Artillery: News & Discussion

A Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 1141
Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby A Sharma » 31 Jul 2014 04:59

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: 17951
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 31 Jul 2014 09:15

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 [b]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

Postby Ranjani Brow » 01 Aug 2014 12:51

Image

:lol:

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7631
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 03 Aug 2014 21:39

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

Postby vaibhav.n » 03 Aug 2014 23:37

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
BRFite
Posts: 1929
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Picklu » 04 Aug 2014 22:33

^^ 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

Postby member_26622 » 05 Aug 2014 06:02

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

Postby vaibhav.n » 05 Aug 2014 09:39

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
BRFite
Posts: 1929
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Picklu » 07 Aug 2014 17:11

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: 2435
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 07 Aug 2014 18:01

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: 66605
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 07 Aug 2014 18:07

>> 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
BRFite
Posts: 1929
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Picklu » 07 Aug 2014 18:30

^^ 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
BRFite
Posts: 1929
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Picklu » 07 Aug 2014 18:40

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

Postby member_26622 » 07 Aug 2014 20:28

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 ?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66605
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 07 Aug 2014 20:35

We needed a big hale uav yesterday. No sign of rustom2 or sar gmti payloads.

prolly another billion will be flushed down toilet for eitam later

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 07 Aug 2014 20:49

75 rounds per hour !!!!

I have not come across any IDF or US arty officer who has told me such rate were used

The IDF arty guys who were in Lebanon - have never used such rate and they poured out truly enormous fire

so much so that all the lifting of arty shells has left them with damaged knees


Would be happy to see info from any modern conflict where such volumes were used for even a few hours

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_26622 » 07 Aug 2014 21:18

Like Truck mounted - ramp launched UAV over ones needing a runway for quick deployment....any mention of runway and we have IAF-Army turf battle (like Apache saga).

Scaneagle would be a good benchmark - has good service ceiling of ~20,000 ft and 24 hour endurance. Iran seems to have reverse engineered one - maybe we can borrow an original for a short time from them (going the Chinese way here).

We should develop Nishant platform further - otherwise it's another missed opportunity

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 07 Aug 2014 23:21

Picklu,

Picklu wrote: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?


Agree with you. This is what happens when instead of standardizing around your bread and butter (Towed) gun and developing variants onwards from there. We very well might end up in a soup with different guns across different categories.

FWIW. I have spoken a couple of Artillery Paanwalas, based on current requirements. The Arty Dte was of the view that the MoD should finalize on the OFB Dhanush Towed pending successful trials for the following. This was was shot down.
1. First Tranche (45 Calibre)
2. Second Tranche (52 Calibre)
3. Third Tranche (25 Litre Chamber Gold Standard)

Later on, DRDO was asked to come into the picture to provide feedback and some good old consensus building. They gave a completely different concept of a new gun instead of building up on the Bofors ToT, which is IMVVHO a pure hogging up of financial resources. The Artillery Contract is a bone the MoD is not able to swallow, hence they have hedged their bets with multiple stakeholders in order to avoid a loss of face.

It is a real musical chairs out there on Raisina Hill based on whom do you hear the stories from!!

Picklu wrote: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.


So here is my opinion on this. Personally, as long as a project achieves broader objectives, some leeway will have to be given to allow to come up to the desired levels in later iterations. The Pinaka is a shining example. The Army wanted an MBRL with a 45 Kms range versus the 36 odd Kms that the DRDO achieved. They stuck to the Pinaka and now we have DRDO building up enough competency around the propellants etc to be developing a 60 Km range one.

However, to expect the services to have the attitude of ''we will fight with whatever you give us'' is going tad far. There is always going to be a delicate balance between Current Operational Preparedness and Domestic Capability building. We cannot let it slide either ways.

Picklu wrote: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 cannot base a measure an equipment's level of capability simply by how many have been inducted in the home market. The EU countries face little threats in their neighborhood except Russia by a long shot. Their requirements now are purely expeditionary in nature.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 08 Aug 2014 01:28

Singha wrote:>> 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 Indian Army by its own admission has undertaken the following 15 years ago.
During the peak period of assaults, on an average, each Artillery battery fired over one round per minute for 17 days continuously.


As i had mentioned earlier also, The capability is desired be used in specific phases of battle.

Rule of thumb for MRSI is half the range of your shell's range, for a standard HE round which does 18 Kms, thats about 9-10 kms from the FEBA. It positions your 155mm artillery squarely in enemy gun range.

Artillery operations are fairly decentralized, A Battery will move about in 2 Troops (3 guns each) spaced out and ideally leapfrog as one Troop provides fire while the other relocates to an alternate position, depending upon the level of threat and terrain.

Singha wrote: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.

You could be right here WRT to terrain possibly. We however have no zero data to go WRT arty casualty or resupply disruption rates.

With most armies across the world downsizing. At the end of the day, the need to concentrate firepower is critical that is the game now. The ability to do the same with fewer or even existing resources cannot be brushed away.

Otherwise, we might as well be a PLA style 1.5 million strong army with a abysmally low technological base.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 08 Aug 2014 02:17

hi vaibhav

1 round per minute by a battery is not same as 1 or more rounds per minute from each gun

furthermore it says during peak periods which I read it to be for some smaller duration rather than 1 round per minute for 17 days (24 x 7)

so I am still unsure where this need will be and how valid it is

Otherwise, we might as well be a PLA style 1.5 million strong army with a abysmally low technological base
.

Unfortunately we already are- with sparse arty , a lorry army etc :(


buying a gun with super duper 75 rounds per hour vs one with 30 - 40 rounds per hour am not sure will make such a huge diff in scheme of things

this need for gold plated solns is not getting us anywhere

arnabh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 70
Joined: 23 Jan 2010 00:51

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby arnabh » 08 Aug 2014 05:25

indian missile secrets out in the open
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 76037.html

partha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3986
Joined: 02 Jul 2010 15:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby partha » 08 Aug 2014 06:12

^
Wrong thread. Posting to the missile thread.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4065
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Manish_Sharma » 08 Aug 2014 08:03

A gun which is strong enough to fire 75 rounds per hour without barrel bursting or damaging other parts will also be a very low maintenance gun, since it is build to tolerate 75 rounds an hour. In case lesser rounds are fired it'll have a much longer life + no maintenace headache compared to a gun which fires 30 rounds an hour. Maybe it is that Low-maintenace and strong barrel quality Army is looking for.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 08 Aug 2014 10:19

Surya Sir,

Link:http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR930/MR-930.ch2.pdf

The thrust of my argument is that the Army could be looking at it from a Fire Superiority POV, something very critical on the modern battlefield. Especially with regards to PLA, where Artillery will be hard pressed to match up to the gap created by sheer numbers on the other side. A higher rate of fire can possibly be better suited to, to destroy enemy buildup in a short period of time or to redistribute fires to destroy several targets of opportunity without changing firing positions. That is why they could be looking at it from a common minimum capability angle for the 155mm guns.

Many modern artillery pieces already are providing a similar level of capability. In true Russian fashion, the MSTA-S 2S19's first-hour rate of fire is 100 rounds, and every following hour - 60 rounds. M109 A2/A3 variants also provide a capability for 60 rounds in one hour.

The idea is not to pit one system against the other.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2435
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 08 Aug 2014 13:19

IIRC the new 52 cal FH77 version has been validated to fire 75 rounds in under 30 minutes.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2415
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 08 Aug 2014 14:20

Creating a requirement which only one Howitzer can fulfill is called tender tailoring to favor a party. Somebody claimed that one round per minute was fired for 17 days. Now it is possible to do so by a battery (3-6 howitzers) but if one Howitzer is firing one round per minute for 17 days it means 1440 rounds per day and 24,480 rounds in 17 days which is impossible. The average life of barrel is around 1000-2000 rounds only.

member_22906
BRFite
Posts: 306
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_22906 » 08 Aug 2014 15:14

I like the way we arm chair generals are also deciding how IA should now fight. If we can get equal or more intense fire with fewer guns, why not?

IIRC, one of the key features of FH77B that was highlighted when it was introduced was its higher rate of fire along with automated loading system and shoot & scoot capability. This to a large extent was seen as a game changer... To its critics, the argument used was that we were a manpower intense army so why automate stating that we won in '71 with manual loading guns

This is a good time to look at not only upgunning but truly upgrading our guns

vaibhav.n wrote:The thrust of my argument is that the Army could be looking at it from a Fire Superiority POV, something very critical on the modern battlefield. Especially with regards to PLA, where Artillery will be hard pressed to match up to the gap created by sheer numbers on the other side. A higher rate of fire can possibly be better suited to, to destroy enemy buildup in a short period of time or to redistribute fires to destroy several targets of opportunity without changing firing positions. That is why they could be looking at it from a common minimum capability angle for the 155mm guns.


+1

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5100
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby jamwal » 08 Aug 2014 16:26

Is sustained 1.25 rounds per minute even possible with manual loading ?
Wouldn't it make more sense for tracked artillery guns with auto-loaders ? IIRC, Germans have something like this.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8068
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 08 Aug 2014 16:33

The FH 77 has demonstrated 75 rounds in 25 minutes. Which is 3 round a minutes, due to its shell handling crane.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 08 Aug 2014 16:50

thanks vaibhav

let me read that

arijitkm
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 12 Oct 2009 23:23

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby arijitkm » 08 Aug 2014 21:36

BAE Systems looks to revive contract for supply of 145 guns to India ECONOMIC TIMES

BAE Systems, which makes M-777 ultra-light howitzer (ULH) guns, is looking to revive a contract for the supply of 145 guns to India by pledging to comply with offset requirements in a letter to the ministry of defence.

The company is also open to reviving its partnership with Mahindra & Mahindra and is discussing possible joint ventures with two public sector companies, following the announcement that India will allow up to 49% overseas investment in the sector.


"We have conveyed to the defence ministry that our company is fully compliant with the offset rules and have written a letter confirming that we would comply with the direct offset rules," Ian King, chief executive officer of BAE Systems, told ET. Offsets pertain to local investment commitments by overseas companies as part of purchase contracts.

The letter was required after defence minister Arun Jaitley informed Parliament that the contract was stuck. "The deal has not progressed due to cost issues and because the vendor has not been able to come up with a proposal fully compliant to the offset requirement," Jaitley said. The Indian government ordered 145 M-777s in 2013 at a cost of aboutRs 3,500 crore but that could increase to as much as Rs 5,000 crore due to various reasons, including reopening of the assembly line. However, King clarified that the cost as cited by the US government last year was the upper end of the price band. "It is a ceiling price, which is subject to negotiations, and the price of the guns will be lesser than this," he said.
........
........

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 08 Aug 2014 21:59

Surya Sir,

My Bad!! The entire report is here with all its chapters.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR930.html

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 08 Aug 2014 22:08

Just to be less ambiguous about my views on the whole discussion above. In view of the Towed Artillery Programme, currently our best bet would be to go with the OFB Dhanush.

1. Minimal retraining Costs involved.

2. The original FH-77 gun which provides us the base platform for the Dhanush is a proven piece of kit. So minimal surprises for the Army except for what the OFB can conjure up.

3. The Towed gun is a very large 1800 gun acquisition, hence assuming rather that the OFB produces 100 guns every year. This programme is going to be in the running for the next 18-20 years. Considering the above, it would make sense that all of the Army's requirements be taken into consideration and could be built up in say three 600 gun batches with differing capabilities built up to what the army ultimately desires.

4. The DRDO can be asked to either assist the OFB and scrap its own desi project. Worst case, even BAE Systems has expressed willingness to help with the gun. Thus, we have all the building blocks for a relatively Low Risk-High Gain approach.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_26622 » 09 Aug 2014 01:15

Looks like British Aerospace E just don't understand a 'NO'.

They still believe that they know 'what is best for India' - We should just shove them back in to the Indian ocean - like we did before! :x

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17951
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

???

Postby Karan M » 13 Aug 2014 18:19

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618

The Indian Army has many more Grad launchers than is conventionally believed by ORBAT junkies.

7 Aug 2014

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17951
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 13 Aug 2014 18:53

Vaibhav, all the low risk stuff was tried in the early 2000s by OFB, DRDO, PSUs together. Army sunk it saying it would be obsolete in 21st century. DRDO has deliberately gone for a futuristic design based on harsh prior experience with Arjun, towed AD project, ammo programs etc, where meeting "current needs" is not enough & additional ones are added later on, making the whole earlier design moot (you can upgrade the earlier design only so much; Arjun morphed into 60t beast from Vijayanta derivative, towed AD gun was dropped, FSAPDS only restarted after IMI failure).

If earlier design is not continued and follow on launched, CAG then jumps in & breathes fire saying the early program was a waste & public money was squandered etc etc. (SV2000, Counter mine flail, etc)

Right now, the low risk option exists in the form of the FH77 follow on by the OFB. This was finally cleared by IA after it realized all its hopes of quick purchase and induction of state of art imports were going nowhere.

Even so, what the Army makes of low risk FH77 is very clear, only some 400 are planned to be acquired. Clearly, a program built on the basis of "extending" the FH77 design alone will not work and nor is IA interested in it.

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby agupta » 13 Aug 2014 22:37

^^^ Karan - IIRC, things weren't so hunky dory between DRDO and OFB on that early 2000 venture. I suspect a big part of Army's loss of faith (it was their request post Kargil that kept the project alive) in it was that kind of squabbling

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17951
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 13 Aug 2014 23:25

Aguptaji its been ages so i might miss some details, the program was actually more of an OFB-PSU one with DRDO iirc to provide consultancy for specific portions we didn't have from the Bofors tech drawings - i guess subsystems, metallurgy etc.

My source at the time, was basically one of the PSU ones - not D but a struggling unit which had a good record in precision mfg in the "old days" which saw this deal as a good way to start a new line of business. They were to machine or make/forge the barrel IIRC.

But what happened basically was IA thought imports were round the corner, so all this "remaking the Bofors" stuff went nowhere. Those were the heady days of T-6/T-5, latest Brit/Euro howitzers and what not, available off the shelf. So, the IA dropped the idea as I recall. Now its different, they have a decade plus of lost time and I guess realize a few more Bofors won't hurt them but will help them. I just wish we had done it sooner.

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby agupta » 13 Aug 2014 23:37

Aaah, yes. I think I now recall what/who you meant. There was no way the OFB was going to let anyone else - even other PSUs enter their turf ! That said, I think you might recall that had OFB kept to their promised timelines and delivered as they said - even accounting for significant overruns - at least ~ 200 (or was it <100) desi FH77xs would've gone into service; and then the more practical parts of IA acquisition could've kept a low-rate going over the entire decade, if nothing else... to expect them to completely give up on the T-6/T-5 rationalization quest would be unrealistic :)

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4118
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 14 Aug 2014 19:43

Karan M wrote:Vaibhav, all the low risk stuff was tried in the early 2000s by OFB, DRDO, PSUs together. Army sunk it saying it would be obsolete in 21st century. DRDO has deliberately gone for a futuristic design based on harsh prior experience with Arjun, towed AD project, ammo programs etc, where meeting "current needs" is not enough & additional ones are added later on, making the whole earlier design moot (you can upgrade the earlier design only so much; Arjun morphed into 60t beast from Vijayanta derivative, towed AD gun was dropped, FSAPDS only restarted after IMI failure).

...


Clearly, the IA needs to be versed in iterative Mk.1/2/3/4 product improvement concept. They don't seem to understand how to build national capability.

x-posting:
Mihir wrote:Vayu-Stratpost Airpower Roundtable Discussion on the LCA

http://www.stratpost.com/video-vayu-str ... undtable-v

Quoting some relevant bits:

...

We should have continued with HF-24 in different blocks. That’s how you build the national capability.

We closed shop there and then we jumped to a four and half generation aspiration on the LCA
– much has been achieved, which is very creditable, but it will take thirty years if we jump like that. And the time frames that have been projected have all been absolutely unrealistic.

– Air Marshal (retd) M Matheswaran


...


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests