Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 24 Oct 2019 13:00

Niran,. Have read your and thakur_b s posts with interest on the topic.

I think that you are mistaking the Pakistanis efforts of the 1965 war of improvising truck mounted mortars with morden efforts. Namely the French Ceaser which has been in operation with several nation's for nearly 20 years.

Or for that matter, the Israeli truck mounted Athos? that is also is service with some nations.

Or the 8*8 G 5 that was integrated on a TATRA vehicle by TATA group. Or the 8*8 Ceaser proposed for the Dutch army.

All these are designs where the gun is mounted on the bed of the vehicle and recoil is managed via hydraulic spades.

Another type of mounted 155 is the proposed portie design that uses a supcat 8*8 and the m777 combination. But in this use the gun can have both towed application like conventional howitzer. Or can be used as a mounted piece. Which is dismounted to the ground for firing. But is not in use anywhere in the world.

In all the above mentioned application for the gun is useful to the max range for the calibre in question.

If the full range utilisation of the guns was creating issues for the truck chassis. The feedback would have filtered to the designers by now for corrections.

Having said all that as an enthusiast. I don't really appreciate this type of weapon.

As it is neither Fish nor Fowl. The mounting of gun of the truck takes away the ammo hauling capacity of a dedicated FAT.

In such applications the mounted gun carries between 16 to 40 odd rounds. Depending on the carrying chasis.

So basically your ammo load is reduced. You have lost one potential prime mover in the event of breakdown. The in and out of action times are not much different from a modern towed howitzer.

Hope the above makes sense.

niran · Post by **niran** » 24 Oct 2019 18:13

Pratyush wrote:Niran,. Have read your and thakur_b s posts

google for FV4005 development and you will know. it started with 18 poumders with 6 round revolver mag on centurian chasis, broke into 2 and killed 3 crews by 3rd round, those hydrolic spade is present in every arty guns from K9 to Dhanush. to umderstand what am talking about read up on FV4005 and its sucessoers.

truck mounted guns are good in fast moveing warfare, best suited for IBGs IA currently raising.
say a squad arrives at a paxi village, they scout out paxi positions and radio Truck arty which will be nearest them air burst at x,g,h,t coordinates bunkers at b,c,d coordimates, a salvo screams in, officer- Havaldar drone uppar kar, havaldar reports few alive paxi under goat shed and madarsa, coordinates sends and another salvo screams in. lo&behold one village captured with nary a scratch to IA men in under 10 minutes. compare that to kargil where men were used as cannon fodder WW1 style run and get yerself mowed, pray for paxi guns to miss you. i have explained about truck mounted arty used at squad level weapons in me earlier post.

WRT ammo capacity, fikar nat they have ammo truck following them or hiding at safe place, arty are supposed to fire a salvo and move or else they get killed with counter arty.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Oct 2019 18:18

There are two basic strategies to mitigate counter fire effects - Shoot-and-scoot and to our range and outgun your opponent. Both need to be invested in and in certain scenarios one may be preferred over the other.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 24 Oct 2019 20:29

niran wrote:
Thakur_B wrote:Niran ji, full range firing recoil will not break the chassis. The chassis of MGS are stiffened and the recoil is transferred to the ground using hydraulic support that are usually directly linked to the gun pintel so as to not flex the chassis. I am not sure where you are picking up the recoil will break the truck thing.
very many designs saaru
the one you are talking about is later designs where the truck carries the gun, gun practically seperates itself from the truck proper to come to firing position.

am talking about much simpler and commoner design where the gun stays on the truck. from what i have seen Indian deaigns are the simpler ones.

as Ramana Guru says very few people knows about compulsary military in Siam Desha, me specialised in Arty my record of remaing undected for 7 consequetive days as spotter still holds. (woah! what a feeling boasting showing off )

_/\_ Saashtang Pranams _/\_

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Oct 2019 20:30

ramana wrote:<SNIP>BTW with 45th K-9 delivery that is 1 regiment plus 9 for next regiment.

2 x Regiments (18 guns each) and 09 for the next one.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 25 Oct 2019 11:52

Just googled about the fv4005. Interesting vehicle and concept, that was capable but largely impractical due to design and employment related issues. The role was taken over by ATGMS.

The 130 mm catapult seems to be loosely and distantly inspired by that.

So is that a cryptic message to the powers that be regarding mounted gun system

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Oct 2019 04:31

ramana wrote:Buried in this report is the stated root cause of the M777 shell break-up. The US supplier came up with a fault in the BCS charges made by OFB used in the user trials.
need to understand that.

