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
pushkar.bhat
BRFite
Posts: 455
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 19:27
Location: prêt à monter dans le Arihant
Contact:

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by pushkar.bhat »

Pratyush wrote:A Carl Gustav is a much better option with a very low footprint.
CG will not have the necessary range. This GO GO Gun can actually be a go to weapon for all infantry units and replace the Heavy Mortar Troop. 8 Guns per infantry battalion will increase the firepower of our infantry teams tremendously.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Pushkar, the CG comment was in context of counter insurgency campaign. For every thing else, I have no disagreement with you.
VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2976
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by VinodTK »

Need a robust and reliable gun, says Army as artillery modernisation plan faces hiccups
New Delhi: Twenty-two years after the Army finalised the Field Artillery Rationalisation Programme (FARP), under which a mix of around 3,000-3,600 howitzers were to be procured by 2025-27, the modernisation plan is facing hiccups as two major indigenous programmes have failed to fire off fully.

At a media briefing Monday on the eve of Gunners’ Day, which marks the anniversary of the raising of the oldest Indian Mountain Battery (5th Bombay Mountain Battery), Lt Gen. T.K. Chawla, Director General Artillery, weighed in on the challenges facing the Advanced Towed Artillery Gun System (ATAGS), and Dhanush, known as the ‘desi Bofors’, as he emphasised the importance of indigenous defence manufacturing.

The more important of the two projects is ATAGS, being developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) along with private firms Bharat Forge and TATA Power SED.

“A lot of handholding has been done by the Army, both for ATAGS and Dhanush. I had a detailed discussion last week with the OFB (Ordnance Factory Board) and ARDE (Armament Research and Development Establishment of DRDO),” said Lt Gen. Chawala. “We have mutually come to agree on where the requirement is.”

The Army, he added, wants both the programmes to succeed.

We want them to succeed, we are part of their success. There are advantages in going indigenous and technology being developed within the country,” the officer said.

Also read: ‘Positive indigenisation list’ got lengthier but India’s defence industry far from ready

‘ATAGS failed to meet all parameters’

Explaining the issues dogging the programmes, Lt Gen. Chawla said the summer fire trial this year of the ATAGS had failed to achieve certain parameters and would undergo further modification.

“There were some parameters which have been achieved and there are some parameters which need improvement, both in firing and non-firing parameters.”

He added that it is “difficult” to give a timeline for possible induction of the ATAGS into the Army.

“We did try them (ATAGS) out in the summer of Pokhran. There are a few issues. We have informed the DRDO and they have agreed to work on it. We are looking at a robust gun, reliable gun which can fire accurately and reliably,” he said.

The Army is believed to have voiced concerns over the weight of ATAGS, a project which began in 2012, and its inability to meet critical performance parameters.

“I am very optimistic in the case of ATAGS. The DRDO will work towards overcoming what could not be achieved at Pokhran and the teething problem is resolved,” Lt Gen. Chawla said.

Dhanush facing production quality issues

While ATAGS is facing trouble in the design and development stage, the Army has flagged the production quality of Dhanush — of which the Army had ordered 114 in 2019.

The induction of Dhanush started in April 2019. Between then and the beginning of June this year, only 12 of the long-range artillery guns had been delivered. This is far below the 18 guns required to make a full regiment.

“Very recently, I had a fruitful and constructive engagement with the production-level officials. There are a few teething issues which they need to iron out. It is good work in progress,” Lt Gen. Chawla said.

“We as a user are looking forward to it,” Lt Gen. Chawla added, saying the Army and the manufacturer — Gun Carriage Factory (CGF), Jabalpur, a unit of the state-run OFB — will undertake some “confidence firing” soon.

Under FARP, the Army aims to acquire a mix of around 3,000-3,600 155mm howitzers — with different calibre types, for example, towed, mounted, self-propelled (tracked and wheeled) — by 2025-27.

This was to be achieved through a mix of direct imports, licensed manufacturing and indigenous production.

After years of being in the rut, the artillery programme got a push in 2015, with the successful completion of trials (which had begun around 2012), signing of contracts, and various systems entering final stages of decision-making.

The artillery modernisation programme was then seen as a success story by everyone in the defence establishment. However, it has seemed to be floundering of late.

Only K9 Vajra, M-777 lightweight howitzers plans have fructified
:
:
:
:
:
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Vivek K »

IA - will never accept a domestic product. Imports will sail through - T90 vs Arjun. M777 vs ATAGS/Dhanush. The domestic guns will never meet IA's moving goalposts. What "production quality" was not acceptable? That is not provide. Do these issues affect the gun's performance - also not clear. Is it facing issues in use? Or Maintenance? or Weight/towing/ or what? The gentleman seems related to the DGMO of yester years who made sure the Arjuns were delayed beyond any acceptable limit.
Maria
BRFite
Posts: 212
Joined: 15 Aug 2020 13:50

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Maria »

Vivek K wrote:IA - will never accept a domestic product. Imports will sail through - T90 vs Arjun. M777 vs ATAGS/Dhanush. The domestic guns will never meet IA's moving goalposts. What "production quality" was not acceptable? That is not provide. Do these issues affect the gun's performance - also not clear. Is it facing issues in use? Or Maintenance? or Weight/towing/ or what? The gentleman seems related to the DGMO of yester years who made sure the Arjuns were delayed beyond any acceptable limit.
I don't believe this - if there is enough political will like Manohar Sir had, it is very much possible.

Modi's machinations may not be the perfect platform for patriots like us but it is a prototype of what we want and will get in the future.
basant
BRFite
Posts: 889
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by basant »

Solution would be simple. Whatever criteria it accepts for imported ones, it should done for Indian too. If Arjun has to cover 21k km, T90 also should do, similarly with M777 vs ATAGS. Comparative trails. When it did the same with MBTs, Arjun outgunned TinCan. IA gotaway saying they belong to different classes. As if PA will send their less competent tanks to face T90s. That IA got away with that argument, is an indictment to the system and intelligence of MoD.
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by YashG »

IA is trying to do an Arjun with ATAGS. What do I call this ? This is collusion. Import lobby has infiltrated both MoD & IA it seems.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32224
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by chetak »

Vivek K wrote:IA - will never accept a domestic product. Imports will sail through - T90 vs Arjun. M777 vs ATAGS/Dhanush. The domestic guns will never meet IA's moving goalposts. What "production quality" was not acceptable? That is not provide. Do these issues affect the gun's performance - also not clear. Is it facing issues in use? Or Maintenance? or Weight/towing/ or what? The gentleman seems related to the DGMO of yester years who made sure the Arjuns were delayed beyond any acceptable limit.
The comments are being made in public and so they will travel all the way to the top with everyone scrambling to study, understand and verify the objections.

These are not some discussions over bottles of blue label that are being done away from the public glare and on the sly.

Anyone can and probably will tweet to the MOD, Modi and RM about any underhand game in play, if at all.

the general who has spoken has put his job on the line as well painted himself a nice target on his own back. If there is any hint of malfeasance, he will be the first to get it in the neck

tech details like "production quality" etc will never come out in the public domain as it will be all be covered under the official secrets act and only those who are required to know will know.

Every evaluation report is not an open invitation to spawn conspiracy theories.

The companies making these weapon systems are first timers and no one ever gets it right the first few times.

One gathers that we have had the bofors drawings for quite some time now but have not done anything with them. wonder why.

the oft given dharmic excuse only takes us so far and no further

any army will demand reliable and dependable weapons

with staggering numbers like 3,000-3,600 155mm howitzers, no govt will ever allow imports.
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by YashG »

Reliable guns win battles, Reliable MIC wins you the war.
pushkar.bhat
BRFite
Posts: 455
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 19:27
Location: prêt à monter dans le Arihant
Contact:

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by pushkar.bhat »

Pratyush wrote:Pushkar, the CG comment was in context of counter insurgency campaign. For every thing else, I have no disagreement with you.
Agree with you. CG is more then adequate for CI ops.
jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 1696
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by jaysimha »

VinodTK wrote: Only K9 Vajra, M-777 lightweight howitzers plans have fructified

can we safely assume more M-777 and K9 will be ordered with in few days ? ¿
assume ,,all this "dhanush" activity is only negotiating drama
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

I am more interested in learning more about the actual issues faced by OFB in manufacturing of Dhanush.

