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.
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10364
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Gagan » 28 Jul 2017 20:02

The arty gun is also a wheeled equipment. Whereever it goes, these small wheeled fork lifts can go too.
These small fork lifts can in addition be rigged to move the guns around, assist in digging small trenches & gun positions. A very useful piece of equipment, I agree

A few 3 Tonners can carry a few of these around with the unit. Infact these forklifts can latch themselves onto the back of a truck for transportation
Very apt low hanging fruit for Make In India too

PS: The battalion commanders can use these as golf carts while deployed in the field, on a slow day :wink:

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 570
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 28 Jul 2017 22:08

IA deploys skid steer loaders with its engineer units since 2000's. Its a Terex Heman 175. This is manufactured under JV by Vectra (of Tatra trucks fame) as SKD kits and resold to MoD.

Image

http://www.terex.in/en/cs/groups/webcontent/@web/@india/documents/web_content/ucm03_115983.pdf

Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 59477
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 28 Jul 2017 22:20

small dozers whether self driving or carried in trucks proved their weight in gold in syria-iraq theater.
moment a unit halts the dozers get to work digging trenches and berms to protect from ISIS vbieds and raiding units.
the more well kitted units even lay minefields if the threat is high
metis and kornets are kept on warm standby

in more static fronts like deir azzor, the berms are height of 2 storey buildings to stop even large truck svbieds.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10364
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Gagan » 29 Jul 2017 00:00

Speed of construction is the key here.
Need a TATA or Leyland type desi manufacturer to make these things and flood the army with these and other cheap force multipliers

abhik
BRFite
Posts: 1950
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 29 Jul 2017 00:43

IIRC the Scania trucks that came with the Bofors had their own crane for moving ammo.

abhik
BRFite
Posts: 1950
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 29 Jul 2017 01:13

Nice long video (swedish) about the FH-77, probably from the 80's: https://youtu.be/Sr_D-8rBxYo?t=7m29s You can see the "forklift" in action at 7:30.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 59477
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 29 Jul 2017 04:35

We dont need the tatea skd scam on this, every changu mangu builder in blr has these so domestic sources both for forklift and the truck crane exist
We are probably paying 10x the market price for this gia the skd route

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10364
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Gagan » 29 Jul 2017 04:56

The problem is that the changu-mangu manufacturers forklift made domestically, probably fails some outrageous QSR, which only the 10x expensive Tatra maal satisfies.
One wonders why the Tatra thingie was 10x expensive after all no?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 59477
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 29 Jul 2017 05:06

Tatra has tfta split rear axle for very tough terrain.
But here not even a fig leaf to justify continued skd imports
Auto sector has come along a lot in 15 years

Voltas . Ace, godrej . Toyota. Jcb many are there

http://www.vicky.in/excavators/jcb-excavators-in-india/

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46992
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 29 Jul 2017 11:36

coming back to the 155mm M107 shell and the balloting or wobble I am flummoxed how it happened,

We know balloting or wobble or side slap occurred.
Now to peel the onion layers as to why it happened?


Mil Handbook 756 gives the process for making the M107 shell casings.

The shells are deep drawn from steel billets and machined on a lathe to the right contour.
And lathe operation which is a spinning operation that means it has to spin true to its axis.

The QC checks are normal NDT testing and coupon tests for composition and strength
Rest is filling with explosives which are organic chemicals and would be homogenous with out high density inclusions

The fuzes are standard assemblies.

So where is the opportunity for off axis Center of Gravity which induces the wobble at high speed?

All I can think is due to the high muzzle velocity of the 45 and 52 calibers even small deviation cause instability.
And this high spin rate is happening early on in barrel travel.

Added later......

Two other sources for this phenomenon are

2) Barrel wear assuming nominal shell dimensions. However this wobble has happened in fairly new barrels some of which are just out of the factory. Some once again remote
3) The shell is machined too much. The shell contacts the barrel at two line contacts; Driving band and the bourrelet, which is the cylindrical portion of the shell. This is a possibility in a mass production environment.
An undersized bourrelet would have the gap that could induce the wobble when the shell is fired. Again function of the charge being high.

We need ARDE to perform balloting analysis as part of the inquiry to establish shell mass property limits.

An idea of the probability can be derived from the recent trials
1) Development trials 2000 rounds were fired. Wiki on Dhanush
2) User Trials. Same 2000. Let us assume total and not each gun
3) User exploitation trial 300 rounds per gun. Total 6 guns in a battery. Works out to 1800 rounds

We have 4 instances of bad outcomes out of a total (2000+2000+1800) = 5800 or 7800 if 2) was each gun
Probability is 4/5800 to 4/7800 = 0.0007 to 0.0005

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4868
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby jamwal » 29 Jul 2017 12:06

JCB has started production in one of the biggest manufacturing plants of it's kind in Gujarat. Tata and a few more are already manufacturing these in India for some time. These dozers and other utility vehicles need not be imported anymore.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4868
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby jamwal » 29 Jul 2017 12:08

ramana wrote:coming back to the 155mm M107 shell and the balloting or wobble I am flummoxed how it happened,


The fuzes are standard assemblies.
So where is the opportunity for off axis Center of gravity?

All I can think is due to the high muzzle velocity of the 45 and 52 calibers even small deviation cause instability.
And this high spin rate is happening early on in barrel travel.

We need ARDE to perform balloting analysis as part of the inquiry to establish shell mass property limits.


Isn't the barrel too short for such issues ? I suppose there must be some tolerances built in.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 59477
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 29 Jul 2017 14:33

jamwal wrote:JCB has started production in one of the biggest manufacturing plants of it's kind in Gujarat. Tata and a few more are already manufacturing these in India for some time. These dozers and other utility vehicles need not be imported anymore.


it seems Terex too has a plant in india, and the model pictured above might be MII now atleast
http://www.terex.in/en/products/new-equ ... /index.htm
http://www.terex.in/en/products/new-equ ... /index.htm

beefier kit is also there for large civil works like protective sites for artillery
http://www.terex.in/en/products/new-equ ... /index.htm

@JCB jaipur plant just an example

Image

volvo has some meaty gear too
https://www.volvoce.com/india/en-in/pro ... ers/large/
they offer custom solns too if desired https://www.volvoce.com/india/en-in/pro ... solutions/

so I hope we are leveraging our internal ecosystems and suppliers and moved out of assembling tatra SKD kids on fat padded margins for BDL now

in general i truly love such rugged mechanical kit and nice to see tfta fit and finish gear rolling of desi assembly lines and components now.

JTull
BRFite
Posts: 1984
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby JTull » 29 Jul 2017 17:13

Just looks like the cart used to collect balls at my local driving range. I've been guilty of aiming for the cage. :twisted:

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46992
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 06 Aug 2017 22:19

The 155mm M107 shell and PD M572 Fuze are great for regular 39 caliber barrels.

When same combination is fired from 45 caliber barrels has vulnerabilities.

What Fuze is being used for the BAE M777 52 caliber gun?

If it's different then there is something to understand.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46992
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 07 Aug 2017 04:42

Artillery Fuzes GPS guided rounds

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htart ... 70723.aspx

July 23, 2017: While the GPS guided Excalibur 155mm artillery shell revolutionized the use of artillery when it appeared in 2005, it is being displaced by a smaller, less capable but much cheaper alternative; M1156 PGK (Projectile Guidance Kit) fuze. In mid-2017 the U.S. Army ordered another 5,600 PGK fuzes for 155mm artillery shells. A year earlier M1156 was cleared for mass production. Up until mid-2016 4,800 PGKs has been produced under a limited production arrangement. But because of growing export orders and the fact that PGK costs 85 percent less than the slightly more accurate competition the U.S. Army has decided to stock up on the PGK in a big way.

With PGK the army has two GPS guided artillery shells; the older, more accurate and expensive M982 Excalibur and the new M1156 PGK. The advantage PGK has is that the GPS guidance is not built into a shell but instead it is a slightly heavier (about 1.4 kg/3 pounds) and larger fuze that screws into the front of a 155mm. This PGK fuze contains a GPS and small fins to guide the shell to a precision hit. Normally the fuze just controls how the shell will explode or when (using a timer or small radar). No one had been able to put a GPS guidance in such a small package but many have been trying for several decades.

The original (2009) version of PGK was much less precise than Excalibur and could only ensure that the shell landed within 50 meters (160 feet) of the target. If it did not hit within 150 meters, PGK deactivated and the shell dose not explode. In original version of PGK was subsequently tweaked so that by 2012 it landed within 32 meters (100 feet). By 2012 PGK was been further improved to put a guided shell within 19 meters (60 feet). By 2015 accuracy was improved to 10 meters or less and the reliability problems largely eliminated as the PGK was now over 90 percent reliable.

Meanwhile early users noted that the less accurate PGK was often adequate for most missions requiring a guided shell. Potential export customers were particularly eager because they had plenty of 155mm shells and word of the PGK accuracy and reliability improvements had gotten around, especially “customer satisfaction” comments from troops who called in PGK fire during combat. The lower cost was a big deal because it meant units could have a lot more access to GPS guided artillery fire when using PGK fuzes.
Excalibur was so expensive that it was made available in limited quantities.

Troops who had a choice still preferred Excalibur but in combat they found it didn’t make any difference most of the time and with PGK the artillery unit supporting the combat troops was likely to have more PGK fuzes than Excalibur shells. Moreover PGK continues to get cheaper while Excalibur is down to $70,000 per shell and seems to be stuck at that price.

Both Excalibur and PGK have revolutionized the use of artillery. An unguided shell will normally land within 267 meters of where it is aimed at maximum howitzer range (18 kilometers). An Excalibur shell always landed within 10 meters of the target (and often closer) but PGK was a lot cheaper, got to be nearly as accurate and turned any unguided shell into a GPS guided one. The U.S. Army sent the first PGKs to Afghanistan in 2013, after successful testing in the United States. The big question was how important would the troops find the accuracy and reliability differences between Excalibur and PGK. Initially the army bought 2,400 PGKs and the U.S. Marine Corps got 700. There is one export customer. Australia has ordered 4,000 PGKs and it was the Australians and other export customers who made PGK the preferred solution for GPS guided shells. The Australians had used Excalibur and were even more discouraged by the high price. But PGK was a bargain and more flexible in comparison to Excalibur.

By 2015 the U.S. Army was thinking of buying over 20,000 PGKs, but thought that would take a lot longer with the increasing budget cuts. The success of PGK in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan plus growing demand from allies threatened by Russia or North Korea has made PGK a much more popular solution for those wanting GPS guided artillery shells and shrinking ammo budgets turned into demands that stockpiles be replenished and expanded.

When artillery units had used both they still preferred the more accurate and reliable Excalibur over PGK. But they also found PGK could do the job just as well as Excalibur simply by firing two PGK shells to ensure the target was hit. This was still cheaper (by more than half) compared to Excalibur

The manufacturer of Excalibur tried to cope by developing a dual mode version that all allows for use of a laser designator. This provides even more accuracy, usually putting the shell within a meter or two (less than seven feet) of the aiming point. Excalibur is often called in when precision is the main requirement and this dual mode version provides the greatest accuracy available with any guided munition. But this level of accuracy is rarely needed from 155mm artillery and the infantry often have guided missiles or helicopters armed with Hellfire to take care of the targets that required laser accuracy. Most of the time having PGK guided shells was good enough and often a lifesaver.

The Excalibur shell cost reached $70,000 each by 2014, which is down from $150,000 each when Excalibur first entered service in 2007. Ultimately the price was to get down to $50,000, which some say has already been achieved if you don’t count development costs. But as a practical matter the much cheaper and almost as accurate PGK means less demand for Excalibur and less likelihood that the per-shell price will come down. Meanwhile development work continues. In addition to the laser guidance option Excalibur shells had range increased from 25 to 40 kilometers. Because Excalibur uses a lot of Swedish technology the Swedes will continue development if the United States drops out. The U.S. Army spent billions to develop the highly accurate M982 Excalibur GPS/laser guided 155mm artillery shell. But because so many other weapons have shown up with the same kind of accuracy, Excalibur was not called on nearly as much as originally believed. Excalibur was less frequently used than anticipated and orders for these weapons had to be reduced. So far the army has bought or plans (thru 2016) to buy only 6,876 Excalibur shells.

There was less demand for Excalibur shells largely because other precision munitions often take out targets before Excalibur gets a chance to. There’s a growing number of other GPS (or laser) guided weapons available. The GPS guided MLRS (GMLRS) rocket has been especially popular. And the army uses a lot of laser guided Hellfire missiles, fired from AH-64 helicopter gunships or UAVs. In addition to the reduction in Excalibur production, the army cut orders for GPS guided 120mm mortar shells (introduced in 2011) after a year of use.

The army wants to build up its stockpile of Excalibur and PGK, but because Excalibur got into service first and proved more accurate and reliable than the later PGK the army is stocking up on Excalibur first, and then the cheaper (and improving) PGK. Ultimately items like PGK will replace Excalibur, but for now Excalibur is the more mature and effective technology. But if there is a major war, the cheaper and easier to produce PGK will be the more practical choice because production can be increased more quickly and cheaply and the PGK is a lot easier and cheaper to store and transport.

I think India should develop or buy these PGK fuzes for improving effectiveness in mountain warfare for 105mm, 155mm and 81 and 120 mm mortar.

Especially 10m accuracy is a great enabler.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1156_Pre ... idance_Kit

buy them as part of M777 howitzer accessory

vnms
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 01:56

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vnms » 07 Aug 2017 07:24

Each shell at 50k? After a small scale war, the ammo would probably cost more than the gun.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5532
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby brar_w » 07 Aug 2017 07:50

Excalibur would not be used like a standard round. It will be used when the mission need demands it. For example when you want to deploy expeditionary troops and want them to provide precision effects with the small logistical footprint in the absence of other rotary or fixed winged strike assets. Or when you need to provide fire support to troops that may be in close proximity to the intended target.

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

The OATK-PGK as ramana's linked article suggests is a more affordable option likely coming in at a fourth of the cost of the Excalibur.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10364
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Gagan » 08 Aug 2017 04:43

Ultimately trying to hit a target from afar is an increasingly more expensive and difficult proposition.
If the idea is to have an expeditionary assaulting force, it is better to equip them with firepower that can move with them. That along with reliable air cover.

The troops and commanders will be happier with such a formulation.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10364
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Gagan » 08 Aug 2017 04:49

I like the idea of a truck mounted 105 mm field gun, or a small jeep mounted tube artillery.
Right now all this being addressed with everything from UBGLs to Mortars to flame throwers. Larger mortars and flame throwers now need a 2-3 man team.

If these jeep mounted guns and tube artillery could be delivered in numbers to advancing troops, they'll be able to deliver more accurate barrages from much close, do their own immediate BDA, correct their fire etc. They can have some soldier launched drones to assist movement and assessment

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46992
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 08 Aug 2017 04:57

One option is to have an effective long range accurate gun with electronic or proximity fuzes and hit the target.
An M107 shell costs around $400. The M572 PD fuze about $50. So for sake of argument the PF from ECIL costs $250. So if you have an accurate gun then its pretty cost effective. The 45 calibers will give extra range as the barrel has enough length to develop the pressure forces.
The Dhanush is shown that capability except for the 4 incidents.

