Artillery Discussion Thread

bhayana · Post by **bhayana** » 04 Feb 2010 15:38

Anantz wrote:@ Rohitvats

Compairing both the M777 and the SLWH Pegasus, which one do you think would be more ideally suited for IA requirements? While the M777 would be light weight making it able to be carried into battlefield most probably by even the Mi17; the SLWH is a tad heavy only able to be carried by the CH47/Mi26 class helicopter. However, the SLWH does have its own APU which might come in pretty handy, at the restricted space in the mountains where they will be primarily deployed. Considering the M777 will not have any APU, moving it around will require either a Towing vehicle which adds to the overhead, or for a helicopter to be brought in and out everytime it needs to be moved! However, even though the SLWH is a tad heavier requiring a heavier helo to put it into battle, it would be able to use its APU to shoot and scoot or move to a different location in the battle.

The pegasus because of its gun and run and APU capability ,in both the sectors, heli portabilty is common for both systems only diff is the class/nature/make/duty of the helicopter put to use.
TIA

bhayana · Post by **bhayana** » 04 Feb 2010 15:41

Willy wrote:The ULWH has been especially bought to equip the mountain formation on the Chinese front. May be, as numbers grow, formation in Kashmir may also receive them. And inspite of PA having the WLR during Kargil, how many guns did we loose in CBF? And that too in restricted space where real estate was a premium and it was not easy to identify and prepare alternate gun sights?

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

We did loose a lot of soilder in the vicinity of the guns as a result of counter fire by the Paki's as a result of their WLR's

We did loose a lot of soliders in the vicinity but that was not because of the WLR but because of the obs. post's of the pakis assisting its arty .

Anantz · Post by **Anantz** » 04 Feb 2010 15:45

@Bhayana: Kindly type your statements outside the [quotes], from the above cant make the difference which one is quoted and which one is your answer.

Cheers!

bhayana · Post by **bhayana** » 04 Feb 2010 15:58

Anantz wrote:@Bhayana: Kindly type your statements outside the [quotes], from the above cant make the difference which one is quoted and which one is your answer.

Cheers!

The IA and the GOI seems to have suddenly switched on the war mode switch. The latest aquisitions by the IA and the intrest shown by our armed forces in the latest weapons and equp. suggest that. Keeping on the arty side of the IA some very portable arty weapons also exist, like the 120 mm Strix. Which is a guided weapon in nature and can be fired from any smoth bore 120 mm mortar. Dotting such a weapon system on our hostile borders would give us 1st strike chance in case both kinds of wars break out. Because it being highly portable and guided.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Feb 2010 21:59

That was some foresight by Gen KSji.

Are you taking of the 120mm guided mortar round from German sources? Might need different fins for the thin mountian air.

bhayana · Post by **bhayana** » 05 Feb 2010 10:53

120 mm strix is being made by Sweden . Has a range of about 7 KM. And i have no knowledge about it requiring fins for flight.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Feb 2010 21:34

bhayana wrote:120 mm strix is being made by Sweden . Has a range of about 7 KM. And i have no knowledge about it requiring fins for flight.

STRIX

Looks like it has aft fins to maneuver. See the shaped charge in the cutaway for anti-armor role. Its 1994 circa technology. DRDO could have been able to enhance it for Mountain warfare with laser designators.

German company Deihl has mid body fins/strakes to add range to the mortar round.

These are force multipliers and can take out one bunker per round in the high mountains.

Meanwhile a page on 120mm Guided Mortar rounds

Apparently the Russians have one which uses same designator as the Krasnopol-M shell.

All the tech is available with in India reach. Nothing exotic.

