then they are at the mercy of the OFB production processes. I'm hoping OFB are changing for the better as per media reports regarding recent Dhanush trials...hope the change becomes institutional.

Regarding your suggestion about an independent quality control agency...well that is what DGQA does http://www.dgqadefence.gov.in/toplink.php?id=15. DGQA finds faults, stops shipment, OFB rejects their finding, delays to shipment, AOC or receiving unit questions where is my authorised strength, DGQA relents, shoddy eqpt lands in unit lines, now its IA/IAF/IN who are the evil, anti-national, Import loving somebody elses army/AF/navy for not being able to operationalise the eqpt. What they want is an eqpt that works when required, not a lines/hangar/dock queen. Now not only you have a problem that a unit is under-equipped, but that means that they cannot train their cadres, deploy in time, over-use the remaining eqpt which breaks down and lands up with OFB...net-net the import loving army/AF/navy gets blamed for delays in induction caused by others.

At the rate at which the blame-game is now going on, I don't think that day is too far away when IA/IAF/IN will come with folded hands to MoD mandarins and to jingoes like those in media and some over here on BRF and hand-over the command to them and say do as you please per your infinite wisdom.


Thank You.

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5934
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby habal » 31 Mar 2017 16:51

At the rate at which the blame-game is now going on, I don't think that day is too far away when IA/IAF/IN will come with folded hands to MoD mandarins and to jingoes like those in media and some over here on BRF and hand-over the command to them and say do as you please per your infinite wisdom.


this should have happened yesterday.

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 723
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Bart S » 31 Mar 2017 17:38

Is ammo 100% portable/compatible between the lightweight, new ATAGs-based towed, existing Bofors towed, and SPH systems that the Army is looking to operate? Or does the ammo have to be custom-made and hence stocks cannot be pooled between them?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33314
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby shiv » 01 Apr 2017 09:34

Pholks! Pholks!

Did you know that OFB makes AK 630?

Wouldn't this be a great solution for airfield defence against cruise missiles (idea courtesy Sanjay Badri Maharaj)
http://www.ofbindia.gov.in/products/dat ... add_12.htm
Image
PURPOSE :
30mm automatic artillery gun mount remotely controlled by the radar firing control system MP-123 "Vympet" is intended for arming of the ships with the main tasks:

Destruction of anti-ship missiles, aircrafts, helicopters and other air attack means of the enemy.

Destruction of small-size marine targets and annihilation of floating mines.

Defeat of visible open manpower and firing emplacements of the enemy on the shore.
CHARACTERISTICS :

1. Calibre, mm: 30

2. Number of barrels, pcs.: 6

3. Projectile muzzle velocity, m/s: 875 + 25

4. Rage of fire, rds./min: 4000...5000

5. Effective range of fire:
- at air target, km upto 4

- at sailing target, km upto 5
etc..

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3423
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 01 Apr 2017 11:06

^^^

Cost effective solution.

Image
Image
Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60187
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 01 Apr 2017 11:31

Bart S wrote:Is ammo 100% portable/compatible between the lightweight, new ATAGs-based towed, existing Bofors towed, and SPH systems that the Army is looking to operate? Or does the ammo have to be custom-made and hence stocks cannot be pooled between them?


I believe all our 155mm ammo has followed nato jbmou std from day1. Israel surely follows it for seamless resupply from usa stocks in emergency

So we should be all ok there

We can also use captured paki ammo as samsung built their 155mm ammo plant years ago

nam
BRFite
Posts: 413
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nam » 01 Apr 2017 14:28

shiv wrote:Pholks! Pholks!

Did you know that OFB makes AK 630?

Wouldn't this be a great solution for airfield defence against cruise missiles (idea courtesy Sanjay Badri Maharaj)


It will be for cruise, rockets etc.

The Russians put two of them together on their ships firing 8000 rounds per mnt! Hope some private company in India takes and create a local defence solution with it.


mody
BRFite
Posts: 320
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby mody » 01 Apr 2017 15:59

JayS wrote:
srai wrote:
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.


I was watching a video from DefExpo 2015, I think, where the OFB rep while describing Dhanush mentioned that the Barrel tech was mastered some 7yrs ago (i.e. ~2008 or so) and IA even fired test shots from those barrels made by OFB based on ToT from Bofors.


The barrel tech was not mastered around 2008, but well before that. How about OFB showcasing a Bofors with a 45 cal barrel way back in Defexpo 2004. I have posted the pictures of the same in the past. Anyone can search google chacha and they will see the pictures.
Also that didn't come about overnite. OFB had been manufacturing replacement barrels for original bofors guns before that. It was some of the other parts that they did not have and so couldn't produce the complete gun.

