Artillery Discussion Thread

[merlin]

Sanctions:
We have operated the Bofors for decades now without spares

So we have indeed, but at the cost of cannibalizing some of the guns for spare parts. Only when the sanctions were lifted were all the non damaged-beyond-economic-recovery ones brought upto specs with new spare parts bought.

[Nihat]

Sanctions:
We have operated the Bofors for decades now without spares

So we have indeed, but at the cost of cannibalizing some of the guns for spare parts. Only when the sanctions were lifted were all the non damaged-beyond-economic-recovery ones brought upto specs with new spare parts bought.

maybe we should trust the Indian army to stock up on spares apart from keeping a special "war reserve" which should comprise of somewhere in the range of 2 months spares.

Military sanctions on India are a really long shot in today's world and become less and less likely with every passing day.

[Lalmohan]

FMS approval from State dept., is required for any sales of US eqpt.
if you approach BAe, they cannot proceed without FMS approval
therefore if you get State to say yes, then only can anything else proceed
all that has happenend is that GOI and GoUS have agreed to expedite the FMS part

[Avid]

In May 2010, it was reported that BAe refused to offer M777, but IA actually sought it out through FMS route -- where the request was made to the Pentagon instead of BAe. Our purchase would be through Pentagon and not direct from BAe.

So BAe refused and the Pentagon accepted?? This makes absolutely no sense.

The US Govt. is no less bureaucratic than the GoI. There are two routes of purchase --

1. Direct from Vendor. Purchaser sends RFI to vendor, and then the process follows all the usual hoops. Before final contract and delivery Pentagon and State Dept. both have to clear the sale.

2. Foreign Military Sale. The purchaser (approved by DoD) approaches the Pentagon with the RFI. The purchase agreement is with Pentagon and not with Vendor. The purchase price, etc. here is set to what Pentagon is paying for the system + overheads (procurement + support + training). In this case as far as Vendor is concerned -- the purchaser is Pentagon and not the country doing the purchasing. Simply put the vendor gets this: Bill To Pentagon, Deliver To India. Payment occurs Government to Government.

BAe refused to field the M777. Currently, it is not BAe is providing the gun, but Pentagon and so will the eventual sale. I would like to see BAe turn down Pentagon request because they do not want their FH77B to face competition

[abhik]

^^^The weight matters a lot. Please look up the under slung weight carrying capacity of the Mi-17 and compare the weights of the guns. And how that effects any plans for vertical movement using the helicopters.

Which version of the Mi-17(or any other medium helicopter) can carry 3+ tons at altitude(say at 10,000 ft) ?

[Pratyush]

Nihat,

When you are looking a FMS purchase then the spares will also be comming from the US stocks and not the OEM directly. Which means that the spares cannot be accumulated by the IA for 2 months usage etc. The IA will for FMS purchases face the same problems the RATS faced in 65. And the IA faced with the post 62 buildup. Which was one of the major reasons for buying Soviet.

Unless it is fighting a was approved by the US.

It will be difficult for the US to approve a war on TSP in the near future.

The question I have is why soem enterprising general doesnot suggest to the Singapurean govt to offer FMS type deal to the Indian Army.

JMT

[Avid]

FMS approval from State dept., is required for any sales of US eqpt.
if you approach BAe, they cannot proceed without FMS approval
therefore if you get State to say yes, then only can anything else proceed
all that has happenend is that GOI and GoUS have agreed to expedite the FMS part

State department approval is entirely different story.

There is a big difference in what Foreign Military Sales program entails. The difference is in who has contractual obligations, what negotiation is possible, and who is responsible.

Under FMS program there is no price negotiation with Vendor. The purchased equipment configuration is [Base Pentagon Configuration in Use] +/- [Options available to pentagon]. There is a pre-existing price schedule. For example: if GoI purchased M777 in configuration identical to USMC, the cost will be identical to what is paid by USMC + [price schedule for handling the procurement + support + training]. "What we pay is what you pay" is the mantra of the FMS program. GoI purchases executed with rapid and uncanny efficiency are all under FMS because of this pricing structure and complete absence of middlemen.

Also, items purchased under FMS program are being fulfilled by Pentagon. This opens the possibility of Pentagon giving the buyer items from its own inventory as a stop-gap measure. All the discussion about C-17 lease, etc. That can only be had through FMS program, not direct Vendor negotiation.

For example: MRCA competition is not through the FMS program and thus the very heavy presence of the vendors, the pricing negotiations, etc.

[Avid]

Avid ji, I don't think the specs. you posted are completely accurate. But any way it doesn't matter if the gun we chose weighs 3.x or 5.x tons, it will need a heavy lift helicopter to field which could carry either with ease. And if you are transporting by road wont a full sized towed artillery be able to go any where the light artillery can go? On any day light weight artillery will get out gunned by the full sized 52cal artillery. So unless significant numbers of full-sized artillery pieces are acquired I feel we will still be at a significant disadvantage and the current situation will not be completely mitigated not withstanding the acquisition of ultra-light-weight howitzers. Of course some guns is better than next to no guns.

If you point out which specs are inaccurate, I would be more than happy to correct them.

Couple of different things:

a) full-sized towed artillery transport by road: It is not towed long distances (you will not see a towed piece of artillery being towed down NH1, just because it is a towed artillery gun.

b) you ought to do some reading and homework on M777 to understand it is not "light weight" as in less able - it is light weight because of its extensive use of titanium alloys. Just because STK Pegasus is heavier, it does not mean it can outgun an M777. Sorry bud, but it is not a Sumo competition. (FYI: STK SLWH Pegasus and M777 are both 39 caliber)

c) Feelings have nothing to do with reality on the ground.

[Lalmohan]

^^^ i stand corrected re FMS

[Avid]

^^^The weight matters a lot. Please look up the under slung weight carrying capacity of the Mi-17 and compare the weights of the guns. And how that effects any plans for vertical movement using the helicopters.

Which version of the Mi-17(or any other medium helicopter) can carry 3+ tons at altitude(sat 10,000 ft) ?

Again - please do some homework. At the very least look up wikipedia

Mil-17 can carry 5t externally slung (Mil-17-1V). I am unsure about at 10,000 ft, but am sure one of the gurus can pipe in and reveal that.

Here's my argument to you:
Mil-17 cannot carry STK Pegasus which ends up at 5.6t (yes the 0.6 over is a lot for Heli)
It can carry the M777.

In operational environment, that translates to possible to have a gun in a strategic location vs. not being able to.

As to your "towed" argument. You can only tow where there is a road or near road, you can bring in a gun by Heli where there is no road nearby.

In case of an M777, the heli can bring in the gun along with the crew and initial ammo in the first drop. In case of STK, even if you managed to sling it and take off, you need a separate heli to carry the crew and ammo.

[Singha]

iirc in kargil timeframe we had around 200 or 400 fh77 guns operational due to cannibalization. domestic cos had made some spares but unable to make some others. later on we hooked up with Bae and got the spares to bring all of them back online.

have to say if the m777 can be carried underslung Ch47/Mi17 in 15,000ft type ladakh / sikkim regions it will herald a revolution in our firepower for mountain units - up from the paltry 'pack howitzers' and dated 105mm to somewhere in 39cal fh77 air portable range is a quantum leap. fh77 can only deploy via roads which is hard in arunachal pradesh or needs lot of work in mountains, which a heli lift will shorten the deploy time.

even a small troop of 10 cannons and suitable targetting data can turn the tide of crucial battles in mountains which tend to fierce but localized.

[jamwal]

India can easily service and maintain the artillery. The ammunition is anyway Indian made. There can be no kill switch since there are no sophisticated electronic controls.
These types of weapons pose no danger.
I am more worried about strategically important weapons like F-18 (if selected)

M777 does have some kind of electronic targeting system through which gun aligns itself towards the target for the best possible firing solution. It was on a Future Weapons episode.
You can search for it on net or I can upload the episode if somebody needs it

[Avid]

have to say if the m777 can be carried underslung Ch47/Mi17 in 15,000ft type ladakh / sikkim regions it will herald a revolution in our firepower for mountain units - up from the paltry 'pack howitzers' and dated 105mm to somewhere in 39cal fh77 air portable range is a quantum leap. fh77 can only deploy via roads which is hard in arunachal pradesh or needs lot of work in mountains, which a heli lift will shorten the deploy time.

even a small troop of 10 cannons and suitable targetting data can turn the tide of crucial battles in mountains which tend to fierce but localized.

