Artillery: News & Discussion

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.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50641
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 21 Oct 2018 04:40

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/in ... ive-02872/

Has IA given a dozen of these shells to ARDE and do reverse engineering to develop better rounds? Or is the contract so holy that cant be done?

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1491
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 21 Oct 2018 17:28

58 caliber M109. 62 km range!

Always wondered why we did not go 55 caliber on ATAGS.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6719
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 21 Oct 2018 18:17

^ They have achieved their desired accuracy out to 40 miles but testing and demonstrations are ongoing and the goal is to reach 45 miles with the current ammo and 80 miles with a new round (by 2023). The ER rocket is wrapping up testing with a Max range of 139 km with the tail controlled section and then they begin working on a new motor to get it to 150+ km.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2238
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby abhik » 21 Oct 2018 19:17

brar_w wrote:^ They have achieved their desired accuracy out to 40 miles but testing and demonstrations are ongoing and the goal is to reach 45 miles with the current ammo and 80 miles with a new round (by 2023). The ER rocket is wrapping up testing with a Max range of 139 km with the tail controlled section and then they begin working on a new motor to get it to 150+ km.

Did they get the huge range increase (from 70 to 139) just by moving the control surfaces to the tail - seems incredible? Which means Pinaka rocket can also evolve to reach this range, given the similarity size of the two rockets.

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 1138
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby Vips » 22 Oct 2018 00:51

FIREPOWER: Defending India Episode 1 - Great Guns


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50641
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 22 Oct 2018 02:08

Abhik, He is talking of tail rocket motors in the shell to give extra range.

I don't like the idea of longer barrels as they need extra maintenance, care to avoid balloting.
Better idea is the tail motor to give extra range.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6719
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 22 Oct 2018 03:35

abhik wrote:Did they get the huge range increase (from 70 to 139) just by moving the control surfaces to the tail - seems incredible? Which means Pinaka rocket can also evolve to reach this range, given the similarity size of the two rockets.


Yes that is how they got it. Modified the rocket motor and moved the control surfaces to the rear. A second modification to the rocket motor is planned for the 2020s which will look to increase range by about another 20%.

On the cannon system the range increase is done by both the new barrel and the rounds. Going forward, the 70 km to 130 km boost will be gotten via either solid fueled ramjet, or by employing a HVP round, the latter has already been fired from the M777 but for an air-defense role. Beyond that (150-200 km) you almost have to go to an EMRG type set up.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63378
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby Singha » 22 Oct 2018 08:40

how can just moving a control surface increase range?
bigger surfaces to generate more lift and some airflow smoothing and drag reduction measures ?

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1240
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby Thakur_B » 22 Oct 2018 09:26

Singha wrote:how can just moving a control surface increase range?
bigger surfaces to generate more lift and some airflow smoothing and drag reduction measures ?


I am guessing the rocket is propelled to a high altitude where the drag is low enough, and the increased control surface help the rocket glide for far greater distance. The onboard INS and GPS help the rocket from going astray, unlike the traditional dumb rocket.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3468
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby hnair » 22 Oct 2018 10:07

brar_w wrote:Yes that is how they got it. Modified the rocket motor and moved the control surfaces to the rear. A second modification to the rocket motor is planned for the 2020s which will look to increase range by about another 20%.



Interesting. I thought most recent missiles are moving to having static stablizer fins at the back and moving all the aerodynamic control to canard fins towards front, so the simplified workhorse rocket motor can be manufactured easily and entire guidance+actuator package can be in a single segment (in the front) for mix-n-match into missiles with varying range and mission profiles, like they do nowadays. A la PGK/python designs

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1423
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby ArjunPandit » 22 Oct 2018 10:17

brar_w wrote:^ They have achieved their desired accuracy out to 40 miles but testing and demonstrations are ongoing and the goal is to reach 45 miles with the current ammo and 80 miles with a new round (by 2023). The ER rocket is wrapping up testing with a Max range of 139 km with the tail controlled section and then they begin working on a new motor to get it to 150+ km.

are you aware if some of these things are also being tried in swades? Even the ATAGS itself was sort of record breaker. Next steps after the delivery of ATAGSs, K9, etc.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 929
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby shaun » 22 Oct 2018 10:31

How would the denel system faired compare to K9 . If not because of a politician and her backers , we would have seen denel in service .