In Defexpo 2004, OFB had displayed an upgraded Bofors FH-77B with 45 cal barrel and a 155 mm barrel upgrade for the M-46 guns. The M-46 upgrade contract instead went to Soltam for the first 180 guns. The plan was to upgrade upto 600 guns. However, bribery allegations against soltam meant that the follow on contract never materialized.

IA culpability lies in the fact that they knew OFB could manufacture the barrels and maybe some other parts as well. They also knew about the upgrade to 45 cal solution. Someone should have taken the lead and said why not try to develop an indigenous gun, by developing some of the missing parts. As recent history has shown, it would not have been that difficult and we could have had atleast a Dhanush type solution or at the very least a Bofors clone with a 45 cal barrel by around 2009-2010. But sadly enough, IA and MoD never acted on this.

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 168
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby dinesh_kimar » 01 Apr 2017 20:03

IA culpability lies in the fact that they knew OFB could manufacture the barrels and maybe some other parts as well. They also knew about the upgrade to 45 cal solution. Someone should have taken the lead and said why not try to develop an indigenous gun, by developing some of the missing parts. As recent history has shown, it would not have been that difficult and we could have had atleast a Dhanush type solution or at the very least a Bofors clone with a 45 cal barrel by around 2009-2010. But sadly enough, IA and MoD never acted on this.


The above topic was discussed in DFI as well. Kunal (Dada!) asked his OFB sources, and had posted some information. Also, from compiling various info around the internet, the conclusion was something like this (from memory so pls excuse).

Barrel tech: given by Bofors in 1980s and worked fine.

Breech tech: Bofors tech given in 1980s was not good, so final good working solution was obtained from Soltam around 2007 during the 180 guns ToT. (Breech is attached to barrel, and shell is loaded here. Has to withstand same/ greater pressure than barrel. Has to provide gas tight seal of corrosive explosive gases. Has to incorporate firing mechanism. Has safety features so operators fingers, etc. not caught when breech is closed.)

Some other critical stuff: desi efforts by our people. An EME Technician fabricated a critical part out of local available steel, called a "Breech Ring 155mm". He was given an award, for Import Substitution for this by NaMo himself. About 6 OFB/PSU Factories worked on building the Dhanush, aided by private sector firms for stuff like hydraulic cylinders, APU, electronics, wheels and tyres, sighting and elevating mechanism, etc.

Courtesy Indian Express: Indigenisation of components of 155mm Bofors gun

Every year 200 gun ring kits are required for the 155 mm Bofors gun. Each kit costs Rs 1,60,000. Due to unreliable supply, a need was felt to achieve self-reliance in manufacture of these kits. Indigenisation cost of the kit is Rs 55,800.

Developed by Subedar Arjun Kumar Jha, who was enrolled in 1991. Has served in active field areas of Northern and Eastern Sectors. Has been associated with Bofors gun since past 10 years.
*****

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1438
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vasu raya » 08 Apr 2017 21:29

Revisiting the question of mounting artillery on transports, some changes to the scene, An-32s are getting retired with the arrival of C-295, Titanium is finding place in the desi howitzers, so expecting a 105mm mounted on the An-32 and finally the ceramic inserts in soldiers boots to protect life and limb from land mines absorbing about 45Mpa shock, they can reduce the howitzer shock on the airframe maybe using similar technique

they have mountainous terrain to target that is beyond land based howitzers range and upto howitzers are accepted in the cross LoC rituals

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Zynda » 08 Apr 2017 21:41

^^One immediate issue that comes up to my mind about using ceramic tiles is its brittle nature. I am not familiar with ceramic inserts in soldiers boots, but I assume it is meant to be one time solution i.e. absorb impact during an explosion and post-explosion, the inserts or boots will be thrown out. A similar one-time application is not feasible on air frames. May be possible to replace inserts/tiles between missions but not during missions after each fire of the howitzer.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1438
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vasu raya » 08 Apr 2017 21:45

two paths, either you design the ceramic to last for x number of shells fired
or as the typical charge gets expended you design the ceramic inserts in the same way, treat them as consumables, they are expended after each shot

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1336
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby manjgu » 14 Apr 2017 06:40

so whats the latest on arty program?

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14330
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 14 Apr 2017 07:15

100 k-9s (approved by ccs, order to be placed)
114 dhanush indented (still in trials)
145 m777 ordered

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 14 Apr 2017 10:04

Karan M wrote:100 k-9s (approved by ccs, order to be placed)
114 dhanush indented (still in trials) [1st lot of guns from production factory are being trialed]
145 m777 ordered

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2295
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby JayS » 14 Apr 2017 10:55

rohitvats wrote:
Karan M wrote:100 k-9s (approved by ccs, order to be placed)
114 dhanush indented (still in trials) [1st lot of guns from production factory are being trialed]
145 m777 ordered


Rohit, why is production batch testing taking so much of time..? Are they repeating entire test case set...??? I was expecting shorter test campaign for production batch, focused only on production quality.

