Artillery Discussion Thread

[RayC]

sir, OFB and DRDO are different kettles of fish, one it seems is beyond redemption, the other has some fantastic achievements in niche areas but flounders in others.

much of the problems with our MIC can be solved if stringent QC are maintained during production.

coming to monopoly, doesn't the russians have monopoly to a large extent too ?
was there any competitors when IA selected the T-90 for example ?
or the recent gigantic Mi-17 acquisition ?

I am aware that OFB and DRDO are different. I have worked with both and so I have a fair idea.

Quality Control? That is a new word for PSUs! Well, most. There are also fine PSUs too.

As far as DRDO is concerened, true that they have some spectacular successes, but mostly they are a drag. They could not reverse engineer a simple rifle cleaning chemical called BORECLAP!

Let me example why we have Russian equipment.

We bought them in exchange for banana and tea!

Our assembly line and maintenance right down to the field units is now based on the Russian technology and for the said equipment and its derivatives. Therefore, to change would mean expenditure, training, new assembly lines, and different type of spares right down to the field level. A huge inventory at the field level and that too in a mobile war, would affect the momentum, to put it simply.

[andy B]

I am aware that OFB and DRDO are different. I have worked with both and so I have a fair idea.

Quality Control? That is a new word for PSUs! Well, most. There are also fine PSUs too.

As far as DRDO is concerened, true that they have some spectacular successes, but mostly they are a drag. They could not reverse engineer a simple rifle cleaning chemical called BORECLAP!

Let me example why we have Russian equipment.

We bought them in exchange for banana and tea!

Our assembly line and maintenance right down to the field units is now based on the Russian technology and for the said equipment and its derivatives. Therefore, to change would mean expenditure, training, new assembly lines, and different type of spares right down to the field level. A huge inventory at the field level and that too in a mobile war, would affect the momentum, to put it simply.

Ray sir,

From you above reply and the particular mention of Boreclap is shocking to say the least.

Could you please elaborate whether this was in the past or is it still fairly the same. I understand about the PSUs but always thought the DRDO was achieving a fair amount as you have saild also. I think it is because of the bureaucratic structure of management and lacklustre nature of support from our won govt that the DRDO ends up being a lame duck.

It has been shown time and again now that when the armed forces were actively engaged in the R&D of specific products they have given some stellar results, however this needs to pushed further as a shopkeeper or a manufacturer can always make a better product if he has the end user/customer in front of him communicating his needs. IMHO it will also trim the mgmt and get expedite the tardy decission making process.

[RayC]

I am aware that OFB and DRDO are different. I have worked with both and so I have a fair idea.

Quality Control? That is a new word for PSUs! Well, most. There are also fine PSUs too.

As far as DRDO is concerened, true that they have some spectacular successes, but mostly they are a drag. They could not reverse engineer a simple rifle cleaning chemical called BORECLAP!

Let me example why we have Russian equipment.

We bought them in exchange for banana and tea!

Our assembly line and maintenance right down to the field units is now based on the Russian technology and for the said equipment and its derivatives. Therefore, to change would mean expenditure, training, new assembly lines, and different type of spares right down to the field level. A huge inventory at the field level and that too in a mobile war, would affect the momentum, to put it simply.

Ray sir,

From you above reply and the particular mention of Boreclap is shocking to say the least.

Could you please elaborate whether this was in the past or is it still fairly the same. I understand about the PSUs but always thought the DRDO was achieving a fair amount as you have saild also. I think it is because of the bureaucratic structure of management and lacklustre nature of support from our won govt that the DRDO ends up being a lame duck.

It has been shown time and again now that when the armed forces were actively engaged in the R&D of specific products they have given some stellar results, however this needs to pushed further as a shopkeeper or a manufacturer can always make a better product if he has the end user/customer in front of him communicating his needs. IMHO it will also trim the mgmt and get expedite the tardy decission making process.

Boreclap or reversed engineered Boreclap was given for trials in the late 70s. While the US Boreclap left no residues, the reversed engineered one did. It left a yellow residue. The barrel cannot have any residue or else, when the weapon is fired there will be what is know as Barrel Bulge!

