Artillery Discussion Thread

astal · Post by **astal** » 30 Jul 2010 00:43

Gurus and Other Opinion Holders,

I have some questions which would help (me) understand whether it is realistic to expect DRDO to develop 155mm artillery and have the army induct it in the near future. It would also be expedient to understand how DRDO would go about developing guns in an managed fashion.

Leaving aside the M777 ultralight, which has been decided and may be inducted in higher numbers, there are several question.

I believe the army has a requirement for towed, tracked and wheeled artillery.
Which of these would be the easiest to build, a towed gun, a tracked gun or a wheeled gun?
My uninformed guess - A towed gun with a small engine for limited shoot and scoot capabilities.

What would be the minimum specifications the army would require for the first service induction quality gun?
Range ? Caliber? Weight? Sustained and burst firing capabilities? Speed of shoot and scoot? Auto-loader?
Must the towed version be self propelled? Mobility requirements?

Would DRDO be able to use the same barrel for self propelled and towed versions?

What chassis would be considered?
Would the Arjun chassis be useful for the tracked version?
This should be possible.
Would an Indian made Tatra truck have sufficient power and payload capabilities?

Which private corporations could conceivably help?
Tata, L&T, Mahindras.

Would any foreign corporation be willing and able to co-operate?
Maybe French or Israeli?

What would be a set or realistic timelines for prototype, testing and induction?

It might just be that there are too many possibilities so us jingos will have to wait for more information.

vic · Post by **vic** » 30 Jul 2010 09:16

nrshah wrote:
vic wrote: Does Bofors rapid fire and scoot every used? Is practical? Is it required? I repeat donot see Gun in isolation but in conjunction with MLRS. Lot of roles of the gun have/will be taken over by Pinaka 1 & 2
There can be and will be situation requiring it.. and the value it adds in those rare situation is the reason why it is designed painstakingly for it..

Scoot - yes it is very much useful and will be used many times to avoid counter battery fire...

Even assuming they will not be used as you suggest, why should not be same preferred if they are available? I dont think cost wise it is more expensive than M 777 you are comparing
it with...

And when MBRLs are taking over a lot of roles of gun, why do we need guns at all.... Accuracy problem can be solved by adding guidance system to projectile.. ARDE is doing it on Pinaka as per reports

Or it is just because unkil now has accepted M 777 having low rate of fire and no scoot capability, we suddenly have started feeling both are not required and are debating on the the frequency of use or will be ever used at all...

I am not against m 777, it is an excellent gun with very high logistic foot print.. but every segment has its niche...

Kindly don't miss the point. I am "trying" to say that a reasonable & Adequate "indigenous" gun can be developed quickly as some features of "highly" developed gun/s may come in later "if" required. DRDO should focus on "quickly" delivering a usable 155mm gun reverse engineered from Bofors drawing rather then trying to "over-refine" it or going for academic long term research.

Therefore DRDO should quickly develop two versions. One a non-automated something like m777 gun (in conventional steel alloys) or say better version of 155mm Met. Second a reverse engineered version of Bofors. Thereafter Non-automated basic version can be refined to become lighter over a peroid of time while Bofors version can slowly incorporate high end requirements of Army

Infact two teams of Pvt parties should be formed. One working on non-automated version say Mahindra and Bharat Forge. Another working on towed automated version say Tata, L&T, Kirloskar, Walchand.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Jul 2010 09:30

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/T ... 768402.jpg

high res pic of FH77B05 on trials in ladakh shows no visible structural changes apart from the longer 52cal barrel ofcourse.

the crane to feed in 3 rounds near the breech is there (though during kargil I saw soldiers manually feeding in rounds, perhaps because the crane had packed up).

the diff between FH77B05 and any other similar weapon seems to be that crane and the integral APU. both these should not be difficult to
manage using a truck engine and our domestic construction machinery makers if we go that route. main thing will be a uber-barrel, precise gun control and laying technology and the ammo. we already have overall Arty c3i network for this to plug into.

inshallah, we should do it both for 105mm and 155mm using common chassis, APU, crane, control system , charging system, fuses where only gun itself is different and SOLVE this problem once and for all. Russia could be roped in for metallurgy expertise as they are masters at it and already helping us in strategic systems.

we already have Arjun expertise below belt and now SSN metallurgy, domestic auto and machine tools industry can deliver this...

call it a sexy program name like ICMAS-105 & 155 (Indian Common Modular Arty System - 105mm and 155mm). a lighter purely towed 105mm piece without the crane and APU can be named ICMAS-L105

vic · Post by **vic** » 30 Jul 2010 10:03

If we make barrels for Arjun, T-72, T-90, 155mm Met, T-55 upgrade, Vijyanta, 105mm then there should not be much difficulty with 155mm barrels. Therefore I say multiple teams should be formed which are co-ordinated/helped by DRDO. Say

Non automated 155 mm Gun - DRDO + Mahndra + Bharat Forge

Towed Automated 155mm Gun - DRDO + L&T + TATA + Kirloskars + Walchand

Mounted or Motorised 155mm Gun - DRDO + BMEL + L&T + TATA + Kirloskars + Walchand

Tracked 155mm Gun - DRDO + OFB Avadi+ BMEL + L&T + TATA + Kirloskars + Walchand

Naval 155mm Gun - DRDO + BHEL + L&T + TATA + Kirloskars + Walchand

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Jul 2010 10:10

thats too much work imo - the ICMAS-105 and 155 are the bread and butter and everyone should pile on there in a JV.
ICMAS-L is not a super urgent priority given the M777 purchase but can start right after ICMAS-105 enters trials.

tracked gun is a much more complex project and needs serious Army support to base on Arjun chassis - someone like denel or rheinmetall could have helped a lot with the automatic charge selection and round feeding systems. perhaps Soko can be roped in as they have a similar SP weapon and are unbanned - so far !

naval gun is a low volume product and can be last priority...Oto guns are fine for now.

since we manufacture BMp2 under license, a next gen rapid fire mortar fed by a automatic system from within the vehicle and just
pokes its ugly snout out of a circular hole would be nice for infantry support - esp in mountains.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 30 Jul 2010 10:33

Seeking some gyan here - What are the challenges involved in making FH77 class a gun with acceptable parameters in a reasonable timeline.

Let us broadly list out the basic parameters without going into greater details.
1. Weight
2. Barrel
3. Range

What past experience we can leverage on and what kind of challenges do we foresee in these three areas? Others can add to the list as they deem fit.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 30 Jul 2010 11:33

Kindly don't miss the point. I am "trying" to say that a reasonable & Adequate "indigenous" gun can be developed quickly as some features of "highly" developed gun/s may come in later "if" required.....

In that case, I am fully with you... these nitpicks seems to be coming out of frustration of every time seeing artillery tenders canceled while recognizing the urgency of the same.....

So, let us stop this canard of MLRS taking up role of CB fire.

Saar, we all recognize the same, infact if you again go thru my post, i have stated every segment / type has its own niche...

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 30 Jul 2010 11:35

P Chitkara wrote:Seeking some gyan here - What are the challenges involved in making FH77 class a gun with acceptable parameters in a reasonable timeline.

Let us broadly list out the basic parameters without going into greater details.
1. Weight
2. Barrel
3. Range

What past experience we can leverage on and what kind of challenges do we foresee in these three areas? Others can add to the list as they deem fit.

