The video was posted on Feb 26, 2021. It is very old.Rsatchi wrote:What is the time line of this video?
I thought that the LOC has cooled down after unspoken understanding by unnamed ones!
Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4056
- Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
wouldnt that affect the shape???Rakesh wrote: https://twitter.com/VJSWRITER/status/15 ... sdxe97AQ4Q --->
Some of the 105mm guns of 41 Field Regt were firing 400 rounds a day. The barrels would get so hot that experienced gunners would drape the barrels with gunny bags soaked in snow melts to cool them and continue the fire offensive.
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
crew training level audit video, the one with white sheet paper is instructor/auditor/examiner notice how he tryies to see all the steps. nothing to do with paxi poundingAtmavik wrote:^^^ they are still used in LOC in driect fire mode to pound the paki vermin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFd5QnMJwMQ
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
Not sure what is the wider point we are discussing but here is some background on the M777.
1. The basic design effort was to provide a weapon that had similar performance specifications to the M198, with far greater mobility. Now mobility is a many splendoured word - and its not captured by a single facet such as the ability to be airlifted using an Osprey. For example, the towing vehicle used for the M198 was the 5 ton truck which had a weight in excess of 20,000 lb. The M777 could be towed by a lighter vehicle which weighted around 12,000 lb. In effect the towing vehicle and the howitzer could fit into a single C130, while two aircraft were required for a M198 and its towing vehicle.
Battlefield mobility, either via airlift or via towing vehicles is far improved too.
This was the big decision - the US system wanted a more mobile gun - and all other considerations were subservient to that. As the gun developed some of the trade offs were found to impact the life of a few key components especially when were high fire rates needed to be sustained.
Just for fun - M777+towing vehicle+ crew (sub 30,000 lb), Bofors F77 + towing vehicle + crew (over 60,000 lb), K9 Vajra (over 100,000 lb)
2. Design is also a complex world. This is the only heavy artillery support the first feet on the ground can expect to have in the US context. The gun must fulfill all reasonable needs under these circumstances till heavier guns arrive.
Its fair to say that the US system increasingly sees artillery as a precision weapon rather than an area weapon, and with the advent of long range guided ammo that is a legitimate point of view. However if the situation on the ground demands conventional fire assaults where a single gun needs to fire over a hundred shells in a day, then that must be met.
All said and done - this is a wonderful weapon. It provides capability that otherwise would be missing - and if you have to choose between a 155 mm howitzer with some use limitations and a 105 mm gun, the choice is a no-brainer.
3. In the Ukrainian situation, this is the only tube artillery that can be supplied in the hundreds with ammunition from ready stocks. If you make an assumption that no country will want to part with more than 20% of its available guns, the only countries that could have supplied 125+ towed 155 mm howitzers, other than the combatants are South Korea, the US, China and India.
There is no option other than the M777
As it is used in ways that exceed the design envelope there will be negative user feedback but this feedback will compare the M777 to the expected performance of heavier guns - in the real world the choice is between the M777, or a 105 mm gun.
So what I am trying to say is that the gun is a powerful asset - negative feedback will occur because the use cases exceed the recommended envelope (happens all the time in war conditions), and the gun meets operational use conditions.
As an example, shrapnel from counter battery fire (not a direct or a close hit), is causing a fair bit of failure due to electronics getting hit or even brittle fracture - the users will need to cope via new tactics or accept a higher than anticipated repair load.
Finally 35,000 shells over 5 months seems a lot but the Russians are firing more than double that number daily on busy days . More to the point if the firing rate was constant (which it wont be), that is sub 20 shells per gun per day - that is one fire mission a day. Under intense conditions, guns may need to fire more than 10 fire missions in one day.
As we learn more about the gun against an opponent with equal or better capability doctrine will evolve - that is to be expected.
Its still a very good asset
1. The basic design effort was to provide a weapon that had similar performance specifications to the M198, with far greater mobility. Now mobility is a many splendoured word - and its not captured by a single facet such as the ability to be airlifted using an Osprey. For example, the towing vehicle used for the M198 was the 5 ton truck which had a weight in excess of 20,000 lb. The M777 could be towed by a lighter vehicle which weighted around 12,000 lb. In effect the towing vehicle and the howitzer could fit into a single C130, while two aircraft were required for a M198 and its towing vehicle.
Battlefield mobility, either via airlift or via towing vehicles is far improved too.
This was the big decision - the US system wanted a more mobile gun - and all other considerations were subservient to that. As the gun developed some of the trade offs were found to impact the life of a few key components especially when were high fire rates needed to be sustained.
Just for fun - M777+towing vehicle+ crew (sub 30,000 lb), Bofors F77 + towing vehicle + crew (over 60,000 lb), K9 Vajra (over 100,000 lb)
2. Design is also a complex world. This is the only heavy artillery support the first feet on the ground can expect to have in the US context. The gun must fulfill all reasonable needs under these circumstances till heavier guns arrive.
Its fair to say that the US system increasingly sees artillery as a precision weapon rather than an area weapon, and with the advent of long range guided ammo that is a legitimate point of view. However if the situation on the ground demands conventional fire assaults where a single gun needs to fire over a hundred shells in a day, then that must be met.
All said and done - this is a wonderful weapon. It provides capability that otherwise would be missing - and if you have to choose between a 155 mm howitzer with some use limitations and a 105 mm gun, the choice is a no-brainer.
3. In the Ukrainian situation, this is the only tube artillery that can be supplied in the hundreds with ammunition from ready stocks. If you make an assumption that no country will want to part with more than 20% of its available guns, the only countries that could have supplied 125+ towed 155 mm howitzers, other than the combatants are South Korea, the US, China and India.
There is no option other than the M777
As it is used in ways that exceed the design envelope there will be negative user feedback but this feedback will compare the M777 to the expected performance of heavier guns - in the real world the choice is between the M777, or a 105 mm gun.
So what I am trying to say is that the gun is a powerful asset - negative feedback will occur because the use cases exceed the recommended envelope (happens all the time in war conditions), and the gun meets operational use conditions.
As an example, shrapnel from counter battery fire (not a direct or a close hit), is causing a fair bit of failure due to electronics getting hit or even brittle fracture - the users will need to cope via new tactics or accept a higher than anticipated repair load.
Finally 35,000 shells over 5 months seems a lot but the Russians are firing more than double that number daily on busy days . More to the point if the firing rate was constant (which it wont be), that is sub 20 shells per gun per day - that is one fire mission a day. Under intense conditions, guns may need to fire more than 10 fire missions in one day.
As we learn more about the gun against an opponent with equal or better capability doctrine will evolve - that is to be expected.
Its still a very good asset
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
Artillery tractor Options ?
or are we towing something. That is a lot of mobility
#BEML-DRDO High Mobility 8X8 vehicle
Armoured Driver Cabin
- Operations in all-terrain & climatic conditions
- Bullet & Blast proof
- Engine: T3D-928-70, 8-Cylinder, V-type,4-Stroke, Diesel direct injection,Turbocharger
- HP: 325 kW@ 1800rpm
- Gradeability: 25°
https://twitter.com/DefenceDecode/statu ... 6889026562
or are we towing something. That is a lot of mobility
#BEML-DRDO High Mobility 8X8 vehicle
Armoured Driver Cabin
- Operations in all-terrain & climatic conditions
- Bullet & Blast proof
- Engine: T3D-928-70, 8-Cylinder, V-type,4-Stroke, Diesel direct injection,Turbocharger
- HP: 325 kW@ 1800rpm
- Gradeability: 25°
https://twitter.com/DefenceDecode/statu ... 6889026562
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
It for the thread.
This appears to be a Tatra 8*8 replacement.
However, the army has asked for 1800 FAT capable of towing 18 ton howitzer. As a separate procurement program.
This appears to be a Tatra 8*8 replacement.
However, the army has asked for 1800 FAT capable of towing 18 ton howitzer. As a separate procurement program.
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
^^^^ very TFTA
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
The Defenders - Bharat Forge: Making Arms for India | 09 July, 2022
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
Since it is at BF, it is probable a prototype for ATAGS MGS. Ukraine war must have woken up some people in IA for the need for heavy MGS, instead of too many towed guns.
A 25 lt 155MM MGS will outrange everything out there, hence doesn't need to a tracked SPH.
A 25 lt 155MM MGS will outrange everything out there, hence doesn't need to a tracked SPH.
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
Baba Kalyani is a true patriot flying the Indian flag high with BharatForge products worldwide. If some videshi brand had 48 km range of fire, I am sure the Armed forces would be drooling over it and demanding that India import the maal promptly. The same Min. of Defence Babu who came with a blank check to Baba for placing orders for shells during Kargill can make things happen for ATAGS if the Atmanirbhar urge manifests in his fertile brain. ATAGS has passed all kinds of tests why the delay in ordering?Rakesh wrote:The Defenders - Bharat Forge: Making Arms for India | 09 July, 2022
In all these experiences, the fact stands out loud and clear that if Indians are placed in mission mode then they have the capability of exceeding things for the better. I sometimes wonder if we can take the import item list ( a very long one) and for each product we create a mission mode project and have students and their profs from IIT, NIT, etc work on them. They could churn out better products and this becomes an industry unto itself.
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
https://idrw.org/concept-to-reality-bem ... gs-system/Khalsa wrote:Artillery tractor Options ?
or are we towing something. That is a lot of mobility
#BEML-DRDO High Mobility 8X8 vehicle
Armoured Driver Cabin
- Operations in all-terrain & climatic conditions
- Bullet & Blast proof
- Engine: T3D-928-70, 8-Cylinder, V-type,4-Stroke, Diesel direct injection,Turbocharger
- HP: 325 kW@ 1800rpm
- Gradeability: 25°
https://twitter.com/DefenceDecode/statu ... 6889026562
It's a Tatra vehicle as a Mount for the Mounted gun system. The Indian army has a requirement for 814 of such guns.
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
This is extraordinarily wishful thinking - I used to think like this a decade ago. Let me try to illustrate why this scenario is near impossible.bala wrote:
In all these experiences, the fact stands out loud and clear that if Indians are placed in mission mode then they have the capability of exceeding things for the better. I sometimes wonder if we can take the import item list ( a very long one) and for each product we create a mission mode project and have students and their profs from IIT, NIT, etc work on them. They could churn out better products and this becomes an industry unto itself.
What people do not appreciate often is that military hardware ( and civilian as well for airline and space technology ) has 100,000s of components and 100,000s of supporting technologies for manufacturing, inspection, testing and maintenance. Most of these also require dedicated engineering software. Very little of this is indigenous, and it is often not at all economical to indigenize them. I will try to illustrate with an example that I had a discussion with M.D. of Paras defense and Optics (many of you would have heard of this company).
The inspection of large size optical components requires a software technique known as stitching interferometry ( it requires hardware as well, but let's put that aside for now ). This software is available from Zygo at a price of Rs. 60 Lakhs. Lets say as an entrepreneur I want to compete in this field, and target a price reduction to 30 Lakhs. Now this is a super specialized software- extremely few buyers would be there, so I have to try to get a return even in a single sale. Lets say I want to develop this in 2 years, I will have 2 people working on it, set aside 10 L for travel and testing expenses, and then salary would be 5 L per year to each developer. Here are the myriad problems with it:
- Below market compensation for software developer
- Extremely difficult software to develop compared to developing random apps for ecommerce or MNC jobs
- Lots of training required even for high IQ pass outs with some background in physics and programming
- What if the employee leaves in between
- Can I really produce a competitive product within 2 years with 2 fresher employees (even with some advisors from ISRO/etc. ) compared to someone in Zygos with 20 years experience in that field,
A standard Indian businessman (baniya type) would not even look at it, but even a patriotic businessman cannot see how this can be made to work. Even in the best case scenario there is no real profit. And this is the case with just software. Now think about actual sophisticated hardware and materials like optical glass or lasers. Requiring heavy capital investment and effort over decades. Multiply the above scenario by 100,000 and you can begin to see the scale of the problem here.
As far as IITs and NITs are concerned, the less said about them the better. Post graduate and profs are only concerned about papers in journals - because this is the only way you can get positions and promotions. These 'papers' do not need to contain anything relevant to developing products in a country - often they are chaired by Chinese! As for the average student they are no better. Indians (and humans in general I think) want to maximize salary and minimize efforts. Developing high tech is the exact opposite of that. It is like looking for a needle in a haystack to even get anyone to sign on. Thinking that some mythological IITian will develop indigenous software for stitching interferometry is only slightly more plausible than flying to the moon in a helicopter.
Yes, we have some exceptions and miracles that happen from time to time and things are better than before. But lets not fall prey to our own advertising. We are just so far behind as a country that only a few small dents can be made in the scheme of indigenization, nothing more.
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
this is tow plus shell carrier note the APU in the middle will be used to power mechanical shell handling(1 shell weigh 60kg+)Khalsa wrote:Artillery tractor Options ?
or are we towing something. That is a lot of mobility
#BEML-DRDO High Mobility 8X8 vehicle
Armoured Driver Cabin
- Operations in all-terrain & climatic conditions
- Bullet & Blast proof
- Engine: T3D-928-70, 8-Cylinder, V-type,4-Stroke, Diesel direct injection,Turbocharger
- HP: 325 kW@ 1800rpm
- Gradeability: 25°
https://twitter.com/DefenceDecode/statu ... 6889026562
to mount guns APU will be moved forward to right behind crew cabin APU powered guns acquire lase and fire rapidier than manual operations
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
Excellent post, csaurabh. This is also the reason that all this talk of "setting up a complete Rafale manufacturing line in India" (or any other aircraft or sophisticated item) is such a pipe dream -- it is simply impossible to replicate the many hundreds of independent French SMEs in India. To begin with, many of them would not be willing to go to the trouble, and if you tried to bribe them with money, it would simply send the cost of a made-in-India Rafale through the roof.csaurabh wrote:Let me try to illustrate why this scenario is near impossible.
What people do not appreciate often is that military hardware ( and civilian as well for airline and space technology ) has 100,000s of components and 100,000s of supporting technologies for manufacturing, inspection, testing and maintenance. Most of these also require dedicated engineering software. Very little of this is indigenous, and it is often not at all economical to indigenize them.
Realistically, the only thing you can reasonably expect to do (at a manageable cost and time frame) is set up a final assembly line in India, where sub-assemblies imported from France will be assembled, tested, QA'ed etc. And who knows, even that may be more expensive than a made-in-France Rafale; and would also be sneered at and disparaged as "screwdriver-giri".
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
Thanks for the detailed response and considering your contribution to DRDO initiatives, I believe the ground realities that you bring up are true.csaurabh wrote:This is extraordinarily wishful thinking - I used to think like this a decade ago. Let me try to illustrate why this scenario is near impossible.
However, I always have the hope that you have to start somewhere despite the difficulties. I am not talking about 'paper' writing exercises instead, "Actual projects" which people roll up their sleeves and contribute. Some projects can be pure R&D and later translate to some product. I remember a project I did for my masters and completely forgot about it after graduating. But the next set of graduates picked up on the "software" added more and more and eventually it became a mainstream in electronic CAD practices. So there is some hope for graduates who have some idea to solve things. Some IITs have innovation centers to tinker with stuff, NITs also have such projects, some amazing stuff have been created. If you look at the import list of items, many things are easy to replicate no great difficulties really. BharatForge also found that Guns are mainly forging parts with a little bit of R&D (from DRDO). Maybe private enterprise coopts these projects at IITs and NITs funding them adequately, provide incentives for the folks involved.
Aside: ISRO's Prof. Satish Dhawan when at CalTech, the prof supervising him had the impression that Indians do not roll up their sleeves and get to dirty stuff with hands. This was proven wrong by Satish!
Similarly we need students at IITs / NITs to get their hands dirty with actual projects.
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
Prof Dhawan and his ilk are a minority.
We as a nation are a people prone to taking short cuts, blaming the gora for all our problems pen pushing etc.
Our systems are geared for that.
It will require great leadership and us being selective in specific areas.
We know our issue with jet engines yet have not been able to launch a pointed project for that!!!
So good luck.
Till then we can keep talking should have, would have, can, will and all manner of future participles.
We as a nation are a people prone to taking short cuts, blaming the gora for all our problems pen pushing etc.
Our systems are geared for that.
It will require great leadership and us being selective in specific areas.
We know our issue with jet engines yet have not been able to launch a pointed project for that!!!
So good luck.
Till then we can keep talking should have, would have, can, will and all manner of future participles.
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
Firstly - good post csaurabh-ji
If you look at the origins of any globally competitive engineering enterprise, a few things stand out:
1) it starts really small in a garage or a nondescript workshop
2) they start with a niche product or service
3) the product or service provided has a clear differentiator - performance, reliability, cost, quality, cycle time, etc.
4) they usually have one person who knows his $hit...this is not the marketing or sales guy like Steve Jobs, but rather the technical and curious Steve Woz
5) the path from [niche startup --> marketplace expansion --> market leader --> monopoly/duopoly] takes decades
6) net result - these companies become crown jewels and the IP is not for sale internationally, irrespective of buyer or dollars
The challenge therefore is, you need people who are:
1) reasonably high IQ and possessing technical curiosity
2) hands-on...willing to take things apart and put them together
3) motivated and focused to achieve a predetermined target (i.e. a one-track mind)
4) willing to play the long game as opposed to getting distracted by friends investing in stocks / real estate / bitcoin, etc.