Santosh
BRFite
Posts: 646
Joined: 13 Apr 2005 01:55

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Santosh » 14 Apr 2017 11:02

Will there be further orders for Dhanush after trials are completed, or will they move on to ATAGS after 114 Dhanush?

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2295
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby JayS » 14 Apr 2017 11:09

Santosh wrote:Will there be further orders for Dhanush after trials are completed, or will they move on to ATAGS after 114 Dhanush?


Either that or Dhanush 52cal, post these 114 guns, I expect.

Santosh
BRFite
Posts: 646
Joined: 13 Apr 2005 01:55

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Santosh » 14 Apr 2017 11:11

Isn't Dhanush 52cal ATAGS?

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9576
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sum » 14 Apr 2017 11:13

^^ IIRC,Dhanush is the re-engineered and improved Bofors whereas ATAGS is a ground up new design by DRDO/Kalyani

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1847
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Bala Vignesh » 14 Apr 2017 16:10

JayS wrote:
Santosh wrote:Will there be further orders for Dhanush after trials are completed, or will they move on to ATAGS after 114 Dhanush?


Either that or Dhanush 52cal, post these 114 guns, I expect.

With the sheer amount of guns required by the army, I am of the opinion that the Dhanush will enjoy a production run of about 300-400 guns with the ATAGS taking up the remaining numbers.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3423
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 14 Apr 2017 16:56

^^^
It was reported that the final intent was for 414 Dhanush.
srai wrote:...

Desi Bofors howitzer undergoes final trials in major boost to indigenization
Jun 20, 2014
...

The Army hopes to plug at least some of its operational gaps in long-range, high-volume firepower through the initial induction of 414 Dhanush guns. The OFB has already been given an order of over Rs 1,260 crore to make 114 howitzers.

"Dhanush is around 80% indigenous now. It costs just about Rs 14 crore apiece. Only its APU (auxiliary power unit), electronic dial sights and a few other small items are imported. As per the plan, OFB will manufacture 18 howitzers in this financial year, followed by 50 in the next, and 100 per year thereafter," said the official.
...


Based on the current production plan, it will take around 6 years (2020) to produce all 414 Dhanush guns.


But trials are still going on. Expect delays to the original production timelines.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 14 Apr 2017 18:53

JayS wrote: Rohit, why is production batch testing taking so much of time..? Are they repeating entire test case set...??? I was expecting shorter test campaign for production batch, focused only on production quality.


Well, I don't know what is more or less testing time. IA will put the weapon through its paces, only then it will know whether the production quality meets the requirement. Or what is the level of short-fall. But this report says tests are already done as of January 2017. It says that 3 guns under-went 4 month trial in summer and monsoon and further 3 were added for 6 gun trials in high-altitude/low temperature area. Guns seems to have done well.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/dhanush-hits-trial-target/347805.html

nachiket
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5803
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Location: Соединенные Штаты Америки

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nachiket » 14 Apr 2017 22:44

Santosh wrote:Isn't Dhanush 52cal ATAGS?

sum wrote:^^ IIRC,Dhanush is the re-engineered and improved Bofors whereas ATAGS is a ground up new design by DRDO/Kalyani


They upped the caliber to 45 from 39 in Dhanush. So it has a longer range than the Bofors FH-77 in IA service.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1044
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sudeepj » 19 Apr 2017 07:36


tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2099
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 19 Apr 2017 12:33

shiv wrote:Pholks! Pholks! Did you know that OFB makes AK 630? Wouldn't this be a great solution for airfield defence against cruise missiles (idea courtesy Sanjay Badri Maharaj)


This is something I had posted in 2012 & 2014.

AK-630 or Phalnax are not commonplace on land because of spent bullets problem. The stream of bullets not hitting the target or flying after penetrating the target would keep flying for a certain distance with potential to cause immense collateral damage to own forces or civilians and property.

So large areas will need to be kept vacated as the field of fire. If AK-630 has a missile kill range of 5 km, the bullets will be still lethal for 20 km.

This isn't a problem at sea - the bullets fall into the sea.

For moving Armies with fluid position of forces, this would be immensely self destructive.

Larger caliber AA Guns use shells that self destruct into small fragments not possible with bullets. As do missiles. The best solution is a cheap interceptor like Iron Dome.

At Pearl Harbour, USN shore and ship AA did not have fused shells and they caused immense friendly fire casualty on exploding after landing on the ground

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... d1942d0797

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9035
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Aditya_V » 19 Apr 2017 12:45

Might be a stupid suggestion, can mordern CM's detect Nets in thier paths, this can be anther option at strategic places a.k.a WWII style defense agaisnt U2's. One of many options in a layered defense.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anjan, gauravsharma, gunnvant, Thakur_B, Theeran and 37 guests