Artillery: News & Discussion

vic · Post by **vic** » 10 Feb 2014 07:59

There have been 200 barrel bursts of both imported and indigenous barrels in T-72 and Nil in Arjun. Guess what does Army order? Advanced T-72 also called T-90.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 10 Feb 2014 12:29

Hari Sud wrote:I thought that the Indian Army have a few odd apples who are crooked and derail the purchase to suit their own end. They are at the senior level. The senior level people do get transferred, retire or leave army. Also senior level appointments are only for two years, if not extended. Then in last 20 years, how come one after the other senior level command level have never changed their opinion about Indian designed or built hardware. There is something amiss here.

What is amiss here is that the IA absolutely hates the DRDO and would do anything to scuttle its projects. Case in point is the Arjun tank. Enough said.

As Victor said above, the stables need cleaning with extreme prejudice to put it delicately.

mody · Post by **mody** » 10 Feb 2014 13:57

The OFB or DRDO were not asked by IA to design and develop 155 mm howitzers for all these years.
This is despite the fact, that OFB has been making the barrels for Bofors 39 cal guns for a long time.
The Army obviously knows about this.

The 45 cal barrel also didn't materialize out of thin air. OFB had displayed an existing Bofors gun, upgraded with a 45 cal barrel, almost 8 or 9 years back.
But it never struck IA, to check, if there was a possibility to manufacture the whole gun in house, whether 39 cal or 45!!
They were too busy, writing up impossible GSQR's and conducting unending trials of foreign guns.
It was only after the blacklisting of almost all major gun manufacturer's and when BAE turned down another RFQ and request for trials, that IA realized that they had no options left.
The private industry also got cracking and tried to put together products, only after they realized that the option of wholesale import of guns with uber cool brochures was out of the picture.

Once the barrel tech for 39 cal bofors had been perfected by OFB, IA should have immediately explored the option for making a complete copy of the Bofors in India. However, they never did. That is the sad story.

We should complete the trials of the Dhanush gun as soon as possible and have it enter the production phase.
Also, go with the Kalyani project, from amongst the private players, as they now completely own the design and have in fact upgraded the original design that they purchased. They also have the full manufacturing facility in house and have a strong reputation in metallurgy and forgings. The electronics for the gun are going to be from Elbit.
I would have liked if instead of Elbit, we could get DRDO to integrate most of the stuff that Elbit is bringing to the table.

For the Self propelled and mounted guns also, I would prefer going with the Kalyani gun. Use the Arjun chassis for the tracked SPH and with either a Tata or Ashok Leyland Truck for the Mounted variant. Tata would be a better choice, as they already have the solution, with the denel gun. Replace the Denel gun with the Kalyani gun and you are good to go. Do away with the wheeled self propelled variant and make do with higher numbers of the much more cost effective mounted variant instead.

OFB can produce the 414 no. of Dhanush guns that the army wants and they try to offer upgrade package for existing Bofors guns and M46 guns.

partha · Post by **partha** » 10 Feb 2014 14:19

From what I understand from the various reports, while Kalyani group has developed the gun, Govt is the sole owner of ammunition and test ranges and hence Kalyani is waiting for permission. MoD is considering it. There was a report on this few months back and once again reported now during DefExpo. I am not sure why MoD should take so long to even give an opportunity for a private player to test his product. Kalyani bought and shipped an whole assembly factory from Germany to help develop the gun. MoD should encourage such initiatives. Kalyani group has stated that their vision is to become a major arty player in the world within a decade and they are confident of pulling it off. I hope GoI comes up with right policies to make such dreams a reality.

mody · Post by **mody** » 10 Feb 2014 16:38

That is correct Partha.

This is exactly the kind of thing, that is keeping serious investment by private Indian industry out of the defense field.
If the situation continues, I wouldn't be surprised if Kalyani took to their gun to some foreign location for test and trials and finish the development.
Then they can charge the Indian army for offering their guns, even for trial and evaluation.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Feb 2014 22:12

So, we're back to the usual whine-fest on BRF.

If one is believe the considered opinion on BRF, but for the IA and its generals, DRDO would be coming up with indigenous products every other day while OFB would be producing them in capacity - of course, the QC issue with respect to OFB would also be solved but for the shenanigans of IA.

To the geniuses who lay the blame of everything on IA, why did not the MOD ask IA to look into and purchase OFB developed 45 Caliber gun if the same was available 8-9 years back (which I doubt it was)? Why was MOD sitting on its haunches for all these years if it knew that designs of Bofors are available in India? After all, it is the parent organization and custodian of all such things. Also, doesn't DRDO OK all purchases from abroad?

Guess it is easy to blame the IA and use the Arjun cliche every where than to find out the root cause and understand the issue at hand.

Will · Post by **Will** » 10 Feb 2014 22:36

partha wrote:From what I understand from the various reports, while Kalyani group has developed the gun, Govt is the sole owner of ammunition and test ranges and hence Kalyani is waiting for permission. MoD is considering it. There was a report on this few months back and once again reported now during DefExpo. I am not sure why MoD should take so long to even give an opportunity for a private player to test his product. Kalyani bought and shipped an whole assembly factory from Germany to help develop the gun. MoD should encourage such initiatives. Kalyani group has stated that their vision is to become a major arty player in the world within a decade and they are confident of pulling it off. I hope GoI comes up with right policies to make such dreams a reality.

The way things go in our country, if we look back and talk about this a decade from now, we will still find that private players like Kalyani and Tata's are "waiting" for permission to use test ranges. The import lobby is still to strong.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 10 Feb 2014 22:40

rohitvats wrote:So, we're back to the usual whine-fest on BRF.
...
Guess it is easy to blame the IA and use the Arjun cliche every where than to find out the root cause and understand the issue at hand.

The Arjun "cliche" is still the 800 pound gorilla in the room, saar. Its not some old case from history being brought up to prop up an argument.

Also, the pendulum does have more than two positions during its motion. Calling everybody who points the finger of blame to the Army a "whiner" is no better an argument than to say "the IA knows best and DRDO/OFB is to blame". The truth of the matter is always in between somewhere.

Fact is that between corrupt government procurement practices, inability of the DRDO/OFB to generate a arty gun and the Army sitting on its laurels waiting for foreign procurement, there is enough mud to go around. Even if the Army comes out as the cleaner of the three, there is still the issue of where-when-why the leadership that could have pushed the government into doing a home-grown gun program some time back.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Feb 2014 23:01

IA and DRDO is not a two person zero sum game.
The big offender is the political parties which are in power.
Imports are a way to finance them.
With Rajiv Gandhi its open way to divert to personal account.
The IA procurement officers get promoted by the politicans to suit their interests.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Feb 2014 23:20

vivek_ahuja wrote: The Arjun "cliche" is still the 800 pound gorilla in the room, saar. Its not some old case from history being brought up to prop up an argument.

No, it is not. While there are many who have dipped in the gravy train associated with import of T-90 tanks, the prime reason for IA's refusal to give ground to Arjun is not love for imports or hatred for DRDO. It is organizational inertia and a certain mind-set which sees Arjun putting spanner in their la-la land consisting of 3-crew tanks weighing under 50 tonnes. And which dovetails perfectly in the assumption that since 90>72, T-90 is better than T-72.

The 'love' for Arjun had erupted in the bosoms of black-caps even before it entered service with IA. And no less than an Army Chief wrote about it.

Also, the pendulum does have more than two positions during its motion. Calling everybody who points the finger of blame to the Army a "whiner" is no better an argument than to say "the IA knows best and DRDO/OFB is to blame". The truth of the matter is always in between somewhere.

If the truth of the matter is always in between somewhere, then I would consider name calling IA and its senior staff and blaming them for all that ails the Indian Military-Industrial Complex as whining. Because that is the easiest route to take. After all, much easier to write couple of lines berating the army and calling names which are going to receive enthusiastic 'ayes' from fellow travelers on BRF, no?

The same villainous people inhabiting the corridors of Directorate General of Artillery who it seems are stymieing the domestic gun enthusiastically adopted the domestic Pinaka and are clamoring for more. I'm sure there is a conspiracy theory lurking about it as well.

I agree with you that the situation is neither white or nor black - but somehow pinning the blame on the IA for everything under the sun seems not to consider the same.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 10 Feb 2014 23:41

rohitvats wrote:It is organizational inertia and a certain mind-set which sees Arjun putting spanner in their la-la land consisting of 3-crew tanks weighing under 50 tonnes. And which dovetails perfectly in the assumption that since 90>72, T-90 is better than T-72.

That bolded part in your comment to me applies not just to the tanks but to other weapon systems as well. The way I look at it is that there are three basic aspects to the problem:

a) The need: Why do we need the arty guns? How badly do we need them, etc.
b) The Technology: Can we make the guns? If not, who else in the world has the tech? Will they sell it to us, etc.
c) The Project Management: combining (a) and (b) into a streamlined program over a certain period of time. This includes course corrections and disaster management such as that which befell the Bofors program.

Now to me, the biggest problem is that both the Army and the DRDO/OFB have screwed up the PM task. Mainly because neither side wants to "own" the program. Each wants to just be the consumer or the vendor with no ownership.

If the technology were an issue, for example, then surely the blame goes to whoever is in charge of that side of the program, be it DRDO or a foreign OEM. Even then, if the problem is caused by a misunderstanding of the "need" which manifests itself into unreasonable requirements from the tech, then it's still a PM issue.

Following the Bofors saga, we have consistently been waiting for the guns to arrive. If the Army had shown some leadership in this area and pushed for a desi alternative instead of releasing RFI after RFI to foreign vendors, I tend to think that we could have pushed the results we are starting to see today, back by a few years. It took the LCA a good 20+ years to deliver. Perhaps a gun could have been developed by mid-2000s, no? I blame this on the mindset/inertia that you talk about.

The Army needs to "own" these programs the way the Navy does with its ships. Especially so when others such as DRDO/OFB might not be inclined to take that PM task up. After all, the Army is the end user.

rohitvats wrote:If the truth of the matter is always in between somewhere, then I would consider name calling IA and its senior staff and blaming them for all that ails the Indian Military-Industrial Complex as whining. Because that is the easiest route to take. After all, much easier to write couple of lines berating the army and calling names which are going to receive enthusiastic 'ayes' from fellow travelers on BRF, no?

This line of argument is specious at best. While I agree that blatantly blaming the Army is probably erroneous and based on incomplete information, I do tend to think that the Army should not consider itself as the untouchable moral pillar to whom no blame can come to. If they are failing to take ownership of a program that's ultimately theirs, they should take the blame for it.

And no, pointing the finger at this point to the politicos is also bad. Not because its incorrect but because it highlights the impotence of the military leadership that has been cultivated mostly by its own people.

I agree with you that the situation is neither white or nor black - but somehow pinning the blame on the IA for everything under the sun seems not to consider the same.

Fair enough.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 Feb 2014 23:44

Rohit vats, in the Arty procurement screw up, the IA does take a fair share of blame.

As far back as 2000, there was an attempt by the MOD to rope in a PSU consortium to make the Bofors in India. I know this first hand as one of the key PSUs - which was into heavy engineering, machine tools manufacture and has an OK reputation (far better than OFB at any rate) was to make the barrels and even more complex assemblies. The person who headed that PSU was even roped in for discussions around the program. That company per recent Defexpo news has been tapped to make the MICWS as well. (Trivia, but just shows their interest in defence remains & hopefully OFB is out of the loop)

Unfortunately, the IA procurement and senior afsars killed that program taking it to be a threat to procure "more modern guns" than the "obsolete" 39 cal Bofors. In those days, it was assumed that imports were around the corner & hence Denel/Bofors etc newer designs would come in any time. The result of course was something different. The UPA came and their fear of the Bofors gun issue, the desire to make peace with TSP, not get hoist on their own petard after pulling Tehelka on NDA, and IA's own byzantine trials process meant no gun was inducted. The ammunition factory at Nalanda set up by George Fernandes to make BMCS and also advanced rounds, IIRC was also more or less scuttled once both Denel and then IMI got blacklisted. Latest is that DRDO charge tech developed for the 130mm M-46 guns will be used for the 155mm system. Some movement, hopefully.

Its been surprising to read in reports now that IA now asked OFB as to why the OFB was sitting on the Bofors design all this while and nothing came of it. Either the IA officers in question who have pushed for this are completely unaware (quite possible, its been a dozen years) or it was just too little, too late & they wanted to take the right step at least now.

The Arjun case is sadly all too common, and shades are seen even in the INSAS follow on issue. Meanwhile most IA programs are stuck in bureaucratese and specifications creep. The FINSAS program for instance has seen fratricidal war between multiple groups on who own what in its program, which puts the SF vs parachute regiment fight in the pale.

Net, indigenization in the IA remains ad hoc and is not driven by any consistent across the board agency to constantly monitor and launch or even assess the need for such programs. Releasing vision documents is all very well, but ownership with individual programs rests with individual groups (business units in the business parlance) who depending on their leadership's interest (or lack of it) do their own thing and give their own reports to AHQ, which then of course, goes by what that group says. No consistency at all. And hence import the best of the best of the best stuff takes precedence often, over local development. Even as another IA unit takes MK1 and works on refinement for future requirement etc.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Feb 2014 00:11

Kakkaji wrote: Isn't a 39 cal in hand today worth a 45 cal in the bush?

If the OFB can just clone/ license produce the 39 cal gun the IA already uses, they can start filling the numbers, esp the numbers that have been whittled by attrition on the Bofors guns originally bought, while the 45 cal is still going through the trials.

JMHO

I would say it was worth a 100 in the bush. Problem is the issue has been delayed so long that the opponents have 155mm guns which are better than 39 cal.

So IA will want better which is more future proof to recoup investment. This is the IA plan anyways:

http://defencenow.com/news/556/army-pla ... h-ofb.html

Note OFB was making several components of Bofors already as spares. So a 39 cal gun could have been launched with other PSUs/pvt vendors contributing.

As to Kalyani 52 cal being "The choice" and DRDO et al acting as spoilsters.

The conspiracy theory that was posted by a person after your post & the anti DPSU tirade saying they are secretly scuttling trials doesn't quite portray the reality of things. The lunacy is much higher than just some simple effort that could be stopped.

First, OFB is such a sarkari organization that they wouldn't move a pin without MOD orders. Only now things are somewhat changing. They had to petition standing committee on Defence and Kelkar committee to do R&D even. So forget about them being big conspirators and introducing guns in "nick of time" to scuttle Kalyani. They have a simpler method for all that, they just ask their unions to revolt & do dharna, strikes etc. Nothing so fancy as busting their guts to develop a fancy new product just in time, let alone whether they could do that without MOD "aadesh".

Second, Kalyani et al are struggling for tests etc because of babu fears and stupid bureaucratese, plain and simple. Before any babu takes a decision that anything has to be done, he wants a policy, which shows he went by that policy and is not accused of corruption. Its their big fear. So if Kalyani develops a 152mm gun and wants it ready for tests and permission to access the range, Babu will shiver thinking if i allow this company and his other Indian rivals complain it was a favor/one-off or that SQRs only asked for 45 cal, and say I did wrong.. what will I do? So i sit on this file and push it upwards with a notation. Hopefully bade babu will send it to Minister saab who will take a decision. Minister saab calls a committee and all sit munching chai-biskoot taking a decision. It is at this stage, of course vendors against Kalyani/DPSUs can delay things. One gent may ask for clearer procedure, delaying things. And so forth.
George Fernandes was famous for cutting through such muck and taking impromptu decisions. Tehelka happened, he was blamed for everything, lost his political career, he was humiliated, and end result is no Minister wants to travel that same path again.

BTW, that DRDO 152mm? Kalyani intends to bid for that as a partner.
Also, their own gun group has been in talks with DRDO as well.
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 015_1.html

What stalls our system are systemic issues - too much buraucratese, fear of corruption allegations means no Alexander to cut the Gordian knot, ad hoc policies on the users side, little to effort from OFB to get R&D capability in (let alone fix their QA)...add a MOD which excels in file pushing and you have the situation of today, with additional delays added by "best of best of best of " tech wanted in trials which drag on and on (and every vendor yells corruption). And of course, touts, fixers enjoy the fracas.

See this for an example of overall program:
http://www.aviotech.com/pdf/Aviotech_Th ... _Mar30.pdf

And how the process is really run:
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/bill ... 21665.html

Note, he couldnt even name the shadowy arms dealer in London. Others have.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Feb 2014 01:04

vivek_ahuja wrote:
rohitvats wrote:It is organizational inertia and a certain mind-set which sees Arjun putting spanner in their la-la land consisting of 3-crew tanks weighing under 50 tonnes. And which dovetails perfectly in the assumption that since 90>72, T-90 is better than T-72.
That bolded part in your comment to me applies not just to the tanks but to other weapon systems as well. The way I look at it is that there are three basic aspects to the problem:

a) The need: Why do we need the arty guns? How badly do we need them, etc.
b) The Technology: Can we make the guns? If not, who else in the world has the tech? Will they sell it to us, etc.
c) The Project Management: combining (a) and (b) into a streamlined program over a certain period of time. This includes course corrections and disaster management such as that which befell the Bofors program.

Now to me, the biggest problem is that both the Army and the DRDO/OFB have screwed up the PM task. Mainly because neither side wants to "own" the program. Each wants to just be the consumer or the vendor with no ownership.

If the technology were an issue, for example, then surely the blame goes to whoever is in charge of that side of the program, be it DRDO or a foreign OEM. Even then, if the problem is caused by a misunderstanding of the "need" which manifests itself into unreasonable requirements from the tech, then it's still a PM issue.

Following the Bofors saga, we have consistently been waiting for the guns to arrive. If the Army had shown some leadership in this area and pushed for a desi alternative instead of releasing RFI after RFI to foreign vendors, I tend to think that we could have pushed the results we are starting to see today, back by a few years. It took the LCA a good 20+ years to deliver. Perhaps a gun could have been developed by mid-2000s, no? I blame this on the mindset/inertia that you talk about.

The Army needs to "own" these programs the way the Navy does with its ships. Especially so when others such as DRDO/OFB might not be inclined to take that PM task up. After all, the Army is the end user.

rohitvats wrote:If the truth of the matter is always in between somewhere, then I would consider name calling IA and its senior staff and blaming them for all that ails the Indian Military-Industrial Complex as whining. Because that is the easiest route to take. After all, much easier to write couple of lines berating the army and calling names which are going to receive enthusiastic 'ayes' from fellow travelers on BRF, no?
This line of argument is specious at best. While I agree that blatantly blaming the Army is probably erroneous and based on incomplete information, I do tend to think that the Army should not consider itself as the untouchable moral pillar to whom no blame can come to. If they are failing to take ownership of a program that's ultimately theirs, they should take the blame for it.

And no, pointing the finger at this point to the politicos is also bad. Not because its incorrect but because it highlights the impotence of the military leadership that has been cultivated mostly by its own people.

I agree with you that the situation is neither white or nor black - but somehow pinning the blame on the IA for everything under the sun seems not to consider the same.
Fair enough.

+100 to the stuff above. I have been hammering about this EXACT point for almost a decade now.

Finally!

Looks like only those associated with technology domains or part of complex programs to make products understand this issue.

The above in large, is the fundamental problem with IA and because of which its always the confused consumer, making trial after trials, against cobbled together GSQRs in the process of which it decides which is need to have and must to have, relaxes some criteria, lets others be, and all other vendors cry foul.
Any OEM would.

Hari Sud · Post by **Hari Sud** » 11 Feb 2014 02:45

Which side are we defending.

If you think that DRDO is the faulty party, then you may be partially right.

It is IA which have to shoulder most of the blame.

Then comes OFB - they need investment to upgrade their hardware and manufacturing. There may be need to smarten them up.

The politician are making their own money when IA, DRDO and OFB argue about.

They should give up, it is India's Defence at stake. If emotional persuasation does not work, then shoot the top man from of each organization and from the political circle. Then the others will fall in line.

mody · Post by **mody** » 11 Feb 2014 11:12

rohitvats wrote:
To the geniuses who lay the blame of everything on IA, why did not the MOD ask IA to look into and purchase OFB developed 45 Caliber gun if the same was available 8-9 years back (which I doubt it was)? Why was MOD sitting on its haunches for all these years if it knew that designs of Bofors are available in India? After all, it is the parent organization and custodian of all such things. Also, doesn't DRDO OK all purchases from abroad?

Guess it is easy to blame the IA and use the Arjun cliche every where than to find out the root cause and understand the issue at hand.

Rohit read my comment once again. I never said the 45 cal gun was available 8-9 years back. It was the barrel.
OFB has been making the 39 cal barrel for a long time for the existing Bofors guns and had displayed an existing bofors gun, fitted with its 45 cal barrel 8-9 years ago. There was a picture of the same on BR itself.

IA is always holier then thou and can never be faulted, except in the Arjun case, where even the most ardent IA fanboys cannot defend it.
If you are saying IA is in no way responsible for the artillery mess, I have nothing more to say to you. Didn't IA know that OFB was manufacturing the 39 cal barrels for them? Are there reports to suggest, that these were sub-standard or there was big QC issues with it? Why in the world it didn't occur to them, that if one of the most crucial parts of the gun could be made in India, how about giving the mandate to DRDO to atleast try and produce a clone of the existing Bofors gun.
How do think the Dhanush materialized within 2 years? It is because OFB had been producing a lot of the parts for the gun, for many years. The 45 cal barrel had already been developed years ago.
Only now, they dusted out the complete blueprints of the gun, designed and made the missing parts and put together the gun, as per the drawings obtained from Bofors, eons ago. OFB could not have come up with a gun, within two years from scratch. Most of the things were already available, and hence they have managed to put together the final product in 2 years.

My only argument is that this could have been done years ago, if IA had the vision and the foresight and wanted to support indigenous production of guns. The reason they did not was that they were still hoping for wholesale import of new guns, with uber cool brochures, followed by screw driver assembly of the same in India.

mody · Post by **mody** » 11 Feb 2014 11:24

Karan M wrote:Rohit vats, in the Arty procurement screw up, the IA does take a fair share of blame.

As far back as 2000, there was an attempt by the MOD to rope in a PSU consortium to make the Bofors in India. I know this first hand as one of the key PSUs - which was into heavy engineering, machine tools manufacture and has an OK reputation (far better than OFB at any rate) was to make the barrels and even more complex assemblies. The person who headed that PSU was even roped in for discussions around the program. That company per recent Defexpo news has been tapped to make the MICWS as well. (Trivia, but just shows their interest in defence remains & hopefully OFB is out of the loop)

Unfortunately, the IA procurement and senior afsars killed that program taking it to be a threat to procure "more modern guns" than the "obsolete" 39 cal Bofors. In those days, it was assumed that imports were around the corner & hence Denel/Bofors etc newer designs would come in any time. The result of course was something different. The UPA came and their fear of the Bofors gun issue, the desire to make peace with TSP, not get hoist on their own petard after pulling Tehelka on NDA, and IA's own byzantine trials process meant no gun was inducted. The ammunition factory at Nalanda set up by George Fernandes to make BMCS and also advanced rounds, IIRC was also more or less scuttled once both Denel and then IMI got blacklisted. Latest is that DRDO charge tech developed for the 130mm M-46 guns will be used for the 155mm system. Some movement, hopefully.

Its been surprising to read in reports now that IA now asked OFB as to why the OFB was sitting on the Bofors design all this while and nothing came of it. Either the IA officers in question who have pushed for this are completely unaware (quite possible, its been a dozen years) or it was just too little, too late & they wanted to take the right step at least now.

The Arjun case is sadly all too common, and shades are seen even in the INSAS follow on issue. Meanwhile most IA programs are stuck in bureaucratese and specifications creep. The FINSAS program for instance has seen fratricidal war between multiple groups on who own what in its program, which puts the SF vs parachute regiment fight in the pale.

Net, indigenization in the IA remains ad hoc and is not driven by any consistent across the board agency to constantly monitor and launch or even assess the need for such programs. Releasing vision documents is all very well, but ownership with individual programs rests with individual groups (business units in the business parlance) who depending on their leadership's interest (or lack of it) do their own thing and give their own reports to AHQ, which then of course, goes by what that group says. No consistency at all. And hence import the best of the best of the best stuff takes precedence often, over local development. Even as another IA unit takes MK1 and works on refinement for future requirement etc.

+100

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 11 Feb 2014 11:36

Video on Dhanush from DefExpo 2014

http://www.youtube.com/embed/aw9O_xtG8Po

At around 2:56 he says that it was fired 7 years ago but had to wait ~5 years for user trials.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 11 Feb 2014 12:14

^Yep, let me wonder who is responsible for that................. Is it the lily white ARMY?

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 11 Feb 2014 12:44

rohitvats wrote:So, we're back to the usual whine-fest on BRF.

If one is believe the considered opinion on BRF, but for the IA and its generals, DRDO would be coming up with indigenous products every other day while OFB would be producing them in capacity - of course, the QC issue with respect to OFB would also be solved but for the shenanigans of IA.

To the geniuses who lay the blame of everything on IA, why did not the MOD ask IA to look into and purchase OFB developed 45 Caliber gun if the same was available 8-9 years back (which I doubt it was)? Why was MOD sitting on its haunches for all these years if it knew that designs of Bofors are available in India? After all, it is the parent organization and custodian of all such things. Also, doesn't DRDO OK all purchases from abroad?

Guess it is easy to blame the IA and use the Arjun cliche every where than to find out the root cause and understand the issue at hand.

Can say the same for you Rohit with your Pavlovian response to any criticism of the IA.

So let's cut to the chase. Can you answer what the IA did when it was glaringly obvious that the arty shortfall with the IA had reached disastrous proportions? And do you think they could have done better?

I will say that the IA lacked/lacks any vision whatsoever with respect to the arty saga. They should have pressed local suppliers to come up with a solution (OFB/DRDO or any private supplier) 10 years ago - start something from scratch if they have to and fund it out of their own pockets. In 10 years time they would have got something. If IA claims that MoD/GoI didn't have any vision or that they need permission from them then they should have got it by hook or by crook. When it was obvious that foreign arty will never come, local was the answer. Unless your stand is that the locals cannot make anything worthwhile and that view the IA shares (Pinaka/INSAS notwithstanding).

vaibhav.n · Post by **vaibhav.n** » 11 Feb 2014 13:35

Everyone is at fault, but at the end of the day the MoD is the controlling authority. This is what actually happened.

Ministry also concluded a license agreement with Bofors in March 1986 for indigenous manufacture of guns and ammunition without any additional fee. In January 1990, Ministry decided that no further steps would be taken to operationalise the licence agreement till Bofors disclosed the names and full details of recipients of commission paid in connection with the contract and returned the amount paid. Army imported the ammunition required to meet initial requirement of war wastage reserve and annual training.

Meanwhile, to meet urgent operational requirements of new gun for Artillery, the General Staff Qualitative Requirement (GSQR) for 155mm towed mounted gun was formulated in April 1997 indicating 45 Calibre barrel length as ‘vital’ parameter and 52 calibre length as ‘desirable’. While that being so, the Chief of Army Staff had clarified in May 1997 that the future policy for towed gun would be 155mm 52 calibre length.

Army HQ submitted the draft RFP in July 2000 for issue to nine vendors of 155mm 45/52 calibre towed Gun Howitzer. After a detailed deliberation and exhaustive analysis carried out at the Army HQ level, from April 2001 to June 2001, the opinion of Army HQ crystallized only in favour of 155mm 52 calibre length towed gun. Accordingly, the GSQR was amended in August 2001 providing parameters for towed 155mm 52 calibre gun.

In June 2002, Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) granted the approval for procurement of 155 towed guns of 52 calibre length. In order to ascertain the suitability of 155mm 52 calibre towed guns offered for trials evaluation by three firms, the trials were carried out in four phases over 4 years between May 2002 and January 2007 resulting in inordinate delay.

CAG Report

While all this is in the 2007-8 timeframe, It is clear that the Indian Army has wanted a 52 Calibre Gun from the very beginning which was what most armies around were going to transition to eventually. To say that the Army was not confident of OFB doing a very decent job with the current Dhanush would be also be true. The OFB does have a history of poor QC and workmanship with most of its product line.

However now that the 45 Calibre Towed Gun is here and looks like a winner, and in all probability will be accepted by the Army and indented for. I have always stated what we lack is a dedicated Procurement Agency whether from the OFB or abroad. This business of having a IAS/Joint Secretary-Acquisitions(Land Systems) who sits at South Block and and two star General/Technical Manager (Land Systems) who sits at Sena Bhawan is inefficient and transitory at best.

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 11 Feb 2014 14:05

A blast from the past...

Gaur
Post subject: Re: Artillery Discussion ThreadPostPosted: 26 May 2012 21:21

Re artillery acquisition,
Gen VK Singh has himself stated in an NDTV interview (Feb 2011) that IA has been more at fault in this case. He said that if IA keeps on changing requirements and keeps asking for the moon, things will not get done. He further stated that this problem from IA side had been recognized and corrected.

http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/the-bu ... ief/190986

Watch from 33:00 onwards.

Of course, lest people use this conveniently for their own agendas, where is similar candor and action from other elements of the MIC?

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 11 Feb 2014 16:17

!merlin...quite agree with you. however this is more on account of Bofors ghost haunting GOI. nobody wants to take a decision on guns as the ghost looms large. lets see if Modi can come in the saddle and change things.

vic · Post by **vic** » 11 Feb 2014 18:25

Army is ready to accept 39 caliber M777 as these are light being made by titanium and all. But they have specified that DRDO titanium howitzer should be 52 caliber only. They are doing a HTT-40 on DRDO while trying to import PC-7.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 11 Feb 2014 19:17

rohitvats wrote:Also, doesn't DRDO OK all purchases from abroad?

Many other's are also involved in issuing that "OK" why are you singling out DRDO for that ???

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 11 Feb 2014 19:19

vic wrote:Army is ready to accept 39 caliber M777 as these are light being made by titanium and all. But they have specified that DRDO titanium howitzer should be 52 caliber only. They are doing a HTT-40 on DRDO while trying to import PC-7.

vic can you provide me some link about this titanium field gun that you talk off ??? AFAIK the 52 cal that DRDO is making isn't exactly going to be all titanium and super light.

dinesh_kimar · Post by **dinesh_kimar** » 11 Feb 2014 20:53

Sum up of above Strat Post Video with SK Sinha (GM, GCF Jabalpur):

> 45 Cal Barrel was indegenously made (Bofors ToT incomplete, OFB evolved their Mfg. and Design Processes till they got good results)

> New design Muzzle Brake, Trunions, Frame Forks, Elevating Gear Mechanism and Recoil Cylinders. 80 % of the Gun indegenous, from OFB and various vendors.

> Desert Trials (he says 45 deg ) has gone well. Winter trials (-15 deg) going on well so far with rounds fired. Gun has capability upto -30 deg Winter Conditions.

> Barrel Burst being looked into and formal report awaited, but no serious problem and he seems confident.(" Induction in 6 months"). DEFEXPO Gun is No. 6, and No. 7 is almost ready.

> BMCS Ammonution capable, higher stresses than 39 Caliber are handled by new features, Center of Mass has Changed, and Trunion and Frame re-designed to cater to the same.

> OFB can build 1 Gun / month with present capabilities, and will be enhanced to 3/month.

> 5 Guns made have cumulatively fired over 1000 shells.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Feb 2014 21:28

>>> OFB can build 1 Gun / month with present capabilities, and will be enhanced to 3/month.

thats a frighteningly now installed capacity. taking 18 guns per regiment thats only 2 regiments a year. they would take 9 years to even deliver 300. kind of like a rafale production line.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 11 Feb 2014 21:59

^^^ He He more than that you should worry about it being produced in OF, the graveyard of quality control in India. Plus it has unions to foot who were sometime back scheming to shut down GCF, Jabalpur. If they even complete the initial 144 or so guns ordered without phucking up then BRFites can claim that yes we have seen a miracle in our life.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 11 Feb 2014 22:49

Singha wrote:>>> OFB can build 1 Gun / month with present capabilities, and will be enhanced to 3/month.

thats a frighteningly now installed capacity. taking 18 guns per regiment thats only 2 regiments a year. they would take 9 years to even deliver 300. kind of like a rafale production line.

That might be a blessing in disguise allowing private parties to participate and fill the remaining vacuum.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 12 Feb 2014 08:07

How abut privatizing OFB's arty manufacture? Sell tech to pvt industry?

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 12 Feb 2014 10:08

Vivek K wrote:How abut privatizing OFB's arty manufacture? Sell tech to pvt industry?

SHHHH...you'll awaken Karanji. Just give them more money and don't ruffle any feathers.

vic · Post by **vic** » 12 Feb 2014 16:03

Sagar G wrote:
vic wrote:Army is ready to accept 39 caliber M777 as these are light being made by titanium and all. But they have specified that DRDO titanium howitzer should be 52 caliber only. They are doing a HTT-40 on DRDO while trying to import PC-7.
vic can you provide me some link about this titanium field gun that you talk off ??? AFAIK the 52 cal that DRDO is making isn't exactly going to be all titanium and super light.

pic

A Steel based towed non-automated 155mm/39 caliber howitzer suitable for mountain use will normally weight around 6 tons or so. If Army was so desperate for artillery for mountain warfare, it would have directed OFB to start with 155/39 caliber non-automated towed howitzers equivalent to similar US or Russian artillery. Thereafter slowly gone for 155/52 caliber non automated towed artillery and titanium components. But army wants automation + light weight + super long range all in one go from OFB & DRDO.

dinesh_kimar · Post by **dinesh_kimar** » 12 Feb 2014 20:54

If Dhanush Production only 3/year very low, then OFB can follow same model as Pinaka, with some Pvt. Players building 80 each, under ToT, and OFB building remaining 160, for total of 400.

Tata and Kalyani have infrastructure already , it seems. 3rd Player can be L&T, Mahindra or Ashok Leyland., BHEL etc. can be considered.

Hari Sud · Post by **Hari Sud** » 12 Feb 2014 21:51

Indian army is a spoiled bunch. Its top structure needs revamp. Its GSQL requirement procedure need to be rewritten. It is already 40 years old. The DRDO, OFB and Army are always at logger's head. They need to be disciplined. That must be first task of the new government after May 2014.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 13 Feb 2014 00:34

merlin wrote: Can say the same for you Rohit with your Pavlovian response to any criticism of the IA <SNIP>

You know what is Pavlovian response? It is the tendency to blame Indian Army for all that which ails the Indian Military-Industrial Complex. And throwing around bombastic statements like cleaning the Augustan stables and off with their heads and associated nonsense. It is all very easy to make these inane comments w/o bothering to look into the real problem.

All these things are said w/o being objective about the subject at hand or trying to find out the real issues. Your assertion that IA should have asked DRDO to develop a gun 10-year back and maybe, by now we’d have some solution is symptomatic of comments which follow and which are removed from ground situation. Every such scenario is looked into from the ‘indigenous’ versus ‘foreign’ prism with healthy dose of conspiracy theories without giving any heed to operational and transformation requirement of the Army.

There are ‘N’ number of structural problems with our entire system including the short-comings from the side of Indian Army in terms of unrealistic GSQR, change in requirement(s), lack of project management and so on and so forth. But to use terms like you and some other posters have done is to take easy way out instead of highlighting the real problem.

Since many have said a lot in response to my post on this artillery saga, I’ll use this post to lay down my thoughts on the subject and address the points raised. Please be advised that I’m not commenting on the ‘Project Management’ business which is tangential to the artillery requirement aspect. And most of what has been said about it applies almost in its entirety to Indian Army for most of the cases.

1. First and foremost, operational preparedness cannot be sacrificed in single minded pursuit of indigenization. Especially in a country like India where we lack strategic culture which can provide clear policy and direction to both services and defense research and production establishment. A China could get away with a mass army equipped with obsolete equipment because its leaders put their faith in nuclear weapons and concentrated on developments of its delivery platform. And with a first use policy to boot. The conventional weakness was balanced out with nuclear aggression.

2. Pursuit of indigenous development cannot lose sight of the operational requirement of the army. A program for indigenous development needs to be put in place where enough lead time plus some margin is available to allow for domestic programs to develop and provide the solution. You cannot clamor for an indigenous program now to service a requirement which existed ten-years hence. Unless, the technology is being denied to you. Further, defense R&D set-up cannot chase everything under the sun especially when a foreign product is available for purchase and which can in fact assist the domestic military-industrial complex to master the learning curve. The team at GCF did not build the 45 caliber gun from out of blue; even the truncated contract and transfer of technology from original Bofors contract helped them to reach where they have. And will further help DRDO to develop the 155/52 caliber gun.

3. The requirement for mass conversion and standardization of artillery to 39 caliber was in 1987 when the Bofors contract was signed for ~1,600 guns. 1980’s was the decade when the Indian Army was to undergo the generational transformation and become the army as per Army Plan 2000 over 1985 to 2000 period. The artillery conversion got stuck first due to Bofors-gate and then due to lack of funds in the ‘lost’ decade of 90s. It was to make up for the screw-up with Bofors purchase that IA bought M-46 on dissolution of USSR. And thank god we took this offer!

4. As the CAG document linked earlier shows, the 45 Caliber truck mounted gun from Bofors was given OK by AHQ in 1999 – it was the MOD which put spanner in the program and we got into the global RFP business.

5. So by 1999-2000, the artillery standardization plan was already running 13-years late. And this condition was not the army’s making. It is but natural for the IA to ask for a gun on immediate basis to restart the standardization program. Who would have in his sane mind in 1999-2000 thought that the UPA government would turn out to be such an impediment in relation to inducting an artillery gun? Hindsight is 20/20 and everyone is wiser now – including the military – but to casually say that it should have been foreseen is pure hogwash.

6. If you must fault the army, then in my opinion it should be on the aspect of drafting very demand GSQR for 52 caliber gun in 2001 RFP floated to various companies across the world. The guns of this caliber were just about coming online in 1998-2000 period and reached maturity in subsequent years. It is my assumption that the trials went on from 2002 to 2006 (four rounds in all) and during which none of the participant artillery gun seems to have met IA GSQR was because of the lack of maturity of the 155/52 caliber systems and stringent GSQR. With the result that fresh RFP issued in 2007 had relatively relaxed terms of reference.

7. Could the situation have turned out different had the IA gone for 155/45 caliber gun in first place? I don’t know either ways. May be a 155/45 gun from some other stable/country could have come out on top and powers that be might have allowed the induction of the gun. But all that is history now.

8. As per report carried by Shiv Aroor, even in 155/52 trials the BAE gun (erstwhile Bofors) scored the highest points in both 2004 and 2006 firing trials. The IA did not ask for retendering of the project in 2007 – by 2006 it was fairly assured of which gun it wanted to buy and by all accounts, this happened to be the BAE 155/52 gun. The then COAS was fairly upbeat that they are going to sign the contract pretty soon.

9. What happened in 2007-2010 period with respect to artillery procurement saga is complete farce; one after the another competitor was blacklisted on flimsiest of grounds and even when BAE seems to have met all requirements, the tender was cancelled because of single vendor situation; the irony that three manufacturers had started in the competition (and two got subsequently banned) was lost on the MOD and powers that be.

10. So, to say that IA should have foreseen its own government allowing scuttling the induction of a major weapon system defies logic. I don’t think such terms of reference exist anywhere. Even the much quoted example of IN and Project Management does not have parallel for this sordid saga. The fault lies with the MOD.

11. Net result is that we’ve been pushed to such a situation that we’re likely to induct a 155/45 caliber gun in 2015 – which was not considered in 2001 in favor of 155/52 Caliber. Was the IA wrong to consider 155/52 systems in favor of 155/45 systems? I don’t think so. IA would have inducted imported 155/45 guns (assuming no issues like were faced) in let’s say 2005-2013 period but we would have already started looking for up-gunning solution or a totally new gun. Chinese starting inducting 155/52 caliber SP guns in 2008-09 period. And not all nations went from 39-45-52 Caliber route – many went straight from 39 to 52 caliber with gap of 10-12 years between the commissioning of guns of these two calibers.

12. Therefore, to lament the fact that OFB had developed the 45 caliber barrel in 2009 and should have been considered by IA is wishful thinking. 45 caliber was not under consideration for a simple reason that the transformation in 2000s was towards 52 caliber weapon. And given our requirement quantity and timeline for induction, 45 caliber would have been outdated by the time even 50% transformation happened.

13. For a RFP issued in 2001 with target to induct ‘X’ quantities in 10th Plan Period (2002-2007) was a fairly realistic target. At best, it would have spilled over to 11th Plan period with artillery requirement taken care of for next 2+ decades.

You cannot detach all these parameters and make cavalier statements that it is conniving generals in AHQ with myopic world view and who cannot think beyond their personal interest who are responsible for this mess in Field Artillery Rationalization Plan.

We’ve forced into a situation at the expense of operational preparedness of the army and sincerely hope DRDO delvers on 155/52 caliber gun in time. 45 caliber is simply an interim solution which is a good test case for OFB – nothing more. Same goes for catapult.

Practically speaking, the DRDO 155/52 gun should be mounted on wheeled and tracked platforms – I don’t see where TATA SED mounted gun and Kalyani fits into the scheme. Especially for the mounted gun – which is to be inducted in second highest numbers after the towed gun. One would want commonality in these systems.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 13 Feb 2014 00:49

vic wrote: A Steel based towed non-automated 155mm/39 caliber howitzer suitable for mountain use will normally weight around 6 tons or so. If Army was so desperate for artillery for mountain warfare, it would have directed OFB to start with 155/39 caliber non-automated towed howitzers equivalent to similar US or Russian artillery. Thereafter slowly gone for 155/52 caliber non automated towed artillery and titanium components. But army wants automation + light weight + super long range all in one go from OFB & DRDO.

The least you can do is not conflate issues and make completely false statements.

Can you tell me where has the IA asked for titanium to be used in the 52 caliber gun? Last I checked, the requirement is for the towed gun to be 12 tonnes or under in weight - it is for the DRDO to decide how it meets the requirement. The BAE FH77B05 L52, the 155/52 caliber cousin of our Bofors weighs at 13.1 tonnes - and this was a gun designed 10+years earlier. I don't suppose it is asking for the moon from a gun to enter service in 2016-17 time frame to be 1 tonne lighter.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Feb 2014 02:31

Oui,it could double or even treble the production rate too,plus bring down prices.That of course will be resisted very hard by babudom.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Feb 2014 03:04

RoyG wrote:
Vivek K wrote:How abut privatizing OFB's arty manufacture? Sell tech to pvt industry?
SHHHH...you'll awaken Karanji. Just give them more money and don't ruffle any feathers.

Read my posts sometimes - if you had, you'd have known I have been flagging issues with the OFB for ages. Unlike you however, I dont generalize and extend their shambolic performance as being reflective of all PSUs. I track what they do & judge them on their individual performance. That sort of objectivity helps in understanding which firm is successful and which is not, and if a firm is failing, why so.

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 13 Feb 2014 08:09

Why is IA going for the 45 caliber Dhanush instead of the 52 caliber Tata G6 ?

G6 is supposed to be an excellent gun.