A GPS fuze option would be nice to have. A basic one that goes of near the target coordinates and not guiding it which would drive up the costs.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46992
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 08 Aug 2017 05:02

I googled for ECIL and Fuzes and one report I got was from 2010 by Ajai Shukla. As usual its polemics but has important information

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 073_1.html

Please read Electronics Corporation of India Ltd's clarification at the end of the article

Controversy surrounds the Ministry of Defence’s Rs 800-crore procurement of artillery fuses, tiny electronic devices that cause artillery shells, fired from guns like the 155mm Bofors, to explode when they reach their target. Forbidden by a Lok Sabha committee from ordering fuses on a single-vendor basis from the Electronics Corporation of India Ltd (ECIL), and to ensure multi-vendor competition instead, the ministry has structured the tender in a manner that excludes private bidders.

Simultaneously, proceeding on a single-vendor basis, the ministry has ordered 400,000 fuses, worth over Rs 200 crore, from ECIL, citing urgent military needs.

ECIL is not a defence public sector undertaking (PSU); it functions under the Department of Atomic Energy. But a close relationship with South Block, which terms it “the sole approved supplier”, has long given ECIL automatic rights over 80 per cent of the army’s requirement of fuses.

That near-monopoly status has been questioned by a stream of MPs, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), the Lok Sabha Standing Committee on Defence, and the Lok Sabha Committee on Petitions (in its 43rd Report, tabled on November 8, 2008).

The questions raised against ECIL include its dependency on South African company, Fuchs Electronics, the main supplier of fuses to blacklisted South African armaments company, Denel. Critics have pointed out that ECIL merely assembles fuses from components supplied by Fuchs. The main components — a safety and arming device (S&A), the battery and an electronic timer kit — all come from abroad.


Despite that, ECIL has flourished with its key buyer — the Indian Army’s artillery branch — on its right side. Army headquarters admitted to a Lok Sabha committee that its former director general of artillery, Lt Gen Charanjit Singh, joined ECIL as an advisor immediately after he retired. The army’s justification: “ECIL had been appointing several retired defence officers as their advisor (sic).”

ECIL has not responded to an emailed questionnaire on these issues.

But the most serious charge against alleged defence ministry-ECIL collusion is the ministry’s alleged doctoring of its tender (request for proposals, or RfP, in the ministry terminology) for the supply of some one million fuses, a contract worth some Rs 600 crore. The RfP has lumped together three different kinds of fuses: Point detonation, timed and proximity fuses. A vendor either supplies all three types, or supplies none. Private companies like Hyderabad-based HBL Defence Electronics, and Delhi-based Micron Instruments Pvt Ltd, all manufacture one or the other type of fuses, the stipulation that vendors must provide all three fuse types effectively rules them out of contention.

Artillery experts say that each type of fuse involves different technologies.

Lumping the three types together would exclude companies with excellent capabilities in, say, timed fuses, simply because it was not manufacturing proximity fuses.


Small, high-tech companies which are bidding for the contract argue that the ministry would benefit by diversifying its sources of supply, rather than remaining dependent on one large PSU. The Defence Procurement Policy of 2008 (DPP-2008) encourages the cultivation of diverse suppliers.

The defence ministry has not responded to an email questionnaire on the subject.

The tender for one million fuses is also characterized by a high degree of tolerance for ECIL’s dependency on imported fuse components from Fuchs. The RfP specifically allows import duty exemptions for fuse components up to 70 per cent of the value of the contract. Considering that the contract value includes a profit margin of about 15 per cent, the 70 per cent exemption clause effectively allows vendors to import 80 per cent of the fuse.

“This is hardly indigenous production”, points out Jagdish Prasad, CMD of HBL Power Systems Ltd, which claims a far higher percentage of indigenous components in its fuses. “Importing 70 per cent of the fuse and assembling the components in India does not wean our military off foreign dependency.”