If the gun is a 45 calibre piece.

Then I will proceed with the following assumptions.

The gun barrel and breach along with recoil forces are well understood by OFB because of the work done by them of Sarang conversion.

It could be that they are facing metallurgy issues with the initial batches. With a RCA I think that this issue can easily be solved.

Because, I remember that T72 gun barrels were exploding as well a few decades ago. The issue was identified and fixed.

Coming to ATAGS I think that RM has to a word with both the army and the DRDO to solve the concerns that army has regarding the weight of the gun.

At the same time DRDO needs to look at developing new family of shells for the gun. Because of the higher chamber pressure presented by zone 7 charge shooting.

The new shell should be compatible with other 155 gun's.

It is quite frustrating when you observing from the outside you don't understand the issues faced in developing a brand new standard for the armed forces. Once understanding dawn's frustration disappears.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Pratyush wrote:I am more interested in learning more about the actual issues faced by OFB in manufacturing of Dhanush.

If the gun is a 45 calibre piece.

Then I will proceed with the following assumptions.

The gun barrel and breach along with recoil forces are well understood by OFB because of the work done by them of Sarang conversion.

It could be that they are facing metallurgy issues with the initial batches. With a RCA I think that this issue can easily be solved.

Because, I remember that T72 gun barrels were exploding as well a few decades ago. The issue was identified and fixed.

Coming to ATAGS I think that RM has to a word with both the army and the DRDO to solve the concerns that army has regarding the weight of the gun.

At the same time DRDO needs to look at developing new family of shells for the gun. Because of the higher chamber pressure presented by zone 7 charge shooting.

The new shell should be compatible with other 155 gun's.

It is quite frustrating when you observing from the outside you don't understand the issues faced in developing a brand new standard for the armed forces. Once understanding dawn's frustration disappears.
Also, the DG Artillery has been quite supportive of Dhanush. IT was after all a previous DG Arty who really took this by the scruff to the neck to get to where we are.

However, OFB being OFB I am not surprised that they can mess up things.

AFter all that have a great track record of fixing manufacturing defects.....
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2508
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by srin »

Sounds like a case for Athos gun import or who knows, they may buy Bharat 52 also
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

No new 155 mm gun's are getting imported.

A repeat order is a seperate issue and is quite logical in case of m777. As during the early phase of the deal. People were making a case for upto 900 gun's for the entire front line.

Same can be the case for K9, that some of the proposed 814 nos of MGS are converted to K9.
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10388
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Yagnasri »

We need a law prohibiting imports asap. It is now clear that whoever is the PM, the import lobby continue to destroy system developed by us in favor of imports. Barring jet engine, nuclear technology I am sure we can make almost everything else if we put money, time, effort and political will. Even in case of Jet engines all we need to time and investment. If we put both we can have them in a decade or 15 years at most.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Yagnasri wrote:We need a law prohibiting imports asap. It is now clear that whoever is the PM, the import lobby continue to destroy system developed by us in favor of imports. Barring jet engine, nuclear technology I am sure we can make almost everything else if we put money, time, effort and political will. Even in case of Jet engines all we need to time and investment. If we put both we can have them in a decade or 15 years at most.
Good idea. While we r at it also a law holding OFB responsible for lives lost when barrels burst or when rifles jam prematurely.
RKumar

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by RKumar »

Pratyush wrote:No new 155 mm gun's are getting imported.

A repeat order is a seperate issue and is quite logical in case of m777. As during the early phase of the deal. People were making a case for upto 900 gun's for the entire front line.

Same can be the case for K9, that some of the proposed 814 nos of MGS are converted to K9.
It is criminal to import 1700 guns out of 3500 when locally made solutions are available. Let's not do this circus of giving token orders to local industry and keep importing under the urgent operational requirements.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

These would not be imports.

If a repeat order for M777 is given. It will be executed by Mahindra defence.

L&T will execute any repeat order for K9. What is done is done.
VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2976
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by VinodTK »

neeraj
BRFite
Posts: 372
Joined: 12 Jun 2001 11:31
Location: UK

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by neeraj »

Pratyush wrote:These would not be imports.

If a repeat order for M777 is given. It will be executed by Mahindra defence.

