Artillery: News & Discussion

Locked
vnms
BRFite
Posts: 196
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 01:56

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by vnms »

Each shell at 50k? After a small scale war, the ammo would probably cost more than the gun.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

Excalibur would not be used like a standard round. It will be used when the mission need demands it. For example when you want to deploy expeditionary troops and want them to provide precision effects with the small logistical footprint in the absence of other rotary or fixed winged strike assets. Or when you need to provide fire support to troops that may be in close proximity to the intended target.

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

The OATK-PGK as ramana's linked article suggests is a more affordable option likely coming in at a fourth of the cost of the Excalibur.
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Gagan »

Ultimately trying to hit a target from afar is an increasingly more expensive and difficult proposition.
If the idea is to have an expeditionary assaulting force, it is better to equip them with firepower that can move with them. That along with reliable air cover.

The troops and commanders will be happier with such a formulation.
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Gagan »

I like the idea of a truck mounted 105 mm field gun, or a small jeep mounted tube artillery.
Right now all this being addressed with everything from UBGLs to Mortars to flame throwers. Larger mortars and flame throwers now need a 2-3 man team.

If these jeep mounted guns and tube artillery could be delivered in numbers to advancing troops, they'll be able to deliver more accurate barrages from much close, do their own immediate BDA, correct their fire etc. They can have some soldier launched drones to assist movement and assessment
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ramana »

One option is to have an effective long range accurate gun with electronic or proximity fuzes and hit the target.
An M107 shell costs around $400. The M572 PD fuze about $50. So for sake of argument the PF from ECIL costs $250. So if you have an accurate gun then its pretty cost effective. The 45 calibers will give extra range as the barrel has enough length to develop the pressure forces.
The Dhanush is shown that capability except for the 4 incidents.

A GPS fuze option would be nice to have. A basic one that goes of near the target coordinates and not guiding it which would drive up the costs.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ramana »

I googled for ECIL and Fuzes and one report I got was from 2010 by Ajai Shukla. As usual its polemics but has important information

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 073_1.html
Please read Electronics Corporation of India Ltd's clarification at the end of the article

Controversy surrounds the Ministry of Defence’s Rs 800-crore procurement of artillery fuses, tiny electronic devices that cause artillery shells, fired from guns like the 155mm Bofors, to explode when they reach their target. Forbidden by a Lok Sabha committee from ordering fuses on a single-vendor basis from the Electronics Corporation of India Ltd (ECIL), and to ensure multi-vendor competition instead, the ministry has structured the tender in a manner that excludes private bidders.

Simultaneously, proceeding on a single-vendor basis, the ministry has ordered 400,000 fuses, worth over Rs 200 crore, from ECIL, citing urgent military needs.

ECIL is not a defence public sector undertaking (PSU); it functions under the Department of Atomic Energy. But a close relationship with South Block, which terms it “the sole approved supplier”, has long given ECIL automatic rights over 80 per cent of the army’s requirement of fuses.

That near-monopoly status has been questioned by a stream of MPs, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), the Lok Sabha Standing Committee on Defence, and the Lok Sabha Committee on Petitions (in its 43rd Report, tabled on November 8, 2008).

The questions raised against ECIL include its dependency on South African company, Fuchs Electronics, the main supplier of fuses to blacklisted South African armaments company, Denel. Critics have pointed out that ECIL merely assembles fuses from components supplied by Fuchs. The main components — a safety and arming device (S&A), the battery and an electronic timer kit — all come from abroad.


Despite that, ECIL has flourished with its key buyer — the Indian Army’s artillery branch — on its right side. Army headquarters admitted to a Lok Sabha committee that its former director general of artillery, Lt Gen Charanjit Singh, joined ECIL as an advisor immediately after he retired. The army’s justification: “ECIL had been appointing several retired defence officers as their advisor (sic).”

ECIL has not responded to an emailed questionnaire on these issues.

