Artillery Discussion Thread

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 22 Jul 2010 19:49

Shiv Arror (Livefist) reported a few minutes ago that Artillery tender has been scrapped and new tender issue. He posted a copy of new tender as well. But he seems to have removed that post.

Hope its a false alarm!!

Avik · Post by **Avik** » 22 Jul 2010 19:50

Dear Avik,

It was reported (by army chap, i guess)and discussed in this same forum that Army found WLR even if fielded might not be effective in Kargil. They even tried with sound triangulation technique to see if that could be effective in Kargil type terrain and came back with the conclusion that the Pak could effect such casualties on Indian troops is due to the spooters positioned at vantage points along the high ridges.

Kanson Sir- Good Evening !
Yes, WLRs would not be as effective on high mountains as they would be on plains. There would be high clutter due to mutiple reflections from the mountain faces. But that said, given that, in mountains , because of limited terrain available for the Pakis to deploy their guns, WLRs would /are able to distinguish the gun position after evaluating 3-4 rounds coming in from the other side, instead of just 1-2 as in the plains. also, the maneouvring space available to the Paki battery would be limited since there is limited deployment space on the other side. Hence, trinagulation would happen using WLR, although it would take more time and more rounds compared to the plains.

But, we didnt have this option.

Yes, the bulk of the arty casualties on our side happenned because of spotter cuing by Pakis. And our spotters died in droves as they tried to go up. If we had WLRs, that carnage could have been responded to earlier instead of waiting till we started dominating the first heights. This is where WLRs would have saved lives.

I am not even considering that during Kargil, arty duels where happenning all along the LoC including the plains region near Akhnoor to Jammu. You can well imagine what we could have done with a Bofors battery cued by WLR on a Paki Inf Bde gathering on the other side!!

Nice to connect with you again Sir!

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 22 Jul 2010 19:51

rohitvats wrote: VikB,

I will let Avik speak for himself.

As for me and BS part - if a poster comes on the forum and says that he doesn't trust ex-COAS and calls him a liar - it is a serious charge and complete BS unless he/she comes up with an explanation and facts.

Two, you can't come here and pontificate on the requirement/usefullness or otherwise of WLR and second guess the IA without having an iota of understanding of the system at hand - if you do, please prove your points with some logical explanation.

And in case there is urge to quote an anonymous source - please do add "may be" or "likely". Don't use someone elses ideas and reasoning without understanding them. And don't quote anonymous sources each time someone asks for clarification.

Three, keep the debate in context and don't fly off the tangent - WLR issue and management of war are not one and same thing.

As for sources in the IA/Services - my dad fought that war and there is a thing or two I know about it. But that does not mean I become eligible (based on these sources alone) to pass absolute judgement on the topic or become someone elses sounding board.

Actually, VikB is right. Not because he supported me. You should understand what he means. The crux of the problem. He is relating to his experience and he has full rights to tell you, as you would tell to someone who calls army chief liar or uses anon sources. In a way, your karma is getting back on you.

You also need to chill out. You used similar language in the IAF thread. I withdrew not because of some big moral lecture you gave. It was purely for other reasons, besides the language is not expected (agree every one has some loose moments).

My suggestion is you should try to understand the moral of the story than nit pick. Not everyone is as intelligent as you and they can give a perfect chiseled answer. You also brought in biased argument and painted entire DRDO black. If you consider Army Chief as holy Cow, we consider DRDO as holy cow, and its only an example.

Coming to the WLR example, you had not considered the economic and political factors. Just to elaborate. In 1997 there was political uncertainty in India. I doubt anything substantial was transacted that year including defense (1996 SU deal was inked). Hypothetically, if the contract was signed, in 1998, we had sanctions against us. There is no chance that it will be delivered by kargil unless it was signed with Russia or France. The case was not so. so, who would have been blamed?

The blame goes to Army which has not proactively tried to develop the system in India, even if had ample time.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 22 Jul 2010 20:00

Avik wrote:Boss, in logic driven circles and forums, if you propound and pontificate on something, you have to come up with facts to back your assertions.
Now, those assertions cannot be vapourware , ghost quotes or plain wrong!

Also, people need to be ready to debate on facts and not Djinn Cola and a fevered imagination. Unnamed quotes from ghost entities does not work, especially if those quotes are highly contentious, nay, tendentious!

That said, I respect CJ and what he brings to the forum. I may not agree with him on certain points, but that does not diminish my respect for him or anyone.

Finally, lets debate rigorously, instead of having meaningless fixations, biases and prejudices and in that debate, if some aggression does spill out, well, so be it- we are hopefully not shrinking violets!

Sir, please let me know what logic you have brought to this debate? Please tell me the people you named and brought credibility to the debate? Having said this, I am not trying to drag you down.

Added later.

I am a fan of dileep Cherian of Asian Age with his "dilli kababu" and Coomi kapoor from Indian Express. On sundays they bring a lot of tidbids frm anoan sources without naming them.

But the cake goes to out page 3 tabloids, they report who is going out with whom quoted by anon sources, public simply loves it.

You should understand the TRP, web hits or readership of these columns.

Avik · Post by **Avik** » 22 Jul 2010 20:18

CJ : You diss the Army; you call the Army brass a bunch of poltroons; you call an ex-COAS a liar and an ediot.
You propound to us that WLR is not essential and battles were won with jazba and not equipment.

A WLR could have been used even in the wars before. Why wasn't it made? Why don't you answer the most important fact I mentioned that the regular nitpics you manage to kick up?

As far aw which WLR in kargil? They knew most positions of weapons in kargil. What best WRL we could get. If you think WLR has to be a ANXX-XX of should be of other names, I am sorry, its not my defination. As long as you know the locations, its WLR, figuratively.

You turn logic on its head and say that the WLR is not essential as the IA did not use it in past wars; You tell us that IA knew position of all Paki guns. You also propound that IA is useless and its equipment needs are not worth the paper they are written on .

I was on phone with an officer (now retd) on the WLR issue. He says it is all hog wash. Its untrue that we did not know the locations.

You quote sources that are somewhere between Djinn and the 'Voice Above' and miraculously tell us a new version of the gsopel!

Photo-recce (by M2K)of Pakistani artillery gun positions also made them vulnerable to Indian artillery.

You tell us that a photo recce is enough to deduce a gun position and make it vulnerable!!

ROFL. who told you this? KIA happened because we simply marched our soldiers to die. No spotters. We were not aware what is there. Forget WLR, initially Army was not even admitting that there was a big problem. They simply sent units and they were dead. I will give you a escape in spotter claim. its a ridiculous claim that something stopped us from deploying spotters and then WLR could have saved soldiers lives etc etc. its foolish, downright.

You rolled on the floor, laughing, when told that maybe..just maybe lack of cueing ability killed our troops and exposed our FSOs.

You disregarded all facts, logic and sense. You fed us garbage over the last 3-4 pages and then your closing argument was you would not accept whatever the IA did or claims because , you think, they are a bunch of poltroons.

Now, Sir, as I have demonstrated, it is upto you to prove that your accussations and charges amount to something and are thus, not a ridiculous attempt at calumny and slander.

You make the accusation ..you prove it. Be man enough to stand scrutiny for your arguments, instead of shooting your bolt off at imaginary ghosts!!

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 22 Jul 2010 20:34

CJ : You diss the Army; you call the Army brass a bunch of poltroons; you call an ex-COAS a liar and an ediot.

Really, I said I have no regards for them. I stand by it. i have been telling since 2007. Its in frontier India. I have been always frank about it.

You propound to us that WLR is not essential and battles were won with jazba and not equipment.

its answered in my former comment when i quote sherlok homes. Please read that. Leave mis quoting to DDM's like us, unless you are a DDM too.

You turn logic on its head and say that the WLR is not essential as the IA did not use it in past wars; You tell us that IA knew position of all Paki guns. You also propound that IA is useless and its equipment needs are not worth the paper they are written on .

Answered above. also the second sentence I have been writing since long.

You quote sources that are somewhere between Djinn and the 'Voice Above' and miraculously tell us a new version of the gsopel!

Guilty of all that.

You tell us that a photo recce is enough to deduce a gun position and make it vulnerable!!

Guilty with respect to kargil.

You rolled on the floor, laughing, when told that maybe..just maybe lack of cueing ability killed our troops and exposed our FSOs.

You disregarded all facts, logic and sense. You fed us garbage over the last 3-4 pages and then your closing argument was you would not accept whatever the IA did or claims because , you think, they are a bunch of poltroons.

First part is mis quote.

Second part is yes.

Now, Sir, as I have demonstrated, it is upto you to prove that your accussations and charges amount to something and are thus, not a ridiculous attempt at calumny and slander.

You make the accusation ..you prove it. Be man enough to stand scrutiny for your arguments, instead of shooting your bolt off at imaginary ghosts!!

I have admitted to everything i said about.

sir,

I was asking what did you bring to table in the argument? You have not answered that. You were preaching all that to someone, lets see you walk the preach.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 22 Jul 2010 20:37

Gentlemen,

I think last few pages are example of why WLR could not be made available on time? Because we cannot agree to disagree and still continue to work for common cause....

The problem started with why DRDO did not / was not allowed to develop a Gun... and look where it is heading....

Meanwhile, several points to think over -

1. DRDO is support function, IA/IN/IAF and MOD are responsible to defend the country... It is MOD/IA responsibility to ensure everything that is needed is in place whether from DRDO or otherwise... Meanwhile, IN did not wait for DRDO to develop arihant, it leased Akula

2. Whether timeline for completion of WLR project was determined to be by 1999 (Sorry induction by then)? Wasn't IA was aware of DRDO being very optimistic about timelines given its experience with Arjun? Didn't IA thought that 2 years time line (assuming project sanctioned by 1997 which itself is not very clear as of now going by various version of reports) was too much considering even Americans could not match the GSQR and considering DRDO did not have any previous experience of any such radar development and took any alternative backup plan?

3. Tejas is delayed by good 5 years (Considering it was supposed to enter combat service by 2005/06), Now if war starts between Indian and PAK, will it be responsibility of IAF or DRDO to have adequate sanction strength?

4. Did DRDO / IA / MOD knew of kargil crisis and DRDO purposefully delayed the WLR? Who to blame if war would have started say in 1997 (even as the project was sanctioned - again not sure) instead of 1999? It is same as to blame ADA for not delivering AMCA by 2017 in we face a war with China by then...

5. Why we never listen any cribbing about DRDO from Navy circles? Why DRDO dont try to push ALH into navy's throat as it is claimed to have done by many with IA in case of Arjun or with IAF in case of Tejas?

Guys, You dont clap with a single hand... If it is failure, it is system failure... IA/DRDO/MOD and even we are part of system... we all have failed? Even we as individual citizens of India have failed whether it is kargil or Kashmir or Naxals? Why we could not elect a govt in last 6 decades that has balls (sorry for the choice of Language) to deal with these situations with force? Why we appreciates 16th December as Vijay Diwas for 1971 war victory which did not solved the kashmir issue eventhough it could have been????

I am always amazed by foresightedness of the IN.... See where it is... It has got to a level where the most complex ships (nuke subs and aircraft carriers) are now designed and developed in the country? and mind you, it does not come overnight... It had to commission frigates without Point defense missiles following failure of DRDO to deliver Trishul... This is the pain that it has taken and is now reaping the benefits of it

However, This is not DRDO V/s Armed forces thread..

Done is done and it cannot be changed... But lessons can be drawn, learnt and implement.. but that requires us to agree to disagree and respect each others view and opinion - be it DRDO and IA or DRDO and IAF/IN or we the BRFITES

Coming back to the point, why DRDO could not / was not allowed to develop guns? Does failure (assumingly) to develop WLR on time (Again no PAUL predicted the Kargil crisis), an excuse not to ask DRDO to develop guns?
If that is the case, US should ask LM to stop doing any further thing because it is not delivering JSF on time...

The best course of action could have been / and continues to be involving DRDO to work on gun... It might not be as capable as Bofors or M 777 or whatever, but it will give DRDO the understanding while IA operates it along with imported ones... So that when next time, we require a gun we dont need to import... we have DRDO guns which will now be capable (after experience with the first version) as the imported ones....

Tejas is an example to support above... see the difference it has made to our aerospace industries.....IJT,ALH,LCH, MKI (Avionics), Jaguar and Mig 21/27 upgrades, PAK FA and AMCA are because of our efforts to develop LCA.... I think we should be ok even if it does not matches to the capabilities of Rafale or Grippen or others... What matters it that next gen fighters developed out of its experience will be as good as if not better than their peers....

Just my 2 cents (oops sorry considering the length of post, 4 cents)

sum · Post by **sum** » 22 Jul 2010 20:41

Sid wrote:Shiv Arror (Livefist) reported a few minutes ago that Artillery tender has been scrapped and new tender issue. He posted a copy of new tender as well. But he seems to have removed that post.

Hope its a false alarm!!

Knowing the artillery saga, nothing surprises me on that front these days!!!

I would assume that what Livefist had posted was true and will be re-posted after some time ( maybe pulled out now for some unknown reason)

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 22 Jul 2010 20:48

nrshah,

Correct. Also, you should understand this line "they were trying to approve the imports of WLR and simultaneously ask DRDO to develop one."

Govt is of the view, import by all means, but, try to indegenise too. IMO they would currently allow a ratio of 60% videsi and 40% desi mix.

IA should wake up. Even IAF has understood this to a lot of extent. They have understood that govt is willing to import fighters as long as LCA is able to get ready. IMO, callous MoD is going in right direction.

look at Arty guns drama. had we had an Indian option, things could be different.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Jul 2010 20:53

chackojoseph wrote:
Actually, VikB is right. Not because he supported me. You should understand what he means. The crux of the problem. He is relating to his experience and he has full rights to tell you, as you would tell to someone who calls army chief liar or uses anon sources. In a way, your karma is getting back on you.

Please don't start on the sources tangent again.What you posted was a contrary opinion which does not translate into the final word on the subject. There is no way to authenticate it. So, does not serve any purpose. Nor does it prove that General Malik is a liar.

You also need to chill out. You used similar language in the IAF thread. I withdrew not because of some big moral lecture you gave. It was purely for other reasons, besides the language is not expected (agree every one has some loose moments).

Sorry, nothing that I wrote was because of some loose moment - I meant every word of it. Time and again you make blanket statements and when asked for back-up, you either pull out an anonymous source or fly off the tangent. So, it is you who needs to be more precise in what you post. Please don't expect me to accept everything at face value.

As it is, you have explicity stated your prejudice for the IA Top Brass - so, every time you post something about IA, I'll be more cautious.

Code: Select all

My suggestion is you should try to understand the moral of the story than nit pick. Not everyone is as intelligent as you and they can give a perfect chiseled answer.

CJ, it is sad that you find questions asked of you as nitpick - please don't be so callous with your facts and your assertions. They can far reaching ramifications.

You also brought in biased argument and painted entire DRDO black. If you consider Army Chief as holy Cow, we consider DRDO as holy cow, and its only an example.

Please show me one post of mine where the arguments from me have deviated from the WLR topic? Or where I've painted DRDO as a whole as a bad-bad organization?

As for me considering Services as holy cow - I have immense respect for the organizations but that does not mean I gloat over their mistakes. My problem is when people take us versus them debate - if I can say that IA was wrong when it came to Arjun, I hope people have enough courage to rise above their prejudice and bias and say that DRDO was wrong

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 22 Jul 2010 20:55

Avik wrote: The reasons why the Pakis were able to inflict such casulaties on us were two fold: they had spotters, who fortuntaely were elminated by mid-June; but they continued to receive support from their WLRs.
So, WLRs would have made a difference; lets not belabour this point and prove our ignorance by making points like the one quoted on top.

this urban legend just refuses to go away, the paki artillery firing was directed by spotters on mountain tops and their accurate firing stopped once the spotters were dislodged.
people don't seem to ask this common sense question, how many artillery positions did we lose to counter-battery fire in kargil ? I don't seem to remember any, if the pakis were depending on WLR those would be the natural target.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Jul 2010 21:09

nukavarapu wrote:
<SNIP>

As you said that you have no other proof except the general's book, then I would beg to disagree. No matter what the general or the prime minister claims, things would only be believed if they are released in public. There are lot of claims made by too many important people, after they retired from the services. We just can't keep on believing everything. If there is no official government statement that claims that DRDO promised in 1995 that it will develop and hand over a WLR to IA by 1999, then DRDO is to blame. Apart from that, any blames put on DRDO is just making a scapegoat.

Except the fact that good General is on record and published a book with exact statement - which is different from people making off the cuff statements. Or quotes from anonymous sources.

One thing is clear - IA was asked to place indent on DRDO. Another - that future purchases, after Kargil were allowed due to inability of DRDO to produce the weapon inhouse.

And as CJ explained, and even you Rohit too concurred, unable to purchase a WLR from 1989 to 1995/97 was purely because of the denial and not the cost factor. That means IA had an opportunity to engage DRDO in 1989 itself, just to develop the subsystems and required technologies which it didn't. MoD as usual is always lackluster about everything and takes the bigger part of the blame.

One, denial was for one system - ANTPQ-37. Secondly, cost was a definite factor and PSCD Reports says so in so many words.

And as for IA engaging DRDO for WLR in 1989 - DRDO came up with something like ANTPQ-37 (next version of ANTPQ-36) in 2004-05 (after the development was approved in 2002). If DRDO had problem in developing the WLR in 1997-2000 time frame, what makes you think that something cold have come up earlier? Oh! and btw, please do check on how the WLR programme in 2002 (derived from Rajendra Radar) came into being.

Another thing - I have so far refrained from saying this but from what I have come to know from reading on the net is that DRDO tried to develop WLR by deriving technology from the Cymbeline Mortar Tracker in IA Service. It was after this effort failed that they allowed for foreign product. I have reason to believe that the comment in PSCD Report (2001-2002) about inability to develop domestic WLR is related to this.But I'll post on that once I get more material.

Let me repeat, if you don't have any government document or open media source that claims that DRDO promised to provide a WLR by 1999, nobody has the right to put the blame on DRDO alone for MoD's blunder and IA's shortsightedness.

Well, you can choose to not believe General Malik's statement - I do.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 22 Jul 2010 21:13

chackojoseph

Correct. Also, you should understand this line "they were trying to approve the imports of WLR and simultaneously ask DRDO to develop one."

I agree... But we should not give DRDO all the freeway... It also has to share its part of the failure (Not specifically related to WLR but general) ... It has to acknowledge many times it goes overboard on its commitment. HOwever, DRDO run by humans is prone to mistakes... But it has to learn and rectify it......

Meanwhile, I will tell u something...

I was not well and decided to visit a doctor... He asked me the reason of visit and asked to get couple of tests done (blood and all).. After reports, he gave me necessary medicine.. It you look closely, the first step to correct the problem is accepting the problem... I would not have visited doc if i continued to believe everything was ok with me... then comes identifying the problem and Last comes the actual rectification...

Unfortunately, our defense planners often resort to the last stage from the very beginning (my views not for sale)

Sorry for OT part...

Avik · Post by **Avik** » 22 Jul 2010 21:25

Avik -- your posts do not provide any insight why DRDO is to be blamed for what happened in kargil. I would like to hear your view!

Nukavarapu: Did I at anytime blame DRDO for failure to produce WLR?

All I said was WLR was not there and its presence would have helped IA- Period.

So, pls quit building imaginary strawmen and scarecrows and wrongly attributing statements that were not made by ME

The limited recall that I have goes somewhat like this:
The IA had a requirement since the mid-90's for a WLR. This requirement was accentuated by PA's acquisition of WLR and the effective fire they were able to bring down on IA Arty positions during the cross LOC duels of the 90's. The areas in J&K in which the IA suffered the most damage were around Pallanwalla in South J&K and Kupwara in North.
The US offered An/TPQs in the mid 90s. The other offers were, as far as I recall, from Thales and a Ukrainian one. The Thales one did not go through for whatever reason. There were off and on talks between GoI and US on acquiring An/TPQs but they didnt lead anywhere and were finally called off after Pokhran -II. The IA still persisted , but the only one on offer was the Ukraininan one which failed to met GSQR. Then Kargil happenned.

I have no idea about DRDO's role in this saga and have, hence abstained from making any comments about them.

Avik · Post by **Avik** » 22 Jul 2010 21:41

this urban legend just refuses to go away, the paki artillery firing was directed by spotters on mountain tops and their accurate firing stopped once the spotters were dislodged.
people don't seem to ask this common sense question, how many artillery positions did we lose to counter-battery fire in kargil ? I don't seem to remember any, if the pakis were depending on WLR those would be the natural target.

Rahulm: We had quite a few arty casualties, including the 2-I-C of one of the Field Regiments. He was from Bihar as far as I remember. Most of our IA arty casualties were because of counter-bombardment.
But the thing is, it was the Mountain and Field Arty units that suffered the damage, because they were within range of Paki 105s and 122mms. The Bofors, mostly were out of range.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 22 Jul 2010 21:57

A general note of caution :

> To ALL, NO personal attacks, however much you might dislike the others' opinion. any further violation would lead to board warnings and or bans.

> Chacko, I know that Gen Malik's leadership isn't considered exemplary by many and his criticism of all and sundry, from IAF to R&AW, IB and DRDO is considered a ruse to deflect attention from his own shortcomings. but once you have made your point, it's better to leave it at that. it does none of us any good to continue on these lines. I know many here have their sources but on controversial issues, it's best to keep quiet rather than make an ugly slanging match of it. I cannot stress this point enough, while hearsay is admitted upto a certain extent, post it FWIW and don't make it a point of contention.

> Rohit, you certainly have the right to disagree, with chacko or anyone else, vehemently if needed but was the uncouth tone necessary ? you are a postor whose contribution and conduct both have been exemplary so far, I for one find your recent posts needlessly abrasive which is quite surprising.

thanks for the co-operation,
Rahul.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 22 Jul 2010 22:15

avik

Most of our IA arty casualties were because of counter-bombardment.

yes but counterbombardment guided by spotters.

once evicted that dropped even thought the WLRs were still there

also note that the Bofors had some ability to scoot - the others did not have that

vic · Post by **vic** » 22 Jul 2010 22:57

Another view is that Malik has always been trying to save his musharaff considering he was busy in Poland doing we all know what!

Helo attacks were being opposed by IAF for well articulated operational reasons which turned out to be true. There are detailed articles on it in open source magzines. Army read Malik has been trying to pass the buck for their ***up.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Jul 2010 23:00

vic wrote:Another view is that Malik has always been trying to save his musharaff considering he was busy in Poland doing we all know what!.

No Sir, I'm not aware of what he was doing. If you have any insight, please do share with us.

Helo attacks were for well articulated operational reasons which turned out to be true. There there detailed articles on it in open source magzines. Army read malik has been trying to pass the buck for their ***up.

From what I know, the only chopper lost was one without C&F Dispensers. Can you please elaborate on others?

nits · Post by **nits** » 22 Jul 2010 23:21

Just posted on Live fist - Indian 155-mm Self-Propelled Howitzer Big Begins All Over Again

The Army has gotten used to having no new artillery guns. Well, today brought the latest signal toward a re-tender. The Indian Army today sent out a fresh Request for Information (RFI) to global gun makers for self-propelled 155m/52cal guns . A re-tender of the Rs 8000 crore towed gun deal is around the corner too, apparently. The self-propelled gun deal is for 120 units, which first fell through as far back as 2005 when Denel was blacklisted.

vic · Post by **vic** » 22 Jul 2010 23:28

Post edited

We all (except Rohit & some others) what Malik was doing in Poland. Off course Rohit & Malik know/dont Know that Helos are visible in clear skies from very long distance especially from peaks chugging up in thin air on known attack patters vulnerable to Stingers

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Jul 2010 23:32

A quick question - when was the last RFP for SP Guns sent out? Did not we discuss the PZH2000 tracked and wheeled version thing only recently?

Added later - read through the RFP. It seems for Wheeled SP. Was the last SP RFP for only tracked version? Also, clearly mentions that FCS needs to be checked for compatibility with Shakti ACCCS. Good going on that front.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 Jul 2010 05:16

rohitvats wrote: kvraghav,

I had quoted from General Malik's book and I'm reproducing the same here:
After long negotiations with a manufacturer, some of the radars were about to be purchase in 1997. ...
And hence, I consider DRDO to be responsible for the delay.

The point to note is that the DRDO may have had plans to make the radar circa 1997, but in 1998 there were certain events which had India put on several interesting lists. Furthermore, certain items were denied. As a result:

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=c3qm ... hi&f=false

(Note the date)
http://www.expressindia.com/news/ie/dai ... 50185.html

And the current WLR program is indeed the same WLR that was to be sanctioned earlier, but wasnt. Its by LRDE-BEL, made by BEL.

I will refrain from commenting on Shri Malik, but as regards Kargil and leadership issues please note:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-6/lns.html

Unable to convince his superiors of the need to delay till adequate firepower was provided the second in command of the 18th Grenadiers Lt. Col. Vishwanathan personally led the attack. With Regimental pride under stake the men reached the top after an arduous 6 hour climb. If they chose to recover before attacking dawn would be on them so they made the choice of an immediate attack. It was a suicidal attack and was promptly cut down. Lt. Col. Vishwanathan knew he was going to die. His last letter to his father indicated his anguish at not being able to live to his family commitments. There was shock and gloom all around. Furthermore the bodies of Adhikari and his wireless operator were still lying in the battlefield. Any attempt to recover it was met with UMG fire. Furthermore the Pakistanis booby-trapped the bodies. One jawan who tried to drag Adhikari’s body away lost his hand to a booby trap. Lt. Col. Vishwanathan‘s death finally jarred the senior echelons of the Indian Army. Finally the army was realizing the need to get in more firepower before any assault could be made.

The valour of the Army has never been in doubt, nor has been its amazing, hard fought victory (the article above says it all). The issue is & has been of "political leadership" by some brass a la the IPKF which ends up causing avoidable mistakes during the opening stages of a conflict.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 23 Jul 2010 07:57

Rahul M,

Ok, I back off. I have made my points.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 23 Jul 2010 12:48

1. Irrespective of General Malik's competency and integrity, his(read Army) comment can not be the"proof" of DRDO's fault, at the most it is a complaint. The same applies for any DRDO statement as well. No disrespect to either organization. It is only logical that none should be trusted on the face value when the situation is one vs the other.
2. The quoted report mentions "order should be placed". It does not say a). whether it was actually placed or not b). What was the timeframe promised by DRDO c). what were the DRDO dependencies (like govt sanctions) etc.
3. The WLR discussion itself is the tangent to the original discussion. To recap - the original question was "whether DRDO was asked to develop artillery gun for IA and if not why?" which was answered with a flamebait by Avik "Thank god for small mercies" and the rest as they say is (a rather tedious repeat of ) history

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 23 Jul 2010 16:16

http://indianarmy.nic.in/Site/FormTempl ... GSboJvCFQ=

RFI Title: RFI for Procurement of 155MM/52 Calibre Towed Gun System
Branch Name: Arty
Publish Date: 22 Jul 2010
Due Date: 16 Aug 2010

sum · Post by **sum** » 23 Jul 2010 16:46

Will turn out to be one of the few multi-billion $$ tenders evr in history which might not find a bidder in the coming future!!!!

The stage is being set for a FMS on this too....

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Jul 2010 17:50

with what though? the M109A5 is aeging and not in league of Pzh2000/T6. sher khan is going the way of expeditionary 155mm cannons on Stryker which dont fit our bill.

this is one area where sher khan doesnt have a good product that fits our RFI.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jul 2010 20:31

Final step in self goals will be for CBI to blacklist OFB.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 23 Jul 2010 22:47

ramana wrote:Final step in self goals will be for CBI to blacklist OFB.

FMS route will be the only way left by design.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 23 Jul 2010 22:53

Blacklisting the job factories (OFBs) and other defense parasitic state undertakings (DPSUs) would be the greatest thing for
India's mil. industrial complex as it would force private sector production to occur.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Jul 2010 22:55

sheer genius, how about we blacklist the armed forces as well.

negi · Post by **negi** » 23 Jul 2010 23:08

I guess its high time that armed forces start voicing their opinion in public, confronting the mess is the only way to drill sense into numb nuts in south block. Remember the manner in which the chiefs came out in public for parity in terms of pay with IAS cadre ? That is the sort of urgency with which they should approach all their dealings with the MoD. We need assertive service chiefs who can articulate their position and leak stuff in public domain in order to make the political class fall in line (for public wrath and negative media coverage is what politicos are wary of), ours is not an ideal system we need some mavericks up there who can play shoot and scoot.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 24 Jul 2010 00:08

sheer genius, how about we blacklist the armed forces as well.

My point is simple. The decrepid, slothful OFBs are a symbol of everything wrong with India's mil. industrial complex. Does anyone on this forum think the current setup is anything other than an an abysmal failure? We are importing everything from fighters to Ak-47 clones from Bulgaria.

To not be able to produce a bread and butter item like artillery is criminal. In EVERY other industrialized country on Earth if the market is large enough private companies compete for contracts for, surprise, the money! In India private companies don't waste their time on such an endeavor despite the market being worth billions of dollars because they know the parasitic state owned entities will deny them the contract.

In a private set up just as nature abhors a vacuum, companies will rush in to fill a given need. Unfortunately in India in defense as in multiple other areas of the economy, politicians step in and insert artificial distortions that help themselves while f#$king the nation as a whole. No DPSU or DRDO effort for 155 mm howitzers why, because no lungi clad flunkie politician has ordered it. The DPSU themselves have no incentive to do anything other than slothfully exist because whether an employee shows up at 11 AM to take his nap or calls in sick for several weeks, the chance of getting fired is less than the probability that the next Kangress populist scheme is not named after a member of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. As for blacklisting the armed forces, there are a few people who have foisted the T-90 on the country over the Arjun, who definitely need blacklisting.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 24 Jul 2010 01:07

Are we still importing 155 mm shells?

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 24 Jul 2010 01:30

^^^ Yes. The factory to manufacture them in Bihar ( Nalanda?) was never built.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 24 Jul 2010 02:37

tejas wrote:^^^ Yes. The factory to manufacture them in Bihar ( Nalanda?) was never built.

Another victim of corruption allegations. Nobody is ever punished, nothing ever comes of the allegations but India's defense is set back by a decade or more.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 24 Jul 2010 06:09

There are not that many such powerful enties in India who can jinxed the acquisition of such vital equipments for so long. The list of such powerful persons runs very short. Its looking more and more like a personal vendatta of powerful family to hurt particular branch of IA.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 24 Jul 2010 06:23

Avik wrote:
Dear Avik,

It was reported (by army chap, i guess)and discussed in this same forum that Army found WLR even if fielded might not be effective in Kargil. They even tried with sound triangulation technique to see if that could be effective in Kargil type terrain and came back with the conclusion that the Pak could effect such casualties on Indian troops is due to the spooters positioned at vantage points along the high ridges.
Kanson Sir- Good Evening !
Yes, WLRs would not be as effective on high mountains as they would be on plains. There would be high clutter due to mutiple reflections from the mountain faces. But that said, given that, in mountains , because of limited terrain available for the Pakis to deploy their guns, WLRs would /are able to distinguish the gun position after evaluating 3-4 rounds coming in from the other side, instead of just 1-2 as in the plains. also, the maneouvring space available to the Paki battery would be limited since there is limited deployment space on the other side. Hence, trinagulation would happen using WLR, although it would take more time and more rounds compared to the plains.

But, we didnt have this option.

Yes, the bulk of the arty casualties on our side happenned because of spotter cuing by Pakis. And our spotters died in droves as they tried to go up. If we had WLRs, that carnage could have been responded to earlier instead of waiting till we started dominating the first heights. This is where WLRs would have saved lives.

I am not even considering that during Kargil, arty duels where happenning all along the LoC including the plains region near Akhnoor to Jammu. You can well imagine what we could have done with a Bofors battery cued by WLR on a Paki Inf Bde gathering on the other side!!

Nice to connect with you again Sir!

Good Morning Avik; me too, it is always pleasure! I missed your post amidst all these hulla-bulla.

We dont have any disagreement on effectiveness of WLR in plains(I come to this point later). I was trying to locate the report/study that i'm talking about but Google is not helping me @ this morning rush. So i just share my impression, i gained from reading the report. My impression:

The study was conducted to see patterns and methodologies used by Pakis during Kargil war on the WLR front. With the US supplled WLR they came to the conclusion that deployment of WLR could not be the cause of inflicting damages as seen in kargil. Unfourtunately, they havent quantified the ineffectiveness as you try to put. ie effective after 3-4 rounds and not with 1-2 rounds. But, i think(my impression), the reason they tried other techniques( similar to the one used in the case of snipers) is WLR tech is completely ineffective. Otherwise there is no need to try some other tech, i think. There again, they found that too was not satisfactory. Trying all these tech they came to the conclusion that it was the spotters. What it could be understandable from these study is, whether it is Indian or Pakis WLR none of them would be effective if they operated alone, i.e. without any spotters. This seems to be the official stand of the Army. Gen. Malik statement in the Karan Thapar show:
http://www.brahmand.com/news/DRDO-came- ... /3/12.html

Former Army Chief V P Malik, who led the Army during the 1999 Kargil war, has said casualties in the conflict could have been reduced had DRDO “not come in the way” of acquiring weapon-locating radars.

“We had one or two incidents particularly on the weapon locating radar. If the DRDO had not come in the way we would have got them before the Kargil war and that would have definitely reduced our casualties,” he told Karan Thapar on Devil's Advocate programme on CNN-IBN.

He is referring to one or two incidents and not put the entire blame of casualties on non-availability of WLR. What is your opinion ?

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 24 Jul 2010 08:56

The Denel T6 turret on the Arjun chassis, the Archer wheeled artillery and the FH-77 Bofors towed artillery would give the Indian Army quite a punch. Can't the PM make an executive decision and simply order the MoD to purchase these immediately on the grounds of national security? Along with enough M777s to simultaneously engage the Pukes and Chinese in the mountains and we'll be all set.

These purchases aren't that complex and should take months not years to take place

Added later: I forgot India's unelected "leader" MMS needs permission from Sonia first and her days working as a waitress don't impress upon her the urgency of the situation.