Or this one fromSOLTAM

Minimal mod to the round.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 05 Feb 2010 21:55

about this shoot and scoot....

during kargil in addition to the bofors there were other arty guns ( with no shoot/scoot feature). in all clips from kargil , the guns seemed to be quite rooted to some fixed spots.. there was much shooting but apparently not much scooting was evident (atleast on the clips one saw).

was it that these guns were being moved from one prepared location to another ( with so many guns firing, how many such locations were made? and also taking into consideration that one can only have a very limited no of firing positions in mountainous terrain). how much scoot facility was actually put to use??

just wondering if this shoot/scoot facility ( while being very interesting) is used as much in real war?

as one understood that the real damage from Paki arty was more on account of visual spotting , how effective are WLR in mountainous terrain?

bhayana · Post by **bhayana** » 06 Feb 2010 11:44

You very correctly noted that during Kargil the guns were possitioned at one spot along with the non scoot feature guns . But during Kargil we never witnessed any CBF from the enemy side , remember that the guns and the rockets were used to dig out intruders on the mountain slopes facing the Indian side, as mentioned by me earlier the paki WLR could not be used by them because we did not fire across the mountains (so that the paki WLR could gauge our arty possitions), nor was the paki WLR posted on the mountain to over look the Indian Arty fire. Any small amount of CBF if i may call it was because of the Obs . post assisting the Pak arty. The shoot and scoot feature in Indian context is vital when enemy WLR can gauge the INdian fire accurately depending on the terrain , Today the WLR made in the world are bulky or in other words they are trailer mounted/truck mounted which makes it nearly impossible to place them in odd places like the kargil terrain, but no one know if tomorrow the tech. makes them small enough to be placed in a aerostat . Then it would be a must for us to gun and then run. The real threat from the current WLR is when the core western sector witnesses action .

In my assesment the recent FMS of the M777 gun to India by the US would promt the PAk establishment as well as the Us admin. to aquire the latest versions of the WLR's remember they are using a older version of the WLR made by the Us companies and now 3rd gen ahead equp for the same use is avaliable, and the new version are more mobile and have a better detection range with quick reaction time.

And to add that the invention of the WLR technology is the main reason why the GUn and run concept was adjudged the best option in case the enemy is using the a WLR. Or one would have to face CBF and loose men and machines in process.

A new concept to detect and counter fire has been adopted by the Israel (iron dome)which is nothing but a array of WLR spread over a large area connected to missile launcher and in other words can be called a Offensive WLR where it can not only detect the in comming pojectile but neutralise the same using the trajectory data of the enemy fire.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 06 Feb 2010 12:53

bhayana.. i am not so sure about us not firing over the mountains??

maybe current gen of WLR;s in PA are not very effective in mountains??? experts please.

what i meant by 'real war' was war in mountainous terrain , i do understand its usefullness in the plains.

bhayana · Post by **bhayana** » 06 Feb 2010 13:28

we were firing in line of sight mode on our side only we were assisting our infantary to recapture our posts occupied by the intruders, we introduced big guns only after our infantry found diffcult in capturing heights, our main objective was to free indian side of the border and not escallate the war, the air force destroyed the pak's supply depos which assisted the intruders and the pak army directly. The intruders were dug in on the slopes over looking the highway NH1 which is on the indian side. We pounded our own side occupied by the pakis. Our big gun fire was not responsibe in inflicting a heavy toll on the pak side of kargil i.e. across the mountain top.

WLR is a instument which when place in a non standard possition would not function properly. Tradationally heavy arty. barrages have been seen in terrains which are not as hostile as the Kargil was(terrain wise). WLR is designed for use in standard not so difficult terrains where its detection is hampered by high mountains , its placement in hampered by non existing possitions of placements. Had our guns fired across or had the WLR been possitioned on the mountain top the arty. would have to resort to the scooting aspest of its guns. It is in news that the pakis did field the WLR to counter in Indian fire but we resorted to only eviction of the visible intruders and infantary assistance. That is why our arty possition did not suffer major dammages.

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 06 Feb 2010 13:46

^^ Of course there was Pakistani CBF. The Pak WLRs were in damn right working condition and so were their guns. We lost a good many troops to their 155s.

And we didn't always fire only in LOS mode. The whole war, before and after, we were trading heavy arty fire all across the LoC and the IB, right through Rajasthan as well. So there were no gloves left to hold us to limiting our fire, which we didn't do when the situation required us to neutralize cross-LoC positions. Unfortunately, our lack of a WLR meant that we couldn't accurately hit back (read some of the Kargil books for the frustration of the ground commanders - I remember Sawant's book had a couple of outbursts on this)

One of the reasons probably why we were somewhat protected from their fire was the reverse slope effect of them not being able to rain down accurate v. high angle fire over the top of the mountains onto our positions on the reverse slope. Will we still have the same protection if the fight was in the Thar or in the plains of Punjab?

