Artillery Discussion Thread

vina · Post by **vina** » 14 Feb 2011 09:15

Of the 3 services , the Army seems to be the one most affected by shady agents, hatchet men, Natashas and is riddled full of motivated insiders and ex servicemen on the lookout for cuts and commissions in every deal.

This needs to be addressed head on and the heads of those snakes need to be cut ASAP.

The ugly sabotage incidents during the Arjun trial were not bad enough in itself, but this has gone beyond all limits.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 14 Feb 2011 09:18

since there are no possibility of kickbacks asit is a g2g deal these things about inferior performance are being thrown up. Overall, hope army brass wakes up and promotes non-shiny brochure indigenous projects which though inferior on brochure are as effective if not better in the field and yes pakis wont get our staff unlike american stuff that they get to fight the bunnies

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 14 Feb 2011 09:21

suryag wrote:^^^ DRDO better get its gun working quickly, they are the only one who cannot pay and who will slog with no end in sight to meet all the staff requirements

were they even provided to drdo to start??

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Feb 2011 10:11

Sid wrote:^^ But there is no Swedish bofors now? Its owned by unkil.

Actually its owned by BAE Systems which is primarily a British company even though its biggest market is the US.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Feb 2011 11:08

in the indian system the GOI cannot really ban ex servicemen from joining pvt cos to earn a living even if its as a lobbyist and introducer. (we have seen ex jawans earn some salary operating the stuff being brought into india for trials like artillery guns).
in any of the 'western' countries also and israel, the arms cos and lobbying / exim firms are full of retired servicemen.

but we need to tackle the corruption, security breaches and ill deeds.

p.s. I did meet a ex-general once who was earning "few lakhs/month" working in some unnamed co as their india rep after retirement. I didnt ask what exactly his day to day job was out of deference and since he was the host at the party ..and I had my eye not to miss any of the free grub and drinks.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 14 Feb 2011 11:56

out of all three services, only IA is not signing any shiny new deals. Its been a while since they got any phoren maal.

I can see DRDO's hand in it

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Feb 2011 13:27

pandyan wrote:The question is does GOI have the backbone/will to find the culprits and crush them?

They personally threatened an Army Chief. No amount connections will allow them to wriggle out of this one. Not that anyone with real influence would ever resort to something this crude. The only real impediment to prosecution if they're caught, is the gridlocked judicial system and the endless system of appeals.

sum · Post by **sum** » 14 Feb 2011 21:24

^^ CNN-IBN showing parts of the leaked M-777 reports which claim that the M-777 FAILED the transportability and direct firing mode tests pretty badly.

The only new 155 mm peices after 1986 are also slowly to be going out the IA's hand ( First the mail threating the IA chief and then the IA report showing the failure of the M777 itself leaked).

The only hope here is that since this is a GoTUS deal, the deal will be pushed through no matter what if foggybottom makes up its mind and activates the number of lobbies it has sitting in GoI/MoD.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 14 Feb 2011 21:42

^^^ where are shree rajat pandits with their "in development for 13 years but cant fire in direct mode" and then an anonymous informant. or is that only reserved for stuff from DRDO

sum · Post by **sum** » 14 Feb 2011 21:48

More juice in this report (Army seeks relaxation to procure 'failed' gun)

ew Delhi: More than 20 years after Bofors, which gave India an edge during Kargil war, the Indian Army continues to struggle to modernise its artillery.
After four failed attempts in the last five years, it looks as if Bofors could be a jinx once again.
BAE Systems, the company that now owns Bofors, makes the ultra light Howitzer M777, which is likely to be procured through a Foreign Military Sales route.

But it turned out that the gun has failed trials on several parameters.

Parts of the leaked trial report, now the subject of an enquiry reportedly showed how the gun in the crucial Direct Firing trials, failed in both day and night.

Its compatibility, according to the Firing Table set up by the Army, was once again a 'Fail'.

In the Air Portability Trials, the BAE gun scored a zero on transportability by air. Transport by cargo, Para dropping the gun and a Heli Transport in a slung mode all showed up a 'Fail'.

The sighting system that deals with night vision also showed a 'Fail' along with the Inbuilt Communication System.

High level officials, that CNN IBN spoke to, do admit that some of the parameters on which the gun has failed are imperative for the artillery edge the force needs. But also equally important to underline these are details of just part of the report. In the final assessment, the ULH could still make the cut.