Singha:
I am certain that it can be carried to 10,000k ft.+ by CH47, only because that is not an uncommon operating environment for the M777 in Afghanistan.

Also, the above linked reports say the M777 is being tested in Sikkim. I am unsure about the altitude, or whether it was lifted by Heli. It would make sense that IA would, but then it would still be speculation on my part.

(OT: It has been the success of the CH47 in Afghanistan which has gotten GoI seriously evaluating it. If it is so, it would fit the bigger picture of ramping up airlift capabilities significantly. To a degree such airlift capacity increase can allow for scarce resources to be better utilized and deployed/redeployed, and fill a gap in capabilities while we increase the numbers. )

[Avid]

India can easily service and maintain the artillery. The ammunition is anyway Indian made. There can be no kill switch since there are no sophisticated electronic controls.
These types of weapons pose no danger.
I am more worried about strategically important weapons like F-18 (if selected)

M777 does have some kind of electronic targeting system through which gun aligns itself towards the target for the best possible firing solution. It was on a Future Weapons episode.
You can search for it on net or I can upload the episode if somebody needs it

Wonder if it can integrate with the Artillery Combat & Control System (ACCS) / Shakti being operated by the IA.

[Pranav]

M777 does have some kind of electronic targeting system through which gun aligns itself towards the target for the best possible firing solution. It was on a Future Weapons episode.
You can search for it on net or I can upload the episode if somebody needs it

Wonder if it can integrate with the Artillery Combat & Control System (ACCS) / Shakti being operated by the IA.

Guided artillery (like Excalibur), with range extending rockets, will be a game-changer.

For a glimpse of the potential, see Coalition Forces Routing Taliban in Key Afghan Region - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/world ... ss&emc=rss (This is about precision rockets, but artillery will have much the same effect).

[Nihat]

Won't pinka be able to do the role of short to medium range precision targetting with its CEP?

[Lalmohan]

bit OT here, but remember the rocket pod on the HF24?
you could have a modern variant of that, say underslung from an An32 wing, which could be GPS and laser guided from the air, a sort of airborne Pinaka... could be lased by ground or airborne targeters

so you could get stand off, high alt, arty with a reasonable degree of precision in mountains (compared to other arty) - might work for area denial type applications - and not go down the mega expensive pgm route

[ramana]

Lalmohan What you are asking for is front end steering module to the rockets to provide better CEP. What can be done is to develop a interchangebale front end for those rockets with flip out fins. A smaller version of the one being developed for the Pinaka.

[Lalmohan]

sure, and i guess traditionally these type of weapons have been deemed to be too expensive. but a modularised/container based application, with the ability for airborne carriage... and launch... actually much cheaper than deploying a regiment of artillery in the mountains and supplying and moving them

[Avid]

Won't pinka be able to do the role of short to medium range precision targetting with its CEP?

MBRL is not a substitute for Howitzer. If Howitzer is a rifle, MBRL is a machine gun. One is for more precision strike, the other for wider area saturation. Alternately, if you prefer -- a precision guided munition vs. cluster bombs.

Besides if you consider the equipment weight, deployment conditions, the logistics with respect to the ammo, load times, fire times, target area, etc. You will find MBRL deployment somewhat limited and constrained, compared to the howitzer. You will also find Pinaka to be highly suitable for sanitizing an area as opposed to destroying a specific target.

[Willy]

Nihat,

When you are looking a FMS purchase then the spares will also be comming from the US stocks and not the OEM directly. Which means that the spares cannot be accumulated by the IA for 2 months usage etc. The IA will for FMS purchases face the same problems the RATS faced in 65. And the IA faced with the post 62 buildup. Which was one of the major reasons for buying Soviet.

Unless it is fighting a was approved by the US.