5) wanting something that outlasts them...a legacy if you will. People with a 100 year vision as opposed to IPO & exit
6) patriotism helps...it helps people play the long game
These people are few and far in between. As the economy expands and opportunities increase, these people will surface themselves. But this is a 100 year process to get there...even the Chinese took 50 years from 1970-2020 to get to where they are now
If you look at the origins of any globally competitive engineering enterprise, a few things stand out:
1) it starts really small in a garage or a nondescript workshop
2) they start with a niche product or service
3) the product or service provided has a clear differentiator - performance, reliability, cost, quality, cycle time, etc.
4) they usually have one person who knows his $hit...this is not the marketing or sales guy like Steve Jobs, but rather the technical and curious Steve Woz
5) the path from [niche startup --> marketplace expansion --> market leader --> monopoly/duopoly] takes decades
6) net result - these companies become crown jewels and the IP is not for sale internationally, irrespective of buyer or dollars
The challenge therefore is, you need people who are:
1) reasonably high IQ and possessing technical curiosity
2) hands-on...willing to take things apart and put them together
3) motivated and focused to achieve a predetermined target (i.e. a one-track mind)
4) willing to play the long game as opposed to getting distracted by friends investing in stocks / real estate / bitcoin, etc.
5) wanting something that outlasts them...a legacy if you will. People with a 100 year vision as opposed to IPO & exit
6) patriotism helps...it helps people play the long game
These people are few and far in between. As the economy expands and opportunities increase, these people will surface themselves. But this is a 100 year process to get there...even the Chinese took 50 years from 1970-2020 to get to where they are now
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
csaurabh, bala and titash: Excellent posts all around. Keep it up.
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
1) Do not think we can conflate commercial/civil and defense. Two very different beasts. (more below)
2) Every country faces what csaurabh posted. There is *absolutely nothing unique* to India, except perhaps very, very low appetite for "risk"
3) Defense efforts are motivated by 4 major movers: cost, time, security, and power (as in invading/conquering/*autonomy*). csaurabh's post - to me - says: "we do not want to be a power" (point being: time is very short to back SJ who needs a robust economy and military)
Following up on #1:
Traditionally extremely few US commercial entities wanted to target the defense sector (read/watch on YT "Freedom's Forge" - Kalyani's motivator). Until the Chinese heist. That is when the DoD was forced to look for faster/quicker solutions/upgrades. The problem was solved by hiring Silicon Valley VC, PM, etc executives, who were given space to operate outside the strict military structure, with direction/authority to build a commercial/military model to solve problems. That pivot has transformed the military and it is slowly showing.
The intense dislike for China (among defense entities) has also created an underground network where one can get pretty much any widget made locally.
2) Every country faces what csaurabh posted. There is *absolutely nothing unique* to India, except perhaps very, very low appetite for "risk"
3) Defense efforts are motivated by 4 major movers: cost, time, security, and power (as in invading/conquering/*autonomy*). csaurabh's post - to me - says: "we do not want to be a power" (point being: time is very short to back SJ who needs a robust economy and military)
Following up on #1:
Traditionally extremely few US commercial entities wanted to target the defense sector (read/watch on YT "Freedom's Forge" - Kalyani's motivator). Until the Chinese heist. That is when the DoD was forced to look for faster/quicker solutions/upgrades. The problem was solved by hiring Silicon Valley VC, PM, etc executives, who were given space to operate outside the strict military structure, with direction/authority to build a commercial/military model to solve problems. That pivot has transformed the military and it is slowly showing.
The intense dislike for China (among defense entities) has also created an underground network where one can get pretty much any widget made locally.
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
Talking about future, what do think of a 48km ATAGS gun which has passed all kinds of test/obstacles. Should the Army induct this in the 100s? I am positive if it were some Videshi brand they would be clamouring for 100s and there would be the famous "Swalpa Adjust Madi" message sent to Min of Defence/Babus.ks_sachin wrote: all manner of future participles.
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
Why should they not?
Do you know why they have not inducted it as yet considering when the Dhanush passed all tests army placed an order which the OFB screwed up.
Only 29% of Def budget is there for CAPEX I heard.
So in one thread we want LCH.
In another thread we want LUH.
Then we want ATAGS.
