Artillery: News & Discussion

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 16 Feb 2014 21:56

X-posting from Military Aviation Thread:

RajitO wrote: And it is your and other folks obsession with facts and figures shorn of all context and qualitative input that makes you as much an armchair warrior that you presume others to be. Let's agree to disagree but self-awareness is a quality to be cultivated...no?

Excellent that you are speaking to some of the BTDT crowd, please dig a little more in the spirit of scientific inquiry not just into the laws of physics but also the laws of warfare, especially with some of the Indian aviators and they might be able to tell you how the M777 is going to be handled, or similar weapon systems, at Indian altitudes. Replying to me or anyone else for that matter should be the least of your concerns if you are on this forum to learn something more.


You need to go a bit easy on the preaching part...if you don't agree with people's argument(s), please provide a counter POV than giving sermons.

As to the 'Laws of Warfare' thing and associated argument - none of them will survive if they violate the laws of Physics. Even the Cheetah and Chetak flying in the rarefied atmosphere of Siachen do not violate Laws of Physics - though they're flying at the very edge of the envelope as these laws would've predicted - and hence, the margin for error is next to nothing.

Having said that - linking the purchase of CH-47 Chinook with M777 is a red-herring. Simple as that. Since you're talking about laws of warfare, how does the ratio of 15 Chinook and 145 M777 match-up? When there are indications that these guns will be distributed across different divisions @ 1 regiment per division under Eastern Command. So, unless the Chinooks are based with Eastern Air Command and east of Guwahati and tasked from the word go to assist in movement of these guns, there is simply no synergy in purchase of Chinook and M777.

Now, if you ask me, the purchase of Chinook and M777 stand on their own merit and the two are not related in terms of acquisition plan. Here are my thoughts on the same:

1. I have a feeling that the requirement for Ultra-Light Weight Howitzer (ULWH) emerged after IA saw the development in this field around the globe. However, it seems that someone latched onto this requirement from IA and tried to manipulate the deal in a specific manner. And this could not have happened without the collusion of decision makes in AHQ. And I will pen down the data points for my opinion below. Please be advised that I'm not commenting on the usefulness of the gun. Any weight saved in mountain warfare is manna from heaven and I'll any day take a 'light' 155/39 caliber gun over 105mm gun.

2. Coming to my assertion - General V.K. Singh in his autobiography (page-305) says that when they examined the GSQR for the ULWH, they found that it was drawn to suit Singapore Technologies Pegasus gun to letter T. It was made in a manner so as to ensure only Pegasus emerges as a winner.

3. It is a different matter that Singapore Technologies ran into trouble with MOD and the gun was out of race - IA then recommended to look at M777 which Americans were willing to sell and was available under FMS route.

4. Now, this is where things got a bit murky and may explain why we had leaked report(s) about M777 failing IA GSQR and some tests and all. General V.K. Singh writes that Defense Secretary insisted that M777 meet the same GSQR as was made for Pegasus gun. He states that DG Artillery and DCOAS told the Defense Secretary that the stipulated conditions (for Pegasus gun) had NO OPERATIONAL meaning under Indian conditions but Defense Secretary said and I quote, 'We'll give you deviations at the appropriate time'.

5. So, it is not hard to understand that reports about M777 having failed the tests were released because someone was clearly batting for Pegasus (where money was to be made) and wanted to scuttle M777 - where there is no scope of skimming at the top. I would not be surprised if M777 acquisition was delayed so that attendant increase in acquisition cost would render the purchase nonviable.

6. Given that Pegasus weighs 5.4 tonnes, comes with limited self-propelled capability through APU (speed 12 km/h) and has semi-automatic loading mechanism, it would not be hard to understand that M777 would have 'FAILED' on these parameters.

7. However, given the weight of Pegasus and considering that it was the first choice - I don't think anyone was even thinking of carrying this gun as under-slung load in a Chinook.

8. And the fact that IA recommended M777 further gives weight to conclusion that for its weight class, APU was not considered as a definite requirement. The weight saving with the caliber would be the main advantage. As it is, the Pegasus and M777 were not designed keeping in mind requirement of mountain warfare. Americans designed M777 for their expeditionary warfare requirement.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 17 Feb 2014 09:05

For both expeditionary and mountain warfare, the howitzer has to be light BUT there are some very important differences in Indian Context. The issue is whether M777 fulfills them?

As per the leaks, failure of M777 has happened on parameters which may not have been fulfilled by Pegasus also. Also M777 seems to have failed after Pegasus was knocked out. So, the issue is whether M777 is suitable for mountain warfare?

When did the requirement for 155mm ULH emerge for the first time? Did the army at any time till date has asked DRDO or Indian Companies for ULH suitable for India?

Why has Army not asked DRDO to provide Pinaka, in two rocket pod format for mountain regions mounted on4x4 to decrease weight and increase mobility?

The reality is that any winning foreign company pays bribes, otherwise contract will not be signed even after success in tenders. The result is that one or other foreign party wins while Indian strategic manufacturing sector suffers.

If Army has no faith in DRDO then it can mandate TATAs or Kayani or L&T or does the army think that only white skin can do the job, while Indians & dogs are barred from defense sector?

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 17 Feb 2014 09:40

Vic,

While Rocket Artillery systems will have a higher rate of fire and be able of deliver a larger tonnage of munitions during operations and modern precision projectiles have made then more accurate they do also suffer from inherent disadvantages.

1. Field Artillery guns can achieve a greater variety of trajectories without affecting their accuracy. They are also not restricted to the long minimum range applied to most rocket arty systems.

2. Free-Flight rockets have a higher detection range on Weapon Locating Radar systems than regular Artillery coupled with a longer time of flight and signature. Thus necessitating them to be moved quickly over larger distances and often to protect them from enemy counter-fire. All the time they spend on the move is out of action.

3. Rocket Artillery systems also suffer from a much larger logistic footprint on the battlefield with Reloading and Replenishment Vehicles required to service a single MRL post launch. Applied on a battery wide scale, these increase its chances to exploitation by enemy ISR. Once out of action even modern MRL systems need a large amount of time to spend reloading. Rocket Arty munitions also suffer a higher failure rate versus field arty.

4. Traditionally, MRL systems are used during specific phases in battle to maximize shock effect or in order to engage time sensitive targets.

Your premise that the benefits automated arty systems offer are negligible is false and misleading. These systems reduce size of crew in addition to offering decreased crew fatigue over longer engagement timelines. The kind of semi-SP systems that Indian Army has gone for improves chances from enemy Counter-Fire. Automated Positioning systems are extremely important over the battlefield allowing artillery commander to better deploy their units and effect faster positioning. This is crucial for high intensity maneuver operations involving Mechanised assets keeping in mind that we are never going to employ SP artillery in larger number unlike in the West.

It is incredulous when you question the Fire Mobility based Maneuver Warfare Doctrine itself.

This over artillery folks who do this for a living!! :shock:

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 17 Feb 2014 10:31

can the CH-53 operate at chinook altitude. the marine corps has ordered 150 of new model CH-53K that will IOC next year.
bigger and powerful than chinook at sea level for sure. at higher alt not sure. some land based armies like germany have them.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_20317 » 17 Feb 2014 12:55

vic ji on your observation of fungibility of 155 mm 52 Cal and Pinakas you have considered only the gun (ignoring shells) against the Pinaka system. A more proper comparison would do a total gun+propellant+shells+trucks vs. Pinaka system. I think the costs would be slightly higher for the Pinaka but the gun would open up options and thus remain cheaper and more effective no matter what.

Then if you are willing to bring the tail into picture then the installed production capacities and logistics would again tilt the deal in favour of guns. The only difficulty (not insurmountable) that I see with 155mm 52 cal is in the moutains. At all other places it is the hexier option. Admitted that we have a long mountain terrain border with both the antagonists. Hence I believe a mixed force is better.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 17 Feb 2014 16:05

Re Vaibhav, you are right that I am questioning some the very premises of utility of "heavy" howitzers as the technology has moved on and I have provided the logic in my post.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 17 Feb 2014 16:09

ravi_g wrote:vic ji on your observation of fungibility of 155 mm 52 Cal and Pinakas you have considered only the gun (ignoring shells) against the Pinaka system. A more proper comparison would do a total gun+propellant+shells+trucks vs. Pinaka system. I think the costs would be slightly higher for the Pinaka but the gun would open up options and thus remain cheaper and more effective no matter what.

Then if you are willing to bring the tail into picture then the installed production capacities and logistics would again tilt the deal in favour of guns. The only difficulty (not insurmountable) that I see with 155mm 52 cal is in the moutains. At all other places it is the hexier option. Admitted that we have a long mountain terrain border with both the antagonists. Hence I believe a mixed force is better.


You are right, I am questioning the urgent requirement and desperation for HEAVY AUTOMATED IMPORTED artillery. The indigenous solutions will continue to be relevant for artillery also.

My estimated cost for 155mm fuze, shell, base bleed, propellant and depreciation for tube arillery is USD 3000-4000 dollars per round.

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 18 Feb 2014 14:18

vic wrote:Re Vaibhav, you are right that I am questioning some the very premises of utility of "heavy" howitzers as the technology has moved on and I have provided the logic in my post.


Vic,

What you are proposing is we shift to MBRL systems and instead of modern 155/52 Calibre systems with antiquated 155mm Howitzers.

There is a reason why armies across the globe are shifting from the M198 to the M777 and the fact that MBRL systems form only a fraction of their entire arty deployed on the field. Unless you seem to know better than the collective wisdom of the entire world's armed forces, I would bet on the crowd which actually knows a thing or two about warfare!!

The time of slow lumbering unautomated 155mm arty is passe. With the fog of war which is virtually non-existent in the modern battlefield you need arty which can survive most of what the enemy can throw at you. The answer lies either to either move up the chain with the likes of Bofors FH77 B05 L52 or with lighter systems.

Allow me to take the M198 as an example of the cause you are championing and why non-automated arty systems will not survive the Battlefield like the T-90's.

1. The M198 being un-automated has a crew of 9, this versus modern arty systems like the Bofors, M777, FH2000 halve this to 5. Implemented across your entire equipment profile of 180 arty regiments this burdens us with an extra 16,200 artillerymen. I am not even taking into account the extra logistic burden your ideas are enforcing.

2. In the days of modern shoot and scoot systems, the M198 fares rather pathetically. The Bofors actually does automated Emplacement/Displacement in 1:30 Minutes. The M198 Class was designed not for mobility but to pound the ground and cannot keep up with maneuver formations to provide close support. Below is a table of how it compares as shown on Wiki.

M198
Time to Emplace 6:35 minutes
Time to Displace 10:40 minutes

Link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M777

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_20317 » 18 Feb 2014 15:14

Emplacement and Displacement for M-46 quoted in open source was in the 20 minute category (Sole plate).

vic ji, the problem is really not money. 4 billion USD for Artillery Rationalization is not a big deal. And only the M777 seems like a costly thing. Otherwise for the other products the costs seem pretty reasonable. There are other things where we are going wrong with much bigger deal sizes. Besides we will actually be able to absorb a lot of tech transfer. My gut feel is that it is not going to be too difficult to absorb even the M777 tech tranfer if it comes up in the deal.

The problem is the sloppy system that can be targeted by vested interests. A system not robust enough to ensure reliability of procurement and testing process. Then there is not enough investment (public or private) in the manufacturing.

There really is no way out, except getting the system back up. Say for example you whittle down the automation requirement to produce a cheaper product you will then have to bear the penalty of more manpower and probably even lesser accuracy. You go the other way of more automation then the costs get jacked up substantially and on top of that you will have to end up buy more helos to make these high end products available when most needed.

Dhanush is good enough for mountains and cheaper and because of the articulation between the hauler and the gun it will be able to negotiate mountain roads easily but there are not enough roads laterally linking the theaters.

I personally believe that people can think of actually driving down the cost per bang of the rockets but even then there is no way out of the basic character of a rocket. It will just end up wasting a rocket when the range requirements go below the prescribed ranges. With howitzers you can always have a series of different yield charges and many different angles.

So the options are not going to be assessed easily. It will require a total cost analysis per bang.

The way you are looking at it...it will only lead to more heartburn. You will end up wishing Himalayas were not there. :D

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 18 Feb 2014 15:44

^^^There seems to be selective reading and drawing inferences when making a case of non-automated artillery.

Before making big assertions the basic thing which needs to be done is to understand the war-fighting philosophy of the nations whose examples is being quoted. For example, Europeans are no longer facing the threat of staring down the tank barrels of massive Soviet Tank Armies; as it is, when it comes to conventional warfare with respect to NATO, the heavy lifting is done by USA. So, you've the French and other armies going for mounted gun systems which are transportable by C-130 and A400 for deployment in out of area contingencies. And limited conventional 155 Artillery - towed and SP - for conventional war-fighting. Their is no incentive for them to develop newer systems.

Similarly, in the Brigade Combat Team structure of US Army:

- Infantry BCT has the 1 x arty regiment with 2 x 105mm batteries and 1 x M777 battery
- Stryker BCT has 1 x arty regiment with 3 x M777 batteries - This whole Stryker BCT is supposed to be air-transportable by C-130 in 96 hours from the call.
- Armored BCT has 1 x arty regiment with 3 x M109 SP Artillery batteries

Americans have restructured their army to meet their expeditionary requirement, global commitments and nature of warfare. The Brigade Combat Team is a product of this changed war-fighting philosophy. However, outside of their brigades, they still retain formidable firepower in Corps Artillery Brigades. And for Americans, artillery gun is just one component of the massive firepower they can bring to bear on a target/objective.

We on the other hand are going to face a massive conventional war on either fronts where Artillery is going to play a decisive role. The formation of Artillery Divisions is product of a thinking which looks at them as 'Maneuver Element' rather than as support system. Their employment follows the concept of 'Maneuver by Fire' which looks to dominate/destroy/degrade an enemy's war-fighting potential through massive fire-assaults. That is where a 155/52 caliber counts; as for the requirement of automated gun, well, enough water has flown under the bridge to even consider this question. It was settled in 1987 when IA went for Bofors.

If anyone is going to face conventional war, it is us - and our requirement needs to be judged by our operational conditions. If you really want to understand the trend in artillery caliber and fire-power, please look up what the PLA and Pakistan Army have and are inducting.

It is erroneous to quote what Americans are doing or Europeans are doing w/o getting into context of these developments. Our operational requirement necessitates a powerful artillery arm.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 18 Feb 2014 17:00

Contrary to what our resident expert would have us believe, Pinaka MBRL seems to be doing pretty fine in the IA. And there does not appear to be any exercise to do 'Arjun' on Pinaka system.

- The order was placed on OFB for the weapon system in 2008 and IA raised first two regiments of Pinaka in 2010.
- The plan I think was to raise 4 x Pinaka Regiments in 2007-2012 Defense Plan and as per media reports, these regiments are in place.
- Further, the induction of Pinaka system was hampered due to controversy related to TATRA trucks on which these systems are mounted.
- GOI in 2013 had approved INR 1,500 crores to enhance production capacity of Pinaka rockets. It was to increased from 1,000 rockets per annum to 5,000 rockets per annum
- Pinaka MBRL is one area where private sector participation has worked really well. From what I understand, IA had placed orders for 40 Pinaka MBRL each on L&T and TATA Power SED. Since IA Pinaka Regiments have 18 systems/regiments, this translates into 4 regiments+ worth of systems.
- IIRC, the plan was to induct 2 x Pinaka Regiments per year in 2012-2017 plan period but I'm not sure where we stand on this.

As for the nonsense of GRAD and SMERCH being imported under the garb of JV - Indian Army has for donkey years had 5 x BM-21 GRAD Regiments. Had the IA wanted, it could have imported more such systems from USSR for these would not have costed much. But IA has never been a fan of 'spray and pray' philosophy of such rocket system. So, IA did not go for more. Only recently there was a competition to provide new platforms to mount these rocket systems and the tender has been won by Ashok Leyland and L&T consortium.

According to people familiar with the development, a consortium of Ashok Leyland and L&T emerged the lowest bidder two weeks ago when commercial bids for procurement of 100 multibarrel rocket launchers (meant to upgrade the BM21 rocket launchers) were opened. The value of the contract is about Rs 100 crore, according to industry sources.

The contract involves refurbishing the existing rocket launchers and mounting them on new vehicles. The weapons-related work will be done by L&T and the vehicle is a new Ashok Leyland platform. The Leyland-L&T combine left behind a team of Tata Group companies (Tata Motors and Tata Power SED) and a team of Tatra, Bharat Earth Movers and Bharat Electronics. The last two are public-sector defence companies.


http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-04-06/news/38327335_1_tatra-rocket-launchers-ravi-rishi

Coming to Smerch Rocket system, well, the IA has grand total of 3 x Smerch Rocket Regiments in its inventory. The JV was to be signed/has been signed for the rocket technology and not he launcher system.

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=86884

MoU for a Joint Venture for Indigenous Production of Smerch Rockets with Russia

Ordnance Factory Board signed a Memorandum of Understanding for a Joint Venture with M/s Rosoboronexport, Russia and M/s Splav “SPA”, Russia to manufacture five versions of Smerch Rockets based on the technology received from Russia. The Smerch Rockets are technologically superior having a range of 70-80- kms. With formation of this Joint Venture, a new Chapter in the Indo-Russian Friendship will commence.

A Memorandum of Understanding duly approved by Hon’ble Raksha Mantri has been signed by three parties yesterday in New Delhi. After indigenizing the technology of Smerch Rockets, OFB will attain new heights in manufacturing of advanced Rocket system.


However, this formation of JV seems to have been delayed.

Prahaar Missile - Sigh! People should at least make an effort to read-up before spouting nonsense on the topic.

This is what DRDO chief Avinash Chander said in 2013:

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/prithvi-missiles-to-be-replaced-by-morecapable-prahar-drdo/article4866081.ece

NEW DELHI, JUN 30:

Seeking to enhance its precision strike capabilities, India is planning to replace its 150 km-range Prithvi ballistic missiles with the newly developed quick reaction Prahar missiles.

“We are withdrawing the tactical 150 km-range Prithvi missiles and will replace them with the Prahar missiles, which are more capable and have more accuracy,” DRDO chief Avinash Chander told PTI here.

The tactical versions of the Prithvi missiles would be withdrawn from service and will be upgraded to be used for longer ranges, he said.

The DRDO Chief said after the withdrawal of the tactical ballistic missiles from service, there would be a gap in strike capabilities in the range of 100 to 150 km-range.

“The Prahar missile would be used to fill up that gap,” he said.

The 150 km-range ‘Prahar’ is a single-stage missile and is fuelled by solid propellants. It was first test-fired by DRDO in mid-2011 from its range in Odisha.

The uniqueness of the missile system is that it can be fired in the salvo mode also from one launcher vehicle in which four missiles can be fired in one go.

This short-range missile would be an ‘excellent weapon’ which would fill the gap between the 90 km-range of the Smerch multi-barrel rocket launchers and guided missiles like ’Prithvi’, which can strike at 250 km to 350 km range.

The under-development Prahar missile would be offered to the Army for user trials very soon and after its acceptance, it is planned to be part of its Corps of Artillery.

The Prithvi missiles were developed by India under its Integrated Missile Development Programme in the 1980s. The ballistic missile was developed with multiple strike ranges from 150 km to 350 km.

The longer ranges are planned to be in service with both the Army and the IAF
.

So, unless IA places 'massive' order for an under development product, it is scuttling the program and not being patriotic enough!

Sigh!

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8286
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 18 Feb 2014 19:54

I have doubts wrt the emplacement and displacement time for the m 46. iirc, I remember a time of 90 seconds for emplacement. with a crew of 9. displacement figure eludes me.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20954
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 19 Feb 2014 22:05

Rohit,what news of terminally guided rocket projectiles which were supposedly being developed?

The "retired " Prithvi missiles replaced by Prahaar can be then exported to pally nations who do not possess such systems,plus the shorter ranged Pragati displayed recently at a foreign defexpo.

Russia's latest Tornado MBRL with a 120km range.

Wik:
The 9A52-4 Tornado multiple launch rocket system will be Russia's newest universal MLRS and is designed as a lightweight and universal version of the BM-30 Smerch MLRS, dubbed 9A52-2. It was first unveiled in 2007 as a more strategically and tactically mobile version at the expense of a slight reduction of the firepower. This model is aimed at replacing the current generation of Russian MLRS, including BM-21 Grad, BM-27 Uragan and BM-30 Smerch. A version will be proposed for export.


Russian ground forces are expected to receive up to 30 Tornado-G systems in 2012, replacing the BM-21 Grad.The improved Tornado-S is being upgraded with the special GLONASS satellite navigation system used in the Smerch missile system. The Tornado-S will have guided rocket rounds enabling it to fire out to 72 miles (120 km).The Tornado-S will have a longer range and increased effectiveness due to the use of new warhead payloads and a reduced launch readiness time of just three minutes.The Tornado-G and S are currently going through state acceptance trails.[1]

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kersi D » 20 Feb 2014 20:44

A stupid question

Will the various 155 mm guns be able to use the same ammunition / shells / charges ?

K

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 20 Feb 2014 21:10

I believe all of the western designs follow some NATO std designed to ensure in WW3 it would interwork. its called joint ballistics memorandum of understanding.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54780
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 22 Feb 2014 03:16

Rohitvats, The old US Army Westervelt Board report on Field Artillery.

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kersi D » 22 Feb 2014 17:38

Singha wrote:I believe all of the western designs follow some NATO std designed to ensure in WW3 it would interwork. its called joint ballistics memorandum of understanding.


Mr Singha. let me ask in simpler terms. IA buys 155m towed gun from Sweden and USA, SP wheeled from Israel and SP tracked from Germany. Can IA use 155 shells (all types) made in Austria, UK, South Africa and India.

K

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 22 Feb 2014 17:55

we are already using israeli supplied 155mm shells in bofors I think.
south africa was also supposed to create that cancelled factory in nalanda.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indi ... y-109.html
Dada, I assume FH-77 shells can be used quite comfortably on M777, both being 155mm NATO-Standard-ish, and no problems running around for new shells when M777 comes.

Am I correct?
kushalappa ↑
on the same page, it asks if the MGS is compatible with current types of ammunition used by the IA. This question, to say the very least, is hilarious, since all types of 155mm rounds now being produced by the OFB are fully compliant with the Quadrilateral Ballistics Agreement (originally signed by the US, the US, Italy and Germany and later adhered to by all manufacturers of 155mm howitzers and their ammunition and BMPCs) and the Joint Ballistic Memorandum of Understanding (JBMoU), both of which ensure that one nation could fire other nations’ ammunition and BMPCs from its own 155mm howitzers with known ballistics tables.

anirban_aim
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 25 Jul 2009 21:28

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby anirban_aim » 24 Feb 2014 17:09

So this issue closed for now.

"M777 deal postponed by defence ministry. Artillery deal not approved at DAC."

via @manupubby

anirban_aim
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 25 Jul 2009 21:28

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby anirban_aim » 24 Feb 2014 17:12

Look at the irony, News breaks on the same day as Deputy Chief of the PLA is in Delhi for the Annual Defence and Security Dialogue.

No kite flying conspiracy theory intended here. Just a WTF moment....

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 519
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby dinesh_kimar » 01 Mar 2014 20:28

OTO Malera and Denel have successfully re-introduced the 105mm Gun in modern avataar.
> Networked to CCS
> Lightweight
> Air transportable
> Can be used with mule (broken down?)

IMHO, ARDE 105mm can be made to do most of the above, and can be a good interim solution for High Altitude / Mountain Operations, provided a more lethal shell is available (against built-up concrete structures).

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 01 Mar 2014 21:10

anirban_aim wrote:Look at the irony, News breaks on the same day as Deputy Chief of the PLA is in Delhi for the Annual Defence and Security Dialogue.

No kite flying conspiracy theory intended here. Just a WTF moment....


CBM by mountbatten singhji to preserve PanchSheel on the border.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3594
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Paul » 17 Mar 2014 18:01

X-Post

I suppose it the acquistion of the Turkish T-155 Pantir 52 Cal by Pakistan that forces the IA get off it's backside and do something about doing something about getting more Desi Bofors 45 and 52 Cal into service.

Until the Pantir came into service, IA enjoyed a superiority in the artillery duels taking place in kashmir.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panter_howitzer

Pakistan: Pakistan Army - 52 in Service. 12 ordered for evaluation in 2007 from Turkey and delivered between 2008-2009. 40 more ordered in 2009 & delivered between 2011-2012. [2] Locally produced under license by Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT). [3][4]


Planeman has this to say about the Bofors Pantir comparison

Despite the bad press from the corruption scandal, the Bofors gun is actually a very good piece of kit and offers mobility advantages over other towed pieces in Pakistani service. Pakistan has recently inducted into service the generally equivalent Turkish made T-155 Panter gun but it has yet to be employed in material quantities. A quick comparison between the Bofors and Panter is however an interesting exercise.

Until the advent of the Panter, the Bofors was by far the most advanced and capable towed piece on the border. It has large stocks of extended range ammunition, is self-mobile and relatively automated for increased crew efficiency. That situation is changing.


Both are modern 155mm pieces with an auxiliary power unit to allow a degree of self-mobility, about 20kph. In both cases the power pack is located forward of the gun mount. The Panter has a significantly longer barrel (52Cal vs 39Cal) providing greater range. In general all artillery pieces can fire various guided and extended range rounds so quoted ranges should be taken with a grain of salt. If the Panter is employed with HE Base-bleed rounds then stated range is 40km, about 10km further than the 39Cal Bofors with similar ammunitions. This would allow Pakistan to station its guns many km further from the front, and for each howitzer battery to cover a wider sector allowing either fewer deployed batteries or for the same strength, greater engagement envelope overlap.

On the other hand the Bofors is significantly lighter and generally more compact, and has a built in ammunition crane. The Bofors’ compact nature suggests that it is easier to maneuver, although the Panter has excellent mobility including in reverse also, but a larger turning circle. Panter is significantly heavier, likely requiring a larger truck (‘prime mover’) and reducing mobility on the smaller tracks. Both feature semi-automatic loading allowing relatively high rates of fire and being easier on the crew. Conclusion: There’s not much in it, both are excellent. FH-77B was the first of this generation of howitzer, but it’s still up there in terms of features and combat reliability. Panter has the better gun and likely better range, but pays some mobility/agility costs.

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 519
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby dinesh_kimar » 18 Mar 2014 14:13

Punj LLoyd 130mm Gun Upgrade:

> New Barrel + Breech Block (155mm 45 Cal)
> New Muzzle Brake
> Modified Recoil System
> Same Carriage

Link and Couple of pics for reference:
http://www.punjlloyd.com/defence/upgrade-130-mm-artillery-gun

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 519
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby dinesh_kimar » 18 Mar 2014 14:16

To Gurus,
Arjun Catapult has 130mm Gun with older "pepperpot" muzzle brake and also a newer Double Baffle type, which was never made by the former SU.

Did we get the 130mm from any other source?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8286
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 18 Mar 2014 16:15

What about the OFB upgrade. If Punj Loyd, are also developing this upgrade. Also what is the source for this package, RDM?

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 519
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby dinesh_kimar » 18 Mar 2014 16:55

^ Punj Lloyd Annual Report 2012, FWIW :

"The Company has been registered with the Ordnance Factory Board and is executing development programmes along with them. The Company is in the process of registering with the Defence Research
Development Organisation (DRDO) for carrying out defence related Research and Development work."


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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 19 Mar 2014 07:31

T-90 has got 10,000 million USD orders and Smerch has got 1000 million USD orders inspite of failing or having huge problems in Rajasthan heat while indigenous Dhanush continues to suffer trials after trials even for first USD 200 million order. Dogs and Indians not allowed in defense production, Goras only.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19683
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 19 Mar 2014 08:14

Officials said OFB would be taking up new products such as new generation assault rifles, CQB carbine, 155/52 artillery guns, 155/52 mounted gun system, Smerch rockets, grad rockets, successor to L-70 AD gun, very short-range air defence missile and latest generation ammunition for 84 mm rocket launcher through technology transfer.
:roll:

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 19 Mar 2014 10:02

ToT and JV are new facade to disguise single vendor non competitive imports. Normally the value addition by DPSU and OFB is less than 10% at component level.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 19 Mar 2014 10:08

Pratyush wrote:A guided shell if developed in India, will remove a major source of anxiety, I have in respect of mountain warfare, capacity of the Indian army.


A Prahaar round is a guided PGM which will do everything that 155mm guided round does and more at similar cost. But Army wants to limit Prahaar to corps level rather than issuing twin rocket pod mounted 6x6 version down to brigade level.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 19 Mar 2014 14:38

vic wrote:
Pratyush wrote:A guided shell if developed in India, will remove a major source of anxiety, I have in respect of mountain warfare, capacity of the Indian army.


A Prahaar round is a guided PGM which will do everything that 155mm guided round does and more at similar cost. But Army wants to limit Prahaar to corps level rather than issuing twin rocket pod mounted 6x6 version down to brigade level.


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 19 Mar 2014 15:42

Vic,

A Brigade is generally assigned a grand total of one Artillery Regiment by its Division. Field or Medium may depend on the terrain and whether it is an Armored/Mechanised/Infantry Brigade. It may get additional Gun Troops/Batteries on priority call available from Divisional Arty FDC depending on the larger scheme of things.

Why would you want a Brigade level formation to be able to persecute targets via a Tactical Ballistic Missile with possible Nuclear Ordinance connotations in our neighborhood. You have to relook at the depth in terms of objectives, formations are ideally assigned.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 19 Mar 2014 15:46

vaibhav.n wrote:Vic,

A Brigade is generally assigned a grand total of one Artillery Regiment by its Division. Field or Medium may depend on the terrain and whether it is an Armored/Mechanised/Infantry Brigade. It may get additional Gun Troops/Batteries on priority call available from Divisional Arty FDC depending on the larger scheme of things. Why would you want a Brigade level formation to be able to persecute targets via a Tactical Ballistic Missile with possible Nuclear Ordinance connotations in our neighborhood. You have to relook at the depth in terms of objectives, formations are ideally assigned


You're wasting your time here...all this knowledge is wasted on those who only see conspiracies every where!

What was that? twin rocket pod mounted 6 x 6 vehicle.... :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8286
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 19 Mar 2014 16:25

Rohit, there was a report some time ago, regarding the variations planned by drdo for the prahar/ pragiti. A twin launcher and quad launcher were amongst the variations. I dont know, if it will actually be executed by the drdo.

Having said so, when I said a precision guided shell, I did not have prahar in mind. Was thinking of the 155.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 19 Mar 2014 17:47

The[deleted by moderator] import lobby like ONLY imported solutions and refuse to see emerging trends even though they post with multiple IDs. The proposal of DRDO with the similar products emerging abroad are given below:-

http://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2013_defense_industry_military_news_uk/india_presents_for_first_time_seoul_defense_exhibition_its_pragati_tactical_ballistic_missile_311013.html

The Pragati missile has quick reaction from command to launch in ripple firing mode of less than five seconds from same launcher. It is capable of carrying various types of conventional warhead of approximately 200 Kg.

The 12x12 TEL displayed in Seoul has a six-cannister system that can fire all its missiles in a 3-5 second salvo. The four-man crew can prepare for launch in five minutes and reloading takes about 15 minutes. The DRDO is also developing a 6x6 TEL fitted with two missiles and an 8x8 launcher fitted with four missiles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9A52-4_Tornado

The 9A52-4 Tornado multiple launch rocket system will be Russia's newest universal MLRS and is designed as a lightweight and universal version of the BM-30 Smerch MLRS, dubbed 9A52-2. It was first unveiled in 2007 as a more strategically and tactically mobile version at the expense of a slight reduction of the firepower. This model is aimed at replacing the current generation of Russian MLRS, including BM-21 Grad, BM-27 Uragan and BM-30 Smerch. A version will be proposed for export.

The 9A52-4 Tornado system is a direct competitor of the US HIMARS; in other words it is a lightweight rocket launcher. Even so, there are two other systems based on the MZKT-79306 truck and on the Kamaz 6x6 truck. The system based on the MZKT truck is a modular MLRS and can carry two BM-27 Uragan launching modules or two BM-30 Smerch launching modules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIMARS

The HIMARS carries six rockets or one Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) missile on the U.S. Army's new Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) five-ton truck,
Last edited by Gerard on 20 Mar 2014 06:02, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Please tone down language

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54780
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 19 Mar 2014 18:54

KaranM, Why the rolling eyes? OFB does not have an R&D to production transition. They are dependedent on Technology transfer from DRDO and imports.
Its just a series of factories. Its not a company that has a concept to production mode of operations.MoD has run it like that.

The current OFB head has done a lot to undo the bad stuff/mess is predesscor had done.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54780
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 19 Mar 2014 19:03

Pratyush, Dr Chander had said that a priority is a guided shell for arty. They are working on it.

My view and not from anyone in authority:

Guidance using GPS/INS based on mems would make it fire and forget shell.
Laser needs a designator and is suitable for moving targets. So some of the shells will be laser directed for operational flexibilty.
A big issue is the manouver margin for the system when used in the high mountains.
Reason is the air density being lesser, an additional lift due to hypersonic drag is induced. The solution is larger power pack needed for error correction along with smaller charge as shell length will be constant for standardization.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8286
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 19 Mar 2014 19:13

Ramana, point taken.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests