Small Arms Thread

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54513
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ramana » 02 Dec 2011 03:26

Yes media is self knowing. Its the same one called DDM.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7487
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Prasad » 02 Dec 2011 03:46

So why exactly aren't they working on improving the INSAS and going for imports if they've worked out the teething problems and there isnt anything wrong with the gun per se?

member_20067
BRFite
Posts: 627
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby member_20067 » 02 Dec 2011 06:02

ramana wrote:Yes media is self knowing. Its the same one called DDM.


Media is not issuing the RFP Army is. Media has its own share of blames off-course but here they are reporting a fact that RFP has been launched. The fact whether INSAS was effective or not is follow on topic which does not change the RPF

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7726
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby nachiket » 02 Dec 2011 06:07

Prithwiraj wrote:
Media is not issuing the RFP Army is. Media has its own share of blames off-course but here they are reporting a fact that RFP has been launched. The fact whether INSAS was effective or not is follow on topic which does not change the RPF

The media is responsible for putting the spin on the news of the RFP that the Army is doing that because it is unsatisfied with the INSAS. That is not true as Gaur ji has explained earlier.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby shiv » 02 Dec 2011 06:52

Prasad wrote:So why exactly aren't they working on improving the INSAS and going for imports if they've worked out the teething problems and there isnt anything wrong with the gun per se?


Like any other rifle I am certain that it is not the best for all roles in all situations. Some situations will need other weaponry. The other point may simply be the inability of the OFB to meet supply because of full order books. Overall I get the (personal) impression that Indian defence industrial production rests on undercapacity that is overutilized rather than overcapacity that leads to layoffs but has production lines that can be re-opened in times of need to produce more/faster. I might be wrong here..

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 911
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ParGha » 02 Dec 2011 07:54

shiv wrote:I think too much has been made of one news item.

Considering the deals being made with IMI... perhaps this is so. :shrug:

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby shiv » 02 Dec 2011 07:56

Folks it is interesting to me that the original news item posted on the BR main page that sparked this INSAS discussion and the thoughtless critical comments was just one news item written by Rahul Bedi which carries a very negative connotation. The article starts with INSAS was "reluctantly used" by the Army which now seeks to dump it.

My I point out that a net search reveals many other articles that speak of the same Indian Army RFP

NONE of the articles say that ONLY foreign vendors have been asked fopr their products. This is a global RFP for anyone, Indian or others to compete to supply the Indian army with its future requirements.

Now look at these facts folks:

1. The 7.62 mm Ishapore rifle (Belgian FN) that preceded the INSAS and replaced the .303 was inducted initially in 1969. It served fro 28 years before the INSAS started replacing it.

2. The Indian army started using the INSAS in 1997 or thereabouts. It was used in the Kargil war. It has now been in service for nearly 15 years. In these 15 years there has been a massive change in small arms in terms of add ons like sights.

3. If the RFP is issued now the process of selection of arms systems in India (judging from 155 mm, MMRCA and Hawk tenders) can be expected to last at least 10 years. In those 10 years the Indian army will be using the INSAS. As far as I can tell there is very little "panic buying" and in fact the INSAS is appearing in the hands of MARCOs also

4. By the time a new assault rifle gets inducted into the army the INSAS will have been in service for 25 years. What has been issued today is an RFP for a new rifle. Not a rejection of the old one. And there is no guarantee that an Indian replacement will not be accepted. It is a "global tender". Although many of us may believe that India does not belong in this world it's not true. All major defence contracts from India nowadays are given global RFP and global tenders are placed. By placing a Global tender the criticism that bad Indian products are forced on the armed forces that we favor local trash who don't need to innovate, and do not want private industry involvement is sidestepped. Indian private companies including Infosys, WIPRO, L & T, Mahindra, Hindustan Motors, Birla, Reliance, United Spirits and Tata should be jumping in to win the contract. I am looking out for news of that.

Why are parts of the Indian media (Rahul Bedi is not Indian, he is from Jane's) and other Indians who read those media so scathing and contemptuous of Indian made stuff? In my view this is a disease. A mental disease.

Leo.Davidson
BRFite
Posts: 119
Joined: 09 Aug 2011 05:34
Location: Boston, USA

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Leo.Davidson » 02 Dec 2011 08:06

Prasad wrote:So why exactly aren't they working on improving the INSAS and going for imports if they've worked out the teething problems and there isnt anything wrong with the gun per se?


