Artillery: News & Discussion

Locked
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Philip »

Sources say that there are umpteen acquisitions pending in the MOD including many desi ones like extra Pinakas,etc.NS has her job cut out.

In one report the OFB and IA are at loggerheads over the defective ammo issue leading to the barrel burst.OFB:
"complex phenomena pertaining to internal ballistics since the shell moves at v.high speed inside the barrel..failure can have multiple causes.."! :rotfl: The OFB honcho who said this needs to be loaded into an ATAGS barrel with one of his shells up his nether end and fired to experience the "complex phenomena" in his "internal ballistics"!
Rishi_Tri
BRFite
Posts: 520
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Rishi_Tri »

Philip wrote:Sources say that there are umpteen acquisitions pending in the MOD including many desi ones like extra Pinakas,etc.NS has her job cut out.

In one report the OFB and IA are at loggerheads over the defective ammo issue leading to the barrel burst.OFB:
"complex phenomena pertaining to internal ballistics since the shell moves at v.high speed inside the barrel..failure can have multiple causes.."! :rotfl: The OFB honcho who said this needs to be loaded into an ATAGS barrel with one of his shells up his nether end and fired to experience the "complex phenomena" in his "internal ballistics"!
:rotfl:
Rishi_Tri
BRFite
Posts: 520
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Rishi_Tri »

Posting links to article on Kalyani group / interview with Baba Kalyani.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2017/10/i ... rgest.html

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2017/10/m ... roups.html

Details that I found interesting - Kalyani gun beating Tata gun, ATAGS being the first greenfield gun development in last thirty years, Kalyani supplying barrels for TATA gun.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ramana »

Poor OFB does doesn't get similar PR.
Last edited by ramana on 26 Oct 2017 02:18, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Fixed it. ramana
Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1769
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Khalsa »

^^^^
does or doesn't ?
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14332
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Aditya_V »

Regarding Pinaka 6450nos, that board seems to be quoting 2008 nos it is possible 2008 data, see in the first image different where 2013 US ordinance comparative cost is given, the accuracy of Pinaka II changes, so this board was probably prepared in 2013 and 2nd image information was prepared in 2008.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

srai wrote:^^^
How effective is the 100kg warhead at 60-80m distance?
the lethal radius of a 155mm 45kg HE shell is claimed as 100m of open area. hence the need for deep foxholes and trenches.

the pakis have a limited number of old 207mm american howitzers. range is poor at 20km but it fires a huge 90kg shell which is much feared by anyone its fired on.
Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3866
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Kakkaji »

This might interest ramanaji:

Pune: Electronic artillery fuse manufacturing facility launched at BEL
A STATE-OF-THE-ART electronic artillery fuse manufacturing facility was launched at the Pune unit of Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL) on October 27.

The development comes after a ‘compliance report’ from the Comptroller and auditor general (CAG) of India, which was tabled before the Parliament in July this year, revealed 83 per cent shortage of artillery fuses with the Army.

Artillery fuses, known as the brain of the munition, are the devices that initiate explosion. They also determine how the explosion would be initiated — on contact with the target or some time after the launch.

Meanwhile, officials from the BEL said the newly-inaugurated facility can produce at least 50,000 fuses per month and the capacity can be increased as per requirement.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ramana »

Thanks, Kakkaji.

IA wants to go electronic fuzes for some time. Its possible the mechanical fuze M572 production by OFB was curtailed in anticipation of this new facility.

Mech fuzes are notorious for timing unreliability.

Maybe these are for all type of shells.

Finally a new turn.

-----------------

Hitherto fore, ECIL was making the electronic proximity fuzes for the 155 mm shells.
Its interesting that BEL has setup this new factory for electronic fuzes. The BEL website has no info on this new product at all.
Watch this space. It will improve the effectiveness of IA artillery by many fold times as mechanical fuzes are unreliable due to the watch/timer mechanism.
I hope the new PGK type fuze when development is completed will be taken up by this unit.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by shiv »

Singha wrote:
srai wrote:^^^
How effective is the 100kg warhead at 60-80m distance?
the lethal radius of a 155mm 45kg HE shell is claimed as 100m of open area. hence the need for deep foxholes and trenches.

the pakis have a limited number of old 207mm american howitzers. range is poor at 20km but it fires a huge 90kg shell which is much feared by anyone its fired on.
Kookal has no mention of 207, but 203 mm with 90 kg shell with slow rate of fire and physically demanding/unreliable loading mechanism
sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10195
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by sum »

Was this posted? Loads of details in it:
Gunning for Dhanush
Dhanush, which is the flagship indigenous artillery gun, appears to be doomed even before its induction and deployment in the artillery. There have been reports of “cheap” and “fake” Chinese parts (bearings) being used in Dhanush, which the Central Bureau of Investigation is looking into.

There appears to be a move to sabotage the development of Dhanush as arms lobbies are nudging the Army to opt for an East European or Israeli gun. There are serious issues over the quality of the manufacture of the weapons system. The Army has been insisting on a six-gun battery user exploitation trial. There are design deficiencies in the gun, including a faulty loading system. There have been repeated failures: three of the eight guns undergoing user trials have suffered mishaps, including muzzle brake damage.
Defence experts say Dhanush is a wonderful platform. A former Director General of the Artillery Regiment said it had “the range, accuracy, consistency and firepower”, but serious issues concerning the quality of the manufacturing process needed to be addressed. Alok Prasad, Deputy Director General (Weapons), OFB, said: “Issues of quality have occurred mainly because of three categories of items: fasteners, rubber springs and seals. It is difficult to find a source in India that can match the quality levels that we are looking for in these items. It is a problem that exists in Indian industry. If we want the kind of quality we need, we have to look overseas. But our procurement process [with contracts necessarily going to the lowest bidder] currently does not allow that. In order to address this lacuna, the OFB is in the process of tweaking the procurement process.”



But should the quality of category C items hold up the manufacture of Dhanush? Lamented another senior official from the OFB: “The Army has been changing the goal posts. The methodology of trials have been changed. We conceived Dhanush as accepted by the Army, but as in the case of the Arjun tank, since there were no written-down qualitative requirements, the Army kept changing them. In Dhanush, there is a GSQR [General Staff Qualitative Requirements], but it is hardly a few pages and there is plenty of room to read between the lines. Not only do we have to incorporate what senior planners at the Army headquarters perceive the gun should have, but we also have to cater to the preferences of officers in the trial teams. The Army had two trial teams and each of them had different requirements. One wanted the seat of the gun to be high, the other wanted it low. And officers either get posted out or retire, so there is no continuity in thought. Foreign vendors never go beyond the GSQR. They will not follow any changes, and they take you to court.”
Lt Gen. P.R. Shankar, who retired in October 2016 as the Director General of Artillery and has been closely associated with the Dhanush programme, explained: “There were a number of shortcomings caused primarily by shoddy manufacturing processes such as misalignments, poor finishing and even the poor quality of simple nuts. Importantly, the ammunition was not loading as required, the firing rate was slow due to too many stoppages, and so on. The Army realised that it would be impossible for the OFB to clear user trials in time with the defects involved. The programme would have been stuck in a loop. That is why the Army approached the then Defence Minister, Manohar Parrikar, and requested that the OFB produce six guns, which would be sent to artillery units for user exploitation. This way, issues which come up could be resolved and the production process could commence simultaneously. User exploitation was specially facilitated to help the OFB. This is the only way they could have been given an order.”
Read it all
atma
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 04 Jun 2006 23:37
Location: Frozen Tundra

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by atma »

shiv wrote:
Singha wrote:
the lethal radius of a 155mm 45kg HE shell is claimed as 100m of open area. hence the need for deep foxholes and trenches.

the pakis have a limited number of old 207mm american howitzers. range is poor at 20km but it fires a huge 90kg shell which is much feared by anyone its fired on.
Kookal has no mention of 207, but 203 mm with 90 kg shell with slow rate of fire and physically demanding/unreliable loading mechanism
Hakimji is right. Terroristan has US supplied, Korean and Vietnam era M115 howitzer(203mm) About 28 in service, and 8 inch (203 mm) M110 self-propelled howitzers, about 60 in service. reportedly their ordnance factories make shells for the same. Looks great on paper, but being phased out by most modern armies, including the US, in favor of 155 mm artillery ( since they afford no advantage in range or firepower). However, given that we have almost no serviceable self propelled artillery in our inventory, it potentially does give them an edge, until we start inducting newer pieces.
I am just getting weary of seeing all this capability that exists within the Indian MIC, yet the reluctance/tardiness in induction. Perhaps the ghost of the Bofors scandal will continue to haunt us! A case of reverse Bofors? Now we will not order or induct because no one in MoD, Army etc will be able to pad their overseas accounts or send children overseas, by ordering indigenous artillery in numbers? :eek: :oops:
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by shiv »

atma wrote: we will not order or induct because no one in MoD, Army etc will be able to pad their overseas accounts or send children overseas, by ordering indigenous artillery in numbers?[/b] :eek: :oops:
To be fair even PSU bigwigs can get great phoren trips for "collaborasun" so long as indigenous efforts are stymied - so why leave them out?

PSU man gets to go to Germany, Sweden etc and strike a "good deal". Those nations will strike an even better deal with China workshops to supply bearings and finished components. "Oh you know, it's an era of globalization and we are world citizens"
sanjayc
BRFite
Posts: 1091
Joined: 22 Aug 2016 21:40

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by sanjayc »

Gunning for Dhanush
Dhanush, the flagship indigenous artillery gun, is mired in controversy with the Ordnance Factories Board, its maker, and the Army exchanging accusations over its quality.

By RAVI SHARMA in Bengaluru

INDIA’S most controversial defence deal has also been one of its most successful ones. The 155 mm .39 calibre Haubits Falthaubits 77B (Swedish for Field Howitzer 77B), or simply the Bofors artillery gun, has proved to be a versatile and potent weapons system since its induction into the Indian Artillery Regiment in 1986-87.

With its high rate of fire and accuracy, it became the toast of the Army and the nation during the Kargil conflict with Pakistan (1999) when it had extraordinary success at high altitude. But the acquisition of 410 artillery guns worth $1.4 billion from AB Bofors has been mired in controversy chiefly because of the kickbacks amounting to Rs.64 crore allegedly paid to conclude the deal. An upgrade to Bofors, the 155 mm .45 calibre Dhanush (meaning bow), designed and developed by the Ordnance Factories Board (OFB), threatens to be just as controversial.

Dhanush, which is the flagship indigenous artillery gun, appears to be doomed even before its induction and deployment in the artillery. There have been reports of “cheap” and “fake” Chinese parts (bearings) being used in Dhanush, which the Central Bureau of Investigation is looking into.

There appears to be a move to sabotage the development of Dhanush as arms lobbies are nudging the Army to opt for an East European or Israeli gun. There are serious issues over the quality of the manufacture of the weapons system. The Army has been insisting on a six-gun battery user exploitation trial. There are design deficiencies in the gun, including a faulty loading system. There have been repeated failures: three of the eight guns undergoing user trials have suffered mishaps, including muzzle brake damage.

Defence experts say Dhanush is a wonderful platform. A former Director General of the Artillery Regiment said it had “the range, accuracy, consistency and firepower”, but serious issues concerning the quality of the manufacturing process needed to be addressed. Alok Prasad, Deputy Director General (Weapons), OFB, said: “Issues of quality have occurred mainly because of three categories of items: fasteners, rubber springs and seals. It is difficult to find a source in India that can match the quality levels that we are looking for in these items. It is a problem that exists in Indian industry. If we want the kind of quality we need, we have to look overseas. But our procurement process [with contracts necessarily going to the lowest bidder] currently does not allow that. In order to address this lacuna, the OFB is in the process of tweaking the procurement process.”


But should the quality of category C items hold up the manufacture of Dhanush? Lamented another senior official from the OFB: “The Army has been changing the goal posts. The methodology of trials have been changed. We conceived Dhanush as accepted by the Army, but as in the case of the Arjun tank, since there were no written-down qualitative requirements, the Army kept changing them. In Dhanush, there is a GSQR [General Staff Qualitative Requirements], but it is hardly a few pages and there is plenty of room to read between the lines. Not only do we have to incorporate what senior planners at the Army headquarters perceive the gun should have, but we also have to cater to the preferences of officers in the trial teams. The Army had two trial teams and each of them had different requirements. One wanted the seat of the gun to be high, the other wanted it low. And officers either get posted out or retire, so there is no continuity in thought. Foreign vendors never go beyond the GSQR. They will not follow any changes, and they take you to court.”

