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.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7494
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Gerard » 12 Oct 2013 22:38

Last page of old thread

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sum » 16 Oct 2013 09:47

Bad bad news ( if accurate):
Desi Bofors bursts during trials

India's desi Bofors dream has taken a slight knock. The barrel of the indigenously-developed version of the original Swedish155mm Bofors howitzer, which proved its worth by wreaking havoc against Pakistani intruders during the 1999 Kargil conflict, burst during trials in the Pokhran range in Rajasthan.

The defence ministry had recently placed an order worth over Rs 1,260-crore for acquisition of 114 of the artillery field guns developed by the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB), which has used the designs obtained under the transfer of technology (ToT) provisions in the infamous Rs 1,437-crore Bofors contract of 1986, to develop prototypes of the new guns.

"The barrel burst during the Army's user trials in August. The trials have been suspended till the OFB and the DGQA (directorate general of quality assurance) conduct a defect identification inquiry into the incident,'' said a source.

The indigenous gun, which is supposed to plug the huge operational gaps in the Army's long-range, high-volume firepower, had done well in its trials till now after being developed by the OFB, Jabalpur.


:x :x

sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 325
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sarabpal.s » 16 Oct 2013 12:56

slight disappointmenting but if we look at the large picture this thing do happen that trial is for.
may be issue with metal forging, or quality control, or simply ammunition problem. Any of the issue may cause the problem. But we find the root cause and solve it rather than doing noting

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2596
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Sagar G » 16 Oct 2013 14:15

The indigenous gun, which is supposed to plug the huge operational gaps in the Army's long-range, high-volume firepower, had done well in its trials till now after being developed by the OFB, Jabalpur.


DDM strikes, what the hell is OFB Jabalpur ???? It's GCF Jabalpur which is developing the said gun. Nice that all the bursting and cracking is happening during user trials and hence will result in a good end product.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9095
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 16 Oct 2013 16:19

Any news on private sector participation?. The Saint and Prapul seems to have killed the same.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sum » 16 Oct 2013 16:33

DDM strikes, what the hell is OFB Jabalpur ???? It's GCF Jabalpur which is developing the said gun. Nice that all the bursting and cracking is happening during user trials and hence will result in a good end product.



^^ Saar, only problem is IA shouldnt now keep holding off trials for next X years citing this barrel burst when the new gun is back in action for trials.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7408
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 16 Oct 2013 16:39

At least the TATA JV's mounted gun ought to be under trials.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2415
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 16 Oct 2013 19:10

There were reports of problems in almost all imported Howitzers also during testing including M777, Denel etc

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2645
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 16 Oct 2013 19:32

This barrel exploded back in August and is being reported now? Must have happened aong with the "barrel came off" incident and it would be too embarrassing to report them together.

Hopefully the Tata gun is being tested as we speak but the lack of news on it is not a good sign.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2645
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 16 Oct 2013 19:40

vic wrote:There were reports of problems in almost all imported Howitzers also during testing including M777, Denel etc

Testing of new products under development is always a risky game but the desi bofors is from blueprints of an already tested product with full tot. Speaks volumes.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2596
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Sagar G » 16 Oct 2013 21:03

sum wrote:^^ Saar, only problem is IA shouldnt now keep holding off trials for next X years citing this barrel burst when the new gun is back in action for trials.


I wouldn't be surprised if IA does that, the gravy train must keep running no.

You are free to criticize Services on facts regarding acts of commission and omission - but such insinuation and casual comments will not be tolerated. Next post on similar lines will invite warning. I'm letting the post remain as reference for what not to post - rohitvats

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 16 Oct 2013 21:56

Meanwhile,
200 BAE staff to lose jobs if India misses deal (M777) deadline
..
Sources close to the defence manufacturer told the Telegraph it would begin the redundancy process on Thursday and close its M777 production line at the Cumbria plant to halt growing losses on the project. It has spent an estimated £31m to continue producing the titanium guns in the hope that India would conclude the deal but there is no immediate prospect of agreement.
...
"No one will make a decision," said a source close to the discussions.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47346
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 17 Oct 2013 01:00

Sum, Looks like this is a different one than the barrel came off trial. So both guns are defective: barrel shears off and now barrel bursts. So both prototypes are toast.

Odd thing is Dec 2012 they had successful trials witnessed by the DG Arty., and now in user trials all sorts of problems are coming up. So whats going on?


Is it procedures which are wrong or the earlier trials not complete?

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 17 Oct 2013 01:06

It appears to be the same report, rehashed, that the barrel came off and that they are looking into why.

Either it could be a barrel issue, or an ammo issue. Yet to be discerned.

Trials can have several phases - proof of concept trials, development trials, user assisted trials, user trials and so forth. This barrel breakage apparently happened during UAT, where the user observes the trials but these are not confirmatory trials which are the final user trials.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2645
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 17 Oct 2013 02:50

There is a big difference between barrel coming off and barrel bursting. They cannot be the same incident unless the reporter was deliberately lied to the first time thinking that falling off is somehow less damning than bursting.

Is this glitch due to the conversion from 39 to 45 caliber? If so, can't they just make the 39 cal asap without messing with the original design? They can continue tinkering with the 45 till kingdom come but in the meantime at least get some guns out to the army.

Prem Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 1983
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Prem Kumar » 17 Oct 2013 03:13

abhik wrote:Meanwhile,
200 BAE staff to lose jobs if India misses deal (M777) deadline
..
Sources close to the defence manufacturer told the Telegraph it would begin the redundancy process on Thursday and close its M777 production line at the Cumbria plant to halt growing losses on the project. It has spent an estimated £31m to continue producing the titanium guns in the hope that India would conclude the deal but there is no immediate prospect of agreement.
...
"No one will make a decision," said a source close to the discussions.


We should let these guys be fired & the plant be closed, setup a JV, offer the good ones high paying jobs in India as part of the JV, sign M777 deal & as part of offsets offer to license produce it in India by moving the production plant lock, stock & barrel here

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 17 Oct 2013 03:17

Victor wrote:There is a big difference between barrel coming off and barrel bursting. They cannot be the same incident unless the reporter was deliberately lied to the first time thinking that falling off is somehow less damning than bursting.


You are making a BIG assumption here that the reporter knows there is a difference between the two. The average reporter might just call it barrel came off even if it blew off. Indian journalism is not staffed with specialists

Is this glitch due to the conversion from 39 to 45 caliber? If so, can't they just make the 39 cal asap without messing with the original design? They can continue tinkering with the 45 till kingdom come but in the meantime at least get some guns out to the army.


IA asked for 45 cal only

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17016
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 17 Oct 2013 04:00

Where do we now stand with respect to the arty. reqs.? Towed,SPs,etc.There was another report about the competition where 3 foreign systems ,each with pvt. players are in the running.With this latest setback,how much longer can the IA wait for relief?

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2645
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 17 Oct 2013 04:11

Prem Kumar wrote:We should let these guys be fired & the plant be closed, setup a JV, offer the good ones high paying jobs in India as part of the JV, sign M777 deal & as part of offsets offer to license produce it in India by moving the production plant lock, stock & barrel here

Nice idea if we wanted 3,000 M777s or could even afford them. We need only 145 for our mountain troops so what is likely to happen is the plant closes and we pay restarting costs in 2014-15 plus inflated prices from a p!ssed off BAE. Normal OP for this MoD.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2645
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 17 Oct 2013 04:25

Karan M wrote:You are making a BIG assumption here that the reporter knows there is a difference between the two. The average reporter might just call it barrel came off even if it blew off.

Serious? Between a plunk! and a kaaboom!? :rotfl:. I doubt any reporter was present and only wrote what he was told.

IA asked for 45 cal only

Ah, poor trusting souls.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4327
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby putnanja » 17 Oct 2013 06:36

IA should have first ordered the original 39cal howitzers, as per the original drawings, and based on that asked for 45 cal.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7408
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 17 Oct 2013 06:41

They reports were that the Saint had ordered 144 guns for 39. Along with the upgrading of the M 46.

We will have to wait and see. Which one had what kind of accident.

http://frontierindia.net/india-clears-proposal-to-buy-144-155mm-howitzers-from-ofb#axzz2hwKNxXZu

member_22906
BRFite
Posts: 306
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_22906 » 17 Oct 2013 08:03

ramana wrote:Is it procedures which are wrong or the earlier trials not complete?


It is a good point to explore as and when we get more information on this, Ramanaji

It could be anything from faulty design, faulty ammo or procedures. Typically, barrel burst if due to faulty procedure can toast the CO's career there itself.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 17 Oct 2013 08:09

I doubt procedures. the contestants have all hired recently retired officers and troops from the artillery to manage and operate the guns during trials. these folks have years of exp in the artillery to be getting into such a role.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2415
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 17 Oct 2013 11:40

IIRC even a few Russian T-72 barrels burst when firing. But has it stopped imports?

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nachiket » 17 Oct 2013 12:25

vic wrote:IIRC even a few Russian T-72 barrels burst when firing. But has it stopped imports?

Those were also made by OFB, weren't they?

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 17 Oct 2013 12:37

vic wrote:IIRC even a few Russian T-72 barrels burst when firing. But has it stopped imports?


If you must make a statement, please ensure you do your research - those barrels burst due to both faulty ammunition and wrong manufacturing process by INDIAN DPSUs.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2907
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kanson » 17 Oct 2013 14:22

Both Indian made and imported ones(T-72) had barrel bursts. It was discussed here.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 17 Oct 2013 14:26

Kanson wrote:Both Indian made and imported ones(T-72) had barrel bursts. It was discussed here.


Indian barrel bursts were because of both the issue while Russian barrel burst was this ammunition issue. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7408
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 17 Oct 2013 14:36

^^^

That brings another question. Was the ammunition made by the OFB. Or was it imported.

WRT, the T 72 Barrel bursting. The problem, IIRC, was, traced back to the erratic power supply and the lack of a UPS, in the OFB, plant making the Barrels.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2907
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kanson » 17 Oct 2013 14:49

^ it was a big mess in reporting at that time. OFB shot back saying they followed the procedure as mentioned in TOT; after initial ruckus, russians silently updated the procedure. Barrel issues in imported t-72 was pointed out at that instance.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 17 Oct 2013 14:59

Pratyush wrote:^^^

That brings another question. Was the ammunition made by the OFB. Or was it imported.

WRT, the T 72 Barrel bursting. The problem, IIRC, was, traced back to the erratic power supply and the lack of a UPS, in the OFB, plant making the Barrels.


The ammunition issue is much wider - DRDO had developed the ammunition and handed over production to OFB. Which screwed up big time - IA rejected multiple crore worth of ammo due to QC issue. Blame game happened between DRDO and OFB.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7408
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 17 Oct 2013 15:00

^^^

That, still does not explain the recent order (or was it proposed) for the T 72 barrels from Russia.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2415
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 17 Oct 2013 15:04

rohitvats wrote:
Kanson wrote:Both Indian made and imported ones(T-72) had barrel bursts. It was discussed here.


Indian barrel bursts were because of both the issue while Russian barrel burst was this ammunition issue. Please correct me if I'm wrong.


So you acknowledge that RUSSIAN barrels can also burst. Similarly, Indian Barrels can also burst due to faulty ammunition.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7408
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 17 Oct 2013 15:08

^^^

Vic, a gun barrel can burst for a number of reasons. We need to have accurate information before saying what is the issue with what barrel.

So that, a similar situation can be prevented.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2907
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kanson » 17 Oct 2013 16:16

rohitvats wrote:
Kanson wrote:Both Indian made and imported ones(T-72) had barrel bursts. It was discussed here.


Indian barrel bursts were because of both the issue while Russian barrel burst was this ammunition issue. Please correct me if I'm wrong.


Sir ji, Is it so? We been hearing this story from 90s....But meeting after meeting with Russians to solve this, nothing concrete happened as this dragged till the point where Gen VK Singh mentioned this issue ( that is last year). If this is all about ammunition and nothing to do with barrel, why the decision to replace it with T-90 barrel but not to use the rectified T-72 barrel? Why there is as much of barrel burst observed in both imported as well as local made T-72 barrels?

This is from 2006 news:

The T-72 barrels are being produced under license according to the technical specifications and guidelines provided by the Russian experts.''All the barrels are tested and proof fired according to the specified quality standards, before issue to the army'', Minister of State for Defence Production Rao Inderjit Singh said in a written reply to the Rajya Sabha. He said the barrel involves both the indigenous as well as imported barrels. Mr Singh said during the last three years, 26 cases of barrel burst were reported, of which 14 were imported barrels and 12 indigenous.


Read more at: http://news.oneindia.in/2006/08/02/t-72 ... 10203.html


The Army’s fault

The Army’s own contribution to the current state of affairs cannot be denied. Although originally Russian technology was used for making this equipment, the Army found the claims of a superior product by the now-blacklisted Israeli Military Industries (IMI) attractive. It imported 46,000 rounds seven years ago and found them good. Later, in 2006, the Ordnance Factory Board started the first phase of a two step co-production with IMI. Strangely, however, it took unconscionably four long years for the Army to give bulk production clearance for the Board’s product, although all the critical components were from Israel. The Comptroller and Auditor General has observed this, too.