Because there is nothing that they can improve on. I'd compare the gun to say, the Ambassador car. Its a RELIC. We need to move away from antiques and equip our men with real weapons. We wont have any able bodies to defend our country if we go to battle with sticks & stones.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby shiv » 02 Dec 2011 08:14

Leo.Davidson wrote:
Because there is nothing that they can improve on. I'd compare the gun to say, the Ambassador car. Its a RELIC. We need to move away from antiques and equip our men with real weapons. We wont have any able bodies to defend our country if we go to battle with sticks & stones.


I don't know too much about small arms. Davidu-putrudu, you seem to know the difference between real weapons and non real ones.

Could you point me to some "real weapons" and state why they are real weapons and which large armies are wholly equipped with those real weapons?

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Gaur » 02 Dec 2011 08:30

Leo.Davidson wrote:Because there is nothing that they can improve on. I'd compare the gun to say, the Ambassador car. Its a RELIC. We need to move away from antiques and equip our men with real weapons. We wont have any able bodies to defend our country if we go to battle with sticks & stones.

Why is it an antique weaopon? As I have explained in the previous page, it is just made with a different design philosphy. Other than picatinny rail, INSAS is very similar to M-16 (I am talking about effectiveness for its role.. not design). In fact, I would say that INSAS is even better given M-16's tendency to jam in dusty environments...a situation where INSAS works flawlessly. No other rifle in the world has been proved from 55 degree deserts to -50 glaciers other than INSAS. So I think INSAS is a tremendous achievement.
Last edited by Gaur on 02 Dec 2011 08:41, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby shiv » 02 Dec 2011 08:41

Gaur wrote:Why is it an antique weaopon?


It is Indian. Can't be anything good or modern. Like Ambassador car :roll:

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby SaiK » 02 Dec 2011 08:47

a well maintained functioning antiques values more than modern goods.

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby koti » 02 Dec 2011 08:58

Ok fellows, the discussion is getting a little monotonous.

Let out your thoughts on which could be the next rifle for IA.

1)Sig Series arms
2)Ak/AN series arms
3)HK 416/7
4)Colt series (M16A2/3)
5)IMI series(Tar)
6)HK G36
7)Beretta ARX-160
8)SCAR series
9)SAR series(Singapore)
OR
10)Insas series(modified)

I might have missed a few good options.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Surya » 02 Dec 2011 11:07

+1 to shivs post

I think sometimes we do a disservice by posting these articles - maybe should be confined to useless article thread

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Victor » 02 Dec 2011 12:52

The article says the new gun is to replace INSAS not just for the army but for paramilitary and police too. We still don't know "why" other than what Bedi has written. It would help if we had possible answers for:

1) why are we replacing the INSAS
2) why was the domestic private industry excluded

Strange times for sure. Not good tidings at all.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby vic » 02 Dec 2011 19:19

Assuming the Article is correct, this RFP will not result into anything. DRDO now has 10 years to perfect the follow on to INSAS. Having a rifle that converts from 5.56 to 7.62 is like asking a motorbike to be converted to truck, it is possible but not practical

Leo.Davidson
BRFite
Posts: 119
Joined: 09 Aug 2011 05:34
Location: Boston, USA

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Leo.Davidson » 02 Dec 2011 21:31

Shiv, I do not appreciate you calling me names like Davidu-putrudu.

Stick & stones are also weapons. You cannot travel in an airplane with a pocket-knife, nail-cutter, etc; These are also considered weapons. You may love your Ambassador car, but it's decades behind in technology. And because people revolve around the same shit for eons, it impedes technological advancements. No modern army uses the AK-47 or the M-16, both of which the INSAS is based off, anymore. And all of you who praise the INSAS, speedily skip through the many reports on the inadequacies of the INSAS. I have no personal hatred for this weapon, I only believe that it is a little too late.

Shout out to Gaur: There is this thing called the internet. In it you will find articles of guns which are more than climate hardened.
Shout out to Saik. Shouldn't we stick to the Enfield 303's. They're simple awesome !!!
Shout out to Vic: There are several guns that offer infield barrel interchange between 5.56, 7.62 and even 9 mm.

