Artillery: News & Discussion

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Jun 2017 07:17

Can anyone explain to me what "field trial" means?

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 25 Jun 2017 07:18

sum wrote:I had read that these are just range calibration rounds in the plains and trials were done in mountains before ordering (since they are intented for the mountains) .

That's strange. Tested for only the mountains? When we have every other indigenous weapon system..go for trials every years from Leh to Thar to the plains to the sea level testing..may be even underwater testing. And when they finally come out successful...the Requirement changes and import continues.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 25 Jun 2017 08:38

Rakesh wrote:^^^^
Guess what the Artillery Corps is doing right now?

Indian Army Conducts Field Trial Of Newly Acquired M777 Howitzer In Pokhran
https://swarajyamag.com/insta/indian-ar ... in-pokhran

Think about this for a second. We just bought a foreign howitzer and are now field testing it. And what about our desi howitzers? We field tested them first and then placed orders. This is like the joke I once heard.

Q. What is the difference between a Regular man and Superman?
A. Regular Man wears his underwear first and then his pants. Superman wears his pants first and then wears his underwear.

We are Superman!

Rakesh, you need to understand the difference between development testing and user acceptance testing.

Indian systems undergo long development testing and thereafter user evaluation/acceptance testing, the sum of which appears long. Any deficiencies found during development testing are rectified and re-tested. BR members do not segregate between development and user testing.

Foreign systems TOO undergo long development trials IN THEIR HOME COUNTRIES and thereafter user evaluation/acceptance trials in India.

Since the BR members only read about the user testing, they incorrectly end up thinking the testing of foreign systems is shorter and lesser, completely ignoring the development trials already having taken place in home country and whose data is shared during user testing that can be validated in a few tests rather than whole cycle of original test.

When Edison developed a light bulb, he did 1000 iterations of development testing. When we buy light bulb, we test once at the shop. We don't need to do the full set of development trials that Edison did. However, when we develop Tejas, then we need to do 1000 iterations of development testing.

For development testing of Tejas AoA, ITR & STR, the aircraft envelope is gradually expanded over, say, 10 development flights. For Rafale AoA, ITR & STR, it too required the same number of development flights - in France. When IAF tests a certified Rafale, it has certification data and can verify AoA, ITR and STR in a single flight.

BR members reading the testing incorrectly think, Rafale 1 flight Tejas 10 flights not understanding the difference between development testing and user acceptance testing and not accounting for development testing time & effort in home country. Going by this Lahori Logic, BR members should do all 1000 development tests that do into developing a light bulb when buying a light bulb

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 25 Jun 2017 08:44

shiv wrote:Can anyone explain to me what "field trial" means?

Field Trails is an all encompassing term, but in context of M777, it's preparation of ballistic tables and Standard Operating Precedures for regular units. The same is being done for Dhanush too.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Jun 2017 08:48

tsarkar wrote:
shiv wrote:Can anyone explain to me what "field trial" means?
Field Trails is an all encompassing term, but in context of M777, it's preparation of ballistic tables and Standard Operating Precedures for regular units. The same is being done for Dhanush too.

Thank you. So it is not about importing first and then finding out if it works.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Jun 2017 08:53

tsarkar: okie dokie. My bad

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Jun 2017 12:53

OFB have just failed the IA's rifle test too! the failures of the OFB should've seen heads roll a long time ago. Our problem is that there is simply no accountability for incompetence. The PM we're told though is selecting competent,honest officers for key posts,to get results. The DPSUs need abreath of fresh air and HR to get them to deliver and on time.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 25 Jun 2017 16:34

We are assuming that they tested their weapon in the searing heat at Noon when temperature soars to the level when the tank and the dune next to it will have the same temperature.. Only in India we do such test. Even Russian bombs dropped failed to explode and the blame is on the Tejas.

Imported weapons may actually worse than OFB's. Who knows.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Jun 2017 16:55

Rakesh wrote:tsarkar: okie dokie. My bad

Since this has been mentioned off and on multiple times it needs to be cleared up and TS did a good job explaining this in the context of what was being done in reference to this particular system. Although I am not informed about Indian MOD,and armed forces SOP but internationally most import weapons system evaluation includes access to detailed classified and non-classified T&E data that the potential customer uses to establish whether the weapon has been tested in the appropriate environment and envelope and if so how extensive that testing was.

