Artillery: News & Discussion

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 08 Apr 2016 19:23

towing and carrying it will become interesting

Ankit Desai
BRFite
Posts: 542
Joined: 05 May 2006 21:28
Location: Gujarat

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Ankit Desai » 08 Apr 2016 21:28

Vipul wrote:There was an interview where Baba Kalyani told that there is a lobby which is not allowing Bharat Forge's 52 cal gun to be tested in India. They are denied access to the army testing ranges. The alternative is for the Gun to be tested in South Africa which is very costly and the import lobby would then cite no desert/snow trials done on the gun for denying possible orders!!!!


Walk The Talk With Baba Kalyani ?

-Ankit

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1739
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 10 Apr 2016 11:43

Garuda 105; 105 mm Indian Field gun modified by Mandus Group (working with Kalyani) using their soft recoil technology.
Image
Image

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 10 Apr 2016 13:43

I remember reading somewhere or listening to an interview, where DG Arty or someone said that IA is working with BF on low recoil 105mm gun. Or, is it from BK interview?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 10 Apr 2016 17:29

Garuda 105mm being < 1000kg would be great for heliborne assault troops. Even ALH would be able to underslung it around.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_22539 » 11 Apr 2016 04:48

^I wish they would stop painting everything with that shiny crap paint that renders everything a glossy shoddy mess. Is matte paint so TFTA that we SDREs cannot afford it?

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sivab » 17 Apr 2016 18:59

http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-f ... my-2202541

First artillery gun in 3 decades to be inducted in army

The first artillery gun after three decades — a 155mm/45-calibre Dhanush gun — will be inducted in the Indian Army, said defence minister Manohar Parikkar during an event organised by ex-servicemen in Panvel on Thursday evening. The last artillery gun — a Bofors gun — was inducted in 1984.

By the next month, the Dhanush artillery gun, a towed howitzer with a strike range of 38km developed by the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) in Kolkata, will be handed over to the Indian Army. Dhanush artillery guns are also called 'desi Bofors'.

Parikkar said: "The required critical trial of the gun has been completed and, by next month, the gun will be inducted in the artillery." He added that this is the first gun to be inducted in the Indian Army artillery after the Bofors gun.

The gun has been developed by the OFB after going through the design and voluminous documents that were delivered to India under the first phase of the Transfer of Technology (ToT) as part of the Bofors gun deal in the late 80s. The Swedish Bofors company (now owned by Britain's BAE System) could not complete the ToT for the 155mm howitzer with 39 calibre to India as the deal got embroiled in a major political row in the 80s over alleged kickbacks.

However, during this period, OFB manufactured and supplied several components or spare parts to keep the Bofors howitzers operational in India, especially during the Kargil war.

In addition, Parikkar also informed that in the next four months, a self-propelled gun developed by L&T and specially designed for operation in the desert areas bordering Pakistan will also be inducted.

Taking note of the Indian Army facing an acute shortage of artillery, Parikkar said that in two-three years, all artillery deficits will be covered. "The intention of our government is clear when it comes to strengthening our forces," Parikkar said.

On the Kashmir issue, the defence minister said that freedom has been given to the forces to take action, without needing to wait for orders. "The lives of our security personnel are more important than that of our enemies," Parikkar said. He added, in regard to the recent Pathankot attack, "I do not see this as a terror attack. This is similar to war and we will give a befitting reply. We will decide the nature of the reply — how, when and where."


Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2480
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Vivek K » 17 Apr 2016 19:06

Parrikar has said these words before too. Did we see any truth to his statements? Or is this similar to Vajpayee's aar paar ki ladayee that he perhaps fought in his mind?

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 17 Apr 2016 23:50

srai wrote:ATAGS is a collaborative effort between DRDO, OFB and other private enterprises. According to IDR article, ATAGS is an upgraded version of Dhanush where the DRDO is making the gun lighter with more advance lightweight materials along with automation and digitization.


ATAGS is a DRDO led effort and while it will leverage OFB's work, it will not be a copy or evolution of Dhanush.

Of all Indian agencies, OFB has the best know-how in artillery, having been in business since 1700s.

The 105 mm LFG and its derivative IFG is among the best in the world and far superior to Pakistani US WW2 vintage M101 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M101_howitzer

Infact even the US uses the same British origin gun as ours
India http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/weapons/wlc/3.htm
US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M119_howitzer

As you can see, the LFG/IFG/L118/M119 105 mm is the actual Ultra Light Weight howitzer serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Our guns have inflicted enormous casualties during cross LOC artillery duels, and 70% of Pakistani casualties in Kargil was due to Indian artillery. There are numerous radio intercepts on the casualties caused by Indian artillery.

The other factor is that two deals where we got proper ToT was Type 209/1500 submarines, that was an advanced version designed for India superior to other Type 209s and the Bofors FH-77B

OFB has steadily indigenized spares for FH-77 and finally built up a critical mass for the Dhanush 45 cal. From what I hear, after the initial 414 orders, production will shift to Dhanush 52 cal. This will be the mainstay of Indian artillery along with Pinaka.

DRDO got into the game much later, and as you rightly said, ATAGS is supposed to be lighter with better electronics. It would definitely leverage OFB experience but it wont be an evolution of Dhanush.

However, new development is always high risk, and in my opinion, the OFB effort of evolving FH-77B to Dhanush 45 to Dhanush 52 is a less risky and safer development approach. Ideally we should concentrate all our efforts in it.

Added later
ATAGS
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eGP39CxFC-o/ ... TAGS-1.jpg

More details on electronics and work done by Kalyani https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TR4WB8Sqn60/ ... TAGS-3.jpg

In both these brochures, the recoil system and the hydraulics for elevation are much smaller than FH-77B or Dhanush.

The self propelled APU shows 4 roadwheels in the Tata brochure https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XVpTgBxnOvg/ ... TAGS-2.jpg

Dhanush
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pFN_OsFjKHQ/ ... tzer-3.jpg
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Z7GrHMpq_OM/ ... poster.jpg

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 18 Apr 2016 00:15

Surya wrote:towing and carrying it will become interesting

While previous generation artillery used limber based towing, newer artillery with longer barrels are carried by tank transporters that they climb via ramps using their APU. Those without APU are winched up.

On the civvy street, earlier breakdown trucks hoisted the front end of the car. These days they're winched up a ramp and lifted on the back of the truck :wink:

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4619
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Cain Marko » 18 Apr 2016 00:18

Vivek K wrote:Parrikar has said these words before too. Did we see any truth to his statements? Or is this similar to Vajpayee's aar paar ki ladayee that he perhaps fought in his mind?


We did see some action in Burma though and not to mention the heavy response to crossborder firing....it will take a little longer vs TSP. It will take more than 2 years for Modi Govt to rectify decades of chalta hai, I'm hoping and expecting more towards the end of his tenure...

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3627
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kashi » 18 Apr 2016 04:38

sivab wrote:In addition, Parikkar also informed that in the next four months, a self-propelled gun developed by L&T and specially designed for operation in the desert areas bordering Pakistan will also be inducted.
...
Taking note of the Indian Army facing an acute shortage of artillery, Parikkar said that in two-three years, all artillery deficits will be covered. "The intention of our government is clear when it comes to strengthening our forces," Parikkar said.


The two most important messages from our Raksha Mantri. If indeed we can wipe out all our artillery deficits by 2018-19, it will be a huge leap forward.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ShauryaT » 18 Apr 2016 06:11

Does anyone know if ATAGS will have an APU, the DRDO version that is. It is slated to be about 12 tons.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9858
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 18 Apr 2016 09:01

Mango post alert.

There is no precise information on the present deficit in artillery systems. 30 years must have left a lot of gaps. We also do not know manufacturing capacity of OFB and others. So how can such huge gap can be filled?

Can we say that in a two years period we will have all the present artillery units will be brought into full strength level or am I missing something?

End mango alert.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12406
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Aditya_V » 18 Apr 2016 09:36

In the last 30 years we have not inducted any new 155mm artillery, I think we have soltam conversions of 130mm guns, inducted 105 mm guns in the interim.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 18 Apr 2016 09:44

I will not complain so long as we get ATAGS with the fabled 25 liter chamber as IOC standard. that allegedly permits powering cheapest non-RAP shells out to some 50km. volume fire missions need us to use cheapest possible shells and big charges than expensive RAP ones.

nothing more scary on gods earth than a regiment of 155mm opening fire for MRSI mode...there is video on youtube of a german army pzh2000 regimental demo. a entire hill disappears under a hailstorm of shells.

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1893
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby wig » 18 Apr 2016 10:08

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation ... 24082.html

Artillery gun programme finalized=145 , M777 ultra light howitzers to be procured from BAE for USD 750 million. Mahindra in india appears likely to partner BAE
The artillery gun programme to equip the Mountain Strike Corps is being finalised as India and the US are in agreement on its “make in India” component.
The Ministry of Defence is looking to buy 145 M777 ultra-light howitzers produced by the BAE Systems. The matter was discussed at the meeting that Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar had with US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter on April 12.
The initial price notified by the US in 2012 was $694 million. The manufacturer has been seeking 10 per cent hike on the four-year-old price. The negotiation price is about $750 million.
The tender will be for associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support. The gun will come with laser inertial artillery pointing systems (LINAPS), maintenance, personnel training and training equipment, technical assistance, engineering and logistics support services.
The Army intends to use the howitzers to modernise its forces and enhance its ability to operate in hazardous conditions.
In India, the BAE Systems had tied up Mahindra as its business partner for its proposed in-country assembly, integration and test (AIT) facility for the M777 Howitzer.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12406
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Aditya_V » 18 Apr 2016 10:44

Can we use the 3 Billion funds in USa for this purpose?

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 18 Apr 2016 14:57

tsarkar wrote: While previous generation artillery used limber based towing, newer artillery with longer barrels are carried by tank transporters that they climb via ramps using their APU. Those without APU are winched up.<SNIP>


Artillery guns are not carried on transporters like tanks or IFV.

They're towed behind dedicated vehicles called Field Artillery Tractors (FAT). Bofors used to come with Scania FAT which had nice compartment for troops. Russian M-46 was/is pulled by KRAZ 6x6. The venerable 105mm was towed behind the 3-ton Shaktiman earlier. New Ashok Leyland vehicles must be doing that now. Your 120mm mortars were/are pulled 1-ton vehicles.

Interestingly, India has placed large order with TATA for 6x6 FAT; it would not be incorrect to premise that many of the older FAT with M-46 or even Bofors are being replaced by Indian vehicles.

BTW - artillery units also operate older BMP-1.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 18 Apr 2016 15:01

Yagnasri wrote:Mango post alert.

There is no precise information on the present deficit in artillery systems. 30 years must have left a lot of gaps. We also do not know manufacturing capacity of OFB and others. So how can such huge gap can be filled?

Can we say that in a two years period we will have all the present artillery units will be brought into full strength level or am I missing something?

End mango alert.


There is no deficit in the holding of artillery guns. The issue is with age and caliber of these guns. In fact, Indian Army infantry division artillery brigade earlier used to have 3 x 105mm Field Regiments + 1 x 130mm Medium Regiment + 1 x 120mm Light Regiment. But over the years, most of the 105mm guns have been replaced with 130mm guns. The earlier 3:1 ratio in this caliber is down 1.X:1.

What we need is modern artillery with more range and sophistication. When Bofors came into IA it was a real surprise for the Gunners. Earlier, it used to take a long time to work out fire plans. But Bofors came with a computer and multiple fire plans could be prepared in much shorter duration.
Last edited by rohitvats on 19 Apr 2016 08:56, edited 1 time in total.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9858
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 18 Apr 2016 15:24

Thank you sir. You always provide tons of info.

L&T system for deserts which Parrikar mentioned comes as a small surprise on K9 VAJRA-T 155mm/ 52 Cal. Purchasing was reported in FT report http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 160133.cms But no testing news was there earlier. Maybe testing done without much reporting.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 18 Apr 2016 18:29

fast forward the video to 6:56 to get a glimpse of what the massed 155s can do


Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8225
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Indranil » 18 Apr 2016 21:03

rohitvats wrote:Artillery guns are not carried on transporters like tanks or IFV.

They're towed behind dedicated vehicles called Field Artillery Tractors (FAT). Bofors used to come with Scania FAT which had nice compartment for troops. Russian M-46 was/is pulled by KRAZ 6x6. The venerable 105mm was towed behind the 3-ton Shaktiman earlier. New Ashok Leyland vehicles must be doing that now. Your 120mm mortars were/are pulled 1-ton vehicles.

Interestingly, India has placed large order with TATA for 6x6 FAT; it would not be incorrect to premise that many of the older FAT with M-46 or even Bofors are being replaced by Indian vehicles.

BTW - artillery units also operate older BMP-1.

This is absolutely correct. VRDE today floated a tender for Towing System for Advanced Towed Artillery Gun System. It will be a 6X6 FAT. The picture of the FAT used in the tender is from Ashok Leyland's FAT brochure. The other required specifications also match exactly.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8098
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nachiket » 18 Apr 2016 23:20

rohitvats wrote:There is no deficit in the holding of artillery guns. The issue is with age and caliber of these guns. In fact, Indian Army earlier used to have 3 x 105mm Field Regiments + 1 x 130mm Medium Regiment + 1 x 120mm Light Regiment. But over the years, most of the 105mm guns have been replaced with 130mm guns. The earlier 3:1 ratio in this caliber is down 1.X:1.

What we need is modern artillery with more range and sophistication. When Bofors came into IA it was a real surprise for the Gunners. Earlier, it used to take a long time to work out fire plans. But Bofors came with a computer and multiple fire plans could be prepared in much shorter duration.

There is a huge deficit in holding of of Self-Propelled guns though. Considering we have a grand total of zero right now.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11209
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Gagan » 19 Apr 2016 03:04


member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_22539 » 19 Apr 2016 07:58

^Only the shell is automatically loaded right, the charge seems to be manually loaded. Any reason for that, any advantages/disadvantages?

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 19 Apr 2016 08:24

faster and less complexity. shells are all the same size, charges may not be so. also much lighter I think being just consumable propellant in a fabric type casing.

many MBTs incl arjun have one piece shells though. as do all personal guns.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 19 Apr 2016 08:57

Yagnasri wrote:Thank you sir. You always provide tons of info.

L&T system for deserts which Parrikar mentioned comes as a small surprise on K9 VAJRA-T 155mm/ 52 Cal. Purchasing was reported in FT report http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 160133.cms But no testing news was there earlier. Maybe testing done without much reporting.


In my earlier post, I had forgot to add that the structure mentioned was artillery brigade of an infantry division. So, each infantry division, at least in plains, has larger number of 130mm regiments than 105mm regiments.

BharadwajV
BRFite
Posts: 116
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby BharadwajV » 19 Apr 2016 09:09

What is the Calibre of M46 and range?
And are we again converting them into 155s? (as Soltam is not blacklisted anymore)

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 19 Apr 2016 10:36

130mm it is not a howitzer but more a longer flatter trajectory gun. it cannot perform plunging fire missions at high angles.

so useful for direct fires and plains mostly.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3287
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kakkaji » 19 Apr 2016 11:53

What is the light gun (<155mm) that we currently use in the mountains?

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 19 Apr 2016 14:08

105mm & 120mm mortars (?)

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Gyan » 19 Apr 2016 19:20

Akshay Kapoor wrote:Gyan you seem to have shot off a lot of sentences without understanding much.

1. MBRLS are no substitute for tube arty either in cost effectiveness or in battle effectiveness


Unfortunately you have passed value judgment on my understanding even though you have not provided any facts and your information is outdated. This is the problem with know-alls. 20-30 years back unguided MBRLs like Grad had accuracy of around 4%-8% of range and 20 times more costly compared to an ordinary 130mm shell. Due to advances in technology Pinaka has accuracy of around 1% of range and costs around Rs 10 lakhs per round, therefore it matches/betters the cost and effectiveness of "long range"artillery. Therefore 155/52-56 artillery is going out of fashion and India is the "only" nation in the world seeking to induct such huge numbers (to please the import pimps) The tracked artillery is going out of fashion as guided MBRLs rounds costs has fallen by 5-10 times to around Rs 25-50 lakhs each and hence there is no need to put heavy logistics intensive tracked artillery near the front line to achieve accuracy. The full throated chorus for massive induction of costly heavy artillery while ignoring Dhanush, Pinaka-1,2,3, Prahaar is for dishonest reasons only.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 19 Apr 2016 20:11

each 155mm basic shell costs around $1000 I think if imported. not sure what domestic cost will be. if we can get a proper factory going with all the electronics locally made I see a chance of driving the cost down to $500 for large scale of production.

advantage of artillery over MLRS is it can repeatedly saturate a area without delay and keep that up as needed. a MLRS needs to retire to secure location for reload vehicle to meet up and then return. so for time sensitive, lengthy covering fire for a assault and small opportunity targets, tube army may be better. MLRS may be better for a shattering one-off salvo to open the proceedings and for known area targets like villages and camps. the submunitions are not suitable to hit bunkers with plunging fires...and obviously they cannot fire in LOS mode and have a higher minimum range than tube guns.

imo both are needed in large numbers as their strengths overlap only partially.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vasu raya » 19 Apr 2016 20:20

The Himalayan mountain range is 100-150kms wide between India and China and we cannot expect howitzers to cover that range, the Pinaka rockets themselves have lot more potential to go the smart munitions way by adding electronics, not sure the 155mm shells are suitable for adding electronics unless we go the Excalibur way

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9858
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 19 Apr 2016 20:54

My mango understating is that the mountain ranges require quite a lot of firepower and ammunition usage to give desired result when compared to plains. I may be wrong here. But if I am right we need a lot more tubes if we are required to take on lizard effectively. Rockets how ever accurate many not be sufficient. Further more the Tube artillery might be became quite accurate when compared old times as we now have all kinds of computer aided things to calculate strike the target more accurately.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3475
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Aditya G » 20 Apr 2016 14:20

vasu raya wrote:The Himalayan mountain range is 100-150kms wide between India and China and we cannot expect howitzers to cover that range, the Pinaka rockets themselves have lot more potential to go the smart munitions way by adding electronics, not sure the 155mm shells are suitable for adding electronics unless we go the Excalibur way


Range is only one of the qualities you want in mountains. Ability to hit targets on reverse slopes is a major requirement and that cannot be accomplished by rocket artillery. In Kargil we used Grads for shock effect but it cannot replace guns for sheer weight that can be delivered on the enemy!

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 20 Apr 2016 15:58

It is absolute stupidity to even think that MRLS are ‘replacing’ the old venerable tube artillery. Though, on BRF, anything can happen nowadays.

Even Uncle Sam, with unlimited budget and appetite for all things greatest and best, has limited holding of their own MLRS and IIRC, it is distributed at the rate of 1 MLRS Regiment per battery. And US Army uses high precision long range rockets (70 km and 120 km) on these systems. They’ve stopped using the vanilla HE rockets on these systems.

As per a little older US estimates, their standard HE artillery shell costs ~USD 1,000 while vanilla rocket used to cost about USD 10,500. The high precision long range rockets on US MLRS today cost USD 110,000! A single HE shell delivers ~10 kg of explosive while the M30/31 rockets on MLRS deliver 90 kg warhead.

The above calculations tell you two things:

1. Why IA and other armies are looking at MLRS as a long range and precision attack system.

2. Why there is no replacing the tube artillery with MLRS

Something like Pinaka Mk1/Mk2 and SMERCH will be used to take out high value targets in depth where high accuracy and high saturation fire is required in double-quick time.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 20 Apr 2016 20:26

We keep getting to this discussion every year it seems.....Alas!!

MBRL systems will never replace tube artillery and there are a host of very good reasons including acquisition and operational costs among others.

There is also the piddly problem of extremely large minimum range restrictions for all MBRL systems worldwide. The Pinaka Mk1 has a minimum range of 10Kms, the Mk2 further increases this to 20Kms.

What happens when you want fire support over these intermediate distances?
Do we expect troops wait for a Rocket Battery to travel back 20Kms in the other direction to get into range.

Then there is the elephant in the room ie; How is artillery used to shape the battle or what were the impetus viz an artillery doctrine?

http://www.poeland.com/tanks/artillery/doctrine.html

http://www.bravecannons.org/the_gun/Forward_Observers.html

http://etloh.8m.com/strategy/artil.html

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vasu raya » 21 Apr 2016 07:02

lets look at the MLRS vs. tube artillery this way, where can we make more progress in a given timeframe?

tube artillery for all its benefits, when it comes to the mountain terrain, we have issues transporting them closer to the front lines, either one is downgrading to 105mm to be heli lifted and losing range and I read these also cannot fire onto the reverse slopes
or for 155mm the only option was Chinook and M-777 package, a costly alternative with minimal nos (count me the equivalent in terms of rocket nos)

in case of tube artillery as a sustainable solution, the tech issues for you to solve,
a) M-777 equivalent needs developing titanium processing
b) Smart shells need developing electronics and fins that survive the extreme g shock
c) a transport option close to what Chinook gives

for MLRS with Smerch sort of 120km ranged rockets
d) the development is already in progress, and we are close to what the contemporary tech is such as Smerch
if say they make it two staged, the terminal stage can be made maneuverable with fins given the high closing velocity and can even engage targets on the reverse slope and probably is easier to develop as the g shock at launch is not as high as seen for an artillery shell

the Chinese could be firing from the edge of Tibetan plateau into the mountains vs we firing from locations within the mountain range into both mountains and plains, they probably are looking for work around solutions for a Chinook and M-777 combo and they do not have access either


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests