Artillery Corps: 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.
Post Reply
Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1769
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Khalsa »

Superb work.
That 155 mm (39 calibre) if that what that is looks very well balanced for its driving and transit purposes.
Really decent kit and the cabin looks impressive from inside.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Is this own effort from BF or a JV with Mandus group?
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by jamwal »

What's the point? None of it is going to enter service unless IA and MOD see PLA type purges.
sanjayc
BRFite
Posts: 1091
Joined: 22 Aug 2016 21:40

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by sanjayc »

No orders will ever come. These will just remain brochure art. There will only be "emergency imports" or throwing the towel in front of Chinese citing another buzzword: "power asymmetry."
Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4514
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Tanaji »

IA has perfected rejecting indigenous systems to a fine art by now. Instead of having portraits of Sam Manekshaw in their officers mess, they should have portrait of Sir Humphrey Appleby in gold frame… Any of the following reasons will be trotted out:
  • The system has yet to pass summer, autumn, winter and spring trials.
  • If the system passes these trials then it must pass the trials held in accordance with Ritus
  • The system is not armoured enough
  • The system has too much armour
  • The system weighs too much
  • The system is too wide
  • The system is not accurate enough (never mind no other system in the market isn’t either)
  • The system has too much crew comfort, remove the AC as our boys are rugged.
  • After taking it off and using the power budget elsewhere, the system does not have crew comfort compared to the import
  • The system is too complex, please remove component X and replace with older technology
  • The system does not have enough range. See earlier point about accuracy
  • The system is only x% indigenous where x < 100% so is not fit for purpose. As an alternative let’s fully import system Y which is 100% imported
  • The system must have capability Y which is totally unrelated or marginally related to its purpose but is grounds of instant rejection
  • The system must have any and all capabilities listed in brochures of every competing system in existence. These must n be proven in seasonal and ritu trials. It does not matter if competitors haven’t proven anything
  • The system is too expensive. We will only place piecemeal orders of 10 units at a time but expect prices on basis of economies of scale
  • The system can’t be delivered in time we want as public sector is incompetent. Meanwhile we will import System Y …… to be built by same public sector
Please feel free to add to the list
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Vips »

Updates on the TC20 (Bharat Forge 4x4 MGS) from AV's on YouTube:
It will be for exclusive use in the mountains terrain
The Trials for the TC 20 have started near the LAC and will be done for a year.
155mm gun is the MARG ULH (stainless steel) variety with weight of 6.8 tons.
Max Range is 30 Kms.
Rate of fire in Intense mode : 4 rounds per minute for 2 minutes
Sustained rate of fire 1.25 rounds per minute for 30 minutes.
Speed of the vehicle on black top road is 60 kms/hr while on mountainous terrain it is 24 kms/hr
Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 1985
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Atmavik »

Vips wrote:Updates on the TC20 (Bharat Forge 4x4 MGS) from AV's on YouTube:
It will be for exclusive use in the mountains terrain
The Trials for the TC 20 have started near the LAC and will be done for a year.
155mm gun is the MARG ULH (stainless steel) variety with weight of 6.8 tons.
Max Range is 30 Kms.
Rate of fire in Intense mode : 4 rounds per minute for 2 minutes
Sustained rate of fire 1.25 rounds per minute for 30 minutes.
Speed of the vehicle on black top road is 60 kms/hr while on mountainous terrain it is 24 kms/hr

Another YouTube channel claimed that the CDS has shown interest in this program. Hope this gets ordered soon.. LOC will heat up based on the events in Kabul
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Vivek K »

If India is to be a power - domestic MIC MUST be propped up. These are wonderful developments. And serial development will make them world beaters. Place orders for these NOW! Forget year long trials - someone will introduce a faulty shell and the barrel will burst. Instead, deploy these now.

And instead of talking these down, talk them up and export them in large numbers. They can't be any worse than roosi maal.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

jamwal wrote:What's the point? None of it is going to enter service unless IA and MOD see PLA type purges.
Apparently the vehicle is developed at the command of the CDS. So I am cautiously optimistic about the possibility of the vehicle entering service with the Army.
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Vips »

Atmavik wrote:
Vips wrote:Updates on the TC20 (Bharat Forge 4x4 MGS) from AV's on YouTube:
It will be for exclusive use in the mountains terrain
The Trials for the TC 20 have started near the LAC and will be done for a year.
155mm gun is the MARG ULH (stainless steel) variety with weight of 6.8 tons.
Max Range is 30 Kms.
Rate of fire in Intense mode : 4 rounds per minute for 2 minutes
Sustained rate of fire 1.25 rounds per minute for 30 minutes.
Speed of the vehicle on black top road is 60 kms/hr while on mountainous terrain it is 24 kms/hr

Another YouTube channel claimed that the CDS has shown interest in this program. Hope this gets ordered soon.. LOC will heat up based on the events in Kabul
Actually present CDS Bipin Rawat when he was the Army chief had asked Bharat Forge to develop a cheaper (Stainless Steel) version of the ULH for use in mountains. BF has taken the next logical step and developed a use case of this ULH as a MGS on a 4X4.
sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10195
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by sum »

^^ We are unable to induct a no-brainer requirement like the ATAGS and still having hope of more exotic desi stuff to be inducted ( esp when it seems to have been on orders of a single higher commander and not really any need shown by the IA)?
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 76448?s=20 ---> Indian Army to equip one regiment of K-9 Vajra-T self propelled howtizers with systems required for deployment in high altitude areas incl. during winters.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2904
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Cybaru »

Pratyush wrote:
jamwal wrote:What's the point? None of it is going to enter service unless IA and MOD see PLA type purges.
Apparently the vehicle is developed at the command of the CDS. So I am cautiously optimistic about the possibility of the vehicle entering service with the Army.
Just rename it Tuffy and walk the file through MOD! :wink:
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Vips »

sum wrote:^^ We are unable to induct a no-brainer requirement like the ATAGS and still having hope of more exotic desi stuff to be inducted ( esp when it seems to have been on orders of a single higher commander and not really any need shown by the IA)?
The importance of MGS in mountainous terrains is a no brainer. China has already deployed these in good numbers at the LAC.
IA will indulge in panic imports after it gets it ass whipped and we loose our brave soldiers due to the absence of these force multipliers.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 62503?s=20 ---> Parliament's Public accounts Committee to be briefed on delays in Dhanush artillery gun production.
Vicky
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 79
Joined: 23 Aug 2021 19:33

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Vicky »

DRDO CFEES has been releasing tenders to design, construct and operate a 300 MT capacity Demilitarisation plant for unserviceable/Expired Ammunition disposal upto 155 mm size at a village in Nagpur. This includes small arms ammunition (min 5.56 mm), 84 mm RCL, Various AD ammo, Mortars, 105/120/125 Tank Ammo ,105 mm IFG, 122 mm Howitzer, 130mm Field rounds and upto 155 mm.

The plant will involve disassembly, defusing, cutting and destruction of Ammunition especially Artillery ammunition.

Solar Industries, Megha Engineering (MEIL) and some other smaller comapnies seem to be interested.

2.5 Years for deisgn and contruction. 3 year operation by vendor post commissioning.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/143 ... 04229?s=20 ---> The 155 mm/45 cal Dhanush Howitzer is set for a round of 'reliability' trials sometime towards the end of this month, before it is inducted in 'bulk'. These reliability trials are taking place because there was a muzzle strike on one of the units already inducted into the Army.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 05570?s=20 --->

M777 ultra light howitzers inducted into 17 'Mountain Strike' Corps (Brahmastra Corps).

Image
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/DefenceDecode/statu ... 32293?s=20 ---> XVII Corps of the Indian army conducted firing of the newly inducted #M777 Ultra-Light Howitzers(ULH) at Teesta Field Firing Range from 01-13 Sep 21.

Image
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by jamwal »

Isn't this a strike corps for ops against China? Interesting.
Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4514
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Tanaji »

I believe the M777 had a muzzle strike during testing. It was very quickly put down to a a faulty Indian shell. The Dhanush however has to go into yet another round of testing. What extra reliability data points are going to be obtained by this round that are not available earlier? More data is not always useful data…

In the meanwhile the IA in their wisdom have said ATAGS is too complicated and want to remove the electric motors…

Zero chance of any orders in face of such blatant discrimination. ATAGS is definitely going the way of Arjun.
basant
BRFite
Posts: 889
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by basant »

As much as I hate, M777 case is a little more straightforward as it is a proven gun. However, I wish ATAGS investigation to have been quicker.
Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4514
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Tanaji »

Dhanush basic design is even more proven than M777 one would think. The issue is with muzzle strike and not ancillary systems, so likely a core design issue.
basant
BRFite
Posts: 889
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by basant »

M777 has been in service since 2005, and about 1300 of them have been produced. The case of ATAGS is curious (at least for me). There are different reports, one says it has fired 1000 rounds and another 2000 rounds. In either case, I think a typical gun would not fire as many in its life time. The first report says something interesting:
The shells for 155mm calibre howitzers made by the ordnance factory are designed to be fired with up to six charge modules and handle pressure up to 340 megapascals. To make the shell fly over 40km, seven charge modules are used. The OFB shells are made under transfer of technology (TOT) from South African company Dennel. Even in the TOT, it has been specified that the gun can handle service pressure of 340 megapascals, or six charge modules at the most.

This is called zone 6 ammunition, and what has been used in ATAGS was zone 7.
Higher pressure due to zone 7 can lead to risks. Zone 6 is the standard world over, the sources said. OFB only makes zone 6 ammunition, which is in line with NATO standards. Even the 155x52 calibre mounted gun system developed by the OFB uses zone 6, a source said.

An official in one of the private companies confirmed that the shell was fired with zone 7 ammunition to achieve a higher charge, and rejected any claim that they had received any warning. So far, both Bharat Forge and Tata guns have fired over 1,000 rounds using the zone 7 rounds. The ATAGS barrel is designed to handle 440 megapascals of pressure.

“The pressure handling capacity is basically meant for the barrel but even the shell is expected to withstand similar levels,” the source said. A final investigation into the incident will only reveal the truth said the company official.
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Vips »

Tanaji wrote:Dhanush basic design is even more proven than M777 one would think. The issue is with muzzle strike and not ancillary systems, so likely a core design issue.
IIRC, it was not just the muzzle strike but overall quality issues with the first batch of guns that OFB supplied that has called for the extra testing per the Army.
VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2976
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by VinodTK »

India looking at creating rocket force: CDS Gen Rawat
NEW DELHI: India is looking at "creating a rocket force", Chief of Defence Staff Gen Bipin Rawat said on Wednesday even as he underlined the need for extensive use of niche technology to combat various national security challenges, including possible aggression by China.

In an address at an event, Gen Rawat described Pakistan as a "proxy" of China, noting that Islamabad will continue its "proxy war" against India in Jammu and Kashmir and that it is now attempting to create trouble in Punjab and some other parts of the country.

"As far as our northern adversary is concerned, since we have unsettled borders with them and they have shown aggression on the east coast, on the South China Sea with nations in that area, are they (China) likely to show aggression on our northern borders?" Gen Rawat said.

Whether it happens in the form of direct aggression or through use of technology, we have to be prepared. This preparation can only happen if we work together," the Chief of Defence Staff said.

Referring to measures initiated to bolster India's air power, he said, "We are looking at creating a rocket force". Gen Rawat, however, did not elaborate on the plan.

On the situation in Afghanistan, Gen Rawat said nobody ever thought the Taliban will take over the country "so fast".

"Only time will tell what happens. Let us wait and watch. We do not know what is likely to happen in the future in Afghanistan. There could be still more turmoil and more changes which cannot be anticipated now," he said.

Speaking on the occasion, former defence secretary NN Vohra called for allowing declassification of Henderson Brookes Report on the 1962 war with China.

Talking about overall geopolitical developments, Gen Rawat said China's rise has happened faster than envisaged and that it is becoming more and more aggressive.

"We share a land border with them. Therefore, I think it is time for us to start looking at our strategies as how we are going to deal with two borders having aggressive neighbours, Pakistan on the western front and China on the north," he said.
"We need to start looking at transformation for the betterment and ensuring that the national security architecture that we want to evolve is capable of dealing with the kind of threats we are seeing," he added.

The Chief of Defence Staff said ensuring integration among the armed forces was key to confront future security challenges.

He said technology must be considered as the fifth pillar of national power after diplomacy, information, military and economic prowess.

The Chief of Defence Staff said all the three forces must understand the importance of new technology to meet future challenges.

Referring to the ambitious theaterisation initiative for the three services, Gen Rawat said the plan has been to have one theatre command each for the western border and northern border.

To a question on key roles of top commanders in case of a war, he said the chiefs of the three forces will ensure training and look at the wherewithal of the theatre commands besides other key aspects.

Gen Rawat said any war will be precisely fought by the theatre commanders on an approved plan made by the Chiefs of the Staff Committee. The Chiefs of Staff Committee will be headed by the Chief of Defence Staff.

In his address, Gen Rawat spoke extensively about India's future military challenges, security doctrine and key aspects of the ambitious reform process in the armed forces.
basant
BRFite
Posts: 889
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by basant »

Vips wrote:
Tanaji wrote:Dhanush basic design is even more proven than M777 one would think. The issue is with muzzle strike and not ancillary systems, so likely a core design issue.
IIRC, it was not just the muzzle strike but overall quality issues with the first batch of guns that OFB supplied that has called for the extra testing per the Army.
Faulty ammunition and muzzle burst are related.
An official with knowledge of the matter said. “It’s true that the trial at Pokhran didn’t go well. There was a barrel burst. However, it was later confirmed that the burst was not due to a defective barrel, rather the ammunition wobbled out-of-axis to exert additional pressure on the barrel, causing the accident”.
Source: http://www.mgrtv.com/dhanush-army.html
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

A very welcome move! As I have mentioned a couple of times, one of our "doctrinal blindness" is the non-deployment of conventional tactical-BMs directly under the Artillery command. For us, Prithvi or Shaurya means SFC, which is ridiculous.

Hope Gen Rawat's plan gets translated into action
sajaym
BRFite
Posts: 315
Joined: 04 Feb 2019 09:11

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by sajaym »

This is a welcome development! But I hope for the following:

This new 'Rocket Force' should be strictly an artillery regiment under the direct command of the Army.

There should be a strict compartmentalisation, so as to avoid the nonsense happening between IA & IAF regarding attack helicopters.

IAF should not have any surface to surface missiles. IAF should only have fighter jets with AA & AS missiles and SA missiles for base defence...and armed combat drones with AS missiles.

IN should have only Sea to surface, Sub-Sea to surface and Surface to sea missiles for coastal defence.
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Vips »

Rocket Force to be raised by India? These cunning yindoos. Haiyo Rabba what about the Raakit Mard at the LOC :D
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by jamwal »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izCyco6q8UQ



Indian Army showcases power of self-propelled K-9 Vajra in Bikaner
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

Back to my favorite subject of bore premature or exploding shells in barrel

Link: http://www.insensitivemunitions.org/his ... iber-guns/
...
In general, the detonation of a projectile in the gun barrel is caused either by a faulty fuze or by a sensitive explosive load. Faulty projectile base closures and missing gas seals around the base fuze can cause in-bore reactions but this cause is generally more uncertain.

In-bore projectile explosions have been produced in laboratory trials by introducing gross defects in the base of the projectile. Removing base closure plug, removing the copper seal from around the base plug, and drilling holes through the base plug has caused some in-bore reactions. These major defects in the hardware would be hard to miss in production inspections and during normal projectile handling operations however...

and
...
Composition A-3, the explosive of choice used in most Navy 5-inch projectiles at that time was not considered a problem that would cause in-bore detonations. Many of the Navy gun experts did not believe that a high explosive alone could be the cause of the in-bore premature explosions.

In a four-month period, between 9 July 1969 and 7 November 1969, there were four in-bore detonations of Navy 5-inch gun projectiles. In each case, the barrel was either ruptured or completely severed. Also, in each case, Composition A-3 was the main explosive charge used in the projectile.

In November 1969, the Navy organized an Ammunition Special Study Group under RAdm. Frank H. Price, Jr. to conduct a complete investigation of the 5-inch gun malfunctions. The Study Group consisted of three subgroups, Quality Assurance, Metal Parts, and Explosives. The Explosives subgroup set out to demonstrate that the set back forces experienced during 5″/54 gun firings could be the cause of the prematures. If the explosive charge in the projectile was not pressed to the correct density, it could collapse and rapidly compress the air in a cavity. We in the explosives community believed that the adiabatic heating of the air could cause unfuzed Composition A-3 projectiles to detonate in the barrel and loadeddestroy the guns.

The Explosives subgroup designed and performed a series of experiments where both the density of the explosive charge and the size of base gaps in the projectile were varied. The projectiles were unfuzed and the metal parts were inspected carefully to assure that there were no defects that could cause the explosive charge to detonate.

Between 15 December 1969 and 9 March 1970, thirty-two 5-inch/38-caliber gun barrels were destroyed in the Ammunition Special Study Group’s tests at the Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahgren, VA. These 5″/38 guns had been modified to fire the same 5″/54 projectiles that had functioned in-bore in the Fleet. In each case, the gun barrel was severed somewhere between 40 and 80 inches from the breech.

As we had theorized, a combination of low-density explosive loads and gaps at the base of the projectile resulted in detonations on gun-launch. Upon inspection by the Quality Assurance Group, these defects were found to exist in a number of the projectiles issued to the Fleet. The low density was due to defective loading procedures used at the factory to press the explosive into the projectile bodies. The base gaps were in some cases due to value engineering changes to the projectile metal parts and in other cases, to the replacement of the original base fuzes with shorter ones leaving a gap at the end of the fuze...
The picture shown below is that of the 5-inch/54-caliber gun barrel on the HMAS BRISBANE26 after the July 1969 in-bore detonation of a Composition A-3 loaded projectile. The Australian Navy experienced one in-bore detonation out of approximately 38,000 HC-PD MK-41 Mod 0 5″/54 U.S. Navy projectiles fired. Between 1965 and 1969 the U.S. Navy fired about 2,891,000 rounds and had 6 in-bore prematures.

Sensitive explosives like Composition A-3 and Composition B are not very forgiving when there are defects such as voids or low-density regions present in the charge. Adiabatic heating resulting from the compression of the explosive as the projectile is accelerated in the gun barrel can ignite these explosives and cause in-bore detonations.

This resulted in a Navy program to investigate the use of castable PBX compositions in large caliber projectiles...
Image

Now to find out
1) What is the filling in the EERFB shells at OFB?
2) How does it compare to Composition A-3 in US Navy?
3) Is it castable filling like PBX which will reduce voids?
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by NRao »

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Karan M »

sajaym wrote:
This is a welcome development! But I hope for the following:

This new 'Rocket Force' should be strictly an artillery regiment under the direct command of the Army.

There should be a strict compartmentalisation, so as to avoid the nonsense happening between IA & IAF regarding attack helicopters.

IAF should not have any surface to surface missiles. IAF should only have fighter jets with AA & AS missiles and SA missiles for base defence...and armed combat drones with AS missiles.

IN should have only Sea to surface, Sub-Sea to surface and Surface to sea missiles for coastal defence.
Have to disagree with this approach. IAF should have SSMs and everything they need to take out targets. Ditto for IA. Let them overlap. Too much centralization invariably leads to operational compromises. You need slack in the system, and some overlap is essential if the service deems fit. Let each service tailor its variants according to its mission set. Let the Rocket Force be under the CDS as a central HQ unit, which can be allocated on a theater specific basis, but let the services also have TOE freedom in getting their specific requirements met.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

The thing with apparent overlap in capacity is that the target sets and priorities are not really overlapping.

The planned reforms of the Indian military into 4 theatre commands should in theory make it possible for the need for shared target and mission sets.

Once that happens it may become possible for individual service to divest from specific capacity with an assurance that the fellow service will address the mission requirement.

But until then, individual capacity cannot really be considered a problem.
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by jamwal »

Certain overlap is good and may even be necessary. But what happens when each service makes it an expensive prestige issue like Army did with Apaches?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

That will have to be handled at the political level.

As I can't understand just what the Army hopes to accomplish with just 6 machines. If the order was for 60 I could at a level understand. But not this.

Eventually, I hope that the Army Apache fleet will have to be handed over to the airforce. In return the army will have to be satisfied with the LCH.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by kit »

NRao wrote:
a few of this could prove handy against a terrorist infested hideout ., no more gun duels !!
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

A Carl Gustav is a much better option with a very low footprint.
SRajesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2061
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by SRajesh »

^^AiYo imagine the Liberandu screaming's and WaPo/NSJ/Paki-pasand articles spewed out if you blast out one on Indian soil
Hyooman Rights!!
Post Reply