There are reasons, that the the Army is looking for new guns. I believe that 'They want it now' & 'They want it proven'.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby shiv » 02 Dec 2011 22:22

Leo.Davidson wrote:
There are reasons, that the the Army is looking for new guns. I believe that 'They want it now' & 'They want it proven'.


Boss this is non information. You have posted a totally meaningless answer and asked me to check the internet. That tells me that you have a tendency to use strong words and make posts that you cannot support or substantiate.

Please explain what you mean by real weapons and why the Indian army does not have real weapons. The Ambassador car analogy is a strawman that you use to cover up your inability to answer a straight question about a post you made. I don't think you know what you are talking about.

This is what you said:

Leo.Davidson wrote:Because there is nothing that they can improve on. I'd compare the gun to say, the Ambassador car. Its a RELIC. We need to move away from antiques and equip our men with real weapons. We wont have any able bodies to defend our country if we go to battle with sticks & stones.


What does it mean? So far you have shown no indication that you have any information other than that I am a madrasi. Why don't you
Leo.Davdson wrote:"explain in many words, pictures, etc. or you don't get it"

member_20453
BRFite
Posts: 613
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby member_20453 » 02 Dec 2011 22:37

well INSAS itself has been deployed from deserts to the high glaciers. It had initial reliability issues but those have been fixed. The rifle has good over the beach capability. The big complaint has been the small caliber round, which doesn't drop well armed suicidal cross border guests in single shots. RR hence prefers the good old AK, the 7.26 gives a better chance of one shot kill. Don't know why they are going for the same 5.56 rounds. The modern soldier has good armor enough to protect against the 5.56 and the 7.26 round. In order to defeat such armor, we should consider going for the 6.5 grendel or 6.8 spc round. Either we develop our own or just order 6.5 grendel rifles. 6.5 grendel has better ballistic capability than the 7.62 round as well yet it is smaller.

http://www.alexanderarms.com/index.php/products.html

http://www.alexanderarms.com/index.php/products.html

.50 Beowulf is awesome too.

Gurneesh
BRFite
Posts: 465
Joined: 14 Feb 2010 21:21
Location: Troposphere

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Gurneesh » 02 Dec 2011 23:44

Leo.Davidson wrote: No modern army uses the AK-47 or the M-16, both of which the INSAS is based off, anymore. And all of you who praise the INSAS, speedily skip through the many reports on the inadequacies of the INSAS. I have no personal hatred for this weapon, I only believe that it is a little too late.


M16: Dunno, but how about it being the AR of almost all US defense forces, not to mention other countries. So, since US army uses M16 it must not be modern enough. You would say they use M16A4 now, but still it is based on M16 just like INSAS is based on Ak47 (but so is AK74 and hence AK103) or FAL. And how do you know that the current INSAS is not a revised and updated model that fixes all the inadequacies mentioned in the many reports that you found.

The army looking for a new AR now doesnot mean that they need the rifles today. As people have mentioned above, the selection process will take it's sweet time (specially since this is a multi vendor deal). Moreover, there is nothing that indicates the omission of an updated (Picatinny rail etc.) INSAS from the competition.

abhinavjo
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 99
Joined: 11 Nov 2010 20:09
Contact:

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby abhinavjo » 02 Dec 2011 23:57

Septimus P. wrote:the 7.26 gives a better chance of one shot kill. Don't know why they are going for the same 5.56 rounds.

5.56 round have a much more chance of wounding the enemy so in a war situation it creates more of a cost for the enemy eg 1 wounded soldier= 2 soldiers to lift him up + him being wounded + medicines etc not to forget that unit strenght may be depleted cuz now instead of 1 person 3 are missing.

Septimus P. wrote: RR hence prefers the good old AK


If they want the AK , they'll get the AK. I believe OFB has worked (or purchased?) on newer AK's the one with the twin magazines and UBGL i guess

PS: all COIN operations already prefer 7.76 rounds as the terrorists do not have a place to retreat to.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7726
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby nachiket » 03 Dec 2011 00:02

Leo.Davidson wrote:. I have no personal hatred for this weapon,

No...just plain ignorance about it.

I only believe that it is a little too late.