Peregrine wrote:Army raises alarm over rising accidents due to faulty ammunition - Rajat Pandit Cheers

I forgot all about this old post as it was made in May 15th in the middle of the Election season.
Basically the US Supplier fault to a particular lot of the BCS charges made by OFB.

So what are they saying?

basically they are saying the charge was too energetic.
How can that be?
Will explosive energy is a function of burn rate or velocity of detonation.
And burn rate is function of grain size. If the powder is milled too fine it burns quickly and becomes energetic.

Shouldn't the lot testing have caught the issue?
I don't know how they test at OFB?
The final product if tested in a bomb calorimeter would not show this unless the pressure rise time is noted.
If only just pressure and temperature are monitored it wont show up.

They need Quality Control on the milling of the powder and ensure only certain size fines are used.

Anyway its confined to a lot problem. Which is good news.

nam · Post by **nam** » 30 Oct 2019 13:31

Charges being energetic is an indirect way of saying the barrel cannot manage pressure a little over than usual?

If it was a Indian product, we would been asked to make the barrel thicker.

gpurewal · Post by **gpurewal** » 30 Oct 2019 21:42

nam wrote:Charges being energetic is an indirect way of saying the barrel cannot manage pressure a little over than usual?

If it was a Indian product, we would been asked to make the barrel thicker.

Making the barrel thicker would mean that the finished product would be heavier, plus added material and manufacturing costs (I cannot find information on the material properties of the barrel).

The OFB should have a high standard for testing the charge/powder because even if a charge that is too energetic does not burst the barrel, it will most likely cause premature wear and tear. During wartime, a burst/worn out barrel could put our forces in jeopardy. Piss poor/lazy quality control on OFB's part should be rectified immediately.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Oct 2019 02:18

Folks take it easy. Even best practices could result in end result going awry.

nam, More energetic means the shell gets a higher impluse or kick and causes it to spin faster and things go out of control.

Lot testing of energetic materials is very stringent. Usually a large number of samples get tested and then whole lot gets rejected with one failure for critical applications.

in this case they identified the lot. That's good news.

If the COIs had tabulated all instances of shell issues, they could have done to root cause faster.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 31 Oct 2019 12:07

Does the army conduct accepting testing or does it just go on OFB's QC? They shouldn't need to ideally.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Nov 2019 10:56

Army has DGQA that does acceptance testing.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 03 Nov 2019 03:14

Firepower for Indian Army: Russia may raise self-propelled air defence gun missile system deal with Rajnath Singh

Speaking on condition of anonymity a top official confirmed that during the meeting with Singh, the Russian officials will urge the Indian side to re-consider its decision to sign the deal with Hanwha Defense Systems of South Korea.

A very senior Indian Army confirmed that both the upgraded Tunguska system fielded by Almaz Ante and Pantsir by KBP Tula systems were not fully compliant during the trials. The South Korean company was the only one to qualify for the approximately $ 2.5 billion gun and missile system programme.

Though the contract with the South Korean company has yet to be inked, several representations have been made to the Ministry of Defence pointing out concerns related to the Hanwha’s system.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 Nov 2019 03:22

Though the contract with the South Korean company has yet to be inked, several representations have been made to the Ministry of Defence pointing out concerns related to the Hanwha’s system.

“There a few issues relating to not only the 2 D Doppler Radar offered but also the fact that the Hanwha’s K-30 Biho (Flying Tiger) twin 30mm short-range, mobile self-propelled anti-aircraft system, is outdated and a generation old,” explained a source.

The RFP had specified that the gun system should be controlled by the radar and be capable to pick up small objects like small drones.

“The Russian Pantsir fielded by KBP Tula systems, is new generation and comes equipped with 3 D radar with the capability of picking up small objects including drones. However, it has failed the 30-degree gradient test,” a senior officer explained.

Last year at the IRIGC-MTC meeting in New Delhi, the visiting Russia Defence Minister Gen Sergei Shoigu had expressed his displeasure about the upgraded Tunguska system and Pantsir being out of the programme.

One of the most critical requirements specified by the end-user is that the gun, as well as the missile, should be able to engage aerial targets both with and without the fire control radar.

These are valid concerns, the K-30 is indeed a bit long in the tooth vs todays low RCS threats.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Nov 2019 04:23

One of the most critical requirements specified by the end-user is that the gun, as well as the missile, should be able to engage aerial targets both with and without the fire control radar.

Is that feasible?

John · Post by **John** » 03 Nov 2019 04:29

Considering Russia shipped rusted “brand new Tunguska” last time around I can see why we want to stay away from them.

