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
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by nachiket »

VinodTK wrote: Vips
If you read Indian history it is full of examples where the Indian side did not have artilary or if they did it was not adequate:
First Battle of Panipat: Fought between the invading forces of Babur and the Lodi dynasty.
English / French verses many Indian Kings/states
Marathas had artillery but not sufficient

Wonder if the lessons of the past will ever be learent
No need to even go that far back. Even in 1965 the pakis had superior artillery (quality not quantity) especially their American made M114 and M110 howitzers. Their artillery arm was well trained by the yankees too. We were lucky that their infantry and armored forces made enough blunders that this superiority in artillery did not dramatically affect the outcome.
A Deshmukh
BRFite
Posts: 515
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:24

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by A Deshmukh »

nachiket wrote:
VinodTK wrote: Vips
If you read Indian history it is full of examples where the Indian side did not have artilary or if they did it was not adequate:
First Battle of Panipat: Fought between the invading forces of Babur and the Lodi dynasty.
English / French verses many Indian Kings/states
Marathas had artillery but not sufficient

Wonder if the lessons of the past will ever be learent
No need to even go that far back. Even in 1965 the pakis had superior artillery (quality not quantity) especially their American made M114 and M110 howitzers. Their artillery arm was well trained by the yankees too. We were lucky that their infantry and armored forces made enough blunders that this superiority in artillery did not dramatically affect the outcome.
To add:
Kargil happened only because enemy artillery (+WLR) was superior to ours.
A Deshmukh
BRFite
Posts: 515
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:24

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by A Deshmukh »

In general, this could be a weak point of our army - not to visualize effective use of technology.
maybe too much emphasis on bravery, leadership and sacrifice of life for the nation.

In tomorrow's wars, the UAVs, UCAVs will be the new artillery (precision bombing on enemy at a distance).
We are ill-prepared on this aspect.
Chinese are relying heavily on mechanized forces. and we are weak in anti-tank precision missiles.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

VinodTK wrote: Vips
If you read Indian history it is full of examples where the Indian side did not have artilary or if they did it was not adequate:
First Battle of Panipat: Fought between the invading forces of Babur and the Lodi dynasty.
English / French verses many Indian Kings/states
Marathas had artillery but not sufficient

Wonder if the lessons of the past will ever be learent
Good point. We have been pioneers in many of the technologies like Urukku steel, metallurgy, artillery etc. But never employed them in numbers and constantly improved them to serve a national purpose.

There is a doctrinal/ideological gap somewhere. Its almost like we are happy to "prove a certain concept" but never take your advantage to its logical conclusion. Maybe because we don't have an end-state in mind to plan towards. No collective purpose or destiny that we work towards. The bane of status-quo'ism
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Aditya_V »

Prem Kumar wrote:
VinodTK wrote: Vips
If you read Indian history it is full of examples where the Indian side did not have artilary or if they did it was not adequate:
First Battle of Panipat: Fought between the invading forces of Babur and the Lodi dynasty.
English / French verses many Indian Kings/states
Marathas had artillery but not sufficient

Wonder if the lessons of the past will ever be learent
Good point. We have been pioneers in many of the technologies like Urukku steel, metallurgy, artillery etc. But never employed them in numbers and constantly improved them to serve a national purpose.

There is a doctrinal/ideological gap somewhere. Its almost like we are happy to "prove a certain concept" but never take your advantage to its logical conclusion. Maybe because we don't have an end-state in mind to plan towards. No collective purpose or destiny that we work towards. The bane of status-quo'ism
Indians in general love to sympathize with the enemy, we love to pull down any family member who they think can attain success. Most Indians think Military build up can be done after the enemy arrives- they are not emotionally connected if other Indians die. This has been the story for a 1000 years.

Most Indians think they are super Shakuni's and can benefit from easy deals with foreignors- Hard work, honesty, following due process, waiting in line, following traffic rules are all laughed at.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by nachiket »

Lets stick to artillery in this thread and refrain from wider civilizational discussions.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by nachiket »

A Deshmukh wrote: To add:
Kargil happened only because enemy artillery (+WLR) was superior to ours.
Not sure what that means. Kargil happened because we did not anticipate paki intentions and neither did we effectively monitor what they were up to in the winter when we used to pull back troops due to adverse weather. Nothing to do with our artillery or theirs. And no, their artillery by itself was not superior to ours in 1999.

The lack of WLR's did cause problems and casualties when the actual fighting began and in fact the power of the FH-77B Bofors guns and the way in which we employed them was instrumental in the final victory. Our own success should have taught us how important artillery was even in terrain where normally you would not think it would play such a huge part. And also warn us of glaring deficiencies which meant that we had to denude other sectors of the international border in order to have enough concentration of firepower on the LoC (something incidentally the pakis believed we would not do and which surprised them). I think the Army learnt those lessons well but our political class which holds the purse strings did not with the result that it took 2 more decades after Kargil to induct a single new artillery gun.
Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7806
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Anujan »

IIRC

Many books on Kargil had discussed that the precursor to kargil planning was that India could not mass enough firepower to vacate the TFTAs from the mountains: We could not thin the artillery deployment elsewhere to move them to Kargil.

Operation safedsagar and direct mode firing came as a surprise to them.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

Slightly dated but OFB article on Dhanush and Sharang.


http://www.spslandforces.com/story/?id= ... ity-of-OFB
mody
BRFite
Posts: 1362
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by mody »

ramana wrote:Slightly dated but OFB article on Dhanush and Sharang.


http://www.spslandforces.com/story/?id= ... ity-of-OFB
All very good, but the actual production seems to be lagging far behind. Maybe only 24 Dhanush handed over to IA so far. By now the production rate was to have increased to 50 guns per annum and the current order of 114 guns was to be completed in 2022. Now, this is delayed beyond any official estimate. The Army has also delayed placing the proposed additional order for 300 guns. No reports of testing of the Dhanush-52 guns so far either.

Hope all this is not used as an excuse to push through purchase of Athos guns as an emergency purchase. No LSP order for 150 guns for ATAGS either. The report about the same had come out 2 years ago.

Don't know about the production rate of Sarang. Any update about the same will be welcome.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

Good points.
About imports when domestic product is available, the RM and CDs already have stated the policy.
BTW funding comes from the Finance Ministry.


Lets see.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

Novel arty design from Mandus/GM. Would be most useful for the IA in the mountains,as we've already bought BAe LW 155MM howitzers.

https://breakingdefense.com/2021/05/arm ... -howitzer/
Xcpts:
Army Tries Out Humvee-Mounted Howitzer
How do you safely fire a 105 mm cannon off the back of a Humvee? With a unique recoil-reduction system.
By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.
on May 18, 2021 at 2:28 PM
Breaking Media video still
A Humvee mounting a low-recoil 105 mm howitzer

WASHINGTON: The Army is checking out two sizes of a unique low-recoil howitzer system: a 155mm gun on a 6×6 truck, Brutus, and a 105mm on a 4×4 Humvee, Hawkeye. That’s an extraordinarily small vehicle to mount an artillery piece, and reducing recoil is the key to making it work.

The “soft recoil” system was developed by Mandus Group and integrated on vehicles by Humvee manufacturer AM General. By shifting the howitzer barrel forward and installing better hydraulics, the system reduces the recoil – depending on the elevation and range of the shot – anywhere from 40 to 60 percent, AM General CEO Andy Hove told me.

If you cut the recoil in half, the whole artillery system need be only half as heavy to absorb the stock, Hove went on. “You can save a tremendous amount of weight,” he said, which translates into a cheaper, lighter vehicle, with lower fuel and maintenance costs, that’s easier to deploy abroad and sustain in the field.

“Just on the gun itself, the soft recoil system has fewer operating parts that need to be maintained than the current recoil system,” he told me – and they’re under much less strain, so they’ll break down less.

The soft-recoil system scales up and down, so there are actually two versions.

The 155mm model, called Brutus, was touted as a contender for the Army’s new wheeled howitzer, meant to accompany highly mobile 8×8 Stryker vehicles into battle. Currently, Stryker units rely on towed 155s, which are much less mobile and take much more time to set up than self-propelled versions. The Army’s currently conducting an informal “shoot off” of four alternative wheeled howitzers; the reported contenders are American (AM General’s Brutus), Israeli (Elbit’s Iron Saber), Swedish (BAE’s Archer), and even Serbian (Yugoimport’s NORA).

The 105mm model, called Hawkeye, would presumably accompany light infantry units, which mostly move on foot and have a handful of vehicles, including trucks to tow artillery.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

The Strykers themselves are being taken out.
Still an interesting concept of mounting the barrel and better hydraulics.
Need to study the dynamics.
V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 1379
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by V_Raman »

How different is this from Kalyani Garuda 105mm which is also mounted on a humvee?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

V_Raman wrote:How different is this from Kalyani Garuda 105mm which is also mounted on a humvee?
Kalyani has TOT for the recoil system.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Out of these the Brutus looks promising, particularly because of its simplicity and because it can be mounted on an existing tactical vehicle, and is much simpler to deploy and move around in theater compared to the behemoths like the Archer, Atmos which are larger though they offer more automation etc. You can individually deploy each of the components to theater and if you break down you can move it on to a new platform. This is not possible on fully integrated systems though I feel the US Army will select the Atmos for its current self-propelled 155 mm requirements.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Vips »

Pratyush wrote:
V_Raman wrote:How different is this from Kalyani Garuda 105mm which is also mounted on a humvee?
Kalyani has TOT for the recoil system.
We will keep showing the various MGS which are already available/developed at the various Def Expo's but wont order even a couple of dozen of these which are much required at the LAC.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

The complaint from all desi pvt. sector navaratnas.
Maria
BRFite
Posts: 212
Joined: 15 Aug 2020 13:50

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Maria »

What about the CAPFs? Can't they be armed with at least the 105 mm versions of these new products? I was hoping we would at least arm the BSF at the border.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

deborishig wrote:What about the CAPFs? Can't they be armed with at least the 105 mm versions of these new products? I was hoping we would at least arm the BSF at the border.

CAPF are not a surrogate of the army. They have neither the mandate to conduct combat nor are they equipped to conduct combat.

If you have to conduct any offensive or defensive action. Deploy the army.
Maria
BRFite
Posts: 212
Joined: 15 Aug 2020 13:50

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Maria »

No, I understand that perfectly Pratyush. However can't we have the BSF armed with newer 105s from the private sector since they have the mandate to operate this calibre? It at least keeps the runs ticking for Atmanirbhar Bharat and indigenisation .... just my 2 paisa, thanks for your reply.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Quite frankly I don't really understand the need to equip the BSF with 105 field guns. If they have to be under the Army's operational control.

In order to develop an understanding I will need to learn more about the budget and logic of equipping the BSF with the guns.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

The answer?

https://breakingdefense.com/2021/05/ram ... ery-range/
Xcpts:
Ramjet Shells Could Triple Artillery Range
The Army’s ERAMS program will soon announce development contracts for howitzer shells capable of firing over 100 km (62 miles) to counter Russian and Chinese artillery.
By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.
on May 24, 2021
Test of Northrop Grumman’s ramjet engine for extended-range 155 mm artillery shells

WASHINGTON: The Army is about to award development contracts for future artillery shells that will look more and more like missiles, with precision guidance, fins, and even ramjet engines. The program – part of a much wider buildup of US missile and cannons – aims to boost both range and accuracy far beyond anything possible with gunpowder alone. The goal: enable the currently outgunned and outranged US artillery force to compete with more advanced Russian and Chinese guns.

The US Army has long had rocket-boosted howitzer shells. The Cold War M549A1 has a range of roughly 30 kilometers (not quite 19 miles). The new XM1113 Rocket Assisted Projectile goes 40 km (25 miles) or more from the current M109 Paladin cannon and 70 km (44 miles) from the XM1299 Extended Range Cannon Artillery (ERCA) now in development. But to break triple digits – 100 kilometers (62 miles) and more – you can’t rely on rockets: You need something much more powerful, like a ramjet.

There are three main ways you can extend the range of a projectile, and the Army’s Extended Range Artillery Munitions Suite is exploring all of them in combination for the future XM1155 shell, ERAMS project manager Nick Berg told me in an interview:

Increase muzzle velocity. The faster the projectile comes out of the gun barrel, the farther it can go before drag and gravity bring it down to earth. Higher muzzle velocity is the emphasize of the XM1299 ERCA howitzer, which has a longer barrel and more powerful propellant than the current Paladin.
Add lift surfaces. Basically, this means adding wings and fins to the shell – like a missile or miniature aircraft – to make it more aerodynamic. The more lift generated, the longer the projectile can fly. Of course, the wings, fins, and electronics all have to survive the brutal shock of being fired from a cannon.
Add “post-launch propulsion.” This is where rockets and ramjets come in: They kick in after the projectile has cleared the gun barrel (hence “post-launch”) to give it an extra burst of thrust. Again, the motors first have to survive the shock of launch.
“We’ve actually investigated and looked at all of those areas,” Berg told me. “We really have focused on lifting surfaces to increase your glide [distance], but then also we’ve looked at solid fuel ramjets as a post-launch propulsion mechanism to boost you out to extended ranges.”

Why ramjets over rockets? The basic difference is that rockets contain their own oxidizer to burn their fuel, while jets of all kinds – from ramjets to turbofans – get their oxygen from the atmosphere. (Hence the name “air-breathing engine”). That saves weight, since you don’t have to carry oxidizer; it improves safety, since the fuel doesn’t ignite as easily; and it extends endurance, since the jet can keep thrusting as long as it has air and fuel. (A longer, gentler burn is also more aerodynamically efficient, reducing drag). A rocket-boosted artillery shell might burn for just 10 seconds, Berg told me, while a jet could conceivably last much longer.

How does a ramjet differ from other kinds of jet engines? All jets work by sucking in air at the front end, compressing it, mixing it with fuel, and igniting it, blasting thrust out the back end. (The shorthand is “suck, squeeze, bang, blow.”) At subsonic speeds, you need to mechanically compress the air with some kind of fan, like the one on the front of an airliner’s turbofan engine. But at supersonic speeds, around Mach 2, the air is coming in the front of the engine so fast that it compresses itself, without mechanical assistance: That’s a ramjet.

From BARRY ROSENBERG
A ramjet’s actually mechanically simpler than a conventional jet, since it doesn’t need a compressor, which is one less thing that might break when shot out of a cannon. Historically, the hard part with ramjets has been that they don’t work at speeds below Mach 2 – but being shot out of a cannon gets you to those speeds.

So ramjets are in some ways a natural fit for artillery propulsion. That doesn’t make them easy to build.

“The ramjet does offer a little more technical challenge,” Berg told me, because you have to fit sophisticated, shock-resistant electronics into a small package along with inlets to feed air to the ramjet itself.

Ground test of Innoveering ramjet

Some of technology involved gets pretty exquisite, even exotic. The munition’s control system needs to sense airflow, pressure, heating, including phenomena that don’t happen at lower speeds, said Bob Bakos, CEO of Innoveering, a small firm working with the Picatinny Arsenal Armaments Center on the ramjet ammo. “You’re talking about thousands of degrees” of heating from, essentially, the friction of the air, he told me. To steer in such extreme conditions, he went on, the projectile needs the traditional flaps and fins, but it might be possible to use tiny air ducts, electromagnets, or even plasma to affect the airflow and correct course.

By RICHARD NATONSKI and JONATHAN RUHE
Once the XM1155 shell is developed, a future “cargo” variant could be used to deliver other payloads besides explosives, such as sensor packages and jamming pods.

The Army’s already run Phase I of the ERAMS program, with participation by Boeing, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon. Now it’s working on two contracts for Phase II, with awards expected within two weeks. A Raytheon spokesman confirmed they’re no longer working on the program, while Boeing confirmed they’re competing.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

https://breakingdefense.com/2021/05/lea ... hezbollah/
Learn From Gaza, Prepare For Hezbollah
If you thought the recently concluded Gaza conflict was bad, a war with Lebanese Hezbollah would be much worse, involving 100,000 more rockets, many with longer ranges.
By RICHARD NATONSKI and JONATHAN RUHE
on May 24, 2021

With a ceasefire announced in Gaza, it’s crucial to apply the lessons-learned to a likely future conflict with Hezbollah, and likely Iran, in Lebanon and beyond.

As The Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) has laid out in a comprehensive report, this looming war will be unprecedentedly destructive. Hezbollah’s arsenals are an order of magnitude more potent than anything in Gaza, including at least 130,000 rockets and missiles that will do what Hamas conspicuously has yet to accomplish – namely, overpower Israel’s world-class multi-layered air defense network.

President Biden’s welcome decision last Thursday to replenish interceptor stocks for Israel’s short-range Iron Dome air defenses – which were called upon more than ever in the latest flareup – is only a small glimpse of what Israel will need to defend itself in the next war. In addition to Iron Dome, Washington must ensure adequate U.S.-Israel coproduction of David’s Sling and Arrow air defense systems that will be crucial for defending against Hezbollah’s and Iran’s much more sophisticated, powerful and longer-range projectiles, including precision munitions.
Since Hezbollah’s last war with Israel in 2006, Iran has assiduously rebuilt its primary terrorist proxy into a genuine juggernaut. Hezbollah now possesses more firepower than 95 percent of the world’s conventional militaries, and more rockets and missiles than all European NATO members combined. As is the case with terrorist groups in Gaza, the vast majority of these are unguided short-range rockets, though Hezbollah likely has several times more of these than the estimated 30,000 short-range rockets and mortars in Gaza at the start of the last round of conflict.

Hezbollah also has thousands of more powerful unguided medium- and long-range rockets, many of them ranging all of Israel, compared to several hundred at most in Gaza that can reach central Israel, including Tel Aviv, and only parts of the north. These longer ranges allow Hezbollah to disperse its arsenal throughout Lebanon, including Beirut and Beqaa Valley, covering much greater area than Gaza.

And unlike anything in the arsenals of Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah wields dozens or hundreds of precision missiles. Tehran also tries to proliferate technology to convert Hezbollah’s plentiful unguided rockets into precision weapons, and it assiduously attempts to make Syria, Iraq and Yemen into additional launchpads. Because Iron Dome focuses on projectiles threatening built-up areas, Israel’s challenges will grow proportionally with the precision munition stocks of Iran, Hezbollah and other proxies around the region.
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by jamwal »

BSF in some sectors uses artillery guns, 105 mm I think.
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2937
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by darshhan »

Pratyush wrote:Quite frankly I don't really understand the need to equip the BSF with 105 field guns. If they have to be under the Army's operational control.

In order to develop an understanding I will need to learn more about the budget and logic of equipping the BSF with the guns.
This is OT but it is high time that both BSF and ITBP be brought under Ministry of Defence just like Assam Rifles. CRPF, CISF and SSB can remain under Home ministry.
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Vips »

India has now deployed K9 Vajra in Ladakh. Where is the MGS? What will it take to be bought by us?
rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4451
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by rsingh »

darshhan wrote:
Pratyush wrote:Quite frankly I don't really understand the need to equip the BSF with 105 field guns. If they have to be under the Army's operational control.

In order to develop an understanding I will need to learn more about the budget and logic of equipping the BSF with the guns.
This is OT but it is high time that both BSF and ITBP be brought under Ministry of Defence just like Assam Rifles. CRPF, CISF and SSB can remain under Home ministry.[/quote
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

I agree with Darshan,the BSF and ITBF must be part of the IA's forces if the BSF are to get regular army weaponry. Constabulary duties can be given to other entities.In fact,early retiring soldiers can be given the opportunity of serving in the BSF,etc. for a limited period as well,as they would be fully trained,saving BSF training expenses,etc. This way our reserve forces, if we count the BSF as reserves,would be closer,actually on the border allowing us to place soem of our regular forces out of range of enemy fire.

There is a major decision to come v.shortly,whether we are to give the nod to ATAGS or the v.heavily touted Israeli rival.

https://theprint.in/defence/israels-ath ... ek/666695/
Israel’s ATHOS gun system or Atmanirbhar ATAGS? Defence negative list to finalise next week
The towed gun system is part of Army’s Field Artillery Rationalisation Plan that was drawn up in 1999. An Israeli firm has been in the race for over two years now.
SNEHESH ALEX PHILIP 28 May, 2021 8:00 am IST

Elbit's Autonomous Towed Howitzer Ordnance System (ATHOS). | Photo courtesy: Elbit Systems

New Delhi: Nearly 14 years ago, the Ministry of Defence cleared the proposal for a towed artillery gun system under the ‘Buy and Make’ category that was meant to be the backbone of India’s fire assault. A final decision on this is still awaited.

All eyes are now on the second defence negative import list, which is expected to be out soon, to see if the 155mm x 52 caliber towed artillery gun is on it.

Sources in the defence establishment told ThePrint that the list has been submitted but a physical meeting has not taken place due to the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The meeting to review and clear the decision is now expected next week.

While the artillery gun was there in the first negative list released on 9 August 2020, and the embargo was to kick in from December 2020, the date was was subsequently changed to December 2021.

With the deal yet to be signed, eyes are on whether the cut-off date will remain or extended again.

The reason for extending the date was that while the indigenous Advanced Towed Artillery Gun System (ATAGS) is being built, a separate process is also on to get similar guns from the global market and making them in the country under the ‘Make in India’ initiative.


This race was primarily between Israel’s Elbit Systems and France’s Nexter, and Elbit’s Autonomous Towed Howitzer Ordnance System (ATHOS) emerged the winner.

The process for acquiring towed guns began in 2001 as part of the Army’s Field Artillery Rationalisation Plan, which had been drawn up in 1999. Multiple requests for proposal (RFPs) were issued. In the last RFP, which was issued under the UPA government, only the two companies mentioned above participated, sources said.

Nearly 14 years ago, the Ministry of Defence cleared the proposal for a towed artillery gun system under the ‘Buy and Make’ category that was meant to be the backbone of India’s fire assault.

Also read: Indian Army has new strategies for Pakistan, China: Punitive deterrence, credible deterrence

Elbit emerged cheaper than Nexter
In March 2019, following what was meant to be an exhaustive ‘Field Trial Cum Evaluation Process’ spread over several years, which saw several ups and downs, Elbit Systems was declared the lowest bidder (L1).

The deal was for the supply of 400 guns and indigenous production of the remainder 1,180 guns by Ordnance Factory Board (OFB), under a full Transfer of Technology (TOT) process.

Sources in the defence establishment said the price of Elbit Systems’ ATHOS was lower by 40 per cent compared to the price of its competitor — Nexter’s Trajan gun.

Sources in know of the bidding process said the cost per gun, which weighs less than 15 tonnes and has a fully automatic loading system, put forward by Elbit was less than Rs 11 crore per piece. This is also significantly lower than the estimated cost of the ATAGS, which is said to be anywhere between Rs 16-18 crore.

However, since the bid opened in March 2019 and the completion of the cost negotiation process in July that year, a final decision is pending.
In December last year, the Israeli government also wrote a letter to Defence Minister Rajnath Singh to push for this deal.

However, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has gone on record to oppose any import plans, saying that its ATAGS was better than ATHOS and is the gun of the future.

Elbit’s offer
Earlier last year, the Israeli firm also wrote to the Indian defence authorities, stating that in case they prefer to acquire only the first 400 towed guns, the related cost corresponding to TOT can be deducted from the total contract price.

This was due to a line of thinking in the defence establishment that 400 of these guns (for 20 regiments) can be procured from Elbit to “overcome operational voids in the medium artillery in HAA (High Altitude Area) along the northern borders”.

However, sources said the figures in the RFP cannot be changed in the middle of the process.

In the letter, Elbit Systems had offered the TOT for the future 1,180 guns as an option for India, at the same cost as mentioned in the commercial offer made.

Elbit also said it has finalised the approach and strategy to achieve 70 per cent indigenisation within the contract of the first 400 towed guns, starting from the first guns.

The company’s argument was that the ATHOS is tailored to the special requirements of the Indian Army and it has invested tens of millions of dollars in the design and development of the gun in accordance with Army requirements and in the field trials.

The sources said Elbit also promised to supply the guns much earlier than the contract delivery schedule — the first six guns within 10 months from contract signing, and an additional six guns within 14 months.

According to the Israeli firm, all the remaining guns will be delivered according to an accelerated delivery schedule, which will ensure finalisation of the deliveries not later than 54 months from contract signing, instead of the 72 months stipulated in the draft contract.

In its communications with the Indian defence establishment, Elbit said the ATHOS will end up being an indigenous gun — mass produced, assembled and integrated in India.

Highlighting that it has a joint venture (JV) with Indian firm Bharat Forge, the Israeli company said the technology and design will be fully transferred to the JV and OFB, enabling the ATHOS to be mass-produced in India.

Incidentally, Bharat Forge is also involved with the ATGS development along with the Tata Group.


This report has been updated to reflect that the import embargo date for the artillery gun was extended to December 2021.

(Edited by Amit Upadhyay)
Now who is touting for a firang gun when a superior desi product is available?
Advanced Towed Artillery Gun System (ATAGS)
Type Towed Howitzer
Place of origin India
Service history
Used by Indian Army
Production history
Designer Armament Research and Development Establishment
Designed 2010-2014
Manufacturer Bharat Forge Limited
Mahindra Defence Naval System
Ordnance Factory Board
Tata Power Strategic Engineering Division[1]
Produced 2019
No. built 7 (prototypes)[2]
Specifications
Mass 18 tonnes (18 long tons; 20 short tons)[3]
Length 52 Caliber 8060 mm
Barrel length 6975 mm
Crew 6-8
Caliber 155 mm
Breech Screw type
Recoil Electro-rheological/Magneto-rheological
Elevation -3 to 70 degree
Traverse +/-25
Rate of fire Burst: 3 rounds in 15 sec Intense: 15 rounds in 3 min Sustained: 60 rounds in 60 min
Effective firing range 48 km[4]
Maximum firing range 48.074 km (Using HE-BB or High Explosive Base Bleed ammunitions)[5][6]
Sights Thermal sight. Gunners display
Athos:
Range. 41 km – 52 calibre. – 49 calibre. – 39 calibre.
Rate of fire. Burst – 3 round within 15 sec. Rapid – 5 round within 1 min. Sustained – >80 round an hour.
Aiming resolution – 1 artillery mil.
Deployment time – ~1.5 minute to first shot.
DRDO says ATAGS howitzer 'best in world' | A look at its specifications, features and how well it competes with the legendary Bofors
The DRDO, which has developed the ATAGS howitzers along with Bharat Forge Limited and Tata Advanced Systems Limited, believes that it could solve the Army's requirement of 1800 artillery guns systems.
https://english.jagran.com/india/drdo-s ... s-10021339
Luit
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 78
Joined: 17 Feb 2009 13:10
Location: North East

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Luit »

Now who is touting for a firang gun when a superior desi product is available?

If indeed, the negative import list is ammended and the Embargo date changed - it will be a huge red flag and warning for Indian Citizens. This will clear the way for the purchase of an inferior Yahudi gun at the cost of excellent indigenous systems like the ATAGS and Dhanush. In fact, I would think of it is a clear act of 'surgical strike' on Indian IP, Manufacturers and DRDO.

It is well known that the ATAGS and Dhanush are better guns than the Foreign Gun. Also, the Indian guns have high localised content i.e., 95% and 83%. I am willing to eat crow if the Yahuds are offering more than 70% Tech Transfer and if the cost does not go up once the decision to purchase their gun is finalised.

To conclude, Going for ATAGS and Dhanush required no mental effort. Any efforts to procure Yahudi towed artillery is highly suspicious.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

If ATHOS is ordered. Then it will be a real scam from this government.

If ATHOS is ordered.
RKumar

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by RKumar »

What is the point of publishing reports with anonymous sources - if someone is confident that what they want is right and based on the facts, say it with confidence and on the record.

It is again Arjun saga written all over again - it seems people in power, don't want to have the best local produce product. The irony is even after 7 years in power, the import lobby is still going so strong.


Weight - 17 vs 15 tons
Mobility - 526 km vs 23 km (Why apple and orange - why not same units)
Cost - X Crore vs X -11 Crore
Range - 48 km vs 41 km
Firing - 5 in a minute vs 3 in 30 sec (Why apple and orange - why not same units)
Firing - 10 in 90 sec vs 12 in 120 secs (Why apple and orange - why not same units )
Firing - 60 in 60 mins vs 42 in 60 mins

I will take ATAGS any day over the imported product - given it is a local product and covers an extra 7 km
They said that ATAGS (Bharat Forge) has demonstrated efficient towed movement in the treacherous terrain climbing altitudes up to 15,500 ft.

“Movement to Lukrep meant covering 341 kilometres and was tested over 10 days. ATAGS could negotiate the otherwise un-accessible mountainous terrain with steep gradient and narrow Hair-Pin Bends with ease, without needing to unhook the Gun from the Tower. In similar terrain, other systems need to be unhooked and moved in self-propelled mode, thereby increasing the overall travel time,” a source said.

He added that the total distance travelled by the ATAGS in mountains and high altitude was 526 kms as against 23 Kms mobility test done for foreign guns.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

I was looking at the list of banned defense imports and 155/52 towed gun was banned for import from Dec 2020.

So the question of purchasing Athos doesn't arise. No matter the number Lifafas are exchanged.
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Vips »

It should not come as any surprise if 400 Units of Athos are ordered for immediate needs to meet the situation at the LAC/LOC and later 1180 units of ATAGS are ordered if confirmatory summer trials in June are cleared.

Either way Kalyani Group is set to get a big order.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by nachiket »

Pratyush wrote:I was looking at the list of banned defense imports and 155/52 towed gun was banned for import from Dec 2020.

So the question of purchasing Athos doesn't arise. No matter the number Lifafas are exchanged.
The negative import list will not stop vested interests from attempting to circumvent it by convincing the powers that be that the local alternative is either not ready or not good enough. Eventually you need a Defence Minister smart enough not to get carried away by this nonsense and who can put his/her foot down and send such people packing.
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Vips »

RKumar wrote:
Cost - X Crore vs X -11 Crore
Cost of each ATAGS is Rs 16-18 Crore vs Rs 11 Crore of the Athos.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5220
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by srai »

Vips wrote:It should not come as any surprise if 400 Units of Athos are ordered for immediate needs to meet the situation at the LAC/LOC and later 1180 units of ATAGS are ordered if confirmatory summer trials in June are cleared.

Either way Kalyani Group is set to get a big order.
By that logic, what’s stopping from ordering more Dhanush?

Image

No excuse for Athos import.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

It makes no difference.

The country has a number of local 52 caliber candidates. From Bharat Forge in the shape of Bharat 52 and the Fh 77B can always be upgraded with the 52 caliber barrel shown by OFB for the MGS program.

Also how much of the cost of ATAGS is based on the electronics and the heavy recoil management system due to the larger chamber of the gun. This is some thing that has to be considered. Only then an apples to apples comparison be done.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by nachiket »

Vips wrote:
RKumar wrote:
Cost - X Crore vs X -11 Crore
Cost of each ATAGS is Rs 16-18 Crore vs Rs 11 Crore of the Athos.
More of that money will stay within India and help support the local ecosystem of vendors compared to Athos which will be nothing but screwdrivergiri using components imported from Israel. None of the countries which are major arms manufacturers today got to where they are by choosing to buy foreign weapons and equipment over their own because theirs was more expensive.
Post Reply