The OFB is piqued over the Army’s decision to use a different process of qualification, vis-a-vis foreign manufactured artillery guns, with additional trials (termed as user exploitation) being introduced for the first time in the case of Dhanush. They draw a comparison with the 155 mm .52 calibre tracked self-propelled K-9 Vajra (Thunder) gun system from Korea that was accepted by the Army after just 200 to 250 rounds, a number which, according to OFB officials, is “too low to evaluate a gun system”. Under extensive three-phase user exploitation trials, three Dhanush guns were fired under desert conditions (around 450 rounds at Pokhran, Rajasthan, and Babina in Uttar Pradesh), three guns were fired at high altitude (around 400 rounds in Siachen) and finally they were fired as a battery of six guns. According to officials from the OFB, “over 1,200 rounds have been fired as part of the user exploitation trials”. And over 3,700 rounds have been fired so far in the present campaign to have the gun cleared. But, according to Army sources, the gun is still some way from acceptance and “has not met all the parameters to enable it [OFB] to go ahead with the order for 12 guns [besides the six that are in the user exploitation trials]”.

Said a senior official from the OFB: “The Army’s philosophy is simple: the OFB is to identify all the problems and address them so that there are no issues post induction. The Army is asking for a perfect gun. But, this is unduly prolonging the trial process. Since we are not producing the gun, our [OFB] facilities are lying idle and our suppliers are frustrated with no orders. It would be better if the Army ordered a few guns on the basis of the trials, exploited and evaluated them, devised a maintenance philosophy by using them, and allowed the product to mature. Perfection in stages. Have an Mk1, then an Mk2, Mk3, and so on. Dhanush is a major system development, and we at the OFB are learning a whole new philosophy in artillery gun development. Under user exploitation, you have to maintain and put more guns on a trial, thereby exponentially multiplying the chances of something going wrong. When foreign guns are not put through this, why should Dhanush be?”


The genesis of Dhanush, called the “desi” Bofors, dates back to 2005-06 when the OFB, with help from agencies such as the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), which readied the firing range tables, first developed the gun and fired over 800 rounds in a bid to qualify it. But the Army evinced no interest. The up-gunning of Bofors was revived in 2010 when the OFB once again approached the Army and chiefly suggested a .45 mm (up from .39 mm) calibre barrel, a change in the electronics component of the gun and an increased range. After initial apprehensions, the Army, in 2011, provided the OFB with two Bofors guns from its war reserves, and a detachment of officers and men was placed at the OFB’s disposal at its Jabalpur unit. Aided by technical documents that had been procured from AB Bofors, the OFB stripped the gun, studied it and started manufacturing, one part at a time. It mechanically up-gunned the barrel to .45mm calibre, roped in the Israeli firm Elbit for the electronics suite and included the inertial navigation systems from France’s Sagem.

The Defence Acquisition Council even envisaged a production order of 114 guns. By 2012, the upgraded guns were ready for trials by the Army. But a barrel burst (caused mostly by faulty ammunition) on the very first day of trials soured the programme. Said an Army officer who was at the initial trials: “Among the many shortcomings, the loading system was faulty, and the OFB was not able to give us a gun with fault-free firing. And despite trial officers helping the OFB by even cooking up test figures, it was a lost cause.”

Lt Gen. P.R. Shankar, who retired in October 2016 as the Director General of Artillery and has been closely associated with the Dhanush programme, explained: “There were a number of shortcomings caused primarily by shoddy manufacturing processes such as misalignments, poor finishing and even the poor quality of simple nuts. Importantly, the ammunition was not loading as required, the firing rate was slow due to too many stoppages, and so on. The Army realised that it would be impossible for the OFB to clear user trials in time with the defects involved. The programme would have been stuck in a loop. That is why the Army approached the then Defence Minister, Manohar Parrikar, and requested that the OFB produce six guns, which would be sent to artillery units for user exploitation. This way, issues which come up could be resolved and the production process could commence simultaneously. User exploitation was specially facilitated to help the OFB. This is the only way they could have been given an order.”

Lt Gen. Shankar added: “The Army is more than willing to accept the gun but not a substandard gun. It is an upgrade of the time-tested Bofors, the range is better, performance is largely satisfactory, the indigenous content is around 80 per cent. Most importantly, for the first time in our history, we have a modern gun which is Indian. It is a matter of pride to have an indigenous system as your main artillery gun rather than relying on imported systems. But there can be no bulk order or clearance until the gun performs well. In war you need a gun that can fire three rounds in 15 seconds, 50 rounds in an hour. Presently, that is not possible.”


Many in the Army question the OFB’s qualifications to undertake artillery gun design and development (since it is primarily a manufacturing entity) . The OFB maintained that it had 110 highly qualified personnel in gun design, ammunition and military technologies. Recently, it won the deal to upgrade the Army’s 130 mm M-46 gun. The existing 130 mm barrel, muzzle brake and breech block would be replaced/modified to make a 155 mm .45 calibre gun capable of firing the entire family of NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organisation] ammunition. Said an official: “We won the 300-gun contract against Bharat Forge which had partnered with Elbit and Punj Lloyd, which had a Yugoslav collaborator.”

Accidents during trials, said the OFB official, could happen to any gun. Why single out accidents in the Dhanush trial, he asked. OFB officials were quick to point out the incident in September when, during a routine field firing drill at the Pokhran range, the barrel of the American M777 lightweight howitzer was partly damaged, with the 155 mm artillery shell misfiring and exploding in it and the OFB-manufactured ammunition allegedly “exiting the barrel in multiple pieces”. Said an OFB official: “It was said that OFB-manufactured ammunition caused the problem. This is both unfair and premature.”

Although the investigating team consisting of personnel from the OFB; the Army, the Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA); the United States government; BAE Systems, Sweden; and the United Kingdom is yet to come out conclusively with the reasons for the incident, informed sources told Frontline that there were no indications of any deficiencies in the ammunition. On the contrary, a member of the investigating team explained, the “reasons for the accident could range from deficiencies in the quality of the barrel or the armament, design deficiencies, compatibility between the gun and the ammunition, maintenance issues, firing/maintenance drills not being followed, pre-existing issues, or the barrel not being properly cleaned”. He said that “the most likely cause could be that the BAE Systems crew, who were firing the gun, faced an unfamiliar ammunition system and failed to tweak the gun/ammunition system to achieve compatibility”.

