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.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5765
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby brar_w » 24 Sep 2017 09:58

tandav wrote:
brar_w wrote:Here is a something for Singha.. Heat, lots of dust, helo deployment, and no automation whatsoever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EltEXNQbR9w


Though its mobile and easily heli transportable... it appears extremely vulnerable to counter battery fire/ UAV /PGM strikes due to its immobility once sited.


How do you define immobility? Is it its ability to emplace and displace within a short span of time so that it can rapidly relocate to avoid counter fire? What would it be relative to? A similar ULH? or something that has a design weight margin 2 or 3 times of it?


Emplacement and Displacement Requirement for the Triple Seven -

TheLW155 (a single weapon) shall be emplaced and ready to fire (weapon is laid, at least one reference point has been established, one round of ammunition is ready to be loaded, and communications with the Fire Direction Center (FDC) are established) by no more than five crewmen including the gunner and four other cannoneers in three (threshold) to two (objective) minutes or less, after the prime mover has stopped in position.


Once emplaced,the LW155 (howitzer, crew, prime mover, and associated equipment) shall be loaded and prepared to immediately depart the current location, by no more than five crewmen in two (threshold) to one (objective) minute


Once in theater it can relocate via a medium transport truck (MTVR or FMTV in US services) and the emplacement and displacement times are based on moving it via that route. The physical weight of the weapon system and the munitions is kept low on account of a 4300 kg system (4200 kg weapon + 90 kg generator) which allows lighter trucks to move it. Fording requirements were kept at par with those of the trucks the two services were going to use to move it, and the speeds were also kept fairly high (88 kph on road, 56 kph on secondary roads, and 24 kph on cross country roads). I guess if you are comparing it with heavier guns like the Bofors that have an APU however those are much heavier (nearly 3 times) and moving them cross country at the same speed would probably pose a harder challenge using a similar sized vehicle.

Now consider where these guns are going to be operating..up in the hills, given the terrain, altitudes the enemy will also have mobility issues with its guns, radars and command and control. China's has also developed an ULH presumably for a similar environment and with mobility in mind. Keep in mind that based on IA needs the M777A2 is very much a niche player, to be used in theaters where mobility and transportability is an important factor. The requirements for heavier, more automated, longer ranged guns are much much higher and will be met almost exclusively by indigenously developed and produced systems.

Image
Last edited by brar_w on 24 Sep 2017 21:39, edited 6 times in total.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5004
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby jamwal » 24 Sep 2017 14:41

http://m.timesofindia.com/india/faulty- ... 814909.cms


by BAE systems were being carried out at Pokhran.
NEW DELHI: A preliminary investigation has found that faulty ammunition was the reason behind the explosion on the Army's new long-range ultra-light (ULH) howitzer M-777 during a field trial in Pokhran earlier this month, official sources said.
The barrel of the US-manufactured gun had exploded when it was firing Indian ammunition on September 2.
A preliminary inquiry has found that the explosion took place due to faulty ammunition supplied by the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) and further probe into the matter was on, the sources said.
Asked about the findings of the probe, OFB spokesperson Uddipan Mukherjee said, "Any such failure is attributable to a complex phenomena pertaining to internal ballistics as the shell moves at a very high speed inside the barrel."
He said these kind of failures can have multiple causes and "the quality of the shell is not the only reason


Fast investigation in this case
:P

ambati
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 8
Joined: 21 Jun 2017 13:37

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ambati » 24 Sep 2017 18:06

how can a barrel explode . i think the barrel should take most of the energy and deform not explode

tandav
BRFite
Posts: 223
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 08:24

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby tandav » 24 Sep 2017 19:49

The Chinese equivalent of M777 4.5 tons Heli transportable

http://thediplomat.com/2016/07/china-will-soon-field-new-lightweight-gun-howitzer/

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5677
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Indranil » 24 Sep 2017 22:21