I don't quite remember which of the ANPPS was being reverse engineered for the Infantry BFSR. First of all, the cost price was higher than the US one and secondly, the rustle of leaves in the wind could be mistaken for tanks. After a lot of wrangling, the govt forced the Army to accept it which they said would with ''good training'' eliminate the handicap and on line modifications would be made!! Great! Further, it was not 'soldier proof'. The Angstrom (I don't remember the exact name) which was the nerve of the system could only take a 1 foot drop test. Then, while other BFSR could be operated from within the trench, one had to go out of the trench to operate this!

I am not aware if the current BFSRs have overcome these problems.

Visit the VRDE and see the number of foreign passenger limousine being used by their officers. These are supposed to be for 'experiments' for Army vehicles!

VRDE was to make a kitchen Lorry and the dal was to be made in an improvised washing machine (crude ones that were once manufactured in the Punjab as washing machine, but were used to churn for butter) and some other equally odd items that hardly met the bill.

A good organisation, but one wonders the quality and motivation of the personnel.

[KiranM]

I don't quite remember which of the ANPPS was being reverse engineered for the Infantry BFSR. First of all, the cost price was higher than the US one and secondly, the rustle of leaves in the wind could be mistaken for tanks. After a lot of wrangling, the govt forced the Army to accept it which they said would with ''good training'' eliminate the handicap and on line modifications would be made!! Great! Further, it was not 'soldier proof'. The Angstrom (I don't remember the exact name) which was the nerve of the system could only take a 1 foot drop test. Then, while other BFSR could be operated from within the trench, one had to go out of the trench to operate this!

I am not aware if the current BFSRs have overcome these problems.

Are you talking about the below radar Sir?

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/an-pps-5.htm

Considering that it was the first iteration of a product, kinks are bound to be present. Only with operational deployment can flaws (which otherwise escaped initial testing) be determined and worked out. I do not know what is its present status. If it is status quo then brickbats are deserved. But if improvements have been carried out, cannot a little leeway be given for product maturity?

[KiranM]

I am aware that OFB and DRDO are different. I have worked with both and so I have a fair idea.

Quality Control? That is a new word for PSUs! Well, most. There are also fine PSUs too.

As far as DRDO is concerened, true that they have some spectacular successes, but mostly they are a drag. They could not reverse engineer a simple rifle cleaning chemical called BORECLAP!

Many of us will not consider DRDO or OFB for that matter a holy cow sir. But the spate of criticisms against DRDO we see (not sure all that is shown in the media are true), morale will affect their personnel. Especially the souls who have made sacrifices. Theirs' may not measure upto that of a jawan on the Siachen post maintaining a night vigil. However, these folks have made their share never the less. (Including letting go of greener pastures elsewhere for them and their wards)

I am not nitpicking either your opinion or claiming the Services are wrong about their issues. All I wonder is just as how services expect DRDO to understand essence of project timelines, quality control, meeting requirements, etc; are they also aware of technical difficulties with respect to existing technology base, product maturity timegap, etc and other issues faced by DRDO?

Somewhere a line has to be drawn between constructive critiquing and negative criticism. We common folks get to see more of the latter than the former.

[RayC]

I don't quite remember which of the ANPPS was being reverse engineered for the Infantry BFSR. First of all, the cost price was higher than the US one and secondly, the rustle of leaves in the wind could be mistaken for tanks. After a lot of wrangling, the govt forced the Army to accept it which they said would with ''good training'' eliminate the handicap and on line modifications would be made!! Great! Further, it was not 'soldier proof'. The Angstrom (I don't remember the exact name) which was the nerve of the system could only take a 1 foot drop test. Then, while other BFSR could be operated from within the trench, one had to go out of the trench to operate this!

I am not aware if the current BFSRs have overcome these problems.

Are you talking about the below radar Sir?

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/an-pps-5.htm

Considering that it was the first iteration of a product, kinks are bound to be present. Only with operational deployment can flaws (which otherwise escaped initial testing) be determined and worked out. I do not know what is its present status. If it is status quo then brickbats are deserved. But if improvements have been carried out, cannot a little leeway be given for product maturity?