Another artillery gun India plans to induct into the Army is the Korean K-9 Vajra, a self-propelled howitzer, which is to be manufactured by Larsen & Toubro in collaboration with South Korea’s Hanwha Techwin. Two Korean soldiers were killed in an explosion during an artillery training session in Gangwon province in South Korea, raising doubts about the reliability of the gun.

Senior OFB officials are confident that Dhanush will clear user trials. They said many of the problems reported in the user exploitation phase would be surmounted by “a fine-tuning of the gun’s subsystems”. This, they hope, will be achieved during the next phase of the user exploitation trials scheduled for November. This will be followed by a final round of firing trials in 2018, by which time it is hoped Dhanush will meet the Army’s standards for an indigenous 155 mm artillery gun that can replace the Bofors gun. Military experts suggest that a Dhanush Integration Centre, staffed with personnel drawn from the OFB, the Army, the DGQA and the DRDO, could be set up with the best technical and manufacturing expertise. Expertise from BAE Systems, which is selling India the M777, could also be utilised.

Said Lt Gen. Shankar: “The idea is to come up with a centre of excellence of world standards. Also, the entire gun-manufacturing base in the country, including that available in the private sector, could be utilised to enhance capacities. The present capacity of the OFB cannot produce guns in the kind of numbers with the desired quality which the Army needs.”
http://www.frontline.in/the-nation/gunn ... epage=true
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5249
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by srai »

^^^

Good article. Gives viewpoints from both sides. Nothing new really. We have had lengthy discussions on BRF on the very same.

To sum it up, when it comes to indigenous weapon systems the IA keeps changing requirements (not a "builder army" best-practices), makes qualification much harder (endless cycle of "user" trials in all seasons and all locations), and orders nothing until "perfect" because primarily it doesn't trust the quality of products coming out of OFB (and the like). Historically, there have been serious production quality issues of OFB built products and they haven't been able to rectify it satisfactorily. Both sides have faults to address.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by JayS »

^^
^^ If the article is taken at face value, its very bad thing that IA doesn't have a proper process and elaborately written/frozen GSQRs. This is Program Management 101. This kind of lackadaisical approach leads to arbitrariness in decisions and bad program management. We see one sample in how there have been change requests based on personal preferences. This needs to change. Hope IA takes note. It would really bode well if IA installs its own engineering cadre specialized in procurement, preferably a mix of Army engineering cadre and laterally recruited engineers from RnD establishment and Private industry who hold requisite expertise.

OTOH, I am happy to see IA showing very mature approach towards making Dhanush work anyhow. Perhaps because they have been on forefront in driving this project.

On the issue with OFB's quality, I think GOI should give ultimatum to OFB and threaten to take the project from the OFB lock, stock and barrel if they do not resolve quality issues to IA's satisfaction in reasonably short time frame. This cannot take a decade. GOI can offer men, money and machine to anyone willing to make the project work and giving option to workers to either join the pvt company or to f*** off. May be making an example out of one project would make others fall in line. This will surely push the timelines of the project but it would be well worth it. We have ATAGS as back up. But perhaps the Modi government will not want to rock the boat until after 2019 elections, even if they want to. Perhaps time until then can be given to OFB making Dhanush to fall in line or get out of the way.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ramana »

I think OFB needs to be given latitude to procure sole source specialty Category C stores for development. Then these can be bid for quantity tenders.
The world is now awash with counterfeit parts from China. US also has this problem.

Demanding lowest bidder for initial development leads to these issues.

Also if that Army officer has evidence that the trials were cooked up he needs to provide evidence or keep quiet.
This is hidden mace hit at his own fellow officers.

Basically the article shows there are the following problems:

- Category C stores are shoddy. This is known problem world over. Deal with it. Increase lot inspection.
- Purchase using lowest bidder causes this shoddy components problem. Justify sole source for these and move on. Meanwhile develop local mfg capability.
- OFB manufacture and inspection process has gaps leading to issues. This is within OFB and DGQA scope of things. What is source inspection at OFB by DGQA doing? Some of the blame comes to IA, when bad hardware is accepted by DGQA which is a military run agency.
- The gun muzzle brake strikes and barrel burst are due to shells not the gun. I have said this many times. I have not seen a simple table from IA which shows what shell, fuze, charge combination led to these accidents. The Bofors had 40 such incidents and were never revealed till the Dhanush trials were being published. Same fact that the Soltam upgrade of the 130 mm guns also had issues of muzzle strike. And Dhanush Muzzle opening is larger than the Soltam muzzle brake and yet shell strike happens.

- And IA has many unaccountable inputs. And those giving inputs don't ever see their handiwork. Its the classic "two men and a donkey" story in Panchatantra. Every one has a suggestion that the two men had to implement and in end they lost the donkey. BTW, in a comparative study of folklore tales, India is the only one that has this story. No other culture has a version of this story even in the most distorted version.

- The DG Arty has no urgency in getting guns. That is the problem. He would have found a way to get good guns if he had to do it. In 1956, later Maj. Gen. Jetley, up-gunned katara M4 Shermans with French CN-75-50 high velocity guns and these proved their worth in Asal Uttar. I see no such innovation or forward thinking. Its just buy from a catalog and ride of into battle. when the Russian Krasnopol was trialed against impossible targets and the rounds failed and hence no local mfg was taken up. Meantime China has a factory turning out Krasnopols by the truck load.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ramana »

I need to comment....
sanjayc wrote:Gunning for Dhanush
Dhanush, the flagship indigenous artillery gun, is mired in controversy with the Ordnance Factories Board, its maker, and the Army exchanging accusations over its quality.

By RAVI SHARMA in Bengaluru

INDIA’S most controversial defence deal has also been one of its most successful ones. The 155 mm .39 calibre Haubits Falthaubits 77B (Swedish for Field Howitzer 77B), or simply the Bofors artillery gun, has proved to be a versatile and potent weapons system since its induction into the Indian Artillery Regiment in 1986-87.