Too late for what? It was inducted ~13 years ago and after its initial problems were rectified, it has served well. We used to have a retired IA brigadier on this forum, who had used the INSAS in combat and personally attested to the fact that it was a good weapon. So spare us from your ramblings.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19569
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Karan M » 03 Dec 2011 00:22

Whenever I see somebody with an INSAS, I usually - time and circumstances permitting- ask them about the rifle and what they think of it. This way, I have spoken to CRPF, regular police, Army, and others who use the rifle. The general perception is:

Pros
1. Good rifle; nothing earth shattering but it works, and is decently functional.
2. Reliable: Maintain it well, and it will not disappoint
3. Accurate; a zeroed rifle will demonstrate consistent results
4. Most problems that have came up over the years were resolved
5. Lightweight; one guy told me that the SLR gave him back pain
6. Some liked the SLR style handle, other's didnt care
7.Allows for more rounds than SLR, and has burst function too.

Cons
1. Magazine, magazine, magazine. The average jawan dislikes the plastic magazine because he cannot handle the rifle as roughly as he would have a weapon with an all metal one. The translucent mag does tell you how many rounds are inside, but the soldiers like something that is well, just unbreakable
2. 5.56 mm; this is an issue only brought up by some soldiers, not even all. Some guys preferred AK-47s because of higher rate of fire AND the heavier kill power of the 7.62 mm round. What was interesting was not all said this. The 5.56 mm round, depending on where it hits, can be brutally damaging as well.
3.Minor gripes about the sling, about fit and finish etc. The first is a serious point, some guys had issue with the current sling system. Others who disliked the fit and finish were real gun afficianados, who compared it to the best quality "Foreign maal" and disliked the "Tacky furniture" etc.
4.Significant gripes about OFB manufacturing. Basically, to this day, INSAS is hand assembled by experienced workers at OFB. Many times, for some batches, the unit armourers receive the OFB supplied rifles and then further "work" on them, to ease up the action, or make minor modifications to make the rifle ready. The fit and finish of some INSAS batches was bad, though as a general perception, it has improved later on.

All said and done, the INSAS is a relatively inexpensive, but perfectly functional rifle. Where it has been let down to some extent (because not all OFB can be painted with the same brush, some have invested considerable effort into improving the product) is OFB's somewhat lackadaisical QA which comes up in the effort required to "finesse" the rifles by unit armorers. The Army now wants to import the "next rifle", point is that rifle too, will be made by the same OFBs. All this will do, to my mind, is result in the usual cycle of dependence on external suppliers for even iterative basic product improvements.

No weapon off the shelf will meet IA requirements to be honest. It will take several years of effort before it meets basic standards. The SteyrAUG was used by the Australians for many years, but only when they deployed to East Timor did many problems become apparent. The SA-80, became infamous and problems persisted till H&K redesigned the rifle to incorporate modern technology.

Point is with some forward thinking, the INSAS could become a perfectly capable rifle, across the board. Just ditching it, and running for the "Easy option" which will be anything but easy, is to my mind, a T-90 case all over again. The Army is yet to get to grips with making decisions that keep india's industrial capabilities in mind. They choose equipment, assume things will work out, and are somewhat shortshighted.

If a rifle is indeed chosen, then I hope it is one from H&K because political issues aside, this is the manufacturer who has consistently demonstrated high standards of reliability and quality. Its a different thing that getting the average OFB worker into the same "mindset" will be a significant challenge, and will require huge investments in making quality ammunition as well.

The money that could be saved on INSAS replacement could be used for buying sights, radios, body armor etc. But IA decisions are what they are.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Victor » 03 Dec 2011 01:29

The report is true no doubt. An RFI was issued last year for an infantry assault rifle in which any qualified OEM could send info. Questions asked in the RFI included multi-caliber barrel change capability, UBGL and full-length Picatinny rail, not that all of these would be included in the RFP. Now it looks like they have narrowed it down to 40 OEMs and sent them RFPs. It would be interesting if OFB is NOT on this list and if so, it may be that the army needs these guns ASAP and knows that OFB/DRDO is not capable of delivering what they need in the timeframe envisaged.

An urgent requirement would also exclude any party that is not already making a a functioning gun, including all domestic private companies that may have entertained such ideas.

One thing seems likely: this will happen quickly, not in 10 years or longer. If this were the case, there would likely be no RFP because DRDO/OFB would have been given the mandate to produce the needed rifle or private Indian proposals would have been actively solicited.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby shiv » 03 Dec 2011 07:58

Here is the Indian Army RFI in original. It was posted on BRF earlier
http://indianarmy.nic.in/writereaddata/ ... %20RIF.pdf

Here is a html "quick view" of the same

No vendor is excluded in the RFI. I would expect that if Indian vendors and OFB have been "ignored" in the India Army's response to the RFIs it only means that the Indian vendors have not been able to fulfil the demands in that RFI which are simple enough to understand - it is a few pages of secondary school level English that any form member should be able to translate. The requirements are fairly broad and stringent, and I suspect that a whole cartload of foreign manufacturers will have to be rejected or will be unable to fulfil the requirements.

But apart from the Rahul Bedi news item I have no specific information that anyone has been ignored. Knowing Rahul Bedi and Jane's I would like to see material proof. It is one thing to say that I married my wife because I loved the girl. It is completely different to say that I married her because I hated all other girls. Rahul Bedi and others on here are implying an action akin to the latter. It just gets easier for Indians to swallow the story as long as "all others" were Indian products. That is an insidious part of our education.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby vic » 03 Dec 2011 09:59

Leo.Davidson wrote:Shiv, I do not appreciate you calling me names like Davidu-putrudu.

Stick & stones are also weapons. You cannot travel in an airplane with a pocket-knife, nail-cutter, etc; These are also considered weapons. You may love your Ambassador car, but it's decades behind in technology. And because people revolve around the same shit for eons, it impedes technological advancements. No modern army uses the AK-47 or the M-16, both of which the INSAS is based off, anymore. And all of you who praise the INSAS, speedily skip through the many reports on the inadequacies of the INSAS. I have no personal hatred for this weapon, I only believe that it is a little too late.

Shout out to Gaur: There is this thing called the internet. In it you will find articles of guns which are more than climate hardened.
Shout out to Saik. Shouldn't we stick to the Enfield 303's. They're simple awesome !!!
Shout out to Vic: There are several guns that offer infield barrel interchange between 5.56, 7.62 and even 9 mm.
There are reasons, that the the Army is looking for new guns. I believe that 'They want it now' & 'They want it proven'.



In reply to your shout out, let me politely say you are a moron! There is no rifle in the world which can change from 5.56 to 7.62 with "only" barrel change. Practically the whole firing mechanism is changed except the stock, trigger and lower receiver. (Now go ahead the refer to the SCAR :rotfl: )

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7487
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Prasad » 03 Dec 2011 11:29

But here again the IA is sticking to the pov of a consumer rather than a stakeholder. By working with the OFBs to ensure iterative development and pressing on them to get to better methods of productions and QA, they're taking the easier way out of importing rifles.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4433
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Cain Marko » 03 Dec 2011 11:46

shiv wrote:But then, as now, there is no way of telling "senior" from "junior" or "newbie".


I believe GJ Kaka had devised a system for exactly this: Jingo, MacJingo, Superjingo and so on...perhaps other forumites remember?

ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ArmenT » 03 Dec 2011 12:08

Guys, let's get one big myth out of the way. The 5.56x45 mm. NATO round was NOT specifically chosen for its supposed wounding properties. That bit was marketing spin proposed by Robert McNamara's team when the M16 was first developed, as an additional advantage of this round. This marketing speak seems to have gained a life of its own.

The real primary reasons for choosing 5.56x45 mm. over 7.62x51 mm. were
(a) Weight - The 5.56x45 mm. cartridge weighs approx. 1/2 the weight of the 7.62x51 mm. cartridge, which means the soldier can carry almost 2x the # of ammo for the same weight.
(b) Less recoil - this means the soldier can aim more accurately.

Remember that the original M16A1 had a full-auto mode and this was because the US military did some studies during that time period and found that the side with higher firepower tended to win most fights. But higher rate of fire = use more bullets, therefore the idea was to equip the soldier with more bullets, so they wouldn't run out early in the fight. Lighter ammo means the soldier can carry more of them. Incidentally, the 5.56x45 mm. NATO round was capable of penetrating a 60s era Soviet helmet at 600 meters and met the US military's penetration tests quite handily.

The main problem with the 5.56x45 mm. round is that it doesn't fragment reliably on penetration. If it does fragment, then the resulting wound is much more severe than its size indicates. However, if it penetrates all the way in and out of a body without fragmenting, then the wound is much smaller. And this is where the issue is, because at longer ranges, it tends to slow down enough that it can go in and out of a body without fragmenting and therefore cause a much less effective wound. Incidentally, the original AK-47 bullet designed by the Soviets (the M43) also had this same problem that it wouldn't begin to yaw or fragment unless it passed through almost a foot of tissue. So unless it hit a vital body part, the wound was often a small one. It took the Yugoslavs to improve the AK-47 bullet in the late 1960s to make it much more effective.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Victor » 03 Dec 2011 12:18

shiv wrote:Here is a html "quick view" of the same

That's the RFI (Request For Information) which went out last year to anyone who requested it. The RFP (Request For Proposal) went out recently to the OEM vendors who made the cut. It looks like a straightforward process.

Prasad wrote:..IA is sticking to the pov of a consumer rather than a stakeholder..

The question is "why" and this is what I'm driving at. The most sensible answer is that the requirement is urgent and there is no time to "ensure iterative development and pressing on them (OFB)". Other answers like "army/neta/babu are corrupt/stupid/unpatriotic" just don't cut it.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4433
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Cain Marko » 03 Dec 2011 12:32

Victor wrote:
Prasad wrote:..IA is sticking to the pov of a consumer rather than a stakeholder..

The question is "why" and this is what I'm driving at. The most sensible answer is that the requirement is urgent and there is no time to "ensure iterative development and pressing on them (OFB)". Other answers like "army/neta/babu are corrupt/stupid/unpatriotic" just don't cut it.


Yes, for some reason - there is an ominous feeling of "you are going to need this soon". GOI seems to have woken up to China threat too - more divisions, quick inductions via FMS route. Methinks the artillery stalemate will be circumvented soon - one way or the other.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4850
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Neshant » 03 Dec 2011 12:46

The biggest and most under-estimated danger at this point is accidentally getting into a brief war on land or sea with China. Some mis-interpretation on either side is all that's needed to light the spark.

Foreign powers will be delighted to see the two nations in hostilities.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Victor » 03 Dec 2011 13:14

Cain Marko wrote: GOI seems to have woken up to China threat too - more divisions, quick inductions via FMS route. Methinks the artillery stalemate will be circumvented soon - one way or the other.

Correct. But the interesting thing is, do you ask for UBGLs and Picatinny rails for a defensive force AR? Sounds like they are more suited for a rampaging horde of marauders who are going to mow down and blow up everything in front of them but still have the flexibility to pick off a target a mile away with a scope :D . This is what it sounds like:
Image

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby vic » 03 Dec 2011 13:32

Indian forces have issued requirement for number of small arms and various news reports confuse various requirements, with tenders, with RFPs, with RFIs and with leaks. To cut the story short, the link posted above is for a 7.62mm x 51 caliber rifle which will be basically our DMR in long run and also replacement for Isapore 7.62x51 (of which even now around 5000 are being produced every year)
The RFP/RFI for assault rifle, carbine etc were different. IIRC the RFP/RFI for assault rifle did not mention caliber and thus the bogey of multiple calibers change was floated. Anyway, knowing IA nothing will be ordered in next 10 decades.
I talked to DRDO chaps and IA had not issued requirement for new rifle till 2008-9 and actually stopped DRDO in 2005-6 from taking own initiative. As per news reports GSQR was issued to DRDO in 2010 for a new rifle. But we will have to wait and see.

The requirement for assault rifle is below:-
http://indianarmy.nic.in/writereaddata/ ... 3dec10.pdf

bmallick
BRFite
Posts: 303
Joined: 05 Jun 2010 20:28

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby bmallick » 03 Dec 2011 14:07

I have question to the gurus with regards to this new desire everywhere for a single rifle with inter-changeable multiple calibers, that is being touted around not just in the news report mentioned but also by manufactures all around.