Considering that our acquisitions are so out of whack with our acquisition planning (Long Term Perspective Plan) don’t Expect AHQ to work to our schedule. Their acquisition is based on threats.
Do you know why they have not inducted it as yet considering when the Dhanush passed all tests army placed an order which the OFB screwed up.
Only 29% of Def budget is there for CAPEX I heard.
So in one thread we want LCH.
In another thread we want LUH.
Then we want ATAGS.
Considering that our acquisitions are so out of whack with our acquisition planning (Long Term Perspective Plan) don’t Expect AHQ to work to our schedule. Their acquisition is based on threats.
Last edited by ks_sachin on 14 Jul 2022 10:33, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
Once proved Army has been buying Indian radars etc
Indian vehicles etc
Indian vehicles etc
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4292
- Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
csaurabh, Bala et al: good points. But things are slowly changing in India, in core engineering. We have close to 30 space startups. There are at least 3 roll-the-sleeves companies emerging/emerged from IITM: Avishkar (hyperloop), Agnikul (space) & Planys (underwater ROV)
There are more that I am unaware of.
Sure enough, some of the components that go into these machines will be imported. But the systems are ours and over time, many of the components will also be (wherever it makes sense)
Indians had a strong material culture for millennia. No reason to think we cannot reclaim that heritage.
There are more that I am unaware of.
Sure enough, some of the components that go into these machines will be imported. But the systems are ours and over time, many of the components will also be (wherever it makes sense)
Indians had a strong material culture for millennia. No reason to think we cannot reclaim that heritage.
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
I really would love to believe that. But the Arjun comes to mind. I am sure there are more.ks_sachin wrote:Once proved Army has been buying Indian radars etc
Indian vehicles etc
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
Before Ukraine, US has used a lot of Paladins along with less number of M777 against very weak opponents.
No doubt that m777 has worked there as per specification but it can not be termed battle tested. That would be like saying F22 and F35 are battle tested.
To reduce the weight, m777 has removed a lot of systems like automated rammer and requires more manual work to operate than a regular arty gun. This requirement of additional manual workload typically causes more fatigue and slow the operation in sustained usage. Check the videos of m777 operation and you will see the entire team has to move in sync to ram the round inside after loading, there is no crane to help loading or automated feeder for the charges etc.
The gun has been further weight optimized to this reduce rate of sustained fire in terms of recoil, heat dissipation requirements. The downside of weight optimization comes up in requiring more maintenance due to faster wear and tear putting more strains on logistics.
Now, if the team follows the SOP and operates closer to ideal test environment with proper logistics support, which typically happens when the mighty US army fights with rag tag militias, it performs as expected.
However, the situation in Ukraine is significantly different from that. I have no doubt of a few PR shots/videos with significant ISR support showing the gun in good light but I have doubt about it in actual usage. And there are reports (unconfirmed) of the guns being abandoned or sold without much usage other than PR.
That does not mean it would fail in Indian hands by the way. India fighting pakis or even Chinks will have significantly different operating condition that Russia Ukaine (or so I hope).
No doubt that m777 has worked there as per specification but it can not be termed battle tested. That would be like saying F22 and F35 are battle tested.
To reduce the weight, m777 has removed a lot of systems like automated rammer and requires more manual work to operate than a regular arty gun. This requirement of additional manual workload typically causes more fatigue and slow the operation in sustained usage. Check the videos of m777 operation and you will see the entire team has to move in sync to ram the round inside after loading, there is no crane to help loading or automated feeder for the charges etc.
The gun has been further weight optimized to this reduce rate of sustained fire in terms of recoil, heat dissipation requirements. The downside of weight optimization comes up in requiring more maintenance due to faster wear and tear putting more strains on logistics.
Now, if the team follows the SOP and operates closer to ideal test environment with proper logistics support, which typically happens when the mighty US army fights with rag tag militias, it performs as expected.
However, the situation in Ukraine is significantly different from that. I have no doubt of a few PR shots/videos with significant ISR support showing the gun in good light but I have doubt about it in actual usage. And there are reports (unconfirmed) of the guns being abandoned or sold without much usage other than PR.
That does not mean it would fail in Indian hands by the way. India fighting pakis or even Chinks will have significantly different operating condition that Russia Ukaine (or so I hope).
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
m777 were fixed on both bradley as well as strykers, primarily for close direct fire support role but my understanding is that they have not provided much additional value compared to the additional logistics and maintenance burden and hence only Canada inducted a few and then stopped.
