Artillery: News & Discussion

Locked
SanjayC
BRFite
Posts: 1557
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by SanjayC »

rohitvats wrote:Name calling and cussing is not exactly airing 'contrary views'.


Calling Generals who blindly go for imports as "Import Generals" is not exactly "name calling" and "cussing" and "potty mouth." You are exaggerating to hide your own attitude problem. This was not the first time you have hounded posters critical of army's import fetish. Respect has to be earned, not dictated by command. For example, I have not seen any poster badmouth Navy for its import fetish. Navy gets proper respect, without anyone's prodding, for its role in indigenizing navy armaments.

Don't want to continue this discussion further. Feel free to breathe down people's neck. Most of good posters have already fled this board. Threads move slow because of lack of posters. Returning after 12 hours, I can only see two or three new posts in each thread. You make sure the rest aren't around for long either.
Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Victor »

SanjayC wrote:
rohitvats wrote:Name calling and cussing is not exactly airing 'contrary views'.


Calling Generals who blindly go for imports ...
AFAIK, nobody has ever substantiated this yet and it is at best a wild, unfounded and extremely prejudiced accusation. What we do know is that there are no guns--repeat: NO GUNS--available from non-import sources (read: desi) till date. Yes, there are PROJECTS that are in various stages of development and testing but no arty systems that can be put on the field TODAY. Besides, you forget that the generals by themselves can do diddly squat. They need the far heavier (and much less transparent and accountable) clout of the MoD babus to get anything done. Considering that it is the army guys who stand to actually get killed because of the lack of guns, I would bend waaaaay over to their side in any argument. So I would be careful in pointing only to the generals because they are small potatoes in the scheme of things.
Last edited by Victor on 26 Jul 2014 22:24, edited 1 time in total.
member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by member_23694 »

Navy gets proper respect, without anyone's prodding, for its role in indigenizing navy armaments.
Just on facts :
- Navy did not wait for N-LCA and went for imported Mig 29 K since it was required now. Will go for N-LCA when available .
- Navy uses imported gas turbine engines for its new ships.
- Radars are imported
- Air defense system on ships are imported [ was there corruption concerns raised then ?]
- Helos on ships are planned to be imported

Yes Navy has a better track record for indigenous development [design, hull, steel, some sensors]. But at the same time navy is pragmatic and goes for import substitute as the need arises and without any hesitation and without anyone raising any concern.
if we skip the ATV which is a strategic program and had Russian help , Navy still has to import submarines and right now planning to send two kilo class subs to Russia for upgrades
Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Victor »

Regarding navy, I would suspect that the greater level of indigenization is more due to the lower level of technology needed than intent. As noted above, the navy still imports its guns and aircraft because they need a level of tech that simply hasn't been mastered enough in-house yet. It's not apples and oranges to equate navy, army and air force in this manner.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by John »

dhiraj wrote:- Navy did not wait for N-LCA and went for imported Mig 29 K since it was required now. Will go for N-LCA when available .
- Navy uses imported gas turbine engines for its new ships.
- Radars are imported
- Air defense system on ships are imported [ was there corruption concerns raised then ?]
- Helos on ships are planned to be imported
- Given the snail pace of Naval LCA program it was right decision.
- Indigenous GT are unlikely considering there are only 3 manufacturers that build them even china imports their GTs from Ukraine.
- Actually most radars are built indigenously under license few exception being Fregat and El/M radars.
- That will change once Barak-8 and QRSAM come into picture.
- Unless we have 10 Ton helo design we can leverage building a local variant is unlikely.
Last edited by John on 27 Jul 2014 00:00, edited 1 time in total.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by rohitvats »

Moderator Hat-On: Let us stick to the topic. There has been enough derailment already. Please take your views on other topics to more relevant thread. Thanks.
member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by member_26622 »

@ Victor - Like the 'low tech' joke, signs of desperation growing as foreign deal making is not happening at required pace huh?

Navy is miles ahead of Army and light years ahead of Imported air force in terms of 'sustained' war fighting capability.

Navy does not import platforms but sub-systems - Level 1 design and build is done in India at least
Army imports Tanks - and even their shells, even looking for importing basic rifles now.
Air Force imports everything except underwear (euphemistically but not far from reality)

The real reason Navy has made decent progress (until the Scorpene saga) is a combination of 'Fight to Win' attitude and smaller 'Budget' per km of coverage. They just have a large coastline for the budget to defend. Army has the largest budget but spends it all looking at western front - shortsightedness or plain old 'St***d' after the 1962 debacle. Imported air force - thoroughly spoilt but they did not take on the Chinese air force to get a grounding. All in all, Army should have leading the way instead of Navy showing the light.

Kargil exposed Indian army's farce when we had to go begging for support within a week of a 'localized' conflict. Situation likely worse today as we have to even import tank shells > Russians are having a royal screwfest in India.

Air Force - less said the better but expect them to fold or start doing Jugaad within a couple of days in to a sizable conflict.

The real problem is giving 40 billion (sixth and soon third largest spender) and been paki centric. That is akin to spoiling your kids n times over.

Shift the goal to taking on china with same budget and then we are making them work hard. They will go for value for money but need to do a purge first
member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by member_26622 »

Just saw the order from mods - prior post happened in parallel. Back to topic!
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by abhik »

rohitvats wrote:
Towed Howitzers : 1580 155mm/52 calibre. 400 off the shelf and 1180 manufactured in india with licence. competitors Nexter/L&T Trajan (towed version of the Caesar gun with L&T providing the lower portion ) and Soltam/Bharat Forge Athos 2052 ( bharat forge a mere integrator). trials complete
With Dhanush in pipeline and DRDO working on an Advanced Towed Artillery Gun System, these trials don't make sense. Unless, MOD and DRDO know something we don't.
More likely the process started long before Dhanush cleared the trials and its in auto-pilot since. Hopefully it doesn't take a life of its own like the MRCA.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Karan M »

Comparing the Navy to the IAF/IA is mistaken, because the fact is the IN is far ahead of the two services in terms of indigenization because they have a focus on it from the brass itself & by now its institutionalized. In other words, its not a simple- trial/buy- get TOT & let PSUs do it business.

First, the Navy actually designs its own ships along with the shipyards. They have their own internal design team set up which trains & absorbs the latest practices & works with designers abroad and in the state shipyards to make sure platform designs are upto spec. Several of our latest ships have the direct hands on input of the Navy & the Navy is proud to include them in service. The IA has been busy rejecting the EME input derived Arjun one way or the other & even the INSAS. They care little for the overall input of their own folks which goes into the programs, because they are not involved end to end, which is what the Navy does.

Second, the Navy ensures its weapons designs & configurations are roadmapped across the board through specialist groups like the WEESE which make the requirements for & assist in integration of complex sensors & fitments onto platforms. Today the vast bulk of complex C3I systems are are made locally for the Navy, as are sonars (the Navy is supporting even towed array sonar programs despite their multiple delays and challenges and delayed imports till it became clear the program could not deliver & even now supports the program - and you don't see any of the attacks that one saw for the Arjun etc!). The Navy gives a chance for a local program wherever possible - without rancour - seeing the future, not the present. The NLCA is a perfect example as is the Revathi radar on the newly launched ASW ships.

Third, the Navy has an institutionalized program management structure that deputes program managers for multiple programs - local & foreign assisted/built to make sure naval interests are met & also to provide crucial input without delays. Naval PM teams manage warship building, sensor programs to many others. Its no coincidence that a decade before the IA ever got the Samyukta, there were ships already with Naval EW fits.

Fourth, the Navy on its own seeks out & pushes for indigenous programs, no matter how challenging, whether at public or private facilities & even encourages new capability build up. It pushed Walchandnagar industries to get into precision manufacturing from being an oil producer. Today it makes gears for naval ships to the Arihant.

Fifth, the Navy imports when there is no local alternative available, even if it is unhappy with the current state of affairs. It will take a MK1 and have it moved to a MK2 or a MK3, but it will persevere. It is this approach which truly marks it as unique. It was the Navy which pushed for a Naval ALH even though it was not really ideal for its needs. The Navy which asked for a Naval version of the LCA. The Navy which let PSUs work on towed sonars etc even though they were nowhere near the original requirements. In each of these, the Navy spent its own money, sent its people, and refused to mock/attack the respective programs. Even its criticism has been measured "yes, delays are harmful etc", not the sort of pointless commentary we have seen elsewhere.

In short, way back, the Navy decided it would be a builders Navy & it is working towards that. There is hardly a single program where the Navy does sees a local option and does not go for it.

If the IA/IAF need to be likewise, they have to decide, mandate wise, that their vision is to be builders Army and a builders AF - so to speak. Then things will change. Right now, they have chosen the path of being "demanding customers". That is a crucial difference, because their programs are ad hoc & run individually, not by a sort of mandate at AHQ etc of going local primarily and driving that.
member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by member_22539 »

^Brilliant post as usual. The apologists need to cool down. Truth really does sting when you are in the wrong and standing up for injustice will put you in the way of criticism. One cannot be both judge and lawyer at the same time. It is time to pick one or the other.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by rohitvats »

Arun Menon wrote:^Brilliant post as usual. The apologists need to cool down. Truth really does sting when you are in the wrong and standing up for injustice will put you in the way of criticism. One cannot be both judge and lawyer at the same time. It is time to pick one or the other.
And you need to pipe down and stop passing these gratuitous comments.

Don't conflate fact based post(s) by someone like Karan with nonsense that gets peddled here in garb of supporting indigenous defense industry. Do you see the contrast in language between someone who actually knows something and empty vessels who simply rant and rave? If these posters made an effort to reach 10% of the factual content of Karan's post, this forum would be that much more richer in content.

Till that happens, potty mouth behavior wil be called out. And censured.

So, raise your game and put togethet coherent posts based on some research. And indulge in as much criticism as you want.
geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by geeth »

I don't know about Airforce, but the state of affairs in the Army is their own making. I would even go ahead and say Some of the decisions that Army takes is suspect and may have involved corrupt practices. Arjun is a case study by itself. And the MES, the less said the better. I deal with them on a day to day basis. So, if the public in this forum feels suspicious about some of the Army's decisions, then blame the Army - it is their own making.

If they wanted, Army could have involved themselves much more in indigenous programmes than what is seen or published. They seem to have an attitudinal problem with Indigenous products.
Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Victor »

Curious:has the army ever wanted to take over OFB/CVRDE out of frustration like IAF wanted to take over HAL? If the navy has been so good at "indigenization", wonder why the MoD didnt allow the same to happen in aircraft and guns. The IAF started and ran its own aircraft factory in Kanpur making the Avro but MoD promptly took it over and gave it to HALsaying its not the IAF's job to make aircraft. We see the result-- mass off-the-shelf purchases of transport aircraft since. The army must be far more frustrated. While the OFB has not produced a usable gun yet, even imports have been blacklisted one after another with the net result-- no guns at all.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Karan M »

Question is simply whether a rtd person from IA can actually manage OFB, let alone CVRDE to make a disruptive change (design & development being even harder than running a built to print institution). The basic challenges remain as they are at the customer end (changing requirements, urgent issues) and the supplier (labor problems, redtape), and the authority for that particular leader will be the same as before. The Navy - lets be clear here - took over/sent senior rtd officers to manage the shipyards, because the shipyards were not performing optimally! The Navy - and this is where the difference lies, proactively stepped in & navigated the bureaucracy to get its own people in. But it has not been ideal. When the shipyard structure (labor unions, flawed contracts) is messed up, they can only do so much.

In the case of the IA, right the issues are that First, the IA officers would not have the requisite experience, and Second, the institutional problems remain. All we would be doing is parachuting in folks who can make relations better between customer & supplier, true - but the larger challenges remain. OFB will not become better until it is reformed from within.

Also, problem is the Army has been challenged by manufacturing in its own inhouse BRDs. They have been falling behind and have been unable to meet the same targets OFB fails on - production timeliness (can be matched to efficiency) and quality (IA BRD made items failed much earlier than required). The problem. The challenges they quote are almost word to word what OFB notes - old machinery, lack of skilled resources etc. Net, its not commitment that makes the difference (even while noting IA run shops will be more committed than an OFB one).

Ideally, manufacturing really needs to be in the hands of manufacturing dedicated orgs - L&T, TATA etc run with less bureaucracy. OFB & BRDs both share the bureaucracy issue. Any step out of the paperwork line gets the experts from CAG etc to give gyaan on "infructous expense" and torpedo the efforts in scandal.

Where the IA can step up is create a program management office that works within these orgs -

1. Create transparency - information flows quickly, accurately
2. Decisions taken quickly & with IA involvement
3. Create a pool of experienced personnel who don't have to retire and we lose out on their experience
4. IA "owns" the product

Running the entire place is beside the point. First, liberalize the place so that whosoever runs it runs it well. Second, have dedicated program management teams from IA

Finally, after this is done, create a second group which acts as an impartial test & qualification agency. This is aspirational. When you (one day) have hundreds of vendors, it helps to have a bunch of folks completely apart from the vendor-PSU-private/public debate who can evaluate equipment without being forced into decisions and are completely impartial.

This is the level of program management and infrastructure that exists in UK, Israel, France (three countries where I sought examples). Which is why a long way back we started buying from them but we have to start replicating it too. Otherwise its perennial reliance.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by rohitvats »

As per submission of Vice Chief of Army Staff in front of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defense (I think 2012), Army has constituted a GSQR Cell in AHQ which will be responsible for all GSQRs emanating from IA. It will be manned by a select group of officers and they'd be responsible for coordinating with all stakeholders.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Karan M »

Thats a good step, I hope they extend it to making a program management office/function within IA (put it within each group and have it manned/run by EME if necessary). I wish that one day every IA officer has some exposure to this function or even advances in it.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Pratyush »

rohitvats wrote:As per submission of Vice Chief of Army Staff in front of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defense (I think 2012), Army has constituted a GSQR Cell in AHQ which will be responsible for all GSQRs emanating from IA. It will be manned by a select group of officers and they'd be responsible for coordinating with all stakeholders.
This is a welcome initiative from the IA. If taken to the logical conclusion. It will go a long way in reducing import dependency, when coupled with the reforms in the MOD procurement system. Along with a clearly articulated vision of the Indian military, by the civilian command authority.
dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 527
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by dinesh_kimar »

Kalyani Systems have shown 3 types of gun on their site

http://www.kalyanigroup.com/ArtillerySystems.asp

Also, they have supplied more than 2 million rounds of artillery to OFB and DRDO.

I think Karan M and other jingos will like their site, which shows items supplied for LCA Kaveri Engine, Naval Docks, etc.
member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by member_26622 »

^^^^

Just did a wiki comparison on Paki and Chinese artillery nos with ours.

On Paki front - it's like going to a party with only pants on.
On Chinese front - it's like going to a party with only socks on.

Seriously outgunned in numerical strength. What is stopping us from ordering 1000 units of Dhanush and Kalyani guns. The urgency seems to be missing altogether.

If the army is not game then let BSF have them. We need to pound the Paki rats back in to their holes anyways.

A 155 mm gun every KM - firing every time they try to infiltrate is best message for Paki bozo generals.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by NRao »

All that built up confidence ........................ what do you do with that?

A gun every KM?
Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Victor »

C-130 Spectre uses what looks like a soft-recoil 105mm howitzer like the Kalyani Garuda to pound and terrorize the Taliban while staying out of Anza manpad range. We could outfit a couple of aging Il-76s with digital fire control and all-weather targeting. Would be handy in preparation for the Taliban onslaught on Kashmir come spring of 2015.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by RoyG »

dinesh_kumar wrote:Kalyani Systems have shown 3 types of gun on their site

http://www.kalyanigroup.com/ArtillerySystems.asp

Also, they have supplied more than 2 million rounds of artillery to OFB and DRDO.

I think Karan M and other jingos will like their site, which shows items supplied for LCA Kaveri Engine, Naval Docks, etc.
:lol:
dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 527
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by dinesh_kimar »

The Indigenous 155MM Gun [ taken from Indian Defence Review]

As mentioned above, the Transfer of Technology of the Bofors was available with the OFB. However, the Bofors was not indigenised with the OFB blaming the army for not forwarding such a demand, which by itself does not stand to logic as numerous developments have been done in the past by the DRDO and OFB without prior reference to the armed forces. However, reportedly the technology was being utilised for the production of spare barrels, breech block and certain other critical parts of the gun. The technology was also utilised for production of ammunition. With a view to open an alternative avenue for procurement of the 155mm gun system, OFB has, in recent times, been given the opportunity to develop the gun indigenously in keeping with the long term aim of achieving self-reliance. The private sector is being extensively urged to source components and sub-systems for this. The initial trials had caused barrel bursts during firing but improved metallurgy should help get over the problem. In the long term, it should be possible to meet the 155mm gun requirements indigenously.


The above are the general points, and in the R&D Thread, i have posted some major points about manufacture of the Bofors barrel.
member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by member_26622 »

What matters is where the rubber meets the road. So desi alternatives are useless unless a bare minimum order for 1000 guns to be delivered within 5 years from both Kalyani and OFB is there ~ 2000 guns? Place an order subject to meeting clear specs and transfer risk on the supplier. These guys are not sitting in Swiss/Italian/UK 'mother'land to run away with the money anyways.

All this talk and no action is not surprising. Even dedicating 0.5% of Army budget on developing local sourced alternatives could have saved us from the predicament we are in today.

Start of sarcasm - Guess what they (MOD/Babus/Army - corrupt leadership) want are guns with barrels wrapped in $bills and firing swiss milk chocolate instead - End of sarcasm
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Karan M »

dinesh_kumar wrote:Kalyani Systems have shown 3 types of gun on their site

http://www.kalyanigroup.com/ArtillerySystems.asp

Also, they have supplied more than 2 million rounds of artillery to OFB and DRDO.

I think Karan M and other jingos will like their site, which shows items supplied for LCA Kaveri Engine, Naval Docks, etc.

Thanks, interesting stuff. Can you post a link to the 2 million rounds bit? I presume they supplied cast rounds to the OFB (unless DRDO was involved in some QA or design aspect?). Were these 155mm?
A Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 1206
Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by A Sharma »

Link

KSSL has avant-grade engineering & manufacturing facilities in the areas of conventional & special ammunition covering the entire gamut of applications, present & future. Till date, KSSL has supplied more than 2 million shells to ordnance factories, DRDO, etc in the range of 81 to 155mm covering all variants like HE, smoke, agencies. illuminating, incendiary, etc. The group has also successfully developed APFSDS ammunition of 105mm calibre. It has been the development partner to HEMRL, ARDE, RDI & BDL for development of shells, rockets & bombs and enjoys a long standing successful partnership with all these
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Karan M »

Thanks A Sharma - the FSAPDS info is very interesting (and good!!) - we need an alternate source to the OFB FSAPDS manufacturing & this is great. I hope DRDO uses them for 120mm and 125mm as well. It also says:
In addition to conventional ammunition, KSSL is actively pursuing development of special futuristic ammunition with its in-house R&D and technology support from its foreign partners. These include pre-fragmented air bombs, precision ammunition including electronic fuzes, HSLD bombs, complete propulsion systems for Pinaka rockets etc. The aim is to become a market leader in the latest technologies and be a complete system solution provider when it comes to ammunition of all kinds.


I think the IA & IAF will both be pretty happy with this development with a competitor to the OFB.
Ranjani Brow

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Ranjani Brow »

Image

:lol:
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by rohitvats »

Was this video posted before:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAz6afZrvd4

This video is from StratPost on the Arjun Catapult 130mm gun system. Gun explained by the DRDO scientist. Informative video.
vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by vaibhav.n »

Nexter Systems--Indian Arty Offerings


One of the key requirements for Towed guns that the IA is looking for is a capability of a sustained rate of fire of 75 Rounds/Hour. AFAIK, only the more expensive 25Litre Chamber variant of the FH 77B05 L52 Bofors did that successfully. However, he does talk about a sustained rate of fire of 40 Rounds in 30 Mins.

FWIW, Nexter has everything going for it to nail the MGS contract if it gets to that stage!!

Muscle bound Indian Partners (L&T and Ashok Leyland)
Proven Product and Munitions Lineup
Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2128
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Picklu »

^^ No sold to parent army ~ 80
No to Sell to IA ~800

I can understand sustained fire for a few minutes or even tens of minutes but sustained fire for an hour :eek:

A sustained rate of 75 rounds/hour is going to bankrupt IA way before paki's finish of their meagre ammunition stock!!!
member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by member_26622 »

Picklu wrote: A sustained rate of 75 rounds/hour is going to bankrupt IA way before paki's finish of their meagre ammunition stock!!!
:lol: Good one!

The cost of imported or even desi shells is far more than the 'best' paki trash it will be blowing up.
vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by vaibhav.n »

Picklu wrote:^^ No sold to parent army ~ 80
No to Sell to IA ~800

I can understand sustained fire for a few minutes or even tens of minutes but sustained fire for an hour :eek:

A sustained rate of 75 rounds/hour is going to bankrupt IA way before paki's finish of their meagre ammunition stock!!!
Dear Picklu,

It is a capability that the Indian Army would like to have in its 155mm guns. This sort of firepower will be most effectively be used by our Arty Div's constituent Brigades in order to support their respective Strike Corps. It also allows vanilla formations to bridge any arising Air Support gaps. While the ideal situation is to maximise time for Artillery guns available in support, it is not possible in the ideal world with them relocating to alternate Gun Positions etc.

It would be naive to think that your entire 155mm equipped Regiments would be providing fires 24 hours a day. Every piece of equipment has its limitations. It is a common capability which is envisioned to be used in specific phases in battle.

Added Later:

While the 1999 Kargil Conflict was localized, the Indian Army quickly concentrated artillery units. It provides us some key points on how future Artillery assaults can employ all available firepower resources to decimate the enemy.
The Indian Artillery fired over 250,000 shells, bombs and rockets during the Kargil conflict. Approximately, 5,000 ordnance were fired daily from more then 300 guns, mortars and multi-barreled rocket launchers (MBRLs). During the peak period of assaults, on an average, each Artillery battery fired over one round per minute for 17 days continuously. Once again, over one hundred guns delivered murderous fire assaults and over 1,200 rounds of high explosive shell rained down on Tiger Hill in five minutes, causing large-scale death and devastation. Artillery OP's were established on dominating heights on the flanks of the intrusions and sustained Artillery fire was brought down on the enemy continuously.

The entire artillery campaign, from planning at the inception stage, rapid induction and deployment, evolution of the 100-gun concept in the application of fire, meticulously coordinated fire plans, skilful ammunition management and sustained effort over a period of two months, was efficiently conducted.
Source: http://sainiksamachar.nic.in/englisharc ... -07/h8.htm
Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2128
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Picklu »

Vaibhavji,

I have no problem with the IA's wish on the capability pre se however it should not be used to thwart desi guns in favour of imported beauties. How many guns available in the world market in the last decade has this kind of capability? Is the GSQR again being designed to support entry of favourable ones via back door ala pegasus?

My opinion on this is very simple. We go with the desi 155mm gun, period. If that can fire 20 round/min instead of 75 of the imported ones, so be it. We have survived(actually dominated) with number far below in the last two decade.

The 75 round/min should be given to DRDO as something good to achieve eventually as mk3 or 4 down the line with mk1 being in line what our current Bofors achieves which I believe(would like to be corrected) is something like 12 rounds/min.
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by abhik »

Picklu wrote:^^ No sold to parent army ~ 80
No to Sell to IA ~800
And 25% ie 200 of those will get built in the home country. Winning the towed or mounted artillery contract will be like winning the lottery for these companies.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

>> capability of a sustained rate of fire of 75 Rounds/Hour

thats a pretty high firing rate. makes sense only if a couple guns are stuck in middle of nowhere and have to wage a lone contest.

but normally between 6-18 guns will be sited or atleast generally together and attempt to deliver MRSI fires on target to maximise the impact.

the kargil type constant shelling is extremely wasteful. if you consider the numbers the 250,000 shells/rockets we fired killed how many pakis - approximately a couple batallions around 1500 of the NLI and jihadis. no more than that could have been supplied and perched up in the hills. so most of these shells hit nothing useful or were used as covering fire to protect our approaching infantry. no Paki post was entirely wiped off the map even with 155mm going all out and every post had to be taken after a infantry fight it seems.

now if we had a couple blackjacks to drop some sunshine on the faithful using glonass guided FMOAB that would have vastly reduced our expenditure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJzASnmmxIM

ONE of these exploding atop tiger hill at night would have made rest of campers in other peaks SHIT in their pants, chant allahuakbar and hightail it back to skardu by fight light .... kind of nagasaki example.
Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2128
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Picklu »

^^ All we need to do is to develop a short and fat rocket large enough to lob the FMOAB max 50 km and then add a guidance package used by the ISRO moonlander to the warhead along with hardening measures already developed by DRDO.

Put it on a Tata 8x8 and a group of 3 will clear out any peak at extremely low cost.
Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2128
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Picklu »

There are a grand total of 220 FH77 in Swedish army. India has 410 and the original order was for 1600. Even in its truncated order of 410, India has more FH77 than all its variants put together in all other armies world over.

We continue our glorious saga of
a. making legends out of pedestrian spin blowers from outside desh
b. making billion dollar armament companies outside desh.
member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by member_26622 »

This whole rate of fire discussion seems like going backwards rather than ahead. Instead of sending one precision 'guided' shell/rocket/bomb to do the job, the talk is about firing 100's of shells. Unless I am mistaken, that was a key learning from Kargil. A UAV which can survive in hostile conditions and do targeting + recon job would be a great addition (reminds me how risky it will be fly a recon plane or LUH in today's cheap man portable SAM era)

@vaibhav.n - Imagining the convoy of trucks just to re-supply one gun - kind of makes it a risky proposition for a Strike force deployment. Nexter is a good solution for a first world country with shrinking labor supply (and risk appetite) + costs weighed more on manpower. India is the exact opposite - third world, plenty of labor and costs weighed more on equipment. Would look good rolling down Rajpath on Republic day, no doubt !

Any updates on Dhanush and Bharat forge orders - where is the 1000 gun order, to be delivered within 5 years to match up with Pakis ?
Locked