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
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by NRao »

FYI, USMC (NOT the US Army) proposal in 2019/20:

New in 2021: Why the Corps may see fewer M777s next year
The Corps currently has 21 active duty M777 batteries and plans to reduce that number to five, essentially a reinforced battalion worth of artillery by 2030.

In its place the Corps will see a “300 percent increase in rocket artillery capacity,” a brief about the force design changes said.

How a Marine Corps shift to long ranges may change its strong cannoneer tradition

Makes sense as it overcomes the limitations of tube artillery. Especially with guided rounds.
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:
2) my advocacy for NLOS missile type is on the basis of the area's where the Indian army had to operate and the logistics difficulty it is going to face.

That being said. The NLOS missile system can have either an Anti tank warhead which will be good enough for most field fortifications. In which case the all up weight of the missile will be under 100 kg. For a range of upto 100 kms.

Or a larger missile with a! warhead weight of 50 kg and the missile will have an all up weight of under 250 kgs.
You are still talking of areas where logistics is possible. Not where some of the pickets in the back of beyond where anything bigger than a carl gustav type of weapon is extremely difficult to place.

Plus even of you give the NLOS weapons there is the question of the entire kill chain.

A 100Kg or a 250Kg missile will also mean vehicles and other logistics so then it comes down to arty as an area denial weapon with high range NLOS weapons more of a strategic asset Div / Corps level in which case we have things like the Brahmos or the AA and IAF have NLOS missiles. Army's use of NLOS will be mounted on mechanised assets and these will be finite assets and limited in range. Weight matters..

NLOS cannot provide the bang for the buck and ease of use that Arty can provide at a tactical level whether in offensive ops or defensive ops.

Also what are these field fortifications we are talking about?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Field fortifications = sangars and bunker. Something that is expected to be engaged using arty.

Instead of moving a 15 ton or 6 ton howitzer and a fat with 60 rounds a plus another resupply vehicle with another 60 rounds. To the firing location and then spend one hour shoting at the enemy. Send a 5 ton truck or a light 4*4 with NLOS missile system and kill it with a single shot.

WRT, kill chain and targeting, unless you have a forward observer providing targeting information. Your 155 is just a very expensive paper weight.

If a target is under observation. Then the NLOS missile can do the job with a single shot. Something that arty will take 100s or rounds with unguided rounds.

When a guidance system is available, tube becomes replaceable.

In both the situations in order to take maximum advantage of guided rounds. Observation capacity has to go down to the platoon level.

The Indian army is taking steps in this direction even today. With demand for canister launched loitering munition with range of upto 120 km.

NLOS is a logical evolution to that thought process.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by RoyG »

It will be a mix especially with precision guided shells. We are already working on terminally guided munition (TGM). Good pic below.

https://twitter.com/Kunal_Biswas707/sta ... 58144?s=19
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

DRDO tests mounted gun system
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... gun-system
01 Dec 2022
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

RoyG wrote:It will be a mix, especially with precision-guided shells. We are already working on terminally guided munition (TGM). Good pic below.

https://twitter.com/Kunal_Biswas707/sta ... 58144?s=19
And the shell on the left is a 125mm tank round.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Ramana Sir,

That on the right most side a Shell or a thermos?
Ashokk
BRFite
Posts: 1116
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Ashokk »

Rakesh wrote:DRDO tests mounted gun system
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... gun-system
01 Dec 2022
From the above
A DRDO official told Janes that the trials of the MGS have been going on for some time now.
“The mobility and performance trials of the MGS are completed. The standalone firing trials of the armoured cabin are also completed. The MGS is ready to undergo the strength of design trials,” the official said. :((
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

ks_sachin wrote:Ramana Sir,

That on the right most side a Shell or a thermos?
The one in silver with dimples?

That is a top secret canister deploying liquids. Made either Milton or Cello.

It's display in public this way is a serious breach of op security.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

"Strength of Design trials" is a good one. Love the innovation
V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 1379
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by V_Raman »

given what we are seeing in UKR with M777 reliability - our Bofors is a monster! Kudos to the Swedish!!
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Vips »

So free Samosa and Chai for bureaucrats through the user-trials in summer/winter of 2023 and then during re-trials in the summer/winter of 2024 for the changes that will be suggested by the Army of the original user-trials.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Prem Kumar wrote:"Strength of Design trials" is a good one. Love the innovation
Prem in this case it makes sense. The gun puts a huge amount of strain on the vehicle and its chassis. In addition the mounting points are also subject to huge stres.

Remember when we tried to mate the Arjun turret to the T72 it did not work.

But again maybe this is something being to prolong trials and sneak in something else.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Vips wrote:So free Samosa and Chai for bureaucrats through the user-trials in summer/winter of 2023 and then during re-trials in the summer/winter of 2024 for the changes that will be suggested by the Army of the original user-trials.
Yes Sir,

That is the official SOP laid down.
Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3866
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Kakkaji »

IMHO the biggest tragedy in the artillery acquisition process has been the army's ignoring of the Bharat-52 gun from Kalyani. It was based on a proven international design, and It has been available for large-scale 'made in India', with a factory ready to go, for over a decade IIRC. But the army and the MoD completely ignored it, and did not even bother to run trials on it for so many years. Had they jumped on it when Bharat Forge offered it, they would have had hundreds, if not thousands of 'good enough' quality 155mm guns in the inventory by now.
The Dhanush and ATAGS could have followed the course they are following now, but the Bharat 52 would have given the army the breathing room on the artillery front, and not made the situation so dire as it is now.
JMHO
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Vips »

Buying a 100% private gun made by an Indian company would expose the DRDO for what they are (they even made a hash of upgrading the original Bofors gun inspite of having all the technical blue prints).

Indian Army will procure from Bharat Forge, Tata Systems (ATAGS) and L&T (Light tanks -Korean K Series rebadged "Zoravar") so long as it is touted as "DRDO -Pvt Sector joint venture".
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by NRao »

V_Raman wrote:given what we are seeing in UKR with M777 reliability - our Bofors is a monster! Kudos to the Swedish!!
The Saudis have used it for some years without issues.

The problem, in Ukraine, is with the user, not the gun itself.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by RoyG »

Vips wrote:Buying a 100% private gun made by an Indian company would expose the DRDO for what they are (they even made a hash of upgrading the original Bofors gun inspite of having all the technical blue prints).

Indian Army will procure from Bharat Forge, Tata Systems (ATAGS) and L&T (Light tanks -Korean K Series rebadged "Zoravar") so long as it is touted as "DRDO -Pvt Sector joint venture".
State sector enterprises has a role but the industry has emerged in key items. It will take time but it will happen.
titash
BRFite
Posts: 606
Joined: 26 Aug 2011 18:44

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by titash »

Vips wrote:Buying a 100% private gun made by an Indian company would expose the DRDO for what they are (they even made a hash of upgrading the original Bofors gun inspite of having all the technical blue prints).

Indian Army will procure from Bharat Forge, Tata Systems (ATAGS) and L&T (Light tanks -Korean K Series rebadged "Zoravar") so long as it is touted as "DRDO -Pvt Sector joint venture".
Not quite so simple Sirjee,

The DRDO has all the blueprints for the Tejas incl. the GE404 and Kaveri engines but they're unable to produce it in-house.

Why? Sometimes you know what to make but you may not know 'how' to make it. That delta in knowledge is Metallurgy & Materials Science ('meta').

20 years ago, I graduated with a BTech in 'meta' and I visited my old department a few months back where my batchmates are now professors. A few observations:

1. Based on JEE rank, there was a clear preference for undergraduate degrees in the following departments CompSci --> Elec --> Mech --> Chem --> Others. People go where economic prospects are better. I believe this is still true today

2. All it takes to do path breaking R&D in CompSci is a notebook and a PC. What it takes in 'meta' is top notch starter materials, fabrication facilities, testing facilities, not to mention metrology. All these cost money and even today my old department is not on par with what UT Austin was 20 years ago

3. People switch their research to what is feasible...a lot of people I knew shifted to computational material science where again, you need good PCs as opposed to directional solidification of engine blades

You cannot replicate the Bofors gun barrel based on blueprints - period. You have to go through the exercise of designing, prototyping, and high volume manufacturing of the Arjun 120mm rifled barrel and thoroughly understand the process before you go replicating Bofors gun barrels
hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4633
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by hnair »

Vips wrote:Buying a 100% private gun made by an Indian company would expose the DRDO for what they are (they even made a hash of upgrading the original Bofors gun inspite of having all the technical blue prints).

Indian Army will procure from Bharat Forge, Tata Systems (ATAGS) and L&T (Light tanks -Korean K Series rebadged "Zoravar") so long as it is touted as "DRDO -Pvt Sector joint venture".
Vips, should we be concerned above how you seem to run a protracted campaign against strategic entities like DRDO, ISRO etc? Being a fan-boi doing mijjile maalish to private sector brochures is one thing, but this sort of silly posts does not add any depth to our understanding of what might work in India.