It will be difficult for the US to approve a war on TSP in the near future.

The question I have is why soem enterprising general doesnot suggest to the Singapurean govt to offer FMS type deal to the Indian Army.

JMT

With BAE being European cant the spares be routed through the European route? Specially if we give the British the order for the towed artillery

[abhik]

If you point out which specs are inaccurate, I would be more than happy to correct them.

I think the weight of the M777 has been variously reported(even in this forum) as to be up to 4+ tons(for different versions?), though granted it is at least 1+ ton lighter.

b) you ought to do some reading and homework on M777 to understand it is not "light weight" as in less able - it is light weight because of its extensive use of titanium alloys. Just because STK Pegasus is heavier, it does not mean it can outgun an M777. Sorry bud, but it is not a Sumo competition. (FYI: STK SLWH Pegasus and M777 are both 39 caliber)
c) Feelings have nothing to do with reality on the ground.

I dint say Pegasus is better than M777 because it is heaver, I was talking about our light weight guns either the M777 or Pegasus (transported by air or even road) facing off against chinese 52cal guns (easily transported by road right up to the border because their roads are so "super duper" ).

[abhik]

Again - please do some homework. At the very least look up wikipedia

Mil-17 can carry 5t externally slung (Mil-17-1V). I am unsure about at 10,000 ft, but am sure one of the gurus can pipe in and reveal that.

Here's my argument to you:
Mil-17 cannot carry STK Pegasus which ends up at 5.6t (yes the 0.6 over is a lot for Heli)
It can carry the M777.

In operational environment, that translates to possible to have a gun in a strategic location vs. not being able to.

As to your "towed" argument. You can only tow where there is a road or near road, you can bring in a gun by Heli where there is no road nearby.

In case of an M777, the heli can bring in the gun along with the crew and initial ammo in the first drop. In case of STK, even if you managed to sling it and take off, you need a separate heli to carry the crew and ammo.

Again the pertinent question is can the Mi-17 carry 3+ tons at altitude(take for example 10,000 ft, much of Ladakh I understand is at around or more than this level). As far as I know the payload of helicopters reduce dramatically with altitude,( may be we need aviation expert gurulog to give their opinion) and I am highly skeptical that the Mi-17 will come anywhere close to be able to carry an M777 at that altitude far from being able to carry ammunition too. So if it has to be carried by an heavy lifter (either a Chinook or a Mi-26, with ~12 and ~20 ton payload capacity (at sea level I assume)), this 1+ ton difference between the guns is hardly significant.

[Kanson]

I dint say Pegasus is better than M777 because it is heaver, I was talking about our light weight guns either the M777 or Pegasus (transported by air or even road) facing off against chinese 52cal guns (easily transported by road right up to the border because their roads are so "super duper" ).

Are we not using Bofors guns in Siachen ?

Idea of light weight guns like M777 is to impart more mobility in mountainous terrain & adaptability with the speed of war. Say, if you want to move you gun from Tiger Hill to Point 5353, as fast as possible, it is only possible if it is heli transportable. Roads are not everywhere even in Plains. Before China could move the guns in the windy road, if there is one, we could move the guns at more speed and to places which could not be reachable otherwise. It is not to say that bigger guns wont be used. But light guns like M777/Pegasus acts as good compliment to bigger guns.

[Pranav]

MBRL is not a substitute for Howitzer. If Howitzer is a rifle, MBRL is a machine gun. One is for more precision strike, the other for wider area saturation. Alternately, if you prefer -- a precision guided munition vs. cluster bombs.

US HIMARS system being used in AfPak is a precision guided rocket - so it can be used for area saturation as well as pin-point strikes. Generally it seems to be used as a precision weapon.

Also:

Excalibur Use Rises In Afghanistan
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/10/27/excal ... ghanistan/




By Colin Clark Wednesday, October 27th, 2010 6:21 pm

Since the GPS-guided Excalibur artillery round first made it to Iraq and Afghanistan, roughly 200 rounds have been fired. In the last week or so, use of that round has pulsed. Army artillerymen have fired 20 rounds or 10 percent of the total in Afghanistan, according to James Riley, Raytheon Missile System’s vice president for land systems. We don’t have similar numbers for the Marines, who have been using the shell as well.

Excalibur has been at the center of debate in the Army as the service grapples with the tradeoffs of cost, capability and logistics. Army Vice Chief of Staff Chiarelli has singled out Excalibur as an example of a weapon that would be nice to have lots of if only it didn’t cost so much compared to alternatives such as PGK (Precision Guidance Kit), a GPS setup that can be put on a $600 shell.

There are significant differences in accuracy between Excalibur and the PGK. Excalibur’s circular error of probability (CEP) is 2.86 meters at 40 kilometers, Riley said. PGK’s CEP requirement is better than 50 meters at that range, according to a briefing on the system. Excalibur’s greater accuracy has several effects beyond the obvious one of destroying the target with greater certainty. It allows artillerymen to operate a much lighter logistics tail. More accurate shells means far fewer shells are needed and fewer artillery pieces. Given the enormous costs of moving materiel to Afghanistan Excalibur could have a significant cost effect on the Army and Marine’s resupply efforts.

The services have changed the tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) governing Excalibur use. When it was first deployed, artillerymen were required to use two rounds for each target, Riley said. That has been changed to one shell, clear testament to the system’s accuracy.

The Army apparently plans to cut the number of Excalibur shells it buys from 30,000 to 6,264. That, of course, will drive up the politically sensitive unit cost. The unit cost ranges roughly from $47,000 to $99,000 per shell, depending on how many are bought. A Raytheon program official said the Army could save 30 percent of the unit cost if it buys the shells at full production rates of roughly 1,500 per year.

What does the enemy think of the weapon? As our own Christian Lowe reported from Afghanistan this summer, the Excalibur is fondly known by the Taliban as the Finger of Death.

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

The shells are still quite expensive ... if manufactured by DRDO it should be possible to drive down the cost.

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>

I dint say Pegasus is better than M777 because it is heaver, I was talking about our light weight guns either the M777 or Pegasus (transported by air or even road) facing off against chinese 52cal guns (easily transported by road right up to the border because their roads are so "super duper" ).

The most widespread caliber in use with PLA is 122mm for their towed artillery. The 155/52 Cal has started entering service as of 2007 and that too in SP Arty role....we're still some time away from seeing 155mm caliber becoming standard in PLA-forget about 52Cal.

[abhik]

Are we not using Bofors guns in Siachen ?

Idea of light weight guns like M777 is to impart more mobility in mountainous terrain & adaptability with the speed of war. Say, if you want to move you gun from Tiger Hill to Point 5353, as fast as possible, it is only possible if it is heli transportable. Roads are not everywhere even in Plains. Before China could move the guns in the windy road, if there is one, we could move the guns at more speed and to places which could not be reachable otherwise. It is not to say that bigger guns wont be used. But light guns like M777/Pegasus acts as good compliment to bigger guns.

I was complaining about the lack of full sized guns (and any concrete moves to acquire them),and how the light guns cant do the job the by themselves alone.
Also for a reasonable no.of guns to be deployed and moved around by air would require a significant no. of helicopters, we plan to only ~20 (initially at least) heavy lift helicopters, but this no. probably have to increase to 3-digit levels for the kind of maneuvers to become a norm rather than an exception.

[vic]

Not to forget M777 can be broken down adn reassembled more easily and faster than a fully automatic conventional towed 155/52. M777 is reported to be between 3750kg to 4500kg depending on website. But i dont think individual components would be more that 2 tons say for the barrel.

Also I think that we need a lighter version of Pinaka which can be mounted on 4x4 i.e. to say Single pod, 6 rocket load Pinaka mounted on 4x4 truck compared to present 2 pod, 6x2=12 Rocket load Pinaka mounted on 8x8 tatra. In fact, i will go ahead to say that we need evena Single Rocket rocket load Pinaka mounted on a Jeep (type vehicle) which can be airdropped by ALH. Though it will be better if DRDO makes a shorter/stubbier Pinaka to be fired from a Jeep having single rocket load launcher.

[Luit]

Buy first. Test later. I like this new mantra for procuring US made weapons.

Now that i am really thinking, what is the need for the arty tender tamasha? Buy first. Test later.

[Kanson]

Are we not using Bofors guns in Siachen ?

Idea of light weight guns like M777 is to impart more mobility in mountainous terrain & adaptability with the speed of war. Say, if you want to move you gun from Tiger Hill to Point 5353, as fast as possible, it is only possible if it is heli transportable. Roads are not everywhere even in Plains. Before China could move the guns in the windy road, if there is one, we could move the guns at more speed and to places which could not be reachable otherwise. It is not to say that bigger guns wont be used. But light guns like M777/Pegasus acts as good compliment to bigger guns.

I was complaining about the lack of full sized guns (and any concrete moves to acquire them),and how the light guns cant do the job the by themselves alone.
Also for a reasonable no.of guns to be deployed and moved around by air would require a significant no. of helicopters, we plan to only ~20 (initially at least) heavy lift helicopters, but this no. probably have to increase to 3-digit levels for the kind of maneuvers to become a norm rather than an exception.

what you are talking is about operational issues like how many helis needed to transport so many guns to so many locations in the speculated time limit. What we have done by purchasing guns like M777 is addition of capabilities. The guns meant for mountain formation is formulated as a offensive arm. So the guns should be mobile enough to support the offensive. It adds capabilities which was not possible by bigger guns. Both imparts two different capabilities. It is better that we are not substituting one for the another.

I guess, M777 is para drop capable.

[nachiket]

Buy first. Test later. I like this new mantra for procuring US made weapons.

Now that i am really thinking, what is the need for the arty tender tamasha? Buy first. Test later.

We haven't bought the M777 yet. But it is being tested by the IA. What does that tell you?

[ramana]

Two questions:

1) What is the cost of the Krasnopol shell for India?

2) Can India get the GPS fuze for its shells. Makes excellent area weapon in the plains-- 50m at 40 km is great for that role.

[ramana]

James Dunnigan writes:
Krasnopol cost $40K per shell to India

LINK

Claims the Excalibur developer learned lessons from the Krasnopol!

[ramana]

Lalmohan What you are asking for is front end steering module to the rockets to provide better CEP. What can be done is to develop a interchangebale front end for those rockets with flip out fins. A smaller version of the one being developed for the Pinaka.

The US PGK guidance fuze would fit the bill!

LINK

....
The third generation smart shell is also in development. This is the Projectile Guidance Kit (PGK), which is actually a large fuze, that screws into the front of a 155mm or 105mm shell. This longer “fuze” contains a GPS and small fins to guide the shell to a precision hit equal to an Excalibur shell. The army doesn’t expect to be passing these out to the troops for another five years. But if development goes smoothly, and Excalibur proves useful and popular, then the PGK might show up earlier. The PGK will cost less than half what each Excalibur does and, more importantly, can turn any shell into a smart shell. This is important for artillerymen, who don’t like to carry around a lot of special shells, “just in case.” Artillery units already carry several different types of fuzes for their shells, so one more is not seen as a burden.

So if the same fuze fits a 155mm or a 105mm(4.1") shell then it can be made to fit a rocket.

it can also be upgraded with laser sensor instead of the GPS sensor.

To me it looks like a long cylinder/cone that screws into the shell in place of the normal fuze. The cylinder/cone is hollow and has pop out fins for ahdead steering controls driven by the GPS chip. Another version can use the laser sensor to do the same job with a pop out cap to protect the optics.

-----

PGK

[Pratyush]

Ramana,

Reading back in the early 00's the cost for the Karsnopol was quoted to be in the region of 10 K US$. This IIRC was KBP tula website it self.

That was published in refrence to the Indian news reports regarding the in accuracies of the round. At high altitude. The answer from the KBP was that the errors were a result of Faulty fire tables and incidents of the improper ignition of the propalent.

[Luit]

Buy first. Test later. I like this new mantra for procuring US made weapons.

Now that i am really thinking, what is the need for the arty tender tamasha? Buy first. Test later.

We haven't bought the M777 yet. But it is being tested by the IA. What does that tell you?

