Artillery: News & Discussion

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Sagar G » 19 Oct 2013 20:34

Victor wrote:Either way it was OF's fault. If they didn't have the technical knowhow they should not have made the gun.


I am looking for an answer not rhetoric if you can provide one without indulging in your pet rhetoric (highly improbable) then please do otherwise don't quote me.

member_27862
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_27862 » 19 Oct 2013 22:39

Karan M wrote:
sameerjoshi wrote:OK point taken and I stand corrected on the BM42 mixup by the Iraqis in the Gulf war.....


Now I know why the confusion on the Ruskie FSAPDS projectiles took place..they bugger everyone's happiness by having a different designation for the Projectile and Round. The 3BM42 projectile has the 3VBM17 round................got mixed since was quoting through memory.......3BM17 projectile has the 3VBM8 round.......The Iraqis definitely used the 3BM17 projectile...thanks for the correction Karan.....but am really foxed by this system of different projectile and round designations ....Just to share the info with all

Projectile --- Round
3BM9 ----- 3VBM3
3BM12 ----- 3VBM6
3BM15 ----- 3VBM7
3BM17 ----- 3VBM8
3BM22 ----- 3VBM9
3BM26 ----- 3VBM11
3BM29 ----- 3VBM10
3BM32 ----- 3VBM13
3BM42 ----- 3VBM17
3BM42M ----- 3VBM19
3BM46 --- ?????

May come in use for someone....

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53984
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 20 Oct 2013 03:26

SagarG, Maybe OFB thought the Midhani steel was just raw materials to be used with the Russian heat treatment process. I mean could be cognitive dissonance for all along they were used to the Russian steel and heat treat process.


Victor, If one doesn't make mistakes one is most likely not doing anything! So far thee argument was they don't have know how so keep them out.
At least they are trying.

As for the 155mm barrels issue I think its the ammo.
Lets see.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 20 Oct 2013 07:32

ramana wrote:
If one doesn't make mistakes one is most likely not doing anything!

Agree. But a pampered monopoly tends to make more mistakes without learning than we should be forced to accept. Nothing like a little competition to cure that problem is all I'm saying.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Sagar G » 20 Oct 2013 12:27

ramana wrote:SagarG, Maybe OFB thought the Midhani steel was just raw materials to be used with the Russian heat treatment process. I mean could be cognitive dissonance for all along they were used to the Russian steel and heat treat process.


I don't think they would do that based on their thought since there will be audit objections to it as their mandate is defined and everything goes on paper which they have to follow. Let's consider that it was out and out OF's fault and all the gaali galauch they received is well deserved but then they did as they were told too to fix the issue then how come even after all the necessary manufacturing change implementation we are in 2013 spending 1500 Cr. to purchase T-90 barrels for the same reason of barrel burst happening in T-72 ???

If the barrels are bursting due to poor quality tank ammo then shouldn't we be implementing tighter QC regime on tank ammunition manufacture ??? How come importing T-90 barrels is going to fix poor quality tank ammo ???

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8151
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 20 Oct 2013 15:54

^^^^
May be, the t 90 can handle the same ammo without any difficulty. Or may be the plan is to standardise the gun for the whole tank fleet. In order to have a single set of ammunition. Simplifying logistics of the operation.

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby pragnya » 20 Oct 2013 19:47

Karan M, sorry i am just picking 2 points from your posts but unfortunately only these points are relevant to my response. hence..

The BM46 is clearly not in series production.


these are longer rods (in addition to 3BM-42M) which are not compatible with the auto loaders in T-72/90. IMO they are meant for ARMADA and possibly the T-90AM/MS which has a bustle mount on the turret for the same 'but' since there is question mark over both wrt production, it is possible the rounds too are in limbo.

IA was not interested in 39 cal and asked only for higher cal


i am afraid that is not the case. army asked for 2 versions which are approved. one is 39cal upgraded and the other 45cal reengineered.

Army to induct indigenous howitzers in 2013

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18863
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 20 Oct 2013 20:12

The upgraded long rods IMO, at this point, are more of a wishlist than anything else. They are good for internet debates where Russians claim equality with the west, but even the upgraded T-90s are not shown with production series BM-4XX upgraded rounds..

Re: howitzers, this is what I meant.. IA plans to induct only the 45 cal ones or at this point of time only they have orders...

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... y-kinetics

I doubt they'd go for the 39 cal weapons.. they might have asked for a prototype though, but its pretty old in the tooth for todays requirements though a step up from the 155mm.

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby pragnya » 20 Oct 2013 21:01

Karan M wrote:The upgraded long rods IMO, at this point, are more of a wishlist than anything else. They are good for internet debates where Russians claim equality with the west, but even the upgraded T-90s are not shown with production series BM-4XX upgraded rounds..


no disagreement. i was only trying to connect the dots based on the specs on the fofanov page.

Re: howitzers, this is what I meant.. IA plans to induct only the 45 cal ones or at this point of time only they have orders...

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... y-kinetics

I doubt they'd go for the 39 cal weapons.. they might have asked for a prototype though, but its pretty old in the tooth for todays requirements though a step up from the 155mm.


i guess IA with no howitzers in decades is playing it safe. while 39cal (being a replica) would be easier (!) and would serve as backup as it only involves upgrades in terms of ballistic computers, communication and the like where as the 45cal is wholly reengineered version which might face some issues.

some links -

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/field-trials ... 986-3.html

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... ers-bofors

fwiw.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18863
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 20 Oct 2013 21:39

Yeah, but they still havent placed any orders for the 39 cal. Agree with you that they should have just ordered a few hundred 39 cal to at least build up numbers while the mythical 45 cal super howitzers came from "somewhere"..

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53984
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 20 Oct 2013 22:09

The 45 cal re-engineerred is not the problem. It tested all right in Dec 2012 and yet in Au 2013 it suffers ignominy.
Its the shell that causes the issues.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18863
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 20 Oct 2013 22:12

Hope you are right. Is there any report that mentions the timeframe for OFB to have completed their enquiry conclusions about the incident?

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 20 Oct 2013 22:18

The first article posted by pragnya above states:
While one gun has been upgraded with the electronic suite incorporating ballistic computers, servo valves and communication systems to provide automation, the second gun has been upgraded by fitting a new 45 calibre barrel, enabling it to achieve a range of 40 km.

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

These seem to say that four 39 caliber guns were ordered, two of which were upgrades and two were same as original with no changes, and two 45 caliber.

The only difference between the 39 and 45 caliber is extra range--30km vs 40km, unless I'm missing something. The shells are the same. So it's quite perplexing that the army would not first order the lower-risk 39 immediately when it is desperately short of guns and instead order the OFB's experimental 45 with the risk of not getting anything anytime soon. Of course it's preferable to have a longer range weapon but couldn't they first be safe and then task OFB to develop the 45 in the meantime? Something just doesn't add up.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53984
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 21 Oct 2013 05:06

Brochureitis. Seek what is promised instead of whats at hand. \\No wonder SSM, NSA has started seeing the virtues of Patelian reality!.

member_23455
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_23455 » 21 Oct 2013 09:47

Victor wrote:
The only difference between the 39 and 45 caliber is extra range--30km vs 40km, unless I'm missing something. The shells are the same. So it's quite perplexing that the army would not first order the lower-risk 39 immediately when it is desperately short of guns and instead order the OFB's experimental 45 with the risk of not getting anything anytime soon. Of course it's preferable to have a longer range weapon but couldn't they first be safe and then task OFB to develop the 45 in the meantime? Something just doesn't add up.


There are many gaps which need filling in before trying to make sense of where this is headed:

1. Range is also a function of the type of munition, not just barrel length. If munition development (in a desi effort), or market availability, (foreign purchase), is not in sync, expect more issues like were faced originally with Arjun MK I.

2. Regardless of the barrel length and munition type, as you get into 30-35+ km fire missions, accuracy/dispersion starts to become a major issue. What is "proved" on a range under highly controlled conditions seldom translates into real world performance.

3. Is the OFB "project" track independent of the army's "reported" plans to replace even 105mm with 155mm systems, for which RFIs have been issued yet again? If yes, then the OFB is being sent on a fool's errand with the 45 cal devpt., the 39 cal. should suffice.

What one fears will happen, similar to the HAL HTT40 episode is that OFB, partly led down the garden path by the army, partly by its own institutional ineptitude, will try and project itself on the larger requirement, competing with the global-pvt. desi JVs in the fray. Much recrimination will result, including on BR...

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby pragnya » 21 Oct 2013 12:38

seems like M777 may not be procured. IA/MOD IMO must have consulted and analysed the air portability usp of M777 and must have come to the same conclusions as did RV here who also quoted an artillery officer who substantiated it.

it seems to me they are heavily investing on the OFB variants of Bofors both 39 and 45 cal. it may take a year or a couple to fix the issues before prod begins. OTOH the cost factor wrt M777 seems to be a roadblock for its import!! besides it only equips a few IA regiments of the MSC. DRDO is on record ARDE version of 52 cal gun will be ready for trials in 3 years. so by 2017 it is hoped all towed variety incl 39cal/45cal/52cal guns should be in place. also of note is any gun procurement from abroad at this stage will fructify only around similar timeline if TOT/assembly is part of the deal - which is more than likely.

as for the truck mounted variety - i guess field is open. TATA/L&T will have a head start while Kalyani and ARDE may compete too if they mount their guns on a suitable vehicle.

BHIM with Denel gun 'possibly' may make a comeback with Denel blacklist over now.

fwiw.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 21 Oct 2013 13:48

If I remember correctly BHEL was awarded Single vendor non tender deal to produce High Power Naval Guns for Rs. 3500 crores in Screw Driver JV with an Italian Company. What was the technology absorbed by BHEL in the said deal and how can it help desi Bofors? The ToT contract should have given theoretical access to metallurgy to BHEL. Some instances of labeling by DPSUs while falsely claiming indigenisation:-

ATGMs
Fuzes
Thermal Sights
Night Sights
AESA radars
Naval Guns
FSAPDS Ammo
TATRA trucks
ARVs
Naval Engines etc

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2523
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby darshhan » 21 Oct 2013 13:49

While I am happy that finally indigenous procurement of artillery might be falling into place, we should have procured atleast 10-15 no.s of M-777 just for reverse engineering.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 588
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby mody » 21 Oct 2013 14:19

IA artillery acquisition has been the biggest farce. The OFB 45 cal prototype was first displayed around 2005 timeframe.
At the same time as the OFB M46 upgrade was first displayed.

The OFB M46 upgrade also reportedly did well in the initial tests, but a barrel then appears have busted or had some other problems. The upgraded gun was apparently also displayed at some even in the middle east, complete with test firings as well. The results at the time were positive, if I recall.

However, the contract was placed with Soltam for 180 guns. The Soltam upgrade also, got into some trouble initially, with regards to the performance of the upgraded guns. However, the problems were later rectified and 180 upgraded guns are since in use.
Soltam meanwhile got blacklisted and hence no follow up contract was signed.

What is the worrying aspect is that all the while the OFB upgrade package, as well as the OFB version of the bofors with 39 cal and 45 cal versions were always available. These did not material out of thin air, one fine day. The picture of the 45 cal upgraded bofors has existed right here on BR, since 2005-06.
This also did not come about in 1 days effort. OFB has been making the 39 cal barrel of the bofors since many years and many of the old bofors guns are currently serving in IA, with barrels and many other parts made by GCF.
So, IA knew for a long time, that local derived version of the bofors, is a possibility.

The army was just too busy carrying out endless trials of uber cool latest guns from around the world, during this time to take note.

Even now, if they are so desperately short of guns, they could have gone ahead and placed the order for 114 nos. as per the existing 39 cal configuration. The plan was also supposed to be as such. Hence OFB made 2 prototypes of 39 cal guns and 2 of 45 cal.
But instead of getting the game started, IA preferred to go for 45 cal guns only and not waste the effort in first getting a few 39 cal guns and letting OFB production also come upto speed.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2074
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Picklu » 21 Oct 2013 20:33

this "discussion" thread should be renamed "depression" thread and moved under GDF burkha pronto. If, God forbid, any non-brfite comes across this "open" thread, we will have a suicide in our hand.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8151
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 21 Oct 2013 21:06

^^^
Not to worry sir, we have much more serious issues to deal with in the real world. But going by the arty saga, I hope that my grand kids don't die of old age before new weapons are inducted.

Ps I dont have any kids, at the moment.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53984
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 21 Oct 2013 21:08

Err cant deal with reality?

What optimism do you find in the Govt's Arty procurement program since Bofors in 1986?

Knowing reality helps aviod depression when the truth is revealed.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8151
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 21 Oct 2013 21:10

Saar, you are no fun. The most was made in absolute despair. WRT, the state of affairs.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18863
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 21 Oct 2013 22:04

TATA SED/DRDOs new Ballistic Computer for the T-90. Form and fit for a drop in replacement of T-90 BC, but based on the Arjun Ballistic Computer with its software/internal hardware.

Significance lies in the ammunition types mentioned for compatibility.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kV7lH7QT4O0/T ... 0S+MBT.jpg

AMK-339 is nothing else but 3BM42.
AMK-340A is IMI CL3254M
(AMK-340 was the dropped local round - supplanted by AMK-340A).

Also shows (under APDS) the Russian rounds prior to BM42 are also supported (till BM26). BM32 was DU and not available for export.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2597
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 01 Nov 2013 20:20

Posted for your viewing pleasure. Tests of the Excalibur GPS guided 155mm artillery with an "Average Miss Distance" of ~2m. For something thats shot out of a cannon, having to withstand 1000's of Gs, the accuracy is mind boggling.

Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1143
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Samay » 01 Nov 2013 22:06

Some very powerful lobby, influenced by big corporations is behind this mess .
Not taking a decision in a definite time frame that effects national interest,is not only a case of incompetence but also is a crime.
Feels like Lokpal is essential, at least for artillery procurement.

kvraghavaiah
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 16 Feb 2008 17:20
Location: Chennai
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby kvraghavaiah » 11 Nov 2013 18:14

Picklu wrote:this "discussion" thread should be renamed "depression" thread and moved under GDF burkha pronto. If, God forbid, any non-brfite comes across this "open" thread, we will have a suicide in our hand.


Every discussion in social media regarding India is nowdays a depression discussion only. Next generation of Indians will have bigger heads through natural evolution, to effectively withstand the depressing environment. :D

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9687
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 12 Nov 2013 09:45

Insulting the nation is second nation of so called educated class sir. No need to worry on that count.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7717
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 14 Nov 2013 08:00

How no one has asked anything about IA putting 600+ crore to buy BM-21 GRAD system?

The report was hazy and spoke only about IA buying the extended range BM-21 rockets. We also know that Hinduja has won contract to provide 100 trucks for mounting BM-21 system - which we've presumed involves replacing the original trucks which came from Russia. And given the fact that we have 5 x BM-21 Regiments, the 100 number for trucks fits pretty well.

By any chance - is it possible that IA is looking to introduce these 122mm 40 rocket monsters into wider service? We know that DRDO had worked on the rockets and extended the range; may be we also have some smart munition and guidance stuff going.

It would be awesome to have 1 x BM-21 battery of 6 x launchers per infantry division.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8151
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 14 Nov 2013 09:49

^^^

Because no one has seen the news. Having said so, if the desire is to have additional Grads, then does it mean that some thing is wrong with the Pinaka?

As the Grad is an old system, that has a longer reload time and a smaller warhead, when compared to the Pinaka.

An addition to the range can be in 2 cases,

1) Reduce the warhead size and add more propellent to the basic rocket.
2) Change the chemical composition of the rocket fuel , where by its thrust is increased.


Having said so, I would be a lot more impressed, if we were increasing the Pinaka launcher buy, and at the same time designing different types of rocket packs for the launcher. Eg 122 MM or 300 MM, as it is a modular system and the rocket packs can be changed, while retaining the same basic launcher.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7717
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 14 Nov 2013 13:53

Well, it seems I spoke too soon.

Here is a more clearer news from HT: http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/defence-ministry-clears-rs-5-000-crore-acquisition-proposals/article1-1150016.aspx

Relevant Excerpt:

The DAC meeting also approved procurement of 10,000 rockets under Transfer of Technology from Russia for the GRAD multi-barrel rocket launchers under the Rs. 683 crore project.


IMO, these rockets should be for SMERCH and not GRAD which we make in-house with extended range.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53984
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 29 Nov 2013 08:12

Rohit, What kind of dispersion are the new OFB models showing and how does that compare to the Bofors model?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7717
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 29 Nov 2013 10:42

ramana wrote:Rohit, What kind of dispersion are the new OFB models showing and how does that compare to the Bofors model?


Honest answer - I have no clue.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53984
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 29 Nov 2013 11:12

An AU assessment of IA and Arty

http://www.academia.edu/4018271/Chapter_9

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Gurneesh » 05 Dec 2013 11:59

Posted by randym in milphotos forum...

Image

From looks of it, the system relies on M46 elevation control (which i think is manual). Hopefully, at least the turret rotates 360 degrees.

Will be a good system if they up-gun the M46 to 155mm.

On a positive note, extra engines for this contraption should help drive the MBT engines costs down (If they get enough overall orders for license production).

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 05 Dec 2013 12:36

a basic turrent with air conditioning able to withstand HMG fire and shell fragments would be nice.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5095
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby jamwal » 05 Dec 2013 13:15

Is the gun supposed to be always pointing towards rear of the chasis ?

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 06 Dec 2013 03:38

Looks like the M46 Catapult being phased out due to old age and mechanical problems?
From wiki:
The turret-less vehicle has an open area in the centre for the gun and crew but retains the driver's position and includes a horizontal metal shield for overhead protection.

To withstand higher firing stresses and to cater for longer recoil the Vijayanta tank's hull has been elongated with seven bogie wheel stations on either side. The stability to the vehicle during firing is provided by unique hydraulic suspension locking system. The self-propelled medium artillery gun can fire both HE and AP ammunition and has a maximum range of 27km. The gun has a limited static traverse 12½% on either side and an elevation of +45% to -2%. The system can stow 30 rounds of separate loading ammunition. A total of 100 M-46 Catapult systems were built and are now being phased out from active service may be replaced by an unspecified number and type of 155mm self-propelled howitzers.

navneeet
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 19 Jul 2010 22:16

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby navneeet » 06 Dec 2013 08:14

http://epaper.patrika.com/c/2023710

news about desi bofors in a vernacular newspaper

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4438
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby putnanja » 06 Dec 2013 08:16

navneeet wrote:http://epaper.patrika.com/c/2023710

news about desi bofors in a vernacular newspaper


Can you please translate the article instead of just posting it?


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests