Artillery Discussion Thread

[ManuT]

Bofors reloaded: Defence ministry stung again

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 360084.cms


As the military top brass desperately look around for solutions to the crippling shortage of artillery guns, they stumbled upon the fact that India actually has the entire drawings of the Bofors guns, and had paid for the transfer of technology to manufacture the gun in India. But the Ordnance Factory Board sat on the drawings all these years, never attempting to make the gun in India.

A senior official, not very amused at the turn of events, told TOI that they have now asked OFB to manufacture six prototypes of the Bofors artillery guns within the next 18 months. "If we had indigenous capability, then all these years of effort to buy foreign guns and such crippling shortage in capabilities wouldn't have been there," he said


{Someone needs to get shot for this.}

[sivab]

^^^ The above story is a hit job by some insider, army or OFB or BAe and is very fishy. It is no secret that India had the option to license produce Bofors gun. The money was paid for TOT. The catch is India will have to pay license fee to BAe for each Bofors gun produced. Some vested interest is raking up this issue now to get older Bofors gun through backdoor.

They have woken up to the fact DRDO is developing 155mm howitzer in partnership with private Indian Firms such as Bharat Forge. If this effort succeeds BAe and OFB will be losers. Indian army's dislike for DRDO is legendary, so it may be have something to do with this. See following links.

http://business-standard.com/india/news ... ay/402834/

developing an indigenous 155-mm towed gun, with the DRDO partnering private industry giants such as Bharat Forge and Larsen & Toubro.

^^ Is Bharat Forge working on a howitzer?

Attended a talk today by a Bharat Forge VP ( ex-IN) who was mentioning his only job currently is the gun development...couldn't catch him later to confirm anything more on that.

[Singha]

indeed. OFB alone, even if given all the blueprints for FH77B has no real capability to be doing it properly , given their track record on lesser challenges.

there's got to be the goras, corrupt MOD/IA elements and import agents behind this

[Boreas]

Bofors reloaded: Defence ministry stung again

As the military top brass desperately look around for solutions to the crippling shortage of artillery guns, they stumbled upon the fact that India actually has the entire drawings of the Bofors guns, and had paid for the transfer of technology to manufacture the gun in India. But the Ordnance Factory Board sat on the drawings all these years, never attempting to make the gun in India.

wtf

A senior official, not very amused at the turn of events, told TOI that they have now asked OFB to manufacture six prototypes of the Bofors artillery guns within the next 18 months. "If we had indigenous capability, then all these years of effort to buy foreign guns and such crippling shortage in capabilities wouldn't have been there," he said.

A senior military source said the OFB has now been asked to manufacture two guns of the 155/39 mm caliber, the original make of the Bofors gun bought in the 80s. Two others would be of the same caliber but upgraded with new capabilities. The OFB has also been asked to make two guns of 155/45 mm caliber. All the six guns would be towed guns, sources said.

Once they are ready, the Army would put them through extensive field trials and once cleared, OFB could then resort to mass production, one of the officials said.

good if it happens!

[Rahul M]

OFB sat on it or the PVNR govt sat on it ? remember the HDW case.

[Pratyush]

^^^

This is an old news. Remember FH 77 upg package from the OFB. That was designed using the drawing for the gun.

The original plan was to have approx 1500 such guns in the army. After the scandal broke out, the MOD shelved the plan and the matter relating to the design drawings was forgotten.

With the result that the IA even after having paid for the design and tech of the guns has not recieved the weapons that it needed.

As Rahul says remember HDW, that was a project for 8 boats. But the IN today has only 4. Same story was repeated in that project as well.

[Shrinivasan]

OFB sat on it or the PVNR govt sat on it ? remember the HDW case.

OFB sat on it based on MODs instruction, IA had probably agreed to this, else OFB would have been hauled over the coals. Bofors's ghost and Aman ki tamasha are allso responsible.
In the Arty saga, yet another bad chapter

[Karan M]

OFB sat on it or the PVNR govt sat on it ? remember the HDW case.

Could be. There was also a joint DRDO-PSU-OFB attempt to make arty guns before using Bofors design but IA shot it down. As imports and TOT (of latest guns) were supposedly round the corner. So this news of OFB did not know it had designs, IA did it know it either, is decidedly false.

[Yagnasri]

So in 18 months we will have 6 models of OFB built 155MM guns. There will be 5 years of testing after that and army will want more moderen version and some natasha or khan gun will be tested for next 5 years and so on on on.

[Cosmo_R]

unfortunately Khan has gifted to the pakis around 150 x M109A5 155mm SP guns which will no doubt cause us plenty of damage in any war.

That's exactly why it has been gifted...

And also why we cannot seem to procure SPGs towed 155MMs or even the Arjun MBT. Think about it.

[sarabpal.s]

check this out I hope not posted earlier in video

OFB 105mm BMP tracked Vehicle video cached from demo screen


http://youtu.be/MVRaqWftyow

[Surya]

good mobility but would have been interesting to see it actually firing

[Will]

OFB sat on it or the PVNR govt sat on it ? remember the HDW case.

Could be. There was also a joint DRDO-PSU-OFB attempt to make arty guns before using Bofors design but IA shot it down. As imports and TOT (of latest guns) were supposedly round the corner. So this news of OFB did not know it had designs, IA did it know it either, is decidedly false.

There have been numerous reports over the years that how inspite of India paying for TOT and even having the diagrams no move was made to build these guns locally(read because of the ongoing scandal). DDM at its best here.

[VinodTK]

Indian Army may revive Bofors howitzers

Indian Army may revive Bofors howitzers
By Rahul Bedi
10/19/2011

The Indian Army wants to resurrect its long-dormant AB Bofors FH-77B 155mm/39-calibre towed howitzer programme, which was suspended in the late 1980s after allegations of corruption involving senior government officials that are still being investigated in the courts.

The army acquired 410 FH-77B howitzers in 1987 from Sweden's AB Bofors, later known as SWS Defense AB Bofors, which also transferred the blueprints and other technical details to India's state-run Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) under a licence-bulding arrangement. No units have been manufactured.

Senior military officials told Jane's that army headquarters, beset by setbacks over the past decade in acquiring new howitzers, had approached the Ministry of Defence (MoD) in September to request that the OFB begin manufacturing the FH-77B at its factory unit in Jabalpur, central India.

It wants the OFB to build six prototypes by the end of 2013: two basic FH-77B 155 mm/39-calibre guns, two with upgraded onboard computers and two upgraded 155 mm/45-calibre howitzers.
157 of 448 words

[ramana]

Do OFB have the rights and technology or is this another way to delay procurements by asking for something not on the table?

[Pratyush]

The TOT took place as a part of the original procurement. It was later put off as a result of the Scandal. 20 + years after the procurement the re look at the weapon today, when an indigenous effort has just been announced by the DRDO involving Pvt Industry. Smacks of delaying tactics.

This will result in the abandonment of the home grown effort. While the OFB FH 77 will not meet GSQR for the simple reason that it will be a 45 cal weapon, instead of a 52 cal.

[Shrinivasan]

This will result in the abandonment of the home grown effort. While the OFB FH 77 will not meet GSQR for the simple reason that it will be a 45 cal weapon, instead of a 52 cal.

I doubt it, there is a requirement for a 45 cal Howitzer too, 39 cal or 45 cal or 52 call, let us get some guns in ASAP... We need couple of hundred 39 cal for mountains and 200+ 42 cals too, we would need 5-6 regiments of 52 cal (for couple of Heavy Arty Regiments and also to beef up our Med arty regiments). while I am dreaming some SPH too. then pigs are toast!!!

[Singha]

is the M777 a 39-cal weapon?

[Marut]

^yes. Can't have ULH of higher calibers and be heli-portable in the mountains. Don't have helos(yet) with that much payload capacity.

added later: higher cal lets you put a heavier round farther. But the rarified atmosphere in mountains and use of newer ammo (base bleed, excalibur, etc) gets you ranges closer to 45 cal with normal ammo. It's not clear whether we asked for special ammo as part of the package but hope we did.

[Pratyush]

^^^

The advantage of the ULH is not marly the fact that it is air transportable. In context of the IA even the 4*4 AL Topchi can tow it with ease. Thereby, obviating the need for the Massive FATs.

The second point is that the for a ULH a higher caliber weapon the difference in weight will not be too great.

[Singha]

a longer barrel probably will pose problems in lugging it under a helicopter or moving it this way and that by human power - the way original users (USMC) meant it for expeditionary role. it might be possible but costly to up-barrel it from BAE to 45-cal. first lets gets the damn 39cal things inplace!

my understanding is the round can stay the same, but longer barrel permits greater 'charge' and 'chamber pressure' to be used which increase the range of the same round vs 39cal barrel. could be totally wrong here. MBTs that do direct fire use the higher pressure to increase the muzzle velocity of AP rounds like leopard moved to a L55 cannon...for them range is not the req.

[suryag]

Sirjee I read somewhere that change in propellant i.e., making it burn faster will get the same range out of 39 cal as a 52 cal. So may be we could do with 39 cal and some new masala propellant in the shell achieve what is achieved by a 52 cal

[Marut]

^^ If the howitzers were to be towed only, then the M777 isn't really needed. It's main USP is air-portability.

The weight reduction in ULH is obtained by use of titanium and such exotic materials (in addition to stripping down lot of the automated functions), which drive the costs northwards. The weight of the barrel is a major chunk of the total and is in the spotlight for a good reduction in gross weight. The weight of the barrel is determined by the caliber, ammo types, rate of fire and desired uptime of the gun. As you set these factors on the higher side, the barrel will invariably be heavier and the weight gain will be significant enough to alter the expected methods of deployment.

Singha, you are right. The round can stay same (in practice you will want to have heavier rounds as well to increase arrows in the quiver). It's the charge that is varied in diff calibers to get the extra punch. This results in greater chamber pressure and temperature in the barrel requiring it to be stronger. The rate of fire also increases the pressure and temperature on the barrel. This also causes barrel creep and associated phenomena which is why barrel gets heavier to account for all these. Net net, you can't overlook science - higher caliber->heavier barrel (assuming similar materials of course)

[Marut]

Sirjee I read somewhere that change in propellant i.e., making it burn faster will get the same range out of 39 cal as a 52 cal. So may be we could do with 39 cal and some new masala propellant in the shell achieve what is achieved by a 52 cal

Faster burning propellant will expand faster inside the barrel leading to higher exit velocity of the shell from the barrel leading to higher range. But the faster expansion will also cause increase in pressure inside the barrel. Higher barrel pressure means heavier barrel. So for a given barrel, the max pressure is fixed and you will have to work out the propellant mix to achieve the max exit velocity possible. Additionally having a heavier barrel of the same caliber will not let you increase range infinitely as well. The payoff tapers off very soon hence you will have to switch to a higher caliber for significant increase in range.

[suryag]

Thanks MArutji

[Singha]

there's probably firebases in arunachal and sikkim without any form of road connectivity. people and porters would march a few days from nearest roadhead to these. if we can sling the M777 under a Mi17 and deploy into these places it adds some value. else 81mm mortars and small 'pack howitzers' are all these are likely to have.

[suryag]

For sake of posterity i am going to save the following link - wonder when the army would give further orders for pinaka
Indian Army’s Russian Smerch rocket launchers facing hitches

Army has detected problems in its Russian-origin Smerch multi-barrel rocket launchers (MBRL)and complained to Moscow about it. There are problems in the barrels of some of these rocket launchers and we have told the Russians about the issues related to firing of the system, senior Army sources told PTI here.

The Smerch rocket launchers are the latest inductions of the Indian Army after a deal was signed for their procurement in December 2005 for more than Rs 2,600 crore. The sources said the Russians will be visiting India to look into the issue and try to rectify the problems in the system. The issue is understood to have come up for discussion during the Indo-Russian Inter-Governmental Commission on Military-Technical Cooperation meeting between the Defence Ministers of the two countries earlier this month.

