Artillery Discussion Thread

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Post Reply
Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1444
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Kersi D »

vic wrote:I think indigenous guns will fail underwater exo-atmospheric plasma firing tests and Army will order first batch of 100 guns subject to successful completion of these tests.


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[/quote] In the meanwhile requirement of M777 will go upto 2000 and articles will be written as to how Desi Bofors is too heavy.[/quote]

:D :D :D :D
k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 980
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by k prasad »

There are so many projects and contracts that my tiny head is spinning. Can some guru here list out all our artillery plans and contracts please, specifically:

a) Our present arty inventory - bore/cal, make, year of acquisition + numbers
b) Which contracts have been called for - type, numbers, bore/cal, make/contenders, status, planned induction year
c) Which guns are presently in development indigenously - type, maker, bore/cal, status, etc

Thanks!
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

Even jee toppers would be stumped by that one.
Truth be told, everyone is shooting arrows in the night air hoping it will strike something.

There is as yet no sign of a cohesive action plan 2020
merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by merlin »

For a while I was tracking b, then I got fed up when nothing happened and stopped tracking. Now I cannot find the txt file where I had that info :-(
sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10205
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by sum »

k prasad wrote:There are so many projects and contracts that my tiny head is spinning. Can some guru here list out all our artillery plans and contracts please, specifically:

a) Our present arty inventory - bore/cal, make, year of acquisition + numbers
b) Which contracts have been called for - type, numbers, bore/cal, make/contenders, status, planned induction year
c) Which guns are presently in development indigenously - type, maker, bore/cal, status, etc

Thanks!
Prasad-ji, Welcome back after hiatus?
IIRC, we would be able to account for the number of warheads in Desh but the above info might be beyond anyone in this country!! :D
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4550
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Prem Kumar »

A tidbit from this Chindu Frontline article:

Powered by young scientists
Sundaresh said the DRDO was developing the Mark II version of Pinaka, the multi-barrel rocket launcher that fires the Pinaka rockets. While the rocket Pinaka-I has a 10 km to 38 km range, Pinaka-II will have a range of 60 km. It will go for user-trials by the end of next year.
So, Pinaka 2 is in progress, but its not 90/120KM (numbers I've seen thrown about). Its 60 KM, which is still pretty good!
member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by member_20317 »

It will go for user-trials by the end of next year.
That is the confirmation I personally was waiting for.

A few early reports said the IA was not taking as much interest in Pinaka-II.

Lets just hope we get to see a similar interest in Prahaar.
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by abhik »

Prem Kumar wrote:A tidbit from this Chindu Frontline article:

Powered by young scientists
Sundaresh said the DRDO was developing the Mark II version of Pinaka, the multi-barrel rocket launcher that fires the Pinaka rockets. While the rocket Pinaka-I has a 10 km to 38 km range, Pinaka-II will have a range of 60 km. It will go for user-trials by the end of next year.
So, Pinaka 2 is in progress, but its not 90/120KM (numbers I've seen thrown about). Its 60 KM, which is still pretty good!
IIRC this "Pinaka-II" is not a completely new system but just improvements in the existing rocket design which resulted in the range increase. 90-120 km in the domain of heavy rockets like the Smerch and is probably too much to expect from a lighter system like the Pinaka. Anyway I think it is pointless trying to develop both Prahaar and a Smerch equivalent.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

how can the range increase by 50% from 40km to 60km without the rocket changing? it must have been made longer or fatter for sure...my guess is longer as fatter will affect the speed of projectile and stability of the TELAR as well.
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2393
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by vivek_ahuja »

They may have completely redesigned the internal systems of the missile with lighter and smaller components which might have improved the space for internal fuel. Just a speculation.

But more to the point, I am okay with them playing around with the Pinaka in terms of the internal systems etc. If they get a range increase out of it, fine. If not, that's also fine. We have enough types of rockets now for the ranges involved. Just because a Smerch fires for 90 km does not mean it cannot hit targets at 60 km. Right now the way things are going, we are having Pinaka (<= 40/60 km), Smerch (<=90 km), Prahaar (<=150 km) and Prithvi (<=250 km/maybe replaced?). That's quite enough an array for the army in terms of technology.

Time now is to go full production and start deploying these systems in large quantities liberally throughout the forces.

Enough technology development/demonstrators!
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

I think army is facing funding crunch in ordering sufficient nos of kit, incl equipping the new mountain formations adequately.
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2393
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by vivek_ahuja »

Singha wrote:I think army is facing funding crunch in ordering sufficient nos of kit, incl equipping the new mountain formations adequately.
See, that's my point.

Isn't what you said something more dangerous than using Smerch to hit lower range targets in case the Pinaka-II can't hike it that far?

I am afraid we are at that point in rocket artillery and TBMs where we have the capability and its proven. But nowhere near the numbers required to make a real difference in any war. To me that's more serious than coming up with a different rocket system for every twenty kilometer range pocket.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12686
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Pratyush »

^^^

Or they could have reduce the warhead weight, while making the rocked more accurate with GPS guidance. Having said so, i am generally pessimistic when it comes to Indian designed & made stuff, and its possibility of seeing service in large numbers and for a long time.
Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7902
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Anujan »

Mass fraction has a dramatic effect on rocket ranges. Case bonded motor with lighter and stronger materials maybe?
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

if A5 and Nag can use composite motor case, can MLRS rockets do it as well? one is cold launch (per reports) while nag is a hot launch.
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2393
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by vivek_ahuja »

It should be possible to change materials and in return achieve up to 50% change in range for the same overall missile.

From my Agni-I article posted here previously.

Clicky
FLIGHT PERFORMANCE RESULTS
With all the required data now established for the missile the flight performance characteristics are evaluated (Figure-7-8). It can be seen that the missile flies to altitude of about 200 km during its flight for a payload of 1000 Kg and can hit a target to a range of around 850 Km. The Mach number during re-entry is around seven and the overall flight time is under nine minutes. Note that it is in fact possible to lower the mass of the payload to receive an extension in range of the missile. A tabulation of such options from the analysis above is presented (Table-4). It is also possible that when the maraging steel structures of the missile are replaced with composite materials, it will allow for up to 40% reduction in structure mass of the missile. This will correspondingly have a dramatic effect on the range of the missile. The improved range and trajectory for a composite designed missile is presented in Figure-8 for a 1000 Kg payload. It is seen that the 850 km range missile can effectively be increased to a range of around 1250 Km as a result of this use. Combined with reduced payload masses, the effective range of the missile can be further improved to around 1500 Km with light warheads.
So the Pinaka range extending from 40 km to 60 km sounds right in the same ballpark. But they also probably made changes to other internal components as well.

JMT
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4550
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Prem Kumar »

I am willing to bet that they havent changed the dimensions of the rockets, so that there can be commonality with the existing launchers. Its not worth doing en-masse changes for a 20 KM gain in range. They must've taken advantage of better proppellants & composites, that others here have suggested. If they did a complete redesign, it will be for a 90/120KM rocket

Vivek: Pinaka 1 rocket production is in full swing. There were some glitches this year, which slowed down the production, but I believe these have been resolved. The IA is supposedly pretty happy with the system. Agree with your view - the need of the hour is volume, volume, volume - of Prahaar, Pniaka 1 & Pinaka 2. There is no pregnant need for a Pinaka 3
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4728
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by putnanja »

Ordnance factory introduces indigenous version of 155mm gun
SANGAREDDY(AP): Indian armed forces will use in 3 months an indigenous version of the 155mm calibre Bofors guns "which are more advanced than Bofors", All India Ordnance Factories Board's (OFB) Director General and Chairman Sudhir Kumar Beri said.

Speaking to reporters at the ordnance factory at Yeddumailaram in Medak district today afternoon, he claimed it is "the biggest ever achievement of Indian ordnance factories to have manufactured an indigenous 155 mm calibre gun for the country's defence needs". Generally, it takes 60 months to develop and manufacture such guns but Indian ordnance factories did it in merely 16 months, he claimed.

"Earlier, we manufactured only 104 mm calibre guns in India and 155 mm calibre guns were imported from foreign companies like Bofors. But now, we manufacture in it India," he said, adding the indigenous 155mm calibre guns have been successfully tested.

Around 65 percent of the technology used in these guns is Indian and 35 percent foreign. In three months, the foreign component will be reduced to 15 percent, he said.

The manufacturing capacity of 2000 Pinaka missiles per annum will be increased to 5000 missiles per annum, he said.

He said "we have moved proposals to the central government to take over three HCL units at Hyderabad, Naini (near Allahabad) and Ramnarayanpur. The proposals are moving at a very fast pace and a decision is expected next month".

He said these three units will be taken over with all its 2200 employees and 300 acres of land at Hyderabad, 54 acres of land at Naini and 900 acres of land at Ramnarayanpur, along with infrastructural facilities. Some changes will be made and machinery will be installed as per requirement, he said.
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2589
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by srin »

putnanja wrote:Ordnance factory introduces indigenous version of 155mm gun

The manufacturing capacity of 2000 Pinaka missiles per annum will be increased to 5000 missiles per annum, he said.

He said "we have moved proposals to the central government to take over three HCL units at Hyderabad, Naini (near Allahabad) and Ramnarayanpur. The proposals are moving at a very fast pace and a decision is expected next month".

He said these three units will be taken over with all its 2200 employees and 300 acres of land at Hyderabad, 54 acres of land at Naini and 900 acres of land at Ramnarayanpur, along with infrastructural facilities. Some changes will be made and machinery will be installed as per requirement, he said.
The Pinaka quote is very interesting, and probably more hopeful than realistic. Read the latest CAG report here - jump to Section 8.2 on page 80.

An excerpt from the closing summary ...
Against the Army’s indent for supply of 4752 rockets during the period 2007-
12, OF Chanda had supplied only 1561 rockets till March 2011, that too
without proof clearance. During proof firing of the rockets in December 2008,
an accident occurred. Analysis of the reasons for the accident led to
declaration of 407 rockets as unserviceable due to quality problems of the
propellant, and net loss of rockets valuing ` 44.51 crore and propellant valuing
` 4.25 crore. Repeated failure and stoppage of production of Pinaka rocket for
a certain period led to overall delay in operationalisation of the Army units as
per induction plan. The delay in delivery of the rockets at the desired rate of
supply had also affected the training of troops and the war wastage reserve
could not be maintained.
member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by member_20317 »

srin ji, OF Ambajhari got the go ahead for Pinaka rockets. This bit of news was outed when Pinaka production was around 1000 rockets. If the official claims are for 2000 per annum today, I believe that implies progress though a typical Indian one of stop-go kind.

OF Chanda also being in the picture could imply that OF Ambajhari is facing problems in expanding capacity specific to Pinaka and other OFs have been roped in.
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2589
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by srin »

ravi_g wrote:srin ji, OF Ambajhari got the go ahead for Pinaka rockets. This bit of news was outed when Pinaka production was around 1000 rockets. If the official claims are for 2000 per annum today, I believe that implies progress though a typical Indian one of stop-go kind.

OF Chanda also being in the picture could imply that OF Ambajhari is facing problems in expanding capacity specific to Pinaka and other OFs have been roped in.
No 'ji' please.

Read the full thing please ... the manufacture seems to be a bit like the Airbus A380 - one component in one factory ...
As per the scope of the project, OF Ambajhari was required to manufacture
various rocket components/sub-assemblies and issue the empty hardware of
the rocket to OF Chanda. OF Kanpur was tasked to manufacture stabilizer
assembly for its issue to OF Ambajhari, while OF Medak was assigned
manufacture and issue of pod assembly to OF Chanda. Other designated sister
factories were also required to supply components to facilitate the manufacture
and issue of the rockets.
Also read along about the Quality control problems - makes a depressing reading. That being the case, making 5000 rockets per year would probably be a few years down the line.

One interesting thing I learnt was that L&T and Tata manufacture only the launchers, and the rockets come from the OFB. I was under the impression that L&T and Tata were final system integrators including rockets.
member_20067
BRFite
Posts: 626
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by member_20067 »

I remember reading a news byte.. that because of the global spike in tungsten price Pinaka production rate was slowed down...

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... ka-rockets
NAGPUR: A foreign vendor haggling over prices has hit the production of Pinaka rockets, an important weapon system of the artillery. The rockets are made in the ordnance factories including that in Ambajhari and are also suitable for mountain warfare.

Its warheads are filled with tungsten balls to enhance lethality and can be fired up to a range of 40 kms. However, supply of processed tungsten, which comes from France, has been held up as the international prices of the metal have shot from around $35 a kg to close to $50 in recent times. The supplier now wants higher rates and ordnance factory is not willing to shell out the extra amount. This has affected supply of tungsten hampering the production of rockets, said a source closely involved with the affairs. The production has slowed down, said a source in the factory. The army has ordered over 1,500 rockets. However, the current output is almost half of the required quantity. This is almost 30% less than last year's tally in same period, the source said.

Responding to TOI query, a senior officer of the Indian Ordnance Factory Service (IOFS) cadre admitted the stalemate over tungsten prices. "Such problems are routine in course of production and we will overcome it soon," he added. The government is scouting for new vendors but a decision has not been taken yet, added another source.

Earlier, the chairman of Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) had called for self-sufficiency in processing of tungsten. He added that at present its non-availability had not led to a shortfall in production of Pinaka rockets but dependence on foreign vendors was a matter being addressed. Tungsten is key material in making of warheads. Warheads are filled with thousands of tungsten balls which disperse when the rocket hits the target.

This is pre-fragmented high explosive type warhead usually used in the rocket. The tungsten balls are supposed to have a capacity of creating damage in an area of over 10,000 square metres. Another warhead that throws out burning fragments has also been developed.

Tungsten is a preferred due to its hardness. It is processed and received in powdered form and then made into balls at the ordnance factory. It is also used as an armour piercing material in tank shells. Pinaka rockets have been designed by Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO). After over a decade of being taken for development, the OFB got an order for bulk production in 2007.
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2393
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by vivek_ahuja »

Just to give an idea here:

There must be about three (?) regiments of the Pinaka system within the IA at this point with plans for one (?) per year raising. (Rohitvats et. al., please correct the numbers here if I am out of date or simply wrong)

So lets assume we have 4 regiments at this point.

Each as 12 launchers.

Each Launcher has 12 tubes for a single salvo.

This means that for a single salvo fire from each of the launchers in the 4 regiments, we need about 576 rockets.

That's just one salvo. Assume that we need each regiment to be able to fire at least (and being outrageously conservative given the needs for modern combat) nine ( :roll: ) salvos + 1 reserve salvo.

Then you need 5760 rockets.

Then you need to add a new regiment each year (if we are not at our sanctioned limit already).

So doing 1000/2000 rockets a year is not going to cut it IMVHO.
member_20067
BRFite
Posts: 626
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by member_20067 »

vivek_ahuja wrote:Just to give an idea here:

There must be about three (?) regiments of the Pinaka system within the IA at this point with plans for one (?) per year raising. (Rohitvats et. al., please correct the numbers here if I am out of date or simply wrong)

So lets assume we have 4 regiments at this point.

Each as 12 launchers.

Each Launcher has 12 tubes for a single salvo.

This means that for a single salvo fire from each of the launchers in the 4 regiments, we need about 576 rockets.

That's just one salvo. Assume that we need each regiment to be able to fire at least (and being outrageously conservative given the needs for modern combat) nine ( :roll: ) salvos + 1 reserve salvo.

Then you need 5760 rockets.

Then you need to add a new regiment each year (if we are not at our sanctioned limit already).

So doing 1000/2000 rockets a year is not going to cut it IMVHO.
add to it .. usual 10% dud rockets... so adequate buffer is needed too....
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

if we didnt have our heads stuck in the sand , we would let private cos in defence area set up their own ordnance factories to speed up production of all consumables like munitions and missiles.

but no, everything from lead balls for the colonels retired elephant gun upto 155mm shells has to be imported at high prices or OFB onlee! small arms could also be made by private players with tech transfer from internal or external sources.
Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Katare »

I read the whole thing, it seems as of july 2012 Army probably have received less than 1000 usable rockets in total. They might not have any thing in war waste reserve or to even train a few sets of crew. What a shame, they are talking about 5000 rockets a year capacity while problem is competence not capacity.

These guys will soon be producing smearch rockets, only god can help Army.
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by abhik »

srin wrote: The Pinaka quote is very interesting, and probably more hopeful than realistic. Read the latest CAG report here - jump to Section 8.2 on page 80.

An excerpt from the closing summary ...
Against the Army’s indent for supply of 4752 rockets during the period 2007-
12, OF Chanda had supplied only 1561 rockets till March 2011, that too
without proof clearance. During proof firing of the rockets in December 2008,
an accident occurred. Analysis of the reasons for the accident led to
declaration of 407 rockets as unserviceable due to quality problems of the
propellant, and net loss of rockets valuing ` 44.51 crore and propellant valuing
` 4.25 crore. Repeated failure and stoppage of production of Pinaka rocket for
a certain period led to overall delay in operationalisation of the Army units as
per induction plan. The delay in delivery of the rockets at the desired rate of
supply had also affected the training of troops and the war wastage reserve
could not be maintained.
putnanja wrote:Ordnance factory introduces indigenous version of 155mm gun

The manufacturing capacity of 2000 Pinaka missiles per annum will be increased to 5000 missiles per annum, he said.
Note that the guy is talking about increasing capacity, no mention of the actual production rate.
krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by krishnan »

can they even make 1000 per year...looking at the way these missiles are asembled , i would expect about 50 per month, unless they can revamp the assembly line
Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2198
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Shrinivasan »

You have to give it to OFBs to screw up the manufacture of a quality product. If i were the user i would prefer phoren products for sure. We saw it in INSAS, Pinaka, arjuns and even ammo
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19335
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by NRao »

IF the OIB has such a bad track record, clearly the problem is above them for accepting such quality over and over again.
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2589
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by srin »

putnanja wrote:Ordnance factory introduces indigenous version of 155mm gun
SANGAREDDY(AP): Indian armed forces will use in 3 months an indigenous version of the 155mm calibre Bofors guns "which are more advanced than Bofors", All India Ordnance Factories Board's (OFB) Director General and Chairman Sudhir Kumar Beri said.

Speaking to reporters at the ordnance factory at Yeddumailaram in Medak district today afternoon, he claimed it is "the biggest ever achievement of Indian ordnance factories to have manufactured an indigenous 155 mm calibre gun for the country's defence needs". Generally, it takes 60 months to develop and manufacture such guns but Indian ordnance factories did it in merely 16 months, he claimed.

"Earlier, we manufactured only 104 mm calibre guns in India and 155 mm calibre guns were imported from foreign companies like Bofors. But now, we manufacture in it India," he said, adding the indigenous 155mm calibre guns have been successfully tested.

Around 65 percent of the technology used in these guns is Indian and 35 percent foreign. In three months, the foreign component will be reduced to 15 percent, he said.
This is good news - the Govt can't blacklist DRDO :lol:
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2589
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by srin »

Suddenly - it seems that everybody and their mother-in-law is developing "indigenous" howitzers.

OFB is making one, Tata is making one, Bharat Forge too was reportedly making one, and now DRDO ?
member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by member_20317 »

Now IA and invade Cheen with just the prototypes :)
The army has ordered over 1,500 rockets. However, the current output is almost half of the required quantity. This is almost 30% less than last year's tally in same period, the source said.
Yearly output can be calculated from above link by Pritiwiraj ji.

Also anothe calculus for war time consumption can be derived from the size of the oppenent that we are likely to face. Paki &/or Cheen being x times of Eyeraq which at one time needed around 11000 mbrl rockets to get invaded seriously.

The stocks for India needs to be around 25000 minimum for Grads and another 10000 for Pinakas-1 and Pinaka-2. But then I hope IA comes up with a bigger number. :)
Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1171
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Samay »

I think this is a clever move. That way each entity discussed above will produce a cerrtain variant of howitzer.

By involving pvt sector , the mean banya mentality interests will also be satisfied, and finally we might have guns to fulfill requirements with lower costs .
suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4112
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by suryag »

How i wish the same thing was done on the KAveri front
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2393
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by vivek_ahuja »

ravi_g wrote:Also anothe calculus for war time consumption can be derived from the size of the oppenent that we are likely to face. Paki &/or Cheen being x times of Eyeraq which at one time needed around 11000 mbrl rockets to get invaded seriously.

The stocks for India needs to be around 25000 minimum for Grads and another 10000 for Pinakas-1 and Pinaka-2. But then I hope IA comes up with a bigger number. :)
Ideally, we would like to have Artillery-FARPs located near the combat zone pre-stocked with ready-to-fire rounds that can be used to supply a surge in MBRL units during times of war. Otherwise, its also a case of resupplying these units that becomes an issue.

While integrating the logistics-interdiction equations for the Ladakh side for the scenarios dhaga, this was something that was made really evident to me. Numbers don't lie. With regard to China, without AFARPs located across the border zones, you can forget about the Pinaka and Smerch systems being anything more than theoretical assets to be used once in a while on the combat zone. Pakistan is not so much required because of good logistics up to all border locations.

But the point is, if you have these AFARPs created, your requirement for number of rockets in your overall inventory to go even higher and have to be designed to stored in austere conditions for extended periods.

Neither of these is something the OFB quality designs are capable of IMO.

Sad state of affairs it really is.
Last edited by vivek_ahuja on 07 Jan 2013 01:54, edited 1 time in total.
member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by member_20317 »

I think we have pre-stocking of in Siachen a very aggressive level. Elsewhere i am not aware.

IMO too FARPs with pre-stocked rounds, is how the Artillery usage in the high Himalayas can become successful. Which implies more investment in the kind of artillery that can be treated as 'use and throw' and the kind of artillery that can move around instead of getting fixed in deep valleys which will protect the fire base but also eat into the range options available.

Chodo ji, old khujli. Resident experts do not agree and I want to reach my own conclusions.
Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Katare »

The problems they are having are very common, run of the mill, new product introduction (NPI) manufacturing scale-up issues that any factory that introduces new products would know how to handle. Just looking at their supply chain structure, one can tell these guys do not have much experience in working out expected issues. Since they are in business for 100 years they should know, how to do it, but they don't, why?

Answer I can think of is that they have been spoon fed by foreign suppliers who not only give them the weapons manufacturing know how but they also come and set-up factories and testing facilities for OFBs. More over experienced engineers deployed by these foreign companies "hand-hold" until line stabilizes. These otherwise competent OFB guys actually do not have much real world experience of introducing new products and technologies (in technical jargon called NPI and NTI) without a foreign big brother holding their hands. This could also explain why it has donned on HAL now that setting up an assembly line for LCA itself is major undertaking that will cost Rs1500 Corer and several years.

From audit report it is clear that they certainly have capacity to produce 2000 rockets a year but most of what they produced was more dangerous to IA than our enemies so it was sent back to them. Also important to note is that much maligned IA even accepted rockets with "red card" which means these were not proof tested. They were sent back to OFB when there was an accident. I'll be shitting bricks if i was using or handling explosives made by OFB on daily basis.

But the upside is that this is exactly what you call teething pains that OFB are going through at age of 100 rather than at age 8-10 that is more common for humans and successful companies. Once couple of these projects goes through (Pinaka and Akash) they’ll have the required experience they need to plan and manage new projects.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by shiv »

Folks I am not sure if this forum should be working itself up into a collective frenzy about OFB. OFB is a large organization and they make some things that work. That includes for example parachutes. About INSAS - I observed that INSAS was in regular use in Kargil and it is now 13 years later - and the entire Army has been equipped with INSAS. If the OFB is that stupid, so is the army. It is OK if anyone wants to believe that but it looks to me like the army and OFB have some issues, but they are sorted out and OFB things are used. OFB level tech is the same as the army workshop maintenance level tech. Indian equipment like Premier Padmini is user serviceable, and not dealer serviced like Toyota Corolla.

So simply cursing OFB is, in my view another example of educated Indians being scathingly contemptuous of some Indian organization that does not meet certain standards that have been set up by the very people passing the comments. OFB is not the best in the world and could do better. But some things work and cursing as if everyone and everything is hopeless is akin to boxwallahs/bhadralok dissing Indian stuff. We have to live with and improve what we have, because we are already convinced that what we don't have is the best in the world.
Post Reply