Artillery Discussion Thread

George J · Post by **George J** » 24 Nov 2011 05:58

negi wrote:...........can't help myself but to quote GJ man "it's a tube onlee".

When did I ever say that? I am not saying I didn't...but I don't remember saying it.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 24 Nov 2011 06:07

^^

Are you back saar??

Mantri · Post by **Mantri** » 24 Nov 2011 06:20

Ok, wrt the 105 MM.

Has any one any idea regarding the 115 MM Chetak project of OFB Kanpur. What it was all about.

The OFB site has 1979 - ORDNANCE 115MM : CHETAK PROJECT & - SHELL 115MM TK HESH written under the project name. Will I be wrong to conclude the project to be a main Tank gun along with the AT Shell.

If this was a home grown project. Then the OFB designed 2 main guns in a gap of two years. As under 1980 they mention 120MM ordinence for Arjun.

Viney G,

CHETAK MBT Project was the project before ARJUN MBT, as far as I know the project was renamed as ARJUN after incorporating many changes in the original CHETAK project by V.S. Arunachalam.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 24 Nov 2011 06:35

George J wrote:
negi wrote:...........can't help myself but to quote GJ man "it's a tube onlee".
When did I ever say that? I am not saying I didn't...but I don't remember saying it.

negi-saar, the old crone is right - he was talking about VLS tubes, not artillery

George J · Post by **George J** » 24 Nov 2011 07:24

Oh yeah...I remember, the Mk. 41 VLS. Someone said we should get SM-3s because we will get Mk.41 VLS tech with it. I couldn't understand why we need tube tech.

I know I am getting old but I would never call Arjun's gun barrel a tube, not with Nitin around.

Thanks Nair saar.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 24 Nov 2011 07:40

IIRC, during the 90's there was interview of the head of Bofors where he said that while the inquiry and the court cases are going on, India should still go ahead with the license production and TOT that it had already paid for. But the political climate did not allow it.

If a clone of the original TOT agreement can be signed with BAE/M&M, that would be the best way to go forward. OFB trying to do it by itself will take too long, and the guns were needed day before yesterday.

JM2c

negi · Post by **negi** » 24 Nov 2011 07:50

Fck me sideways , indeed !

Hey but it's a tube onlee I obviously took some liberty with it.

Btw it was Roel and if I remember correctly the discussion was around hot launch versus the cold launch.

vic · Post by **vic** » 24 Nov 2011 10:16

People hyperventilating about this need to take a deep breath and relax. We are capable of making barrels - Arjun's main gun as someone pointed out. But then these tank barrels shoot projectiles upto 4-5kms max. They are 120mm bore and are effective for about 500-600 shots. Compare this with an arty gun - 155mm bore, 20km min range, effective for upto 1500 shots - and you can see the difference in stresses and wear & tear the guns undergo during their operations. The metallurgy is the key that will solve this conundrum.
Well firstly MBT guns have their own set of challenges they fire shells at a higher muzzle velocity than a comparable howitzer-gun/Arty and even there the latter's higher range has more to do with the fact that it is employed in indirect fire mode. As for the life of the barrel how do we know if it's not a function of the required/desired accuracy ? In case of a MBT it has to engage moving targets while the host platform itself is on the move that is not the case with Arty so need to change a barrel on more frequent basis can very well be attributed to it (btw fwiw there are references to Rhienmetall's L44 gun having a barrel life of around 1500 rounds and it fires APFSDS rounds at anywhere around 900-1600 m sec i.e. much more than a typical 39cal arty gun/howitzer).

The very fact that Arjun is ready today and we haven't seen any major project as a follow on to the IFG tells me the problem is more to do with vision and not technology.

Accuracy is a function of many factors including muzzle velocity, fire control system computing ability, sensor fit to read atmospheric conditions, etc. So it is not singularly responsible for barrel life.
L44 Rheinmetall gun barrel you refer to has a weight of 1200kg while the L55 weighs in at 1350kgs. Compare this to Arjun gun barrel which is similar to L55 which weighs near 1600kg and you will know where the shoe pinches us in metallurgy. One very significant difference between these two barrels is the rifling in the Arjun gun. By default rifled guns have shorter barrel life than smoothbore . Thus Arjun barrel has an EFC of 500 rounds compared to the 1000-1500 rounds for the Rheinmetall ones. So you can't really bring in a smoothbore barrels to compare to the rifled guns

It is lack of vision which prohibited the development of IFG into incremental higher caliber variants which would have yielded us the technology to make a 155mm barrel with acceptable performance. That IMO is criminal.

Kanson wrote: Accuracy is a function of many factors including muzzle velocity, fire control system computing ability, sensor fit to read atmospheric conditions, etc. So it is not singularly responsible for barrel life.
L44 Rheinmetall gun barrel you refer to has a weight of 1200kg while the L55 weighs in at 1350kgs. Compare this to Arjun gun barrel which is similar to L55 which weighs near 1600kg and you will know where the shoe pinches us in metallurgy. One very significant difference between these two barrels is the rifling in the Arjun gun. By default rifled guns have shorter barrel life than smoothbore . Thus Arjun barrel has an EFC of 500 rounds compared to the 1000-1500 rounds for the Rheinmetall ones. So you can't really bring in a smoothbore barrels to compare to the rifled guns
Challenger L30 120 mm rifled gun spec:

1. Weight: 1803 kg
2. EFC : 500

Challenger L11A5 120 mm rifled gun spec:

1. Weight: 1778 kg
2. EFC: 400 (Ball park figure)

I think correct comparison should be between rifled guns.

Kanson has already met the point of Marut. I will add that in Gun metallurgy, a tank gun is pinnacle of achievement in power and accuracy. The range of tank gun in not just 5km, as reference to 5km is for direct firing range. For indirect firing of an sabot, the range of, say Arjun gun would be around 80-120km. But sabot is not used in indirect firing mode. Further, the life of tank gun is low due to extremely powerful round being fired and the requirement to keep the tank barrel light for saving weight. If the "tech" (not the gun itself) is carried into the artillery domain then it will do the job easily. Not to forget, India has been already working on 155mm barrels for Metamorphorisis gun for around one decade. There seems to be 3 way competition:-

1. Direct imports + FMS imports (Bae-Bofors continue to lead)

2 OFB using Bofors drawings + planted reports of needing foreign help from Mahindra/Bae-Bofors combine

3. DRDO-ARDE working with L&T + Bharat Forge

I am sure last combine will loose as they are very poor in bribing and planting media stories.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 24 Nov 2011 10:35

George J wrote:
negi wrote:...........can't help myself but to quote GJ man "it's a tube onlee".
When did I ever say that? I am not saying I didn't...but I don't remember saying it.

Aah looked who crawled out of the woodwork

Looking forward to some humour, crow style

VinayG · Post by **VinayG** » 24 Nov 2011 11:16

Mantri wrote:
Ok, wrt the 105 MM.

Has any one any idea regarding the 115 MM Chetak project of OFB Kanpur. What it was all about.

The OFB site has 1979 - ORDNANCE 115MM : CHETAK PROJECT & - SHELL 115MM TK HESH written under the project name. Will I be wrong to conclude the project to be a main Tank gun along with the AT Shell.

If this was a home grown project. Then the OFB designed 2 main guns in a gap of two years. As under 1980 they mention 120MM ordinence for Arjun.

Viney G,
CHETAK MBT Project

CHETAK MBT Project was the project before ARJUN MBT, as far as I know the project was renamed as ARJUN after incorporating many changes in the original CHETAK project by V.S. Arunachalam.

i would like to add more info here

CVRDE, which had no experience in engine design, was issued the General Staff Qualitative Requirement Order No. 326 in 1972 to produce a 12-cylinder aircooled Variable Compressor Ratio engine of 1,500 hp and to develop the automotive system, a suitable gear box and suspension system for the MBT, initially named Chetak. It was to be the MBT of the Army in the 1980’s. Instead of a step-by-step approach by working on a twin-cylinder engine first. Scientists involved in the project started working straightaway on a 12-cylinder engine which, on trial, could produce only 400 hp.

complete information here

It did not occur to the Defence Minister to ask the scientists how an eight-cylinder engine could achieve 1,100 hp whereas a 12-cylinder engine could achieve only 400 hp. MTU would not sell 12-cylinder 1,500 hp engines to India because of NATO restrictions. CVRDE could have taken the help of Ashok Leyland and Kirloskars, leaders in the field of diesel engines in India. Though the MBT appropriately named Chetak, the wonder horse which, with one foot cut off in the Haldighati battlefield, galloped zig zag to save his injured royal rider, Maharana Pratap of Mewar, before dropping dead, General AS Vaidya was the first Army chief to realise its illusive nature and renamed it Arjun, the mythical figure in the Mahabharatha

MBT ARJUN SAGA How Not To Run Military R & D Project

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Nov 2011 11:36

> George J 24 Nov 2011

a sighting...a genuine sighting...launch the lifeboats, loot the liquor store and heat up the charcoal grill boys!

BhairavP · Post by **BhairavP** » 24 Nov 2011 15:57

GJMan!
Still in the neighbourhood I hang around in?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 24 Nov 2011 16:07

Mrs GJ got distracted and immediately GJ goes to BRF

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 24 Nov 2011 16:13

Although I don't understand what this hoopla about but lets give a warm welcome to the returning muj..

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Nov 2011 17:40

Bala Vignesh wrote:Although I don't understand what this hoopla about but lets give a warm welcome to the returning muj..

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 25 Nov 2011 08:01

vic wrote:There seems to be 3 way competition:-

1. Direct imports + FMS imports (Bae-Bofors continue to lead)

2 OFB using Bofors drawings + planted reports of needing foreign help from Mahindra/Bae-Bofors combine

3. DRDO-ARDE working with L&T + Bharat Forge

I am sure last combine will loose as they are very poor in bribing and planting media stories.

I beg to differ. DRDO-ARDE may be but their Indian corporate partners must be good at "managing the Government". If not, they would not have survived and grown big in India.

That is why I wholeheartedly support the entry of Indian corporates in defense production. They would teach all the phoren companies how to "manage the environment" in India. Natashas will finally be matched by Rambhas.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Nov 2011 09:12

in that case its very urgent that RIL and ADAG enter the defence sector

the CxOs of LM and Boeing will be on the next flight to start JVs with full n final tot if that were to happen

Virendra · Post by **Virendra** » 25 Nov 2011 12:32

With all this buzz of modern arti range going around and above 70 kms, I don't understand why our benign neighbours opted for a 60 kms tactical nuclear missile 'Nasr'. Do they believe they can air launch it from the skies near Delhi?

Regards,
Virendra

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 25 Nov 2011 12:47

Virendra wrote:With all this buzz of modern arti range going around and above 70 kms, I don't understand why our benign neighbours opted for a 60 kms tactical nuclear missile 'Nasr'. Do they believe they can air launch it from the skies near Delhi?

Regards,
Virendra

They get whatever the Chinese develop and wanted to show off that they have a MBRL. Something which we need to plan against

garytrek · Post by **garytrek** » 25 Nov 2011 12:50

Some localization efforts being initiated by GUN CARRIAGE FACTORY JABALPUR on 155 mm Artillery Gun.
Plz see the following link of the tender being floated :-
http://tenders.gov.in/innerpage.asp?cho ... 223&work=1

Regards

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 25 Nov 2011 13:05

GJman,

Not heard from you since I was organizing a BRF meet in BLR many moons ago.

Welcome back and I hope this time you stay long enough to read this post.

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 25 Nov 2011 14:45

Virendra wrote:With all this buzz of modern arti range going around and above 70 kms, I don't understand why our benign neighbours opted for a 60 kms tactical nuclear missile 'Nasr'. Do they believe they can air launch it from the skies near Delhi?

Regards,
Virendra

Idea was (or atleast fart of doing so in press) to nuke Indian forces chopping out porki army in porki territory.

Which somehow they thought India won't take as "a nuclear strike on India".. or whatever else madarsa logic PA applied.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 25 Nov 2011 16:30

George J wrote:
negi wrote:...........can't help myself but to quote GJ man "it's a tube onlee".
When did I ever say that? I am not saying I didn't...but I don't remember saying it.

Welcome back ... and this time before you decide to vanish again

, try and post a few of your thoughts in the Su 30 Thread.

Again, welcome back ...

vic · Post by **vic** » 25 Nov 2011 20:38

L&T is known to be poor at bribing, part of hang over of belief in their capability

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 27 Nov 2011 09:49

VinayG wrote: i would like to add more info here

CVRDE, which had no experience in engine design, was issued the General Staff Qualitative Requirement Order No. 326 in 1972 to produce a 12-cylinder aircooled Variable Compressor Ratio engine of 1,500 hp and to develop the automotive system, a suitable gear box and suspension system for the MBT, initially named Chetak. It was to be the MBT of the Army in the 1980’s. Instead of a step-by-step approach by working on a twin-cylinder engine first. Scientists involved in the project started working straightaway on a 12-cylinder engine which, on trial, could produce only 400 hp.

complete information here

It did not occur to the Defence Minister to ask the scientists how an eight-cylinder engine could achieve 1,100 hp whereas a 12-cylinder engine could achieve only 400 hp. MTU would not sell 12-cylinder 1,500 hp engines to India because of NATO restrictions. CVRDE could have taken the help of Ashok Leyland and Kirloskars, leaders in the field of diesel engines in India. Though the MBT appropriately named Chetak, the wonder horse which, with one foot cut off in the Haldighati battlefield, galloped zig zag to save his injured royal rider, Maharana Pratap of Mewar, before dropping dead, General AS Vaidya was the first Army chief to realise its illusive nature and renamed it Arjun, the mythical figure in the Mahabharatha
MBT ARJUN SAGA How Not To Run Military R & D Project

There seems to be some DDMitis in this article. For one, variable compression ratio technology was only developed in the early 2000s (by Saab). In 1972, such technology was pure science fiction. Also, increasing # of cylinders does not necessarily imply additional horse power. There are other factors such as cubic inches, engine efficiency etc. that contribute to the HP generated.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 01 Dec 2011 19:57

vic wrote:L&T is known to be poor at bribing, part of hang over of belief in their capability

Mayuresh · Post by **Mayuresh** » 08 Dec 2011 23:15

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/multibarrel- ... 0-117.html

Quote: "A scientist said Pinaka can neutralise a target area of 350 square km"

Is the DDMitis or did they just make the system more lethal? Or is he talking about a Regiment of Pinakas?

From Frontline: "A Pinaka MBRL, that is, a single launcher built on a Tatra truck, has two pods of six rockets each. Six launchers constitute a battery. The Army generally deploys a battery that has a total of 72 rockets. All the 72 rockets can be fired in 44 seconds, taking out an area of 1 sq km. Each launcher can fire in a different direction too. The system has the flexibility to fire all the rockets in one go or only a few" http://www.flonnet.com/fl2621/stories/2 ... 110900.htm

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 08 Dec 2011 23:34

ArmenT wrote: There seems to be some DDMitis in this article. For one, variable compression ratio technology was only developed in the early 2000s (by Saab). In 1972, such technology was pure science fiction. Also, increasing # of cylinders does not necessarily imply additional horse power. There are other factors such as cubic inches, engine efficiency etc. that contribute to the HP generated.

1. The variable compressor (not compression) ratio is for the turbo charger and has existed for a long time and has been used in production cars since the 80's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_g ... rbocharger)

2. Yes, increasing the number of cylinders does not ALWAYS equal extra HP and the power band could mean HP was traded for Torque in one engine vs the other but it does follow convention (there are exceptions) that additional cylinders allow more power at the similar efficiency and size parameters

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 09 Dec 2011 03:34

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/multibarrel- ... 0-117.html

Quote: "A scientist said Pinaka can neutralise a target area of 350 square km"

Is the DDMitis or did they just make the system more lethal? Or is he talking about a Regiment of Pinakas?

From Frontline: "A Pinaka MBRL, that is, a single launcher built on a Tatra truck, has two pods of six rockets each. Six launchers constitute a battery. The Army generally deploys a battery that has a total of 72 rockets. All the 72 rockets can be fired in 44 seconds, taking out an area of 1 sq km. Each launcher can fire in a different direction too. The system has the flexibility to fire all the rockets in one go or only a few" http://www.flonnet.com/fl2621/stories/2 ... 110900.htm

Correction.. a regiment of Pinaka MBRL can neutralize an area of 3.5 sq km in one salvo.

DDM clearly skipped a decimal here

atma · Post by **atma** » 09 Dec 2011 08:40

Sid wrote:
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/multibarrel- ... 0-117.html

Quote: ]

Correction.. a regiment of Pinaka MBRL can neutralize an area of 3.5 sq km in one salvo.

DDM clearly skipped a decimal here

Two decimals in my opinion.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 09 Dec 2011 11:44

^^^ is the version of Pinaka being tested the Pinaka I (older variant used in Kargil) or the newer Pinaka II with higher range and explosives? If former why another test by the developer? Incidentslly couple of Pinaka launchers from the 41st Arty Div showed their prowess in Ex Sudarshan Shakti!?! Am i missing something?

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 09 Dec 2011 12:53

Shrinivasan wrote:^^^ is the version of Pinaka being tested the Pinaka I (older variant used in Kargil) or the newer Pinaka II with higher range and explosives? If former why another test by the developer? Incidentslly couple of Pinaka launchers from the 41st Arty Div showed their prowess in Ex Sudarshan Shakti!?! Am i missing something?

This is probably the Pinaka I with the Israeli Mil Industries - DRDO Trajectory control system. The CEP was to be improved from 2% to much lesser.

I want to hear first about what Tatra/TATA chassis they are planning to use for the longer range, and presumably heavier rockets. The weight issue had dragged the Pinaka on for years before they settled on the current chassis, just in time for testing on poor Pakis in 1999.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 09 Dec 2011 13:48

photos of pinaka and smerch

From the link

The indigenously-developed Pinaka and Russian 9K58 SMERCH multibarrel rocket launcher systems from Indian Army rocket regiments were part of theater offensive maneouvers at Exercise Sudarshan Shakti in the Thar Desert over the last few weeks. The Indian Army, I am happy to report, is dead pleased with the Pinaka: with three regiments operational and two more in the pipeline, things are looking good.

Hope they fly the lsp7 and np1 quickly to quench jingo thirst for the year

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 09 Dec 2011 13:54

atma wrote:http://ibnlive.in.com/news/multibarrel- ... 0-117.html

Correction.. a regiment of Pinaka MBRL can neutralize an area of 3.5 sq km in one salvo.

DDM clearly skipped a decimal here

[/quote]

I think he means radius..not the range.

means it can neutralize an area of 3.5 sq km

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Dec 2011 14:35

I saw 3 tatra vehicles near beml just now being tested after assembly. it seems we import the left hand drive model.
the wheel drive system looked fairly complex and all the wheels were kind of tilted out at the top not perfectly vertical axis.
rugged looking beasts though...even the autos and taxis who dont give side to the CM's car scampered smartly away when they drove up, blinking their lights...

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 09 Dec 2011 14:50

^^^Singha, forget the autowalas and other such little flies, the biggest of trucks on highways don't mess with TATRAs...and they are much more dangerous if they have a trailer with a tank or BMP. People living in Punjab/J&K/Haryana/Rajasthan, especially those areas which are close to military cantts or on roads leading to major forward zones, know well to stay clear of these beasts when they are on road. A TATRA w/o trailer and loaded lightly can give a Swift a run for its money on the highway.

On the wheels being canted in - AFAIK, they need a certain amount of load on vehicel proper to straighten out. The vehicles actually came (from Russia) with iron bricks to be used when vehicles are not loaded with cargo. But the bricks are long gone. You can actually see TATRAs with big rocks/boulders in some cases to compensate for this. I don't know why this needs to be done, though.

Here is a fine explanation on the axle and chassis of a TATRA (from Team BHP):

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/commercia ... ead-3.html

vaibhav.n · Post by **vaibhav.n** » 09 Dec 2011 16:46

Reminds me of an incident when we were in Mamun, when a speeding Alto rammed up and got stuck between the rear loading ramps of a moving Tatra Tank Transporter at night. The driver was pacing down the Highway oblivious to the fact of the ruckus in his rear end!!

He came to know when it was pointed out that he had some unwanted occupants.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 09 Dec 2011 16:50

Singha wrote:I saw 3 tatra vehicles near beml just now being tested after assembly. it seems we import the left hand drive model.
the wheel drive system looked fairly complex and all the wheels were kind of tilted out at the top not perfectly vertical axis.
rugged looking beasts though...even the autos and taxis who dont give side to the CM's car scampered smartly away when they drove up, blinking their lights...

After all these years, no custom built right hand drive version?

sum · Post by **sum** » 09 Dec 2011 17:30

^^ Comment in livefist blog on the Pinaka article:

As the CO & chief testing Officer (could not help saying that )of the rocket regiment which tested the Pinaka during the final user trials at Pokaran in 200r it is good to know that the Pinaka has been well received.
We had tested a Fire Direction radar also during the trails which failed when the DG Arty was checking out the system.One sore point was the software which was primitive at that time.Hope it has improved since then

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 09 Dec 2011 17:56

vaibhav.n wrote:

Reminds me of an incident when we were in Mamun, when a speeding Alto rammed up and got stuck between the rear loading ramps of a moving Tatra Tank Transporter at night. The driver was pacing down the Highway oblivious to the fact of the ruckus in his rear end!!

He came to know when it was pointed out that he had some unwanted occupants.

Did you say Mamum? hehehe...been there. And seen some of the most funny accidents involving TATRAs and Kraz (the one that pulls M-46. There is always beehive of activity involving armor in Mamun.