With its high rate of fire and accuracy, it became the toast of the Army and the nation during the Kargil conflict with Pakistan (1999) when it had extraordinary success at high altitude. But the acquisition of 410 artillery guns worth $1.4 billion from AB Bofors has been mired in controversy chiefly because of the kickbacks amounting to Rs.64 crore allegedly paid to conclude the deal. An upgrade to Bofors, the 155 mm .45 calibre Dhanush (meaning bow), designed and developed by the Ordnance Factories Board (OFB), threatens to be just as controversial.

Dhanush, which is the flagship indigenous artillery gun, appears to be doomed even before its induction and deployment in the artillery. There have been reports of “cheap” and “fake” Chinese parts (bearings) being used in Dhanush, which the Central Bureau of Investigation is looking into.


{The CBI already found it was the local purchasing agent who colluded with OFB officials and European company to get fake Chinese parts procured because the MoD procurement process favors lowest bidder. The original equipment manufacturer(OEM) has now been contracted to supply the parts just as they did for the original Bofors. Indian legal system will ensure the rascal will not get punished. Indian judges favor malfeasants.}

There appears to be a move to sabotage the development of Dhanush as arms lobbies are nudging the Army to opt for an East European or Israeli gun. There are serious issues over the quality of the manufacture of the weapons system. The Army has been insisting on a six-gun battery user exploitation trial. There are design deficiencies in the gun, including a faulty loading system. There have been repeated failures: three of the eight guns undergoing user trials have suffered mishaps, including muzzle brake damage.

{The Soltam upgraded guns also had muzzle strike. The original 39 calibers Bofors also had 40 muzzle strikes. There is a systemic problem in the 155mm shell and gun combination. Instead of pointing fingers the IA should setup a task force to look at the whole problem. Make sure there is PhD in mathematics in the team and not just retired officers. In WWII, Britihs also had this issue and it was life or death for them and they had a cross discipline team that looked at the problem. It was a math PhD who could understand what happened. Same in Vietnam era 175mm gun failures.}

Defence experts say Dhanush is a wonderful platform. A former Director General of the Artillery Regiment said it had “the range, accuracy, consistency and firepower”, but serious issues concerning the quality of the manufacturing process needed to be addressed. Alok Prasad, Deputy Director General (Weapons), OFB, said: “Issues of quality have occurred mainly because of three categories of items: fasteners, rubber springs and seals. It is difficult to find a source in India that can match the quality levels that we are looking for in these items. It is a problem that exists in Indian industry. If we want the kind of quality we need, we have to look overseas. But our procurement process [with contracts necessarily going to the lowest bidder] currently does not allow that. In order to address this lacuna, the OFB is in the process of tweaking the procurement process.”



{The fake Chinese bearings issue was also due to this procurement process of contract going to the lowest bidder regardless of capability.}

But should the quality of category C items hold up the manufacture of Dhanush? Lamented another senior official from the OFB: “The Army has been changing the goal posts. The methodology of trials have been changed. We conceived Dhanush as accepted by the Army, but as in the case of the Arjun tank, since there were no written-down qualitative requirements, the Army kept changing them. In Dhanush, there is a GSQR [General Staff Qualitative Requirements], but it is hardly a few pages and there is plenty of room to read between the lines. Not only do we have to incorporate what senior planners at the Army headquarters perceive the gun should have, but we also have to cater to the preferences of officers in the trial teams. The Army had two trial teams and each of them had different requirements. One wanted the seat of the gun to be high, the other wanted it low. And officers either get posted out or retire, so there is no continuity in thought. Foreign vendors never go beyond the GSQR. They will not follow any changes, and they take you to court.”


{Those trials officers issued scope changes and the process might not have been approved by headquarters or in writing. This begs the question who is in charge of the Gun development not the trials? What accountability is there for such scope changes? Long back on LCA thread I had posted how well meaning officers can offer innocent suggestions at after the development is over and unintentionally put the program behind or even sabotage it. So such suggestions are always vetted and passed won from headquarters. In above example two different teams gave different inputs on the same location of a seat. Who is right and which one should the developer implement? Can the teams justify their inputs? Did the DG Arty have a project officer to oversee the Dhanush development? Or was it ad-hoc?}

The OFB is piqued over the Army’s decision to use a different process of qualification, vis-a-vis foreign manufactured artillery guns, with additional trials (termed as user exploitation) being introduced for the first time in the case of Dhanush. They draw a comparison with the 155 mm .52 calibre tracked self-propelled K-9 Vajra (Thunder) gun system from Korea that was accepted by the Army after just 200 to 250 rounds, a number which, according to OFB officials, is “too low to evaluate a gun system”. Under extensive three-phase user exploitation trials (UET), three Dhanush guns were fired under desert conditions (around 450 rounds at Pokhran, Rajasthan, and Babina in Uttar Pradesh), three guns were fired at high altitude (around 400 rounds in Siachen) and finally they were fired as a battery of six guns. According to officials from the OFB, “over 1,200 rounds have been fired as part of the user exploitation trials”. And over 3,700 rounds have been fired so far in the present campaign to have the gun cleared. But, according to Army sources, the gun is still some way from acceptance and “has not met all the parameters to enable it [OFB] to go ahead with the order for 12 guns [besides the six that are in the user exploitation trials]”.

{OFB is wrong here. The K-9 is an accepted product currently being in service abroad. K-9 would have undergone its own extensive trials to determine wear and fatigue of the barrel and to develop firing tables. So Army asking for the Dhanush to be trialed extensively is not wrong. The Army has user exploitation trials (UET) to develop unit tactics after the development trials are over. In fact the army has fired over 1100 rounds with the M777 imported gun. So that's not unfair. The pique is incorrect. A proper example to look for is the development trials of the M777 gun. It also had many rounds fired with development gun, then with the factory mfg guns to verify all aspects of the gun.
The Army saying not all parameters were not met is true as Dhanush had barrel burst in development attributed to balloting shell, two muzzle strikes with one shell exploding with injuries to the crew. The proper course of action is to have the BOI complete their investigation and assign root cause. On this forum based on press reports the problem was due to OFB shells. Most likely excess clearance between the barrel and the bourrelet causing wobble at max charge.}



Said a senior official from the OFB: “The Army’s philosophy is simple: the OFB is to identify all the problems and address them so that there are no issues post induction. The Army is asking for a perfect gun. But, this is unduly prolonging the trial process. Since we are not producing the gun, our [OFB] facilities are lying idle and our suppliers are frustrated with no orders. It would be better if the Army ordered a few guns on the basis of the trials, exploited and evaluated them, devised a maintenance philosophy by using them, and allowed the product to mature. Perfection in stages. Have an Mk1, then an Mk2, Mk3, and so on. Dhanush is a major system development, and we at the OFB are learning a whole new philosophy in artillery gun development. Under user exploitation, you have to maintain and put more guns on a trial, thereby exponentially multiplying the chances of something going wrong. When foreign guns are not put through this, why should Dhanush be?”