I hope Kalyani does not have to keep waiting for access to Indian ranges to test their ULH for much longer.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47546
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 25 Sep 2017 03:09

jamwal wrote:http://m.timesofindia.com/india/faulty-ammunition-reason-behind-m-777-gun-explosion-probe/articleshow/60814909.cms


by BAE systems were being carried out at Pokhran.
NEW DELHI: A preliminary investigation has found that faulty ammunition was the reason behind the explosion on the Army's new long-range ultra-light (ULH) howitzer M-777 during a field trial in Pokhran earlier this month, official sources said.
The barrel of the US-manufactured gun had exploded when it was firing Indian ammunition on September 2.
A preliminary inquiry has found that the explosion took place due to faulty ammunition supplied by the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) and further probe into the matter was on, the sources said.
Asked about the findings of the probe, OFB spokesperson Uddipan Mukherjee said, "Any such failure is attributable to a complex phenomena pertaining to internal ballistics as the shell moves at a very high speed inside the barrel."
He said these kind of failures can have multiple causes and "the quality of the shell is not the only reason




Fast investigation in this case
:P



What was the fault in the ammunition?
What they mean is in the fault tree they have decided its the ammunition that contributed to the fault.

So what exactly was the fault in the ammo?

OFB Spokesperson has said the shell passed the quality checks.

Without specifically commenting on the findings of the probe, Mukherjee said ammunition used in the M-777 gun had undergone the required quality tests.

Also Mil Handbook-756 the spec for making 155mm shells has minimal quality checks: eg. material tensile strength type tests. There are no final assy tests.

Maybe the sample size is not enough to detect shell faults.
Let me clarify.

Mil-STD 105 is the origin of all statistical lot sampling for ordnance.
So the sample size is determined based on Acceptable Quality Level (AQL).
These are destroyed in test to give AQL confidence,
Obviously, the OFB shells need more quality checks.
One way is to make in small lots.

By now OFB can't say their shells pass standard checks when accidents are happening.

It would be good if the BOI states what exactly was wrong with the faulty shell?

If one sees the video that Shiv linked the shell spins true about its centerline or longitudinal axis. Now if there is any eccentricity of the CG from that axis it will drift or go off axis.

A shell could pass normal checks for low charges or energy and become weird at high charges.
In the M777 accident, the shell was ERFB BB that means trying to get more range. Most likely has charge 9.

One check OFB needs to do is take 30 random shells from that batch and spin them on a table without the fuze to see if there is a pattern of off-axis in the shell manufacturing process.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17237
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 25 Sep 2017 18:22

OFB was found guilty earlier of cutting corners on manufacture of T-72 gun barrels,which also burst while firing.An investigation found corner cutting at the OFB as well as ammo flws. This cost us 1500 crores which were replace! with Ru imports.

http://www.firstpost.com/india/india-to ... 66905.html
New Delhi: Seeking to address the issue of bursting barrels of Army tanks due to ammunition, the government is planning to replace them with canons of T-90 tanks in collaboration with Russia.
T-72 tanks, the mainstay of the Indian armoured fleet, are facing problems with their ammunition as they sometimes bursts in the barrel and 200 such cases have been reported causing concern in the Army.
The defence ministry is planning to replace the barrels of the T-72 tanks with the ones fitted in the T-90 tanks. Under the plan, around 800 barrels are to be procured from Russia under a deal expected to be worth around Rs 1,500 crore, said government sources in New Delhi.


The OFB has a spotty history when it comes to striking deals with overseas firms.

In 2012, OFB signed a joint venture with Rosoboronexport and Splav SPA of Russia to manufacture five types of Smerch munitions in a new facility inside an existing factory, but the facility has yet to be built.

Three years earlier, Israel Military Industries (IMI) signed a $240 million agreement with India to build five artillery munitions factories for OFB. However, IMI was later blacklisted for allegedly using bribes to win the contract with OFB.

The MoD has been critical of OFB delays. The MoD source said OFB was late in delivering jackets, boots and parachutes worth more than $200 million, and the Army had to resort to imports.