Another important aspect highlighted by the retired General was the incident of bursting of gun barrels of T-72 tanks. Although these have been produced in the erstwhile USSR and East European countries since early eighties in huge quantities, the problem dogged this product for long. In India, too, this occurred in barrels of both foreign and indigenous origins. Getting inputs from Russia to make improvements as implemented over there took more than half a dozen delegation-level meetings between the two countries. Although after valiant efforts some details of heat-treatment processes were obtained and implemented, there is no knowing that the problem has, indeed, been licked, since Russia does not share ‘know why’.

Meanwhile, the Army appears to believe that one of the causes may be the strength of explosives in the indigenously produced high explosive ammunition. This is funny since there is no other ammunition available to be used in training or trials, as there is no stock of anti-tank ammunition which is what compelled the General to write in the first place.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opi ... 551136.ece

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 17 Oct 2013 18:06

Kanson wrote: Sir ji, Is it so? We been hearing this story from 90s....But meeting after meeting with Russians to solve this, nothing concrete happened as this dragged till the point where Gen VK Singh mentioned this issue ( that is last year). If this is all about ammunition and nothing to do with barrel, why the decision to replace it with T-90 barrel but not to use the rectified T-72 barrel? Why there is as much of barrel burst observed in both imported as well as local made T-72 barrels? <SNIP>


Kanson - the article in Hindu by ex-OFB official is quite economical on facts. It presents the story in a manner as if OFB smells of roses.

It is a well documented fact that T-72 barrel bursting has happened on two counts - defective barrels manufactured by OFB and faulty ammunition. And it is incorrect to say that till the Russians were roped in we did not know about what the issue was or what was the correct way of going about doing things.

Point 1 - T-72 barrel burst due to defective manufacturing.

Here is the CAG Report on the issue of barrel bursting from 2000:

http://cag.nic.in/html/reports/defence/2000_book2/index.htm


20. Rejection of barrels manufactured for T-72 tanks

Director General Ordnance Factories deviated from manufacturing technique without consulting the original designer. This resulted in defective manufacture of barrels valued at Rs 45.07 crore affecting the performance of T-72 tanks.

Director General Ordnance Factories manufactured 770 barrels for T-72 tanks deviating from critical heat treatment schedule for tempering of barrels without consulting the original designer. This resulted in manufacture of defective barrels. 11 barrels burst in firing from tanks causing accidents. 454 defective barrels valued at Rs 44 crore were held in stock and the remaining 305 barrels fitted in the tanks were under process of investigation as of June 1999. The case is as under:

DDPS placed order on MIDHANI for supply of 774 barrels

Department of Defence Production and Supplies placed an order on Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited., Hyderabad in October 1989 for supply of 774 barrels to be fitted in T-72 tanks, at a cost of Rs 67.73 crore. Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited, in turn, placed a letter of intent in March 1990 on Director General Ordnance Factories for converting black forging hot rolled bars i.e. input raw materials into finished, machined and tested barrels. The letter of intent envisaged that the tempering of barrels would be carried out in two stages viz. in first stage in the temperature range of 520-550�C and in the second stage in the temperature range of 530-570�C. The barrels were to be supplied by the Director General Ordnance Factories to Central Ordnance Depot Jabalpur only after testing by Controllerate of Quality Assurance (weapons) Jabalpur.

MIDHANI placed a letter of intent on DGOF for converting forgings into barrels

The responsibility for quality assurance of items manufactured in Ordnance factories rests with the manufacturing factory. Director General Quality Assurance and Inspectorates under him are responsible for surveillance, quality audit and final acceptance inspection. In surveillance check of barrels during manufacture in Field Gun Factory, Kanpur in 1990, when one of the barrels broke in the straightening operation, the Quality Assurance Establishment (Field Gun), notified the Factory that to avoid such breakage, the heat treatment should be carried out at 520�C-570�C as provided by designer. The Field Gun Factory Kanpur however, continued tempering the forgings at reduced temperature even below 430�C, on the plea that the protocol signed by it with Russian team in 1985, permitted the heat treatment at lower range.

One barrel broke in FGF, Kanpur

QAE(FG) pointed out that heat treatment should be at 520�C -570�C

FGF Kanpur continued tempering the forgings at temperature below 430�C


Field Gun Factory supplied 770 barrels to the Central Ordnance Depot Jabalpur between 1992 and 1996. The Quality Assurance Establishment had, however, passed these barrels despite their tempering at reduced temperature, as fit for use. Department of Defence Production and Supplies paid Rs 74.67 crore inclusive of price escalation to Mishra Dattu Nigam Limited.

11 barrels cracked/ burst during firing causing accidents

Foreign specialists attributed accidents to deviation in tempering temperature

Army decided in December 1997 to withdraw all the barrels

During firing in September 1992, from a T-72 tank, the barrel cracked causing an accident. Further in 35 more accidents occurred till March 1998, ten more barrels cracked/burst. Russian specialists, who investigated the cause(s) of the accidents, observed that the deviation from prescribed tempering temperature was the direct cause of such breakages, and that the protocol signed in 1985 was without consulting the original designer.

Army Headquarters decided in December 1997 to withdraw all barrels tempered at 460�C and below. As of June 1998, 454 such barrels valued at Rs 44 crore from stock were identified and rejected and remaining 305 barrels fitted on tanks were under investigation. Tempering of barrels were now being done at temperatures above 500�C.

In response to Audit observation, Ordnance Factory Board stated in August 1998 that reduced band of heating during tempering was a modification in the technological process to suit Indian conditions of available plant and machinery. The reply is not acceptable since the modification was done without consulting the original designer and subsequent accidents had been directly ascribed to this.

The matter was referred to the Ministry in September 1999; their reply was awaited as of December 1999.


Point 2 - Defective Tank ammunition manufactured by OFB

http://cag.nic.in/html/reports/defence/2003_army/index.htm - 2003 CAG Report.


8.Idle investment on manufacture of defective ammunition

On account of defects in manufacture of an ammunition for tanks, as many as 1.35 lakh shells valued at Rs 607.43 crore were held in segregated conditions by the five Army Commands pending their rectification/ replacement by the Ordnance Factory concerned, rendering the investment on their manufacture unproductive.

The Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, had been manufacturing and supplying a particular type of ammunition used in one of the tanks of the Army.

In October 2000, an accident occurred to a tank using this ammunition at Babina following its failure, in which the driver of the tank was killed and the tank commander and gunner survived after being critically injured. Following trials conducted on the ammunition, it was found to be of poor quality and unsatisfactory in performance on account of (i) poor quality of the projectile and charger; (ii) the projectile getting detached from its casing on many occasions; (iii) the tendency of the outer casing to leave a burning residue in the gun tube/charger posing a fire hazard. Besides, the performance of the ammunition was also found to be inconsistent and unsatisfactory during zeroing check and in respect of its accuracy, penetration and stowage.

A ban was therefore imposed on issue of the ammunition to the units in the five Commands and the Factory was also instructed to suspend its production.

Subsequent investigation by the Directorate General of Quality Assurance revealed that certain lots of the ammunition were of a hybrid version and the remaining lots were of an indigenous version. In January 2002, the Army Headquarters decided all ammunition of the hybrid version would be declared unserviceable and back loaded to the Ordnance Factory Board, while the rejected lots of its indigenous version would be replaced free of cost.

Based on this decision, the Master General of Ordnance branch of the Army Headquarters informed the Army Commands in June 2002 that the ammunition would be rectified/replaced by the Ordnance Factory Board in a phased manner. The latter was also requested to carry out the rectification on fast track basis.

Pending backloading of the ammunition to the Ordnance Factory in a phased manner, the five Army Commands were holding 1,34,986 shells valued at Rs 607.43 crore under segregated conditions. In respect of 1,23,794 of these shells valued at Rs 557.06 crore, 40 per cent of the shelf life of 10 years had expired while the shelf life of another 11,192 shells valued at Rs 50.36 crore had already been halved.

The defective ammunition not yet having been rectified, the investment of Rs 607.43 crore on its manufacture had been rendered idle and unproductive, apart from the additional investments that will be necessary for their rectification/replacement.

The matter was referred to the Ministry in May 2002; their reply was awaited as of January 2003.


This aspect of defective T-72 ammunition was further covered in 2010-2011 CAG Report where it was highlighted that the defective ammunition had not been rectified. It also pulled by the IA on not contacting the seller for replacement of defective direct import ammunition (imported during Op-Vijay).

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 17 Oct 2013 18:17

Kanson wrote:<SNIP>

The Army’s fault

The Army’s own contribution to the current state of affairs cannot be denied. Although originally Russian technology was used for making this equipment, the Army found the claims of a superior product by the now-blacklisted Israeli Military Industries (IMI) attractive. It imported 46,000 rounds seven years ago and found them good. Later, in 2006, the Ordnance Factory Board started the first phase of a two step co-production with IMI. Strangely, however, it took unconscionably four long years for the Army to give bulk production clearance for the Board’s product, although all the critical components were from Israel. The Comptroller and Auditor General has observed this, too. <SNIP>


On this aspect of ammunition manufacturing, this is what CAG has actually observed:

http://www.cag.gov.in/html/reports/defence/2010-11_15PA-OF/chap3.pdf

Chapter III: Co Production Arrangements, Collaboration Agreements and Memorandum of Understanding


3.3 Co-production arrangements for FSAPDS12 with IMI

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entered into on 26 October 2003 by and between OFB and IMI for production of following types of products:-

Type A Products: Products which shall be pioneered and introduced for the first time through collaboration between IMI and OFB.

Type B Products: Products that have already been established by IMI, but shall be jointly produced by IMI and OFB with their respective resources, so that owing to this synergy the same product though already established by IMI can be produced at
a lower cost without compromising the quality.

Against the above background, OFB entered into a co-production arrangement with IMI Israel to produce FSAPDS ammunition. In the phase I, the work share of OFB was to provide Primer and Igniter (US$ 17), Stub Case (US$ 41), Assembly of complete round, Test (US$ 56), Packaging, Transportation and Proof Cost (US$ 40). Compared to this, IMI was required to supply complete penetrator assembly (US$ 508) and Combustible Cartridge Case and Propellant (US$ 227). In Phase II, IMI was required to supply blank penetrator (US$ 278). Machining & complete penetrator assembly (US$ 215) was required to be done by the OFB. Thus in effect,
in phase I, OFB was essentially required to assemble the final product.


A contract agreement was signed between OFB and IMI Israel in September 2004 for supply of 15,000 units MK-I FSAPDS 125mm anti-tank ammunition in two phases. The first batch assembled in India was subjected to proof test in May 2005.

Controller of Quality Assurance (Ammunition) did not accord Bulk Production Clearance as it failed in the proof test. Meanwhile, in the Target Fixation meeting for 2005-06 held in January 2005, it was decided that OFB would supply further 30,000 of the ammunition during 2005-06 (cumulative 45,000). Though the consignment of 15,000 units was awaiting Bulk Production Clearance from inspectorate authority, OFB imported further 30,000 units in September 2005 valuing Rs 99.34 crore (US$ 22 million) at the Phase-I rate. 45,000 units valuing Rs 141 crore were still lying idle as of May 2010.

Without stabilizing the co-production of FSAPDS from the first consignment of imported components, OFB’s procurement of 30,000 additional units worth Rs 99.34 crore and MOD’s sanction thereof was a case of wrong judgment. Though it was repeatedly mentioned by OFB and MOD at the time of processing of case that the agreement was meant for ‘co-production and co-development’ of 125 mm FSAPDS, the details of work-share worked out by OFB indicated that it was neither a co-development nor co-production in the initial phases. The share of IMI to OFB was 83 per cent to 17 per cent. Further, the 17 per cent contribution of OFB was insignificant.

Between 2001 and 2003, Army had directly procured 46000 rounds of 125 mm FSAPDS from IMI Israel without any problem relating to quality. DGQA was the Inspection authority also for imported ammunition. The ammunition was acceptable both DGQA and Army. However, when the ammunition against the agreement dated September 2004 was received by OFB, both DGQA and Army could not clear the ammunition. Ministry remained the silent spectator during the whole process and failed to resolve the issue which resulted in 45000 units of FSAPDS worth Rs 141 crore lying idle. The ammunitions procured by OFB and Army were proven products and were supplied by the same supplier.

Ministry replied that bulk production clearance was accorded in June 2009 and in view of the selective permission for business dealings with IMI, the preparatory action was being taken. Ministry’s reply was silent as to why the procurement was done for the second
phase, when the bulk production clearance was not given even for first phase.
[/quote]

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2415
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 17 Oct 2013 18:31

Even if T-72 barrels manufactured at OFB burst due to incorrect manufactering process, it is still not explain why did Russian barrels burst(?). I could not find anywhere in the CAG report that Russian barrels burst due to defective Indian ammunition. Pls point out the line, I may have missed it.

Also Army has still not placed firm order for indigenous 144 Bofors Howitzers. It is still at proposal or intent stage.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7408
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 17 Oct 2013 18:53

^^^

The saint has approved the induction of 144 guns. it is just a matter of passing the quality parameters. Which has not happened, due tonthe barrel bursting.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ArjunPandit, Bing [Bot] and 51 guests