This tender, floated on April 2, 2009, and opened on August 27, 2009, is currently hanging fire.

Defence ministry sources say that objections from MPs, and from government vigilance organisations, have held back the ministry from ordering trials and awarding the contract.

Before electronic fuses were invented, artillery shells were exploded by mechanical fuses that detonated on impact with the ground. Birla group company, VXL Technologies, was India’s primary supplier of mechanical fuses. Three decades ago, the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre first produced electronic proximity fuses; the production licence for the famous VT-8A fuse was given to ECIL.

When that became obsolete, ECIL’s failure to absorb technology, and to conduct research and development on fuses, took it to Fuchs. That great dependency continues today
.





ECIL CLARIFIES
Electronics Corporation of India Limited (ECIL) has clarified that two public sector undertakings and two private firms have submitted their bids for the Rs 800-crore tender for procurement of artillery fuses.

Responding to a report published in Business Standard on February 13 (MoD shuts out private firms from fuse purchase), ECIL has clarified that it does not agree with the critics' comment in the report that the company merely assembles fuses from components supplied by Fuchs, a South African company. Similarly, it says the report's reference to Fuchs as a company supplying fuses to blacklisted South African armaments company, Denel, is not relevant.

The Business Standard report was on the favourable treatment accorded by the ministry of defence (MoD) to ECIL in ordering artillery fuses for the Indian Army. The article noted that the MoD made a practice of ordering fuses from ECIL on a single vendor basis until objections from the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and two parliamentary committees; despite that, the MoD cited urgent military need to hand ECIL another single-vendor order worth Rs 200 crores; that ECIL routinely hands out consultancies to senior military officers after they retire; and that the MoD has framed its ongoing Rs 800 crore tender for fuses in a manner that excludes private bidders.

ECIL’s response remains silent on all these issues mentioned in the BS report. However, the state-owned firm under the department of atomic energy has said the defence ministry has not doctored the tender for the supply of one million fuses. The defence ministry's requirements, borne out of operational needs, were clearly spelt out in the pre-bid meeting, it has stated.

ECIL has further noted that the tender for fuse procurement was issued under the government's policy specifying a minimum 30 per cent indigenous content. However, this does not mean the balance 70 per cent will be imported, it has said. "In fact, our import content is far lower than the alleged 70 per cent," the company has stated in a communication to Business Standard.

Also, ECIL's policy has always been to synergise the in-house research and development with technology reputed R&D institutes and tie up with suitable original equipment manufacturers for technology transfer and gradual indigenisation under a phased manufacturing programme.

ECIL's comments on these issues had been sought by Business Standard before the report's publication on February 13. The company responded to them only on March 20. Business Standard learns that the two private companies, which ECIL says have submitted bids, have done so for only a part of the contract. ECIL’s technology partner, Fuchs', relationship with blacklisted company, Denel, highlights the business environment in which ECIL operates. The ECIL clarification on indigenization is silent on how long it takes to absorb technology, and also on what specific technologies that the PSU has indigenised.



By now they could have developed local suppliers for the battery and the timer board. S&A Device they should have made it themselves.

You have to start somewhere and not rely on theoretical and screwdriver technologies.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46992
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 08 Aug 2017 10:28

Akshay, I looked at OFB factories product pages, factory inspection equipment pages, CAG reports on OFB and AHQ on ammo shortages and tied it to my shell balloting. The shell is forging which is machined on a lathe, These two processes ensure in a defect free shell casing, The lathe operation machines it true to the axis on CNC lathe to precise tolerances. The shell is filled with an organic chemical which will not have any off axis asymmetry. In my theory, the driving band engages the barrel and the bourrelet which is the cylindrical portion sits in the barrel. This one place if its over-machined could have clearance. But this is CNC machined to close tolerance. Now, how about the driving band comes loose due to what ever reasons, then the shell pivots about the forward bourrelet and whips around? You would say how is that possible. Well, the driving band is made of copper. The shell is steel and hence these are dissimilar metals and if moisture seeps in, it sets up galvanic corrosion. This could create weakness in the driving band joint and come loose. So you can demand where is the evidence of this situation? Bingo in the CAG reports there are rejection reports for shells with corrosion near the driving band!!! The fix is simple to put poly-sulphide caulk to prevent moisture seepage or more robust way would be to weld a steel driving band to the shell.
And don't forget the shell that first burst was 12 years old.

Marten
BRFite
Posts: 1974
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 » 08 Aug 2017 10:50

ramana wrote:Akshay, I looked at OFB factories product pages, factory inspection equipment pages, CAG reports on OFB and AHQ on ammo shortages and tied it to my shell balloting. The shell is forging which is machined on a lathe, These two processes ensure in a defect free shell casing, The lathe operation machines it true to the axis on CNC lathe to precise tolerances. The shell is filled with an organic chemical which will not have any off axis asymmetry. In my theory, the driving band engages the barrel and the bourrelet which is the cylindrical portion sits in the barrel. This one place if its over-machined could have clearance. But this is CNC machined to close tolerance. Now, how about the driving band comes loose due to what ever reasons, then the shell pivots about the forward bourrelet and whips around? You would say how is that possible. Well, the driving band is made of copper. The shell is steel and hence these are dissimilar metals and if moisture seeps in, it sets up galvanic corrosion. This could create weakness in the driving band joint and come loose. So you can demand where is the evidence of this situation? Bingo in the CAG reports there are rejection reports for shells with corrosion near the driving band!!! The fix is simple to put poly-sulphide caulk to prevent moisture seepage or more robust way would be to weld a steel driving band to the shell.
And don't forget the shell that first burst was 12 years old.

Genius investigation. That was a pleasure to read. Thank you Sir.

Eric Leiderman
BRFite
Posts: 309
Joined: 26 Nov 2010 08:56

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Eric Leiderman » 08 Aug 2017 11:01

You need a copper band as it is softer than steel and will reduce barrel wear. I would expect this band to be shrink fitted on the steel shell.
to prevent galvenic corrosion. the shell could be machined with a groove, which is then filled with a compound like Belzona which is hard and inert.
The belzona would have to be turned on a lathe to get the right clearances. This procedure is done on marine shafting in a more hostile enviroment and it works for 10-15 years of operation.

Also if you are getting corrosion, then the storage of the said shells comes into the fore. You need a dry constant temp so that moisture is not an issue.
If the above is the case then OFB is not at issue but the armys storage facilities are suspect.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46992
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 08 Aug 2017 19:44

The band is softer material to grip the barrel rifling. It is shrink fit. There is a MIL handbook on how the shells are made. MIL 763?.

I am now looking to see any improved bands are used in shells.

Still need the user to be aware of what's going on. A dab of poly sulphide caulk seals the area and adds no extra weight. Prevents moisture from wicking in.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46992
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 08 Aug 2017 19:45

Marten, Google for CAG Ammunition 2015. Should bring two pdfs.
One of them has pictures.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2900
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kanson » 08 Aug 2017 21:37

Link

Dated 2014
Chander said one of the biggest challenges before DRDO now was to make guided artillery shells. At present, the artillery has conventional shells. These needed repeated bombarding to ensure the target was hit. Guided shells are like smart bombs that can be pinpointed at the target. However, the challenge is to develop a technology that would prevent electronic guiding equipment embedded in shells from getting damaged when the gun fired. Artillery guns fire with almost 60,000 G-force. Even as the design for smart shells was there, the technology to resist the impact was yet to be developed, he said.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46992
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 09 Aug 2017 02:22

Kanson, ARDE and a group are working on Smart Fuzes like the US GPS Fuze and another. Will move away from mechanical fuzes is the goal.
In fact the pitch has same photo as the US GPS Fuze. Will link it on Saturday. Its on internet.

Link here:

http://ofb.gov.in/download/make_in_indi ... a_AMMN.pdf

jayasimha
BRFite
Posts: 392
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 17:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby jayasimha » 09 Aug 2017 19:49

https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/whatsnew/g ... ellant.pdf

Gun Propellant
development in HEMRL, DRDO.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4287
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby putnanja » 11 Aug 2017 08:15

Known news, but still posting ...

India’s Dhanush artillery gun fails in trials

NEW DELHI — India’s homegrown 155mm/45-caliber gun has taken a hit following a row of failed trials for over three months by the Indian Army, according a top source in the army.

“The Dhanush 155mm/45-caliber artillery gun has failed on three occasions in a row in the last three months when the shell of the gun hit the muzzle brake in one of the six prototype guns currently undergoing user trials,” the Indian Army source said.

Analysts say the failed trials are not a major setback but can postpone the induction program of the gun.
...
...
On the failure of the recent trial of the gun, Bhonsle said, ”Shells hitting the muzzle brake could be due to a number of reasons such as overexploitation of the munitions, overcharging of the munitions and so on or even faulty ammunition; all of these aspects will have to be evaluated.”
...

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1663
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Vivek K » 11 Aug 2017 08:36

India should only import!

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 693
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Gyan » 11 Aug 2017 09:16

If damage to barrel is a criteria to stop further induction then what about T-90?

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 209
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 11 Aug 2017 10:43

Vivek K / Gyan

Are you suggesting that the gun continue to be inducted without knowing what is causing the shell hitting the barrel...10 or 11 men being permanent medical category be damned!!

What about t90?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7329
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 11 Aug 2017 10:55

ks_sachin wrote:Vivek K / Gyan

Are you suggesting that the gun continue to be inducted without knowing what is causing the shell hitting the barrel...10 or 11 men being permanent medical category be damned!!

What about t90?


It's barrel bursts as well.

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5300
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby niran » 11 Aug 2017 11:01

Pratyush wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:Vivek K / Gyan

Are you suggesting that the gun continue to be inducted without knowing what is causing the shell hitting the barrel...10 or 11 men being permanent medical category be damned!!

What about t90?


It's barrel bursts as well.

and the fault rectified, so will be Dhanush's fault. what is few months in a 3 plus decade wait

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 209
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 11 Aug 2017 11:42

Pratyush wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:Vivek K / Gyan

Are you suggesting that the gun continue to be inducted without knowing what is causing the shell hitting the barrel...10 or 11 men being permanent medical category be damned!!

What about t90?


It's barrel bursts as well.


So its barren burst after induction and there is a SOP to deal with it. The issue was identified and I know this happened with the t72 as well. But this happened post induction.
It would be criminal to induct a weapon when we know that these is an unexplained problem no?

The point I was really trying to highlight was there is much posting of "thoughts" without actually any deeper thinking!!

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7329
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 11 Aug 2017 12:55

Indeed, the problem will be solved eventually.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 693
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Gyan » 11 Aug 2017 16:49

I believe that special preference is shown for imported products. Did K9 go through equivalent trials firing 1000s of rounds? I have no problem if indigenous products are delayed till they are perfected but similarly foreign should not imported till they are perfect! Whether "additional" orders for T-90 were given after problem was discovered? Whether T-90 was adequately tested as we knew about barrel burst problem from T-72 itself? Why were Civilians like me still flying Airbus 320 when Netas had shifted to 747 after its crash in India? Why no one talks about foreign flying coffins after Hawk was purchased? Have crashes stopped?

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3279
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Rakesh » 11 Aug 2017 16:59

ATS checking if Jhansi stenographer share details about Dhanush howitzer
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 973777.cms


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jaeger, Nitesh, Varuna, Virender, Yagnasri and 42 guests