As for the WLR or not, they had FOs on the mountaintops who were able to call in fire on our arty positions, the NH1A, bases camps, and very quickly, and very accurately. This was a large part of our casualties. Only once we took back control of the tops did this fire ease out somewhat.

RayC sirjee... opinion?? U'd have had the closest thing to a first hand view.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 06 Feb 2010 13:55

While all arty platforms were not shoot and scoot, guns did change positions. Given today’s capability of detection, guns cannot remain firing from one position, though it is conceded that in the mountains, gun As are hard to come by.

There are always the permanent and temporary positions, be it the mountains or the plains.

Shoot and scoot has to be used for guns that have the capability.

What is WLR?

There was Counter Bombardment in Kargil.

In any war or skirmish, there will be CB and CM unless there are KG kids!

It would also be incorrect to assume that arty firing was only DF.

bhayana · Post by **bhayana** » 06 Feb 2010 15:43

The counter bombardment was because of the FO assisting in fire.
We have not heard of any dammage on the pAk side due to our arty bombardment.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 06 Feb 2010 17:35

(Concentrating on the western front)The Apu on the gun system not ony automates its firing process but engagement and disengagement process which includes the speed of it to be in and out of action . The apu in case of the CBF would allow the Gun crew to move the gun to such a possition that the CBF when comes after a while does not harm the men and the machine. So the scoot aspect of the gun has to be considered when deploying a Gun Like M777 In the Western front where we know that our fire can be ranged and countered in no time.

bhayana, we need to agree first on the contours of arguments/discussion.BTW I'm aware of the role of APU in assisting the gun to move under its own power. We all have seen the bofors move due to APU during R-Day parades.

1.Is the APU as must to have in case of guns employed on the western sector (or even eastern sector) and the ones we seek to purchase as part of Arty modernization plan (155mm towed arty)?Yes.I'm in full agreement on it.
2.Is it a must to have the APU on ULWH which are being bought for express reason of equipping the mountain formations in east and to be part of the planned Mountain Strike Corps?Desirable:Yes.Must:No.

The argument I'm presenting here is from pov of guns being employed in the eastern sector.

M777 as seen here does not seem to a highly mobile weapon considering ,if the guns are engaged in the western sector or kargil like sector when the Pakis would be locating our fire and counter attack based on that data of the WLR is carried out. The STK gun does have a better mobility in terms of the shoot and scoot aspect, but looses out to the M777 on the weight aspect.

As I said earlier, the USP of the gun is the light weight. It was developed with the express requirement of equipping the expeditionary forces of US Marines and Light/Mountain Troops of US Army. In our case, the light weight comes in handy for mountain formations. And hence, I do not see the serving with any formation in plains or semi-mountainous areas on the western front.Formations like the 39th Mountain Division(16 Corps and Northern Command Reserve) or planned new raising for the Northern Command, which I think will have offensive role in the Northern Command AOR, will be equipped with these guns.

As far as my Knowledge goes the 99 conflict saw the deployment of the Arty guns and the use of them in a direct(line of sight ) fire mode and as compared to the tradational role the Field Arty has to play that of Indirect fire . This is the reason why inspite of the pakis having the WLR they could not dammage even a single gun possition of ours. Secondaly the Pak arty was possitioned on the other side of the mountains along with the WLR's , which would only function only when they can detect the projectiles , for which either the IA should have fired across the mountains at the PAkis possition or the Paki WLR should have been on the top o fthe mountain so that the data of the INdian Gun possition could be relayed back to its Arty for A CBF.

I think you've already expanded your argument on the use of guns during Kargil in another post. The guns were also used in direct fire mode in addition to normal mode of fire. And as far as the PA Arty is considered, it did take heavy toll of the Infantry troops. IIRC, it is said 86% of the IA casualties were due to PA Arty(Sorry, I do not have link to source).And as far as the CBF is considered, now why would the PA Op guys could not bring in accurate fire?Its not that CBF came into being only on advent of WLR (RayC Sir: Weapon Locating Radar.You can read about it here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BEL_Weapon ... cite_ref-7). WLR helps in undertaking CBF even in case of absence of Op guys. AFAIK, the gun crews did organize the alternate gun sights to take care of the CBF.But will this process (of changing positions) be eased with APU? Yes. But it will add a severe penalty which I will just explain.

A UL Gun system which is not automated ( needs manual loading of the shell and the charge along with the ramming), not able to survive a CBF because of its non scoot property , would the IA like to find its men is a battle situation where after some time its men and machines are sitting ducks for the enemy. As mentioned in the uS requirement it says that the US forces require this equp for its expeditionary enviro, by which they mean it should be 155mm and light in nature because they are on a expedition pounding hostile nations after the USAF has rendered useless the capabality of the other army to counter attack with rocket artillery or conventional artillery. The US in the past as seen has not started the war from the ground but first , missiled its enemy,bombed from air , inflicted dammage on th e otherside so that its ground forces could take its objective with little resistance , if any little resistance it faces in some pockets it can call for light gun systems like the M777 for the softening of the same. India on the other had has to deal with a 2nd kind of a war if is not all out but, a selective where it cannot open other fronts because of one reason or the other , cannot call for the other wings of the armed forces , cannot cross international boundaries, in other words cannot missile as the US does cannot Bomb from the air as the US does. So it has to deal with the 2nd kind of the war with its hand s tied, where it would be facing a battle ready grould forces armed with equp. like the WLS'S. And possitioning guns like the M777 would not be a wise decission by the IA in the western sector.

Again, we're back to the actual planned employment of the gun. I think IA is pretty sure of what it wants from the gun. I repeat, there is a slim chance of it seeing service with formations on western fron. For them, we're going through the circus of evaluating the conventional 155mm howitzer.

And as for the US Army is concerned, it will be wrong to assume that since, USAF enjoys overwhelming firepower, US Marines/Army can make do with systems which are a must for any other army. If one thing USA is good at, it is fighting the good old warfare...and this system is to meet a specific requirement. The requirement for M777 arose from req. for expeditionary forces of US Marines or Light Formation of US Army where requirement of ease of logistics(movement) is of paramount importace. And hence, the ULWH.

The pegasus because of its gun and run and APU capability ,in both the sectors, heli portabilty is common for both systems only diff is the class/nature/make/duty of the helicopter put to use

The little open source info available on the Mountain Strike Corps tells us that it will have organic helicopter assets to allow for rapid movement of troops and support arms. This is where the light weight of the howitzer becomes critical. IA needs to assure that it has compatible systems. Wiki tells me that weight of Pegasus LWH is 5.4tonnes and that of M777 is 3,175Kgs. Now, the undeslung load capacity of a Mi-17 (the work horse of IAF) is 4,500Kgs. Therefore, for IA to induct Pegasus LWH, it will also need to induct something like CH-47 Chinook to allow for the desired movement. And again, as per Wiki, the 1999 price of Chinook was ~10million USD.So, induction of such a gun will create additional requirements on the IA.

As per articles here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 7f-ich.htm, unit cost of latest CH-47F Chinook is USD 32million.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 06 Feb 2010 18:00

Indo-Pak detailed Border Analysis

It deals a lot with relative artillery strengths and positioning. So posting it here. Its not rosy picture for us.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 06 Feb 2010 21:30

nachiket wrote:Indo-Pak detailed Border Analysis

It deals a lot with relative artillery strengths and positioning. So posting it here. Its not rosy picture for us.

What exactly led you to arrive at above conclusion?

Siddhartha · Post by **Siddhartha** » 07 Feb 2010 01:22

nachiket wrote:Indo-Pak detailed Border Analysis

It deals a lot with relative artillery strengths and positioning. So posting it here. Its not rosy picture for us.

The article says point 5353 is under Pakistani control since 1999. So, didn't we retake all the peaks from Pakistan during Kargil war..?

negi · Post by **negi** » 07 Feb 2010 02:10

Apparently YES , for we have our own share of down hill skiers so they went all hoo ha about Parkalaam but in the end twiddled their thumbs and returned to Dilli.

They say the point 5353 which overlooks NH1 has now been re inforced with concrete bunkers and linked via road to HQ in Gulatri.

That is why I am amused when people yap about Kargil fiasco as a success.

link: http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1720/17200340.htm
link: http://www.hindu.com/2004/06/30/stories ... 391100.htm

Muns · Post by **Muns** » 07 Feb 2010 02:24

NewsX Video: Point 5353 in Pakistan's control :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx4Ra2kM2Ds

Babui · Post by **Babui** » 07 Feb 2010 03:05

The border analysis link is a must-see!! Amazing - the stuff you can pull off the internet. Now, imagine, the more detailed view you can get from a CARTOSAT or similar satellite. If I remember correctly, we did make an attempt (or perhaps several attempts) to take 5353 and suffered casualties (including a couple of our jawans taken prisoner).

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Feb 2010 03:10

Why don't you guys do that for Arunachal Pradesh and another for Aksai Chin area?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 07 Feb 2010 03:16

ramana wrote:Why don't you guys do that for Arunachal Pradesh and another for Aksai Chin area?

ramana saar none of us has done it. It's from a blog of someone called planeman. It was posted on WAB.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 07 Feb 2010 03:20

rohitvats wrote:
nachiket wrote:Indo-Pak detailed Border Analysis

It deals a lot with relative artillery strengths and positioning. So posting it here. Its not rosy picture for us.
What exactly led you to arrive at above conclusion?

I was always under the impression that we enjoyed a healthy advantage wrt Artillery (quantity and quality) against the pakis. It doesn't seem that way atleast from the analysis done by that guy and he seems to be pretty thorough. I always thought the artillery gap was vis a vis the Chinese but now it seems we need to bolster the western front as well. Right now we seem to be level more or less.

That and Point 5353 of course. I wasn't aware of it before. I wonder why air-strikes weren't continued on that point after the war.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 07 Feb 2010 03:29

They say the point 5353 which overlooks NH1 has now been re inforced with concrete bunkers and linked via road to HQ in Gulatri.

At least we know the BrahMos targets in the next war.

sourab_c · Post by **sourab_c** » 07 Feb 2010 05:13

Gerard wrote:
They say the point 5353 which overlooks NH1 has now been re inforced with concrete bunkers and linked via road to HQ in Gulatri.
At least we know the BrahMos targets in the next war.

With all due respect sir, it is not like they haven't identified any targets in our territory for their Babur either. The concerns raised here are genuine and lets not let its spirit die with such remarks.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Feb 2010 08:37

nachiket wrote:
ramana wrote:Why don't you guys do that for Arunachal Pradesh and another for Aksai Chin area?
ramana saar none of us has done it. It's from a blog of someone called planeman. It was posted on WAB.

I know. My question was why don't our members do the same for those areas? its more a request to bring something to the table.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Feb 2010 09:01

so the pakis are laying in lots of SP guns, 155mm and smerchski MLRS without much ado.
if the pakis are doing this, the chinese would have done a lot more.

and the dogs in dilli continue to play games and sleep....not good.

I find it astonishing even for the relatively cheap BM21 we have only 150 pieces? even some
afghani militias would rival that number. and if pinaka was proven in kargil and they didnt
want to invest more in BM21, why only two regiments (80 launchers) in a whole f***ing
decade? I cannot imagine its a question of capacity - a maruti or telco assembly line will
produce >80 such trucks a day. the tubes are simple enough and given the money & boot
to their backsides even BDL should be able to produce 1000s of the rockets in a decade.

Siddhartha · Post by **Siddhartha** » 07 Feb 2010 09:47

That is why I am amused when people yap about Kargil fiasco as a success.

link: http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1720/17200340.htm
link: http://www.hindu.com/2004/06/30/stories ... 391100.htm

Don't know how may lies we are living with and how many lies our brave soldiers have to die for.....

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Feb 2010 11:21

just had a look at demchok. at west bank of indus couple of kms from river there is a camp with gun pits and defensive trench lines. but we dont seem to have any positions EAST of the river and this area - area Gagan was referring to as "lost". further to the east, the chinese have built a 2 lane solid road far across the LOC and even established some compounds. the road has a distinctive fish spine type look with perpendicular ditches perhaps to stabilize the soil and contain erosion. at some distance from the indus, the road
stops due to a range of rugged hills that signify end of tibetan flat region and the land
falls down sharply to the indus valley.

there's lots of solid looking compounds on chinese side and no real evidence of defensive fortifications - looks like they plan to surge men and materials and fight the war well within
indian turf.

further north of Demchok, we are east of the Indus as we should be and along a road , theres lot of indian campus strung out in neat lines, with periodic walled compounds.

seems to be some sandy/dry type smaller river valleys that empty into the indus from the
north wherein wheeled and tracked vehicles might strike south from the chinese held areas
in north east side.

even where conventional mech brigades cannot operate one cannot discount they might
spring surprises like sending in lots of people in ATVs pulling small trailers. we have seen
pix of such vehicles - no protection but quick movement in tibetan terrain by cover of night and air protection.

in pangong tso for years they have played games with our antique flat bottom assault boats by threatening runs with high speed patrol boats that turn away at last minute. in
one incident a jawan was washed overboard by the rough wake of such a near miss.
only recently has GRSE been given a order for 12t patrol boats to settle this issue.

pix and report here: http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2009/09/ ... ngong.html

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Feb 2010 12:16

nachiket wrote: I was always under the impression that we enjoyed a healthy advantage wrt Artillery (quantity and quality) against the pakis. It doesn't seem that way atleast from the analysis done by that guy and he seems to be pretty thorough. I always thought the artillery gap was vis a vis the Chinese but now it seems we need to bolster the western front as well. Right now we seem to be level more or less. That and Point 5353 of course. I wasn't aware of it before. I wonder why air-strikes weren't continued on that point after the war.

nachiket, I've healthy respect for the PA Arty as an arm. They have wroked to high standards in all the wars.PA Arty was singularly responsible for breaking up lot of IA Infantry assaults in the 1965 war along all the major fronts. The Americans trained them well.

However, apart from the SP Arty component, where does PA have advantage over India?The Chinese truck mounted gun and Turkish Howitzer is hot air. IIRC, there was lot of talk of PA to take in the Turkish gun but nothing came off it.In our case, it is not the quantity that is the problem.It is the quality.Mind you, we're not inferior to the PA on this parameter.But for an army of India's standing, it is high time we bring in the 155mm/52 caliber.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 07 Feb 2010 15:46

That site by Planeman is a smoke and mirrors website showing India== Pak for arty capabilities. Pakistan has not bought a single piece of arty from Turkey or a SMERCH rip-offs from China, let alone operationalize them. If Pakistan arty (not to underestimate them) had any chance of scoring against India, the ceasefire would have been over long time ago. The A-100 or Turkish howitzers are being deliberately presented to provide a counter to the Bofors and the Smerch MRLS.

A significant advantage like the superiority of Krasnopol shells over the copperheads deployed by Pak is tucked away somewhere in the page. I remember reading an article post Kargil in Hindu where the advantages of the Indian UAVs in passing info to the Arty causing lot of Takleef to Pakis was analyzed threadbare....and Catapults in action in Kargil is news for me.

For now, Indian arty with their UAV sensors have significant local advantage in Kargil as most of the limited Bofors are probably deployed in this sector. If China comes into the picture, then we are in trouble as we do not have qty.

Pt 5353 in Pak hands is old news on this forum and was debated earlier as well....looks like usual indic style rona dhona self-flagellation is in the works.

The border analysis link is a must-see!! Amazing - the stuff you can pull off the internet. Now, imagine, the more detailed view you can get from a CARTOSAT or similar satellite.

agreed, the work done is significant...us arm chair analysts need to put in our dues.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Feb 2010 16:21

paks did take in a few A-100 MLRS in 2H08 for trials purposes. its unclear thereafter if they
placed a larger order. the chinese long range MLRS were said to have a fairly high CEP which negated the advantage of range so the Paks may have decided to go for smaller systems of say 50km but better accuracy until PRc improves its trajectory correction kit.
in the meantime they can always put pressure on Unkil to donate a few dozen mothballed
MLRS system same way they got their M109A5 guns from.

while PRc would be willing to give them a reasonable number of systems for free and
transfer the technology to manufacture the rockets, the pakis would have to pay for that
production line and cost of rockets from the pocket. maybe thats why there is no further
news in 2009 of pakis placing an order.

or maybe they feel the indian threat is not high enough at this stage to waste $$ better
kept for submarines, ereyie and jf-17.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 09 Feb 2010 02:15