For mobile arty requirement, it is a suboptimal solution and better to go with a proper wheeled or tracked platform for arty instead of such a light 155 gun.
For mobile arty requirement, it is a suboptimal solution and better to go with a proper wheeled or tracked platform for arty instead of such a light 155 gun.
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
Admiral for every induction that is held up there will be a tale of an substandard product from the OFB or DRDO.Rakesh wrote:I really would love to believe that. But the Arjun comes to mind. I am sure there are more.ks_sachin wrote:Once proved Army has been buying Indian radars etc
Indian vehicles etc
The mistrust runs deep.
For me the Arjun was a different problem. By the time it came we were too far down the path of the T series. You will admit that for a variety of factors it took way too long to mature.
If the Abrams had been inducted we would have the Arjun.
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
PickluPicklu wrote:m777 were fixed on both bradley as well as strykers, primarily for close direct fire support role but my understanding is that they have not provided much additional value compared to the additional logistics and maintenance burden and hence only Canada inducted a few and then stopped.
For mobile arty requirement, it is a suboptimal solution and better to go with a proper wheeled or tracked platform for arty instead of such a light 155 gun.
The Bradley has a version with a 105mm gun
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
Yup sorry, Bradley has 105mm. Stryker had m777 which had some token induction and then stopped scratch that. I am not finding that reference on the net any more, only 105mm.
I however distinctly remember a program showing m777 on Stryker.
I however distinctly remember a program showing m777 on Stryker.
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
Picklu wrote: Snip...
I however distinctly remember a program showing m777 on Stryker.
As have I but in some trade magazine towards the early part of the century.
If someone has active tank-net forum membership. They can ask about it and I am quite sure we could see a photo as well.
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
Some details on Ram jet Artillery work in IIT M.
https://www.iitm.ac.in/happenings/event ... simulation
https://www.iitm.ac.in/happenings/event ... simulation
We will need whole series of ATAGS to be able fire such shells at increasing ranges. A beginning has been made with BF's planned 120 km shell.A solid fuel ramjet (SFRJ) due to its certain advantages over a solid rocket, is another promising way to provide propulsion to an artillery shell. Being an air-breathing engine, ramjet has higher Isp (> 4000 N s/kg) compared to that of a solid rocket (∼2500 N s/kg) and therefore provides much higher overall impulse to the shell for the same mass of propellant. In spite of advantages of a ramjet over a rocket engine, it has not been incorporated in artillery shell till date. A Norwegian company ‘NAMMO’ unveiled a prototype of a 155 mm-ramjet propelled artillery shell recently. The viability of use of a ramjet for this application had been in question primarily because, it is quite challenging to realize a ramjet engine in the given geometrical constraints set by the gun used to propel the shell, and yet maximize its performance to obtain an overall improvement in the range.
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
Here you go: https://www.army-technology.com/projects/ufh/Picklu wrote:Yup sorry, Bradley has 105mm.Stryker had m777 which had some token induction and then stoppedscratch that. I am not finding that reference on the net any more, only 105mm.
I however distinctly remember a program showing m777 on Stryker.
There are a few videos out there too.The M777 is the artillery system for the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCT). The M777 is normally operated by a crew of eight men, but can be operated with a reduced detachment of five.
A Brar topic, to be very honest:
However, which other Army/Marines have the global presence like the USA/USMC have? Heck for a lot/most of their "lift" needs NATO relies very heavily on the US lift command (look no further than the mess NATO was in when the US decided to high tail out of A'sthan and did not provide any lift for NATO). I very much doubt that many of the NATO national armies would even exist without the financial support from the US (a pet complain of Obama/Trump). Point being the US has enough $ to play around with - other nations do not. Then the M777 is somewhat of a godly gift for the USMC, not so much for the US Army, which in 2018 started thinking of a replacement. Next these howitzers are part of a much larger "doctrine" - both within the Army and the MC (two diff doctrines). These doctrines rely very heavily on "net-centric", "multi-domain", "theater command", one of the most used: "mobility", and other big words, which hardly know what a M777 is outside as a "shooter".
With a budget of $800 billion, the US can afford to do plenty of things others cannot even dream of.
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
The use case for such long distance artillery is quite limited. Limited by the ability to locate targets and observe impact - this kind of ammunition is part of a very complex loop where the ability to locate targets, engage and evaluate impact is hard.
The use of long distance MBRLS like the HIMARS is possibly easier for these use cases. More explosives,100+ km range and a similar logistic footprint.
Precision strike with artillery shells at long but conventional ranges of 40-50 is valuable to tackle enemy fire bases providing support.
The use of long distance MBRLS like the HIMARS is possibly easier for these use cases. More explosives,100+ km range and a similar logistic footprint.
Precision strike with artillery shells at long but conventional ranges of 40-50 is valuable to tackle enemy fire bases providing support.
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
NRao,
I had linked the supcat mounted M777 in some page's back.
What is being referred to is a self propelled howitzer that is essentially a mashup of the striker 8*8 vehicle and a non turret mount M777. With shells sticking out vertically of the sides of the vehicle.
Neither of us are able to find a picture of the vehicle.
I had linked the supcat mounted M777 in some page's back.
What is being referred to is a self propelled howitzer that is essentially a mashup of the striker 8*8 vehicle and a non turret mount M777. With shells sticking out vertically of the sides of the vehicle.
Neither of us are able to find a picture of the vehicle.
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
The M777 was entirely designed by BAE Systems. Not much interest from Europe or the UK where the faith was in self propelled artillery.
The US took serious note of the gun after the Gulf war when a US presence was needed very quickly with no close base.
Long story, but had Saddam been more aggressive he would have created a much bigger mess. The need to deploy quickly with 155 mm artillery from remote bases to tackle a competent and large enemy drove the acquisition of the system.
The US took serious note of the gun after the Gulf war when a US presence was needed very quickly with no close base.
Long story, but had Saddam been more aggressive he would have created a much bigger mess. The need to deploy quickly with 155 mm artillery from remote bases to tackle a competent and large enemy drove the acquisition of the system.
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/thread ... 80s.12247/
Scouring different military forums, i have found the above mentioned thread at secret projects. But it has only one post.
I am sure that there is more. But will require a lot more diging.
If someone is thinking what is the relevance of this to Indian military.
It's a response to a post form Sachin about mounting the ATAGS on Krestal APC.
Scouring different military forums, i have found the above mentioned thread at secret projects. But it has only one post.
I am sure that there is more. But will require a lot more diging.
If someone is thinking what is the relevance of this to Indian military.
It's a response to a post form Sachin about mounting the ATAGS on Krestal APC.
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
As per this youtube Video 3 Regisments of Sharang 155mm have been Inducted- thats about 60 Guns
So what does the Army Artillery today consist off
1) 145 M777
2) K-9 -100
3) 3 Regiments Sharang -60 Guns
4) 36 Odd Dhanush
5) Original Sholtam Upg 155 mm Guns-180
6) Whatever is left off the Original Bofors -250 Guns
~680 155 mm , time to get the ATAGS and MGS in Numbers along with more K-9's. Plus whatever 130mm and 105 mm Guns, Motors. High time we upgrade and get mobile 105mm artillery also.
What does Army MLRS consist of
1) BM-21 -10 Regiments
2) Pinka-1 - 12 Regiments
3) Pinaka-2-?
4) Smerch -2 Regiments
5) Pralay/ Prahaar/ Pragati -0
6) Prithvi -1/II with Army/ Airforce
Time we have some serious Rocket Artillery to take on enemy Air bases and well defended targets.
So what does the Army Artillery today consist off
1) 145 M777
2) K-9 -100
3) 3 Regiments Sharang -60 Guns
4) 36 Odd Dhanush
5) Original Sholtam Upg 155 mm Guns-180
6) Whatever is left off the Original Bofors -250 Guns
~680 155 mm , time to get the ATAGS and MGS in Numbers along with more K-9's. Plus whatever 130mm and 105 mm Guns, Motors. High time we upgrade and get mobile 105mm artillery also.
What does Army MLRS consist of
1) BM-21 -10 Regiments
2) Pinka-1 - 12 Regiments
3) Pinaka-2-?
4) Smerch -2 Regiments
5) Pralay/ Prahaar/ Pragati -0
6) Prithvi -1/II with Army/ Airforce
Time we have some serious Rocket Artillery to take on enemy Air bases and well defended targets.
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
^^Arty or LCH or LUH or basics for infantrymen?
Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion
The more important question i am asking is the cost of equipment for what is considered basic kit for modern infantry man for entire infantry and the cost of welfare for losses to modern infantry man.ks_sachin wrote:^^Arty or LCH or LUH or basics for infantrymen?
Which one of them is less?
I guess that is where the answer and priorities are.