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2238
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby abhik » 22 Oct 2018 10:38

ramana wrote:Abhik, He is talking of tail rocket motors in the shell to give extra range.

I don't like the idea of longer barrels as they need extra maintenance, care to avoid balloting.
Better idea is the tail motor to give extra range.

The second half of the video is actually showing updated MLRS rocket not the 155mm rocket assisted artillery shell.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6719
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 22 Oct 2018 16:26

Singha wrote:how can just moving a control surface increase range?
bigger surfaces to generate more lift and some airflow smoothing and drag reduction measures ?


https://www.amrdec.army.mil/amrdec/pdf/ ... _19_17.pdf



The PDF and video showcase what AMRDEC has been able to do with the TC section in the rear and through modifications to the existing motor. They are just about done with their demonstration and validation of these changes. This will then transition to the OEM (Lockheed). Lockheed has a few things that it has been working on itself such as a slightly larger diameter motor (without impacting magazine size) which when combined with the AMRDEC validated TC will give them the 150 km maximum range.

By freeing up the front section of control surfaces they are likely opening themselves up to adding new guidance for future variants. There are some interesting programs that are aiming at fairly low costs when it comes to SAL and other targeting options and a future GMLRS variant could be a target for that tech insertion.

From Jane's (dated October 11, 2018):

Lockheed Martin plans in mid-2019 to conduct the first engineering development flights of its extended-range Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (ER GMLRS), a company spokesperson told reporters on 10 October at the Association of the United States Army’s (AUSA's) annual conference.

ER GMLRS’ qualification flights are expected in 2020 and production could start in 2021, the spokesperson said.

The extended-range variant increased the motor size (with an increased diameter for more propellant volume), has a 15 km minimum range, 150 km max range, and a redesigned tail for manoeuvrability, the spokesperson said. The legacy GMLRS reaches out to 70 km.

Lockheed Martin officials declined to say how much ER GMRLS will grow in diameter, but said it will be slightly larger than the legacy 227 mm GMLRS, although still fit six per pod.

The ER GMLRS and GMLRS can be launched from the wheeled M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) or tracked M270A1 Multiple Launch Rocket System.

Both can use the same unitary warhead or the new M30A1 GMLRS Alternative Warhead (AW) that is replacing the Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions (DPICM). The spokesperson said Lockheed Martin is “leaving room towards the front for enhancements”, such as adding sensors and more lethal warheads.

An initial operational capability for ER GMLRS could be achieved around 2021 timeframe, the spokesperson said.



ArjunPandit wrote:are you aware if some of these things are also being tried in swades? Even the ATAGS itself was sort of record breaker. Next steps after the delivery of ATAGSs, K9, etc.


I am not sure what is happening on those systems. On the two US systems ( Palladin and the M777) they are going with a multi-pronged approach the elements of that together get the range out to 70 kms with the current (in development) capability and then eventually out to 130+ km with a new round they will begin R&D on by next year (either Ramjet powered (Boeing and Nammo have showcased their proposals) or an HVP round).

Broadly, the elements are :

1) Cannon upgrade - New 58 cal tube on the M109, and a new 55 cal tube on the M777A2. Both will also feature a re-designed chamber and breach to withstand the higher pressures.

2) Upgrade to the Round - New higher impulse Extended Range RAP round (XM1113) that can withstand the higher pressures and provide the extended range. Besides the XM1113 I believe only the Excalibur can, without modifications, achieve 60+ km ranges with the ERCA tube upgrades without requiring round modifications.

