Artillery: News & Discussion

Locked
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by manjgu »

why would Shri Vivek T Tankha be interested in what is being manufactured in Jabalpur?
ManuJ
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 441
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ManuJ »

manjgu wrote:why would Shri Vivek T Tankha be interested in what is being manufactured in Jabalpur?
Tankha is from Jabalpur
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ramana »

Looks like Dhanush user 'exploitation' trials again next month.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 741780.cms

JABALPUR: Dhanush, the Indian 155mm howitzer based on the Bofors gun design, will go for another testfire next month before being inducted into the Indian Army, five years after the project was launched. Dhanush, which has a better range and modern functioning as compared to the original Bofors gun, has been developed by Gun Carriage Factory (GCF), Jabalpur.

The gun was put on display by the GCF on the occasion of Ordnance Factory Day on Saturday.

Bofors is of 155x39 calibre. But Dhanush is of 155x45 calibre which gives it a better range of 38km, 10km more than the Bofors. Six Dhanush guns are already with the Army but yet to be officially taken in. The guns have been taken for what is being termed as "user exploitation".

Sources said such an arrangement has been made for the first time. User exploitation means the Army will use it extensively. With this, it will get accustomed to the weapon system and any changes that may be required can be pointed out to the manufacturer. "At the same time, a user evaluation, which is done to confirm that the gun fundamentally meets the Army's specification, is also underway independently by a different team," sources said.
.
{Hope this wont turn out to be Arjun redux were suggestions to improve were given and basically killed it. The suggestions for improvement have to be justified and approved by Chief of Army staff for accountability.}

.
After clearing all the tests, it is expected that the first batch of 18 Dhanush guns will be sent to the Army for induction in 2017-18.

The test fire will be held at Pokhran in Rajasthan next month with around 300 rounds of firing and this may be the final round under the "user exploitation". The previous testfire was held at Siachen where the gun was able to fire accurately with even pinpointing bunkers. The rounds could hit the target with minute precision.

"This has boosted the confidence of GCF team which is now waiting for the next trials," the sources said.

The firing will be conducted under the "user exploitation" mandate. In the meantime, results of the user evaluation are expected in July. The six guns will be sent back to the GCF for incorporating the suggested changes. :((

Subsequently, another 12 guns will be ready to be finally sent to the Army. GCF originally has a mandate to make 114 Dhanush guns. "Orders for the remaining 96 will depend on the clearance of the first 18," the sources said and added the GCF plans to make 35 to 40 guns each year.

Meanwhile, there was an issue related to radiated emissions from the guns during the last trials under user evaluation. During the firing, there should be no emissions from one gun to another. :?: The problem has been solved and the results of further tests are expected in July.


Production of the guns continues at the GCF so that there is no time lag. The user evaluation is done in four stages covering aspects like maintainability apart from firing. With most of hurdles getting cleared, the GCF is hopeful of getting the final clearance under the user evaluation too.

I am keeping fingers crossed till the July.
Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Marten »

^Are you wishing for an Indian defeat so a few folks from DGMF will come to their senses?
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

Bheeshma: Please edit your post. That is in poor light. I know, the situation is frustrating.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5249
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by srai »

ramana wrote:Looks like Dhanush user 'exploitation' trials again next month.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 741780.cms
...

Sources said such an arrangement has been made for the first time. User exploitation means the Army will use it extensively. With this, it will get accustomed to the weapon system and any changes that may be required can be pointed out to the manufacturer. "At the same time, a user evaluation, which is done to confirm that the gun fundamentally meets the Army's specification, is also underway independently by a different team," sources said.
.
{Hope this wont turn out to be Arjun redux were suggestions to improve were given and basically killed it. The suggestions for improvement have to be justified and approved by Chief of Army staff for accountability.}

.
After clearing all the tests, it is expected that the first batch of 18 Dhanush guns will be sent to the Army for induction in 2017-18.

...

"This has boosted the confidence of GCF team which is now waiting for the next trials," the sources said.

The firing will be conducted under the "user exploitation" mandate. In the meantime, results of the user evaluation are expected in July. The six guns will be sent back to the GCF for incorporating the suggested changes. :((

Subsequently, another 12 guns will be ready to be finally sent to the Army. GCF originally has a mandate to make 114 Dhanush guns. "Orders for the remaining 96 will depend on the clearance of the first 18," the sources said and added the GCF plans to make 35 to 40 guns each year.

...
Production of the guns continues at the GCF so that there is no time lag. The user evaluation is done in four stages covering aspects like maintainability apart from firing. With most of hurdles getting cleared, the GCF is hopeful of getting the final clearance under the user evaluation too.

I am keeping fingers crossed till the July.
With all these "double" user evaluation going on, the IA needs to order more than 114 Dhanush guns. What's with the partly order? Hopefully, not Arjun MBT redux.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by nachiket »

srai wrote: With all these "double" user evaluation going on, the IA needs to order more than 114 Dhanush guns. What's with the partly order? Hopefully, not Arjun MBT redux.
I think they are looking at Dhanush as an interim purchase till ATAGS is ready for induction. By the time the 114th Dhanush is built, ATAGS should be (hopefully) already in production. All subsequent orders would be for ATAGS only.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5249
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by srai »

nachiket wrote:
srai wrote: With all these "double" user evaluation going on, the IA needs to order more than 114 Dhanush guns. What's with the partly order? Hopefully, not Arjun MBT redux.
I think they are looking at Dhanush as an interim purchase till ATAGS is ready for induction. By the time the 114th Dhanush is built, ATAGS should be (hopefully) already in production. All subsequent orders would be for ATAGS only.
Given the lessons from Arjun MBT Mk.2, ATAGS could possibly take a while after endless rounds of trial and goal-post shifting. Look at Arjun MBT production line. It's been sitting idle for more than 4 years now waiting for Mk.2. The initial order of 124 Mk.1 was way too little for production viability. I see the same mistake being repeated here. You need to have overlapping of production so that there is gradual shift from one to another and investments are not wasteful. Production lead times (24-36 months) need to be cratered for if there is to be continuity without disruptions.

Like the large MBT quantities, the IA has a requirement for some 3000-4000 155mm artillery pieces in different variations. Even if ATAGS is ready in a few years, it will take a long while to produce all the guns. Remember the IA hasn't inducted new 155m artillery guns since Bofors.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by nachiket »

srai wrote: Given the lessons from Arjun MBT Mk.2, ATAGS could possibly take a while after endless rounds of trial and goal-post shifting. Look at Arjun MBT production line. It's been sitting idle for more than 4 years now waiting for Mk.2. The initial order of 124 Mk.1 was way too little for production viability. I see the same mistake being repeated here. You need to have overlapping of production so that there is gradual shift from one to another and investments are not wasteful. Production lead times (24-36 months) need to be cratered for if there is to be continuity without disruptions.

Like the large MBT quantities, the IA has a requirement for some 3000-4000 155mm artillery pieces in different variations. Even if ATAGS is ready in a few years, it will take a long while to produce all the guns. Remember the IA hasn't inducted new 155m artillery guns since Bofors.
I don't think the Arjun case can be compared to artillery acquisition. What the IA did (and continues to do) to the Arjun is intentional. They do not want the tank but having wasted the taxpayer's time and money for so long they do not want to be the ones to just come out and say "we don't want it, so scrap it" and then face the brickbats. They have a ready alternative in the T-90 anyway and there is no glaring deficiency in our tank strength vis a vis Pak or China for now.

The case of Artillery is different. IA is not responsible for the current situation. That blame falls squarely on the MoD and their repeated cancellations of tenders, blacklisting of firms on a whim, a general tendency to not make any decisions whatsoever on acquisitions and the fact that it took us this long to figure out that we had all the blueprints and could have produced a Bofors copy anytime we wanted (without the new stuff in Dhanush). IA is desperate for new artillery, any artillery, doesn't matter where it comes from. They will not delay it without reason unlike what they did to the Arjun.
Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Marten »

I do not think they suddenly found the blueprints, knowing our system, OFB must have sat on it until a dynamic risk taker turned up and said let's start the dialog. IA arms are vying for capital expenditure and this is where it matters whether the chief is from infantry, arty, armoured, or peasantry.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5249
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by srai »

nanchiket,

The IA had 4 separate rounds of 155mm artillery trials with foreign gun makers over the course of a decade. None of them were able to meet the IA's requirements. So you can't squarely put the blame on the MoD only ;)

Besides, India was able to design & develop 105mm guns but somehow they never moved on to 155mm. Instead, foreign solution was sought as a saviour even after the Bofors scandal in the late 1980s. Lots of lost opportunities and the blame goes all around.
ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 585
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ramdas »

The best solution is to ban all artillery imports for the army and force the new artillery guns: Dhanush as well as the ATAGS (whenever it is ready) down the Army's throat in sufficient numbers (several hundreds to begin with). The MOD must act here. This endless cycle of trials is a sign of corruption. The Army will learn to fight with what it has got as long as what it has got is much better than the existing 105 mm/130 mm pieces.
Bheeshma
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 22:01

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Bheeshma »

Well someone already removed my post. But unless IA takes indigenous products seriously they are destined for defeat. Its just a fact.
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by abhik »

^^^
It won't be a defeat for IA, but for the country.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5249
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by srai »

nachiket wrote:...and the fact that it took us this long to figure out that we had all the blueprints and could have produced a Bofors copy anytime we wanted (without the new stuff in Dhanush). ...
Contrary to this popular belief, which makes a great catchy headlines/story about incompetence of OFB, they did not forget about the blueprints. GCF was actively trying to "reverse-engineer" it over two-decades building Bofors spare parts and components using the design documents. By the time GCF was officially given the go ahead by DAC, it had accumulated two-decades plus of knowledge on the Bofors. Plus, other institutional knowledge on gun design, development and production of its own 105mm guns and its involvement in Soltam upgrade of 130mm to 155mm and other modernization efforts on the Bofors. That is how Dhanush came about in a relatively short period of time once funding and "official blessings" were given.

‘Desi Bofors’ to be first showcased in Republic Day parade
Updated: Jan 22, 2017 11:54 IST
...
“The ‘Dhanush’ project has received support and active cooperation from other ordinance factories and PSUs such as SAIL, BEL, and many private sector companies. Their support has made the project a huge success,” the official said.

The gun, a towed howitzer, has been developed by Ordnance Factory Board (OFB), Kolkata, after going through the design and documents running into over 12,000 pages which were given to India under the first phase of ‘Transfer of Technology’ (ToT) as part of the Bofors gun deal in the late 1980s.

The Swedish Bofors company (now owned by Britain’s BAE System) could not complete the ToT for the 155-mm howitzer with 39 calibre to India as the deal got embroiled in a major political row over alleged kickbacks.

Subsequently, OFB struggled for long to produce the howitzer indigenously despite the fact that it has manufactured and supplied several components or spare parts to keep the Bofors howitzers operational in India, especially during the Kargil War.

The army had been desperately looking for 155-mm howitzers for more than a decade now. It had roped in an Israeli company, Soltam, to upgrade the imported, Russian-made 130-mm gun to 155-mm at GCF. But the project, after the upgraded gun’s trial, ran into hot water, the official claimed.

Five years ago, the Defence Acquisition Council had decided to look for artillery guns within the country and asked OFB to start manufacturing howitzers.

Towards that end, former Defence Minister A K Antony flagged off a 155-mm gun manufacturing facility at GCF on September 22, 2012.
...
Bheeshma
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 22:01

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Bheeshma »

Yes and IA must be made aware of it. So if the gun has to be forced down their throats so be it.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

Then the same must hold true for Arjun no? Why did that not happen?

Politicians have no clue.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by nachiket »

Bheeshma wrote:Yes and IA must be made aware of it. So if the gun has to be forced down their throats so be it.
What is the point of barking about "forcing it down their throats" when the IA has already placed an initial order for it?
Bheeshma
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 22:01

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Bheeshma »

Did you read the report? Then why moan about Arjun after all they did place an order for it?
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by nachiket »

srai wrote:nachiket,

The IA had 4 separate rounds of 155mm artillery trials with foreign gun makers over the course of a decade. None of them were able to meet the IA's requirements. So you can't squarely put the blame on the MoD only ;)
This ignores the fact that many of those tenders ran into trouble because of corruption allegations involving Denel, STK etc. and tenders being cancelled because if it. This was due to MoD knee-jerk reactions to news articles citing anonymous sources and St. Antony's desire to maintain his personal integrity at the cost of everything else.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5249
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by srai »

^^^
The blame goes beyond just one of the actors: MoD, IA, OFB, DRDO, GoI or foreign companies/agents. All must take the blame.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by rohitvats »

The amount of ignorance at display because people cannot see beyond their jaundiced view is staggering :roll:

And to think this is a military forum where people are supposed to back-up their assertions with some bit of research/data-point than go by pure emotions which have no basis in reality.

Everyone in the Services is corrupt, every action is suspect because script does not run as per the wishes of some uber-patriots on this forum. It is easy to use same jaded arguments every time things don't happen as desired. Because it is easy to make these asinine one line comments than spent even 5-minutes looking for answer to your query.

We're sure 'ahead of curve'...
chandrabhan
BRFite
Posts: 206
Joined: 23 Jul 2008 10:59

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by chandrabhan »

I have been following (like all of us) this artillery saga but somehow just cant understand this trial that trial and then once more.. Whether some gun is radiating or not is baffling.. Crazy it is to see trials after trials..
A gun barrel that doesn't burst and can lob the shell miles away is far better than fighting with stones..
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by rohitvats »

chandrabhan wrote:I have been following (like all of us) this artillery saga but somehow just cant understand this trial that trial and then once more.. Whether some gun is radiating or not is baffling.. Crazy it is to see trials after trials..A gun barrel that doesn't burst and can lob the shell miles away is far better than fighting with stones..
This trial after trial seems an endless exercise because no one bothers to read the fine print and understand the underlying process. Which is funny because everyone on BRF has been exposed to details of mother of trials - IOC and FOC of Tejas. Each weapon system undergoes a somewhat similar set of trials.

Dhanush as a weapon platform would've been first trialed by R&D establishment to proof the concept - from basics to test whether the weapon system works at all to testing it in different environments and under different kind of stresses arising out of different operational scenarios. Everything claimed under performance of the gun - from sustained fire mode to burst fire mode to rapid fire more to mobility to laying time of the gun, everything has to be proofed by the R&D establishment.

However, there are two very important developments which happened in case of Dhanush.

(a) Dhanush itself came into being because General VK Singh and his DG Arty asked MOD on the status of blueprints and got MOD to sanction development of a gun basis these blueprints.

(b) IA established a joint team with R&D establishment (personnel posted to Jabalpur) and was involved with them all the way during the development process itself. Army personnel from Arty Regiment were involved in all the trials from day one. A designated Medium Regiment carried out all the trials and gave user feedback to R&D establishment in real time.

However, best of prototypes have been laid to waste if the production quality does not meet required standard.

So, after the gun was given A-OK basis the development trials and order for 114 guns was placed, OFB manufactured a certain number (4 or 6, I don't remember) and these were handed over to Army for trials. It is these guns from pre-production series which are being trialed now to ensure that production variants meet the performance as was achieved during developments.

If these had been imports, all these processes would've happened in OEM country and we'd have simply trialed them in hot and cold weather conditions.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by JayS »

srai wrote:
nachiket wrote:...and the fact that it took us this long to figure out that we had all the blueprints and could have produced a Bofors copy anytime we wanted (without the new stuff in Dhanush). ...
Contrary to this popular belief, which makes a great catchy headlines/story about incompetence of OFB, they did not forget about the blueprints. GCF was actively trying to "reverse-engineer" it over two-decades building Bofors spare parts and components using the design documents.
I was watching a video from DefExpo 2015, I think, where the OFB rep while describing Dhanush mentioned that the Barrel tech was mastered some 7yrs ago (i.e. ~2008 or so) and IA even fired test shots from those barrels made by OFB based on ToT from Bofors.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5249
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by srai »

chandrabhan wrote:I have been following (like all of us) this artillery saga but somehow just cant understand this trial that trial and then once more.. Whether some gun is radiating or not is baffling.. Crazy it is to see trials after trials..
A gun barrel that doesn't burst and can lob the shell miles away is far better than fighting with stones..
Let's just hope it doesn't go the way of NAMICA :((

Original
Image

Revision 1
Image

Current Revision
Image

Note: Initial orders are for 13 units only and yet to be given the green light for production.
SandeepS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 40
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 02:34
Location: Cuckoo-land

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by SandeepS »

rohitvats wrote:
This trial after trial seems an endless exercise because no one bothers to read the fine print and understand the underlying process. Which is funny because everyone on BRF has been exposed to details of mother of trials - IOC and FOC of Tejas. Each weapon system undergoes a somewhat similar set of trials...
Rohit, I'm afraid its a lost cause as it seems most forum members seem to be trigger-happy like arcade players...why isn't IA immediately replacing Bofors with Dhanush, order it by the 100s and no wait why not place a Dhanush every "x" meters on the border. If IA is not doing what is blatantly obvious to a chest-thumping, uber-patriotic BRF-ite then IA/IAF/IN has to be corrupt, is "Imported Air Force", etc. etc.

What a lot of forum-ites confuse is that IA/AIF/IN does NOT do weapons procurement. The forces only assess equipment that is short-listed by the respective Jt Secy. In other words, DG Arty cannot rock up to Bharat Forge and pick up one of Baba Kalyani's gun to conduct a trial in a chosen location and then sign the cheque next day and induct the weapon the day after. Instead DG Arty will be tasked through chain of command via Jt Secy & Acquisition Manager (Land Systems) to create GSQRs. The GSQRs will be created by a team from Weapons & Equipments Directorate (WE Dte) in the case of IA. Its not for nothing that some of the brightest officers who have passed through Staff College or their equivalent senior arms/tech courses are in Weapons & Equipments Directorate (WE Dte). Depending on the wpn/eqpt being procured, these teams will gather requirements from various field units and would create GSQRs which is peer-reviewed and presented back to DG Arty & his staff officers who will not suffer fools. These GSQRs then land up at Jt Secy who reviews these requirements and in their infinite wisdom can decide to amend, scrap or finalise the GSQR prepared by experts. Then trial plans are submitted to the Jt Secy who reviews & amends/approves it. There are further stages of RFI, RFP, etc which are created by Jt Secy's team and not by WE Dte. Jt Secy then invites the participating OEMs for trials. The no of trials and their parameters are defined and agreed by the Jt Secy and not by WE Dte. WE Dte can make recommendations but the final decision is that of Jt Secy & his team. Have a look at MoD's organisation chart here http://mod.nic.in/forms/Sublink1.aspx?lid=1536&Id=56

Eventually the trials of eqpt is based on the knowledge (formal, informal, tribal), others they have to learn from experience...as they say there is no algorithm for compressing experience. Consequently, Russian eqpt induction has a lot of institutional knowledge base which means that we rejected Soviet AD fire control radars based on experience of P-19s and its ilk but instead trialled Contraves SkyGuard, Ericsson's Giraffe and Signaal's Flycatcher in 80's before finally selecting Flycatcher. OFB produced weapons, equipment and material go through more stringent trials after hard lessons learnt like all brand-new rifles needing the attention of unit armourer as soon as they were unpacked, etc. Or for that matter the stringent multi-stage trials that happened for MMRCA which stood up to scrutiny by all OEMs. Where our jingos take a massive short-cut is to believe that once DRDO has showcased a successful trial to the media, then IA/IAF/IN should immediately induct by '00s or '000s and if they don't then they're corrupt and anti-national. How about looking at how that weapon system will operate in real-world where the lives of our operators could be at risk if it turns out less effective like an excellent tank like Patton getting stuck in muddy fields of Punjab.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5249
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by srai »

^^^

Can you explain the process regarding some specific products like for example Arjun MBT Mk.2 or NAMICA? Those are stuck on a dead-end it seems. Do the Jt Secy & Acquisition Manager consider the quantities that are required for production viability and the lead-times required to produce a product? Also, who is in-charge of product lifecycle management so that enough spares and support are in place for efficient operations with high serviceability? We keep hearing about products after induction experiencing low serviceability rates. That doesn't mean a product is bad necessarily (especially afer proving itself in stringent trials & re-trials) but more that long-term maintenance support is lacking post-induction.

Also it seems with extra trialing of OFB products pre-induction, that is not necessarily going to find quality-related faults post mass production. It seems more appropriate approach would be to have an ongoing independent (3rd party) quality checks while in mass production and before product shipment (random checks). Any faults found during random checks would need to be rectified then and there itself (for that whole batch) before being shipped to a customer.
SandeepS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 40
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 02:34
Location: Cuckoo-land

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by SandeepS »

I'm afraid I cannot comment on specific eqpt acquisition beyond what is available in public domain. Also I'll advise you not to extrapolate on the basis of one eqpt as that is likely to give you an incorrect and misleading picture.

What I've tried to correct is the notion that IA/IAF/IN has the authority to procure (including trialling) wpns & eqpt. They DO NOT have any authority to procure ANY eqpt, they follow the orders from the relevant Jt Secy in this case JS & AM (Land Systems). If there is anyone ultimately responsible for delays then the buck should stop at that person's desk. I cannot find Adm. Joshi's post-resignation interview where he shared that he didn't have any authority to even reorder new batteries for Kilos, this was reorder and not new eqpt acquisition.

You raised a pertinent point of product lifecycle management i.e. what will be rate of servicing, rate of replacement of key consumables, etc. Various trials are an empirical method of arriving at precisely that lifecycle management for each and every induction. Now you can see for yourself how many trials will be required, depending on the complexity of the eqpt. For some eqpt such information might be available from OEM, for others which are ab-initio development there is no short-cut but to conduct trials for the entire system and its sub-systems...sometimes together and sometimes independently or in various operating modes. Again all these trials, their reports and any requests for re-trials (sometimes there is fall-out between the trial teams comprising of various experts as not everyone agrees...say an EME officer might not agree with the maintainability of the electronics in high humidity of NE while the AD Arty member might think the radar will not perform as per spec for low-flying fast jets in built-up area, these might require re-testing so the eqpt has to go through another trial where those conditions might have to be created by asking for a unit to be taken to high humidity area like Gopalpur-on-sea or a flt of Jags to be requisitioned from IAF for revalidating).

Please don't get me wrong that OFB products go through trials over and above what is planned for other OEMs if they are competing in SAME trial. There have been very few occasions when OFB products have competed in a trial...maybe the recent vehicle trials come to my mind where it was a competitive trial, otherwise they generally don't compete. At the expense of generalising, the quality of OFB products are inconsistent, both at prototype stage and production-stage with lackadaisical approach to the entire process i.e. poor support during the trials, incorrect documentation, disappearing during trials to attend union-related functions, etc. Even DRDO gets nervous once they hand over their successfully development/prototype trialled product to OFB as then they are at the mercy of the OFB production processes. I'm hoping OFB are changing for the better as per media reports regarding recent Dhanush trials...hope the change becomes institutional.

Regarding your suggestion about an independent quality control agency...well that is what DGQA does http://www.dgqadefence.gov.in/toplink.php?id=15. DGQA finds faults, stops shipment, OFB rejects their finding, delays to shipment, AOC or receiving unit questions where is my authorised strength, DGQA relents, shoddy eqpt lands in unit lines, now its IA/IAF/IN who are the evil, anti-national, Import loving somebody elses army/AF/navy for not being able to operationalise the eqpt. What they want is an eqpt that works when required, not a lines/hangar/dock queen. Now not only you have a problem that a unit is under-equipped, but that means that they cannot train their cadres, deploy in time, over-use the remaining eqpt which breaks down and lands up with OFB...net-net the import loving army/AF/navy gets blamed for delays in induction caused by others.

At the rate at which the blame-game is now going on, I don't think that day is too far away when IA/IAF/IN will come with folded hands to MoD mandarins and to jingoes like those in media and some over here on BRF and hand-over the command to them and say do as you please per your infinite wisdom.
jayasimha
BRFite
Posts: 400
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 17:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by jayasimha »

SRAI,
You may get some of the answer in the annual reports.

http://ddpmod.gov.in/documents/annual-reports

16-17 reports talks about namica as follows
Anti-Tank Missile ‘PROSPINA’: ‘Nag’ is a 3rd
generation anti-tank missile (ATM) with 'Fire &
Forget' and 'Top Attack' capabilities, which can
be used in day and night. It is deployed on a
specially modified Infantry Command Vehicle
(ICV) BMP-2 vehicle called 'NAMICA'. During
the year, guided flight tests of ‘Nag’ were
carried out with the objective of demonstrating
the range capabilities of IIR Seeker during the
worst time of the day in summer environment.

15-16 report
3rd Generation Anti-Tank Guided Missile
‘Nag’ (PROSPINA): ‘Nag’ having an operation
range of 4 Km is a 3rd generation anti-tank
missile (ATM) with ‘Fire & Forget’ and ‘Top
Attack’ capabilities, which can be used in
day and night. It is deployed on a specially
modified Infantry Command Vehicle (ICV)
BMP-2 vehicle called ‘NAMICA’. HOT test of
‘NAG’ and functional testing of safety arming
mechanism in flight configuration were
completed in October 2015.
Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5380
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Karthik S »

Good news!
Livefist‏ @livefist
Indian MoD clears $650 million deal with private sector giant L&T for 100 K9 Vajra-T tracked 155mm/52cal artillery systems.
JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3118
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by JTull »

Karthik S wrote:Good news!
Livefist‏ @livefist
Indian MoD clears $650 million deal with private sector giant L&T for 100 K9 Vajra-T tracked 155mm/52cal artillery systems.
Many of these contracts have been stuck in the Finance Ministry. Hopefully Jaitley will approve more of these. We're finally reaping the benefits of ground work laid by Parrikar.
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by abhik »

^^^
The actual price should be no less than $1 billion, if they are still quoting the $650 mil figure then I suspect its not a done deal yet.
BTW what exactly is Parrikar being given credit for?
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by JayS »

abhik wrote:^^^
The actual price should be no less than $1 billion, if they are still quoting the $650 mil figure then I suspect its not a done deal yet.
BTW what exactly is Parrikar being given credit for?
Putting some sense in MoD..
Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3671
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Kashi »

abhik wrote:^^^
The actual price should be no less than $1 billion, if they are still quoting the $650 mil figure then I suspect its not a done deal yet.
Why?
A Rs 4,600-crore order for field guns is expected by next month-end, [Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (L&T) group executive chairman, AM] Naik told
https://www.bloombergquint.com/business ... ys-am-naik

By my reckoning 4600 crores should ~700 million USD.
ranjan.rao
BRFite
Posts: 520
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 01:21

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ranjan.rao »

will the contract drafting follow MOD clearance or has it already taken place?
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Austin »

India's acquisition of 100 K9 SPHs approved
Rahul Bedi, New Delhi - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly

http://www.janes.com/article/69168/indi ... oved[quote]

India's Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) approved the INR42 billion (USD646 million) procurement of 100 modified South Korean Hanwa Techwin K9 Vajra-T 155 mm/52-calibre tracked self-propelled howitzers (SPHs) for the Indian Army on 29 March.

Officials said the contract for the K9 Vajra (Thunderbolt) SPHs to be built by Techwin's joint venture (JV) with Larsen & Toubro (L&T) at the latter's Telegaon plant near Pune, western India, was to be signed by 31 March: the close of financial year 2016-17.

The SPHs are being procured under the 'Buy Global' category of India's Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) and will comprise 50% indigenous content. This will enable the JV to bypass the mandatory 30% offset investment of the overall contract value into India's defence, internal security, or civil aviation sectors.

Locally developed components will include 14 subsystems, such as the fire control and communication suites, in addition to India indigenously fabricating and machining the K9's hull and turret structure.

The K9 is powered by a German 1,000 hp MTU MT 881 Ka-500 V8 water-cooled diesel engine and driven by a fully automatic US-origin Allison transmission. Operated by a five-man crew, the 47-tonne SPH is capable of firing assorted projectiles to ranges between 18 and 42 km.

The K9's hydro-suspension and high ground clearance ensure mobility across varied terrain.

Constructed of all-welded steel armour and capable of withstanding 14.5 mm armour-piercing shells and 152 mm rounds, the K9's design incorporates an automatic fire control and loading system, a modular azimuth position system, and a powered gun elevation and turret traverse system.

Industry officials said the K9 tender would be the biggest signed with India's private sector for a large military platform and includes the option for an additional 50 guns.

The SPHs' supplementary K10 munitions supply vehicle, built on the K9 platform, is not part of the tender, industry sources have said.[/quote]
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4024
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by deejay »

SandeepS wrote:
rohitvats wrote:
This trial after trial seems an endless exercise because no one bothers to read the fine print and understand the underlying process. Which is funny because everyone on BRF has been exposed to details of mother of trials - IOC and FOC of Tejas. Each weapon system undergoes a somewhat similar set of trials...
Rohit, I'm afraid its a lost cause as it seems most forum members seem to be trigger-happy like arcade players...why isn't IA immediately replacing Bofors with Dhanush, order it by the 100s and no wait why not place a Dhanush every "x" meters on the border. If IA is not doing what is blatantly obvious to a chest-thumping, uber-patriotic BRF-ite then IA/IAF/IN has to be corrupt, is "Imported Air Force", etc. etc.

What a lot of forum-ites confuse is that IA/AIF/IN does NOT do weapons procurement. The forces only assess equipment that is short-listed by the respective Jt Secy. In other words, DG Arty cannot rock up to Bharat Forge and pick up one of Baba Kalyani's gun to conduct a trial in a chosen location and then sign the cheque next day and induct the weapon the day after. Instead DG Arty will be tasked through chain of command via Jt Secy & Acquisition Manager (Land Systems) to create GSQRs. The GSQRs will be created by a team from Weapons & Equipments Directorate (WE Dte) in the case of IA. Its not for nothing that some of the brightest officers who have passed through Staff College or their equivalent senior arms/tech courses are in Weapons & Equipments Directorate (WE Dte). Depending on the wpn/eqpt being procured, these teams will gather requirements from various field units and would create GSQRs which is peer-reviewed and presented back to DG Arty & his staff officers who will not suffer fools. These GSQRs then land up at Jt Secy who reviews these requirements and in their infinite wisdom can decide to amend, scrap or finalise the GSQR prepared by experts. Then trial plans are submitted to the Jt Secy who reviews & amends/approves it. There are further stages of RFI, RFP, etc which are created by Jt Secy's team and not by WE Dte. Jt Secy then invites the participating OEMs for trials. The no of trials and their parameters are defined and agreed by the Jt Secy and not by WE Dte. WE Dte can make recommendations but the final decision is that of Jt Secy & his team. Have a look at MoD's organisation chart here http://mod.nic.in/forms/Sublink1.aspx?lid=1536&Id=56

Eventually the trials of eqpt is based on the knowledge (formal, informal, tribal), others they have to learn from experience...as they say there is no algorithm for compressing experience. Consequently, Russian eqpt induction has a lot of institutional knowledge base which means that we rejected Soviet AD fire control radars based on experience of P-19s and its ilk but instead trialled Contraves SkyGuard, Ericsson's Giraffe and Signaal's Flycatcher in 80's before finally selecting Flycatcher. OFB produced weapons, equipment and material go through more stringent trials after hard lessons learnt like all brand-new rifles needing the attention of unit armourer as soon as they were unpacked, etc. Or for that matter the stringent multi-stage trials that happened for MMRCA which stood up to scrutiny by all OEMs. Where our jingos take a massive short-cut is to believe that once DRDO has showcased a successful trial to the media, then IA/IAF/IN should immediately induct by '00s or '000s and if they don't then they're corrupt and anti-national. How about looking at how that weapon system will operate in real-world where the lives of our operators could be at risk if it turns out less effective like an excellent tank like Patton getting stuck in muddy fields of Punjab.
SandeepS wrote:I'm afraid I cannot comment on specific eqpt acquisition beyond what is available in public domain. Also I'll advise you not to extrapolate on the basis of one eqpt as that is likely to give you an incorrect and misleading picture.

What I've tried to correct is the notion that IA/IAF/IN has the authority to procure (including trialling) wpns & eqpt. They DO NOT have any authority to procure ANY eqpt, they follow the orders from the relevant Jt Secy in this case JS & AM (Land Systems). If there is anyone ultimately responsible for delays then the buck should stop at that person's desk. I cannot find Adm. Joshi's post-resignation interview where he shared that he didn't have any authority to even reorder new batteries for Kilos, this was reorder and not new eqpt acquisition.

You raised a pertinent point of product lifecycle management i.e. what will be rate of servicing, rate of replacement of key consumables, etc. Various trials are an empirical method of arriving at precisely that lifecycle management for each and every induction. Now you can see for yourself how many trials will be required, depending on the complexity of the eqpt. For some eqpt such information might be available from OEM, for others which are ab-initio development there is no short-cut but to conduct trials for the entire system and its sub-systems...sometimes together and sometimes independently or in various operating modes. Again all these trials, their reports and any requests for re-trials (sometimes there is fall-out between the trial teams comprising of various experts as not everyone agrees...say an EME officer might not agree with the maintainability of the electronics in high humidity of NE while the AD Arty member might think the radar will not perform as per spec for low-flying fast jets in built-up area, these might require re-testing so the eqpt has to go through another trial where those conditions might have to be created by asking for a unit to be taken to high humidity area like Gopalpur-on-sea or a flt of Jags to be requisitioned from IAF for revalidating).

Please don't get me wrong that OFB products go through trials over and above what is planned for other OEMs if they are competing in SAME trial. There have been very few occasions when OFB products have competed in a trial...maybe the recent vehicle trials come to my mind where it was a competitive trial, otherwise they generally don't compete. At the expense of generalising, the quality of OFB products are inconsistent, both at prototype stage and production-stage with lackadaisical approach to the entire process i.e. poor support during the trials, incorrect documentation, disappearing during trials to attend union-related functions, etc. Even DRDO gets nervous once they hand over their successfully development/prototype trialled product to OFB as then they are at the mercy of the OFB production processes. I'm hoping OFB are changing for the better as per media reports regarding recent Dhanush trials...hope the change becomes institutional.

Regarding your suggestion about an independent quality control agency...well that is what DGQA does http://www.dgqadefence.gov.in/toplink.php?id=15. DGQA finds faults, stops shipment, OFB rejects their finding, delays to shipment, AOC or receiving unit questions where is my authorised strength, DGQA relents, shoddy eqpt lands in unit lines, now its IA/IAF/IN who are the evil, anti-national, Import loving somebody elses army/AF/navy for not being able to operationalise the eqpt. What they want is an eqpt that works when required, not a lines/hangar/dock queen. Now not only you have a problem that a unit is under-equipped, but that means that they cannot train their cadres, deploy in time, over-use the remaining eqpt which breaks down and lands up with OFB...net-net the import loving army/AF/navy gets blamed for delays in induction caused by others.

At the rate at which the blame-game is now going on, I don't think that day is too far away when IA/IAF/IN will come with folded hands to MoD mandarins and to jingoes like those in media and some over here on BRF and hand-over the command to them and say do as you please per your infinite wisdom.
Thank You.
habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6919
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by habal »

At the rate at which the blame-game is now going on, I don't think that day is too far away when IA/IAF/IN will come with folded hands to MoD mandarins and to jingoes like those in media and some over here on BRF and hand-over the command to them and say do as you please per your infinite wisdom.
this should have happened yesterday.
Bart S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2938
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Bart S »

Is ammo 100% portable/compatible between the lightweight, new ATAGs-based towed, existing Bofors towed, and SPH systems that the Army is looking to operate? Or does the ammo have to be custom-made and hence stocks cannot be pooled between them?
Locked