Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2824
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Postby tsarkar » 08 Jul 2019 18:52

Aditya_V wrote:And the other question now that we have Guided Pinaka rockets, why not make guided 155mm shells within our country itself. We need these in numbers so we dont need to keeping stocking these for real war like IAF started Kargil war with 60 PGM's. Ammunition, guided munitions and Missiles there must be enough to keep using them on the smaller clashes till it becomes too costly for the Pakis.

The trajectory correction system of Pinaka doesnt work for artillery shells. Incompatible technology

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3099
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Postby fanne » 08 Jul 2019 20:49

and very similar to the caliber rounds that we are buying...EXcalibur is only few kg of explosives, 40 KM at best, Brahmos is 300 KG and range of 200-400km. Same capability though. Cost is similarly different.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7938
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Postby brar_w » 08 Jul 2019 21:01

fanne wrote:and very similar to the caliber rounds that we are buying...EXcalibur is only few kg of explosives, 40 KM at best, Brahmos is 300 KG and range of 200-400km. Same capability though. Cost is similarly different.


Excalibur has a demonstrated maximum range of 62 km with max ranging ultimately varying between 40km and 70 km depending the launching platform/gun.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3099
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Postby fanne » 08 Jul 2019 21:31

62 is good!! But I would imagine, it is when all stars line up....maybe not. A simple round can go 40 KM, with wings and other accessories, that round can definitely go much further. If it has to maneuver (thus rapidly loose energy, and only loose, no gain as it is no rocket) at the end, it has to be high enough to trade potential energy with Kinetic energy, maneuver and hit the target.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1901
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Postby Kakarat » 08 Jul 2019 21:53

fanne wrote:and very similar to the caliber rounds that we are buying...EXcalibur is only few kg of explosives, 40 KM at best, Brahmos is 300 KG and range of 200-400km. Same capability though. Cost is similarly different.


A GPS guided artillery round and a Seaker guided cruise missile have same capability - Wow
Can you please explain

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7938
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Postby brar_w » 08 Jul 2019 22:30

fanne wrote:62 is good!! But I would imagine, it is when all stars line up....maybe not. A simple round can go 40 KM, with wings and other accessories, that round can definitely go much further. If it has to maneuver (thus rapidly loose energy, and only loose, no gain as it is no rocket) at the end, it has to be high enough to trade potential energy with Kinetic energy, maneuver and hit the target.


There is no physical difference in the round that goes 40 km max range from a 39 caliber 155mm gun vs a round that gets you 62 km from a 58 caliber 155mm gun. It is the exact same munition with the additional range attributed to the gun. The exact trajectory is determined by the type of target and naturally not all of those will be the same which is the case for all munition types and definitely not unique to artillery.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7686&start=240#p2364672
Last edited by brar_w on 08 Jul 2019 22:40, edited 1 time in total.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3099
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Postby fanne » 08 Jul 2019 22:39

capability to hit on reverse slope, sideways to a building....basically a non parabolic trajectory. The artillery round will take care of near and lightly guarded small targets, where as Brahmos can take out similar (but heavily guarded or larger targets)targets at larger distances. Brahmos, by virtue of being powered till the end and more sophisticated on board guidance will be more accurate.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7938
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Postby brar_w » 08 Jul 2019 22:41

fanne wrote:capability to hit on reverse slope, sideways to a building....basically a non parabolic trajectory. The artillery round will take care of near and lightly guarded small targets, where as Brahmos can take out similar (but heavily guarded or larger targets)targets at larger distances. Brahmos, by virtue of being powered till the end and more sophisticated on board guidance will be more accurate.


An ICBM will be even more capable. I am completely baffled by the comparisons of an artillery round to a large diameter supersonic cruise missile.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2650
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 09 Jul 2019 00:18

There is already a project for PGK for shell running with DRDO. It was on a IA presentation.

The kit has a very technical name.

Excalibur must be to hit reverse slope Pak artillery position. Probably painted by SF or Drone(or jet ?) ldp.

I always wondered why we have not invested on laser guided artillery & motar rounds. In a standoff attrition warfare in mountains like we have on LoC, it is the cheapest way (the only other option is aripower) to hit reverse slope artillery position.

We should have produced this in house.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Postby ramana » 09 Jul 2019 05:59

Anyone have a cost comparison of SAAW and Excalibur shell?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7777
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Postby Indranil » 09 Jul 2019 06:27

Why those two? For accuracy we have to evaluate the cost of their delivery mechanisms too.

Personally, I don't see the need for the Excalibur. We have rockets with pinpoint accuracy and higher range now. I don't know the exact costs, But I can't see how they will be very dissimilar.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7938
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Postby brar_w » 09 Jul 2019 07:24

Even that does not account for something that may prompt a rapid procurement decision for small inventory. One would think that for a niche role, that has been identified within a relatively short amount of time to trigger an urgent needs request, they would have weighed the cost and other considerations or alternate ways of delivering the same effects. In the west, no guided MRL solution comes even within 30% of the current cost of the Exclibur round. Even with MLR production batch contracts in the 8-10K per lot/block buy (Come to think of it, you are designing for same range, for same accuracy and jam-resistance but with a rocket motor. That makes total sense). Keep in mind that the Excalibur is considerably more expensive than a PG kit and hence does not replace Precision Artillery shells but provides an added capability over and above. As I wrote in the artillery thread, the cost of the round is essentially the cost of delivering that effect against an intended target that cannot be taken out by a PGK strapped on a legacy shell. That is the only use case. Cost of alternatives would have to factor in the cost of delivering different types of munitions such as procuring and co-locating other ground based launch platforms (even for niche roles), cost of a rotary or fixed wing platform in addition to the munition they utilize.

I agree, can't compare the cost of a bomb to the cost of an artillery shell. At least not for any sort of operationally minded analysis. One would have to factor in the cost per target set and that would entail a deeper analysis that considers platform choices and factors in the cost of delivering that munition to target within the relatively same amount of time the artillery site can switch munitions and deploy the Excalibur. But the same also applies to niche capability. If you want to provide your artillery a niche capability to go after that 5-10% of tactical situations that even PGK type fitments cannot successfully overcome then it also becomes cost-prohibitive to up your GMLRS numbers, or other rocket forces to provide for that capability. A small-medium sized inventory of something like the Excalibur may indeed come out cheaper.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2524
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Postby abhik » 09 Jul 2019 08:16

This being one of the few things that can be used against the pakies in the near term, I wonder how they will react. Will they also ask unkil for Excalibur rounds for their M109/M198s? Will unkil oblige? Or will they try to get some chini/turk system.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7702
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Postby rohitvats » 09 Jul 2019 15:02

Indranil wrote:Why those two? For accuracy we have to evaluate the cost of their delivery mechanisms too.
Personally, I don't see the need for the Excalibur. We have rockets with pinpoint accuracy and higher range now. I don't know the exact costs, But I can't see how they will be very dissimilar.


Indranil, few points to contrary -

(1) Rocket artillery is limited in number and will continue to do so even when we get the full projected quota of 22 Rocket Regiments. That's only 396 rocket units.

(2) Compare the above to projected requirement of more than 2,500 artillery pieces across towed, mounted, SP (Tracked) and ULWH. We're talking about close to 150 Artillery Regiments. Long story short, Rocket Artillery will not be everywhere, 155/45/52 guns will be.

Tube artillery will the heavy lifting of providing support to the infantry and armor and also counter-battery fire.

You need precision ammunition for Tube Artillery.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1699
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Postby sudeepj » 09 Jul 2019 19:33

Prasad wrote:Where is this requirement coming from all of a sudden? I wonder if they evinced interest in such ammunition earlier? I remember there was talk of Krasnopol rounds but dont think IA even tried those.


Krasno carp was bought after kargil. Didn't work in kashmir.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3049
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Postby ArjunPandit » 09 Jul 2019 20:52

sudeepj wrote:
Prasad wrote:Where is this requirement coming from all of a sudden? I wonder if they evinced interest in such ammunition earlier? I remember there was talk of Krasnopol rounds but dont think IA even tried those.


Krasno carp was bought after kargil. Didn't work in kashmir.

wasnt it used during Surgical strike?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7777
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Postby Indranil » 09 Jul 2019 23:43

Brar ji,

Pinaka MkII rocket costs around $35,000 per rocket. In 2017, when the guided MkII was just being prototyped, the cost of a guided rocket was around $100,000. This was slated to come down significantly at the time of serial production.

Rohit,
OBviously, I know the difference between a rocket and an artillery shell. I did not equate it. I was just trying to tell Ramana sir that in operations they are at least closer than a SAAW and an artillery shell.

As Brar ji said,the closes match to an excalibur is the precision_guidance-cum-fuse (PGK) kit added to a legacy shell. Excalibur has kind of lost the battle to the latter on cost. There is a very very niche area where an excalibur round will do and the PGK-skell won't. IA has probably identified such a scenario. It must be in special ops for such a small quantity buy. I can't imagine what it is though.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7938
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Postby brar_w » 09 Jul 2019 23:50

Indranil wrote:Brar ji,

Pinaka MkII rocket costs around $35,000 per rocket. In 2017, when the guided MkII was just being prototyped, the cost of a guided rocket was around $100,000. This was slated to come down significantly at the time of serial production.

Rohit,
OBviously, I know the difference between a rocket and an artillery shell. I did not equate it. I was just trying to tell Ramana sir that in operations they are at least closer than a SAAW and an artillery shell.

As Brar ji said,the closes match to an excalibur is the precision_guidance-cum-fuse (PGK) kit added to a legacy shell. Excalibur has kind of lost the battle to the latter on cost. There is a very very niche area where an excalibur round will do and the PGK-skell won't. IA has probably identified such a scenario. It must be in special ops for such a small quantity buy. I can't imagine what it is though.


Nope the Excalibur was never in contention for that mission (diverging requirements). It was always expected to fill a roll that was separate hence both are in production, are being acquired and why both are diverging in terms of their target set and where they will eventually go in terms of capability. Excalibur was always expected to lead to the C-DAEM requirements that have now emerged for a down-select expected next year. This is probably 3-5 years behind where they would have liked to be but a lot of the funding to get there was cut many years ago and only revived in the 2015-2017 time-frame. Current increment Excalibur will allow you to go after target sets the PGK cannot. Future iterations of the Excalibur will allow you to go after targets that the current Excalibur cannot (like moving and relocatable targets). Same thing with smart artillery shells vs non PG kit equipped shells. Both of those too have their place on the battlefield.

Think of it as a JDAM kit strapped to a dumb bomb vs something like a JSOW. The former can probably do 80% of the job at a fraction of the cost but you need a smaller inventory of the latter to do the remaining missions.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7777
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Postby Indranil » 10 Jul 2019 00:15

brar_w wrote:
Indranil wrote:Brar ji,

Pinaka MkII rocket costs around $35,000 per rocket. In 2017, when the guided MkII was just being prototyped, the cost of a guided rocket was around $100,000. This was slated to come down significantly at the time of serial production.

Rohit,
OBviously, I know the difference between a rocket and an artillery shell. I did not equate it. I was just trying to tell Ramana sir that in operations they are at least closer than a SAAW and an artillery shell.

As Brar ji said,the closes match to an excalibur is the precision_guidance-cum-fuse (PGK) kit added to a legacy shell. Excalibur has kind of lost the battle to the latter on cost. There is a very very niche area where an excalibur round will do and the PGK-skell won't. IA has probably identified such a scenario. It must be in special ops for such a small quantity buy. I can't imagine what it is though.


Nope the Excalibur was never in contention for that mission (diverging requirements). It was always expected to fill a roll that was separate hence both are in production, are being acquired and why both are diverging in terms of their target set and where they will eventually go in terms of capability. Excalibur was always expected to lead to the C-DAEM requirements that have now emerged for a down-select expected next year. This is probably 3-5 years behind where they would have liked to be but a lot of the funding to get there was cut many years ago and only revived in the 2015-2017 time-frame. Current increment Excalibur will allow you to go after target sets the PGK cannot. Future iterations of the Excalibur will allow you to go after targets that the current Excalibur cannot (like moving and relocatable targets). Same thing with smart artillery shells vs non PG kit equipped shells. Both of those too have their place on the battlefield.

Think of it as a JDAM kit strapped to a dumb bomb vs something like a JSOW. The former can probably do 80% of the job at a fraction of the cost but you need a smaller inventory of the latter to do the remaining missions.

I believe we are saying the same thing, that Excalibur has a niche role where the PGK's accuracy won't do*. Where that niche aligns with IA's requirements, I do not know.

*AFAIK, the PGKs came much after the Excalibur and ate significantly into its market. Am I wrong there?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Postby ramana » 10 Jul 2019 03:35

brar_w, Lets cut to the chase what target are you talking about?
Bunker or some such point target?
Recall an open pit target cab be taken out by ~10m-15 m CEP of PGK.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7938
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Postby brar_w » 10 Jul 2019 04:55

Indranil wrote:
*AFAIK, the PGKs came much after the Excalibur and ate significantly into its market. Am I wrong there?


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7088&p=2364954#p2364954

ramana wrote:brar_w, Lets cut to the chase what target are you talking about?
Bunker or some such point target?
Recall an open pit target cab be taken out by ~10m-15 m CEP of PGK.



Though I don’t claim to know exactly what the IA has in mind given that the requirement originated as a rapid purchase/need from the operators, it doesn’t take a whole lot of imagination to come up with a list of target sets for which one would need

-better accuracy,
- better danger close performance (2m CEP including <4 m at objective max range which it has bettered at >60 km range),
-a SAL seeker,
-higher jam-resistance,
-shaped trajectory or
-accuracy at extended ranges (already demonstrated 60+ km shots with 70km possible in the very short term (may even be demo’d within the next 6-12 months))

It essentially allows artillery guns to fill in for GMLRS like, or rotary winged delivered APKWS like capability for several situations and missions (including CAS) up to 40.5 km (39 cal), 50 km (50 cal) or 62.5 km (58 cal with demonstrations at 70 km with modifications likely). A deployed artillery unit with mixed munitions can therefore severely complicate the adversaries calculus by being able to adapt and respond to a myriad of tactical situations with a suitable response and without requiring a lot of logistical support (low single digit rounds per target to even one shot one kill with seeker).

I’ll try to put together a more comprehensive list of targets the US Army prefer to use it over PGK later but here is a snippet on the most recent upgrade and what it enables -

With the EST upgrade, the 1b projectile can now perform off-axis shots, or reverse slope engagements over tall terrain features for hidden or obscured targets, including performing vertical u-turn manoeuvres to engage the target from behind. According to Daniels, the Excalibur EST allows the commander to engage a particular side of a targeted building, or defeat a target hidden under bridges or motorway overpasses. ~ Janes


Also, with a proper warhead (Excalibur now has a ready multi-effects warhead that I believe has been demonstrated to the US Army or is soon to be demonstrated) and a sub 5m CEP with a sub 10 m TLE, you are looking at considerable first volley effects against armored targets which is a pretty significant mismatch when comparing to what the other guy may field.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Postby ramana » 11 Jul 2019 06:06

brar_w thanks for your insight.

I saw a company presentation on the Excalibur capabilities and I think the IA wants it for destroying concrete bunkers in across LOC.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3099
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Postby fanne » 11 Jul 2019 06:29

Well what is clear is that Excalibur round needs came post Feb 27 when there were artillery duels with TSPA. There must have been x number of targets (x<500), where IA had real time intelligence of HVT (persons, C&C centers, equipment, ammunition dump etc.) but well hidden by terrain and distance so that it cannot be taken out through conventional means. Hence the need of Excalibur. If you read the newspaper and believe some twitter handle, that duel is ongoing as I type. It maybe needed tomorrow.
So we cannot wait longer, plus cannot use aircraft/missile as they are unnecessarily escalatory. They will be used, but the provocation has to merit their use (like what happened when convoy was attacked, or like URI attack).

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7938
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Postby brar_w » 11 Jul 2019 09:03

ramana wrote:brar_w thanks for your insight.

I saw a company presentation on the Excalibur capabilities and I think the IA wants it for destroying concrete bunkers in across LOC.


Yes bunkers would be one target set that you could target given that you can quickly destroy them with a limited amount of rounds fired. Here is a video of it taking multiple shots at 20-30 km range with sub 2 m accuracy (the original Increment 1 had 10+ m CEP that it gradually brought down but it was nothing close to what the 1B has shown in its developmental and operational testing). Essentially, within a couple of years of beginning testing on the 1B the program had enough statistical confidence, through numerous developmental and operational test shots, to change its KPP "demonstrated performance" to 2m CEP and <4 m CEP at all max range shots (40+ km for 39 cal). It achieved 2m accuracy in the two 60+ km shots it took last year so as they build more of those up as the ERCA program gets going, I wouldn't be surprised if its max range shot CEP is also brought down to 2 m once they have enough confidence with dozens of more shots lined in the near term.

This provides a lot of capability against a lot of targets when it comes to defeating them at distances in the 40-50 km range, or more, with the first volley whereas it would have taken multiple volleys of legacy or even PGK level shells. The demonstrated low single digit CEP also allows danger close and enables it to be used as a CAS weapon at all ranges with full confidence given close proximity of blue and red forces. Who knows this may have well occurred at Khasham for all we know. I think you go for Excalibur at times you need greater accuracy (first volley success against soft, infantry, or armored targets (new warhead is offered for those)), when you absolutely need greater accuracy to contribute with artillery (CAS - when friendly forces are too close for dumb artillery or even double digit meter CEP kits or when co-lateral damage hamstrings you from deploying artillery) or when there is presence of heavy GPS denial and jamming.

There is also a SAL seeker variant that was successfully demonstrated in 2014 (direct hits) so even that is an option, though the US Army wants to bypass that to something that is fire-forget. In the short term, they will likely demo a MMW seeker which has been in the works for a while now for both land based and maritime use. I suspect this will be what Raytheon offers for the C-DAEM requirement along with other enhancements (perhaps a datalink).

The only drawback is that it runs around $75K (2018 orders) so it isn't exactly cheap, though a small-medium sized inventory can be justified based on effects because alternatives for many exclusive use-cases consist of other expensive munitions, or platforms that have a fairly high CPFH or an insane number of platforms required (which need to be purchased and trained on during peacetime) to maintain constant orbits to be able to respond at a moments notice if a said capability is deemed important enough to have. Even the US Army and the Marines will likely only hold an inventory of 25-30K assuming that it wins the C-DAEM award (otherwise around 20K). As a reference, they fired around 60K shells in the Gulf War so you need PGK and even dumb rounds to make up the bulk of your artillery with this being more of a sniper round or something that enables new missions and not necessarily substitutes for something that can be done with cheaper munitions.


dhyana
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 23 May 2011 10:56
Location: sindoor

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Postby dhyana » 11 Jul 2019 10:13

India to Buy Extended-Range Artillery Shells From US {The Diplomat}

Excalibur extended-range guided artillery shells can be fired from the Indian Army’s newly acquired M777 155 mm 39-caliber towed howitzer guns and the K-9 Vajra 155 mm/52 caliber self-propelled tracked howitzer.


The overall number of K-9 Vajras required by the Indian Army will be around 250. This is based on the creation of at least three K-9 Vajra regiments for each of the army’s three armored divisions, as well as another three regiments for the independent armored brigades within the army’s three strike corps. (The Indian Army decided to disaggregate the three strike corps into division-sized integrated battle groups and station them closer to the border.)


According to The Economic Times, artillery units stationed along the Line of Control in Kashmir will be the first receive the new rounds. The service also plans to deploy its first M777 regiment there.


Some info re: envisaged deployment scenarios.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Postby ramana » 11 Jul 2019 11:30

So these are not the old laser guided Excalibur shells. They are GPS guided shells.
2m CEP would be good enough.
PGK is closer to 10 to 15m. Not good enough for bunkers.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7938
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Postby brar_w » 11 Jul 2019 11:44

The Excalibur IB is a GPS guided shell. The Excalibur S is a GPS/SAL dual-mode weapon.Both are being marketed by Raytheon though the US Army/MC is only buying the former for now. I don't remember any prior Excalibur variant that was just laser guided. The next iteration will likely demo a RF or LWIR seeker and maybe a data-link. PGK is classified as "near-precision fires" with a CEP that was initially set ( threshold requirement) at 50 meters, then lowered to 30 meters (objective) which it comfortably bettered quite early on in its testing. It is generally believed to have a low double digit CEP. It is not required to be as accurate, or as jam resistant as the Excalibur. I highly doubt that it would be used for CAS when the blue forces are within say 50 m of the red forces. Similarly, you'd need a lot of artillery strikes to take out bunkers with it. There is only so much capability that can be packed into a strap on kit that has to be cheap enough to allow to build a 100K+ kit inventory. As PGK gets better via iterative improvements, Excalibur will probably continue to evolve/adapt to tackle the more challenging and harder missions (SEAD/DEAD/Counter EW (ARH, HOJ), Moving targets, maritime targets etc. etc.) at least that is what is envisioned with the .XM115ERAP for which Excalibur offshoots will likely compete in the 2020's.

Image

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2505
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

Postby darshhan » 11 Jul 2019 23:13

brar_w wrote:


In the video above it seems that an airburst round is also used at around 0.37 seconds. Is this true?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7938
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 12 Jul 2019 00:04

There are three selectable fuze options on the increment 1b - point-detonation, point-detonation with delay and height-of-burst . There is a new multi-effects warhead in the works which is specifically designed for armored targets.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 12 Jul 2019 00:16

I think with that level of accuracy, the PD and PDD will be of interest to IA. The height of burst is not that useful as they 155mm shell radius of fragment lethality is close to 150 m and Dhanush and M777 have shown 50 m drop accuracy.

But is still useful to get troop concentrations. Which means the troops have to disperse which makes them less effective.
Looks like unit price is $68k .

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7938
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 12 Jul 2019 00:29

$68k in base year dollars, in 2018 dollars the US army unit cost was $75k

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7777
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 12 Jul 2019 00:37

2m and 10m: does it matter for an artillery shell?

1. How close will we ask our men to be when firing artillery shells at our enemies?
2. Will we really fire one shot one kill in war?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7938
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 12 Jul 2019 01:10

Indranil wrote:2m and 10m: does it matter for an artillery shell?

1. How close will we ask our men to be when firing artillery shells at our enemies?
2. Will we really fire one shot one kill in war?


I don’t think it is about being close but about being able to use artillery as an option in danger close situations. Traditional artillery has to sit it out in such situations. Of course that is only one mission that it enables . CEP90 (RMD) is a more appropriate metric when dealing with high single digit or low double digit miss distances than CEP50, and this is where the more accurate rounds can put some distance. Of course the CEP data doesn’t account for jamming which degraded performance unless you pay the cost penalty to design for high jam resistance which the Excalibur excels at compared to other GPS options (even more so with dual mode guidance which is on its way).

If the IA gets one shot one kill against traditional or non traditional targets why will they not take it in war? I don’t see any scenario where multiple volleys would be desired over single or few volleys. Is they need a bunker or command post taken out and they have a round that can do it with just a few shots will they ignore and fire away or call in air strikes? Does this opposition in the service to highly accurate effects (from a tactical employment) to precision munitions also extend to helicopter, man-portable, or fixed winged delivered PGMs? If that is the case, why does it appear they specifically asked for the Excalibur and not the PGK or some other alternative?
Last edited by brar_w on 12 Jul 2019 09:36, edited 4 times in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 12 Jul 2019 01:52

Yes it matters a lot for the target chosen.

2m will be great for bunkers etc.
10 m is good for gun facilities etc.
and 50 m is good for troops in open.
Look at how many rounds from ATGM and what not to get Paki bunkers.
Bunkers are field fortifications that need direct hits to be destroyed.
Sangars are improvised filed fortifications.
The only realistic weapon is a 155mm round in direct fire mode.
This guided shell will allow that to happen from a distance.

I was advocating the SAAW launched from helicopter as one option.
Even Excalibur wont get all the Paki bunkers with one one shot kill probability.
A good RCC field fortification needs 4 to 5 direct hits.
But most likely the occupants will be totally shaken with even one hit.

Lethal radius of a 155mm shell is around 150 meters.
This is with the ERFB/BB high fragmentation shells.

I think India is also not producing the M107 mild steel shells any longer.


The US has the beehive shells for close in troops but another headache logistically.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 12 Jul 2019 01:56

brar_w you had one graphic which showed the Excalibur trajectory?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7938
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 12 Jul 2019 07:31

This is what is often used but with the EST upgrades, which are now in production, it has significant enhancements in trajectory shaping and off-axis shots.

Image

Actual test footage of the EST reverse slope shot at 1:30 - https://youtu.be/1zDtd8ajSvI?t=90

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2323
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 12 Jul 2019 10:36

For bunker busting, why not develop a parachute-retarded, sensor fuzed, HESH round?

Something that's lobbed in the general vicinity of the bunker/sangar, in a top-attack mode, has an IIR sensor which seeks out the target and deploys the HESH warhead. Good for spall damage inside the structure

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

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Postby Singha » 12 Jul 2019 19:15

>> I was advocating the SAAW launched from helicopter as one option.

they could be launched from fixed wing a/c without violating the 10km line of the LOC. a regular patrol type flight could drop a swarm of SAAW at 35000ft and move along, letting the weapons turn 90' and home in on target.

Arun.prabhu
BRFite
Posts: 246
Joined: 28 Aug 2016 19:26

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Postby Arun.prabhu » 12 Jul 2019 19:22

HESH won’t destroy the bunker. But it will kill the personnel manning it. It won’t be effective if it explodes on the roof I believe. It has to be close to the firing or sighting slots or slits or whatever they call them.

Prem Kumar wrote:For bunker busting, why not develop a parachute-retarded, sensor fuzed, HESH round?

Something that's lobbed in the general vicinity of the bunker/sangar, in a top-attack mode, has an IIR sensor which seeks out the target and deploys the HESH warhead. Good for spall damage inside the structure

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7938
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 12 Jul 2019 19:35

Almost anything that can be defeated by Artillery strike, can also be defeated by launching a guided or unguided bomb/missile from a fixed or rotary winged aircraft, though the cost of that is just not as straightforward as comparing the economies of the weapon but also the cost of delivering the same level of effect in the same amount of time. Depending upon the missions, and the types of tactical situations the IA wants the Excalibur for, it may be too costly to maintain fixed or rotary winged orbits in anticipation of such a need. Calling in strikes when nothing is overhead will introduce a delay so may not be a valid comparison (depending upon what the IA has in mind).

Likewise for rocket artillery..any 1:1 comparison has to assume it is always co-located and there when is needed (if not one has to figure out the cost to make sure it is and add it to the cost of a guided MLRS round). IMHO, the reason why the Excalibur is attractive is because its mere presence on the battlefield forces the enemy to take appropriate actions and provides a fairly robust mismatch. To the artillery unit possessing it, all that needs to be done to kill the targets (for which it is intended) is to call in that round and fire away. In the absence this would entail a bunch of co-ordination with other firing units (like GMLRS), or calling in air-strikes hoping that the target of opportunity still exists and that there is enough density in the support orbits to provide a timely response. Or you could just have a few rounds handy and extend your artillery unit's c apabilities to highly accurate shots at ranges in excess of 50 km (52 cal).

Singha wrote:>> I was advocating the SAAW launched from helicopter as one option.

they could be launched from fixed wing a/c without violating the 10km line of the LOC. a regular patrol type flight could drop a swarm of SAAW at 35000ft and move along, letting the weapons turn 90' and home in on target.
Last edited by brar_w on 12 Jul 2019 19:59, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: chiru and 48 guests