The revelations have put the scanner on the gun once again, since New Delhi has decided to go the Foreign Military Sales route, which is often more expensive but without the twists and turn that military tenders can run into.

If a indigenous gun had failed so many parameters, i think that particular DRDO lab would have been condemned for life as "never in lifetime possible to make and so shut shop" unit and would have been refused a second look for ages.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 14 Feb 2011 21:50

suryag wrote:^^^ where are shree rajat pandits with their "in development for 13 years but cant fire in direct mode" and then an anonymous informant. or is that only reserved for stuff from DRDO

While they may act like pakis, they still won't bite the hand that feeds them will they?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 14 Feb 2011 21:56

I am depressed.

kvraghav · Post by **kvraghav** » 14 Feb 2011 22:11

^^^
I feel sad for the jawan who has to stand at the borders,at the same time enraged about the decision makers who would rather buy a donkey to slug the shells than trying to get a desi gun.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 14 Feb 2011 22:40

I believe someone overplayed their hand with this one. Unkill, having got a whiff of Indian pork barrel, aint going to go whimpering away because of a string of "F" grades in his progress card. He is a school yard bully of defense. This report with "Fail" marks will be vigorously contested. If nothing, this opens a can of worms for the main users of M777 in Unkill's forces itself and that itself will be enough to dig out the dirt on the "other side".

Let these smelly gorillas of defense duke it out. Heat off DRDO's back. This score card sounds so one sided like a DRDO one, but unlike DRDO, this student has strong blue-collar parents who can hold a prejudice.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 14 Feb 2011 22:42

Viv S wrote:
pandyan wrote:The question is does GOI have the backbone/will to find the culprits and crush them?
They personally threatened an Army Chief. No amount connections will allow them to wriggle out of this one. Not that anyone with real influence would ever resort to something this crude. The only real impediment to prosecution if they're caught, is the gridlocked judicial system and the endless system of appeals.

Well.. I am not too worried about the "threat" part -- it looks like it is a word coined by the media.. what is all this threat stuff is reminding the IA chief that "if the actual trial report" ever gets out, then the IA chief has to answer to the public of the nation in front of PAC, JPC, CAG and SupremeCourt just like those involved in the Adarsh Scam, 2G scam...

"If all the FAIL" parameters in the report are True" (that is the first question - is that part authentic?) -- doesnt IA have the responsibility to answer to the nation? How all phoren maal with so many defects get inducted whereas the Indigenous products get badmouthed... ForEx-Arjun gets butt kicked forever by IA, the DRDO gets chided in front of the public on the IOC day of Tejas for the remaining tests... and what happens to T90 & ULH get picked?

The fact is the howitzers are a MUST for the immediate Arty capability of the IA & national security.. But double standards are not acceptable.. Everything has to pass the "same high standards" that the services seem to set for the desi-made maal..

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Feb 2011 23:02

Those tests must be very high standards such that an inducted and proven system fails on so many counts.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 14 Feb 2011 23:06

or the selection process had a certain bias or the selection process felt the civilian side imposed this on them (and is pointing out the flaws in that approach)

Too many possibilities, but this leads the army inexorably to DRDO. "Deep ToT" being the easiest.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 14 Feb 2011 23:17

rakall wrote:
"If all the FAIL" parameters in the report are True" (that is the first question - is that part authentic?) -- doesnt IA have the responsibility to answer to the nation? How all phoren maal with so many defects get inducted whereas the Indigenous products get badmouthed... ForEx-Arjun gets butt kicked forever by IA, the DRDO gets chided in front of the public on the IOC day of Tejas for the remaining tests... and what happens to T90 & ULH get picked?

The fact is the howitzers are a MUST for the immediate Arty capability of the IA & national security.. But double standards are not acceptable.. Everything has to pass the "same high standards" that the services seem to set for the desi-made maal..

well said rakall. Double standards are totally unacceptable. And as you have mentioned, we have seen it in plenty towards Arjun, LCA, ALH, Pinaka etc. If we can accept a foreign equipment which doesn't fully meet the criteria, same standards should be applied to Indian products as well.

Coming to the main point, who leaked the report? Was it any of the IA folks who weren't happy with the ULH, was it competitors, was it done for monetory gains, was it done to derail IA modernization???