I think Hydraulics will be also one of the challenges... As the reverse thrust after the projectile is launched at a speed exceeding mach 4/5 is massive

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Jul 2010 11:40

we have enough exp in hydraulics now due to hydro-pneumatic suspension of Arjun and a range of missile TELARs. infact some german or american co sanctioned us for "misusing' their hydraulic jacks in missile launchers. ofcourse there is a learning curve in every real project but desi expertise exists here and there. the arjun gun recoil system faces similar albeit lower recoil.

vina · Post by **vina** » 30 Jul 2010 11:43

I think Hydraulics will be also one of the challenges... As the reverse thrust after the projectile is launched at a speed exceeding mach 4/5 is massive

Wipro Fluid Power (or whatever that company is called now) is one of the largest manufacturers of hydraulic cylinders in the world. Used in all infra stuff like JCBs, jacks .. this that etc. Problem as always was keeping the private guys out and having everything "sarkari" . The moment you start tapping private sector expertise and capabilities, you will be surprised at what exists in India.

Forging.. Bharat Forge. One of the largest and most technologically advanced forging companies anywhere in the world, HQ ed in India. Do you get them to forge your gun barrels.. Nah.. Private guys. Tauba Tauba. What will happen to OFB ?. So we import technology, pretend that "Russians" have some super duper "tech" get that imported and make it in OFB Kanpur, make a hash of it, and then Russians hold back "technology" and you go back hat in hand for "transfer" (of process cookbook), so that you can make that gun barrel and forge it in OFB. It is a farce really.

But all in all , I think this 155mm gun by DRDO is a terrible idea. DRDO should learn from the Arjun experience and cut all links with the army. Why work with the Army, when you can work with the Navy and the Airforce who have a far less "attitude" problem and are more receptive to your products and can make rational decisions and have the organizational skills and motivation to co develop products with you.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Jul 2010 12:02

I used to own a few stock of bharat forge. so their printed annual report with colour pix came to me. there is a amazing range of machinery in their plant for sure. very chi chi clean shopfloor and all that, away from the heat, sweat, molten metals pouring around and beating hammers we associate with a forging shop.

now that all bideshi options are closing, the media campaign to anoint the M777 as the next-gen long range howitzer will begin in earnest.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 30 Jul 2010 12:04

vina wrote: But all in all , I think this 155mm gun by DRDO is a terrible idea. DRDO should learn from the Arjun experience and cut all links with the army. Why work with the Army, when you can work with the Navy and the Airforce who have a far less "attitude" problem and are more receptive to your products and can make rational decisions and have the organizational skills and motivation to co develop products with you.

Saar, this emotional outburst of yours is really surprising... I understand the frustrations and all, but still we need to be guided objectively about it... This EGO between DRDO and IA has let us no nowhere and will not let us anywhere...

Even though there are issues with IA on Arjun and all, but didn't all have accepted Arjun better than T90... U cannot break the others ego without hitting him... and for that drdo needed to develop Arjun and now Guns...

Running away is very easy...A world class artillery system will be appropriate answer to IA ego and stand...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Jul 2010 12:55

core interest of india >> drdo / army / xyz

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Jul 2010 15:09

It is incredible,that the world's largest democracy cannot produce 60+ years after independence and several wars later,a range of fundamental military eqpt. like rifles,automatic weapons,sniper rifles,etc.,the basic needs of the infantrymen,plus a series of field artillery.One would've imagined that this should've been a fundamental of the DRDO/MOD/IA aeons ago and the related technology,metallurgy,ammo production,etc.,would've been acquired ober the last few decades at least.From reports it appears that we find it difficult to produce 155mm ammo at home and cannot even store it properly! I posted not too long ago details of Gerald Bull,the intrepid Canadian artillery genius,who was assassinated because he was against good advice,building a "super-gun" for Saddam and Iraq,that could launch satelites too! It is a shame that we appear to have had few visionary chiefs and defence scientists in the DRDO barrring a few "rocketmen" of repute.The DRDO appears to want to reinvent the wheel most of the time and when it does come up with an invention,the "wheel" is often square!

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 30 Jul 2010 17:00

It takes two to tango. Both, the DRDO/other organizations and the forces must agree to a middle path for anything tangible to materialize. It may not be the best out there but it will at least serve the purpose. Handling the current threats in any case does not need absolutely top-notch stuff.

Fact is, we do not have the experience or the base to produce uber xyz. But, we need to start somewhere and follow the Mark-1, Mark-2....Mark-n approach to get there. Even the countries with massive experience and technological/industrial base have been following this approach.

It will take time but will eventually make us less dependent on other besides earning us $$$.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 30 Jul 2010 17:33

nrshah wrote:
vina wrote: But all in all , I think this 155mm gun by DRDO is a terrible idea. DRDO should learn from the Arjun experience and cut all links with the army. Why work with the Army, when you can work with the Navy and the Airforce who have a far less "attitude" problem and are more receptive to your products and can make rational decisions and have the organizational skills and motivation to co develop products with you.
Saar, this emotional outburst of yours is really surprising... I understand the frustrations and all, but still we need to be guided objectively about it... This EGO between DRDO and IA has let us no nowhere and will not let us anywhere...

Even though there are issues with IA on Arjun and all, but didn't all have accepted Arjun better than T90... U cannot break the others ego without hitting him... and for that drdo needed to develop Arjun and now Guns...

Running away is very easy...A world class artillery system will be appropriate answer to IA ego and stand...

Good point Sir but you need to see from the article it was MoD which requested drdo to engage in 155mm gun project. And the request was not from the Army. It has all the hallmarks of trouble brewing later on. There is no guarantee that Army wont do Arjun on this project. Going by the T-90 saga, i believe which is a scandal pulled right before our eyes, why it is to be believed that Army wont prefer a foreign entity. But saying that there are certain markers on which we can build our hope.
1. Current leadership of Army ( as Chackojoseph used to say)
2. Precarious(?) position on the artillery front.
3. Knocking on the NE & N doors by the Chinese.
4. Unstabilizing condition on the Western front. And talk of two front war
5. Pressure from PM to complete the Artillery acquisition to Army.
6. DRDO familiarization with procedures and enough tech development related to this field. We can produce more exotic materials right now than a decade before.

Anyone remember the jab from Hu Jintao on our Artillery acquisiton. I think it is still in the minds of MoD mandrins.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 30 Jul 2010 17:36

Singha wrote: tracked gun is a much more complex project and needs serious Army support to base on Arjun chassis - someone like denel or rheinmetall could have helped a lot with the automatic charge selection and round feeding systems. perhaps Soko can be roped in as they have a similar SP weapon and are unbanned - so far !
.

Arjun-2 will have auto-loader. Might be of Israeli origin or Indian. How difficult is it to modify them for the tracked SP.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 30 Jul 2010 20:29

I got this interesting interview

I am sure most of you read it.

General K Sundarji

"I had nothing to do with the deal. I tried my best to scrap the deal when bribery charges came up. But politicians never listen to armymen," says Sundarji.

In 1982, talks were going on with the French government for 300-odd pieces of Sofma self-propelled guns. I then suggested the French gun because the army decided that the performance and trials held in India could be the basis of selection. And the Sofma fitted into the category.

I have never said that any of these three guns were not up to the standard. But when I took over as army chief in 1995, outgoing General A S Vaidya told me that the government was uncomfortable with the French Sofma. He had already dropped the British tri-nation gun 155mm gun from the list. But this was not the reason which forced me to recommend the Bofors gun.

There were a number of other vital factors which stood in favour of the Bofors. Like the army's preference, the cost of systems, the transfer of techonology, reliability etc. More over, it was found that the Bofors gun had the 'shoot and scoot' capability which Sofma lacked. Thus taking into considerations all these factors, the army top brass suggested that Bofors could be cheapest best buy for the government.

I knew that a section of the army pitched for eliminating capable weapons on behalf of the French Sofma gun. I do not know the reason behind this. Probably since there are several equally good guns, preferences might also be different.

This is un related to above.

The DRDO spokesperson in New Delhi, Ravi Gupta, confirmed to the Business Standard, “The DRDO is very keen to develop 155-mm guns for the army. We had formed a team to work on this more than a decade ago, but the army did not give us a firm requirement then. Now, the army has expressed interest in the 155-mm gun project and preliminary work has already begun.”

In 1986 bofors gun was purchased.

Assuming all the guns arrived by 1990.

So 10 years of service in IA.

DRDO formed a team in 2000 (approx).

Its 2010. We are in a mess. DRDO did the correct thing then.

Telang · Post by **Telang** » 30 Jul 2010 22:32

Very difficult to make a penny through corruption in the armed forces till one reaches the rank where one's opinion becomes a deciding factor in choosing a "phoreen" equipment. At this juncture of a senior soldier's career, he is joined by Politicians, Babus, middlemen, paid journos, some beautiful women, Ambassodors and spies, and has a lifetime's chance to make amounts that are in mind boggling figures. All this will happen with in a period of three years, and he is safely retired, and accommodated in some delightful post retirement rehabilitation as some high commissioner some where far away from the Indian climate, dust and din. Very attractive prospet to ignore or miss, indeed.

How can the DRDO or any private enterpreuner ever hope to develop anything in the country with no demand and encouragement by the end user or the Government ? Importing was probably the main source of funding the party's and their leaders' coffers, to take care of both their requirements for a century. Bofors, despite being a capable gun, is a stark example of this syndrome. I wonder how Sonia and Rahul are able to make their both ends meet just on the royalty of "Discovery of India"?

As for as the Artillery is concerned, I wonder how the 75/24 Mountain Gunhowitzer ever came to be developed and produced in India. Bofors syndrome and AIDs were non-existent then.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Jul 2010 22:48

75/24 was developed on fast track to equip the mountain divisions. I think its based on the 3.7" pak gun-howitzer for WWII vintage.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 30 Jul 2010 23:25

hmm maybe getting old - I thought the 75 mm was of Italian origin

Telang · Post by **Telang** » 31 Jul 2010 04:10

ramana wrote:75/24 was developed on fast track to equip the mountain divisions. I think its based on the 3.7" pak gun-howitzer for WWII vintage.

Let us give credit where it is due. 75/24 Indian Mountain Gun could be stripped (even the barrel could be split into two halves) and carried as mule pack in the same way as the 3.7 Howitzer ( but mostly it was used as towed version), and most components of Artillery guns are similar on many guns, and that is where the comparison between the 3.7 Howitzer and the purely Indian bred 75/24 ends. 75/24 has a successor in 105 mm Indian Field Gun. Why we stopped there? I dont have to repeat the answer.

Very rarely we hear any eulogy of Indian capabilities in the manufacture of defence equipment. I was surprised to read this, especially because it is from the FAS:

" The reliability and performance of indigenously developed illuminating ammunition is superior to the international standard."

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/ifg.htm

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Jul 2010 07:01

EDITED.

vic · Post by **vic** » 31 Jul 2010 12:44

Edited to expand the post:-

If we make barrels for Arjun, T-72, T-90, 155mm Met, T-55 upgrade, Vijyanta, 105mm then there should not be much difficulty with 155mm barrels. Therefore I say multiple teams should be formed which are co-ordinated/helped by DRDO. DRDO should also involve ISRO for their expertise in metallurgy. My plan:-

Non automated 155 mm Gun in conventional metal like Steel - DRDO + Mahindra + Bharat Forge Preferred foreign consultant should be BAE or Nexter. Time frame of first prototype – 1 year. Subsequently Titanium and Aluminum can be used to reduce weight over 5 years.