OFB, with more than 100,000 employees, has annual sales of only $2 billion.
Last year, an inquiry found that faulty OFB-supplied ammunition led to the bursting of the barrel of a 155mm/45-caliber gun being upgraded by one of the factories, the MoD source said.


http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 981562.cms
Defects boom out of T-72 barrels
Ch Sushil Rao | TNN | Nov 16, 2001, 03.31 AM IST
hyderabad: while hundreds of t-72 main battle tanks (mbts) of the army are long overdue for overhaul, another disturbing fact is that a few hundred of them were fitted with defective barrels, which could cause accidents. the barrels were found defective because they had not been tempered as per specifications. this has been reported by the comptroller general of india (cag). while 454 barrels valued at rs 4 4 crore were rejected because tempering specifications were not followed, an investigation had been ordered into the remaining 305 barrels fitted on the tanks. until march 1998, 35 accidents had taken place in which more than 10 barrels either cracked or burst, said the cag report of last year. according to sources, the defence metallurgical research laboratories (dmrl) in hyderabad also investigated the failure of the 125 mm gun barrels of the t-72 tank and pointed out that the breakages were because of tempering problem. the department of defence production and supplies had awarded the order to supply 774 barrels at a cost of rs 67.73 crore to be fitted on the t-72 tanks. by alloying elements with steel, midhani made hot rolled bars which were sent to ordnance factory, kanpur, for forging. subsequently, they were sent to field gun factory, kanpur, for machining. however, the field gun factory at kanpur carried out heat treatment on the forgings at reduced temperature, which was against the specifications from the original designers. when the heat treatment should have been carried out at 520-570 degrees c, it was done below 430 degrees c, the report said."this has resulted in the defective manufacture of barrels affecting the performance of t-72 tanks,"the cag said.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1076
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kakarat » 28 Sep 2017 01:24

Delhi Defence Review‏ @delhidefence

NEWS: @DRDO_India's 155 mm/52 caliber ATAGS howitzer has passed user assisted technical trials in the desert. Mountain trials will follow.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7466
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 28 Sep 2017 10:20

That was quick. Praying for success in mountains as well.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1373
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby manjgu » 28 Sep 2017 10:22

i hope they dont test ATAGS by trying to drag it to saltoro ridge as part of mountain trials !! :roll:

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1373
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby manjgu » 28 Sep 2017 10:30

is creation of firing tables a part of user assisted technical trials?? mountain trials would test a) mobility b) accuracy c) range and what else?

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5004
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby jamwal » 28 Sep 2017 10:37

What is difference between user assisted and user trials ?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7466
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 28 Sep 2017 12:47

manjgu wrote:i hope they dont test ATAGS by trying to drag it to saltoro ridge as part of mountain trials !! :roll:



If the army plans on using the gun at a certain location. Then they will test on how to get the gun on location. That being the case the gun might well be towed to the highest motorable road we have. That will be the test of both the FAT and the gun.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 240
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 28 Sep 2017 16:01

Pratyush wrote:
manjgu wrote:i hope they dont test ATAGS by trying to drag it to saltoro ridge as part of mountain trials !! :roll:



If the army plans on using the gun at a certain location. Then they will test on how to get the gun on location. That being the case the gun might well be towed to the highest motorable road we have. That will be the test of both the FAT and the gun.


I am not sure that there are guns on Saltoro.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5004
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby jamwal » 28 Sep 2017 16:29

Saltoro is at 7500 meters plus altitude. The guns cant be taken to these heights unless they are taken there piece by piece. Afaik, most supply chains there are dependent on helicopters. Not a place for heavy guns either with huge snow banks and glaciers.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1373
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby manjgu » 28 Sep 2017 18:12

a) i spoke about Saltoro in jest !! ... hope they not place unrealistic demands/capabilities upon the gun. and hope its inducted in big numbers. b) what happened to Dhanush ( the bofors clone)?? c) and whats on M777's ?

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 182
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby dinesh_kimar » 28 Sep 2017 18:38

IA has apparently deployed a few Bofors guns in Siachen. The guns cannot be brought back , and will be abandoned after end of life.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5004
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby jamwal » 28 Sep 2017 19:00

Those are deployed a few km behind LoC. Not on glacier .

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47546
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 28 Sep 2017 20:35

manjgu wrote:is creation of firing tables a part of user assisted technical trials?? mountain trials would test a) mobility b) accuracy c) range and what else?


manjgu, Recall the ATK fuze discussion a few pages ago? The shell has its own body lift and drag characteristics. In low air density the shell will experience additional Mach lift at high muzzle velocities. This cause it to fall farther and more awry or dispersion. So accuracy testing in mountains is a must. In addition the low density air gives more range. Again range tables need to be developed.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47546
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 29 Sep 2017 02:47

Any one know the type of steel used by OFB for the 155mm shells?