Also while Pantsir seems to be great on paper their performance has unsatisfactory mainly due to complexity of gun and missile combo with latter requiring a FCR and not a fire and forget missile. Won’t be surprised if Russians switch to Sosna and its naval equivalent and ditch Pantsir.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 03 Nov 2019 04:44

Ah! This has been my beef with DRDO for a while now. How difficult is it to develop a manpads-equivalent? Missiles and radars are DRDO's strength. It has huge demand including in a system like this.

There is nothing new to develop in an anti air gun. Just procure the license produced gun. I wish kalyani does this. OFB se na ho payega quality control.

Other than that DRDO has everything in the electro optical tracking, 3D ashlesha radar and kestrel platform.

Bishwa · Post by **Bishwa** » 03 Nov 2019 06:32

ramana wrote:
One of the most critical requirements specified by the end-user is that the gun, as well as the missile, should be able to engage aerial targets both with and without the fire control radar.
Is that feasible?

The Shilka System uses the ZSU-23-4 cannons. An optical sight is fitted for use against ground targets or under ECM conditions. it was used as such in Afghanistan. I suppose they are looking for similar functionality.

The ZSU-23-2 can be used in AD without the radar.. Fact of the matter is it was used in direct fire mode in Siachen in a critical situation

The missile will need a IR guidance or something similar to be able to work without radar guidance..

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 03 Nov 2019 19:15

Info in the discussion on why the K30 Biho was preferred and selected against outdated Russian systems.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 03 Nov 2019 19:41

^^^
Does this deal include local assembly (screwdriver-giri) or is it all imports (with 30% offsets)?

John · Post by **John** » 03 Nov 2019 22:18

Info in the discussion on why the K30 Biho was preferred and selected against outdated Russian systems.

Vips do you know which part of video they talk about that?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Nov 2019 03:34

Historical article on role of British Artillery in WWII

https://www.forces.net/services/army/su ... tle-winner

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 04 Nov 2019 09:23

Indian Army to have first Dhanush regiment by March 2020

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 872109.ece

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 04 Nov 2019 11:33

ramana wrote:
One of the most critical requirements specified by the end-user is that the gun, as well as the missile, should be able to engage aerial targets both with and without the fire control radar.
Is that feasible?

This is where the electro-optical channel(s) come into play. While both Russian and South Korean systems have this channel, from what I remember reading about them, South Korean system has a better one.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 04 Nov 2019 16:33

ramana wrote:
One of the most critical requirements specified by the end-user is that the gun, as well as the missile, should be able to engage aerial targets both with and without the fire control radar.
Is that feasible?

Teg class uses Russian EO to guide 2 AK-630 CIWS. Deepak class uses El-Op CoMPASS to guide 4 AK-630 CIWS. No radars used to guide CIWS in either of the ships.

Ideally I would have preferred IA take the AK-630 gun, put it on a T-72 chassis, and use a Flycatcher or Atulya to guide it using both radar and EO channels.

This is very much doable by DRDO/PSU

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 04 Nov 2019 18:32

ashishvikas wrote:Indian Army to have first Dhanush regiment by March 2020

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 872109.ece

Within the first year of production/induction there is a delay of 3 months. Lets hope all 114 guns are inducted by March 2022.

There is no news of the trials of the follow up guns (Dhanush with 52 caliber). IIRC once the delivery of 114 45 caliber guns is completed the other 300 guns to be given to the army is of the 52 caliber. Army takes at least 2-3 cycles of summer/winter trials to complete the user trials. so there will be a delay in the 52 caliber guns induction.

John · Post by **John** » 04 Nov 2019 19:13

rohitvats wrote:
ramana wrote:
Is that feasible?
This is where the electro-optical channel(s) come into play. While both Russian and South Korean systems have this channel, from what I remember reading about them, South Korean system has a better one.

Pantsir or Tunguska missiles are not fire and forget or guided via laser beam (Sosna), there is newer missile in development dubbed Hermes for naval Pantsir-m that is IR guided.
Added: I believe Pantsir-S can guide missile via EO but not sure how capable that will be.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 06 Nov 2019 00:20

nam wrote:Charges being energetic is an indirect way of saying the barrel cannot manage pressure a little over than usual?

If it was a Indian product, we would been asked to make the barrel thicker.

Its not a little over usual.. In these things, what matters is not the total amount of energy released, but how fast that energy is released. Energy wise, an amount of coal of equal weight as the propellant will release more energy on being burnt, but the propellant yields all of its energy in a much shorter duration. The grain size can change the reaction rate drastically and it needs to be looked into why this happened. E.g. the grain was stored improperly while packing and smaller particles settled and the last few propellant charges in a batch were more energetic.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Nov 2019 02:11

Karan M wrote:
Though the contract with the South Korean company has yet to be inked, several representations have been made to the Ministry of Defence pointing out concerns related to the Hanwha’s system.