The system has had several defects in its launch vehicles, outlaying fire controls and data transmission, which led to delays in its operationalisation in the service, the sources said. The Smerch long range rocket systems have a range of over 60 kms, almost three times the distance of the present Indian artillery rocket systems. India had signed two deals in December 2005, and March 2007, with Russian firm Rosoboronexport for importing 42 of the MBRL systems along with launcher, transloader and command and control systems. Smerch MBRL along with the Russian-origin Grad 122 mm rocket systems and indigenous Pinaka form the important part of the Indian Army’s firepower.

[Will]

there's probably firebases in arunachal and sikkim without any form of road connectivity. people and porters would march a few days from nearest roadhead to these. if we can sling the M777 under a Mi17 and deploy into these places it adds some value. else 81mm mortars and small 'pack howitzers' are all these are likely to have.

Whats happening on the M777 deal? Is it in cold storage to? Someone get a corrupt guy to lead the defense ministry. He will eat money but at least the armed forces will get their weapons on time.

[shiv]

Sirjee I read somewhere that change in propellant i.e., making it burn faster will get the same range out of 39 cal as a 52 cal. So may be we could do with 39 cal and some new masala propellant in the shell achieve what is achieved by a 52 cal

Faster burning propellant will expand faster inside the barrel leading to higher exit velocity of the shell from the barrel leading to higher range. But the faster expansion will also cause increase in pressure inside the barrel. Higher barrel pressure means heavier barrel. So for a given barrel, the max pressure is fixed and you will have to work out the propellant mix to achieve the max exit velocity possible. Additionally having a heavier barrel of the same caliber will not let you increase range infinitely as well. The payoff tapers off very soon hence you will have to switch to a higher caliber for significant increase in range.

Interesting post. I have very little knowledge of all his but I vaguely recall reading something about propellants for shells/bullets.

The gist of what I read was that if all the propellant burns up before the shell leaves the barrel, then all the gases that form instantly will, as you say, increase the pressure behind the shell. But as the shell gets pushed out, the gases will expand in the barrel leading to a drop in pressure. Now a drop in pressure means a drop in force pushing the shell and a drop in force means a drop in the acceleration of the shell. So the ideal propellant is one that burns relatively slowly - producing gases continuously to fill up the extra volume created by the shell moving forward in the barrel, with complete combustion occurring just as the shell leaves the barrel. This apparently ensures a steady force and steady continuous acceleration of the shell giving it the maximum achievable muzzle velocity.

That still makes your post perfectly true, but a long barrel will always give a longer distance for acceleration to achieve a higher velocity and therefore longer range. But I guess that the propellant will have to be faster burning for shorter barrels reaching higher pressures to achieve the same muzzle velocity.

[saptarishi]

i seriously feels army modernisation is being neglected.iaf and navy are gettin big ticket items,and look at the army,artillery plans ,f-insas,two most critical things stuck.most of the jawans are with metal world war 2 helmets or phatkas.they need modern kevlar helmets.modern artillery guns arerequired immediately.i mean no guns inducted after bofors ,its just too much.

[Singha]

with big expantion of new mountain divisions planned, I feel the M777 FMS deal will stand scrapped and a new global multi-vendor tender floated for a larger number of guns
after 6 years of trials it will come back to square one again.

[Pratyush]

Would it not be better if the regiment of artillery is disbanded all together

It will save the BRF ites from a lot of anguish every 6 week or so. Due to a lack of new 155 MM induction.

[Marut]

Faster burning propellant will expand faster inside the barrel leading to higher exit velocity of the shell from the barrel leading to higher range. But the faster expansion will also cause increase in pressure inside the barrel. Higher barrel pressure means heavier barrel. So for a given barrel, the max pressure is fixed and you will have to work out the propellant mix to achieve the max exit velocity possible. Additionally having a heavier barrel of the same caliber will not let you increase range infinitely as well. The payoff tapers off very soon hence you will have to switch to a higher caliber for significant increase in range.

Interesting post. I have very little knowledge of all his but I vaguely recall reading something about propellants for shells/bullets.

The gist of what I read was that if all the propellant burns up before the shell leaves the barrel, then all the gases that form instantly will, as you say, increase the pressure behind the shell. But as the shell gets pushed out, the gases will expand in the barrel leading to a drop in pressure. Now a drop in pressure means a drop in force pushing the shell and a drop in force means a drop in the acceleration of the shell. So the ideal propellant is one that burns relatively slowly - producing gases continuously to fill up the extra volume created by the shell moving forward in the barrel, with complete combustion occurring just as the shell leaves the barrel. This apparently ensures a steady force and steady continuous acceleration of the shell giving it the maximum achievable muzzle velocity.

That still makes your post perfectly true, but a long barrel will always give a longer distance for acceleration to achieve a higher velocity and therefore longer range. But I guess that the propellant will have to be faster burning for shorter barrels reaching higher pressures to achieve the same muzzle velocity.

Shiv, you are entirely right about the propellant burn rates. What you wrote is a more detailed explanation than mine, since I was short on time with my earlier reply. My main goal was to clear the misconception that just by varying the propellant mix, one can increase range limitlessly (theoretically) keeping the gun calibre constant! Practical considerations of weight and material behaviour will ensure the switch to higher calibers.

There are different propellant charges for the guns. This gives the gunner the freedom to choose a heavier shell or change the gun elevation to ensure that shells from guns located at different places reach the target at the same time (TOT = Time on Target - the approach used by IA artillery). Check out this OFB site for the various charges used for 155mm guns - M4A2, M3A1, Charge 8 & Charge 9. Each of these charges has different characteristics and are utilized in the most optimum fashion as per the tables or computer firing solutions.

These two specifications of 155mm HE and HE base bleed shells gives the list of compatible charges
http://ofbindia.nic.in/products/data/am ... /lc/30.htm
http://ofbindia.nic.in/products/data/am ... /lc/31.htm

The current development in propelling charges is to have modular propellant charges of standardized size for maybe one or two propellant only. The number of such charges will be varied as per the requirement of the firing solution. This is being tried out in the western armies currently before full scale adoption. This is supposed to simplify the logistics nightmare which can result with the present system of charges and give additional flexibility to gunners for optimal use.

[Juggi G]

India Cancels Wheeled Howitzer Purchase

India Cancels Wheeled Howitzer Purchase
By VIVEK RAGHUVANSHI
Published : 1 Nov 2011

NEW DELHI - The Indian Defence Ministry has canceled the tender to purchase 180 wheeled 155mm/52-caliber howitzers, another in a series of setbacks for the long-delayed Army program.

The Indian Army has failed to induct a single 155mm howitzer since 1987.

Defence Ministry sources said the purchase of the wheeled guns is being canceled following complaints to Defence Minister A.K. Antony about technical snags that came to light when a gun from one of the competitors, Konstrukta of Slovakia, burst during trials last year.

Currently Rheinmetall of Germany and Konstrukta are in the race for the $1 billion wheeled gun competition after Samsung of South Korea was eliminated from the procurement process in 2009.

After the howitzer burst during the trials last year, a Defence Ministry committee concluded the guns offered by Rheinmetall and Konstrukta are prototypes that are not in use even in their home countries.

In 2008, the tender for the wheeled guns was sent to the U.K.'s BAE Systems; Slovakia's Konstrukta; France's Nexter; IMI and Soltam of Israel; Samsung of South Korea; United Defense of the U.S.; Rheinmetall of Germany; and Rosoboronexport of Russia.

Only Rheinmetall, Konstrukta and Samsung were shortlisted after the technical evaluations.

The Indian Army requires that the wheeled 155mm/52-caliber guns be able to travel up to 40 kilometers and fire 150 rounds of ammunition in six to eight hours.

The gun should be able to operate day and night and receive data from the command post in digital and audio form.

The howitzer procurement is already delayed by more than 10 years, mainly due to India's blacklisting first of Denel of South Africa and then Singapore Technologies in 2008 because of alleged corruption.

The Army plans to buy 145 ultralight howitzers, 158 towed and wheeled, 100 tracked and 180 wheeled and armored guns in the first phase of its program to upgrade its artillery divisions.

Towed Guns

In May, BAE Systems opted out of the towed howitzer competition because the Indian Army changed requirements in the reissued tender of early 2011.

The Army's 2008 attempt to acquire the towed guns failed when BAE, which had fielded the FH-77B-5 gun, became the sole vendor after the other shortlisted competitor, Singapore Technologies, was blacklisted following allegations of corruption by India's Central Bureau of Investigation. The Army could not make an award if only one bidder qualified.

Light Howitzer

The purchase of light howitzers from BAE's U.S. subsidiary also was delayed when Singapore Technologies went to court and challenged the decision, claiming its gun was superior.

The Indian court has not issued a decision, although the Army strongly favors the immediate purchase of the 147 BAE light howitzers, Army officials said.

[Pratyush]

^^^ This was discussed some days ago.

Its high time the IA askes for a clean sheet 155MM Design from Indian industry. That is the only way the IA can ever get a new 155mm piece. The IA has still not come out with an explicit demand for the new national 155 mm design. At best they have asked the OFB to make the copes of the FH 77 from the blue prints that were recieved as result of the TOT. The so called indiginous project for the 155mm piece is not a result of an official demand from the IA.

Just what is it that is preventing the IA from issuing this demad. Is it a memory from the 1950s when PVT sector could not produce 9mm bullets. Or it is some thing more recent like the bursting of the T 72 barrels when they were fired. Or a plain old disdain for domestic products.

[bmallick]

Its high time the IA askes for a clean sheet 155MM Design from Indian industry. That is the only way the IA can ever get a new 155mm piece. The IA has still not come out with an explicit demand for the new national 155 mm design. At best they have asked the OFB to make the copes of the FH 77 from the blue prints that were recieved as result of the TOT. The so called indiginous project for the 155mm piece is not a result of an official demand from the IA.

Just what is it that is preventing the IA from issuing this demad. Is it a memory from the 1950s when PVT sector could not produce 9mm bullets. Or it is some thing more recent like the bursting of the T 72 barrels when they were fired. Or a plain old disdain for domestic products.

Completely agree with what you are saying. What I would like to add is that if the capability of the Indian industry to create a 155 mm/52 cal gun is in doubt then why not simply give out the performance required by the gun like, range, sustained rate of fire, APU etc. Let the industry come out with its own solution. It may not be 155mm/52 cal. Those numbers are not some specs divinely ordained.

At least we would have a good start and maybe 20 years down the lane, would have whole family of guns. We have already developed a cannon in the form of the gun for Arjun, use that knowledge. If we cannot make a 155mm gun with required performance, well lets have a 160mm one for equivalent performance. The enemy does not care if its 155mm or 160mm or 162.6352mm shell, all does that matter is its raining steel.

[Fidel Guevara]

Its high time the IA askes for a clean sheet 155MM Design from Indian industry. That is the only way the IA can ever get a new 155mm piece. The IA has still not come out with an explicit demand for the new national 155 mm design. At best they have asked the OFB to make the copes of the FH 77 from the blue prints that were recieved as result of the TOT. The so called indiginous project for the 155mm piece is not a result of an official demand from the IA.

Just what is it that is preventing the IA from issuing this demad. Is it a memory from the 1950s when PVT sector could not produce 9mm bullets. Or it is some thing more recent like the bursting of the T 72 barrels when they were fired. Or a plain old disdain for domestic products.

Completely agree with what you are saying. What I would like to add is that if the capability of the Indian industry to create a 155 mm/52 cal gun is in doubt then why not simply give out the performance required by the gun like, range, sustained rate of fire, APU etc. Let the industry come out with its own solution. It may not be 155mm/52 cal. Those numbers are not some specs divinely ordained.

At least we would have a good start and maybe 20 years down the lane, would have whole family of guns. We have already developed a cannon in the form of the gun for Arjun, use that knowledge. If we cannot make a 155mm gun with required performance, well lets have a 160mm one for equivalent performance. The enemy does not care if its 155mm or 160mm or 162.6352mm shell, all does that matter is its raining steel.

Theoretically doable, but 155mm is THE international standard heavy calibre for artillery. In case of a hot war, if the IA is running short of shells, or the OFB plant has been hit in an air raid, 155mm allows us to buy off the shelf from almost any country in the world. 155 mm is made by Israel, South Africa, Singapore, all EU countries, and of course by khan. In offensive operations, captured enemy stocks might also be used.

Another factor is that R&D data for 155mm ballistics are among the best known, vs say an entirely new calibre. The Russians and Chinese have tons of the 122mm 130mm 152mm guns, but their export versions are offered in 155mm.

[bmallick]

Theoretically doable, but 155mm is THE international standard heavy calibre for artillery. In case of a hot war, if the IA is running short of shells, or the OFB plant has been hit in an air raid, 155mm allows us to buy off the shelf from almost any country in the world. 155 mm is made by Israel, South Africa, Singapore, all EU countries, and of course by khan. In offensive operations, captured enemy stocks might also be used.

Another factor is that R&D data for 155mm ballistics are among the best known, vs say an entirely new calibre. The Russians and Chinese have tons of the 122mm 130mm 152mm guns, but their export versions are offered in 155mm.

I understand what you are stating Fidel. However, 155mm being international standard is due to the fact that it was Nato standard, hence every western nation ended up with the 155mm design and everybody buying from them got 155mm. The Warsaw pact, clearly used 152mm for heavy gun, hence the proliferation of that as a standard in their sphere of influence.

I totally agree to it being easily being procurable from friendly countries, in case of emergency. However, that should be a final contingency, which should not influence our gun development. The same argument can be carried forward for an indigenous fighter, that lets not make our own ones, because if our spares are hit by enemy, we can get it off the shelf from friendlies which are using the same type, or rather from the OEM itself.

The other argument of using captured enemy shells is also slightly tenuous in my opinion, because our neighbour to the east uses a plethora of heavy guns with 120-155 mm guns. So us capturing the required ammo would be fortuitous at best. Also its a counter point too, the same can be used by the enemy.

We should rather stress on what can we do. Lets stop aping and think for ourselves. Lets make our own standards if required.

We can go down two paths.

1. The world uses 155mm, so lets make a 155mm gun. Ok cool. But this can have two outcomes.
1.1. Our gun is out in good time, but max range etc are 10-20 % less than the others out there. So either we accept
it or go for protracted cycles, just like quite a few projects have gone. Examples abound all around the world..
1.2. Our gun is developed in time and equal to the best in the world. Great nothing like it.

2. We develop a gun to meet our requirements and lets say it is of 160mm diameter or for that matter 151mm. We make
this as our standard and come out with different caliber guns to meet different requirements.

Personally I feel point 2 is the lesser of the three evils and a better bet to succeed. Just my two cents.

[Singha]

for manual loading of towed guns and in emergency of trucked guns one has to consider the shell itself weighs around 45kg at 155m . in the cold and heat how many can muscle in a lot of rounds and not get exhausted. not sure how the 200mm+ guns are loaded?

imo we should run along two tracks.
- develop a new 105mm gun for truck and towed - use next gen shell tech imported from somewhere if we dont have it, the gun should be accurate , reliable and cheap but range, firing rate and gee whiz features should be accepted 20% less than bleeding edge
- develop the 155mm design from original thoughts or fh77b or whatever and again should be accurate, reliable and cheap but accept that it will be 20% less than the best in firing rate and range.

quantity and being there has its own value vs small numbers of bestest stuff that is never going to be inducted! russian cold war arty was probably not as good as the TFTA german and american guns but they made sure to have 5X the number and good mobility to overwhelm this difference

we need some big shell factories too. guns have the bofors ghost on them but the absense of proper shell inventory and factories is a WTF moment. if we are going 155, then nato jbmou std shells should be made in India - they will work from present and any future gun we buy.

[ramana]

Maybe they don't want to offend the TSP by inducting offensive weapons?

Looks like someone has gamed the Indian procurement system to ensure India wont procure anything offensive. All that is needed is to claim corruption and the Saints running MOD will rush to block any purchases lest they go to hell.

The odd thing is IA too goes along wit it wringing hands. Why cant they be clear about the re-equipment? The Chief has no say on whether these are needed or not?