It is not like you are a newbie and does not know the lay of the land.
hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4633
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by hnair »

titash wrote: Not quite so simple Sirjee,

The DRDO has all the blueprints for the Tejas incl. the GE404 and Kaveri engines but they're unable to produce it in-house.
Indian private entities are not yet ready for prime contractor roles, even though tremendous progress has been made over past twenty years in manufacturing higher risk designs as sub-contractors. Ask a naval architect in India and they just shake their heads at private sector yard’s abysmal delivery rate of major hulls for Navy. Air Force can’t even think of a private prime contractor for even rotary or transport, let alone offensive systems due to the high entry barrier of aerospace design and manufacturing. The army has a more graded entry barrier. Hence we see small arms to drones being encouraged. But tube artillery is still work in progress and one can expect prime contactors who can do design to production by maybe 2035 (or earlier!)

Khan has lots of such de-risking entities like DRDO, which are run under NSF, DARPA or entities like Kirtland Laboratory, Springfield Arsenal, China Lake etc, where most of the basic physics is proven and de-risked by fully governmental entities. France has their Technical Grand Corps (l’armament being DRDO’s analogue) and Russia has their design bureaus.

But Indian fanbois bleat :(( while watching Northrop push out their latest flying saucer, not understanding that DRDO equivalent entities stencil their role discreetly on the sides of these artifacts while allowing the private sector to play the star of the show. It allows them to be discreet and help a country from being too risk averse
williams
BRFite
Posts: 874
Joined: 21 Jun 2006 20:55

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by williams »

Khan's annual federal spending on Defence R&D is a whopping 62 Billion dollars. We have made great strides with 1.5 Billion dollars. So it is going to take time and money. Can't be done overnight with just talk shows and conclaves. If you want more, then invest more money and time.
ernest
BRFite
Posts: 147
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 15:35

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ernest »

hnair wrote:
Khan has lots of such de-risking entities like DRDO, which are run under NSF, DARPA or entities like Kirtland Laboratory, Springfield Arsenal, China Lake etc, where most of the basic physics is proven and de-risked by fully governmental entities. France has their Technical Grand Corps (l’armament being DRDO’s analogue) and Russia has their design bureaus.

But Indian fanbois bleat :(( while watching Northrop push out their latest flying saucer, not understanding that DRDO equivalent entities stencil their role discreetly on the sides of these artifacts while allowing the private sector to play the star of the show. It allows them to be discreet and help a country from being too risk averse
Thank you for reiterating this. We all have been reminded of the limits of Indian private sector in areas that require large, consistent RnD over decades. I am just going to repeat established BRF gyan here that many continue to miss.

An oft quoted example on BRF is the lack of domestically developed car engine, despite Indian private sector making cars for domestic and international markets for decades now. It is unreasonable for us to expect the same pvt sector players to come up with domestic solutions to problems where DRDO did not meet expectations. Best we'll see is wholesale purchase of IP and assembly lines from OEM countries.

That said, items with lower entry barrier (like you quoted for Army) are very much feasible with pvt players, and such items will provide the nuclei for RnD of higher value items with consistent progress over decades. Pvt players building their own small rocket engines might produce viable interplanetary spacecraft, if the ecosystem is created and sustained. That is what will work, instead of just handing over DRDO project to private sector, and hope they'll do what TCS did to Passport Office.

Not to be harsh on pvt manufacturing companies, it should also be stated that the current lack of manufacturing capacity of hi technology items is not their fault. At independence, we had some of the best manufacturing capability with pvt sector in Asia. Walchand Hirachand's Hindustan Aircraft might very reasonably have grown into Asia's leading aircraft company in both military and civilian space. It was the socialist model forced upon Indian industries, with nationalization, licensing bogging them down. Congress thought that nationalisation was the only way to go in defence, and broke the industry. Let's not make similar mistake of thinking privatisation will solve all problems. We have to let competition flourish, and let what works best in practice win. As examples quoted by HNair have shown, for critical bleeding edge RnD, govt financial backing is necessary.
niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5535
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by niran »

Pratyush wrote:Field fortifications = sangars and bunker. Something that is expected to be engaged using arty.

Instead of moving a 15 ton or 6 ton howitzer and a fat with 60 rounds a plus another resupply vehicle with another 60 rounds. To the firing location and then spend one hour shoting at the enemy. Send a 5 ton truck or a light 4*4 with NLOS missile system and kill it with a single shot.

WRT, kill chain and targeting, unless you have a forward observer providing targeting information. Your 155 is just a very expensive paper weight.

If a target is under observation. Then the NLOS missile can do the job with a single shot. Something that arty will take 100s or rounds with unguided rounds.

When a guidance system is available, tube becomes replaceable.

In both the situations in order to take maximum advantage of guided rounds. Observation capacity has to go down to the platoon level.

The Indian army is taking steps in this direction even today. With demand for canister launched loitering munition with range of upto 120 km.

NLOS is a logical evolution to that thought process.
and enemy will be thumb twiddling waiting NCLOS fire to blow them up :rotfl: :rotfl:
FYI Burma campaign BIA on average fired 12 arty rounds to destroy Japanese bunker 3 to range 1 to destroy 8 falling off target, Desi Arty affsars developed better ranging technique(due to better math skill in particular Trigonometry) to 5 shots per bunker, current rate is 3 shot per bunker for unguided shell, 1 shot per bunker with guided shell yeah even those mucho mocked derided Kranspol guidance hit rate is 1 per bunker.
imagine guided ATAGS from 70km away blowing up bunker those inside would onlee hear last few seconds shell scream and boom, arty was is and will remain God of war anyone saying otherwise is ......... well this is a family forum
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

I haven't heard a proper explanation of why KrasnopolM didn't work for India.
Larry Walker
BRFite
Posts: 488
Joined: 26 Nov 2019 17:33

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Larry Walker »

Maybe the practical application. If you can lase a bunker at LoS - cant the enemy in the bunker shoot back at you or atleast the laser designator ?
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by fanne »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasnopol_(weapon_system)

Performance problems in India
In December 2006, The Indian Express [16] reported that India’s Russian Krasnopol 155mm laser-guided shells have displayed defective performance during Army test-firing in the Mahajan ranges in Rajasthan in 2004 and 2005. In March 2007, Defence Minister Shri AK Antony confirmed the extent of the problem.[17]

In a June 2009 report the Comptroller and Auditor General of India said, "Krasnopol proved to be a complete dud during testing at high altitudes, as it was woefully short on both range and accuracy. 'Such procurement of defective quality ammunition adversely impact the Army's operational preparedness,' " [18]

The performance issue of the shell appears to be linked to the unique high altitude environments the Indian army has to conduct operations in. An environment not envisioned when designing the shell. "The problem is that the ammunition works when fired in the plains but goes totally inaccurate when it's being fired from, say, 11,000 feet to a target at 17,000 feet," sources said. The Army is hoping that the Russian team will find a way to correct the defect in the munitions." [19]. The age of some of the stockpile has also been cited as a source of the problem "The Indian army attributed these problems to age related decline in the ammunition and a newer batch was ordered in 2002, "The performance of the first lot of quantity 1000 rounds of projectiles procured in 1999 has deteriorated over the years the recently during test firing by the Army, it was observed that the performance was not up to the mark". [20]

The Russian Academy of Sciences established the following findings. "Krasnopol projectile was developed for use at heights of up to 3000m...the highest range in the Nothern Caucauses at a height of 2500m." The Indian army tested the round at 4500m. "Two Krasnopol projectiles fired at the range appeared to be short of the homing head lock on zone due to incorrect firing tables." and the use of NATO charges instead of Russian contributed to the fault, "standard NATO propellant charges used in the FH-77B artillery system at zero and sub zero temperatures have unstable characteristics, particularly the muzzle velocity". "To exclude abnormal operation of the Krasnopol projectile in highland conditions the Instrument Design Bureau has developed and introduced improvements... which provide equal accuracy in the highlands and plains." Listed improvements were: Replace NATO propellent charges with Russian ones that have a temperature range of -50c to +60c. Adjustment of sustainer ignition timing from 7.0s to 0.3s after firing. The projectile was tested in the Jammu and Kashmir ranges at heights up to 4500m and over 1000m height differences between target and fire position. "Targets were directly hit and completely destroyed." "Each target was killed with a single Krasnopol projectile.". [21]

Since 2019 India uses the M982 Excalibur 155 mm extended range guided artillery shell developed by the US Army, in addition to the Krasnopol.[22] A 2018 competitive assessment by the Indian Army of various available 155mm precision-guided rounds selected the M982 Excalibur for purchase. It did not include Krasnopol in the comparison. It's believed that the more expensive M982 will eventually replace Krasnopol in the Indian inventory. [2
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by fanne »

Krasnopol projectile have been highly successful (supposedly) in the current Ukrain-Russia conflict. there are various videos where they are falling exactly in trenches that are 1-2 feet wide and where there are personnels (like a sniper shot).
Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4513
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Tanaji »

Not to sound snarky here but how come the Krasnopol shell was not tested in the altitudes where it was likely to be employed? Are the summer , winter, rainy, solstice of mars alignment with Jupiter, Ladakh teisls, soak test etc only reserved for Indian made products? IA gives free pass to Russian ones?
Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7806
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Anujan »

It was emergency import during Kargil

We could not use helicopter gunships to strafe the sangars. The pakis had stingers and IIRC we lost a helo.

We had no anti-materiel rifle. (I'm not even sure whether we have procured it even by now). Arty in direct fire and LGB from Mirage 2000 were the only way to hit the sangars. Look at the number of arty shells fired on tiger hill.

Krasnopol was imported in a hurry to be the LGB equivalent of arty. That didn't work.
niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5535
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by niran »

#GladTidings
IA has cleared for 150 ATAGS limited buy, they will use it for user manual and tactic development then 3 batches of 300 guns will be ordered.
niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5535
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by niran »

ramana wrote:I haven't heard a proper explanation of why KrasnopolM didn't work for India.
Kranspol is accurate as advertised against stationary targets on normal height from sea level in Himalayas accuracy dropped down wee bit
niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5535
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by niran »

Larry Walker wrote:Maybe the practical application. If you can lase a bunker at LoS - cant the enemy in the bunker shoot back at you or atleast the laser designator ?
enemy has to spot designator first, then bear his weapon aim and fire arty spotter target designator are best trained in hiding themselves
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

Well India now has TGM shell. Hope its better.
My original comments were that short range indicates not enough energy due to propellant.
This despite lower density air giving Mach lift boost. (For lurkers at higher altitudes the shell gets more lift proportional to Mach number and body length).
And Looks like sensor was also being turned on later at 7 secs whihc does not give the shell enough time to acquire the target.
IA was using it for short range shellings.
And found it inadequate.

My point is with LAC heating up there will be a need for more precision shells.
And Excalibur is like a Rolls Royce in cost. So can't have too many of them.

PRC already got the Krasnopol shell drawings and are making it in qty and no doubt improving it from that wiki page.


fanne can you post a few links on Krasnopol usage in Ukraine?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

niran wrote:#GladTidings
IA has cleared for 150 ATAGS limited buy, they will use it for user manual and tactic development then, 3 batches of 300 guns will be ordered.
Great news. The limited buy is usually to set up the production line. Same modus operandi for Astra AAM.

Did they identify which make? Kalyani or Tata?
Both have the same barrel.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

niran wrote:
Larry Walker wrote:Maybe the practical application. If you can lase a bunker at LoS - cant the enemy in the bunker shoot back at you or atleast the laser designator ?
enemy has to spot designator first, then bear his weapon aim and fire arty spotter target designator are best trained in hiding themselves

The concept of operations is quite interesting wrt communications to the designator.

By now DRDO could have changed the guidance to RLG and GPS.
Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4513
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Tanaji »

niran wrote:#GladTidings
IA has cleared for 150 ATAGS limited buy, they will use it for user manual and tactic development then 3 batches of 300 guns will be ordered.
Greatest news for a while. Hopefully this is the final nail in the Athos saga… Is that 300 guns per batch or in total?
ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 850
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ashishvikas »

niran wrote:#GladTidings
IA has cleared for 150 ATAGS limited buy, they will use it for user manual and tactic development then 3 batches of 300 guns will be ordered.
There's no news in mainstream media.. is this confirmed ?
Ankit Desai
BRFite
Posts: 634
Joined: 05 May 2006 21:28
Location: Gujarat

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Ankit Desai »

ashishvikas wrote:
niran wrote:#GladTidings
IA has cleared for 150 ATAGS limited buy, they will use it for user manual and tactic development then 3 batches of 300 guns will be ordered.
There's no news in mainstream media.. is this confirmed ?
Indian Army to clear Limited Scale Production of ATAGS guns

-Ankit
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

IDRW probably saw niran's post and put his non disclosure on it.
Losers.
Post Reply