Heh, heh! It tells me that I am wrong.

On a lighter note, I must tell you that I am virulently anti-american and it pains me to see the Referee (MoD) give an unnecessary yellow card to the Singaporeans and a free penalty kick to the Americans.

[ramana]

Ramana,

Reading back in the early 00's the cost for the Karsnopol was quoted to be in the region of 10 K US$. This IIRC was KBP tula website it self.

That was published in refrence to the Indian news reports regarding the in accuracies of the round. At high altitude. The answer from the KBP was that the errors were a result of Faulty fire tables and incidents of the improper ignition of the propalent.

Yes. I believe the more fundamental problem is the length of the round. At high altitudes it develops more lift. The answer is make it shorter (reduce L/D) or slow it down (put less charge).

A corroboration of this is the fact that the K-M is shorter than the original round.

The challenges are because the IA is testing the round at its extreme ranges in high altitude areas.


PS: In WWII , the Germans found that their firing tables were off when used in the Alpine regions due to hypersonic lift developed by the projectile. It used to overshoot and go sideways. In the K-M case it reduces the error correction energy and taxes the battery.

Get the DRDO sensor group involved and put telemetry and see whats going on.

[ramana]

Tribune's Op-Ed:

Elusive Guns

...
Almost every gun manufacturer globally, capable of manufacturing such sophisticated guns has been black listed by us on some or the other grounds. However, none of the cases has been taken to its logical conclusion. The fact of whom did they collude with and who were the officials who received the favours, has been the sole secret that seems to have been preserved, in a country where leaks do not pile up to the volumes of Wikileaks. They flow regularly as breaking news.

Notwithstanding the setbacks that it has experienced, the artillery has had some substantial accretions in the past few years. The upgradation of fairly large numbers of 130mm guns to 155mm caliber has been undertaken satisfactorily. Our rocket artillery was limited to 122 mm Grad 40 barrel launchers for ages. The indigenous Pinaca and the Russian Smerch rocket systems have extended our reach to 40 and 90km, respectively. Both systems are capable of devastating firepower.

We have also inducted the unarmed aerial vehicles of Israeli origin that serve the purposes of intelligence gathering, direction of own artillery fire as also damage assessment. The induction of better weapon locating radars has definitely given us an edge in locating enemy artillery. These systems are also capable of directing accurate fire of our guns to neutralise hostile guns. The artillery command and control systems and battlefield surveillance systems are also maturing, paving the way for greater synchronisation of artillery assets as also speedier and informed decision making.

Induction of the Prithvi ballistic missile systems has been a shot in the arm in as far as long range engagement is concerned. The BrahMos will be a huge leap, once inducted. Being a cruise missile undertaking most of the flight path at very low altitudes, almost hugging the ground, these are difficult to detect by even the most technologically advanced armies. As such, their chances of surviving enemy countermeasures are definitely far superior. Our capability of long range target detection through the unarmed aerial vehicles has also enhanced considerably with the protracted endurance of these systems while in flight. Combined with bonuses that accrue from the maturing of the battlefield surveillance systems and artillery command, control and communication capabilities, fuller utilisation of artillery assets is definitely possible.

However, the basic workhorse of the artillery remains a good gun and we have been most inept on that score. The Bofors scam continues to haunt both the political leadership and bureaucracy. The problem is compounded by our unwillingness to probe scams and punish those who continue to trade on the sides.

In the final count it can be said that we have the requisite numbers when it comes to guns. Numbers by themselves, however, do not mean capability. Accepting any DRDO proposals at this stage for an indigenous 155 mm gun system will lead to greater delay and consequent gaping holes in defences. If required, the foreign military sales route needs can be adopted, even if we have to pay a premium, and thus ensure systemic corruption does not enfeeble our defence forces. The private sector needs to be brought into the core of the process and build its strengths for indigenisation, hereafter.

[Pratyush]

One question to the experts.

Why are mortars listed seperately from artilery. Also are they considered seperate from artilery.

[rohitvats]

^^^81mm Mortars are integral to Infantry Battalions while 120mm are with Light Regiments of Artillery.