{ Again it goes back to does the IA want a locally made gun or go for an import as it did with the Bofors? Foreign guns will not be put through the process as they have a tight supply chain, no colluding purchase agents (it was OFB officials who colluded in the fake Chinese bearings case), and good mfg. process to ensure shoddy products don't get delivered. This is partly true rant. A gun mfg line cant be idel and suddenly expect to produce. In US defence mfg 90 days idel will cause major requalification as nothing can be sure to meet original design. The workers, the processes, the plant, everything changes. Army and the MoD have to understand this aspect. A steady flow of orders are needed. Cant be afraid to order parts which could be shoddy later on.}

The genesis of Dhanush, called the “desi” Bofors, dates back to 2005-06 when the OFB, with help from agencies such as the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), which readied the firing range tables, first developed the gun and fired over 800 rounds in a bid to qualify it. But the Army evinced no interest. The up-gunning of Bofors was revived in 2010 when the OFB once again approached the Army and chiefly suggested a 45 (up from 39 ) calibre barrel, a change in the electronics component of the gun and an increased range. After initial apprehensions, the Army, in 2011, provided the OFB with two Bofors guns from its war reserves, and a detachment of officers and men was placed at the OFB’s disposal at its Jabalpur unit. Aided by technical documents that had been procured from AB Bofors, the OFB stripped the gun, studied it and started manufacturing, one part at a time. It mechanically up-gunned the barrel to 45 calibre, roped in the Israeli firm Elbit for the electronics suite and included the inertial navigation systems from France’s Sagem.


{ Very good history of Dhanush. Also note the OFB has experience in up-gunning the 130mm guns with the Soltam 155mm 45 caliber barrels. So this is a medium risk project. The risk is the shells and fuzes from OFB itself!!!!}

The Defence Acquisition Council even envisaged a production order of 114 guns. By 2012, the upgraded guns were ready for trials by the Army. But a barrel burst (caused mostly by faulty ammunition) on the very first day of trials soured the programme. Said an Army officer who was at the initial trials: “Among the many shortcomings, the loading system was faulty, and the OFB was not able to give us a gun with fault-free firing. And despite trial officers helping the OFB by even cooking up test figures, it was a lost cause.”


{This is new narrative that the barrel burst with first round. The barrel burst was with the development gun and after many rounds were fired. And root cause was shell wobble and exploding in the barrel. So what is this officer talking about? and if he says the trials were cooked up he needs to file a complaint for he is accusing his own brother officers. Quite disturbing.}

Lt Gen. P.R. Shankar, who retired in October 2016 as the Director General of Artillery and has been closely associated with the Dhanush programme, explained: “There were a number of shortcomings caused primarily by shoddy manufacturing processes such as misalignments, poor finishing and even the poor quality of simple nuts. Importantly, the ammunition was not loading as required, the firing rate was slow due to too many stoppages, and so on. The Army realised that it would be impossible for the OFB to clear user trials in time with the defects involved. The programme would have been stuck in a loop. That is why the Army approached the then Defence Minister, Manohar Parrikar, and requested that the OFB produce six guns, which would be sent to artillery units for user exploitation. This way, issues which come up could be resolved and the production process could commence simultaneously. User exploitation was specially facilitated to help the OFB. This is the only way they could have been given an order.”

Lt Gen. Shankar added: “The Army is more than willing to accept the gun but not a substandard gun. It is an upgrade of the time-tested Bofors, the range is better, performance is largely satisfactory, the indigenous content is around 80 per cent. Most importantly, for the first time in our history, we have a modern gun which is Indian. It is a matter of pride to have an indigenous system as your main artillery gun rather than relying on imported systems. But there can be no bulk order or clearance until the gun performs well. In war you need a gun that can fire three rounds in 15 seconds, 50 rounds in an hour. Presently, that is not possible.”


Many in the Army question the OFB’s qualifications to undertake artillery gun design and development (since it is primarily a manufacturing entity) . The OFB maintained that it had 110 highly qualified personnel in gun design, ammunition and military technologies. Recently, it won the deal to upgrade the Army’s 130 mm M-46 gun. The existing 130 mm barrel, muzzle brake and breech block would be replaced/modified to make a 155 mm .45 calibre gun capable of firing the entire family of NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organisation] ammunition. Said an official: “We won the 300-gun contract against Bharat Forge which had partnered with Elbit and Punj Lloyd, which had a Yugoslav collaborator.”


Accidents during trials, said the OFB official, could happen to any gun. Why single out accidents in the Dhanush trial, he asked. OFB officials were quick to point out the incident in September when, during a routine field firing drill at the Pokhran range, the barrel of the American M777 lightweight howitzer was partly damaged, with the 155 mm artillery shell misfiring and exploding in it and the OFB-manufactured ammunition allegedly “exiting the barrel in multiple pieces”. Said an OFB official: “It was said that OFB-manufactured ammunition caused the problem. This is both unfair and premature.”

Although the investigating team consisting of personnel from the OFB; the Army, the Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA); the United States government; BAE Systems, Sweden; and the United Kingdom is yet to come out conclusively with the reasons for the incident, informed sources told Frontline that there were no indications of any deficiencies in the ammunition. On the contrary, a member of the investigating team explained, the “reasons for the accident could range from deficiencies in the quality of the barrel or the armament, design deficiencies, compatibility between the gun and the ammunition, maintenance issues, firing/maintenance drills not being followed, pre-existing issues, or the barrel not being properly cleaned”. He said that “the most likely cause could be that the BAE Systems crew, who were firing the gun, faced an unfamiliar ammunition system and failed to tweak the gun/ammunition system to achieve compatibility”.


{ I thought the firing trials are by Indian Army personnel. Any one recall the root cause analysis tree that I had written up after the M777 Shell exploding? So looks like the barrel was not mopped before firing. Akshay Kapoor note it could be the shell did not seat due to residue. Maybe the OFB shell charges are not clean burning leaving debris/residue.}

Another artillery gun India plans to induct into the Army is the Korean K-9 Vajra, a self-propelled howitzer, which is to be manufactured by Larsen & Toubro in collaboration with South Korea’s Hanwha Techwin. Two Korean soldiers were killed in an explosion during an artillery training session in Gangwon province in South Korea, raising doubts about the reliability of the gun.

{This was due to premature ignition of the charge due to hot barrel residue. Root cause was announced. Problem is the operating procedures want to fire a gun-howitzer like a machine guns which have cartridge system unlike this open charge or bagged charge, which can ignite prematurely. }


Senior OFB officials are confident that Dhanush will clear user trials. They said many of the problems reported in the user exploitation phase would be surmounted by “a fine-tuning of the gun’s subsystems”. This, they hope, will be achieved during the next phase of the user exploitation trials scheduled for November. This will be followed by a final round of firing trials in 2018, by which time it is hoped Dhanush will meet the Army’s standards for an indigenous 155 mm artillery gun that can replace the Bofors gun. Military experts suggest that a Dhanush Integration Centre,(DIC) staffed with personnel drawn from the OFB, the Army, the DGQA and the DRDO, could be set up with the best technical and manufacturing expertise. Expertise from BAE Systems, which is selling India the M777, could also be utilised.


{ Very good move to have this center as it is a first of a kind for India.And roping in BAE which bought the Bofors would be good as they also supply the M777!}

Said Lt Gen. Shankar: “The idea is to come up with a centre of excellence of world standards. Also, the entire gun-manufacturing base in the country, including that available in the private sector, could be utilised to enhance capacities. The present capacity of the OFB cannot produce guns in the kind of numbers with the desired quality which the Army needs.”
http://www.frontline.in/the-nation/gunn ... epage=true

Article ends in a hopeful note and gives us markers to watch for,
Lets look at November to clear the UET and early 2018 to see the Dhanush gun orders.
Thanks Lt Gen Shankar(R)

Would be good to have him in charge of setting up this DIC. DIC will be a mixed service and civilian personnel. Needs some one who cares like Lt. Gen Shankar
Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3565
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Aditya G »

My 2 paise worth opinion;

- In 2017 OFB is blaming the procurement process for inability to source quality parts. Who is to blame here?

- Not one eye is cast on MoD's functioning. Where is the MoD who is supposed to program manage this whole affair? Creating a potential indent for 114 guns which Army is unsure of solves nothing.

- OFB comes across as helpless (eg: L1 procurement), or blames somebody else (Army) for every problem. I do not blame the Army for expecting a more thorough trials process with OFB due to perceived quality issues. Remember an arty gun can kill its crew in case of a fault.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ramana »

I have a question. In the thousands of rounds fired at Kargil there were no instances of barrel burst or muzzle strikes?

By laws of probability it should have occurred as the M-777 during trials in Pokhran had a shell explode in the barrel after only 1160 rounds.

And in the 130mm guns never an instance of muzzle strike or barrel burst?
Even with OFB made ammo?
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5249
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by srai »

ramana wrote:I have a question. In the thousands of rounds fired at Kargil there were no instances of barrel burst or muzzle strikes?

By laws of probability it should have occurred as the M-777 during trials in Pokhran had a shell explode in the barrel after only 1160 rounds.

And in the 130mm guns never an instance of muzzle strike or barrel burst?
Even with OFB made ammo?
Without recorded data, or instrumented data, we can't say for sure. It seems these are not that rare of an event.
Bishwa
BRFite
Posts: 314
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Bishwa »

During Operation Vajrashakti in Sept 87 to defend Bilafondla in Siachen, the 130MM guns were working overtime from Siachen Base Camp.

One of the 130MM guns barrel burst killing the gun crew. The gun commander was awarded a Vir Chakra (P).
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

so if anyone though the artillery circus was over with dhanush and atags orders they are sorely disappointed.

part of the reason why i drastically reduced my time on mil forms is because NOTHING REALLY HAPPENS @ web scale ! I could return a year later and still see the same topics, cast of characters and arguments on the threads. and anything not geared to web scale cannot shake the world of today.

things are planned for and built, demoed etc but never inducted in numbers to make a difference, initiative is discouraged and punished.

and if inducted very reluctantly so, with a lot of riders and limiter clauses

and with phoren maal so prohibitively costly one cannot even jump up and down about 300 x and 200 y more like 36 x and 20 y

as a country we are yet to realize our own worst enemy is our own lack of streamlined workflow and removal of rent seekers. cheen will cower away to the depths of yunnan if we get our act together...but we never really do
vimal
BRFite
Posts: 1904
Joined: 27 Jul 2017 10:32

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by vimal »

OT but Singhaji is spot on. I used to lurk in BRF forums reading about LCA when I was just out of college. Now my kids are in school and I'm still reading the same trials, more trials, lsp, limited trials yada , yada etc... Rant over.
Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5380
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Karthik S »

vimal wrote:OT but Singhaji is spot on. I used to lurk in BRF forums reading about LCA when I was just out of college. Now my kids are in school and I'm still reading the same trials, more trials, lsp, limited trials yada , yada etc... Rant over.
:rotfl:
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by shiv »

Singha wrote: part of the reason why i drastically reduced my time on mil forms is because NOTHING REALLY HAPPENS!
That is actually a very sensible thing to do.

Have been following defence affairs for 50 years. The idea that "nothing happens" is because that is how it normally is in India. There are nowadays just too many information portals talking varieties of the same shit - i.e nothing. We have reports every single day about nothing. Nothing much happens is pretty much the norm.

And as a result - for the last7-8 years BRF mil forum has become a bean counters paradise. This costs X billion that costs Y million etc. Not surprised that you are bored. We discussed the same crap in a thread called MMRCA for a decade. Didn't anyone notice that nothing was happening?

YouTube and forums do not cut it. The only way to keep updated is to subscribe to a proper journal/magazine dealing in aviation, land warfare, naval systems or strat affairs. But when you get those you don't need BRF any more unless you want to share the information you have with others.

Better to have an inactive forum with quality information when it is available.Meanwhile move on and look for interesting stuff elsewhere. Or subscribe to journals and post interesting titbits
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ramana »

Bishwa thanks for the info.

So a systematic solution is needed to this problem.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14332
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Aditya_V »

Singha wrote:so if anyone though the artillery circus was over with dhanush and atags orders they are sorely disappointed.

part of the reason why i drastically reduced my time on mil forms is because NOTHING REALLY HAPPENS @ web scale ! I could return a year later and still see the same topics, cast of characters and arguments on the threads. and anything not geared to web scale cannot shake the world of today.

things are planned for and built, demoed etc but never inducted in numbers to make a difference, initiative is discouraged and punished.

and if inducted very reluctantly so, with a lot of riders and limiter clauses

and with phoren maal so prohibitively costly one cannot even jump up and down about 300 x and 200 y more like 36 x and 20 y

as a country we are yet to realize our own worst enemy is our own lack of streamlined workflow and removal of rent seekers. cheen will cower away to the depths of yunnan if we get our act together...but we never really do
Or maybe there is an entire system out there to keep us from being able to fight a war, at best they want us to have a limited defensive capability to hold ground. Does anyone Remember General Padmanabham, other bold generals, Arjun Tank director mysteriously killed in a car crash.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ramana »

Gen. Paddy?
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14332
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Aditya_V »

Yes he was very assertive during Parakram and hence relegated to a quite History.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

Aditya is right about the general intent.
Bishwa
BRFite
Posts: 314
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Bishwa »

ramana wrote:Bishwa thanks for the info.

So a systematic solution is needed to this problem.

The Operation Vajrashakti barrel burst was because the guns were firing at a rate higher than the recommended rate as per reports. It was during the height of the PA attack on Bilafondla.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ramana »

Lt. Gen. Anjan Mukherjee(R) former DG Arty is the consultant for Dhanush for OFB.
He was the guiding force behind its development while in service.

Per Twitter

So good news.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Philip »

Was looking at a pic of the ATAGS shown at the R Day parade.One from Kalyani and one from Tatas.The barrels though looked identical.Why the two pieces?Are they in competition or what?
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Karan M »

I wouldn't say nothing happens.

Our indigenous procurements go under the radar, so to speak, and are not highlighted. OFB is the one issue, which will be addressed if the current news about Modi/PMO finally waking up after Doklam, is any indication. Kalyani, Solar Explosives and others will easily supplant OFB. Even the screwdrivergiri is better done at a Dynamatics than an OFB.

Over the past decade, we have procured over a 1500 local BFSRs, over 120 odd proper 3D radar systems built to our own design and have orders for double that number in the pipeline. Our ship EW systems are almost completely local. In IA, EW we have one inducted system and several in trials, already indented for. The Navy EW program has been followed on by another huge one, ship-aircraft which is also in advanced devpt. In IAF, the most complex, fast mover, compact and sophisticated requirement space, all in one, by 2019, we are to have our fighter EW suites roll out. Desi AEW&C has also made progress. In short, in complex, multi-platform programs we have had progress.

Holdouts are land system programs where OFB is involved. Ammo, small arms, tanks, IFVs - ironically areas where our Indian pvt sector has huge experience (industrial chemicals, automotive industry), we are yet to leverage any of that properly. This is a political decision, nothing else.

In aircraft we are still muddling, primarily because its expensive, our MOF is always short of money and AF wants the best aircraft, yesterday and hence imports are always around the corner. The lack of focus on Tejas, the lack of an aware DM is hence bewildering. Its sheer inertia and AF takes a big chunk of the blame for harping on Rafale but shifting to SE when Tejas is readily there, while our politicians go along with easy imports. So much for Make in India. Really disappointed with the Modi Govt for having dropped the ball on Tejas Mk2, with very little news of support for the program.

IMHO, the need of the hour is to start ramping up funding to domestic R&D and private sector, and screw the DPP this DPP that rubbish which has been delaying things. Have any private sector company bid for any program, give DPSUs and R&D both complete freedom to partner with the pvt sector, give a bigger weightage to domestic solutions and let the best man win. Enough of this dilly dallying.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Karan M »

Interesting. Desperate times, desperate measures. Disagree with OFB gent who says rejection on flimsy grounds.
http://i.imgur.com/k5ooDRE.jpg
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ramana »

It would be nice to know what were the rejections for.
Good that he stated lot size is 1000 rounds.
Will post what should be the sample size from Mil Std 105 for lot size 1000.

For high-value ammo, lot sizes are kept around that number to avoid scrapping large lots.
Standard practice.


Singha is not his usual self.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Karan M »

Perhaps when I get time and if anyone is interested, I can post a comprehensive list of indigenous procurement, which has provided new capabilities to IA/IAF/IN. Many inductions. Steep learning curve, not all successful when inducted but equally many were. Singha's reaction is not surprising because the DDM creates a general sense of despondency & our flawed procurement procedures split orders in penny packets, even so, it bears remarking we have moved many steps ahead.
Our big bugbear is serviceability. In that vein, HAL investing $600 Mn in Su-30 stocks is a momentous event (and Rakesh's rejoicing over it, very appropriate). This one step is a gamechanger and kudos to Shri Parrikar for pushing for it.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ramana »

Please do. Aso the joint Dhanush Induction Centre step forward.

OFB winning the order to ugrade 300 of the 130mm guns againt stiff competition is allso good news.
November Dhanush UET resume hopefuly with out more issues and on to induction.
Rishi_Tri
BRFite
Posts: 520
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Rishi_Tri »

Karan M wrote:Perhaps when I get time and if anyone is interested, I can post a comprehensive list of indigenous procurement, which has provided new capabilities to IA/IAF/IN. Many inductions. Steep learning curve, not all successful when inducted but equally many were. Singha's reaction is not surprising because the DDM creates a general sense of despondency & our flawed procurement procedures split orders in penny packets, even so, it bears remarking we have moved many steps ahead.
Our big bugbear is serviceability. In that vein, HAL investing $600 Mn in Su-30 stocks is a momentous event (and Rakesh's rejoicing over it, very appropriate). This one step is a gamechanger and kudos to Shri Parrikar for pushing for it.
Do post.

For me the biggest test for desi maal is republic day parade - having seen them since being a kid in 80s and still seeing them, range of desi maal that has been accepted is very significant but as is wont; to become a true power need to desize almost all the stuff.
Locked