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 15 Feb 2011 00:33

rakall wrote:"If all the FAIL" parameters in the report are True" (that is the first question - is that part authentic?) -- doesnt IA have the responsibility to answer to the nation? How all phoren maal with so many defects get inducted whereas the Indigenous products get badmouthed... ForEx-Arjun gets butt kicked forever by IA, the DRDO gets chided in front of the public on the IOC day of Tejas for the remaining tests... and what happens to T90 & ULH get picked?

The fact is the howitzers are a MUST for the immediate Arty capability of the IA & national security.. But double standards are not acceptable.. Everything has to pass the "same high standards" that the services seem to set for the desi-made maal..

First off I'd take the 'Failed' news with a pinch of salt. There are degrees of performance and the requirements set by the Indian military often tend to be overoptimistic (example).

And this is practically a one horse race. The M-777 weighs much less than the Singaporean Pegasus, has a higher range, and given the fact that its already gotten orders for 700 units (excluding India's order), its probably a good bit cheaper as well. But most importantly had the order gone to ST Kinetics or had another long drawn out competition happened, the order would have remained mired in red tape, while being urgently required for the Indian Army's new formations on the China border and LAC.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 15 Feb 2011 00:48

This leaked report is the same danger which IAF chief talked about during aero India.

For some reason we made scuttling of deals more easy then their procurement.

Through this loophole its even easy for Porkies to deny their most mortal enemy (IA) weapons they need to fight. All they need is to pay a media house and some documents.

And where is the state secrecy act when media houses are displaying these top secret reports?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Feb 2011 01:25

So who was in competetion in the ULH deal? They could be the ones.

Another thing is what tests did the IA think they needed that failed an already accepted gun? If so the Bofors would have definitely failed too? And the thing about direct fire is it realistic condition in the mtns? Are they preparing for the last stand scenario? Shouldn't they spike the guns and live to fight another day? And which helicopter they were planning to lift the guns with?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 15 Feb 2011 02:14

ramana, in Kargil war, IA used bofors in direct mode in mtns region with devastating results. My guess is that is what is driving the direct fire requirement.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 15 Feb 2011 04:42

ew Delhi: More than 20 years after Bofors, which gave India an edge during Kargil war, the Indian Army continues to struggle to modernise its artillery.
After four failed attempts in the last five years, it looks as if Bofors could be a jinx once again.
BAE Systems, the company that now owns Bofors, makes the ultra light Howitzer M777, which is likely to be procured through a Foreign Military Sales route.

But it turned out that the gun has failed trials on several parameters.

Parts of the leaked trial report, now the subject of an enquiry reportedly showed how the gun in the crucial Direct Firing trials, failed in both day and night.

Its compatibility, according to the Firing Table set up by the Army, was once again a 'Fail'.

In the Air Portability Trials, the BAE gun scored a zero on transportability by air. Transport by cargo, Para dropping the gun and a Heli Transport in a slung mode all showed up a 'Fail'.

The sighting system that deals with night vision also showed a 'Fail' along with the Inbuilt Communication System.

High level officials, that CNN IBN spoke to, do admit that some of the parameters on which the gun has failed are imperative for the artillery edge the force needs. But also equally important to underline these are details of just part of the report. In the final assessment, the ULH could still make the cut.

The revelations have put the scanner on the gun once again, since New Delhi has decided to go the Foreign Military Sales route, which is often more expensive but without the twists and turn that military tenders can run into.

My 2 cents on this:
- I think our enemy's have been able to find the easiest way to stop our modernization and our media at some level is hands in glove...

Lats look at the leaks:

A) Direct fire mode Fail: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POQHMUmPjL4 a simple search in google gave me this ...
B ) Air Portability Trials,
--- Transport by cargo,: simple google: http://www.af.mil/photos/mediagallery.a ... 3&count=48
C-130 used to transport, visual evidence is there, so IL-76 plus c-130 in IAF can easily do it.....

--- Para dropping the gun: simple google http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gXq0-A9 ... 6C123B5211
visual evidence is there, only if US does not provide the associated equipment to achieve it it can fail.
--- Heli Transport in a slung mode: simple google http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OGrAFgEHms
visual evidence is there
ahh!!! one more video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sWCkX4m7t4

--- Communication equipment fail: Can be as we don't have have a agreement signed with US, but we can use our on Comm sets.
--- Night time direct fire fail: can be on accuracy parameter if night sight equipment is not properly calibrated.
--- Firing table deviation: for sure its more of a calibration issue.