But the most serious charge against alleged defence ministry-ECIL collusion is the ministry’s alleged doctoring of its tender (request for proposals, or RfP, in the ministry terminology) for the supply of some one million fuses, a contract worth some Rs 600 crore. The RfP has lumped together three different kinds of fuses: Point detonation, timed and proximity fuses. A vendor either supplies all three types, or supplies none. Private companies like Hyderabad-based HBL Defence Electronics, and Delhi-based Micron Instruments Pvt Ltd, all manufacture one or the other type of fuses, the stipulation that vendors must provide all three fuse types effectively rules them out of contention.

Artillery experts say that each type of fuse involves different technologies.

Lumping the three types together would exclude companies with excellent capabilities in, say, timed fuses, simply because it was not manufacturing proximity fuses.


Small, high-tech companies which are bidding for the contract argue that the ministry would benefit by diversifying its sources of supply, rather than remaining dependent on one large PSU. The Defence Procurement Policy of 2008 (DPP-2008) encourages the cultivation of diverse suppliers.

The defence ministry has not responded to an email questionnaire on the subject.

The tender for one million fuses is also characterized by a high degree of tolerance for ECIL’s dependency on imported fuse components from Fuchs. The RfP specifically allows import duty exemptions for fuse components up to 70 per cent of the value of the contract. Considering that the contract value includes a profit margin of about 15 per cent, the 70 per cent exemption clause effectively allows vendors to import 80 per cent of the fuse.

“This is hardly indigenous production”, points out Jagdish Prasad, CMD of HBL Power Systems Ltd, which claims a far higher percentage of indigenous components in its fuses. “Importing 70 per cent of the fuse and assembling the components in India does not wean our military off foreign dependency.”

This tender, floated on April 2, 2009, and opened on August 27, 2009, is currently hanging fire.

Defence ministry sources say that objections from MPs, and from government vigilance organisations, have held back the ministry from ordering trials and awarding the contract.

Before electronic fuses were invented, artillery shells were exploded by mechanical fuses that detonated on impact with the ground. Birla group company, VXL Technologies, was India’s primary supplier of mechanical fuses. Three decades ago, the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre first produced electronic proximity fuses; the production licence for the famous VT-8A fuse was given to ECIL.

When that became obsolete, ECIL’s failure to absorb technology, and to conduct research and development on fuses, took it to Fuchs. That great dependency continues today
.





ECIL CLARIFIES
Electronics Corporation of India Limited (ECIL) has clarified that two public sector undertakings and two private firms have submitted their bids for the Rs 800-crore tender for procurement of artillery fuses.

Responding to a report published in Business Standard on February 13 (MoD shuts out private firms from fuse purchase), ECIL has clarified that it does not agree with the critics' comment in the report that the company merely assembles fuses from components supplied by Fuchs, a South African company. Similarly, it says the report's reference to Fuchs as a company supplying fuses to blacklisted South African armaments company, Denel, is not relevant.

The Business Standard report was on the favourable treatment accorded by the ministry of defence (MoD) to ECIL in ordering artillery fuses for the Indian Army. The article noted that the MoD made a practice of ordering fuses from ECIL on a single vendor basis until objections from the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and two parliamentary committees; despite that, the MoD cited urgent military need to hand ECIL another single-vendor order worth Rs 200 crores; that ECIL routinely hands out consultancies to senior military officers after they retire; and that the MoD has framed its ongoing Rs 800 crore tender for fuses in a manner that excludes private bidders.

ECIL’s response remains silent on all these issues mentioned in the BS report. However, the state-owned firm under the department of atomic energy has said the defence ministry has not doctored the tender for the supply of one million fuses. The defence ministry's requirements, borne out of operational needs, were clearly spelt out in the pre-bid meeting, it has stated.

ECIL has further noted that the tender for fuse procurement was issued under the government's policy specifying a minimum 30 per cent indigenous content. However, this does not mean the balance 70 per cent will be imported, it has said. "In fact, our import content is far lower than the alleged 70 per cent," the company has stated in a communication to Business Standard.

Also, ECIL's policy has always been to synergise the in-house research and development with technology reputed R&D institutes and tie up with suitable original equipment manufacturers for technology transfer and gradual indigenisation under a phased manufacturing programme.

ECIL's comments on these issues had been sought by Business Standard before the report's publication on February 13. The company responded to them only on March 20. Business Standard learns that the two private companies, which ECIL says have submitted bids, have done so for only a part of the contract. ECIL’s technology partner, Fuchs', relationship with blacklisted company, Denel, highlights the business environment in which ECIL operates. The ECIL clarification on indigenization is silent on how long it takes to absorb technology, and also on what specific technologies that the PSU has indigenised.
By now they could have developed local suppliers for the battery and the timer board. S&A Device they should have made it themselves.

You have to start somewhere and not rely on theoretical and screwdriver technologies.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ramana »

Akshay, I looked at OFB factories product pages, factory inspection equipment pages, CAG reports on OFB and AHQ on ammo shortages and tied it to my shell balloting. The shell is forging which is machined on a lathe, These two processes ensure in a defect free shell casing, The lathe operation machines it true to the axis on CNC lathe to precise tolerances. The shell is filled with an organic chemical which will not have any off axis asymmetry. In my theory, the driving band engages the barrel and the bourrelet which is the cylindrical portion sits in the barrel. This one place if its over-machined could have clearance. But this is CNC machined to close tolerance. Now, how about the driving band comes loose due to what ever reasons, then the shell pivots about the forward bourrelet and whips around? You would say how is that possible. Well, the driving band is made of copper. The shell is steel and hence these are dissimilar metals and if moisture seeps in, it sets up galvanic corrosion. This could create weakness in the driving band joint and come loose. So you can demand where is the evidence of this situation? Bingo in the CAG reports there are rejection reports for shells with corrosion near the driving band!!! The fix is simple to put poly-sulphide caulk to prevent moisture seepage or more robust way would be to weld a steel driving band to the shell.
And don't forget the shell that first burst was 12 years old.
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 »

ramana wrote:Akshay, I looked at OFB factories product pages, factory inspection equipment pages, CAG reports on OFB and AHQ on ammo shortages and tied it to my shell balloting. The shell is forging which is machined on a lathe, These two processes ensure in a defect free shell casing, The lathe operation machines it true to the axis on CNC lathe to precise tolerances. The shell is filled with an organic chemical which will not have any off axis asymmetry. In my theory, the driving band engages the barrel and the bourrelet which is the cylindrical portion sits in the barrel. This one place if its over-machined could have clearance. But this is CNC machined to close tolerance. Now, how about the driving band comes loose due to what ever reasons, then the shell pivots about the forward bourrelet and whips around? You would say how is that possible. Well, the driving band is made of copper. The shell is steel and hence these are dissimilar metals and if moisture seeps in, it sets up galvanic corrosion. This could create weakness in the driving band joint and come loose. So you can demand where is the evidence of this situation? Bingo in the CAG reports there are rejection reports for shells with corrosion near the driving band!!! The fix is simple to put poly-sulphide caulk to prevent moisture seepage or more robust way would be to weld a steel driving band to the shell.
And don't forget the shell that first burst was 12 years old.
Genius investigation. That was a pleasure to read. Thank you Sir.
Eric Leiderman
BRFite
Posts: 364
Joined: 26 Nov 2010 08:56

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Eric Leiderman »

You need a copper band as it is softer than steel and will reduce barrel wear. I would expect this band to be shrink fitted on the steel shell.
to prevent galvenic corrosion. the shell could be machined with a groove, which is then filled with a compound like Belzona which is hard and inert.
The belzona would have to be turned on a lathe to get the right clearances. This procedure is done on marine shafting in a more hostile enviroment and it works for 10-15 years of operation.

Also if you are getting corrosion, then the storage of the said shells comes into the fore. You need a dry constant temp so that moisture is not an issue.
If the above is the case then OFB is not at issue but the armys storage facilities are suspect.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ramana »

The band is softer material to grip the barrel rifling. It is shrink fit. There is a MIL handbook on how the shells are made. MIL 756?.

I am now looking to see any improved bands are used in shells.

Still need the user to be aware of what's going on. A dab of poly sulphide caulk seals the area and adds no extra weight. Prevents moisture from wicking in.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ramana »

Marten, Google for CAG Ammunition 2015. Should bring two pdfs.
One of them has pictures.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Kanson »

Link

Dated 2014
Chander said one of the biggest challenges before DRDO now was to make guided artillery shells. At present, the artillery has conventional shells. These needed repeated bombarding to ensure the target was hit. Guided shells are like smart bombs that can be pinpointed at the target. However, the challenge is to develop a technology that would prevent electronic guiding equipment embedded in shells from getting damaged when the gun fired. Artillery guns fire with almost 60,000 G-force. Even as the design for smart shells was there, the technology to resist the impact was yet to be developed, he said.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ramana »

Kanson, ARDE and a group are working on Smart Fuzes like the US GPS Fuze and another. Will move away from mechanical fuzes is the goal.
In fact the pitch has same photo as the US GPS Fuze. Will link it on Saturday. Its on internet.

Link here:

http://ofb.gov.in/download/make_in_indi ... a_AMMN.pdf
jayasimha
BRFite
Posts: 400
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 17:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by jayasimha »

https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/whatsnew/g ... ellant.pdf

Gun Propellant
development in HEMRL, DRDO.
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4665
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by putnanja »

Known news, but still posting ...

India’s Dhanush artillery gun fails in trials
NEW DELHI — India’s homegrown 155mm/45-caliber gun has taken a hit following a row of failed trials for over three months by the Indian Army, according a top source in the army.

“The Dhanush 155mm/45-caliber artillery gun has failed on three occasions in a row in the last three months when the shell of the gun hit the muzzle brake in one of the six prototype guns currently undergoing user trials,” the Indian Army source said.

Analysts say the failed trials are not a major setback but can postpone the induction program of the gun.
...
...
On the failure of the recent trial of the gun, Bhonsle said, ”Shells hitting the muzzle brake could be due to a number of reasons such as overexploitation of the munitions, overcharging of the munitions and so on or even faulty ammunition; all of these aspects will have to be evaluated.”
...
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Vivek K »

India should only import!
Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1596
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Gyan »

If damage to barrel is a criteria to stop further induction then what about T-90?
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ks_sachin »

Vivek K / Gyan

Are you suggesting that the gun continue to be inducted without knowing what is causing the shell hitting the barrel...10 or 11 men being permanent medical category be damned!!

What about t90?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12196
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Pratyush »

ks_sachin wrote:Vivek K / Gyan

Are you suggesting that the gun continue to be inducted without knowing what is causing the shell hitting the barrel...10 or 11 men being permanent medical category be damned!!

What about t90?
It's barrel bursts as well.
niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5535
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by niran »

Pratyush wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:Vivek K / Gyan

Are you suggesting that the gun continue to be inducted without knowing what is causing the shell hitting the barrel...10 or 11 men being permanent medical category be damned!!

What about t90?
It's barrel bursts as well.
and the fault rectified, so will be Dhanush's fault. what is few months in a 3 plus decade wait
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ks_sachin »

Pratyush wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:Vivek K / Gyan

Are you suggesting that the gun continue to be inducted without knowing what is causing the shell hitting the barrel...10 or 11 men being permanent medical category be damned!!

What about t90?
It's barrel bursts as well.
So its barren burst after induction and there is a SOP to deal with it. The issue was identified and I know this happened with the t72 as well. But this happened post induction.
It would be criminal to induct a weapon when we know that these is an unexplained problem no?

The point I was really trying to highlight was there is much posting of "thoughts" without actually any deeper thinking!!
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12196
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Pratyush »

Indeed, the problem will be solved eventually.
Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1596
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Gyan »

I believe that special preference is shown for imported products. Did K9 go through equivalent trials firing 1000s of rounds? I have no problem if indigenous products are delayed till they are perfected but similarly foreign should not imported till they are perfect! Whether "additional" orders for T-90 were given after problem was discovered? Whether T-90 was adequately tested as we knew about barrel burst problem from T-72 itself? Why were Civilians like me still flying Airbus 320 when Netas had shifted to 747 after its crash in India? Why no one talks about foreign flying coffins after Hawk was purchased? Have crashes stopped?
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

ATS checking if Jhansi stenographer share details about Dhanush howitzer
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 973777.cms
sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1976
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by sudeepj »

Mortar firing at LoC

What is the purpose of the little wall around the mortar emplacement? Its too low to provide any protection from counter battery fire, so it cant be that..
CalvinH
BRFite
Posts: 1098
Joined: 15 Jul 2007 04:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by CalvinH »

Looks like practice drill or a training exercise.
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Gagan »

Some mortars misfire and the propellant does not ignite properly. The live mortar will fall a few feet away.
That small wall will protect the mortar team, who can lie down and take cover behind it. The mortar is placed at the edge of the wall, such that if there is a misfire, the mortar falls beyond the wall.
niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5535
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by niran »

sudeepj wrote:Mortar firing at LoC

What is the purpose of the little wall around the mortar emplacement? Its too low to provide any protection from counter battery fire, so it cant be that..
counter fire protection the name is Mortar Pit, the sand and wood and plastic covered wall make it difficult for laser range finder, counter battery radar etc to operate, furthermore the pit works as dead space which in turn protect crew from counter arty fire.
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4024
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by deejay »

Rohitvats blog on antitank missile:

http://vatsrohit.blogspot.in/2017/08/in ... uided.html
...
As the write-up shows, Indian Army has a varied types of anti-tank guided missiles depending upon usage and platform. In pure number terms, the total requirement is in excess of 85,00 missiles of different types.

The recent order for Spike-MR fills only one, albeit large, part of the overall requirement. If the infantry battalions indeed use a mix of short and long range ATGM, then Spike-MR represents replacement of only the short range version i.e. Milan/Milan-2T. The field is wide open for replacement of Konkur-M in long range ATGM for the infantry. CLGM mentioned above has the attributes to be this replacement. It remains to be seen whether CLGM/CLGM derived missile is the answer or we import another missile. Spike family has the Spike-LR version and Israelis will sure push it. Considering that Konkur-M are going strong, I think domestic R&D establishment still has some time on their hand to offer a credible solution for this requirement.

But induction of Spike-MR does mean that doors for US made Javelin ATGM are more or less closed. It does not make sense for an army to operate two man-portable ATGMs. It might so happen that IA may import some units for specialized formations like special forces. But even this seems absurd.

BMP-2 are slated for upgrade. One proposal from the Russians talks of re-arming the BMP-2 with four AT-14 Kornet missiles; these are placed on either side of the turret in a ready-to-fire pack of two. With DRDO making progress with CLGM, it remains to be seen if it can be adapted for BMP-2 upgrade. Between infantry's long range ATGM requirement and BMP-2 upgrade, CLGM/CLGM derived missile has the potential to tap the biggest segment of ATGM in the army.

Recently, Indian Army has expressed interest for next generation tank fired ATGM for its T-90 fleet. And it seems the T-72 main gun (2A46M) is also likely to be updated with T-90 main gun (2A46-M5). This will permit upgraded T-72 to fire ATGM from the main gun. CLGM was developed for 120mm rifled main gun of Arjun tank while T-72/T-90 have 125mm main guns. It remains to be see whether DRDO bites the bullet and delivers a new missile for T-90/T-72 fleet or India goes for missile from abroad.

Finally, NAG seems to that much closer to clearing the final hurdle. This one missile represents a phenomenal jump in anti-tank capability of the army. The missile is capable of defeating any present or future tank which is likely to see service on western or eastern borders. It induction in the army will give formidable anti-tank capability to its infantry/mechanized formations.

Same goes for HELINA. The Army Aviation Corp (AAC) is slated for massive expansion, especially in the attack helicopter domain. IA plans to induct 60 Rudra and 114 Light Combat Helicopters. It is but common sense that a domestic missile serves this massive requirement.