3) Develop new longer ranged rounds - Either explore SFRJ or work around the existing HVP rounds designed for the EMRG and already tried on the M777.

The new XM1113 round itself would get you 40 km range with the 39 caliber tube on the M109, but it is the combination of the longer tube (58 cal), redesigned breach and chamber and the XM1113 that has gotten them to demonstrate the 60+ km range as of now, and they intend on demonstrating 70 km range over the next few months at Yuma. Current plan is to complete the ERCA demonstration program by this time next year, and then seek authorization to begin production. They expect to field the first units with the modified M109's and M777's in about 2 years from receiving authorization so mid 2021 to mid 2022 time-frame.

Beyond this and into the medium term (2022-2025 time-frame) they want to work on the XM1155 Extended Range round and look to insert terminal guidance and targeting (looking at dual-mode RF/IR seekers) for anti IADS roles in areas where GPS may be denied. The SFRJ or the HVP may be the technologies of interest in this space as the range requirements are 130 km or beyond from ERCA guns.

Image
Last edited by brar_w on 22 Oct 2018 16:54, edited 1 time in total.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1491
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 22 Oct 2018 16:54

on ATAGS, we already have a larger chamber, however it is still 52 cal.

Applying 55/58 cal depends purely on IA's requirement. The US requirement is different as in, it requires such rounds to provide on demand CAS for troops in places like Afghanistion. A precision artillery round is cheaper than LGB droppped from an airplane. And ofcourse very high availability as it is a artillery system.

I can see requirements around deploying 58 cal ATAGS in HA area, where the higher cal and low air density will provide tremendous boost in range. However increase in range comes with accuracy issues, would make the rounds expensive if we add some precision kit.

All this is okay, but the million dollar question remains. We haven't fired 155MM round in anger since 2003 and doesn't look like we are going to anytime soon!

Will IA consider updating caliber? We have to wait and see.

Edit: ATAGS in current form must already be close to 60KM in high altitude test.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9824
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 22 Oct 2018 17:00

I thought there was a fire assualt in 2016 where used 155mm against Pakis?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6719
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 22 Oct 2018 18:37

nam wrote: The US requirement is different as in, it requires such rounds to provide on demand CAS for troops in places like Afghanistion. A precision artillery round is cheaper than LGB droppped from an airplane. And ofcourse very high availability as it is a artillery system.


It is actually operating in non-permissive environments that is driving this need. The fact that they cannot count on guaranteed access to A-10s or AH-64s to help out with CAS (and the Air Force is busy establishing Air-Superiority over a region), is leading them down the path of wanting to possess organic capability to extend indirect fires via cannon out to 130-150 km and rockets to the 150-200 km objective in the medium to far term. Similarly, ATACMS replacement ups its range from 300+ to 499 km and with the US leaving the INF, the Army will likely also field more land based systems to match the numerical advantage China enjoys with its Medium-Intermediate ranged missiles in the Pacific. It also reduces logistics if you do not need to put forward multiple system types to get a desired effect at range.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6941
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 22 Oct 2018 23:02

What about costs?!!

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6719
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 22 Oct 2018 23:07

Costs of what and what level i.e. the cost of buying a round, or the cost of actually employing it? While the former is fixed the latter can vary considerably with how you deploy and the overall costs you face.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6941
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 22 Oct 2018 23:54

I know that the second one has a lot of variables. So let us stick to the first.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6719
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 23 Oct 2018 00:55

On the first, the rounds should not really be any more expensive (or significantly different) from the ones that are currently on offer. The XM1113 with PGK should cost about the same as another round with PGK, and the Excalibur for ERCA costs the same since it does for the current guns and not require any modifications. When you go beyond this range, you are then no longer competing with Artillery rounds, but have to weight using a different weapon to strike the same target. Will a PG round delivered at 130 km from a M777 cost less or more than a GMLRS for the same target? I don't think so but if I can accomplish the mission using the M777 then I don't have to fly in a HIMARS or alternatively I can do more with less logistical burden.