Towed Automated 155mm Gun - DRDO + L&T + TATA + Kirloskars + Walchand. Reverse Engineer from Bofors drawing without trying to over refine. Preferred foreign consultant should be BAE or Nexter. Time frame of first prototype – 2 year. In future 56 caliber barrel can be developed over next 5 years

Mounted or Motorised 155mm Gun - DRDO + BMEL + L&T + TATA + Kirloskars + Walchand. Preferred foreign consultant should be BAE or Nexter. Time frame of first prototype – 3 year. First few guns can be mounted in unprotected chassis like Caeser but subsequently Archer type model can be developed in next 5 years

Tracked 155mm Gun - DRDO + OFB Avadi+ BMEL + L&T + TATA + Kirloskars + Walchand. Preferred foreign consultant should be BAE or Nexter. Time frame of first prototype – 4 year. First few guns can be mounted on unprotected chassis but subsequently Pz 2000 type model can be developed in next 5 years

Naval 155mm Gun - DRDO + BHEL + L&T + TATA + Kirloskars + Walchand. Preferred foreign consultant should be BAE or Nexter or Oto Melara. Time frame of first prototype – 5 year.

Better Shells, propellants, fuzes, Smart shells, PGM fuses etc should be developed in JV with BAE

Note – Most of the technology can be sourced from BAE and to make it worthwhile for them, the order for M777 should be doubled to 300 guns. To prevent blackmail prices one should negotiations open with Nexter, France; Samsung, SK;

Not to forget that the R& D effort will help us building a technology base for round development is small, medium arms also like Mortars, Air defense Gun etc

derkonig · Post by **derkonig** » 01 Aug 2010 16:16

EDITED.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 02 Aug 2010 17:40

Are the 105 mm guns still in production?

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 02 Aug 2010 18:30

Kanson wrote: Anyone remember the jab from Hu Jintao on our Artillery acquisiton. I think it is still in the minds of MoD mandrins.

I've forgotten it... care to refresh memory Kansonji??

TIA

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 03 Aug 2010 19:32

Prasad ji,

During his visit, he proposed to provide Artillery Guns that India was looking for. Indians immediately shot it down.

Why would someone willing to provide Guns that will be used against them? This one off deal and the way it was proposed made people to believe that it was not meant the way it should be.

Avik · Post by **Avik** » 03 Aug 2010 21:27

During his visit, he proposed to provide Artillery Guns that India was looking for.

Kanson: Could you please point towards a media source/news link about this? Just want to understand the background here..

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 03 Aug 2010 21:42

Hi Avik, it was during Hu Jintao visit. Let me check for news link.

ManuT · Post by **ManuT** » 04 Aug 2010 01:41

I have a question about this 155 mm gun for which the process has been started all over again.

From what little I understand, for a piece of hardware to be imported, DRDO has to give like a NOC that they cannot produce it (or produce it in the necessary time frame). The is attached by the vendor making the bid.

How will it play out when DRDO itself is in the running.

Will it issue NOC to other vendors, in this case. Or will not issue NOCs to anyone making it 1 vendor bid, rendering the process 'single vendor' which in turn would violate MoD guidelines?

Or it doesn't work the way I am suggesting.

VijayKumarSinha · Post by **VijayKumarSinha** » 07 Aug 2010 01:39

I found this article a little worrisome:

http://defensetech.org/2010/08/06/marin ... e-support/

Marines are the system operators, but when they run into difficulty their primary course of action is calling a contractor. Troublesome in training, this lack of independence can be lethal in combat

India is also interested in M-777.
So, is this the kind of problem we will be facing if we purchased it?
The average jawan doesn't have the kind of computer proficiency required to troubleshoot a computer system.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 11 Aug 2010 16:18

Kanson wrote:Hi Avik, it was during Hu Jintao visit. Let me check for news link.

I couldnt get any link on the subject. But i can add few more details. Pranab was the minister who rejected the proposal from the Hu. Rejection happened during the visit itself or close. I mean it didnt happened after 6 months from the proposal.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Aug 2010 17:19

VijayKumarSinha wrote:I found this article a little worrisome:

http://defensetech.org/2010/08/06/marin ... e-support/

Marines are the system operators, but when they run into difficulty their primary course of action is calling a contractor. Troublesome in training, this lack of independence can be lethal in combat
India is also interested in M-777.
So, is this the kind of problem we will be facing if we purchased it?
The average jawan doesn't have the kind of computer proficiency required to troubleshoot a computer system.

The link to the article does not work any longer, so I don't know the exact problem.

Having said that, induction of newer weapon systems in the Defence Services will bring the challenge of mastering the technology. This is most critical for the IA - as the humble Jawan still comes predominantly from rural background. And this is not related to any one system and least of all M777 - it is still manpower intensive (by design) as far as newer Guns go. just look at the automation levels in Archer or other related howitzers. Bofors itself was a quantum jump for Arty back then - with its computers able to prepare fire plans in minutes what otherwise took hours.

So, we need to brace up for this change. Every thing from newer ATGM to AD Missiles to MBT are tech. intensive. And going by the qualification of new enteries at jawan and NCO level, the need is already being met - though to change the whole paradigm, we need time.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 11 Aug 2010 17:50

Jawans have changed too - some of them are quite savvy.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 17 Aug 2010 20:27

Army suffers as govt delays big gun buy.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Aug 2010 15:16

If one looks at many of the MOD's decisions in the past,several have been "knee-jerk" reactions.Buying the MIG-23 to combat the F-16,T-90 to counter Pak's sudden T-80UD acquisitions,etc.This has been due to a singular lack of strategic planning and timely decision-making.I don't go for the "Bofors" ghost being the reason for the scandalous delay in acquiring artillery for the IA.Just look at some of the recent ad-hoc decisions without even contests or examination of alternatives.Barak SAMs acquired without any contest after Trishul failed.Now Barak NG is being developed/acquired even though there are several western and Russian alternatives like Aster,etc.The C-17s are being acquired without any alternative being considered.The P-8 MPA was also acquired even though it (the 737) has never flown in a military/such a role before.Now the Javelin ATGM is suddenly being acquired through FMS-no contest (while we've been touting the success of our indigenous Nag for quite some time). which "skews" the deal in favour of the manufacturer,said the CNS,and the US is reportedly trying to hardsell Patriot to us too despite the advances and development of our indigenous ABM system.

If anything neded to be acquired the day-before-yesterday,it is the artillery which could've been done so much earlier.We have supposedly as an interim solution been modernising Russian 130mm guns to 155 mm with Soltam.Logic would indicate that the BAe/Bofors upgraded artillery would fit the bill.More of the same of type/make which we are used to and served us very well at Kargil.The IA's lack of loud enough protest is also a dismal show of its attitude.At least the current COAS could've roped in several past service chiefs to give a protest press conference castigating the GOI's indecision on this and other issues.The current dispensation of Delhi cannot blame this on others as they've been in power for 7 continuous years now.Unless those at the top in uniform protest vigorously,the nation will ultimately have to suffer.Past time for AKA to lift his lungi waist high and zimply get down to taking quick decisions.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 18 Aug 2010 15:42

nag remains man un portable...

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 18 Aug 2010 17:37

.Now Barak NG is being developed/acquired even though there are several western and Russian alternatives like Aster,etc.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 23 Aug 2010 05:27

'An Indian gun will bypass difficult trials'

Business Standard has reported (July 29, “155 mm gun purchase: DRDO enters the fray”) that DRDO is joining hands with a private sector company to develop and manufacture an Indian gun. Now, DRDO Director General V K Saraswat has explained the rationale for the DRDO decision. He says that, amongst the foreign guns on offer, there is no clear winner. And given the cutthroat nature of competition for this Rs 8,000-crore contract for 1,580 guns, a drumbeat of corruption allegations will keep derailing any decision.

Saraswat told Business Standard, “The differences (between competing guns) are minuscule and people would like to exploit those minuscule differences… and (the defence ministry’s) life becomes more difficult. The (acquisition) process is today back to zero. This is not the first time it has come to zero; this has happened before… So, it is better to develop your own system.”