This may be then followed by seeking evaluation trials of the system at some extreme margins of the envelope at an appropriate facility but that depends upon the confidence in the system, and the OEM and program office backing it. In the US there is a chain of protocol that an OEM follows as part of the classified process through which it can not only share detailed information (always through military or government channels) and then further lease range facilities (or seek permission to provide test examples at end users domestic range facilities) as and when required. Some of these could be as straight forward as envelope demonstration by an operating service at its range, or they could be as diverse as asking the OEM to put together actual embedding of operators and evaluators on the said platform either on an operational deployment or under actual wargaming scenarios to fully get a sense of the system.

One example of the latter is the Royal Navy essentially fielding a P-8 unit embedded with the USN- P-8As and operating it long before it shortlisted and eventually planned to order that platform. They did a similar extended embed with the Australian Wedgetail AWACS aircraft as part of their assesment of its capabilities. I believe they spent an entire Red Flag embedded with that crew.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 26 Jun 2017 14:21

http://thestrategictimes.com/indian-lig ... idnt-quit/
Indian Light Field Gun : The 105 mm that didn’t quit.

Since the Bofors Scam, no artillery piece was ordered for approximately 3 decades, and in that time our Artillery arm suffered to horrendous degrees, our SPG capabilities were completely demolished while towed suffered, although due to indigenous productions of a few light canons, our artillery capabilities wasn’t completely obliterated.

One of the workhorse of the Field Artillery arm, is the IFG/LFG or Indian Light Field Gun 105mm. Used en-masse by the army in past conflicts like Kargil , the gun maintains its dominance even now, it was introduced in 1980s and is considered one of the best in the world in terms of weight and its range which even surpasses Russian equivalent 122-mm D-30 field guns. Kargil was limelight of Bofors but in the shadows lurked the IFG providing suppressive fire support to the Infantry and, well remained the most used one in the war.

IFG/LFG has some serious advantages in northern and NE borders albeit the fact that it causes less damage than an 155mm against well protected structures like steel reinforced bunkers . The mountainous terrain allows only light guns to be transported there. Only other gun which can be airlifted there with helicopters is M777 ULH and the possible ULH designed by Kalyani Group. But IFG/LFG still has more ways to reach desired position than the ULH. And due to limited numbers and large size of the M777, this gun still will be required to cover the entire Indo-Chinese border and northern borders with Pakistan.

The last order of the IFG/LFG was for about 150 guns for Mountain Strike Corps, while the deal for 155mm M777 was being worked out.

And we have enough of this artillery. With about 2400 units of the gun in service, it would be foolish to ignore its upgrade potential as proper upgradation can act as a force multiplier and the gun could continue to serve.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 26 Jun 2017 14:24

http://thestrategictimes.com/bharat-for ... llery-gun/
Bharat Forge Garuda – 105 Artillery Gun

Garuda 105 is ultra-light gun system which utilizes the high end Soft Recoil Technology. This allows the weapon (gun) to be placed on light vehicles and nonstandard platforms, including aircraft and coastal and river patrol watercraft. This high tech system which was developed and manufactured in a record time of 08 months is a force multiplier for the forward forces and will prove to be a complete game changer in the realm of weapon system

Extremely light weight (<1000 KGS) as compared to IFG/LFG (>3000 KGS)
Based on 105 mm Indian Field Gun
Incorporates state of the art Soft Recoil Technology
Digit Fire Control
Mounted on all terrain vehicle with all terrain maneuverability
Adaptable for fitment on any in service light vehicle
Ease of mounting to any other prime mover
Lower maintenance cost , less number of parts
High reliability and easily maintainable
Forward multiplier for forward elements
In collaboration with Mandus Group

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

Caliber : 155mm/39
Weight : 4500 KGS
Range : 22.4 km unassisted , 30 km assisted
Traverse : 25 degrees left/right
Elevation : -3° to +70°
Rate of Fire : INTENSE – 4 rounds/minutes for 3 minutes , SUSTAINED – 1 to 2 rounds/minutes , limited by tube temperature
Emplacement : less than 3 minutes
Displacement : less than 3 minutes
Crew Size : minimum 5
Mobility : Urban Roads > 55 mph , Cross Country > 15 mph , air portable

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 26 Jun 2017 23:45

OMG!!! 8 months timeframe

IAF should do the rest of the honors and mount it on an An-32, Gen. Bikram Singh recently mentioned the need for a AC-130 type gunship...

ragupta · Post by **ragupta** » 27 Jun 2017 00:32

vasu raya wrote:OMG!!! 8 months timeframe

IAF should do the rest of the honors and mount it on an An-32, Gen. Bikram Singh recently mentioned the need for a AC-130 type gunship...

IA will reject it, saying it was developed too fast, it does not meet our long development cycle, one of the several staff criteria to make sure nothing indigenous gets inducted, no matter how good it is

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 27 Jun 2017 00:43

Have they mounted the gun on a Hummvee !?
Looks like it!

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 27 Jun 2017 01:09

ragupta wrote: IA will reject it, saying it was developed too fast, it does not meet our long development cycle, one of the several staff criteria to make sure nothing indigenous gets inducted, no matter how good it is

I get your feeling, however given their stellar performance in paki bunker busting, IA or Army Aviation Corps will not pass this up

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 27 Jun 2017 02:57

vasu raya wrote:
ragupta wrote: IA will reject it, saying it was developed too fast, it does not meet our long development cycle, one of the several staff criteria to make sure nothing indigenous gets inducted, no matter how good it is
I get your feeling, however given their stellar performance in paki bunker busting, IA or Army Aviation Corps will not pass this up

1. With such large numbers already present in inventory, it doesnt look like a large order will be in offing, esp when their focus will be on big stick. Let's hope this doesnt go down the drain.
2. Bharat forge seems to be the most innovative company in this area, kudos to them

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Jun 2017 04:19

I think better 105 mm shells and better fuzes would be useful to make it more effective.

Eg.
1)a proximity fuze with variable height of brust (HOB) and
2) a shell with large sized pellets to get the troops hiding in sangars etc.

E.g. http://www.gd-ots.com/LCA_105mm_M1130.html

3) A guided shell with GPS fuze. To take out bunkers accurately.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Jun 2017 05:00

The mandus group already had the system ready. Whatever was needed for indian mkting was done in 8 months thats all.

The syrians woukd love this..but exporting licensed us tech there would be no no unless we bought the entire rights to this system.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Jun 2017 05:02

Video from 5 years ago

https://youtu.be/iZ0IxAGsUjo

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 27 Jun 2017 05:11

if this is something they can support without reaching out overseas then its ok, the heavier 105mm guns can be shipped out to Afghanistan, exporting older inventory while these light weight ones are brought in, simplifies logistics, at under one ton they can go one piece under slung with Mi-17s

Bishwa · Post by **Bishwa** » 27 Jun 2017 07:18

jamwal wrote:http://thestrategictimes.com/bharat-for ... llery-gun/
Bharat Forge Garuda – 105 Artillery Gun
Garuda 105 is ultra-light gun system which utilizes the high end Soft Recoil Technology.
Extremely light weight (<1000 KGS) as compared to IFG/LFG (>3000 KGS)
Based on 105 mm Indian Field Gun

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

Caliber : 155mm/39
Weight : 4500 KGS
e

[/quote]

Jamwal, the specs says "Caliber : 155mm/39". Yet it says it is based on 105mmm Indian Field Gun and is also named Garuda 105.

Is its caliber 155mm or 105mm?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Jun 2017 07:32

it is 105.

someone said 105 is not good enough to take out stone sangars and concreted bunkers though.

might be a useful asset in the himalayas to support the more ponderous 155 pieces. a mobile fire support with direct fire capability also.

Bishwa · Post by **Bishwa** » 27 Jun 2017 07:55

If it is 105mm and based on the IFG, it is hard to believe it can do 22km range unassisted and 30 km assisted.

IFG is rated at 17km max range as per online article https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/ifg.htm

but i may be mistaken

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jun 2017 09:13

Bishwa wrote:If it is 105mm and based on the IFG, it is hard to believe it can do 22km range unassisted and 30 km assisted.

IFG is rated at 17km max range as per online article https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/ifg.htm

but i may be mistaken

In high altitude areas maybe?

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 27 Jun 2017 09:57

Did you read the full article ?

A notable feature of the 105 IFG/LFG is its large range, 17.4 km(E1) 17.2 km(E2), compared to contemporary guns, like British M119/L119 105mm having a max range of 13.7 km for Charge 8 and 14.5 km for a standard M760 HE round, Russian D30 2A18 122 mm 15.4 km on an HE round. A common practise among artillery units to increase range of the guns without any major changes to the gun itself, is use to range increasing ammunition like Extended Range 105mm Base Bleed projectile or a 105mm Rocket Assisted Projectile (RAP).

Base Bleed rounds can have significant impact on increment of range (upto 30%), increasing the IFG/LFG’s solid range of 17km to 22-27 km category. I don’t need to tell you how significant this is. A RAP round is also very effective in increasing range, A D30 2A18 can shoot upto a 21.9 km using a RAP, compared to original 15.4 on a HE. M119 uses a M913 HERA (High Explosive Rocket Assisted) to significantly increase its range from 14.5 to 19.5 km. HERA rounds are not only common in 105mm category, almost all NATO armies field HERA rounds to increase their 155mm to shoot 30 km. An indigenous production line of HERA rounds could not only help in increasing 105 mm’s range but also of any other 155mm we may procure (For eg, India bought 145 M777 ULH from US, it was reported that India would be using indigenous rounds in the gun, and since they are meant for Mountain Strike Corps, such rounds can increase the area of influence of any gun ). A RAP could indeed increase the IFG/LFG’s range to 22 kms. OFB as of now, produces 155 mm HEER Base Bleed rounds but not for 105mm.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Jun 2017 12:10

on the flipside they are more costly.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 27 Jun 2017 12:46

I think there has been some work by OFB in improving the 105 mm shells to increase thier range to 20.5KM and upto 23Km, they were called Heer rounds. Article from 2014. I think Bharat Forge are aldreaddy doing some upgrade to the 105 mm IFG's

Desi Bofors' winter trials a success

OFB also hopes to get its improved shells developed for 105 Indian Field Guns (IFGs)-the basic artillery guns used by the army. The new shells developed by OFB give IFGs an additional 3 km range taking it to 20.5 kms. After recent user trials, the range table for the gun is being prepared. This means it has to be tested whether the gun can fire up to the same range from different angles.
The 105 IFG are considered best suitable for high altitude in absence of bigger ultra light howitzers being procured as it can be easily transported hung to a helicopter.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 27 Jun 2017 13:07

There was one report of IA working with BF on new truck mounted 105mm gun. There was even a pic of in-service IA truck being modified for the gun. This is something which might see light of the day pretty soon.

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 27 Jun 2017 13:48

^^

Defence Aviation Post Article

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 27 Jun 2017 15:34

Singha wrote:on the flipside they are more costly.

Higher cost per round is insignificant when number of rounds fired is brought down.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 27 Jun 2017 15:37

Buy the guns but don't spend on the bullets/don't shoot. Wah wah!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Jun 2017 15:43

jamwal wrote:
Singha wrote:on the flipside they are more costly.
Higher cost per round is insignificant when number of rounds fired is brought down.

unguided rounds but higher range sir, if you want to attack a target beyond regular shells the number of shells will not come down. also dispersion will be more so you might need more shells.

guided rounds come at $100K a pop when made by massa. dont know for us when we get around to make it but will not be that cheap.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 28 Jun 2017 04:37

shiv wrote:
Bishwa wrote:If it is 105mm and based on the IFG, it is hard to believe it can do 22km range unassisted and 30 km assisted.

IFG is rated at 17km max range as per online article https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/ifg.htm

but i may be mistaken
In high altitude areas maybe?

The range is primarily a function of the gun's caliber or the length of the barrel so what's the caliber of 105mm IFG?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Jun 2017 05:49

105mm is the caliber.

From Jamwal's post above on this page:

A notable feature of the 105 IFG/LFG is its large range, 17.4 km(E1) 17.2 km(E2), compared to contemporary guns, like British M119/L119 105mm having a max range of 13.7 km for Charge 8 and 14.5 km for a standard M760 HE round, Russian D30 2A18 122 mm 15.4 km on an HE round.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Jun 2017 06:48

Katare wrote:
shiv wrote: In high altitude areas maybe?
The range is primarily a function of the gun's caliber or the length of the barrel so what's the caliber of 105mm IFG?

Propellant charge as well. But I do know that altitude of firing makes some difference and the question was if shooting at 4000 meters (eg Ladakh) as opposed to sea level would make any difference because of reduced air resistance

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jun 2017 07:20

i believe more than max range depth fires , higher range presents better basing and hiding options to the unit commander within indian zone.
also areas with no roads can be brought more in range

thats why perhaps 155mm m777 was taken despite us having all the 105mm pieces on the table

Bishwa · Post by **Bishwa** » 28 Jun 2017 07:48

The article messed up the gun specs.... it is possible it messed up the range also... mixed up two guns..

This is the range of the M777 which is 155MM/39 caliber (like the article)

Effective firing range M107: 24 km (14.9 mi) ERFB: 30 km (18.6 mi) base bleed

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 28 Jun 2017 08:13

shiv wrote:
Katare wrote:
The range is primarily a function of the gun's caliber or the length of the barrel so what's the caliber of 105mm IFG?
Propellant charge as well. But I do know that altitude of firing makes some difference and the question was if shooting at 4000 meters (eg Ladakh) as opposed to sea level would make any difference because of reduced air resistance

I don't know the answer to your question, I was adding another range related question to your question.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 28 Jun 2017 11:19

Firing tables are updated/modified for high altitude areas for each gun type. You need to know where the shell will land.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 28 Jun 2017 15:31

Don't they need to verify the tables for each type of shell, from each manufacturer and perhaps from each production lot?