If I may state a few things for consideration:

I appreciate your enthusiasm for encouraging the defence R&D, but the question is that if you can get a Cadillac for a lessor price for a bullock cart that has wooden wheels, would you want that bullock cart or the Cadillac.
.
Would you buy a house that is two storey but has the foundation for a one storey building and that too made on reclaimed land?

I would only suggest that lives depend on the defence eqpt and so any old thing cannot be accepted, no matter how patriot a feeling may stir in the heart.

And the interesting part is that it was reverse engineering!!

If the morale of the DRDO and the OFB sinks, don't you think that they should brace up and do better to prove their detractors wrong or should they chug along as is usual. I suspect that the eqpt is delayed so that more funds are given and remember, a large part of that fund is used for 'administrative' purpose - a cash cow and a golden goose!

During the Kargil War, initially we were all despondent, but we braced up and notwithstanding the cost in lives ensured that we pushed the enemy out, restored the morale and proved to the Nation that though we did not cover ourselves with glory in the beginning, we still delivered to the Nation's satisfaction.

[KiranM]

^^^ Surely my intention was not wear patriotism on my sleeve, Ray Sir. But I will ponder over and try to dig out more on what you said.

Thanks and Regards.

[k prasad]

I don't quite remember which of the ANPPS was being reverse engineered for the Infantry BFSR. First of all, the cost price was higher than the US one and secondly, the rustle of leaves in the wind could be mistaken for tanks. After a lot of wrangling, the govt forced the Army to accept it which they said would with ''good training'' eliminate the handicap and on line modifications would be made!! Great! Further, it was not 'soldier proof'. The Angstrom (I don't remember the exact name) which was the nerve of the system could only take a 1 foot drop test. Then, while other BFSR could be operated from within the trench, one had to go out of the trench to operate this!

I am not aware if the current BFSRs have overcome these problems.

x-posting from Radar's thread>>

I don't quite remember which of the ANPPS was being reverse engineered for the Infantry BFSR.

I hadn't heard anything about BFSR being reverse engineered from ANPPS's... IIRC, we were using Israeli radars just after Kargil and took some concepts from that, but not to the extent of reverse engineering - in any case, all the modules in teh electronics are indigenous.

First of all, the cost price was higher than the US one

Nope - the BFSR costs 40 lakhs all up, and that cost reduces with number of buys.... that is far cheaper than other radars. Performance-wise, BFSR is extremely good - I have spoken to Elta guys who do not hesitate to say that BFSR is better than what they have developed. {{Of course, they do add with a grin that we were using their radars before BFSR}} Thats a report that I've heard from others as well.

secondly, the rustle of leaves in the wind could be mistaken for tanks.

Fixed - new algorithm + Doppler return audio. A slightly trained operator can make out the difference between the two quite easily.

After a lot of wrangling, the govt forced the Army to accept it which they said would with ''good training'' eliminate the handicap and on line modifications would be made!! Great!

So the Govt "Forced" the army to order 1500 radars, of which 1200 are in service?? And they also forced Indonesia, Maladives, mozambique and other countries to order these radars??

Further, it was not 'soldier proof'. The Angstrom (I don't remember the exact name) which was the nerve of the system could only take a 1 foot drop test.

I think it has been fixed to MIL standards - however, I'm not sure, but will try and check out.

Then, while other BFSR could be operated from within the trench, one had to go out of the trench to operate this!

False - BFSR comes with a redundant standard army 2 wire connection to the Command and Display Unit, which can be extended for 100-150 m, enough to stay in a bunker, trench, nightclub, or whereever they'd like to be.....

Hope that answered the doubts....


More info - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BEL_Battle ... ance_Radar

[RayC]

^^^ Surely my intention was not wear patriotism on my sleeve, Ray Sir. But I will ponder over and try to dig out more on what you said.

Thanks and Regards.

I think you are misunderstanding me.

What I was stating is that there are a lot of people, who rightly feel that the DRDO or OFB must be given a chance. Very rightly so!

Yet, I was trying to, in what I thought was a simplistic way, as to why the Armed Forces apparently appear cussed.

It was not singularly in reply to your post.

[RayC]

K Prasad,

I was mentioning the late 1970s and you did not hear about it because you were not involved. Sadly, I was! Maybe I should have been more explicit!

I don't go by manufacturers glossies and promotional material. It is like asking a fishmonger - Are the fish fresh? Catch any fishmonger saying - No, they are seven days old and they are rotten!

Try googling any defence manufacturer on their equipment, one will discover that there could be nothing better than their product.

As far as exports, have we not been conned with duds? I remember the Energa grenade bought just before the 1971 War! If India can be conned, why not lesser countries? However, I would hasten to add that if they are the latest, then they are better than the prototypes! And anyway, do you think defence deals are based merely on the performance of the equipment? There are political considerations also!

The US ANPPS in the late 70s was Rs 90,000 and the Indian reverse engineering was Rs 1,10,000 as per the DRDO's documents.

Late 1970s and to quote from your Wikipedia link - In the aftermath of the Kargil War, and with the heightened levels of infiltration, the Indian Army started looking at electronic sensors to augment the surveillance capabilities somehow is not in the same timeline! A mere 20 years gap!

I may add the IA was not looking for sensor after the Kargil War, they were looking for sensors right from early 70s including UGS (Unattended Ground Sensors).

The project was started beginning 70s. How come it is being mentioned that the BFSR was in the light of the 'aftermath of Kargil'? That much for the promotional handouts!

Thank you, I have no doubts at all! Alzhiemer has not hit me as yet!

[ajay_ijn]

thanks for all the information sir. since this is artillery thread i wanted to talk about indigenous artillery developments. Now there were succesful products like 105mm IFG/LFG developed by DRDO and inducted into Army in large numbers.

But when it comes to higher calibre, It was mainly imported ones like the Russian M-46 or the Bofors. was there any attempt to develop 130 or 155mm artillery guns indigenously.

also its rather sad to see Army left no Self Propelled gun operational. I mean worlds third largest army and no operational SP Gun. I hope Army just buys a hundred of them directly from Russia in
single-vendor deal instead of following all multivendor procurement process.

In case of these Artillery procurement, whats surprising to see is Russians were not even qualified for bidding present 155mm Artillery contracts. news reports mention RFPs inviting countries like Korea, France, Singapore but Russia were no-where to be seen in Towed, Self Propelled and Light Gun RFPs.

[RayC]

thanks for all the information sir. since this is artillery thread i wanted to talk about indigenous artillery developments. Now there were succesful products like 105mm IFG/LFG developed by DRDO and inducted into Army in large numbers.

But when it comes to higher calibre, It was mainly imported ones like the Russian M-46 or the Bofors. was there any attempt to develop 130 or 155mm artillery guns indigenously.

also its rather sad to see Army left no Self Propelled gun operational. I mean worlds third largest army and no operational SP Gun. I hope Army just buys a hundred of them directly from Russia in
single-vendor deal instead of following all multivendor procurement process.

In case of these Artillery procurement, whats surprising to see is Russians were not even qualified for bidding present 155mm Artillery contracts. news reports mention RFPs inviting countries like Korea, France, Singapore but Russia were no-where to be seen in Towed, Self Propelled and Light Gun RFPs.

Sorry I went OT, but it was only to clarify someone's point as was asked to.

I agree that once something starts it veers off, but I thought maybe it was OK to explain the issue.

I am not too sure about the artillery R&D, except that their ethos is - If winter comes, can spring be far behind? I am sure they are at it!

Their IFG is said to be a good gun! But again, there were failures when manufactured and thus serious accidents. But the fault was not theirs. The Autofrettage process was done in a faulty way. The State electricity used to fail and then when the electricity came, the process was started. This interruption did not do a complete process and hence the barrels were weak. Again, there is an interesting issue to it. They had to keep to the target to be produced and so they produced, come what may to meet the figures. Now this is anecdotal and I heard it from an officer in the Court of Inquiry team.

Then there was world class mountain gun produced called the Gurdial Gun, designed by an Artillery Lt Col. So, there is talent, but quirks of the system prevents them from showing their mettle!

True, that the SP gun issue is such a sad commentary.

[Ramesh]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Pune ... 214800.cms

Referring to Pinaka, he said, the army was already in the processing of raising two regiments of the Pinaka MBRLS after the same was successfully tested and cleared for induction in the armed forces the process is now on. "We are now improvising on the Pinaka's trajectory and demonstrations for the same are scheduled for 2011," he added.

[sunilUpa]

India expected to buy Singapore howitzers

IMHO mis-leading headline..

[sum]

For a minute, my heart skipped a beat when i thought that we had actually inked the deal to get in some badly needed howitzers....

[ajay_ijn]

atleast this ultra-light artillery aquisition process should not be dealayed. There is no bofors in here. Its only Singapore Vs BAe. BAe is obviously the better contendor as their gun is already inservice with many western armies.

[tejas]

Well technically no Bofors. But BAE is now the daddy of Bofors having acquired the company. So I still fear the Kangress partywill stall the artillery aquisition till Raul Vinci is a grandfather

[ajay_ijn]

was just reading wiki, It says 70% of BAe M777 gun parts are built in US by United Defence, which is part of BAe. The same company bought bofors in past. If we dont license produce the gun then risk of sanctions are high.

[tejas]

The problem with license production is that there is always some small part which is still imported. So the OEM will still have you by the cajones. It's best to avoid anything with U.S. components.

I still wonder how it is possible for Singapore to produce 155mm howitzers and not India

[vavinash]

They are not ruled by morons.

[Singha]

one has to look at what amirkhan parts are in the singapore product too

this was something we should have done LONG AGO. we have the tech for the arjun's 120mm gun.

we should have developed and fielded new 105mm and 155mm mountain howitzers atleast 5 years ago. by now the full volume production should have
been on.

[satya]

Instead of going through licensing route , why not go for joint production in India itself ,won't that be sanction proof as the foreign vendor's own money will be at stake and obviously profits in long term maintenance contracts & so on..... ? Is it cause we don't want how many of these howitzers actually getting inducted annually as sort of State secret not to be told openly ?
Another issue if someone can shed some light as what big difference will it make it we have 100% foreign owned subsidiary in India or one with 70% holding in JV with local Indian partner ?

[tejas]

Does anyone have an idea why in 2009 India cannot manufacture a 155mm howitzer? This something the U.S., Russia, the U.Q., France, Germany, China, Singapore, Israel, South Africa, South Korea and Sweden can do ( I am sure I'm missing somebody on this list).

I hope, Satya, that the artillery deal, if it ever materializes, has someone like L&T build the units in India and subsequently frees us from future imports of such an absolute necessity.

[Virupaksha]

Does anyone have an idea why in 2009 India cannot manufacture a 155mm howitzer? This something the U.S., Russia, the U.Q., France, Germany, China, Singapore, Israel, South Africa, South Korea and Sweden can do ( I am sure I'm missing somebody on this list).

I hope, Satya, that the artillery deal, if it ever materializes, has someone like L&T build the units in India and subsequently frees us from future imports of such an absolute necessity.

money and lack of foresight.

We are ready to shell out billions of dollars to others, but drdo's entire operational budget will be 1 billion dollars. When you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. Be happy that there are some "donkeys" over there trying to get some thing better than monkeys.

We are ready to pay 60 million dollars for every plane to others for MRCA and thus ready to give 10 billions to others. But when it comes to our LCA, we think paying 600 millions is in excess when we have to start from scratch. We are like that only. penny wise, pound foolish.

[ajay_ijn]

The problem with license production is that there is always some small part which is still imported. So the OEM will still have you by the cajones. It's best to avoid anything with U.S. components.

I do think it should be possible to built everything from scratch wihout importing anything atleast incase of artillery but India should have that kind of huge requirement to make it feasible and affordable.

[dorai]

It's not so easy. During the latest field trials the Israeli gun even cracked.

Look up "Bofors steel" on the web... It takes alot of research and tests to produce a reliable howitzer which is why so few do it and do it well.

[aditp]

Long long time ago, I read somewhere of the DRDO having developed a basic 155mm hoitzer prototype and that the army found the performance acceptable.

Unfortunately my on efforts to scan the net yielded no results. Anyone got a clue?

[dorai]

I support R&D projects as it's never wrong to support guns & ammo development but in my opinion the army should get the best equipment from a competitive process... no playing around with this type of weapon. Reliability; You either have it or you don't.

Finland in the 1990s decided to build one of the most modern 155mm howitzers around because "if the Swedes can do it why can't we" so a state company produced a on-paper impressive gun but it has really been a problem child with several user bans and export failures. Currently there is a scandal about technical coverups and use of bribes to sell a small number of them to Egypt... they've since fixed several issues but the army suffered due to this prestige project.

[sum]

I support R&D projects as it's never wrong to support guns & ammo development but in my opinion the army should get the best equipment from a competitive process... no playing around with this type of weapon. Reliability; You either have it or you don't.

Errr...its the same logic IA has been using to buy virtually everything from abroad and not even bothering to give time and space for their indigenous counterparts to mature after some field use.

[Vivek K]

Just my 2 cents - With all due respect Ray sahab, the American equipment may have been cheaper because it was mass produced and could therefore be sold without attempting to recover development costs. The Indian version could have been more expensive if it was sold/purchased in smaller numbers. But how about the life-cycle and upgrade costs of the two. How about the strings attached to the usage or the country's foreign policy? Once we buy a foreign weapon system, we are tied to the whims of the supplier nation for continued supply of spares. Look at the shortage of supplies for Russian aircraft after the fall of the Soviet Union. The current dealings with western and Russian suppliers has pointed out clearly that we need a domestic industry. Why aren't the forces up in arms about the delay in the Gorshkov, the Phalcon, the delay in TOT for the T-90, the problem of spares with the IAF's Hawks .....? Why the double standard?

Domestic industry must therefore be given preference over imports. Even the US has shown a preference for domestic industry over imports from Europe. This is evident from the cancelled tanker deal after the EADS tanker was chosen by the USAF.

[RayC]

I support R&D projects as it's never wrong to support guns & ammo development but in my opinion the army should get the best equipment from a competitive process... no playing around with this type of weapon. Reliability; You either have it or you don't.

Errr...its the same logic IA has been using to buy virtually everything from abroad and not even bothering to give time and space for their indigenous counterparts to mature after some field use.

Of course time and space should be given to DRDO.

But does the nation give time and space to the Army to thwart invasions?

Remember Kargil where the nation was baying for blood and Somnath stilll wanting heads to roll to satiate his blood lust?

No big deal. Nothing wrong in losing a chunk of land, if only the Nation accepts that as right and correct!

Acceptable by you?

Run a national poll and let the Army know!

What the heck. We are govt. Let us twiddle out thumbs. We will still get out pay as all govt inefficient organisations do!

We don't want to die for Heck's sake!

[ramana]

What the heck. We are govt. Let us twiddle out thumbs. We will still get out pay as all govt inefficient organisations do!

We don't want to die for Heck's sake!

RayCji, This is exactly the leftist/liberals want the soldiers to feel. Omar Khalidi types would love to see this happen. Please dont fall for that.

Folsk no more on this kid of logic.

Somnath, DONT. Enough damage is done with your constant tirade on this board. Thanks ramana.

[satya]

IMVHO, IA's requirement of almost 2000 or so arty pieces to start with is big enough to make foreign defense manufacturer to set up manufacturing unit in India itself in addition its given a firm commitment of buying x no. of pieces for a certain time frame and also provided R&D pact with DRDO or local partner Indian company so future requirements of IA can be met through this JV plant in India itself & local knowledge base can be increased .Not only IA will be less worried about spare parts issue but defense manufacturer also feel safe knowing its in India for long run . Later on , we can combine the requirements of BSF & CPMFs in common areas with IA for price efficiency & logistics later on . Going this route , we don't have to run each time to foreign manufacturer & get drawn in file raj of GoI to get permission .

[aditp]

^^^^^ However any cooperation with DRDO in developing future arty systems and productionising them within the JV, would inevitably mean sharing of locally developed tech with the foreign firm. This may not go down well with MoD babus, even if not really significant from the national security pov.

[dorai]

Yes and since I have been critical of state influence and prestige projects let's look at who created the operative issues with spares and ammo supply for the Bofors guns ? Not Bofors or Sweden. It was the government who put Bofors on a blacklist due to kickback allegations and in one swift move risked the artillery capability of the Army. Of course kickbacks must not be accepted but in my opinion I rather live with allegations of kickbacks than a army that can't give fire support when needed. So my point was yes support R&D and JV's but always make sure the army has operative capability first and foremost. License production is a good option to begin with that over time transforms into a larger national program.

[aditp]

Long long time ago, I read somewhere of the DRDO having developed a basic 155mm hoitzer prototype and that the army found the performance acceptable.

Unfortunately my on efforts to scan the net yielded no results. Anyone got a clue?

..........wont the gurus too throw some light?

[somnath]

What the heck. We are govt. Let us twiddle out thumbs. We will still get out pay as all govt inefficient organisations do!

We don't want to die for Heck's sake!

RayCji, This is exactly the leftist/liberals want the soldiers to feel. Omar Khalidi types would love to see this happen. Please dont fall for that.

Folsk no more on this kid of logic.

Somnath, DONT. Enough damage is done with your constant tirade on this board. Thanks ramana.

Can you be a little specific on my "tirades"?Which do you feel was a "rant" against the IA?

[ramana]

All of them.

[Tilak]

India expected to buy Singapore howitzers

Minister for Education and Second Minister for Defence Ng Eng Hen observed Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and Indian Army (IA) soldiers in a joint artillery exercise, codenamed Agni Warrior, in Devlali, India, today. Dr Ng, who is on a two-day official visit to India, witnessed the 155mm Singapore Lightweight Howitzer (Pegasus) conducting live-firing. This is the first time the Pegasus has been deployed in Agni Warrior. The exercise provides valuable opportunities for both sides to understand each other's doctrines and tactics. This will enhance mutual understanding and interoperability between the two armies.

This year's Agni Warrior is the first to be conducted under the terms of the Bilateral Agreement for Joint Army Training and Exercises, which was signed in August this year.

Bilateral defence interactions between Singapore and India have grown in recent years. Apart from bilateral exercises between the two armies, the Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN) and Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) also exercise regularly with their Indian counterparts. The two defence establishments also interact regularly through policy dialogues, visits and courses.

Punj Lloyd Inks Pact with ST Kinetics for Defence Equipment
[PDF] Agreement Press Release

Punj Lloyd in pact with Singapore Technologies Kinetics for defence equipment
5 Jun 2008, 1056 hrs IST, REUTERS

MUMBAI: Construction and engineering firm Punj Lloyd Ltd said on Thursday it had signed an agreement with Singapore Technologies Kinetics for the manufacture of defence equipment.

Punj Lloyd, which has a licence for the manufacture of guns, rockets and missile artillery systems, will pool its resources with ST Kinetics for the execution of supply contracts for India's ministry of defence, it said in a statement.

Financial details were not disclosed. Frost & Sullivan has estimated the Indian Armed Forces' modernisation programme will make India the Asia Pacific region's second-highest defence spender within the next five years, with total spending for defence market hitting $36.2 billion by 2013.

[namit k]

its now 20 yrs since bofors deal
why the ingenious drdo havent copied or reverse engineered it in so long duration and fitted it on some vehicle? i guess bofors wont have cried foul play after so much controversy

this is pathetic , army was crying for so much time for an artillery solution, why havent drdo supplied even 124 indigenous made artillery,?
now we are purchasing them from singapur, whose defence industry is a startup, they started devloping it in 2000 and delivered in 2005, even if drdo had started developing 155mm arty in 1990 it would have catch up in 15 years
this shows that there is a very serious mess( mesh) in drdo ,mod,babu system and is really troublesome and costs the Indian army's a lot.Indian army is also bound not to say many things against a home grown industry, only general level officers could speak once or twice about drdo work style and that too under pressure to not to say again or change the statement, really drdo lobby is very strong ,.