The questions in my mind are:

a. Would the common infantry soldier need different fire power during his normal missions. What I mean is would the need arise to change caliber in between the mission of a common infantry soldier deployment. If so would they each of them be having standard 5.56 rifle and haul a 7.62 barrel and some other parts for changing the caliber. They would also require to haul two types of ammo too. Would that not mean that they would be effectively carrying heavier load. Wouldn't it be better if majority of the soldier carry the main rifle type let's say of 5.56 caliber and a few in the squad carry the 7.62 one for specialized tasks. Or the armoury has two caliber rifles and depending on the need of the mission the soldier picks the rifle.

b. If the answer to (a) is no the common infantry soldier would not need different caliber rifle, then the current news item would mean that the RFP is for a rifle for the special forces and their special needs. Here too I have a question, in the sense wouldn't it be if the special forces choose their weapon as per their need rather than hauling multiple barrels. Maybe different members of the team equip with different calibers depending on the over fire power required. Also most of the time the special forces would hardly be engaging ala Rambo style with all guns blazing. Their mission per se is covert, sabotage, pass intel and harass. Hence the need to stay away from the eye of the enemy and avoid fire fight. The longer they remain hidden the more they are effective. Here again i do not mean the parachute battalions or airborne battalions, which are light special infantry. They need heavy fire power but need to be light again, hence the same issues mentioned in question (a) applies to them too.

So would some gurus kindly answer my questions and kindly provide a justification of multi-caliber rifle. I can understand multiple caliber rifles of the same family, to ensure familiarization for the soldier, however I am totally at loss at understanding the need for interchangble multiple caliber rifle.

chiragAS
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 16 Nov 2006 10:09
Location: INDIA
Contact:

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby chiragAS » 03 Dec 2011 15:38

May be i was sleeping, But the last time i heard, GoI has made it clear that no defence license for private companies will be given for small fire arms. Defence license is given only for warships, fighter jets etc.

did this change? if yes then when?

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Gaur » 03 Dec 2011 18:24

bmallick,
I am not privy to the thought process of IA so this is just a guess from my side.
The desire is not to change caliber during the same mission but before it. Multicaliber desired so that same rifle can be used for all situations in both CI ops and battlefield. It will make the soldiers have to use only assault rifle in their life and hopefully their effectiveness will greatly improve (both in maintainance in firing proficiency). There will obviously be noticible differences between feel when caliber is changed but it will still be better than adjusting from INSAS to AKMs and vise versa.

But I do have a feeling that IA maybe asking for the moon. Will anyone be able to fulfill multicaliber criteria while still excelling in all other usual parameters? I have little knowledge of rifle design process but I remain skeptical.

khukri
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 28 Oct 2002 12:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby khukri » 03 Dec 2011 19:43

Victor wrote:
Cain Marko wrote: GOI seems to have woken up to China threat too - more divisions, quick inductions via FMS route. Methinks the artillery stalemate will be circumvented soon - one way or the other.

Correct. But the interesting thing is, do you ask for UBGLs and Picatinny rails for a defensive force AR? Sounds like they are more suited for a rampaging horde of marauders who are going to mow down and blow up everything in front of them but still have the flexibility to pick off a target a mile away with a scope :D . This is what it sounds like:
Image


Is this an actual weapon or somebody's rendering of a wet dream?

bmallick
BRFite
Posts: 303
Joined: 05 Jun 2010 20:28

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby bmallick » 03 Dec 2011 20:03

Gaur sir, I concur with what you are saying. So if soldier familirization is what is needed, then wouldn't it be better to have a family of assault rifle with different calibers, rather than have a single rifle with changeable barrels. Because it would not be a simple change of barrel, but some of the other parts too would need to change. Also since the common parts would have to be designed to work for different barrel & bullet caliber wouldn't that entail that they would have to cater to different gas pressure & shock regimes, thus designing one size fits all, might mean that too many compromises to make. If apart from the furniture of the gun everything else would have to change then why not have a new rifle all together it self. Thus a family of rifle called X. X1 = battle field assault 5.56. X2 , 7.62mm, X3 = CQB, X4 = LMG etc. All having similar layout, mechanism etc, but optimized for the role intended. Also they might have slightly different furniture, sights, rails etc. Thus the soldier chooses the gun for the mission. Since the overall design is same, they are familiar with the parts, cleaning method etc.

I guess it was the same idea behind the INSAS family of rifles and thats where DRDO faltered in providing the entire family. But it did provide the assault & lmg version. The same idea can be explored further for a new design of rifle.

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Gaur » 03 Dec 2011 22:25

^^
You are right that the process is not as simple as changing the barrel. ArmenT has written many excellent posts regarding this matter and this is why I have mentioned my sceptism.

PS: Please do away with sir. :)


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests