Artillery: News & Discussion

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 24 Mar 2017 10:26

rohitvats wrote:
Well, whoever wrote the above needs to get his/her facts correct. Flycatcher radar is a an Air Defense (AD) Fire Control Radar (FCR). Indian Army uses these in their L-70 guns equipped AD Regiments. Each radar manages 3 x L-70 guns.

And it is an exceptional radar. The AD guys swear by it.

Probably DDM. Unlikely that the good general made a mistake

Major General Gagandeep Bakshi believes that with the induction of this radar, the Indian Army has not only filled a gaping hole but also gained a slight advantage since Swati has a longer tracking range and are more accurate than American ANTPQ 36/37 radar system. “The American Flycatcher Radar we had up till now proved to be ineffective for the Army. With Swati, we can track and attack seven targets simultaneously. This increases Pak Army’s problems,” G.D. Bakshi said.
Read more at:
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news ... t-the-loc/

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Mar 2017 10:28

^^^If it is Maj General Bakshi, then he seems to have mixed up things. Not very surprising.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Mar 2017 10:48

rohitvats wrote: The purchase of WLR from US was mooted by the army BEFORE the Kargil war. DRDO vetoed the import stating that a domestic solution can be developed in a short time-frame. Which never saw the light of the day for many-many years later. And this meant IA was without any WLR during Kargil.

Just curious to know more about this. Is there any literature regarding this?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Mar 2017 11:05

Indranil wrote:
rohitvats wrote:The purchase of WLR from US was mooted by the army BEFORE the Kargil war. DRDO vetoed the import stating that a domestic solution can be developed in a short time-frame. Which never saw the light of the day for many-many years later. And this meant IA was without any WLR during Kargil.
Just curious to know more about this. Is there any literature regarding this?

General VP Malik mentions this in detail in his book on Kargil.

PS: I very distinctly remember having a debate many years back on BRF about how adhering to timeline in R&D projects is important from operational perspective. And mentioned the WLR example with respect to Kargil. How a certain timeline was quoted by DRDO (2-years I think) and how it was never met. A study showed 86% or 96% of casualties in Kargil were because of enemy arty fire.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Mar 2017 12:48

IIRC one of the issues re Paki artillery in Kargil was not just their US built WLR, but actual spotters sitting up in the heights with the highway and other targets in full view

pandyan · Post by **pandyan** » 24 Mar 2017 19:26

Interesting discussion. Was the need for WLR identified during kargil or even before that?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Mar 2017 19:57

cross border shelling had started a decade before kargil and the pakis had the ANTPQ36 since mid 80s. they also have around 30 of the M115 203mm howitzer that may be short on range but fires a huge 90kg shell on indian border posts and camps. its lethal radius is more than 100 meters so anyone caught in open was dead.

a 155mm shell is 45kg.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Mar 2017 20:18

pandyan wrote:Interesting discussion. Was the need for WLR identified during kargil or even before that?

Rohit has mentioned that it was a pre-Kargil identified need and to that end I've come across Jane's IDR articles from the 1995-1997 time frame that further highlight this. It was probably something that moved through the requirements phase in the early 90's (probably even earlier) if it was in the acquisition phase by the mid to late 1990s.

Jane's International Defense Review, December 1997 : The United States has agreed to sell 12 AN/TPQ-37 Firefinder weapon-locating radars (WLRs) to meet an urgent Indian artillery requirement, according to military sources in Delhi. A deal to deliver the first four WLRs in early 1998 is being finalized, with the remaining eight units to be delivered by 2002. However, the deal awaits clearance by the Indian defense ministry - some officials in India are hoping to procure improved WLRs with better antenna design and updated computer systems, which the US is not offering....

India currently employs improved Cymbeline mortar-locating radars, but these lack the gun-locating capability that is an operational requirement of the artillery. ...

Jane's Defence Weekly October 1996: The Field Artillery's longest range weapon is the Prithvi SS-150 surface-to-surface missile which is to equip the newly formed 333 Missile Group stationed at Secunderabad. The missile has a range of 150 km with a 1,000 kg payload.

Among specialised equipment for the Field Artillery's new role, top priority is procurement of unmanned air vehicles (UAVs), a few of which are being purchased from Israel. The UAV command posts will be co-located with the divisional and/or corps counter-bombardment command posts. As the procurement of artillery locating radars is not a high priority with the government, the Field Artillery is seeking better means for target analysis and standardisation of maps and computer-based C{2} systems.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Mar 2017 20:25

Problem with WLR is that it is a defensive item - that is, it locates the other guy's artillery after he shoots. In Kargil the mofos in the heights took the initiative and were guiding offensive shelling on the Srinagar Leh highway and their locations were not known A few WLRs in our hands would have helped silence their artillery but our guns were also being spotted by men on the heights (and a TV reporter on the ground ).

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Mar 2017 20:28

In 1997 Pentium II or something was state of the art. I used to be desperate to make videos but my machine used to take 1 minute for rendering 1 second of video. I wonder how well WLRs were doing back then in terms of quick calculation of trajectory and providing coordinates.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Mar 2017 20:46

Not just processing but Electronically Scanned Arrays have allowed for much higher efficiency enabling better performance, higher MTBF's within the same power and cooling limits..so they have improved by leaps and bounds over what was state of the art in the 1980s. I guess older systems just required a larger deployed footprint and the operators worked around sensor limitations.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Mar 2017 21:11

They would have used dedicated asics or fpga for radar data processing and likely still do..not a general purpose cpu with floating point unit. Techniques from parallel computing arena could also help.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 24 Mar 2017 21:38

Thanks, others and Shiv ji (re the human eyeball point). Got some answers to my questions.

One thought ... (and apologies for getting my pet subject in), would not UAVs/drones also help, especially if we are on the lower ground.

Need not be the high and mighty Global Hawks types, need not even be the mid range IAI Searcher type, but a smaller (harder to detect on radar or with the human eye) battlefield operable one with good optics and with a reasonably good loiter time

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Mar 2017 21:41

Those years were very interesting. 1991-1995 we did not have much money to buy anything new. 1998-Pokhran II. Buying weapons from USA at that time was tricky.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Mar 2017 21:42

Manish those guys were well hidden. I recall a few stories from 1999. A Mig 25 tasked for Recce could barely fly slow enough to be effective. A Jag pilot on recce saw something suspicious from the corner of his eye and returned to discover the camp at Muntho Dalo .

I made a video story out of that

nam · Post by **nam** » 24 Mar 2017 21:54

I wonder if IAF pilot were visually able to see the source of Paki artillery.

Is it possible to see the artillery rounds flying and the plume at some distance while flying in a jet?

Pakis must have brought target spotters when they took over the peaks. And looks like we were not able to jam their comms, which would have prevented them from relaying co-ordinates.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 24 Mar 2017 22:23

Shiv ji, with reference to the drones, i was alluding to the possibility of using them (in the future) to detect the paki artillery which might be behind the mountains. They will compliment the WLRs of course, probably as a cost effective backup system. Just in case the WLRs might be not working/not accurate or simply not available at the stretch required and/or it is too risky (ManPADS) to send in Helis and Ground attack/Recce fighters

But i fear this is getting OT for this thread, or even worse, bordering on Tom Clancy fanciful stuff

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 24 Mar 2017 22:35

shiv wrote:Problem with WLR is that it is a defensive item - that is, it locates the other guy's artillery after he shoots. In Kargil the mofos in the heights took the initiative and were guiding offensive shelling on the Srinagar Leh highway and their locations were not known A few WLRs in our hands would have helped silence their artillery but our guns were also being spotted by men on the heights (and a TV reporter on the ground ).

This was the real problem

don't think the WLRs worked for pakis too

after the heights were evicted arty casualties came down based on whaty I heard

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 24 Mar 2017 22:47

shiv wrote:Problem with WLR is that it is a defensive item - that is, it locates the other guy's artillery after he shoots. In Kargil the mofos in the heights took the initiative and were guiding offensive shelling on the Srinagar Leh highway and their locations were not known A few WLRs in our hands would have helped silence their artillery but our guns were also being spotted by men on the heights (and a TV reporter on the ground ).

Agree in part. The larger issue is not being tied down by politicos who see any response other a symmetrical one as escalation. Sure, you couldn't bomb the ridges but a couple of plausibly deniable FAE raids on the other side of the LOC ('We are positive this was well within out territory" ) would have quickly put an end to the nonsense by pakis. As Salman Rushdie says "Ek dum! fut a fut!, double quick!".

The 'surgical strikes' were an eye opener for the pakis. They too would have to anticipate, defend, and not just lob stuff and take the initiative.

JMT

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 24 Mar 2017 22:52

How do the WLR's actually work in the mountains? IA artillery was at the base of the mountains on our side and PA radars and artillery would be on their side with the mountains in between. IA shells were striking the mountain tops. So how would their WLR's detect their rounds and have enough data to calculate the firing location? By watching for any rounds that went too far and crossed the peaks to fall on the reverse slope?

It seems the spotters on the peaks would be far more effective in this kind of terrain as shiv says.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 25 Mar 2017 00:02

The other pathetic situation is that "even after knowing that our casualties & Paki casualties were max inflicted by artillery", IA went through its summer trials. hot & high, cold & low trials etc for a decade & a half after Kargil!

nam · Post by **nam** » 25 Mar 2017 00:23

Personally not convinced that WLR was a major advantage for the Pakis. If it was the case, they would have decimated our artillery. Instead majority of the causalities were infantry, which require target spotters on the ridge.

Even if the Pakis could calculated the source using WLR, how can they target them if they are placed on reverse slopes on a gradient? The same problem applies to us as well. Not sure how can we target Pakis artillery deployed on reverse slope? without FO teams.

Having said that India needs to thank the Pakis for Kargil. It taught us quite a lot about mountain warfare. I would love to see the TFTA PLA 15th Airborne trying out their "within 10 hrs" stunt in mountains of the East.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Mar 2017 06:21

Manish_P wrote:Shiv ji, with reference to the drones, i was alluding to the possibility of using them (in the future) to detect the paki artillery which might be behind the mountains. They will compliment the WLRs of course, probably as a cost effective backup system. Just in case the WLRs might be not working/not accurate or simply not available at the stretch required and/or it is too risky (ManPADS) to send in Helis and Ground attack/Recce fighters

But i fear this is getting OT for this thread, or even worse, bordering on Tom Clancy fanciful stuff

Neither OT nor fanciful. Dead right in fact. UAVs will be the "new AOP". AOP stands for "Air Observation Post" - typically a spotter sitting in a plane - which is an artillery guiding system that has been used from WW1. In fact HAL had a plane that was used exactly for these duties - the HAL "Krishak". There was also a dedicated British aircrfat called an Auster AOP.

When one finishes reading about Air Force and Army heroics in Longewala - one might also come across the story of Maj Atma Singh who was flying an AOP (Krishak??) over Longewala. He played a seminal role in guiding the IAF to the Paki tanks. He had a fuel line malfunction and landed on the battlefield. He calmly repaired the defect under fire and took off again while being given cover by a couple of IAF aircraft.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Mar 2017 06:24

nachiket wrote:How do the WLR's actually work in the mountains? IA artillery was at the base of the mountains on our side and PA radars and artillery would be on their side with the mountains in between. IA shells were striking the mountain tops. So how would their WLR's detect their rounds and have enough data to calculate the firing location? By watching for any rounds that went too far and crossed the peaks to fall on the reverse slope?

It seems the spotters on the peaks would be far more effective in this kind of terrain as shiv says.

Valid point. In fact Indian artillery hitting mountaintops was targeting the spotters in "direct fire" mode rather than lobbing shells over the mountains. Once the spotters were barbecued, Paki artillery became useless.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Mar 2017 06:40

Don't discount Cheeni satellite imagery with frequent revisits

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 25 Mar 2017 10:25

Once the spotters were barbecued, Paki artillery became useless.

Hmm. So it is quiet possible that the claimed effectiveness of the WLR of the pakis could well have been a blind. Only difference is that we admitted it, they wont, as is their wont.

And if i understand correctly, the first thing to do would be to knock out their eyes - spotters/WLR/recce aircraft/satellite (increasing order of difficulty and escalation).

Actually the first thing to do would be to spot their spotters. Quiet and small battlefield operable UAVs would help.

And i found some precedence -

To Help Guide Artillery Rounds, Russia Deploys the Drone

Russian army artillery units use Takhion mini-UAV to perform reconnaissance missions

Not the most effective definitely, not yet perfected for sure, at best a jugaad perhaps, but worth it if it helps your soldiers

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added later - The american's are trying it out as well - Marines Test UAVs for Artillery Calls for Fire
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well i got answers to a lot of questions. Back to the regular thread now.

kit · Post by **kit** » 25 Mar 2017 15:04

Manish_P wrote:
Once the spotters were barbecued, Paki artillery became useless.
Hmm. So it is quiet possible that the claimed effectiveness of the WLR of the pakis could well have been a blind. Only difference is that we admitted it, they wont, as is their wont.

And if i understand correctly, the first thing to do would be to knock out their eyes - spotters/WLR/recce aircraft/satellite (increasing order of difficulty and escalation).

Actually the first thing to do would be to spot their spotters. Quiet and small battlefield operable UAVs would help.

And i found some precedence -

To Help Guide Artillery Rounds, Russia Deploys the Drone

Russian army artillery units use Takhion mini-UAV to perform reconnaissance missions

Not the most effective definitely, not yet perfected for sure, at best a jugaad perhaps, but worth it if it helps your soldiers

wonder if the Pakistani counter artillery radars can be jammed by an Indian UAV ..even localized jammers might work ..wasnt there an indian UAV with tactical networking capabilities

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Mar 2017 16:52

You'd have to jam something from pretty good stand off range or altitude to stay outside VSHORAAD and SHORAAD envelope which I assume they would field to protect these critical sensors. You could also try to geolocate them even if on reverser slopes and putting a weapon on target. Here is what the Swedes are working on - http://saab.com/it/land/weapon-systems/ ... eter-bomb/

mody · Post by **mody** » 25 Mar 2017 18:07

For AN/TPQ-37 the purchase got delayed because India was asking for a new updated version and US was not willing to part with the same.
Before the contract could be finalized, Pokhran-II happened and all deals were off. Post the lifting of sanctions, the WLR purchase was the fist defense purchase from the US. The timelines given above by Brar_w from Janes confirm the same. The deal was to be finalized in 1st half of 1998.

However, the pre-1998 apprehensions about the actual performance of the AN/TPQ-37 probably bore fruit and we have not had much success with it.
There were some reports over the past couple of years of the 12 radars being in-operational due to want of some spares. The radars are now obsolete and the US maybe doesn't have the spares ready (doubtful), or with our own WLRs coming online, which offer a much better performance, we do not want to spend on spares from the US>

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Mar 2017 19:33

Prem Kumar wrote:The other pathetic situation is that "even after knowing that our casualties & Paki casualties were max inflicted by artillery", IA went through its summer trials. hot & high, cold & low trials etc for a decade & a half after Kargil!

What is actually pathetic is when we allow our prejudices coupled with half-baked knowledge to make such posts.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Mar 2017 19:49

Funny how the comment about lack of WLR BY INDIAN ARMY leading to high casualty rates morphed into discussion about effectiveness of WLR from Pakistan Army's perspective.

It never occurred to anyone that WLR with IA could've allowed them to neutralize PA artillery through counter-battery fire. Or interfere with their fire-plans. Especially, when we did not have luxury of Observation Post (OP) sitting on mountain-top. I don't know how many know this but one of the prime tasks given to SF detachments in Kargil was to serve as Forward Observation Officers (FOO). As the IA took one peak/ridge-line after another, arty FOO moved with the infantry.

Induction of Bofors into the theater meant that IA out-gunned everything in PA's arsenal and allowed them to engage targets in depth.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 25 Mar 2017 22:47

rohitvats wrote:
Prem Kumar wrote:The other pathetic situation is that "even after knowing that our casualties & Paki casualties were max inflicted by artillery", IA went through its summer trials. hot & high, cold & low trials etc for a decade & a half after Kargil!
What is actually pathetic is when we allow our prejudices coupled with half-baked knowledge to make such posts.

The lack of artillery induction is staring at our faces. The IA must admit its share of the blame (though UPA's MOD must share a larger portion). I don't recall any COAS sticking his neck out to demand artillery with urgency. In addition to the nonsensical trials, successive chiefs have also "gone with the flow" rather than raise a stink. If you have reasons why IA is completely above blame, make your case. I don't care for your flame bait

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Mar 2017 23:54

Prem Kumar wrote:
rohitvats wrote:
What is actually pathetic is when we allow our prejudices coupled with half-baked knowledge to make such posts.
The lack of artillery induction is staring at our faces. The IA must admit its share of the blame (though UPA's MOD must share a larger portion). I don't recall any COAS sticking his neck out to demand artillery with urgency. In addition to the nonsensical trials, successive chiefs have also "gone with the flow" rather than raise a stink. If you have reasons why IA is completely above blame, make your case. I don't care for your flame bait

Don't make idiotic statements simply because you're ignorant of the matter.

First, lack of new artillery induction is not same as lack of artillery. Heck, whats more is that IA actually changed its structure from more field regiments (105mm) to more medium regiments (130mm). Except for M109A5 (with assisted projectile)in PA service and its own Chinese copy, this weapon out-ranges all guns in PA artillery.

As for induction of new artillery, if the usual shit had not hit the fan, tracked SP should have been operational now for 10+ years. The towed artillery piece was repeatedly stymied by the MOD and RM. With successive army chief's left hand wringing.

And only on BRF are trials called nonsensical. Which is a very good example of how most discussions happen with high percentage of emotions than any bit of research.

BTW, here is a 2007 report on the main towed gun selection:

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2007/07 ... towed.html

Posting in full so that we don't have more keyboard warriors making stupid statements:

The government’s decision to re-tender the towed artillery competition (450 guns) has come as a deep shock to the Army, notwithstanding indications from the government that it was the Army that had found the trials unsatisfactory and unsuccessful and recommended a re-tender. The Army has never asked for a re-tendered competition ever for any weapon system. Fresh rounds of trials have always been the recourse, but not a completely fresh competition. With the government’s decision to re-tender, the purchase procedure for 400 guns to arm about five regiments gets pushed back by another three-four years. To put that in perspective, this competition began in February 2002.

Anyway, the Army’s broad parameters for the guns were that they should be fully automated, easy and quick to deploy and re-deploy (gun-and-run capability), easy and quick to fire, armed with a fully automated sight and with an onboard ballistic computer for system accuracy and consistency.

After two rounds of trials in 2002 and 2003, the blackballing of South African firm Denel and the elimination of two other firms, the Soltam 155-mm ATHOS 2052 towed gun and the Bofors FH77 B05 L52 were downselected for the third round of trials in late 2004. The parameters that the two guns were tested under included mobility, firing range, firing accuracy and consistency, sustained fire and burst fire, maintenance tests and environmental tests. They were called back for an unprecedented fourth round of trials in 2006, this time the trials took place in November in Mahajan Field Firing Range (MFFR) and Leh.

I have personally seen the 2006 trial report (the MFFR part) and the 2004 trial report, and in both, the Bofors gun notched up better scores. The propaganda ran thick. What would happen if Bofors got the deal? Would a Congress-led government really be stupid enough to think that it can hand a defence deal to Bofors again? Who cares whether the selection process was fair or not? So what if the Bofors gun is technologically superior to the other competitors? These were questions that were doing the busy rounds last year.

Army chief General JJ Singh assured some of us reporters on the sidelines of a press conference about seven months ago that the artillery deal would shortly be concluded and that the last round of trials had been “conclusive”. He didn’t however say if there would be another round of trials. He was echoing what the Army’s Directorate of Weapons & Equipment (DW&E) had reasonably concluded after four rounds of trials — that while both guns had certain problems, the Bofors one was much simpler to iron out and came closest to set down staff requirements. The Army chief was apprised of this and was therefore clear that the Army’s decision would be taken up by the government.

Obviously the government cannot now say that it has decided to call of the deal because of any other reason except the Army’s dissatisfaction. Did the Army change its mind at the last minute? Possible, but highly unlikely. Maybe it’s really not that complicated at all. Maybe it’s just a sound government well aware that the Bofors scam of 1980s will never lose its vitality. Why give anyone another? Maybe the government simply told the Army that its findings were “unacceptable” and that things needed to be reworked.

What about the Israel factor? It’s all a bit neat. Soltam has much to gain from the re-tendering, as it does the new healthy India-Israel dynamic. Will the new deal really be fair? Maybe the UPA government will be bundled out of office by the time the new tender is concluded. Maybe by that time it’ll have to explain the the huge waste of the Army’s time for nothing. Meanwhile, the Army can neatly fold the artillery rationalisation plan and put it away for “future reference”.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Mar 2017 10:46

Guys. How difficult is it to state your points without hostility? Everybody will enjoy it much more.

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 26 Mar 2017 11:49

The financial year is coming to an end and I was hoping that MoD would have signed the Vajra contract by now At least that was L&T Chief AM Naik had claimed earlier this year

https://www.bloombergquint.com/business ... ys-am-naik

But nothing on this it seems.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 26 Mar 2017 20:03

Baba Kalyani has an Aluminium Barrel 900 kg truck mounted 105mm field gun

MoD and IA need to look at this.
He is also building a Titanium 155mm 39 cal ultralight howitzer that weighs 4.5 T (M-777 weighs 4.2 T)

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Mar 2017 20:43

Vested interests ensure even those who could be favoured national champions have to fight tenders with insincere foreig players with local marketing and natasha offices.

Does samsung rheinmetall or norinco needs to compete in global tenders?

Did boeing not scuttle the tanker deal despite airbus promising to make those airframes in wichita kansas? Thats power

Goi must serve india not foreign govts and good conduct certis for screwing ourselves

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 26 Mar 2017 22:14

I don't think "aluminium" barrel is possible. Other components can be of aluminium.

jayasimha · Post by **jayasimha** » 27 Mar 2017 17:58

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease. ... lid=154790

Press Information Bureau
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
02-December-2016 14:30 IST
Ultra Light Howitzers

Under the terms of the Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) signed with the US Government for supply of 145 ULH, 25 guns will be inducted in Fully Formed condition and the balance 120 guns will be assembled in India. Government has placed an indent on Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) for procurement of Qty. 114 155-MM Dhanush artillery guns.

Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) has accorded Acceptance of Necessity (AoN) for procurement of integrated Tracked Self Propelled (SP) 155mm artillery guns on 26.02.2008.

This information was given by Minister of State for Defence Dr. Subhash Bhamre in a written reply to Shri B Senguttuvan in Lok Sabha today.

DM/NAMPI/RAJ

jayasimha · Post by **jayasimha** » 27 Mar 2017 17:59

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/mbErel.aspx?relid=158191

ReleasesPhotosFeaturesInvitationsPress Information Bureau
Government Of India
Ministry of Defence
(07-February, 2017 16:44 IST )

Expanding Defence manufacturing base in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh

A proposal to expand manufacturing base in the defence establishment including manufacturing arms, wheels etc. In Jabalpur as it has a very large area engaged in ordnance manufacturing and therefore, Madhya Pradesh has immense potential in that area. The following Ordnance Factories located in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh have undertaken productionisation of certain defence items, the details of which are enumerated below:

• Gun Carriage Factory (GCF): GCF has been identified to manufacture and assemble 155mm x 45 Cal Gun ‘Dhanush’. An indent of 114 Guns has already been placed on OFB.

• Vehicle Factory Jabalpur (VFJ): VFJ has developed 4 x 4 Mine Protected Vehicle (MPV) to meet the requirement of Army and Ministry of Home Affairs. VFJ is also involved in development and production of 6 x 6 Modernized Mine Protected Vehicle (MMPV).

• In Ordnance Factory Khamaria (OFK), new products like 125mm FSAPDS Tank Ammunition, 84mm HEAT 751 (with tandem warhead), HEDP 502 & Smoke 469C, Pre-fragmented Air Bombs etc. are being productionised at OFK, Jabalpur.

This information was given by Minister of State for Defence Dr. Subhash Bhamre in a written reply to Shri Vivek K Tankha in Rajya Sabha today.

DM/NAMPI/Ranjan

(Release ID :158191)