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.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7514
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 09 Sep 2017 07:51

Personally I don't believe that the weight of any modern towed howetzer is an issue in any situation. Because most of them have APU and that can be slaved to the power train of the FAT. As was the case with the Scania and FH 77 and the south African g 5. So in difficult area the abilty for the gun to assist the FAT already exists for some time.

DRDO having had access to both can easily execute this approach with ATAGS.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60359
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 09 Sep 2017 10:27

standing next to one (with ear protectors) and seeing and feeling thump on chest as it unloads 6 round mag must be a deeply religious experience.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 09 Sep 2017 11:02

sudeepj wrote:
abhik wrote:Its quite a clever design, the canards are fixed (no actuators) and the CEP is now claimed to be <10m.


If the canards/wings dont move, how will it guide the projectile? The little wings move alright.

No they don't, here's a video which explains how it works (albeit it is for the mortar version).
https://youtu.be/u-d5MbZoNpg?t=40s

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47896
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 09 Sep 2017 11:31

abhik wrote:
sudeepj wrote:
If the canards/wings dont move, how will it guide the projectile? The little wings move alright.

No they don't, here's a video which explains how it works (albeit it is for the mortar version).
https://youtu.be/u-d5MbZoNpg?t=40s



I like this fuze that makes mortar more effective.
Use it on 120mm and 81mm mortars and defeat the bunkers and sangars in POK.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47896
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 09 Sep 2017 11:34

ramana wrote: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


Here hope they hurry up.

Looks like plan is to develop for 155mm guns and onwards.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 954
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 09 Sep 2017 12:19

The absence of a GPS guided mortar program is a glaring omission from our munitions list. Its far more achievable than making GPS guidance for shells which has to withstand up to 40000Gs

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby manjgu » 09 Sep 2017 13:10

about the deeply religios experience.. i live close to a ordanance depot and they routinely do controlled explosions... the controlled explosions happen away from my home..but the thump of the explosions rattles the whole house and the body shakes...

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1459
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vasu raya » 09 Sep 2017 21:48

nam wrote:Some excalibur impacts. Should give us an idea of the impact radius.



Lot of sharpnel flying around, not safe in urban areas, and for all its cost, without a direct hit the vehicle isn't destroyed, one can gauge the effectiveness of unguided shells on bunkers...

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby brar_w » 09 Sep 2017 22:04

I think the point is to kill or otherwise take out of action its inhabitants.

Image
Last edited by brar_w on 09 Sep 2017 22:16, edited 1 time in total.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1459
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vasu raya » 09 Sep 2017 22:12

brar, in the context of friendlies nearby, the safe zone is probably closer by 250 meters to the target when using a guided shell

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby brar_w » 09 Sep 2017 22:23

It wouldn't be any different than of the other assets employed for CAS for example. J series weapons and SDBs are used under those circumstances. One advantage of both the M982 and the M1156 is that you can set it up so as to not go off if it is not within an established target area. The PGK video posted on the last page has the Canadian solider describing this.

In his critique of the US Army and the Marine Corps's employment of the M982 in Afghanistan, Major General Toney Stricklin has this interesting tidbit -

The M982 is designed to be employed against targets where collateral damage must be minimized and the target is accurately located. The M982 is best used in situations with ‘troops in contact,’ friendly forces within 100 meters of the target, and where collateral damage must be limited. With the M982, ‘danger- close’ is a technique that may be no longer necessary. I have read reports that Army units, using the M982, are surprised and disappointed the building being engaged was not destroyed. Other munitions are engineered to destroy structures and kill its inhabitants – the M982 is engineered to provide a precision kill without destroying the structure or infrastructure surrounding the target.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1459
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vasu raya » 09 Sep 2017 22:46

brar_w wrote: One advantage of both the M982 and the M1156 is that you can set it up so as to not go off if it is not within an established target area.


Looks like the M982 is a different kind of munition, this above statement on fuse activation is GPS dependent?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby brar_w » 09 Sep 2017 22:58

vasu raya wrote:
Looks like the M982 is a different kind of munition, this above statement on fuse activation is GPS dependent?


https://youtu.be/yFSA8pS_Bgk?t=57

Meanwhile the M928 also has a dual mode variant that comes with an additional laser guided mode which will probably make it even more accurate and help with hitting moving targets. Internally Raytheon has also acknowledged an existence of internal R&D on an active mmW RF seeker aimed at maritime, anti surface warfare role.

Lot of sharpnel flying around, not safe in urban areas


The M982 has a near vertical attack profile across its range envelope, and is equipped with a Multi mode fuze.

https://s26.postimg.org/70akk7owp/Profile_Excalibur.png

On cost, yes it is costly ($70-$80 K range). But cost is relative to need, alternatives and other costs not factored into the equation. If I have forward deployed marines, what is the cost of not being able to use field artillery as an alternative to close air support? How many extra V-22s do I need to buy and forward deploy to resupply my field artillery units as they go through their rounds? What about barrel fatigue..etc etc. Again, keep in mind that it is a niche capability giving the soldiers to tailor their response to the need and NOT use the expensive rounds for every mission that needs fires support.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1059
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sudeepj » 09 Sep 2017 23:31

abhik wrote:
sudeepj wrote:
If the canards/wings dont move, how will it guide the projectile? The little wings move alright.

No they don't, here's a video which explains how it works (albeit it is for the mortar version).
https://youtu.be/u-d5MbZoNpg?t=40s


Clever Indeed..!!! :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea:

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1459
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vasu raya » 09 Sep 2017 23:44

brar_w wrote:On cost, yes it is costly ($70-$80 K range). But cost is relative to need, alternatives and other costs not factored into the equation.


Thanks brar, would it be possible to breakdown the cost components?

so, these laser guided or mmW sensors are g rated for an artillery shell, incredible!

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby brar_w » 09 Sep 2017 23:52

vasu raya wrote:
brar_w wrote:On cost, yes it is costly ($70-$80 K range). But cost is relative to need, alternatives and other costs not factored into the equation.


Thanks brar, would it be possible to breakdown the cost components?

so, these laser guided or mmW sensors are g rated for an artillery shell, incredible!



viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6922&p=2211136#p2211136
Last edited by brar_w on 10 Sep 2017 00:07, edited 4 times in total.

Bharadwaj
BRFite
Posts: 175
Joined: 09 Oct 2006 11:09

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Bharadwaj » 09 Sep 2017 23:55

The ALL FAT with the neptune engine will have no issues dragging a extra couple of tonnes up a mountain...

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47896
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 10 Sep 2017 09:43

More videos of the PGK fuze

PGK Over view



and sequence of operations

Not how the fuze is set



I think India should import 5000 fuzes as part of Mountain Strike Corps Artillery M-777.
This will be a huge force multiplier.

Meantime ARDE can accelerate their verrsion.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33671
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby shiv » 10 Sep 2017 09:50

The fuze is only one half of the thing isn't it? Something has to mark or illuminate the target.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60359
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 10 Sep 2017 10:09

ppl are also moving enmasse to laser guided rockets for helicopters than just up the round count. the launch heli can rotate its optronics ball to the side and keep lasing for the <=5 seconds it take in flight

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Indranil » 10 Sep 2017 11:14

shiv wrote:The fuze is only one half of the thing isn't it? Something has to mark or illuminate the target.

No illumination required. It is GPS guided.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60359
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 10 Sep 2017 11:15

i assume some form of laser device + laptop + radio or spotter with digital map + radio gives the GPS co-ordinates to the firing crew ? a mere mortar will not be attacking with the benefit of pre loaded GPS ords unlike a JDAM

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 10 Sep 2017 11:50

Singha wrote:ppl are also moving enmasse to laser guided rockets for helicopters than just up the round count. the launch heli can rotate its optronics ball to the side and keep lasing for the <=5 seconds it take in flight
...

There are at least half a dozen companies that have developed such rocket guidance kits, and same for fuze based artillery guidance kits. We as usual are late to the game, though looks like 70mm laser guided rocket may be taken care of by a 'Make in India' programme :x .

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47896
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 10 Sep 2017 12:13

shiv wrote:The fuze is only one half of the thing isn't it? Something has to mark or illuminate the target.



It's GPS guided. So some sort of binoculars that give the GPS coordinates of the target by a spotter. And these are passed on to the fuze setter before the round gets ready for use.

At least for the M777 guns for use in the mountain these fuzes would help the ammo logistics trail.

Mean time ARDE developed fuzes can be the long term solution.

Now I understand the strange tender from OFB to have multiple requirements all in one fuze that other suppliers were complaining.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2205
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby darshhan » 10 Sep 2017 12:57

Singha wrote:i assume some form of laser device + laptop + radio or spotter with digital map + radio gives the GPS co-ordinates to the firing crew ? a mere mortar will not be attacking with the benefit of pre loaded GPS ords unlike a JDAM


You are right. It is mostly the special forces/ghatak type who exploit the gaps between the lines and identify the targets for the PGMs delivered by artillery, mortars or airforce. If it is a laser guided munition they have to illuminate using laser designator. If it is a gps guided weapon they have to feed the coordinates. They do the same for JDAMs.

The coordinates have to be sent carefully. Hamid karzai himself survived a friendly fire accident that resulted from wrong coordinates being sent to a JDAM. Three US special forces were killed in the incident. This is from 2001 when US dislodged taliban after sept 11 attacks

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3256
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Aditya G » 10 Sep 2017 15:30

SBajwa wrote:Can we use PGM against specific targets like house of JEM chief in Bahawalpur or house of Hafiz suar at Muridke?


We can achieve that even today with Popeye/Crystal Maze, KH-59 etc

I dont think this is a question of technology, but more of will.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33671
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby shiv » 10 Sep 2017 17:00

Pardon my stupidity. Even ordinary unguided mortars and artillery are guided by spotters. As per the recollection of a special forces operative who saw action in Sri Lanka - the correction that can be applied for mortars is as little as 25 meters.

The GPS coordinates have to be produced first and then fed in to the individual artillery/mortar shell after which it could probably hit a static pinpoint target with the level of accuracy of GPS - which is (as per what I read for SDBs) a CEP of 10 meters - that means 50% outside 10 meters

So exactly what does this achieve if it requires a spotter/GPS marker and is barely more accurate than standard artillery with a spotter. I am guessing that this has to go hand in hand with at least a UAV.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby brar_w » 10 Sep 2017 17:20

Shiv, the operational test verified CEP of the Excalibur is much better than the 10 m. Regardless, you are correct forward positioned observers will constantly adjust/direct the fires being provided based on observations but the CEP for conventional artillery shells is still significantly larger which is not desirable if you are in a danger close situation or you are in an urban environment and need to provide fires support in close proximity to civilians or friendly forces. On top of this these fuzes have 'fail safes' built into them in case there is a greater than anticipated error (for PGK it is 150 meters) or if the fuze fails to acquire a GPS signal. Under such cases the round will follow a ballistic trajectory and impact as a dud. This has allowed them to confidently employ the system with very close proximity to friendly forces. In Iraq, the M982 was used in instances where friendly infantry was within 50 meters of the target. With conventional rounds it is unlikely that they would consider bringing artillery fires in such a dense environment unless they can move the troops further back.

The most significant Western purpose-designed guided artillery projectile on the market is the 155 mm M982 Excalibur (a joint project between Raytheon and BAE Systems Bofors), which costs in the region of five times as much as a PGK-equipped shell but officially has a CEP of about 5 m (in practice it is said to commonly strike within 2 m of the target). As a result, US forces prefer the Excalibur where high precision is required.
Excalibur is an extended-range, autonomously guided projectile using a combination of high-glide-ratio, lifting-body airframe and tightly coupled GPS/inertial measuring unit (GPS/IMU) guidance to achieve ranges of up to 37.5 km with a high degree of precision from both the US Army's M109A6 Paladin SP gun and 155 mm/39-calibre M777 towed artillery system. LINK


Excalibur Testing: Threshold, Objective requirement, and the demonstrated performance in testing -

Image

As for the PGK, below are excerpts from its operational test and evaluation -

PGK is accurate. It demonstrated a circular error probable (CEP) of 13.0 meters during IOT&E and 10.0 meters when data from the lot acceptance testing are included with an upper 90 percent confidence bound of 20.9 meters. These results are better than the threshold and objective accuracy requirements of 50 and 30 meters, respectively. Further, PGK is more accurate than conventional HE projectiles at all ranges and PGK accuracy increases with range because of the longer time of flight in which guidance corrections can be made.

The lethality of M795 HE projectiles and M549A1 HE RAP, when fuzed with PGK, remains unchanged from the lethality of these projectiles when fuzed with conventional artillery fuzes. The employment of PGK fuzes on these projectiles improves achieved effects on the target by guiding each projectile closer to its intended target, thus making more efficient use of the projectile’s current lethality.

Image



The portion in bold probably runs opposite of what happens with conventional artillery where miss distances are likely to be larger at the very extreme of the range envelope given the shells have no ability to adjust while in flight. A forward observer will provide input, allowing adjustments but the rounds themselves do not have any way to correct for errors or adjust while in flight. On the previous page are some estimates of how many rounds are required for different target sets depending upon the accuracy of the round.

darshhan wrote:
Singha wrote:i assume some form of laser device + laptop + radio or spotter with digital map + radio gives the GPS co-ordinates to the firing crew ? a mere mortar will not be attacking with the benefit of pre loaded GPS ords unlike a JDAM


You are right. It is mostly the special forces/ghatak type who exploit the gaps between the lines and identify the targets for the PGMs delivered by artillery, mortars or airforce. If it is a laser guided munition they have to illuminate using laser designator. If it is a gps guided weapon they have to feed the coordinates. They do the same for JDAMs.

The coordinates have to be sent carefully. Hamid karzai himself survived a friendly fire accident that resulted from wrong coordinates being sent to a JDAM. Three US special forces were killed in the incident. This is from 2001 when US dislodged taliban after sept 11 attacks


Class I and II UAS's play a significant role in the modern battlefield :

In the first scenario, the Raven B was flown to a suspected target area. Once positive identification (PID) of the target was confirmed via video feed into the GCS, the operator centered the crosshair available in the UAS viewfinder on the target and took a snap shot of the target. He explained that once this snapshot was taken, the software in the GCS took the position of the Raven B at the time the image was taken and using the laser range finder calculates the distance from the Raven to the target based on where the crosshairs were centered when the snapshot was taken. The slant range or slope from the UAS to the target was calculated. The calculation provided a 10-digit grid to the target itself or where the crosshairs were centered when the snapshot image was taken. The target location and a description of the target were then sent to the CAS platform via voice communications. Due to airspace collision potential between the manned and unmanned aircraft, the UAS was flown out ofthe CAS attack area. Once the target was attacked by the manned CAS platfol1n, the UAS was then flown back over the target area for battle damage assessment (BDA).

The second scenario involved the identification ofthe target by the Raven B and like in the first scenario, a 10-digit grid was provided after a snapshot was taken of the target. This 10-digit grid was then sent to the fire direction center (FDC) at the artillery unit. The artillery unit sent one adjusting round. There is no area de-confliction required during artillery fire when utilizing the a Group I UAS according to DeVeau; therefore, when the forward observer or unit controlling fires receives "splash"from the artillery FDC, the operator of the UAS starts looking for the impact of the adjustment round. When the impact becomes visible,·another snapshot is taken with the crosshairs placed over the center of the impact. There are two options from this point.

In the first option, the UAS operator passes the grid of the round impact to the FDC as a laser adjustment mission and lets the Advance Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS) do the calculating to provide the new data for the next round to the gun-line. Thls is how full size manned aircraft would conduct the call for fire if they were doing laser spotting from the air. The second option is for the UAS operator to acquire the 10-digit grid provided by the UAS for the adjustment round and let software in the GCS make the calculations to provide the appropriate left, right, add, or drop corrections to be passed back to the fire direction center as a normal adjustment mission correction. Either way, DeVeau states that a second round fire for effect was the norm. When asked if all students taught by the Etchey Training Group received this training concerning the conduct of CAS and calls for fire, he replied, "It is apart of the training syllabus!"



The problem of providing GPS coordinates in support of forward deployed troops is not a unique one for field artillery or infantry with Precision guided mortars. This is something that was addressed primarily for CAS when requirements for CAS through weather became a priority and LGBs could no longer be the sole providers of PG - CAS. This is how aircraft with the J series would be working with ground troops, and UAS operators .
Last edited by brar_w on 10 Sep 2017 20:39, edited 10 times in total.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 504
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nam » 10 Sep 2017 18:20

I can probably understand the need for a Precision Artillery in places like Afghanistan where US wants to have 24/7 CAS and keep the cost down.

Precision Artillery, rocket, propeller aircrafts are all towards that goal.

I am recalling the story by Col Rai in Kargil. He was out of ammo and Pakis was advancing towards his position. The spotter was on another peak. The advancing Pakis was plastered with something like 108 rounds at once. Nothing was left of the Pakis. It must have been some sight to watch 108 rounds land. Co Rai, got to tell the story, the Pakis didn't.

In scenarios like this, artillery units would know the accuracy issue and would probably fire rounds with various left/right/up/down combination to increase area of effect. Even if an artillery round has a CEP of 100m, other rounds would probably cover it up.

No one will fire a highly accurate single round in a mass battle. May be the videos you watch of impacts are done LOS, however every one I have seen has rounds covering impacts on wide area. Never 10-15 rounds falling in the same place.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby brar_w » 10 Sep 2017 18:27

nam wrote:I can probably understand the need for a Precision Artillery in places like Afghanistan where US wants to have 24/7 CAS and keep the cost down.

Precision Artillery, rocket, propeller aircrafts are all towards that goal.

I am recalling the story by Col Rai in Kargil. He was out of ammo and Pakis was advancing towards his position. The spotter was on another peak. The advancing Pakis was plastered with something like 108 rounds at once. Nothing was left of the Pakis. It must have been some sight to watch 108 rounds land. Co Rai, got to tell the story, the Pakis didn't.

In scenarios like this, artillery units would know the accuracy issue and would probably fire rounds with various left/right/up/down combination to increase area of effect. Even if an artillery round has a CEP of 100m, other rounds would probably cover it up.

No one will fire a highly accurate single round in a mass battle. May be the videos you watch of impacts are done LOS, however every one I have seen has rounds covering impacts on wide area. Never 10-15 rounds falling in the same place.


Correct, these are assets that provide additional capability to field artillery units and are not a "one size fits all" solution, to be used indiscriminately regardless of the type of target and mission need. Even in Syria, USMC is seen having a mix of M1156 equipped, and conventional rounds and not all the rounds being fired were precision guided. The three classes allow you to dial your artillery support to the mission need as required.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuAuWnK5uF4

At the top of the page, there is an estimate on number of rounds required per target set. It is a good gauge of how precision support can aid in some environments, particularly when you require a large logistical trail to support troops deployed halfway across the world. Irrespective the deployed environment, anytime you can reduce the need to forward supply troops in terms of munition replenishment it is a good thing as it increases combat effectiveness and allows them to maneuver with a smaller footprint which usually translates to more agility.

Image

No one will fire a highly accurate single round in a mass battle.


I don't know what you mean by "mass battle" but if it is referring to providing area fires then yes, conventional artillery will be used to provide that effect on target. Precision artillery will continue to aid in missions that require more efficient support and into pinpoint strike where you cannot go in and pepper a large area with artillery strike.
Last edited by brar_w on 10 Sep 2017 20:08, edited 2 times in total.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 504
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nam » 10 Sep 2017 19:37

I hope they speed up ATAGS roll out. One of the side effects of upgrading ourself to medium artillery is on LOC.

So far we use 105 guns to respond to Pakis, which is deployed in large numbers. Once 155 replaces 105, IA would have no option other than open up with 155MM!

Right now we have the nonsense of 155 MM is escalation yada yada, need permission from spot boy in south block etc.

If Pakis survive for another 5 years and continue with their LOC acts, I would like to hear about how they feel, when 155 MM rains on them on a regular day CFV.

This might have been one of the reason for deliberately delaying IA medium artillery rollout. Must be one of those discreet CBM by the babus.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1459
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vasu raya » 10 Sep 2017 21:10

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/return-part-was-most-difficult-major-who-led-surgical-strikes/articleshow/60448096.cms

Though Major Tango chose the best men for the job, one thing was bothering him - the de-induction or the return.

"That's where I knew I could lose guys," the book quotes him as recalling.

"Even the actual attack was not something that flustered the commandos. It was the return, an uphill trek to the LoC that was the truly daunting part."

"Their backs would be facing a blaze of fire from Pakistan Army posts, belatedly roused from their slumber. And the dominant position held by the posts would make the escaping warriors easy targets to spot and kill," the book says.


wouldn't artillery be used in these situations? the more the precision the better

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Gyan » 10 Sep 2017 21:30

Re Shiv

Theoretical accuracy of howitzer is 0.5% of range and practical around 1%

Mortar 2% and 2-4%.

Now you can make estimate of how to hit a bunker at 25-35 km by howitzer and or 8km by mortar.

PGK fuse around 25-50m
Excalibur around 10-20m

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Gyan » 10 Sep 2017 21:35

ramana wrote:
Gyan wrote:At US$ 100,000 a pop, an economic question arises, which is, why not use Guided MBRL? which is in the same price range but double the range and 5 times the bang. Therefore at present economic argument is made only by screw-in fins/gps.


Excuse me please stop and smell the roses. Who in India has the $100,000 artillery shells?
Why keep the continuous bs?


I think you have a tendency to fly off the handle without reading my posts or the thread. If you read the post it will be obvious that I am ALSO making the point that Excalibur type shells are too costly. Are you trying to replace Rohitvats nowadays?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby brar_w » 10 Sep 2017 21:40

Gyan wrote:Re Shiv

Theoretical accuracy of howitzer is 0.5% of range and practical around 1%

Mortar 2% and 2-4%.

Now you can make estimate of how to hit a bunker at 25-35 km by howitzer and or 8km by mortar.

PGK fuse around 25-50m
Excalibur around 10-20m


As noted in the PGK's OT report, the demonstrated median CEP is much below the 30-50 m Objective and Threshold requirement. Same with Excalibur which as per the DOD's chief tester has demonstrated sub 10 m CEP as also noted in the test data cited by me earlier.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6651&start=3440#p2211344
Last edited by brar_w on 10 Sep 2017 21:44, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47896
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 10 Sep 2017 21:41

nam, In the newbie thread I posted links to youtube of a German analyst who looks at battles and wars. He concentrates on numbers to dispel myths and how wrong strategy is picked based on bias and improper assessment.

One take away is logistics since Napoleon's Russian campaign. Anything that reduces the trail or demand is good.

I agree IA wont use Excalibur type shells which cost an arm and a leg. But something that adds accuracy and shell safety is very much needed.

As borne out by the Dhanush trials and reports trickling in there have been numerous instances (including Bofors) of barrel burst, premature initiation. Both these are the shell functioning after fuze is armed.

Now the CEP of an M107 shell is about 260 m. This is acceptable for troops in the open and not for bunkers etc. Think of how many shells have to be fired to get any results. Unless accurate artillery fire is just a morale booster and good only for massed troops. I give two examples:
- Battle of El-Alamein. The 25 pounder gun was fired at German tanks in large numbers to break up tank assault. Later battle damage showed it didn't hit many tanks unless shell fragments hit the tank tracks or personnel with hatch open. The time fuze that fired the shell at a height was useful.
- Battle of Asal Uttar. I am still trying to get actual number of Pattons destroyed by artillery fire and not by tanks nor RCL. Turns out about 3 were damaged. Mind you 2000 shells from 25 pounder and 5.5 inch medium were fired and Maj. P.K. Jesus memoirs mention the quantum of fire but not the damage. The shelling did kill the Paki troops in the open.

155 mm is a great shell as the quantum of explosive is closer to the 5.5 inch medium gun of yesteryears and M107 on average costs quite low ~$400. The M592 fuze costs $50. But this combination needs a lot of shells to be fired. To take out a platoon in open it needs
43 rounds i.e. (43*450 = ~$20K) versus PGK. I agree the M107 with a proximity fuze (ECIL makes them) would be need much less shells.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33671
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby shiv » 10 Sep 2017 21:44

Gyan wrote:Re Shiv

Theoretical accuracy of howitzer is 0.5% of range and practical around 1%

Mortar 2% and 2-4%.

Now you can make estimate of how to hit a bunker at 25-35 km by howitzer and or 8km by mortar.

PGK fuse around 25-50m
Excalibur around 10-20m

I saw a video of US soldiers shooting some of these smart rounds. It's a fairly long process of programming the round, cross checking the coords and firing. As brar pointed out - if the round finds itself outside the bounds of its coords it lands as a dud. The problem that I still see is accuracy of GPS - for Indian army. US mil GPS is for US mil. The other thing is secure comm from front line soldier to artillery gun. What does the US use?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby brar_w » 10 Sep 2017 21:53

Shiv, fires support C2 is done through the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System - AFATDS at all levels and across the Army and Marine Corps.

Here is a brief description of how the PGK is employed :

To fire a PGK-fuzed projectile, the unit Fire Direction Center (FDC) computes and transmits a digital firing solution to the howitzer section using AFATDS. The howitzer Section Chief then uses the DFCS on the firing platform to compute a PGK reference trajectory from the howitzer to the aimpoint. A cannoneer attaches the PGK with its protective canard cover to the projectile by hand and then tightens it using a PGK fuze wrench. The Enhanced Portable Inductive Artillery Fuze Setter (EPIAFS) sets the PGK by transferring the GPS key, fuze function mode, and reference trajectory data to the PGK. Once PGK is set, the canard cover is removed and the projectile is fired . When fired, PGK acquires a GPS signal and receives GPS data throughout the flight to update the projectile’s position. PGK then maneuvers the projectile along its reference trajectory toward its aimpoint. Should PGK fail to acquire a GPS signal or lose the signal during flight, PGK will not maneuver the projectile toward its aimpoint and the projectile will follow a ballistic trajectory to impact without detonation.



For additional information of how this is done in more complicated scenarios where the coordinates are being calculated through UAS employment, refer to my previous post that describes the process.

On the Excalibur the EPIAFS takes roughly 30 seconds to transfer the GPS data. I assume it would be a similar duration for the PGK.

The other thing is secure comm from front line soldier to artillery gun.


The security of the communication links would be required even for conventional artillery shells that are adjusted with the aid of forward observers. They would be either communicating target data or providing aids over the radio. This can be done here too.
Last edited by brar_w on 10 Sep 2017 23:52, edited 6 times in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47896
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 10 Sep 2017 21:59

Shiv, India will use GAGAN.

Hence the ARDE project for in house PGK type fuze.
What I find clever is the fixed canards which are more like forward vanes that add control authority to the shell via open feedback.
The GPS tracks and controls the vane spinning in the opposite direction to the shell spins direction. And power the whole whole thing while travelling to the target!

brar, Thanks works as I imagined. How is the trajectory corrected? Does the spin slow down or resume based on the trajectory to target?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby brar_w » 10 Sep 2017 22:13

ramana wrote:
brar, Thanks works as I imagined. How is the trajectory corrected? Does the spin slow down or resume based on the trajectory to target?


The best understanding I have been able to develop is through this presentation. Haven't done a search to see if anyone in the US Army or ATK published research but will look for something to see if more details are available.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ashok Sarraff, prahaar and 27 guests