“There a few issues relating to not only the 2 D Doppler Radar offered but also the fact that the Hanwha’s K-30 Biho (Flying Tiger) twin 30mm short-range, mobile self-propelled anti-aircraft system, is outdated and a generation old,” explained a source.

The RFP had specified that the gun system should be controlled by the radar and be capable to pick up small objects like small drones.

“The Russian Pantsir fielded by KBP Tula systems, is new generation and comes equipped with 3 D radar with the capability of picking up small objects including drones. However, it has failed the 30-degree gradient test,” a senior officer explained.

Last year at the IRIGC-MTC meeting in New Delhi, the visiting Russia Defence Minister Gen Sergei Shoigu had expressed his displeasure about the upgraded Tunguska system and Pantsir being out of the programme.

One of the most critical requirements specified by the end-user is that the gun, as well as the missile, should be able to engage aerial targets both with and without the fire control radar.

These are valid concerns, the K-30 is indeed a bit long in the tooth vs todays low RCS threats.

So the Korean gun with 2D radar did not meet the requirement for shooting down drones while the Russian with 3D radar one did.
And the Russian one failed to climb a 30 degree gradient and the folks want to reject it!!!!

Please educate me on this one? Am I reading the report incorrectly?

John · Post by **John** » 06 Nov 2019 03:22

Ramana watch the security scan video they discuss in detail about the radar and how x band radar has high resolution and track low flying targets. That article is basically pr piece there is no proof that just because it is 3D Radar it can take down some drones, ironically Pantsir has struggled taking drones in Syria so evident is counter opposite to that (I believe they had to fire tor missiles to take then down).

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 06 Nov 2019 03:48

Forgive the layman question, but from my understanding a 2D radar provides only the range and azimuth of a target but not the altitude. How does a radar guided gun manage to fire at a target without knowing the altitude it is flying at?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Nov 2019 05:10

A Royal Artillery in WWII page for reference:

http://nigelef.tripod.com/directory.htm

Shells and ammo:

http://nigelef.tripod.com/ammo.htm

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 06 Nov 2019 06:01

Biho's advantages are its integrated surveillance and tracking (FCR) radar with missiles having IR seeker

And how effective are our legacy air defence guns integrated with sky capture system against present smart munitions

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 06 Nov 2019 07:56

nachiket wrote:Forgive the layman question, but from my understanding a 2D radar provides only the range and azimuth of a target but not the altitude. How does a radar guided gun manage to fire at a target without knowing the altitude it is flying at?

..just speculating...could be another unit doing some trigonometery and finding the altitude??

John · Post by **John** » 06 Nov 2019 11:04

Yes that is correct

https://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/rb63.en.html

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 06 Nov 2019 21:07

With 2D you can find the location correctly. With 3D, you add Doppler, i.e. the ability to calculate velocity from a single reading.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 07 Nov 2019 09:11

Bharat forge ULH.

niran · Post by **niran** » 07 Nov 2019 10:45

Thakur_B wrote:
Bharat forge ULH.

apparently 2 recoil system. weight is teeny weeny 4.5tons
if me had Hitler's powar would have ordered 5k of these mounted on 6 wheel TaTa trucks.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 07 Nov 2019 12:14

niran wrote:
Thakur_B wrote:
Bharat forge ULH.
apparently 2 recoil system. weight is teeny weeny 4.5tons
if me had Hitler's powar would have ordered 5k of these mounted on 6 wheel TaTa trucks.

I would be more interested in mounting it on a tracked hull with and automated loading system with 60 rounds magazine and 10 rounds a minute rate of fire.

Try to build it under 20 tons all up weight.

SRajesh · Post by **SRajesh** » 07 Nov 2019 14:14

Pratyush wrote:
niran wrote: apparently 2 recoil system. weight is teeny weeny 4.5tons
if me had Hitler's powar would have ordered 5k of these mounted on 6 wheel TaTa trucks.
I would be more interested in mounting it on a tracked hull with and automated loading system with 60 rounds magazine and 10 rounds a minute rate of fire.

Try to build it under 20 tons all up weight.

Noob Pooch:
NE area all kuccha roads or pukka roads to the order areas??
Do these have to be slung under some 'Whirly=Bird'
Or can they be broken up to be packed on 'mule cart'

And ?? cheaper than 'phoren maal'!!