L&T will execute any repeat order for K9. What is done is done.
This is screwdrivegiri for the core components. In case of M777 I doubt we have the foundries and the fabrication to even make the titanium chassis.
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by YashG »

Yagnasri wrote:We need a law prohibiting imports asap. It is now clear that whoever is the PM, the import lobby continue to destroy system developed by us in favor of imports. Barring jet engine, nuclear technology I am sure we can make almost everything else if we put money, time, effort and political will. Even in case of Jet engines all we need to time and investment. If we put both we can have them in a decade or 15 years at most.
I wish swadeshi systems could vote. All governments would have inducted them in plenty then.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Karan M »

Dhanush has had repeated muzzle strikes. They were traced to the ammo but IA is still worried.

Its APU is also too weak for the gun and needs changing.

ATAGS, has had a muzzle strike (likely OFB ammo issue again), IA needs weight reduction by 3-4 T, wants cost to come down to ATHOS level (at an indent of 1/3rd that of 400 ATHOS). There are also reports they want the electric drives to be replaced by hydraulic units for weight reduction.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.financ ... 5691/lite/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/wap.busine ... 056_1.html

IA should just speed up the ATAGS acceptance but doesn't look like they are budging from the weight reduction demand.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Vivek K »

In other words - IA is bringing out the Arjun playbook!

They will accept M777 with a muzzle strike traced back to OFB but not with Dhanush! How funny is that?

IA remains a force stubbornly against domestic innovation and national economic growth!!
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Vivek K wrote:In other words - IA is bringing out the Arjun playbook!

They will accept M777 with a muzzle strike traced back to OFB but not with Dhanush! How funny is that?

IA remains a force stubbornly against domestic innovation and national economic growth!!
Each time there is a muzzle strike there are potentially guys who potentially have serious injuries. So multiple strikes in the Dhanush would make the IA worried.

Weight reduction that is an issue but would be good to see what is Army originally asked for.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Vivek K »

When a cause for the muzzle strike is the shell and not the gun, why penalize the gun? Were the muzzle strikes caused deliberately like the Renk Transmission sabotage in the Arjun? There is no case to not order these guns, except ...........
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Indranil »

Karan M wrote: There are also reports they want the electric drives to be replaced by hydraulic units for weight reduction.
I have come across this elsewhere as well, but I don't understand it. It may be wrong reporting. But everywhere else electrical drives lower weight, price, and maintenance.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Vivek K »

Just ask for unobtainium to delay acquisition so that the import masters can continue to be served.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

You are dealing with an army that thinks that kontact 5 is sloped armour.

So hydraulic system it will be.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Vivek K wrote:Just ask for unobtainium to delay acquisition so that the import masters can continue to be served.


No imports will happen.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Manish_P »

Pratyush wrote:
Vivek K wrote:Just ask for unobtainium to delay acquisition so that the import masters can continue to be served.
No imports will happen.
No imports will happen, with this present Government...
Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4513
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Tanaji »

A M777 or a Vajra is an import even if it is assembled in India. This is the same playbook of Arjun that is being used here. Dhanush uses the same design of Bofors, albeit upgraded to 45 cal. The basic design has been validated and accepted. Things are so bad in IA that One is not asking for preference to Indian systems, just a level playing field. If M777 gets accepted with a muzzle strike down to faulty ammo, why can’t the same courtesy be afforded to Dhanush? Both are proven designs of many years…

Kadi Neenda must do better in his ministry.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Karan M »

Indranil wrote:
Karan M wrote: There are also reports they want the electric drives to be replaced by hydraulic units for weight reduction.
I have come across this elsewhere as well, but I don't understand it. It may be wrong reporting. But everywhere else electrical drives lower weight, price, and maintenance.
I think the DRDO guys have put multiple motors and actuators for different functions for redundancy and precision. Plus there is a heavy battery. The ATAGS is actually already a mix of hydraulics and electric drives, and reports state that the redundant electrical systems (chosen for better maintenance, ease of use) which are adding weight over less reliable hydraulic systems or even manual ones.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lDeYPOs1MmQ/ ... /ATAGS.jpg

Breech management, ammo handling system, are clearly electric. Deployment is electric/hydraulic. Laying mechanism could be either, but since its mentioned as automated, wondering if they are electrical servo motors.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

Karan M wrote:Dhanush has had repeated muzzle strikes. They were traced to the ammo but IA is still worried.

Its APU is also too weak for the gun and needs changing.

ATAGS, has had a muzzle strike (likely OFB ammo issue again), IA needs weight reduction by 3-4 T, wants cost to come down to ATHOS level (at an indent of 1/3rd that of 400 ATHOS). There are also reports they want the electric drives to be replaced by hydraulic units for weight reduction
Of the 3 requirements of ATAGS:

1) Going back to hydraulic is just bizarre
2) Weight & Cost will reduce once mass production starts and the gun gets iteratively improved

Same with Dhanush. Induct the damn gun and ask the OFB to work on a more powerful APU

The Army doesn't have guns and choose to nit-pick over these things :roll: We have a name for the gent who's standing in the way: Lt Gen. Chawala. He seems to be the latest in a long line of import-lovers, who have ensured that our Army is never quite ready for any sort of decisive war.
Anshuman.Kumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 58
Joined: 08 Sep 2016 20:16

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Anshuman.Kumar »

The Problem with Most IA domestic acquisitions has never been Reliable Domestic Offerings, but lack of Reliable IA officers ...and their blind backers.

America has built 690+ F 35s..far more complex weapon platform than Artillery Guns...with well documented issues...built by "Private Sector" ...and here we are..forever sending our def manufacturers on a wild goose chase
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

Pratyush wrote:I am more interested in learning more about the actual issues faced by OFB in manufacturing of Dhanush.

If the gun is a 45 calibre piece.

Then I will proceed with the following assumptions.

The gun barrel and breach along with recoil forces are well understood by OFB because of the work done by them of Sarang conversion.

It could be that they are facing metallurgy issues with the initial batches. With a RCA I think that this issue can easily be solved.

Because, I remember that T72 gun barrels were exploding as well a few decades ago. The issue was identified and fixed.

Coming to ATAGS I think that RM has to a word with both the army and the DRDO to solve the concerns that army has regarding the weight of the gun.

At the same time DRDO needs to look at developing new family of shells for the gun. Because of the higher chamber pressure presented by zone 7 charge shooting.

The new shell should be compatible with other 155 gun's.

It is quite frustrating when you observing from the outside you don't understand the issues faced in developing a brand new standard for the armed forces. Once understanding dawn's frustration disappears.
How is the explosive put in the shell? Is it cast explosive or pressed?
Thanks for any insight.
sanjayc
BRFite
Posts: 1091
Joined: 22 Aug 2016 21:40

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by sanjayc »

Prem Kumar wrote: The Army doesn't have guns and choose to nit-pick over these things :roll:
Reminds me of the movie Shatranj Ke Khiladi -- the two Chess-addicted Nawabs (who were in charge of defending their lands) put all their focus on beating each other in chess, as the East India Company army is massed on the road near them, marching to their kingdoms to wage war. But the Nawabs cannot be bothered to lift their heads from the chess board
ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4053
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ArjunPandit »

Anshuman.Kumar wrote:The Problem with Most IA domestic acquisitions has never been Reliable Domestic Offerings, but lack of Reliable IA officers ...and their blind backers.

America has built 690+ F 35s..far more complex weapon platform than Artillery Guns...with well documented issues...built by "Private Sector" ...and here we are..forever sending our def manufacturers on a wild goose chase
luxuries one can afford when they dont have enemies sitting across the border and have 660 bn usd defence budget..where the increase in airforce is bigger than most airforces themselves
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Ramana, explosive is poured into the shell as a viscus liquid which solidifies once cooled.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

ArjunPandit wrote: luxuries one can afford when they dont have enemies sitting across the border and have 660 bn usd defence budget..where the increase in airforce is bigger than most airforces themselves
Sir Ji, I think that you have missed the point that was being sought to be made.

In India services say that they will fight with what they have. However obsolete and inefficient. But when it comes to a domestic made device.

1) Make the vendor run arround in circles for token orders.
2) Don't stand behind own GSQR.
3) it makes no difference is the vendor is Pvt sector or public sector.
Post Reply