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 09 Feb 2010 08:15

Mahindra and BAE Systems’ $22m JV to target land systems, artillery programs alone worth US$8 billion

08 Feb 2010 8ak/Mahindra/BAE PR: Buoyed by an almost certain win of the US$647m M777 ultra light howitzer deal, BAE systems and Mahindra today announced their proposed JV (to be set up in the near future) which has the ambition to become an artillery centre of excellence in India that covers not just manufacturing but development, testing and support. As per a recent industry report, India proposes to spend over US$8 billion on purchasing about 2,814 artillery guns of various types. Besides the manufacture, the spares and service of these guns will in itself be a huge market.

Defence Land Systems India will be headquartered in New Delhi with manufacturing at a purpose built facility South of Faridabad, just outside of Delhi. Initially there will be about 100 employees and existing projects include the Axe high mobility vehicle as well as up-armored and bulletproof Scorpios, Boleros, Rakshak, Rapid Intervention Vehicles and the Marksman light armored vehicle. A key project is the development of a mine protected vehicle specifically designed to meet the needs of the Indian armed and paramilitary forces.

Approved by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board of the Government of India (GoI), the parent companies' initial investment will be US$21.25 million over a three year period. The company’s equity split will be 74% Mahindra and 26% BAE Systems, in accordance with the current defence sector Foreign Direct Investment regulations of the GoI.

Mr. Deepak Chhibba and Mr. Arne Berglund will be Defence Land Systems India’s CEO and Deputy CEO respectively. Deepak Chhibba was earlier EVP International Operations Mahindra & Mahindra and has over 32 years industrial experience. The newly appointed Deputy CEO, Arne Berglund, was previously a director at BAE Systems, Global Combat Systems, in the UK. Arne and has also worked in Singapore, Canada, Sweden and the United States with various BAE Systems and other joint venture companies

bhayana · Post by **bhayana** » 09 Feb 2010 11:26

so the pakis are laying in lots of SP guns, 155mm and smerchski MLRS without much ado.
if the pakis are doing this, the chinese would have done a lot more.

So gentlemen the induction of 145 arty pcs on the eastern sector is not a wise reason, the no. should be 5-10 times that 145. Or Talk of FMS from the Govt. Of singapore for Pegasus, no threat of agents, commissions, the Govt of Sigapore would give a price gurantee. Similarly for the winners of the towed trials , mounted, wheeled, and tracked trials, Talk to the respective governments and ensure that the price offered is what they would have given had they bought the system, no worry of bribery and commissions etc.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 09 Feb 2010 12:23

sumshyam wrote:Mahindra and BAE Systems’ $22m JV to target land systems, artillery programs alone worth US$8 billion

08 Feb 2010 8ak/Mahindra/BAE PR: Buoyed by an almost certain win of the US$647m M777 ultra light howitzer deal, BAE systems and Mahindra today announced their proposed JV (to be set up in the near future) which has the ambition to become an artillery centre of excellence in India that covers not just manufacturing but development, testing and support...................<SNIP>

The good part of the above news for this jingo, who desperately wants IA to induct arty systems, is that through Mahindra, BAE will have access to highest echelons of power that be. And considering that they field some of the best Arty pieces (Archer and FH77B05 L52), I don't mind if they bribe their way to the contract. Just get those damn guns.

That leaves us with contender for SP Arty. Any guesses on good systems? PHZ 2000, anyone?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Feb 2010 17:13

I will personally run shirtless and pantless all around the lady carmel college here if we select the PZH and order around 150.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 09 Feb 2010 18:48

Singha wrote:I will personally run shirtless and pantless all around the lady carmel college here if we select the PZH and order around 150.

Well... Non-American ??? Chances are less...

the carmel college girls are missing a huge chance..

negi · Post by **negi** » 09 Feb 2010 22:05

Fwiw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZjNH2fQPiE

Look at the footprint of M777 everything is manual (ranging , slewing of barrel ,loading and even firing ) infact reminiscent of Tipu Sultan era , I guess IA would employ these in very specific areas that is why an order for just 145 guns . Btw now the sustained rate of fire specs depend on efficiency of the crew (for initially I assumed it had an auto loader

).