Artillery Discussion Thread

negi · Post by **negi** » 21 May 2012 22:47

To be honest leveraging the existing technology base for Arjun's gun for an indigenous Arty piece is not a bad idea, I mean even Arty requires a rifled gun difference is in the trajectory and the mass of the projectile something which is much doable given what we already have achieved and successfully demonstrated.

I mean a 155 mm 52cal Arty gun lobs a projectile of 40kg with a muzzle velocity of 850m/s.
Arjun's gun accelerates a 20 kg APFSDS round to a muzzle velocity of 1650m/s.
Momentum wise the two are very close. While one could argue that variables like cross section of the round and rate of fire are different it looks like the fundamental challenge of fabricating a barrel which can withstand high chamber pressure is pretty much the same for the two guns.

From ballistics point of view firing solution built for Arjun is far more sophisticated than what is required by an Arty piece , it appears to me all that we require is a bit of vision and will in the decision making quarters and let the DRDO and Co take it from there, no OFB please.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 22 May 2012 23:41

Mods I am posting the following in full since I could not find it on this thread.

Needless to say your prerogative to keep it else...
http://www.claws.in/print_article.php?recNo=1055&u_id=7

The Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS)

Article No.: 2054 Date: 21/01/2012
Indian Artillery: The arm of decision is lagging behind in its modernisation drive

Gurmeet Kanwal
E-Mail- [email protected]

Despite the lessons learnt during the Kargil conflict about the battle winning role played by firepower in modern wars, modernisation plans of the Regiment of Artillery have been stagnating for long. The last major acquisition of towed gun-howitzers was that of about 400 pieces of 39-calibre 155mm FH-77B howitzers with a range of 30 km from Bofors of Sweden in the mid-1980s. Though the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has issued several global tenders to revive long-delayed plans to modernise the Indian artillery, for one reason or the other, the acquisition process has not made much headway.

Since the Bofors 155mm Howitzer was introduced into service, the indigenously designed and manufactured 105 mm Indian Field Gun (IFG) and its light version, the Light Field Gun (LFG), have also joined the list of guns and howitzers heading for obsolescence. Approximately 180 pieces of 130mm M46 Russian medium guns have been “up-gunned” to 155mm calibre with ordnance supplied by Soltam of Israel. The new barrel length of 45-calibres has enhanced the range of the gun to about 40 km with extended range ammunition.

The probability of the next conventional war breaking out in the mountains is far higher than that of a war in the plains. With this in view, the artillery recently conceptualised a requirement for an ultra light-weight towed howitzer of 155mm calibre for employment in the mountains. In January 2008, the MoD had floated a Request for Proposal (RfP) for 145 pieces of ultra-light 155mm towed howitzers for use by the Indian Army’s mountain formations. 145 howitzers will equip seven medium artillery regiments and will cost approximately Rs 3,000 crore. This howitzer, manufactured by BAE Systems, has been trail evaluated and is likely to be acquired through the direct Foreign Military Sales (FMS) route from the US government.
The MoD has floated a global tender for the purchase of 180 wheeled self-propelled 155mm guns for around Rs 4,700 crore for employment by mechanised forces in the plains and semi-desert sectors. An RfP has also been issued for 400 155mm towed artillery guns for the artillery, to be followed by the indigenous manufacture of another 1,100 howitzers, in a project worth approximately Rs 8,000 crore. The RfP was issued to eight prospective bidders including BAE, General Dynamics, Nexter (France), Rhinemetall (Germany) and Samsung (South Korea).

Indigenous efforts to manufacture 155mm howitzers include that by the Ordnance Factories Board to produce a 45-calibre 155mm howitzer based on the designs for which Transfer of Technology (ToT) was obtained from Bofors in the 980s, but no utilised. It has been reported that the Defence Acquisition Council has approved a proposal for the OFB to manufacture 414 howitzers of 45-calibre provided the prototypes successfully meet the army’s GSQR in user trials. Meanwhile, the DRDO has embarked on its own venture to design and develop a 155mm howitzer in partnership with a private sector company. Bharat Forge is one company that is known to be interested in the indigenous design and development of modern artillery systems.

There has been notable progress on the rocket artillery front. A contract for the acquisition of three regiments of the 12-tube, 300mm Smerch multi-barrel rocket launcher (MBRL) system with 90 km range has been signed with Russia’s Rosoboronexport. This weapon system is a major boost for the long-range firepower capabilities of the army. Extended range (ER) rockets are being introduced for the 122 mm Grad MBRL that has been in service for over three decades. The ER rockets will enhance the weapon system’s range from 22 to about 40 km. A contract worth Rs 5,000 crore has also been signed for two regiments of the 12-tube Pinaka MBRL weapon system, developed by the DRDO, Larsen and Toubro and the Tatas. The 214mm Pinaka rockets will have an approximate range of 37 km. Two more regiments of Pinaka MBRL are likely to be added later.

Efforts are also underway to add ballistic as well as cruise missiles to the artillery arsenal. Two regiments of the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile (Mach 2.8 to 3.0), with a precision strike capability, very high kill energy and range of 290 km, have been inducted into the army. Block-I and Block-II versions of the missile have successfully completed trials. It is a versatile missile that can be launched from TATRA mobile launchers and silos on land, aircraft and ships and, perhaps in future, also from submarines. 50 BrahMos missiles are expected to be produced every year. These terrain hugging missiles are virtually immune to counter measures due to their high speed and very low radar cross section and are far superior to sub-sonic cruise missiles like Pakistan’s Babur. Two more regiments of BrahMos are likely to be inducted into service, including one specially designed for effective target engagement in the mountains.

Counter-bombardment capability is also being upgraded, but at a slow pace. At least about 40 to 50 weapon locating radars (WLRs) are required for effective counter-bombardment, especially in the plains, but only a dozen have been procured so far. In addition to the 12 AN-TPQ 37 Firefinder WLRs acquired from Raytheon, USA, under a 2002 contract worth US $200 million, Bharat Electronics Limited is reported to be assembling 28 WLRs. The modernisation plans of tube artillery alone are likely to cost approximately Rs 15,000 crore. The “Shakti” project for command and control systems for the artillery, earlier called Artillery Combat Command and Control System (ACCCS), has successfully completed user trials and is now being fielded extensively. Gradually it will be fielded up to the corps level and the two artillery divisions will be equipped with it.

Despite the increasing obsolescence of artillery guns, mortars and rocket launchers, it has not been possible to conclude contracts for their replacement. The failure to modernise the Indian artillery is likely to have adverse repercussions for national security. If there is any field of defence procurement in which the government must make haste, it is this one.
Brig Gurmeet Kanwal (Retd) is Director, Centre for Land Warfare Studies, New Delhi
Courtesy: The Indian Express, 15 January 2012

srai · Post by **srai** » 23 May 2012 03:23

vic wrote:Reposted after removing some typos

From CAG Report

For indigenization of technology for AD Gun, GSQR was framed by the Army
in October 1985. DDRD in May 1986 sanctioned a Technology
Demonstration project for design and development of Towed AD Gun,
ammunition system and associated technology (Sharp shooter) at an estimated
cost of 9.44 crore with the PDC of 5 years. The project was completed in
September 1992 at a cost of 8.24 crore, after achieving rate of fire of 1200
rounds per minutes as against rate of 1000 rounds per minute specified in the
GSQR.

Later, a Staff Project (SL-PX-2K referred to at Sl No 4 below) was
taken up in September 2000 for 17.70 crore to improve upon the rate of fire
to 2000 rounds per minute. The project had to be foreclosed after an
expenditure of 14.68 lakh as the Army again changed the parameters of the
gun.

A total of nine changes in the GSQR were made impacting the basic
parameters of the gun system such as caliber, rate of fire, size, number of
barrels, weight etc. as detailed below:

1. GSQR 554 of October 1985
All weather, 30 mm, Towed, Multi-barrel, Rate Of Fire
(ROF) not less than 1000 rpm
RDS–PX-86/ARD-826 in May 1986 for 9.44 crore.
Successfully completed inSeptember 1992 at a cost of 8.24 crore.

2. No Revised QR. DRDO unilaterally decided to develop item with enhanced
specifications to Multi-barrel, Gatling Gun with ROF 4200 rpm.
Army in October 1995 suggested two types of AD guns.
One with weight around 1000 – 1500 Kg and other weighing 4000–5000 Kg with ROF 1000–2000 rounds in each case.
RDR-PX-93/ARD-984 in August 1993 for 1.98 crore.
Since Gatling gun did not meet the user requirement the project was foreclosed in October 1995 at an expenditure of 48.5 lakh

3. Draft GSQR of May 1997
30 mm, Towed, Single Barrel, ROF not less than 1000 rpm, and Weight not more than
1500 Kg. July 1998, Twin Barrel Gun, ROF 2000 rpm
Weight 3500 – 3800 Kg
RDX-PX-97/ARD-1080 in August 1997 for 9.85 core.
Closed in April 2000 at an expenditure of 51.19 lakh.

4. GSQR 767 of January 2000
Fair weather, 30 mm, Two Barrel, Towed AD Gun,
Weight 3500–3800 Kg and ROF 2000 rpm
SL-PX-2K/ARD-1148 in September 2000 for 17.70 crore.

Due to decision of the Army to
upgrade in service 40 mm L/70 and 23mm ZU Gun, Project
foreclosed in October 2001 at a cost of 14.68 lakh.

5. GSQR 910 of October 2002As a common successor to
L/70 and 23mm ZU Gun. All weather, Two Barrel, ROF not less than 1000 per
Barrel Amended in May 2004. No project undertaken as GSQR
was revised in September 2004

6. GSQR 998 of September 2004
All weather, Towed/HMV mounted, 30/35mm, Two
Barrel with ROF 1000 rpm and Weight about 4.5 ton
Amended in August 2006 Light Weight Air Defence Gun

No project undertaken as the GSQR was amended in August
2006 and revised GSQR superseding all the previous
GSQRs was received in January 2007

7. GSQR 1166 Received in January 2007 to replace L/70 and
23mm ZU Gun Towed, HMV mounted, ROF 1000 rpm and weight Not <
6000 Kg No project undertaken till date by ARDE Thank God they got the message,
that indigenous products are not wanted.

In August 2010 the User Directorate in Army HQ stated that revisions to
GSQR in this case had become essential, as the features had become outdated
during preceding 20 years and the proposed gun system was required to relate
to the envisaged air threat. The User categorically denied any responsibility
for the failure in development by DRDO and insisted that they had not agreed
to any dilution in specifications of most critical of the GSQR parameters.
Consequently, even though three R&D projects and one Staff project were
undertaken by the laboratory, the AD Gun system could not be developed by
DRDO to satisfy the frequently revised requirements of the Users . This
resulted in their mid-way closure after incurring an expenditure of 9.38 crore
on the staff project in addition to the expenditure on the technology demonstration project.

Ministry in its reply agreed with the audit contention of non
finalization/frequent changes to QR leading to failure to develop a Gun system
acceptable to the Users.

Does this repeated and massive changes in GSQRs indicate love for import (of Tungushkas, Oerlikon 30mm revolver gun, foreign component based upgrade of ZU 23mm & 40 mm L/70 ??).

It goes on to show that without armed forces support indigenous capability cannot be realized. Just imagine if the IA had inducted the AD gun Mk.1 version in 1992 (and subsequently upgraded it to Mk.2/3/4/5) where the indigenous capability would have been by now!

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 23 May 2012 03:48

Consequently, even though three R&D projects and one Staff project were
undertaken by the laboratory, the AD Gun system could not be developed by
DRDO to satisfy the frequently revised requirements of the Users . This
resulted in their mid-way closure after incurring an expenditure of 9.38 crore
on the staff project in addition to the expenditure on the technology demonstration project.

Ministry in its reply agreed with the audit contention of non
finalization/frequent changes to QR leading to failure to develop a Gun system
acceptable to the Users.

Sad

Indrajit · Post by **Indrajit** » 23 May 2012 20:29

Interesting perspective from Gen.Jamshed Gulzar Kiyani,Core Cmndr Rawalpindi Area and ISI Chief during Kargil war gives an insight of the event,calls it a debacle,mentions the Indian response,quite interesting.Also confirms IAF strike on the supply lines(inside Paki occupied area)Moreover mentions the Bofors Gun.

[youtube]<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/m8vdvf92JNw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/youtube]

[youtube]<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/njCufTcjiZ8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/youtube]

[youtube]<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Jj-nEUShtrQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/youtube]

Or kindly type Jamshed Gulzar Kiyani to view the entire episode on Youtube.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 May 2012 20:39

Vic, Its might be the requirements for AD guns were changing rapidly in that time period due to nature of acquisitions by TSP. If the forces went ahead with the acquisitions they would be stuck with unusable weapons.
So little harm done except for CAG egos.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 May 2012 22:21

then gsqr must be periodically reviewed on an yearly basis or perhaps 6 monthly basis., so that the expense need not be incurred on those requirement changes ahead. why pump in millions when the changes are being made.

qualitative is the word.

vic · Post by **vic** » 24 May 2012 12:32

ramana wrote:Vic, Its might be the requirements for AD guns were changing rapidly in that time period due to nature of acquisitions by TSP. If the forces went ahead with the acquisitions they would be stuck with unusable weapons.
So little harm done except for CAG egos.

Pls note the Love of Oerlikon and Tungushka in the relevant period

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 May 2012 13:08

many of the tungushkas we imported as new were infact old pieces. some of these worn items were detected after delivery.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 May 2012 13:31

Well, a Tungushka is more than simply a gun firing at X-rate of RPM. It has the gun, missile and the radar combination on tracks to make it what it is. So, it would be futile and incorrect to compare the DRDO development as competing with Tungushka import. If anything, IA needs replacement for L-70 and might be looking for a lower caliber weapon - the DRDO development could have been to fill this gap.

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 24 May 2012 14:56

i felt Tunguska kind of system for low level AD was better. I thought we had all the technologies for making one like.
Example if we have combined a L40 system with igla or derby on a T-72 hull , it would have been a nice system.I would like to know why was it not thought of.

koti · Post by **koti** » 24 May 2012 15:05

For a system whose orders were at max towards a hundread units, I guess it was not a worthy try.

Even in your suggestion, the cannon is not ours, the Missile is not either. Neither is the platform nor the sensors(back then).

And DRDO trying to compete with TanguskaM1 with this Jugaad Bandi would have been futile.
Russia has/had the best Air defense systems till the late 80's. And even now, the Russian systems are very advanced.
Us competing with them is step in the right direction but let us not yet consider bettering them.

schowdhuri · Post by **schowdhuri** » 24 May 2012 15:08

Did we actually end up with more than 1 regiment worth of Tungushka?

L70 should have been completely replaced over a decade back. About three decades back I used to wonder if the L70 ould easily bring down a helicopter which was skilfully flown, let alone a fighter (you need to see it firing close up to know what I am talking about - specially if right after that you saw a schilka open up).

koti · Post by **koti** » 24 May 2012 15:18

Last I checked, We have around 100 Tanguska M1 in service ordered around 1996.
Later there were news of around 70 systems acquired after Operation Parakram.
There was also a talk of possible upgrade.

L70 is more of a cheap deterrence then a sure shot AA gun.

Its size and spread will prevent low runs by enemy AC.
I don't know why they cant handle LACM's too.
Its cheap and also kind of immune to LR SEAD/DEAD

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 May 2012 15:49

but doesnt L70 need a guidance radar? can the same radar guide a collection of L70?

koti · Post by **koti** » 24 May 2012 16:30

It doesn't saab. Not that it cant benefit from it though.
Most of the time, it will not be a target for a Guided ASM. Given the enemy attack AC have to do limited passes and have limited Munitions to take care of far greater targets before the home interceptors join the party.

One can argue ZSU-23-2 as a better platform for this role but I have no points as yet in that debate.

schowdhuri · Post by **schowdhuri** » 24 May 2012 16:57

Singha wrote:but doesnt L70 need a guidance radar? can the same radar guide a collection of L70?

L70 is mated to a rader (and several L70's can be mated to a single radar also) - the Super Fledermaus during the days I had first hand experience of it, then I think it went to Flycatcher.

koti · Post by **koti** » 24 May 2012 17:05

Mated?
But how? I believe these guns are still manually aligned and the targets optically acquired.
Or am I wrong?

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 24 May 2012 17:26

This is the gun i was talking about

http://ofb.gov.in/products/data/weapons/wmc/6.htm

Atleast reports i have read are about unavailability of spares for the Tunguska

schowdhuri · Post by **schowdhuri** » 24 May 2012 18:03

koti wrote:Mated?
But how? I believe these guns are still manually aligned and the targets optically acquired.
Or am I wrong?

I have personally seen a Super Fledermaus tracking a target & two L70's following the target along with the radar without any crew to manually track - and this was in 80's - by now there are some more bells and whistles added (I think).

See this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV1DBaHC ... r_embedded

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 May 2012 18:33

^^^You're right. The L70 are mated to a Flycatcher - IIRC, 3 guns to a radar. Please see the link here:

http://www.google.co.in/imgres?http://w ... sh_003.jpg

http://staff.science.uva.nl/~jvbelle/Flycatcher.jpg

The controller sits in the mobile cabin you see in the pic. There is a TV screen with a reticle and a joystick kind of control. The guns move as per the movement of the stick. IMO, the radar warns of the impending assault and direction, the guns are aligned in the said direction and along with TV, allow for targeting of the hostile aircraft.

Your's truly has sat in one and "targeted" over flying Hinds....evening time fun for fauji kids.

srai · Post by **srai** » 25 May 2012 08:36

^^^

This video shows some of what you are describing...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 May 2012 09:57

use properly, in a grid around a airbase or camp, these things can fill the air with enough lead ahead of onrushing low flying a/c to cause some damage methinks and certainly deter any helicopter gunships.

but range and height reach is not so good - PGM / CBU / standoff missile attackers are very safe from L70

since the radar input itself controls the gun, what is the role of the 2 people sitting inside? they just need to feed clips of ammo? why not a big drum of belt fed ammo and 1 man only to replace the ammo drums?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 25 May 2012 10:00

Singha, With the profileration of PGM's and CM's, I think mordern Airbases should have Naval type CIWS guns which can take these out, this would increase the cost and difficulty for the attackers to take out your airbases.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 25 May 2012 10:13

Forget the bomb trucks: go for the air-dropped ordinance using these guns. If you can't bring down B52 or uber-stealthy crafts, use some radar + optronic-thingammys to cue the guns to shoot down the bombs these crafts rain down. And it can be done cheaply with bullets, since these things don't maneuver and firing solutions are less complex. Even a cheap-ass proximity fused shell bursting near a PGM can cause pretty decent havoc to its aim-point. Raise the cost of each PGMs to beyond acceptable value

And use SRSAMs for the rest of the faster moving stuff, including CMs. Low level crafts need to be handled much, much before it ever reaches a field.

koti · Post by **koti** » 25 May 2012 10:24

hnair wrote:Forget the bomb trucks: go for the air-dropped ordinance using these guns. If you can't bring down B52 or uber-stealthy crafts, use some radar + optronic-thingammys to cue the guns to shoot down the bombs these crafts rain down. And it can be done cheaply with bullets, since these things don't maneuver and firing solutions are less complex. Even a cheap-ass proximity fused shell bursting near a PGM can cause pretty decent havoc to its aim-point. Raise the cost of each PGMs to beyond acceptable value

And use SRSAMs for the rest of the faster moving stuff, including CMs. Low level crafts need to be handled much, much before it ever reaches a field.

That is exactly what SPYDERs are being bought for.

Regarding the guns I am actually surprised why this not a priority yet. Systems like Tunguska and Pantasir can do this role too. And they can actually move. We need to get these systems ASAP to counter the massive cheap LACM advantage the PLA has over IA/IAF.

Countries like USA and Israel have this counter PGM capability to the level of countering artillery shells by systems like C-RAM and Iron dome.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 May 2012 14:21

apart from rugged SP systems like tungushka and pantsyr which might be too costly outside of armour heavy mobile formations, there are many other options

1. upgrade the ZSU-23-4 design with a modern radar and optronics
2. upgrade and produce more L70 with a new proximity fused type shell or submunition shells (AHEAD: Anti-missile rounds, that fire "152 heavy tungsten metal sub-projectiles")
2. Clone the ZSU-23-4 design with desi components and keep improving it

SPYDER is a good 1-2 punch to knock down Sino-Pak LACM, but too costly for use on unguided or guided bombs which are 100 times more in enemy inventory.

koti · Post by **koti** » 25 May 2012 17:04

--Repeat--

koti · Post by **koti** » 25 May 2012 17:05

L70 has too less rate of fire to be of any value against LACMs that in most of the cases will be terrain hugging. Even ZSU with its somewhat limited rate of fire will not suffice in most cases.

Unless we are talking of some retarded munitions directly above the gun mount, the said guns will be mostly in effective.

Cost of an operational airfield, ammunitions dump, C2I will be much higher in a crisis situ IMO then the real costs of the Missile systems.
Trishul would have made a lot of difference in terms of cost if we had it now in place of SPYDER for SHORAD.

OFB manufactures AK 630. If we can come up with a similar concept like C-RAM, it might be of immense use towards countering Chinese LACM threats.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 May 2012 17:23

koti wrote: <SNIP>Even ZSU with its somewhat limited rate of fire will not suffice in most cases.<SNIP>

koti · Post by **koti** » 25 May 2012 17:29

^ I was referring to ZSU-23-2 saab.
ZSU-23-4 with modified guidance systems will be in the same category of Tunguska-M1.

schowdhuri · Post by **schowdhuri** » 25 May 2012 17:58

When a Zsu (2 or 4) fires the sound is like a cloth tearing - a loud riiiiiippppppp... When an L70 fires it's like my milkmans motorcycle misfiring - a slow dhug ... Just the sound tells you the difference in rate of fire.

SandeepS · Post by **SandeepS** » 25 May 2012 21:14

The fundamental difference between ZU-23-2 and L70/40 is that ZU-23-2 is a fair-weather weapon system while L70/40 has longer range radar-controlled, hence it can engage targets further and in all-weather. L70/40 when coupled with FlyCatcher is a potent weapon system but it is now long in tooth and the package does need to be upgraded. Although L70/40's rate of fire might be less than ZU-23-2 but its accuracy is deadlier. Having said that both the weapon systems have their uses and are employed as per their strengths so its not a case of kicking one out based on a single factor like higher rate of fire.

Again ZU-23-4 is a good weapon system given its mobility and firepower but has a major weakness that as it is mounted on PT-76 it is light-skinned and provides little protection to its operators or radar system in current environment of CAS, AT rounds. But again it has the strength that it can provide pretty comprehensive low-level AD protection to mobile columns...unless its gunner goes trigger-happy and cooks his barrels:-)

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 May 2012 21:21

Can the Flycatcher be used with the ZSU series?

John · Post by **John** » 25 May 2012 21:48

Major difference is ZU-23 and L70 is the caliber 23 mm vs 40 mm, 23 mm will not have enough punch to significantly damage any incoming cruise missile or bomb before it hits the target and worse the missile might fall off course hitting residential areas. Also the limited effective range and gun system requiring constant targeting (not easy against low flying cruise missile in area surrounded by by buildings) plus the threat of shells causing any collateral damage really limits any AAA for credible missile defense purpose. One of the reasons Israel went for Iron dome and is using Phalanx only as stop gap measure.

koti · Post by **koti** » 25 May 2012 22:08

C-RAM uses 20mm Phalanx system.

koti · Post by **koti** » 25 May 2012 22:13

schowdhuri wrote:When a Zsu (2 or 4) fires the sound is like a cloth tearing - a loud riiiiiippppppp... When an L70 fires it's like my milkmans motorcycle misfiring - a slow dhug ... Just the sound tells you the difference in rate of fire.

It might. But compare it with Khastan. Or AK630.

schowdhuri · Post by **schowdhuri** » 25 May 2012 22:45

ramana wrote:Can the Flycatcher be used with the ZSU series?

I assume you are talking about the twin, because Shilka has its own radar etc.

No, it is completely manual.

John · Post by **John** » 25 May 2012 22:52

koti wrote:C-RAM uses 20mm Phalanx system.

That is mainly to protect coalition bases from short range rockets and mortars. It is not full fledged anti missile system.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 May 2012 23:24

No replace the existing radar with Flycatcher?