Artillery: News & Discussion

dinesh_kimar · Post by **dinesh_kimar** » 27 Jun 2014 14:59

^ India had "ethics and morals" , and refused. Israel responded well, and got Singapore orders.

Irony is, today India has displaced Singapore by a wide margin and is Israel's major Arms Customer.

Israel got lots of Arty tech from Unkil's kripa and people like Dr. Jerry Bull.

I think India not go with talented people like Dr. Bull as our babus may have said something like "blacklisted by CIA" or something to that effect. I can picture some babu in the 80s telling his PA , "Appa Rao, reject that Dr. Bull fellow, he is blacklisted by America Secret Intelligence Service, it may become sensitive issue".

But no Arty for 30 Years is 2nd Himalayan Blunder.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 27 Jun 2014 19:20

soumik wrote:With reference to the Singapore connection pointed out by Dinesh above,it is worth remembering that in the 60's Singapore had contacted India to help build up its armed forces we demurred and did not offer aid, that role was then taken up by the israelis who built up a military industrial partnership that led to the formation of the Singapore military and the Military industrila complexx in Singapore that we see today.I believe it was another one of the many golden chances we have lost through the years.

The two Israelis met with Lee, who writes that he "told Keng Swee to put it on hold until Lal Bahadur Shastri, the prime minister of India, and President Nasser of Egypt replied to my letters seeking their urgent help to build up our armed forces."

It's not clear whether Lee, in fact, believed India and Egypt were capable of, or interested in, building up Singapore's army. Many Israelis believe the two leaders were approached only for appearance's sake. After a few weeks of waiting, India and Egypt congratulated Singapore on its independence but did not offer military aid. Lee ordered Goh to push ahead in contacts with the Israelis.
http://therealsingapore.com/content/how ... med-forces

Retd Major General Eustance D'Souza was asked to go to Singapore, but then cancelled. Chinese agreed to keep off Bhutan etc and we agreed to Keep off of SE Asia.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Jun 2014 19:34

That's precisely how cheen shafted us.
they agree to keep out of our granary beside the house and we agree to not even go near the next village.

this is the best our brilliant ifs heads could come up with.

nd they went right ahead and sold arms by truckload to ne rebel groups frm yunnan

dinesh_kimar · Post by **dinesh_kimar** » 27 Jun 2014 20:35

^^^ While TATA SED is a sound professional choice, CVRDE has actually built 2 turrets, one for the Arjun and I think one for either Abhay ICV concept or 105mm SPH (I heard GIAT also involved somewhere)

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 27 Jun 2014 23:15

SanjayC wrote:End of road for major howitzer deal with US

If the M777 is cancelled and no alternative ultralight gun is available pronto, the mountain divisions will be trashed overnight and I refuse to believe that the IA will allow this to happen. Nowhere does the report say that the deal has been cancelled, only "sources" have been quoted saying it is heading for a dead end, no way we will pay so much blah blah. The price escalated because Anthony dragged his ass in the sand for years until BAE closed its assembly line for lack of orders. Now if we want the gun, we will have to pay them to restart the line. What's so difficult to understand about this. This report is probably to encourage BAE to lower prices.

Banking on imaginary infrastructure to drag heavy arty to the front in Sikkim, Bhutan and Arunachal is suicide. Won't happen for next decade if we are lucky, period. Readmitting the Singapore gun would work to put pressure on BAE, that's all. It is not near as good as the M777 and they too would squeeze our bolls fore sure. If BAE doesn't buckle, then go for STK as last resort. 105mm guns or RCL don't have the range and power IA is looking for in its plans. About local development of a ULH, let's get real. We may make a "light" howitzer quickly but nothing that is half the weight of a regular field 155mm piece which can be carried by helicopter. The metallurgy and design data is not available off the shelf and developing it would be a major deal even for a global player like Bharat Forge who already does titanium forging. One decade minimum. Besides, it would cost far more than 145-200 guns would justify. This is a tiny but critical niche requirement, not one that will be deployed widely. Should we have the tech inhouse? Of course! But we need to get the ball rolling now and wait for fruit in 10 years. In the meantime, pray we don't get attacked.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 28 Jun 2014 07:16

^I am so moved by your outrage at the cancellation of a "foreign" arms deal, hope you felt the same "outrage" when indigenous defense efforts were canceled.

What you do not seem to understand is that the very same imaginary infrastructure you talk about will make sure that these super duper gold plated guns of yours will never fire in any volume to make them worthwhile. Even if you lug these things (using super duper gold plated Chinooks no less, not plain vanilla cheap Russian stuff) to their sites, how would you supply them with the hundreds or thousands of shells needed? Would they also be lugged by these gold plated wonders as well? That sure seems like a practical proposition.

But hey, who cares? All people like you want is the super duper gold plated gun, screw the shells.

This kind of rampant fanboyism (also present in the upper echelons of the military) is one of the main factors responsible for the sorry state of our Mil-Ind complex.

Hope you can live with your outrage, because more such news is coming your way in the future.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 28 Jun 2014 07:37

Bharat forge has show design drawing of a light weight 155 mm. In the last defence expo.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jun 2014 09:02

I think you referred to garuda 105mm ulh 1ton they showed on a hummer.
soft recoil and digital fcs. Should be slingable under mi17v.

but 155mm purists will say 105 is totally useless.

i had raised some issue with shells...vast amt of shells needed in mountain
war due to lower hit probability.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 28 Jun 2014 10:35

Singha wrote: i had raised some issue with shells...vast amt of shells needed in mountain
war due to lower hit probability.

The point is to use a big state of the art gun with computer fire control system where the enemy can't. Combined with the best CEP available, that should actually reduce the amount of ammo needed to vastly tilt the balance in our favor. If you have the capability, its a no brainer. Why the army chose a ULH like the M777 for the mountain strike corps or even the Chinook for that matter is something we can only speculate on. The fact that a strike corps is designed to MOVE QUICKLY and ATTACK, not hunker down and defend, should give some clues.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Jun 2014 10:41

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jun 2014 15:24

some were claiming the M777 being about the only heli portable 155mm piece out there would enable us to occupy afghani style firebases atop hills and dominate areas where the enemy could only field 105mm and lesser. but that runs up on the shell resuppy issue and lack of tactical mobility if the firebase is plastered with a heavy MLRS of 300mm caliber by the chinese. due to slopes a near miss by 5m in mountains could land 100m below on the slope harmlessly, in the plains it would still be a lethal shot.

if at all the M777 is meant for mobile strike role, there is no need for M777 and instead the ones mounted on trucks(whichever is selected) and the towed pieces like Dhanush will do as they all have x-country mobility. the bofors were dragged all the way to kargil on Nh1 with some difficulty and the manali-leh road which passes the potential area of strike corps ops in south ladakh offers plenty of open spaces to build up artillery units. south ladakh and north sikkim are pretty flat and dry. not much different from Iraq where the M198 SP and the vanilla M198 towed piece was used.

titanium would surely increase the cost and we not being rich in titanium would need to import the materials even if we installed the machinery to melt and machine it.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 28 Jun 2014 15:32

its light cause uses titanium , so is easily flown around , same can be done on any and made them easily made heli portable

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 28 Jun 2014 16:58

Singha wrote:some were claiming the M777 being about the only heli portable 155mm piece out there would enable us to occupy afghani style firebases atop hills and dominate areas where the enemy could only field 105mm and lesser. but that runs up on the shell resuppy issue and lack of tactical mobility if the firebase is plastered with a heavy MLRS of 300mm caliber by the chinese. due to slopes a near miss by 5m in mountains could land 100m below on the slope harmlessly, in the plains it would still be a lethal shot.

Singha - in the original debate on the usefulness of this gun with Chinook, it was surmised by couple of posters including me that this combination will simply not work in our case. The east-west Himalayan ridge is very high and Chinook cannot transport the gun across it into Tibet. To me, the only benefit of Chinook+M777 combo was in the ability of the helicopter to move the gun laterally between sectors. But given the very limited number of Chinooks being ordered, this does not seem a viable proposition.

Secondly, such static positions like fire-bases in Afghanistan or famous scenes from Vietnam are simply out of question - One, for the reason stated by you - fir bases are OK when you're fighting Taliban or Vietcong. They're a strict no-no in conventional war where the guns will perforce need alternate firing positions to cater to counter-battery fire. Second - Those guns will need to be moved around to cater to advance, or retreat of own forces and in accordance with development of situation on ground.

If at all the M777 is meant for mobile strike role, there is no need for M777 and instead the ones mounted on trucks(whichever is selected) and the towed pieces like Dhanush will do as they all have x-country mobility. the bofors were dragged all the way to kargil on Nh1 with some difficulty and the manali-leh road which passes the potential area of strike corps ops in south ladakh offers plenty of open spaces to build up artillery units. south ladakh and north sikkim are pretty flat and dry. not much different from Iraq where the M198 SP and the vanilla M198 towed piece was used.

Above is a valid point - we need to consider the reason M777 was made light in the first place. It was to assist the expeditionary nature of American forces and their world-wide commitment + the belief that US Army does not need the heavier guns (towed or SP) to deal with nature of threats which US is likely to face in 21st century. The deployment happens through air-lift and a light gun of 155/39 caliber fits perfectly in the overall matrix.

In our case, there is simply no gun in 155mm class light-enough to allow movement by helicopters in altitudes we fight in. Neither M777 or Singapore Technologies Pegasus gun. These guns don't offer any advantage for us for the weight saving they bring to table. Indians will have to come up with their solution for such a requirement.

If we can push Bofors around, we can surely push Dhanush or its more advanced variants around. If we move M777 or Pegasus in same manner than their USP of lower weight does not confer any advantage to us.

In the meanwhile, if there is a war-doctrine which calls for Indian troops to move into Tibet using rotary assets, then we can have a modern and truly light 105mm gun which uses current technology. Such a gun can be moved by Mi-17 which we have in respectable numbers. Let the Divisions have 1 x 105mm modern gun for limited movement by helicopter assets - the rest can be the true-blue heavies.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jun 2014 18:54

and BAE would not be transferring any design or manufacturing tech on this. no titanium tech also for sure.
I suppose we could still take apart one to nut and bolt level to study it, but thats about it.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 28 Jun 2014 20:02

There's a vey good reason we want ULHs and that too only 145 of them, not 1,500 or 2,000. And no, price is likely not one of the reasons so I'm certain we will still get them. BTW, a strike corps is also an exclusively expeditionary force by definition. In our context, a mountain strike corps has to operate in a unique environment not encountered anywhere else in the world. Of course a light 105 will do a good job but the question remains why do we want a 155 and I'm not willing to double guess the army on whether we need it at all. We will find out soon enough I guess. The new regime is BR-jingo certified and they mean to do the right thing quickly, not sit on their duffs.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 28 Jun 2014 20:17

Singha wrote: I suppose we could still take apart one to nut and bolt level to study it, but thats about it.

Per unkil, he is willing to co-develop such weapos with us. I'm sure that means from ground up, including tech. IMO, they are quite familiar with our existing capability and have seen through the farce of "tech transfer". Ie.how do you teach someone calculus if he doesn't know arithmetic, algebra or geometry. Still, it would be worth it to buy the gun off the shelf and hand it directly to the Kalyanis, Tatas, L&Ts with the mandate of coming up with a workable gun, singly or jointly, minimum profit, dev costs and good karma assured for future.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 28 Jun 2014 21:07

In the meanwhile, if there is a war-doctrine which calls for Indian troops to move into Tibet using rotary assets, then we can have a modern and truly light 105mm gun which uses current technology. Such a gun can be moved by Mi-17 which we have in respectable numbers. Let the Divisions have 1 x 105mm modern gun for limited movement by helicopter assets - the rest can be the true-blue heavies.

rohitvats ji: Tibet is 4 kms +. The Mi-17's not going to carry any guns there underslung. Break the gun in parts and try para drop, may work. Otherwise use the Hercules. Not sure why they wanted the light guns or what was the definite strategy behind it.

One major consideration for Tibet ops would be that after crossing the hills on the border it is a lot of flat ground in Tibet. So, once in Tibet, moving the guns wont be that big an issue whatever the weight. I wonder if Tibet was in the plans. Why the light guns? It would be an important piece of information to further discuss alternatives.

vic · Post by **vic** » 29 Jun 2014 09:39

Para drop has its own problems. The better way would be break down 105mm Howitzer and then lift the parts by Mi-17. IIRC heaviest part is less than 1 ton. Incidentally, I repeat another effective way is to use Prahaar (deployed well within our borders, near arterial roads) to give forward support. The SF and Ghataks can even make deep strikes behind enemy lines in the footprint of Prahaar due to its 200km range. For the cost of one C-17 we can fire 3000 Prahaar rounds equivalent to firing around 50,000 rounds of 155 mm artillery nominally or firing 500,000 rounds in effectiveness.

I think that Army has to come out of conventional wisdom based on set pieces moves and rely more on SF & Ghataks coupled with Prahaar, UCAVs, HTT-40 and LCA (modified for CAS role).

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 02 Jul 2014 06:18

The Dhanush summer trials must be over by now. Any chaiwalla news about how they went?

vic · Post by **vic** » 02 Jul 2014 08:32

Am sure the import lobby pimps are lubricating DDM for raft of anti-Dhanush reports.

dinesh_kimar · Post by **dinesh_kimar** » 07 Jul 2014 12:19

From Saurav Jha on Twitter:

The mountain strike corps will field 105 mm guns to begin with for which a MI-17 harness has gone into production.

>It is called "Apparatus Air Lift" by OFB

>The 105 mm with a modified shell can now reach 20 km.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 155525.cms

Similar harness as seen in the West:

http://imgur.com/kEb9KUh

http://imgur.com/4S5eQet

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Jul 2014 13:13

deejay wrote: rohitvats ji: Tibet is 4 kms +. The Mi-17's not going to carry any guns there underslung. Break the gun in parts and try para drop, may work. Otherwise use the Hercules. Not sure why they wanted the light guns or what was the definite strategy behind it.

Well, as per this link: http://www.army-technology.com/projects ... elicopter/ Mi-17 can carry 4,000 kg of under slung load which I'm assuming will be at optimal conditions. And here is a link to a wonderful altitude versus payload chart for Mi-17 and Chinook made by our resident Aerospace engineer - Vivek_Ahuja: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6639&start=1000

Using these two data points, I think a Mi-17 can carry a modern ultra-light 105mm gun - which one hopes is lighter than 2,100 Kg Light Field Gun (LFG). This is especially true for the eastern Ladakh Sector. In North-East along the AP border, the challenge would be to haul something across the Himalayan ridge line into Tibet. For any such movement to be successful, ingress routes will have to be identified and mapped in advance. I'm assuming movement within Indian airspace south of ridge line would be comparatively easier. The real benefit would be the ability to move guns laterally amongst sectors.

Para-dropping guns inside Tibet sounds plausible but that assumes we've already won ground and some bit of depth in the area.

One major consideration for Tibet ops would be that after crossing the hills on the border it is a lot of flat ground in Tibet. So, once in Tibet, moving the guns wont be that big an issue whatever the weight. I wonder if Tibet was in the plans. Why the light guns? It would be an important piece of information to further discuss alternatives.

In eastern Ladakh, we've plan to station a independent armored brigade equipped with latest T-90 tanks and BMP-2 ICV. So, it goes without saying that artillery can move on its power into Tibet. Heli-lift might be used for tactical reasons.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 07 Jul 2014 15:16

^^^ Yes Sir. I have seen the charts. Unfortunately, there were issues when tried. Not going in detail but underslinging means some time at OGE hover or very slow speed. There were problems in high altitude OGE hover. I know for sure with the Mi 17-1V's, not so sure of the latest version. I am working my memory to remember more details. There were other issues too but not because of engine power or charts.

It was tried to underslung a bulldozer across some passes (High passes) , with the dozer broken up in parts. Later, I don't have the details, the big boys came (Mi 26), ate the whole load at one go and flew away.

Mi 17 free air hover IIRC is below 2 kms (1850 mtrs?) and I don't remember the OGE hover thing. The Mi 17 often proves that her charts are conservative. She can and she does exceed her charts very often. As I had said before, it will be better to pack the load inside, instead of underslung with a Mi 17 for high altitudes. The Mi 17 does fly to DBO, but all internal load (AFAIK).

The 'Old and Bold' pilots of Mi-4's and Mi-8's told us funny stories about what they did. Maybe, it can be hacked. But in the trials, there were problems.

BTW, the Mi 17's have been regularly used for underslung dozer roles in the North East for road building. I can personally guarantee the heights up to 2.5 kms. (Moi favourite machine

)

In Arunachal, except for Tawang sector crossing in to China will be at or around 2.5 Kms (flying in the valley) at most places and some places even lower. Infact, Kibithoo or Kibitoo (Walong valley) is approx 1.5 kms and the valley opens northwards to the Chinese Rima post which is LOS. (OT:Me went on trek there, me full of stupidity, me sneak in to the Chinese side, write rubbish gaalis to Chini bhais with chalk on a rock and me run back)

So, yup, MI 17s can be used both internal load landings and para drops. I think one can do it for an early insertion too. Para drops from helos are from 120 mtrs AGL (range 100 mtrs to 140 mtrs) and not higher. So while some helos may para drop, others may land and deplane the troops or other combinations as the situation requires. I am not sure what the IA will prefer or plan. In Arunachal for some distance even underslung will work.

I most places IA will use helos like MI 17s for air logistics support (quicker by air than road) and of course SHBO.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Jul 2014 16:35

^^^I will defer to your professional knowledge on the subject.

Your data points make it still more obvious that there is no chopper which is going to fly a ULW gun in 155/39 class into Tibet any time soon. Also, while the area immediately opposite LAC in Tibet might well be at relatively lower altitude, the Tibetan plateau proper is much higher. The north-south valleys flowing into India terminate on Himalayan ridge line and not provide a passage into Tibet. The ridge line is uniformly above 15,000 feet and rises up to 17,000-18,000 feet.

That is why I had once commented that MSC with helicopter assets itself does not seem to aiming to go much distance across LAC. However, no such constraints in eastern Ladakh - both of us are sitting at same level.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 07 Jul 2014 21:04

My points are more on memory and I do not have hard data or alternative sources to verify what I say. If you look at the graph Vivek Ahuja sir, has provided, Mi 17 V-5 barely goes IGE at 05 Kms altitude (IGE: In Ground Effect), his graph does not mention OGE performance (OGE: Out of Ground Effect). While I hope the new Mi -17s can pull it off but unlikely from what I have heard or when I see the graph because OGE performance drop off sharply with altitude. (BTW I spent a lot of time reading that discussion hence the delay in reply)

I don't know about the Chinooks, but probably they could when they come. The Mi - 26 certainly can take a ULW gun but how many will be available?

Also, Dhruv is good at high altitude and don't know exactly how much it will haul at ~04 kms underslung.

For Helicopters, hover is a limitation (especially OGE) because of higher power requirements.

My understanding is helicopters, will not go very far ahead of the front lines. They will insert troops to capture some assets and hold for the main advance to catch up quickly. Only in special ops will they move deep inside (~100 -200 kms depending on range - fuel / load combination).

You are correct on the altitudes and the Tibetan plateau. One has to cross the ridge line to get on the plateau.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 Jul 2014 21:10

Victor wrote:Per unkil, he is willing to co-develop such weapos with us. I'm sure that means from ground up, including tech.

Wokay..
http://camarilla.owbn.net/images/1/11/F ... 3hpqri.jpg

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 07 Jul 2014 21:18

Karan M wrote:
Victor wrote:Per unkil, he is willing to co-develop such weapos with us. I'm sure that means from ground up, including tech.
Wokay..
http://camarilla.owbn.net/images/1/11/F ... 3hpqri.jpg

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 07 Jul 2014 21:31

Karan M wrote:
Victor wrote:Per unkil, he is willing to co-develop such weapos with us. I'm sure that means from ground up, including tech.
Wokay..
http://camarilla.owbn.net/images/1/11/F ... 3hpqri.jpg

I think the US has realized how lucrative these JV projects with India can be without actually giving anything away and are joining in with the Russians and French on the scam. Recall how after initially denying ToT on the Javelin they offered 'joint development' of the next generation ATGM after of course buying 1000's of Javelins off the shelf.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jul 2014 21:36

Unkil is not even willing to co-develop anything with its three closest industrial allies germany, japan and UK.
name one major fielded weapon system that was co-developed by Unkil in concert with a close nato ally?
I cannot think of even one. not even a rifle or pistol.

we are talking of a major weapon system here with 1000s of precision parts , ballistics and metallurgy.

if bharat forge has indeed obtained the entire production machinery and technology of the GHN45 no doubt they can hire some of the original people as well from austria to lead and train the local team if they are given a share of the towed gun thing.
all eggs need not be put on Dhanush basket and OFB handed all the meat for free.

it appears to be a less TFTA design than fh77 but who cares, its going to be cheaper for sure with less parts and will kill everyone flat just the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kt2U1jpWvOM

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 07 Jul 2014 21:41

Unkil is not even willing to co-develop anything with its three closest industrial allies germany, japan and UK

Depends upon what you call co-development. The JSF involves around 25% of work to the UK, and the UK companies have been a part of the design phase of the competition winning design (RR, BAE). MEADS is a truly multi-national product both in terms of collaboration as well as offloading major components to partner industries.

http://meads-amd.com

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 07 Jul 2014 22:21

Well, I guess being cynical is one way to bury one's head in the sand. Maybe we should not have chosen American engines for the Jaguar and LCA2 or get the C-130 and C-17. (Oh, I forgot...the IAF brass is corrupt and stupid

)

U.S. eyes co-development of anti-tank missile with India

"Rather than simply buying this generation of Javelin, India would be able to ... also co-develop and co-produce the next generation of Javelin for international buyers," Carter said. "That's an entirely new proposal intended to reflect the DTI, and it's being offered to no other country but India."

Even if we ended up with slightly better screwdrivers, it would be worth it and a massive improvement over what we have now.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 07 Jul 2014 22:41

abhik wrote: I think the US has realized how lucrative these JV projects with India can be without actually giving anything away and are joining in with the Russians and French on the scam.

Sorry to know that India had zero input on our only JV project with the Russians--Brahmos. On the larger issue, we are plain nuts to believe that anyone will give us their hard-won tech for fokat. If the yanks enter into a JV with India, it will be to get something from us in return and its up to us to decide what we can afford to give. Self-confidence is lacking in our setup though, what to do.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jul 2014 22:44

name one major fielded weapon system that was co-developed by Unkil in concert with a close nato ally?

The US may not co-develop, but does buy technologies from companies from other nations. The US tends to mix-match technologies to enhance what we have.

Unkil is not even willing to co-develop anything with its three closest industrial allies germany, japan and UK.

Two items of interest:

1) First an observation based on my web travels.

There seem to be two categories of MICs: those that are funded because of national "needs" - with a go-to-market view and those that are funded to retain their expertise -without a real need in sight.

IMHO, the US and India (China) belong to teh prior, while France, Russia, Italy, Germany, Spain, UK, etc belong to the latter.

2) This makes India and US a more natural partner. The huge problem between the two nations is trust or a total lack of it. Something neither has been able to bridge even in the best of times. However, their Services are close, MICs distrust each other and politically there is a wide gap that needs to be narrowed.

My view is that they will get it done. I love what France has to offer, but they need a financier. Russia is the most willing, but does not have the ware that India seeks (IMHO of course). The Indio-US, IMVVVHO, will have to work their way through - and I think it will happen, very, very slooooooowly. And, it will be "needs" that will push the projects through.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Jul 2014 07:44

imo your cat1 has two splits cat1.1 and cat1.2

cat1.1 - US and China - willing to fund heavily and do whatever it takes to retain/build domestic product all over the wideband
cat1.2 - India - neither the money or the political will to fund and back domestic efforts heavily. over reliant on purchases and licenses for critical volume items. a lightweight whose MIC punches way below its civilian economic weight. easily controlled and manipulated by arms dealers.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Jul 2014 07:46

JVs can be useful between near equals like UK-US or US-Germany or US-Japan.

else its just one side doing some of the manufacturing and the other doing manufacturing and all of the design and testing.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Jul 2014 08:20

Equals.

.................... economic.

.................... Strategic. Plain simple needs. Political.

There is an underflow within the supply-chain community, a common ground between the two - for sure. Now, too early to say if it will translate into anything, anywhere else among the MIC communities. But, looking forward to the Sept trip of Modi ji to the US. May be we can pick up a data point or two. And, if there is any wind in that sail, then this time around we can be more certain.

Also, my feel is that India has made decent progress in certain areas to claim a lot more than say 10 years ago. Now, how much can India claim could be a topic of discussion.

Another pointer IMHO will be the FGFA. What comes out of it or even perhaps what does not come out of it, should provide the (for lack of a better word) "clout" India is able to wield.

?????

I am more hopeful. Ache din aa gaye hai.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 08 Jul 2014 09:34

NRao ji, the Indian allignment with US or Russia or France or China or 'Go Alone' for strategic reasons is another discussion, each perspective having major pros and cons.

IMHO, our multi country approach in buying weapons from Russia, Israel, France, US, etc is an indication of our ambivalence in this regard. Hopefully, the new dispensation will take a definitive direction.

The Indian JV's in defence are a result of our present inability to develop at the cutting edge, systems that we want (again IMVHO). It may be because we are in a rush to develop the required system. The assessment might have been - We can go alone but to play catch - up we will take very long. Hence, the JV. Should we JV with US?

Conditional yes. Missiles are a particular breed of weapons platform where we have achieved considerable milestones. We have experience of a JV in this field on a different kind of missile with the Russians. A JV with US on newer version of a pre existing missile - Javeline implies that we will be junior partner here. Yet our learning can be huge including but not limited to better practices or alternative phillosophies of the US. A Bramhos kind of separate entity approach sounds attractive. We were already planning to buy similar systems and make investment in those.

All this only 'If' it does not hamper our own programmes in any way - Budgets, resources, roll backs etc and no US mechanism in denying Indian ownership, manufacture and further use of technology used (I mean IPRs).

dinesh_kimar · Post by **dinesh_kimar** » 11 Jul 2014 18:56

In the Video Dr. Chander talks about the Advanced Artillery Gun.

(He says) 158 units are to be built for the IA, and will have better features than current imports , for which production lines have to be re-started.

Features: All electric drive, high salvo rate, better shock absorbing capability and higher mobility.

So, is DRDO building a light weight 155 mm gun ?

Also, Pinaka Mk 3 MLRS will be comparable to Smerch in range (it is an unguided dumb rocket, no trajectory correction, WLR integration and other features like Pinaka, the only thing going for it is awesome firepower and range of 70 - 90 km.)

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 12 Jul 2014 01:12

What made you think that it will be light ?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Jul 2014 02:47

the Indian allignment with US or Russia or France or China or 'Go Alone' for strategic reasons is another discussion, each perspective having major pros and cons.

Again depends on what one means by "alignment".

Technology wise (as opposed to political or strategic) a nation/entity/service can pick and choose. The idea is to collectively build a framework (makes it cheaper that a way) and then participants go their own way, to each fulfill of their own requirements. This is happening - nothing new.

India, IMHO, is in a far better situation today - due to her power in software and gathering maturity in other areas (IMHO). Look for "India" to demand more (rightly so) (and not as a power play, but as an (near?) equal).

Two areas where I expect India to be lagging: design and testing. R&D is not a topic to include in this discussion - no one is going to share that.