As things stand today, India can fulfill about 80%-85% of ATGM requirement across multiple platforms. All it requires is for the R&D establishment to work out realistic and achievable goals. And for the Indian Army to ensure good does not become the enemy of the best and that it works closely with the R&D establishment to work on this road-map.
...
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by abhik »

Has a deal for Spike missiles actually been signed?
jayasimha
BRFite
Posts: 400
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 17:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by jayasimha »

As per MOD website.

(11) A contract for procurement of 130 mm guns at a cost of Rs. 219.06 crore from M/s Electronic Corporation oflndia Ltd. (ECIL) was signed on 19.6.2017
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ramana »

Would it be for electronic systems for 130 mm guns?
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Philip »

Dhanush fails a third time? Is there a diabolic plot to sabotage it? A thorough and swift investigation must be made esp. with the ammo,where OFB's ammo has been in the past found to be defective.Can't understand why sev. guns are not tested simultaneously with ammo from diff sources.

https://sputniknews.com/military/201708 ... n-failure/
Xcpts:
Military exercises Union Shield 2015India’s New Domestic Artillery Gun Fails Weapons Trials for Third Time © Sputnik

MILITARY & INTELLIGENCE
03:47 16.08.2017

India’s homemade Dhanush towed howitzer may be domestically produced, but a multitude of failed tests have proven that the weapon is unready for use in warfare. An Indian Army source told Defense News that the artillery gun has failed three times in as many months, pushing the induction date back further and further.

"The Dhanush 155mm/45-caliber artillery gun has failed on three occasions in a row in the last three months when the shell of the gun hit the muzzle brake in one of the six prototype guns currently undergoing user trials," the source told Defense News.

This isn't the first time the Dhanush has encountered troubles. In July, The Times of India reported that "in May when six guns were being fired at one go, a shell hit the muzzle brake in one of the pieces…Last week when the test fires were being undertaken, again a shell hit the muzzle brake, bringing the whole process back to square one."

"Shells hitting the muzzle brake could be due to a number of reasons such as overexploitation of the munitions, overcharging of the munitions and so on or even faulty ammunition; all of these aspects will have to be evaluated," said Rahul Bhonsle, retired Indian Army brigadier and defense analyst, to Defense News.

India currently uses 414 FH-77B howitzer artillery guns manufactured by Swedish defense contractor Bofors (which was then acquired by the British BAE Systems in 2005.) The FH-77B's were purchased in the late 80s and early 90s.

The Dhanush is based off the FH-77B, as India acquired the schematics to the gun. Its primary advantage over India's aging arsenal of FH-77B's is a larger caliber, a longer effective range, and a faster rate of fire.

The guns were intended to be made of 80 percent domestically-manufactured components. However, it was later revealed that wire race rollers that were labeled "Made in Germany" had actually come from China — and were defective to boot.
Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3671
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Kashi »

Seems to refer to the earlier incident using standard hatchet job tactics...
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Philip »

Can't we get some more official light on the issue? It's becoming a crashing bore when you read that Akash (CAG) has failed 30% of the time,again,some problem with propellant,etc.,or some other system adopted by the forces have problems.The infantry rifle ended up being a dud. Billions are being spent over decades in trying to indigenise. The PM's speech yesterday about getting rid of the 'Chalta hai" attitude shoudl star with the DPSUs. If on the other hand it is found that there are some deliberately sabotaging our dev. and in the pay of firang entities,they should be hauled over the coals and prosecuted with extreme prejudice.
Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3671
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Kashi »

Good idea. We should start with probing the T-90 deal first..
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4024
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by deejay »

Kashi wrote:Good idea. We should start with probing the T-90 deal first..
Have you ever wondered why not a single Russi deal has ever had a corruption issue while barring FMS deals all non Russi deals end up with some corruption issue (including Korean)?

Also, while everything must be seeing corruption, only arms deal get stopped?
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Viv S »

deejay wrote:Have you ever wondered why not a single Russi deal has ever had a corruption issue while barring FMS deals all non Russi deals end up with some corruption issue (including Korean)?

Also, while everything must be seeing corruption, only arms deal get stopped?
I suspect that's because most Russian entities involved are state-owned and going after an SOE could have serious political implications.

The intriguing Choudhrie family at the heart of Rolls-Royce investigation
One Swiss banking source has described to the Guardian and BBC how money transfers between the Choudhrie family group’s companies sparked an anti-money laundering alert at Clariden Leu, which was then a private banking division of Credit Suisse.

The Guardian has seen a report created by the risk management team at Clariden Leu in October 2008, which highlights the flow of vast sums that triggered the inquiry.

The report analysed 18 “account relationships” and looked at money transfers between companies owned or managed by members of Bhanu Choudhrie’s extended family. One was Belinea Services Limited, which received €37,200,000 (£33,400,000) from Rosoboronexport State Corporation, the Russian state’s arms dealership. Bhanu Choudhrie was a director of Belinea.

In the year leading up to the report, another company, the Seychelles-registered Cottage Consultants, received €28,100,000 from Rosoboronexport and transferred €22,700,000 to an Isle of Man bank.

On company documents, Bhanu Choudhrie is described as the “first and sole director” of Cottage Consultants. The company is owned through bearer shares, which means it is owned by whoever physically holds the share certificates. Bhanu Choudhrie has denied being a beneficial owner of the company.

Cottage Consultants had also received €9,700,000 from an entity called “ABC”, with the money originating from Vnesheconombank, a now-sanctioned Moscow bank.
MiG and other firms paid millions to CBI, ED suspect Sudhir Choudhrie’s son, cousin
NEW DELHI: Companies associated with the son and a close relative of Sudhir Choudhrie, an Indian origin British citizen currently being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) and whose name figures in CBI’s list of “undesirable” middlemen, received over a hundred million dollars from Russian arms companies in 2007-08.

ET accessed a confidential report commissioned by Credit Suisse that shows the Choudhrie "family group" – as the report described it – had 18 accounts in the bank. The accounts are, jointly or individually, in the names of Choudhrie's son, Bhanu Choudhrie, and his cousin, Aman Chopra.
.
.
Three companies – Carter Consultants Inc, Belinea Services Ltd and Cottage Consultants Ltd – also figure in the so called Panama papers. Panama papers refer to a set of documents from a Panamanian law firm on financial transactions involving companies of many individuals and entities from different countries, including India. Tax avoidance has been alleged as one of the motives behind these transactions. Panama papers show Bhanu Choudhrie (Sudhir Choudhrie’s son) and Aman Chopra (a cousin) as directors or shareholders of the companies.

According to the Credit Suisse report, these companies received over $126 m from Russian arms companies in 2007-2008. The biggest share went to Belinea Services Ltd, Seychelles. It received over $60 million from Russian companies.

The report mentions that Cottage Consultants has received "EUR 28.1 mn from State Corporation Rosonboronexport, EUR 4.7 million from PJSC RAC * MIG * and EUR 9.7 mn from ABC," since October 2007. The report links this money to the offsets business.

"PJSC RAC MIG is the leading Russian industrial corporation for design, production, sale, logisitics, support of aeronautical engineering. The flow of funds for these transfers was incoming funds from clients offset business," says the report.

On Belinea, the report says” “Since Oct 1st 2007 there have been inflows of EUR 60.88 mn and outflows of EUR 23.6 mn. The in and out flows mirror that of Cottage Consultants limited in that EUR 37.2 mn were received from State Corporation Rosoboronexport, EUR 18.85 mn from ABC $2 mn from JSC MIC NPO".
All-in-all the Russian firms are alleged to have transferred ~ €70 mil to Chaudhrie's two companies (₹ 525 crore at the current rate).
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Lalmohan »

look at the source of the article, then consider who gains from the headline...
sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1976
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by sudeepj »

Philip wrote:Can't we get some more official light on the issue? It's becoming a crashing bore when you read that Akash (CAG) has failed 30% of the time,again,some problem with propellant,etc.,.
First stop posting Russian propaganda sites such as sputnik. And your repetitive Russian propaganda is a crashing bore.
Locked