Artillery: News & Discussion

Locked
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by shiv »

Pholks! Pholks!

Did you know that OFB makes AK 630?

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

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

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

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

1. Calibre, mm: 30

2. Number of barrels, pcs.: 6

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

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

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

- at sailing target, km upto 5
etc..
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5250
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by srai »

^^^

Cost effective solution.

Image
Image
Image
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

Bart S wrote:Is ammo 100% portable/compatible between the lightweight, new ATAGs-based towed, existing Bofors towed, and SPH systems that the Army is looking to operate? Or does the ammo have to be custom-made and hence stocks cannot be pooled between them?
I believe all our 155mm ammo has followed nato jbmou std from day1. Israel surely follows it for seamless resupply from usa stocks in emergency

So we should be all ok there

We can also use captured paki ammo as samsung built their 155mm ammo plant years ago
nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4712
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by nam »

shiv wrote:Pholks! Pholks!

Did you know that OFB makes AK 630?

Wouldn't this be a great solution for airfield defence against cruise missiles (idea courtesy Sanjay Badri Maharaj)
It will be for cruise, rockets etc.

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

mody
BRFite
Posts: 1364
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by mody »

JayS wrote:
srai wrote:
Contrary to this popular belief, which makes a great catchy headlines/story about incompetence of OFB, they did not forget about the blueprints. GCF was actively trying to "reverse-engineer" it over two-decades building Bofors spare parts and components using the design documents.
I was watching a video from DefExpo 2015, I think, where the OFB rep while describing Dhanush mentioned that the Barrel tech was mastered some 7yrs ago (i.e. ~2008 or so) and IA even fired test shots from those barrels made by OFB based on ToT from Bofors.
The barrel tech was not mastered around 2008, but well before that. How about OFB showcasing a Bofors with a 45 cal barrel way back in Defexpo 2004. I have posted the pictures of the same in the past. Anyone can search google chacha and they will see the pictures.
Also that didn't come about overnite. OFB had been manufacturing replacement barrels for original bofors guns before that. It was some of the other parts that they did not have and so couldn't produce the complete gun.

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

IA culpability lies in the fact that they knew OFB could manufacture the barrels and maybe some other parts as well. They also knew about the upgrade to 45 cal solution. Someone should have taken the lead and said why not try to develop an indigenous gun, by developing some of the missing parts. As recent history has shown, it would not have been that difficult and we could have had atleast a Dhanush type solution or at the very least a Bofors clone with a 45 cal barrel by around 2009-2010. But sadly enough, IA and MoD never acted on this.
dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 527
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by dinesh_kimar »

IA culpability lies in the fact that they knew OFB could manufacture the barrels and maybe some other parts as well. They also knew about the upgrade to 45 cal solution. Someone should have taken the lead and said why not try to develop an indigenous gun, by developing some of the missing parts. As recent history has shown, it would not have been that difficult and we could have had atleast a Dhanush type solution or at the very least a Bofors clone with a 45 cal barrel by around 2009-2010. But sadly enough, IA and MoD never acted on this.
The above topic was discussed in DFI as well. Kunal (Dada!) asked his OFB sources, and had posted some information. Also, from compiling various info around the internet, the conclusion was something like this (from memory so pls excuse).

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

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

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

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

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

Developed by Subedar Arjun Kumar Jha, who was enrolled in 1991. Has served in active field areas of Northern and Eastern Sectors. Has been associated with Bofors gun since past 10 years.
*****
vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by vasu raya »

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

they have mountainous terrain to target that is beyond land based howitzers range and upto howitzers are accepted in the cross LoC rituals
Zynda
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Zynda »

^^One immediate issue that comes up to my mind about using ceramic tiles is its brittle nature. I am not familiar with ceramic inserts in soldiers boots, but I assume it is meant to be one time solution i.e. absorb impact during an explosion and post-explosion, the inserts or boots will be thrown out. A similar one-time application is not feasible on air frames. May be possible to replace inserts/tiles between missions but not during missions after each fire of the howitzer.
vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by vasu raya »

two paths, either you design the ceramic to last for x number of shells fired
or as the typical charge gets expended you design the ceramic inserts in the same way, treat them as consumables, they are expended after each shot
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by manjgu »

so whats the latest on arty program?
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Karan M »

100 k-9s (approved by ccs, order to be placed)
114 dhanush indented (still in trials)
145 m777 ordered
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by rohitvats »

Karan M wrote:100 k-9s (approved by ccs, order to be placed)
114 dhanush indented (still in trials) [1st lot of guns from production factory are being trialed]
145 m777 ordered
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by JayS »

rohitvats wrote:
Karan M wrote:100 k-9s (approved by ccs, order to be placed)
114 dhanush indented (still in trials) [1st lot of guns from production factory are being trialed]
145 m777 ordered
Rohit, why is production batch testing taking so much of time..? Are they repeating entire test case set...??? I was expecting shorter test campaign for production batch, focused only on production quality.
Santosh
BRFite
Posts: 802
Joined: 13 Apr 2005 01:55

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Santosh »

Will there be further orders for Dhanush after trials are completed, or will they move on to ATAGS after 114 Dhanush?
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by JayS »

Santosh wrote:Will there be further orders for Dhanush after trials are completed, or will they move on to ATAGS after 114 Dhanush?
Either that or Dhanush 52cal, post these 114 guns, I expect.
Santosh
BRFite
Posts: 802
Joined: 13 Apr 2005 01:55

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Santosh »

Isn't Dhanush 52cal ATAGS?
sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10195
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by sum »

^^ IIRC,Dhanush is the re-engineered and improved Bofors whereas ATAGS is a ground up new design by DRDO/Kalyani
Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Bala Vignesh »

JayS wrote:
Santosh wrote:Will there be further orders for Dhanush after trials are completed, or will they move on to ATAGS after 114 Dhanush?
Either that or Dhanush 52cal, post these 114 guns, I expect.
With the sheer amount of guns required by the army, I am of the opinion that the Dhanush will enjoy a production run of about 300-400 guns with the ATAGS taking up the remaining numbers.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5250
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by srai »

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

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

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

"Dhanush is around 80% indigenous now. It costs just about Rs 14 crore apiece. Only its APU (auxiliary power unit), electronic dial sights and a few other small items are imported. As per the plan, OFB will manufacture 18 howitzers in this financial year, followed by 50 in the next, and 100 per year thereafter," said the official.
...
Based on the current production plan, it will take around 6 years (2020) to produce all 414 Dhanush guns.
But trials are still going on. Expect delays to the original production timelines.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by rohitvats »

JayS wrote: Rohit, why is production batch testing taking so much of time..? Are they repeating entire test case set...??? I was expecting shorter test campaign for production batch, focused only on production quality.
Well, I don't know what is more or less testing time. IA will put the weapon through its paces, only then it will know whether the production quality meets the requirement. Or what is the level of short-fall. But this report says tests are already done as of January 2017. It says that 3 guns under-went 4 month trial in summer and monsoon and further 3 were added for 6 gun trials in high-altitude/low temperature area. Guns seems to have done well.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation ... 47805.html
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by nachiket »

Santosh wrote:Isn't Dhanush 52cal ATAGS?
sum wrote:^^ IIRC,Dhanush is the re-engineered and improved Bofors whereas ATAGS is a ground up new design by DRDO/Kalyani
They upped the caliber to 45 from 39 in Dhanush. So it has a longer range than the Bofors FH-77 in IA service.
sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1976
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by sudeepj »

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by tsarkar »

shiv wrote:Pholks! Pholks! Did you know that OFB makes AK 630? Wouldn't this be a great solution for airfield defence against cruise missiles (idea courtesy Sanjay Badri Maharaj)
This is something I had posted in 2012 & 2014.

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... d1942d0797
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14333
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Aditya_V »

Might be a stupid suggestion, can mordern CM's detect Nets in thier paths, this can be anther option at strategic places a.k.a WWII style defense agaisnt U2's. One of many options in a layered defense.
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by tsarkar »

^^ Barrage balloons are still made at OF Kanpur, however, one will need many sq km of nets to protect an area.

The Israeli's developed aerostats using WW-2 vintage barrage balloons to lift aircraft derived radars.

We already have command guidance system in Rajendra. All we need is a maneuverable cheap interceptor with 5 km range like Tamir. Very much doable.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Indranil »

I agree. We should take up the design of indigenous sub-20-kg missile against aerial targets. Besides, the MANPADS requirement, we are now going to have hundreds of attack helis, armed UCAVs and armed HTT-40s. Therefore, we have a huge requirement for an A2A version as well.

And OT for this thread, we do need to develop a WVR A2A missile as well in the 80-100 kg category.
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Cosmo_R »

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

Of course they don't. When I made this obvious point one worthy on the forum accused me of being a 'troll'. The forces just take what they can get as soon as they can get it. They are neither paid to nor can they 'push for any specific item'. That is how convoluted our system is.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5250
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by srai »

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

Of course they don't. When I made this obvious point one worthy on the forum accused me of being a 'troll'. The forces just take what they can get as soon as they can get it. They are neither paid to nor can they 'push for any specific item'. That is how convoluted our system is.
The defence ministry now has more financial powers to buy weapon systems/platforms worth Rs 2,000 crore (~USD 300 million) without CCS approval. This should help alleviate the issues (spare parts, ammunition, missiles, guns, etc.) you have mentioned above.

PM Modi increases 'financial power' for Parrikar allowing him to purchase new weapon system
PM Modi enhanced defence minister Parrikar's financial muscle by four times
The Defence finances has increased from Rs 500 to Rs 2000
At least 60-70 per cent of defence deals will be cleared at ministerial level

Published: 11:16 +11:00, 10 February 2017

In a major step towards speeding up defence deals and urgently meeting critical requirements of the armed forces, PM Narendra Modi has enhanced defence minister Manohar Parrikar's financial muscle by four times, allowing him to buy weapon systems and platforms worth Rs 2,000 crore at his own discretion.

This is a huge jump from the existing fund of Rs 500 crore that was given to the defence minister under the UPA government.

...
The decision by the Prime Minister is going to significantly fast-track the speed of weapon acquisition as many defence deals can be completed at the level of the defence ministry and there would no need to take them to the Cabinet Committee on Security, the sources said.

Till now, all the defence deals worth over Rs 1,000 crore had to be cleared at the level of the CCS which is headed by the Prime Minister and includes the unions ministers for defence, home, finance and external affairs.

The Prime minister also cleared many other proposals related to the financial decision made by his ministers as he has given the defence minister and the finance minister the power to jointly clear defence acquisitions worth up to Rs 3,000 crores.

This would mean that at least 60-70 per cent of the deals related to the defence sector would be cleared at the ministerial level, the sources said.

The new financial rules will help the defence ministry give contracts for several weapon systems, especially for tank ammunition and small arms requirements, such as rifles and small range missiles, and also help cut down the time taken for getting clearance from the Cabinet Committee on Security.

'This is going to save at least a few months in the long-lasting defence acquisition process,' the sources said.

...

The step to increase financial powers of the ministers has been taken soon after the budget announcement in which the defence ministry was allocated Rs 6,000 crore for buying new weapon systems and platforms for the services.

The government instructions issued in this regard have made it clear that the new financial powers would be applicable only for capital acquisitions, which means only new weapon systems for the forces can be bought from it.
RohitAM
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 25 Oct 2016 21:28

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by RohitAM »

Cosmo_R wrote:The forces just take what they can get as soon as they can get it. They are neither paid to nor can they 'push for any specific item'. That is how convoluted our system is.
This is OT for this thread, but in the case of Arjun vs. T-90, the IA definitely "pushed for a specific item" while creating continuous hurdles in the path of the other, and from the looks of it, continues to do so. However, I am definitely elated that this doesn't seem to be the case for artillery acquisitions, which is mostly going to be indigenous.
dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 527
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by dinesh_kimar »

^Doc Sahib, after seeing your enthusiasm for AK 630, i started reading about it.
OFB Cossipore "makes" the AK 630. On paper. In reality, they dont know jack about the main systems - sights, turret, cupola, radar, loader, FCS, gun mount, etc.
Russia has given them ToT for part of the gun barrel tube, and for 3 kinds of ammo only. And, the CAG reports show that their localisation levels are at 48 % for these items. The OFB boys took 5 years to change over the line from the manual operation to a CNC one. And even then, utilisation was poor. CAG reports that the OFB boys love the manual line, as overtime can be justified with this. (Better to import direct from Russia than trust our people !)
The Indian Navy states that "AK 630 is a good system, but localisation is low." What they mean is navy budget is small, and AK 630 with large import content is expensive.
If we want to make the AK 630, it would be a big project, like Dhanush or Arjun.
dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 527
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by dinesh_kimar »

Added later: Chinese version CIWS Type 730 system doesnt use many Russian parts (not because of IPR concerns, but access to know-how, and reverse engineering was difficult). They sourced radar, gun mounts and FCS tech from France and US suppliers, and integrated together.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ramana »

dinesh_kimar wrote:^Doc Sahib, after seeing your enthusiasm for AK 630, i started reading about it.
OFB Cossipore "makes" the AK 630. On paper. In reality, they dont know jack about the main systems - sights, turret, cupola, radar, loader, FCS, gun mount, etc.
Russia has given them ToT for part of the gun barrel tube, and for 3 kinds of ammo only. And, the CAG reports show that their localisation levels are at 48 % for these items. The OFB boys took 5 years to change over the line from the manual operation to a CNC one. And even then, utilisation was poor. CAG reports that the OFB boys love the manual line, as overtime can be justified with this. (Better to import direct from Russia than trust our people !)
The Indian Navy states that "AK 630 is a good system, but localisation is low." What they mean is navy budget is small, and AK 630 with large import content is expensive.
If we want to make the AK 630, it would be a big project, like Dhanush or Arjun.

if you can give a link to the CAG report?

Also the 3 type of shells what type of fuzes they have?
Also what is the requirement for the IN? IOW how many units.

And would they support an indigenization program with local radar and FCS and a self destruct fuze to allow wider usage?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ramana »

And for the experts the US Phalanx doesn't have the unexpended shell problem? Its 20mm if I recall. Much smaller space for the fuze.
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by tsarkar »

ramana wrote:And for the experts the US Phalanx doesn't have the unexpended shell problem? Its 20mm if I recall. Much smaller space for the fuze.
The full range of 20 mm Phalanx/Vulcan ammo is described here http://www.gd-ots.com/MCA_20mm_M50.html

The standard ammo is AP / HE without any fusing just like AK-630 rounds

For base defence in Iraq / Afghanistan, they just clear the field of fire area which is very easily done, and give a damn about civilian casualties.

There is a self destruct round recently developed. I believe its a time delay self destruct rather than fusing.

Coming to the original PoV of using AK-630 for land roles, the basic AO-18 cannon of AK-630 is used in Tunguska and Pantsyr.

Indian bases don't face C-RAM attacks yet.

Threats like Hatf-1/2/3 Abdali, Nasr & Babur are more than adequately countered by MR-SAM/Akash/Spyder/ELta-2084/Rohini/Rajendra.

For LGB/PGM bombs, its better to develop a 5 km range missile like Iron Dome Tamir. It can be command guided without any seeker of its own to save cost/size/weights since LGB/PGM dont maneuver hard and have easily predictable ballistic trajectory.

We've the radars mentioned above for this purpose as well as the C3 network & architecture.
Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5380
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Karthik S »

Livefist‏ @livefist
BREAKING: India's L&T & Korea's Hanwha Techwin sign Rs 4600 cr #MakeInIndia deal to build 100 K9 Vajra-T tracked howitzers for Indian Army.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

have to agree with tsarkar...the tamir while not exactly as cheap as moode idli are in ballpark of the LGB/gliding weapons (JDAM in volume is some $25k). kill a rat with a rat.packing density seems high with beehive type boxes. Note $50k for for having its own radar...we can try command guided like akash with a radar capable of handling say 24 inflight projectiles across 360 or keep 1 radar per quadrant like akash and scale that up ... that will be a $10k weapon.

we should explore this idea for high value point targets like airbases, railway nodes, POL, ammo stores, VVIP areas

Image
pkudva
BRFite
Posts: 170
Joined: 23 Jul 2008 13:57

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by pkudva »

Karthik S wrote:
Livefist‏ @livefist
BREAKING: India's L&T & Korea's Hanwha Techwin sign Rs 4600 cr #MakeInIndia deal to build 100 K9 Vajra-T tracked howitzers for Indian Army.
Does that mean The contract with MOD has been signed or.......Post this the Contract with MOD shall be signed.
Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5380
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Karthik S »

It was cleared in march by the cabinet.
pkudva
BRFite
Posts: 170
Joined: 23 Jul 2008 13:57

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by pkudva »

Karthik S wrote:It was cleared in march by the cabinet.
However the Contract is Yet to be signed.....Post CCS Clearance , Contract is to be signed.

Hence the Query, Has it been signed....Only Posy Contract Signing, Production can Proceed
Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3866
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Kakkaji »

I don't think that L&T would sign a firm contract with the Korean company until it had a contract in from with the MoD:

Larsen & Toubro signs pact with South Korea's Hanwha Techwin for army weapon
NEW DELHI: Engineering conglomerate Larsen and Toubro inked a deal with South Korean defence major Hanwha Techwin (HTW) today to jointly manufacture over 100 self- propelled howitzers for Indian Army at a cost of nearly Rs 4,500 crore.

The first batch of the 155mm/52 Cal Tracked Self Propelled (SP) gun -- K9 VAJRA-T -- will be delivered later this year and the entire supply will be made within a span of 42 months.

While 10 guns will be directly brought from South Korea, 90 will be manufactured in L&T's Strategic Systems Complex in Talegaon near Pune.

L&T also has initiated the process for setting up a greenfield manufacturing line at Gujrat's Hazira to produce K9 VAJRA-T guns.

Patil said L&T will not only manufacture K9 VAJRA-T in India, with over 50 per cent indigenous content, but also provide life support to the army with the weapon.
Locked