Bishwa
BRFite
Posts: 215
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Bishwa » 29 Sep 2017 05:09

Bofors guns were/are deployed at Siachen Base Camp. Same for 130 MM guns. I have not heard/read of them being deployed in the Siachen Glacier.

I have heard/read of LFGs and Mortars being deployed in Siachen Glacier.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5765
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby brar_w » 29 Sep 2017 05:31

In their M777A2 requirement (communicated via FMS), the MOD required the Prime Power unit to be able to meet power needs for the gun up to an altitude of 13,648 feet (4160 meters) so that appears to be the upper reaches of where they plan to use artillery although that could very well be just for the M777A2 (you could of course use it at higher altitudes, but the likely drop in power supply would mean lower availability).
Last edited by brar_w on 29 Sep 2017 19:44, edited 2 times in total.

Bishwa
BRFite
Posts: 215
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Bishwa » 29 Sep 2017 06:59

Siachen Base Camp is at 12000 feet.
Kumar Post seems to be at 16000 feet
Last edited by Bishwa on 29 Sep 2017 08:34, edited 1 time in total.

Bishwa
BRFite
Posts: 215
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Bishwa » 29 Sep 2017 08:33

Artillery guns have been deployed at the 16000 ft Kumar Post and Bofors and 130MM at the 12000 ft Siachen Base Camp.

This is from the "Himalayan Conflict Forges Artillery Doctrine" by Major Pravin Shawney

"The initial artillery deployments on the Siachen glacier were of 105mm Indian Field Gun and 130mm M-46 guns. After being broken down into split loads, the guns were dropped on the glacier by Indian Air Force Mi-17 helicopters, where technicians re-assembled them at surveyed locations.

The 105mm guns were deployed at the forward logistics base (called Kumar) and north of it to support Sia La. The heavier 130mm guns were deployed at the base camp. Parachute drops on the Siachen glacier carried out a substantial strengthening of artillery guns and ammunition in 1987. It must be pointed out that if India and Pakistan agree to the withdrawal of their forces from the Siachen glacier, India will have to destroy the artillery guns and huge amounts of ammunition kept along the 76km glacier length, as it cannot be retrieved.
"

mody
BRFite
Posts: 322
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby mody » 29 Sep 2017 15:26

The highest deployment of Bofors is in Arunachal Pradesh at an altitude between 13,000 to 14,000 feet.
Not sure if they are deployed in North Sikkim or not.
There large bunkers and have seen "Artillery the God of War" written on Rocks in North Sikkim.
T-72 and T-90s are deployed at around 14,000 to 15,000 feet in North Sikkim.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47546
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 29 Sep 2017 19:41

ramana wrote:Any one know the type of steel used by OFB for the 155mm shells?


I am getting warm. I think shell burst happens only with certain type of shell 155mm HE-ER base bleed.

I need confirmation of this from the various barrel burst incidents (~40 odd). We know that the M777 had ERFB BB which could be same. Will see the CAG 2017 report on shell problems.

The reason I suspect that shell it its a high fragmentation type steel. Which means its fracture stress intensity is lesser value than traditional carbon regular shells in order to produce the fragments.

So need to know the mfg process used.
However the OFB Chandrapur which makes these does not have details of their machinery. Hydraulic Press vs. Circular or band saws.

Do they saw the ingots or nick and break the ingots?

The latter process will cause fractures which get rolled into the shell while being formed.

So this is the usual process.
Cut or break the ingots after forming a v notch. Then one end gets heated and a cup type depression is formed. Then it gets reheated and the drawing or pressing operation happens and then onwards the shell is turned and filled.

And the clincher is this OFB Chandrapur makes 105mm shells of the IFG which also have barrel burst incidents.

Also note:

http://www.ofb.gov.in/units/index.php?u ... ts&lang=en

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2117
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 04 Oct 2017 22:49

The story of inducting Bofors in Siachen http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... ewoor.html

We do have significant artillery deployment in the region - 105, 130 & 155 mm. The units change, the guns remain the same.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17237
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 05 Oct 2017 10:50

Ramana,what is the diff. tech-wise in how the OFB manufactures these ER shells and other manufacturers worldwide? Have we experienced such barrel bursts using foreign ammo.since we've imported a lot in recent times?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby shiv » 05 Oct 2017 10:58

mody wrote:The highest deployment of Bofors is in Arunachal Pradesh at an altitude between 13,000 to 14,000 feet.
Not sure if they are deployed in North Sikkim or not.
There large bunkers and have seen "Artillery the God of War" written on Rocks in North Sikkim.
T-72 and T-90s are deployed at around 14,000 to 15,000 feet in North Sikkim.

From YI Patel's post in the Siachen thread.
Extreme left of image. Altitude not known
https://get.google.com/albumarchive/114 ... dcKR5ykXj_

ashthor
BRFite
Posts: 112
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 11:35

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ashthor » 05 Oct 2017 15:02

A few images from Maj Gen Gagandeep Bakshi facebook page on his visit to Bharat Forge at Pune
where the 155mm guns are made.

https://www.facebook.com/majgengagandee ... 0927156372

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2379
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby JayS » 05 Oct 2017 16:43

^^ We can see Bharat-45 gun among the pictures. Which one is that..? Is that the ULH..? Because the other 155mm gun they were making is Bharat-52, which hit a dead end. But from the write up it looks like ATAGS.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7466
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 05 Oct 2017 18:14

The carriage system suggests a light weight gun system. But can't be sure if it is 105 light or 155 light.

As bharat forge is also working on the light versions of both.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5677
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Indranil » 06 Oct 2017 01:02

It is the 105 light gun. I think they call it Garuda 105.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47546
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 06 Oct 2017 05:14

Philip wrote:Ramana,what is the diff. tech-wise in how the OFB manufactures these ER shells and other manufacturers worldwide? Have we experienced such barrel bursts using foreign ammo.since we've imported a lot in recent times?



Tech wise it's same as world wide. The factory is setup by Day and Zimmerman as consultants.

The Bofors per TOI Shishir Arya suffered barrel burst/muzzlevstrike 40 times. They have not clarified the shell details.

I would expect some were imported from early stock. What's odd is no artillery man is willing to speak up. Either they don't know or don't want to tell.
All we need is a table with incident, shell, charge, and one line barrel burst or muzzle strike.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47546
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 06 Oct 2017 05:16

I like Maj Gen Bakshi spirit but 300 to 500 guns a year will complete the inventory objective in 3 to 4 years. After that what? Who is going to build a factory for 3 to 4 year production run?

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3718
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Rakesh » 06 Oct 2017 05:21

ramanaji, unless my eyes are deceiving me....I believe he said 200 - 300 guns a year. Still a large number.

We need to break into the export market. Many nations out there who are looking to upgrade their artillery pieces.

If only the MoD and MEA got rid of their JNU attitude.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17237
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 06 Oct 2017 05:48

200 to 300 is a fair no.Apart from replacing old arty.,
we also need a massive superiority in numbers vis-a-vis Pak. and at least parity with China in Occupied Tibet.Why the US hesitates against strikes in NoKo is because of it's massive arty. capability that can waste Seoul in a few hours with no need to use it's strat/tact. N-weapons.

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5386
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby niran » 06 Oct 2017 07:04

ramana wrote:I like Maj Gen Bakshi spirit but 300 to 500 guns a year will complete the inventory objective in 3 to 4 years. After that what? Who is going to build a factory for 3 to 4 year production run?

saar the target is to have 12000(not a typo) 155/52 18000 combined arty pieces. that is 15 years of war footing manufacturing

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7466
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 06 Oct 2017 07:25

ramana wrote:I like Maj Gen Bakshi spirit but 300 to 500 guns a year will complete the inventory objective in 3 to 4 years. After that what? Who is going to build a factory for 3 to 4 year production run?



Arty is not an item that is supposed to have a perpetual production run. Even the khans ended the production of m 777 once the requirement was met. The factory can always be rurposed to a new product. As it happens accross the world.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9103
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Aditya_V » 06 Oct 2017 11:01

I dont think 2000 is the ultimate goal, it more like a minimum no, our border with China+Pakis is nearly 7000km. We need as much artillery as we can get. So if achive 2000 we will keep on inducting more.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bijeet, deWalker, Rakesh, Shakthi and 40 guests