Media is just helping out enemy's here.
- I think they are putting an preliminary report all out of context.
- There should be some sort of inquiry into the connection and role of news channels/ reporters in reporting defense procurement related news items/ leaks, ... (its ok if bofors scandal happened, its ok we put up a ban on bofors TOT even after paying for it, but repeated sabotage of ARTY gun tender is not coincidence, it seems like our enemy's have a good hold in our media and can very easily deny our ARMD forces the morden weapons)

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 15 Feb 2011 05:19

well should not be too hard for the Army then come out and say whether the leaked report is genuine or not?/

especially if it is not

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 15 Feb 2011 05:56

The quality of the FH-77 which was most appreciated during Kargil was not it's direct fire capability, but its high angle of elevation which allowed deployment of guns close to the 'lee' of the mountains, which allowed for easy crest clearance while providing protection against counter battery bombardment.

Kargil was not the first time that artillery has had to engage targets over open sights.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 15 Feb 2011 06:08

It is routine for any technical evaluation to identify the strengths and weaknesses. Identifying the weaknesses later helps in lowering the price. When this information is shared with the vendor, they know they can't take you for a ride.

Someone please state this in public.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 15 Feb 2011 06:29

Rupak wrote:The quality of the FH-77 which was most appreciated during Kargil was not it's direct fire capability, but its high angle of elevation which allowed deployment of guns close to the 'lee' of the mountains, which allowed for easy crest clearance while providing protection against counter battery bombardment.

Kargil was not the first time that artillery has had to engage targets over open sights.

something like this i guess:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6TVGOMolMU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD5JDpSsaco

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 15 Feb 2011 09:46

My opinion

Indian Army procurement, back to the past

It has been almost 20 years that Indian Army has been requiring an 155 mm gun. It surely knows that it is a political hot potato and massive burden on over taxed Indian masses. Indian Army has not taken an initiative to ask DRDO or private sector to build a gun. Even though the purchases are a function of Ministry of Defence, the Indian Navy has shown the way that it is up to the forces to armed forces on how it can influence its buy decisions.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Feb 2011 10:31

So what is the core issue for IA? why doesn't it want the guns? Is it because there is tussle between infantry and supporting arms? It looks down right ridiculous that the IA never felt they need to protect the service by timely acquisitions.

kit · Post by **kit** » 15 Feb 2011 10:53

The Army's trials have been a bit suspect .. remember Arjun ? The DRDO had to go for an independent evaluation !

kit · Post by **kit** » 15 Feb 2011 10:57

Viv S wrote:
pandyan wrote:The question is does GOI have the backbone/will to find the culprits and crush them?
They personally threatened an Army Chief. No amount connections will allow them to wriggle out of this one. Not that anyone with real influence would ever resort to something this crude. The only real impediment to prosecution if they're caught, is the gridlocked judicial system and the endless system of appeals.

Well what about 'well connected' ones., inside the army and out as well ..

As in all cases who stands to* benefit* if the American guns are not inducted or fails in trials ?

vic · Post by **vic** » 15 Feb 2011 10:58

It is typical of absurd parameters set up by the Army

kit · Post by **kit** » 15 Feb 2011 11:00

ramana wrote:Those tests must be very high standards such that an inducted and proven system fails on so many counts.

I suppose any test can be made to such standards than even established weapon systems fail., it is not so difficult is it ? A close look at the *real* parameters used for the trial would be interesting.

kit · Post by **kit** » 15 Feb 2011 11:03

Someone is most likely actively doing stuff that has only one word to describe ., Treason . They are not going to allow any procurement without kick backs or whatever.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 15 Feb 2011 11:07

ramana wrote:So who was in competetion in the ULH deal? They could be the ones.

Usually I am not paranoid. But somehow our Arty seems to be the target of concerted efforts to scuttle new procurement. Lack of Arty support has been cited as one of the main reasons why Parakram wasnt taken to its logical conclusion. Also the lack of Arty (and inability to move our arty from Chicken-neck area) was a major factor behind Kargil planning of the Pakis. Arty is also one of the major weak points in CS doctrine.

Almost seems like 3 decades long A Monkey's Ayesha CBM to me.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Feb 2011 11:13

There are several issue here.Firstly,the Indian Army hierarchy-and the current incumbent is only inheriting the decisions or lack of them of his predecessors,has to take its share of the blame for allowing the situation of lack of new artillery for two decades to drop to such dangerous levels.One must also say here that the current Adarsh scam and other land scams involving a former chief and other top generals,does not paint a pretty picture of the integrity of some of the highest ranking army officers.We therefore cannot without full inside knowledge know how and why the decisions were sabotaged regularly whenever trials were being conducted,some blacklisted,etc.Has there been a conspiracy to oust certain manufacturers in favour of BAe,who worked out the FMS route to winning the contract? Whatever the truth,the simple fact is that the IA top leadership failed to convince the MOD/polical bosses of the urgency of the situ and to ensure a smooth transparent evaluation of contenders.

The FMS route to sales has been a contentious one.There are many who deplore this route as it always favours the US.Even the current CNS has spoken aganst it in a mag,as it favours the supplier more than the buyer.To also say that FMS deals are without kickbacks is to be naive in the extreme.In fact such deals make it easier for the corporations,who fix the prices innorde to arrange kickbacks in innumerable methods untraceable to the supplier.Here BAe,the successors to Bofors should've been extra careful to see that the entire deal was as transparent as possible.One inescapable truth is that the US has been forcing the GOI of MMS to make massive defence deals in favour of US companies in the shortest time possible and through the FMS route,which is virtually handing over the deal to the US on a platter! The P-8I,C-17s,and ULHs have all been planned in that manner,with mere token comparisons with other systems pushed through in indecent haste.Not too long ago I spoke with a well known and respected defence media expert with deep access to the services/MOD,said that the C-17 transport deal was never a priority of the IAF and had appeared out of nowhere.

Nevertheless,the ULH requiremnt has been delayed to the point where like the CWG,it "had to be bought".Was this similarly deliberately done?
There is one major difference bewteen Bofors and the current gun.Bofors provd itself both in trials and in combat/Kargil.tThere was never any doubt about the quality of the gun.The issue was kickbacks.In the current case,the gun has been tried and if the reports are true has major failings.These cannot be simply swept under the snow! To now buy these guns if they do not perform will be another Bofors scandal .There is no other option but to throw open the contest to other manufacturers and prove to the nation that the best gun that satisfies all IA requirements wins fairly and squarely.The final deal should also have the gurantee from the goivt. of the country of origin that no kickbacks have been paid or are being arranged.

Drawing comparisons with other systems which have had glitches is not the way to view this acquisition.We are even acquiring the LCA which does not meet IAF standards! In the LCA case however,which is of vital importance to our indigenous capability and essential for our future aerospace manufacturing plans,we have drawn up plans for improvement. With the BAe ULH,there are certain fundamental problems that this gun has revealed in the trials and the IA must be totally open about its performance,whether it can be rectified at all and whether alternatives are available, otherwise the people of India will draw the conclusion that this is another Bofors scam.

kit · Post by **kit** » 15 Feb 2011 11:19

Philip wrote:There are several issue here.Firstly,the Indian Army hierarchy-and the current incumbent is only inheriting the decisions or lack of them of his predecessors,has to take its share of the blame for allowing the situation of lack of new artillery for two decades to drop to such dangerous levels.One must also say here that the current Adarsh scam and other land scams involving a former chief and other top generals,does not paint a pretty picture of the integrity of some of the highest ranking army officers.We therefore cannot without full inside knowledge know how and why the decisions were sabotaged regularly whenever trials were being conducted,some blacklisted,etc.Has there been a conspiracy to oust certain manufacturers in favour of BAe,who worked out the FMS route to winning the contract? Whatever the truth,the simple fact is that the IA top leadership failed to convince the MOD/polical bosses of the urgency of the situ and to ensure a smooth transparent evaluation of contenders.

The FMS route to sales has been a contentious one.There are many who deplore this route as it always favours the US.Even the current CNS has spoken aganst it in a mag,as it favours the supplier more than the buyer.To also say that FMS deals are without kickbacks is to be naive in the extreme.In fact such deals make it easier for the corporations,who fix the prices innorde to arrange kickbacks in innumerable methods untraceable to the supplier.Here BAe,the successors to Bofors should've been extra careful to see that the entire deal was as transparent as possible.One inescapable truth is that the US has been forcing the GOI of MMS to make massive defence deals in favour of US companies in the shortest time possible and through the FMS route,which is virtually handing over the deal to the US on a platter! The P-8I,C-17s,and ULHs have all been planned in that manner,with mere token comparisons with other systems pushed through in indecent haste.Not too long ago I spoke with a well known and respected defence media expert with deep access to the services/MOD,said that the C-17 transport deal was never a priority of the IAF and had appeared out of nowhere.

Nevertheless,the ULH requiremnt has been delayed to the point where like the CWG,it "had to be bought".Was this similarly deliberately done?
There is one major difference bewteen Bofors and the current gun.Bofors provd itself both in trials and in combat/Kargil.tThere was never any doubt about the quality of the gun.The issue was kickbacks.In the current case,the gun has been tried and if the reports are true has major failings.These cannot be simply swept under the snow! To now buy these guns if they do not perform will be another Bofors scandal .There is no other option but to throw open the contest to other manufacturers and prove to the nation that the best gun that satisfies all IA requirements wins fairly and squarely.The final deal should also have the gurantee from the goivt. of the country of origin that no kickbacks have been paid or are being arranged.

Drawing comparisons with other systems which have had glitches is not the way to view this acquisition.We are even acquiring the LCA which does not meet IAF standards! In the LCA case however,which is of vital importance to our indigenous capability and essential for our future aerospace manufacturing plans,we have drawn up plans for improvement. With the BAe ULH,there are certain fundamental problems that this gun has revealed in the trials and the IA must be totally open about its performance,whether it can be rectified at all and whether alternatives are available, otherwise the people of India will draw the conclusion that this is another Bofors scam.

The total cost is well under a billion dollars, but the magnitude of loss of capability is much higher.If i can induct those guns in numbers within a few years.,even if they are not 'best of the best' it will still be ok.The country's defence preparedness is at stake here.

kit · Post by **kit** » 15 Feb 2011 11:24

A brief comparison of Chinese artillery capability with India will be illuminating.Also the fact that Chinese artillery in all probability will open another front from PK , given its extensive infrastructure in the borders.

srai · Post by **srai** » 15 Feb 2011 11:48

d_berwal wrote:
...

...

...

In the Air Portability Trials, the BAE gun scored a zero on transportability by air. Transport by cargo, Para dropping the gun and a Heli Transport in a slung mode all showed up a 'Fail'.

...

...

This is quite hilariously stupid

M777 155mm howitzer is the lightest in its class in the world. So if this fails in transportability by air (according to IA's staff requirements), then IA is not going to have any guns in the ULH category period! M777 has seen extensive combat experience in Afghanistan with the British and Americans forces who have managed to transport them by air and use them in high altitudes and remote areas. I mean if IA wants these guns to be carried by Mi-17/Dhruv then obviously it will fail. Currently, only the IAF's Mi-26 has that capability to carry these. In the near future, IAF is purchasing the Chinooks, which can also carry these guns.

Then the question arises on whether the IL-76 and An-32's dimensions or other things that did not match the gun's dimensions? Again, this is being addressed with the IAF purchasing the American C-130J, C-17, C-27J, and indigenous MTA. The Russian transports are being retired in the next decade.

It is either the case of the news media not understanding these (which they can easily find with little research on the net) and making a big news out of "snips", which are used out of context. And/Or IA not really understanding what is out there (in the world market) -- reality -- versus its "dreamed up" fantasy. And/Or there is a great deal of corruption going on to fail the gun being bought through FMS route so that they can get in the gun that makes the most profit for these powerful people at the top.

If the IA's requirements are such that even the best in the world is not meeting its requirements, then why doesn't it allow the indigenous R&D that is tailored to its requirements?

sum · Post by **sum** » 15 Feb 2011 12:04

If the IA's requirements are such that even the best in the world is not meeting its requirements, then why doesn't it allow the indigenous R&D that is tailored to its requirements?

This is what most on BRF are asking!!

Either a honest MoD/IA person has leaked this due to massive kickbacks taking place OR he was concerned about the sub-standard-ness of the gun for the high unit cost being paid OR the GSQR dept of the IA needs a revamp for setting unbelievable standards that even the current best fail the tests.

Can only hope that IA swallows its pride, gives DRDO specs for a 155 mm gun and DRDO delivers atleast a semi-decent gun to make up bare minimum numbers else it looks like no gun will enter service through a foreign deal for next 20-30 years atleast!!!

( Am assuming DDM is not to blame since the authenticity of the leaked report doesn't seem to be in question as IA has not yet even hinted that a doctored report has been circulating in the press)