The ER-GMLRS itself should not cost very different from the current GMLRS which is also guided. Modifications add a tail control section and slightly enlarge the motor and don't really tinker around with the most expensive components such as guidance.

As I have said before in the US thread, these products will be capability enhancements and not capability replacements. You won't use the type of shell unless you have that need just like currently, you do not use a PGK if a dumb round would do (provided logistical constraints are not relevant) and you won't use Excalibur if PGK will do. This is why you procure all three and not use one to replace all. But yes, the US needs are very unique given the expeditionary environment of deployment and the fact that it will likely be at a numerical disadvantage against most peer adversaries in case of a conflict. This does not apply to the same degree for others.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50641
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 23 Oct 2018 01:33

Indranil and nam et al, think in Indian terms.
What is feasible:
India has Dhanush 45 cal, Sarang M-46 upgrade with 45 cal and ATAGS 52 cal, K-9 with 52 Cal, and M-777 with 39 cal.
All fire the M-107 and the ERFA BB/BT shells.
Looking at the user trials looks like ERFA BB/BT shells are the preferred ones.
Of these the ATAGS has max range and M-777 and Bofors the least range.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2752
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby fanne » 23 Oct 2018 06:18

How about this, a super gun (likes of Gun of Navarone, though lesser caliber) that can fire PRECISOULY at 90 KM or 120 KM, placed say 45 KM inside border (reverse slope, in caves etc. and all that), in AP, Sikkim and JK can plummet any PLA or TSPAF movement (which will be against restricted mountain access (almost most of them mapped beforehand)). This can stop rapid advancement of troops, buildup against attacj, stop/slow advancement and breakthrough). Being 45 KM inside border (and reaching 45 to 75 KM inside enemy territory) it will be unit too far. Yes rounds etc. will be very expensive, but very very effective. It will need deep intel, space and airborne recce capability (which current tech can provide, UAV, satellites (micro-satellites - have cheap and 100s of them orbiting, that provide almost constant observation over area), special forces on known way points). This could be a deal braker in mountainous region. E.g. Sikkim being at best 220 Km, one gun (you will have a battery of it) can cover almost 50 KM, 5 guns can cover whole of Sikkim. A unit of 10 guns each, i.e. 50 of these can disrupt PLAAF movement. A vertical dive round can do wonders in narrow passes, covered with tall mountains on both side, but a narrow strip of path, a big round falling direct overhead can make a mincemeat of anything.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63378
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby Singha » 23 Oct 2018 06:33

We need to build up numbers as priority1

Development of such er rounds will take another decade from where we are today. We do not have elo drones like sentinel nor low earth mass of satellites or jstars for target location deep behind the lines on mobile targets in real time. That hole meeds filling first . Gun is just one part of story

Massa has everything but the er shell so they can do this fast

sohamn
BRFite
Posts: 302
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 12:56
Location: the Queen of the Angels of Porziuncola
Contact:

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby sohamn » 23 Oct 2018 11:12

fanne wrote:How about this, a super gun (likes of Gun of Navarone, though lesser caliber) that can fire PRECISOULY at 90 KM or 120 KM, placed say 45 KM inside border (reverse slope, in caves etc. and all that), in AP, Sikkim and JK can plummet any PLA or TSPAF movement (which will be against restricted mountain access (almost most of them mapped beforehand)). This can stop rapid advancement of troops, buildup against attacj, stop/slow advancement and breakthrough). Being 45 KM inside border (and reaching 45 to 75 KM inside enemy territory) it will be unit too far. Yes rounds etc. will be very expensive, but very very effective. It will need deep intel, space and airborne recce capability (which current tech can provide, UAV, satellites (micro-satellites - have cheap and 100s of them orbiting, that provide almost constant observation over area), special forces on known way points). This could be a deal braker in mountainous region. E.g. Sikkim being at best 220 Km, one gun (you will have a battery of it) can cover almost 50 KM, 5 guns can cover whole of Sikkim. A unit of 10 guns each, i.e. 50 of these can disrupt PLAAF movement. A vertical dive round can do wonders in narrow passes, covered with tall mountains on both side, but a narrow strip of path, a big round falling direct overhead can make a mincemeat of anything.



super guns were failure in every wars it was used. When you have gps assisted rockets and rocket assisted artillery - you dont need a super expensive super gun.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6941
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 23 Oct 2018 11:20

Ramana Saar, that is exactly the reasoning behind my question.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1576
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 23 Oct 2018 12:35

brar_w wrote:But yes, the US needs are very unique given the expeditionary environment of deployment and the fact that it will likely be at a numerical disadvantage against most peer adversaries in case of a conflict. This does not apply to the same degree for others.


Singha wrote:We do not have elo drones like sentinel nor low earth mass of satellites or jstars for target location deep behind the lines on mobile targets in real time


ramana wrote:Indranil and nam et al, think in Indian terms.


+1

fanne wrote:How about this, a super gun (likes of Gun of Navarone, though lesser caliber) that can fire PRECISOULY at 90 KM or 120 KM, placed say 45 KM inside border (reverse slope, in caves etc. and all that)


Sir, such a non-mobile gun will be a static target once the location is known. It will likely be very difficult and too expensive to defend.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1491
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 23 Oct 2018 13:03

fanne wrote:How about this, a super gun (likes of Gun of Navarone, though lesser caliber) that can fire PRECISOULY at 90 KM or 120 KM, placed say 45 KM inside border (reverse slope, in caves etc. and all that), in AP, Sikkim and JK can plummet any PLA or TSPAF movement (which will be against restricted mountain access (almost most of them mapped beforehand)). ...


The concept of artillery is to provide volume fire and cover large areas. The issues with super guns (even 230mm which Pak has) is that the reload frequency is very low. Pak can load 1 round every 1 or 2 minutes. ATAGS can fire 6 rounds in 30 seconds! Needless to say the volume and area covered is much higher.

So having 155MM in numbers is the right way to go.

In terms of deployment and range, Atags already does what you are describing. However the question of targeting passes is a difficult requirement. ATAGS has high angle of fire, however even a miss by few meters in himalayan pass means the shell falling down in valleys which are hundreds of feet deep. Only motars are really effective.

To target Pak or Chini build up in mountains, the most effective weapon: IAF.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1423
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby ArjunPandit » 23 Oct 2018 13:11

^^Another point I read about super large guns in WW2 era was mobility. They were a logistical nightmare, difficult to move set up and fire. In addition to being targets for enemy sabotage operations as HVTs. Not to forget they will be difficult to hide

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1491
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 23 Oct 2018 13:21

Mobility, logistics of supply large rounds & explosive charge, number of people to manage the gun, reliability , cost etc . All go against large guns.

Ofcourse this argument applies for 155MM against say 105MM. You try to find a balance between firepower and other factors mentioned above.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50641
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 23 Oct 2018 22:31

Indranil wrote:Ramana Saar, that is exactly the reasoning behind my question.


8)
When we started discussion threads up on many types of weapons systems the idea was to focus on India not to tom-tom US and Russian capabilities. We have other threads for that.
The need of the hour is to get more of what is already developed in India and get them to the forces as soon as possible without compromising quality and safety.

I had cursory interest in artillery guns and shells. It was the repeated stories of shell and barrel burst that led me to a six month self study of the issues and thanks to the thread I could get to the root cause quite quickly. There were reports of personnel being injured. Many COIs with blame both OFB and IA. But no definite cause for the accidents.


The 155m M107 shell is basically the French Schneider WWI era shell with a broad copper band to give it more grip. Its made from high tensile steel and is basicall a splinter shell.
The ERFA BB/BT shells are made from ball bearing steel (aka manganese steel) which fractures in a predetermined manner. In addition it has an aerodynamic body that reduces drag and increases range.
its slightly more expensive than the M 107 but both are under $2000/shell.
Again with the current fuzes both can hit massed troops in the open. With PGK type fuzes they can troop transport columns etc.
had IA spearheaded development of the Krasnopol-M type shell in India they could have solved the bunker and tanks problem.
PLA has copied the K-M fuze and is proofing it in Africa!

The ATAGS has demonstrated ~48km range with the ERFA BB/BT. This is that small black poweder motor at the end of the shell that ignites to give more range.
Now as ATAGS has that large 1.5 liters chamber and fires with six charges instead of the normal 4 charges, it is possible to make a slightly longer rocket motor for the BB/BT units to give it more range. But accuracy goes down with range. So even more important to develop the PGK fuze to reduce the error.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50641
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 23 Oct 2018 22:41

ArjunPandit wrote:^^Another point I read about super large guns in WW2 era was mobility. They were a logistical nightmare, difficult to move set up and fire. In addition to being targets for enemy sabotage operations as HVTs. Not to forget they will be difficult to hide



Due to gun barrel wear they shell shad to be numbered in sequence to be fired. Shells were progressively larger at the driving band to make tight fit. Out of sequence would jam in the gun!

The way I look at it is US Army is wary of casualties and wants to keep further and further from battle field. Longer caliber guns have inherent problems of barrel mfg, droop in service and shell burst. And difficulty in negotiating mountain roads.
A service man can tell more areas of difficulty.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1423
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby ArjunPandit » 24 Oct 2018 00:11

ramana wrote:
ArjunPandit wrote:^^Another point I read about super large guns in WW2 era was mobility. They were a logistical nightmare, difficult to move set up and fire. In addition to being targets for enemy sabotage operations as HVTs. Not to forget they will be difficult to hide



Due to gun barrel wear they shell shad to be numbered in sequence to be fired. Shells were progressively larger at the driving band to make tight fit. Out of sequence would jam in the gun!

The way I look at it is US Army is wary of casualties and wants to keep further and further from battle field. Longer caliber guns have inherent problems of barrel mfg, droop in service and shell burst. And difficulty in negotiating mountain roads.
A service man can tell more areas of difficulty.

Interesting point. A large gun (the largest at taht time ) had such large recoil that it was rail mounted.
Here's the link
Schwerer Gustav

Waiting for phillipov to tell some intersting story and brar to tell another side of interesting story.

Talking of big guns, does anyone remeber gerald bull. The guy was even thinking of launching LEO sattelites through arty guns. His association with saddam led him being bumped off by intelligence agencies.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6719
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Oct 2018 00:15

The US wants these weapons because of its expeditionary nature and the expectation that if it gets into a conflict with a peer state it will likely be outgunned and outnumbered so both lethality (longer ranged and/or more precise) and survivability are important. Plus in many cases it is playing catch up. That said, the operators there too are looking into mobility and deployability quite a bit. The M777 team is doing that right now at the proving grounds to see whether they can still deploy using their air assets and then move the system around without giving up a whole lot in terms of that flexibility.

In case of India, some of this won't make sense at all because the logistical burden may not be the same and nor may be the target set and one can leaverage airpower in different ways to provide that extended reach. The US which will have to fight halfway across the world has a very different set of challenges that it must overcome.
Last edited by brar_w on 24 Oct 2018 07:47, edited 1 time in total.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1423
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby ArjunPandit » 24 Oct 2018 00:23

Thanks brar, I sense under DT there is a real sense of awakening/urgency to Chinese issue. While Ombaba talked about pivot and shift of majority of naval assets to pacific, this is real daal roti stuff. Another thing is US is learning from the Korean war experience, where they found millions of chinese ready to die(not sure if its applicable to today's little emperors, still they are the largest army) and the limitations of air power. Not to forget the hard war of WW2 where the artillery eventually was found to be the lord or the grim reaper of war, causing maximum casualities untill little boy and fatman

Rishi_Tri
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby Rishi_Tri » 24 Oct 2018 17:03

Why would one want to develop Artillery with range greater than that of MBRLs. As it is such high range artillery are sort of hybrids of MBRLs and Artillery. MBRLs are way more agile, have more impactful barrage, offer broad ranges, and modern MBRLs are very accurate. Is it the cost?

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1230
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby sudeepj » 24 Oct 2018 21:41

There is a second reason for the interest in 'super guns'. Think of low level conflicts like Afghanistan. Right now, the only option to provide air support to troops is through a drone or an F18, or a B52 carting JDAMs or SDBs. If you have an artillery piece with a range of, say 300 kms, and guided artillery shells, with only a few such pieces garrisoned in bastions and forts, you can provide 'on call' air cover to patrols and ANA troops as and when they need it with a higher availability, faster response times, lower collateral damage, no risk to airframe or pilot and cheaper prices. What is not to like? :)

In the Indian case, if we can elongate the ATAGs barrel by a couple of meters to take full advantage of the larger chamber, or alternatively devise better shells to achieve (say) 70-80kms range, a regiment can take over the role of providing CAS to a division. Cheaper, organic, faster ... Most importantly, all technological components are already available.

It also destroys any chance of the enemy 'outflanking' moves.. You simply turn your tubes in the other direction and thats the end of that. An Indian Division with such long range artillery will have no flanks!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50641
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 24 Oct 2018 23:20

SudeepJ said:

In the Indian case, if we can elongate the ATAGs barrel by a couple of meters to take full advantage of the larger chamber, or alternatively devise better shells to achieve (say) 70-80kms range, a regiment can take over the role of providing CAS to a division. Cheaper, organic, faster ... Most importantly, all technological components are already available.


Longer barrels will restrict deployment to plains only as mountain roads sharp curves won't make the bends.
The goal seems to be to deliver useful punch at long distance. i suggest to develop the BB/BT motor with better propellant as start. then change the motor length.

How about some one digs up what is the specific impulse of the rocket motor sued in the BB/BT motors?
And the chemical composition.
One picture of ATAGS had black smoke indicating a carbon based compound.

Picklu
BRFite
Posts: 1720
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby Picklu » 25 Oct 2018 03:22

Ramana, small nitpick .

The BT/BB stands for boat tail base bleed and is not really a rocket motor. It increases the range of the shell NOT by providing thrust but by reducing drag.

It is a fumer or slow burning charge really, generating gas to fill up the vaccum at the base end of the projectile and thereby reducing drag. So changing the charge or elongating the motor would not increase range necessarily.

Please see below for details

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_bleed

And here is the patent

https://patents.google.com/patent/US7578238

VLAP RA/BB on the other hand is Rocket Assisted Base Bleed. This one provides thrust.

Projectile main characteristics:
Maximum range ~56km
Muzzle velocity ~925m/s
Rocket motor total impulse of : >6500 Ns
Rocket motor propellant charge weight: ~3 kg
Rocket motor specific impulse: >2170 Ns/kg
Projectile total weight: 48 kg
Projectile warhead section weight 30 kg

From here http://www.yugoimport.com/en/proizvodi/ ... base-bleed

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1076
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Artillery: News & Discussion

Postby Gyan » 25 Oct 2018 09:49

Range is not the only factor for Artillery. What is the range of that famous Jaipur Fort Canon? How many times was it fired?

Why Marathas with heavy canons lost against Abdali? Why Indian missile boats were sent in 1971 against Karachi rather than Frigates with Canons? What were lessons of 1962?

What's the role of MBRLs in 1980s and today? What's changed between 1982 Bofors need and today?

What type of towed artillery was used by USA & Soviets before M777?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], kvraghav, ritesh and 34 guests