All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Why are our research institutes sitting on their *** till they get a requirement from the services? With an more active foreign policy (look east or Africa) should'nt we have more export-oriented research? At the very minimum it would have given us a heavy/dangerous/underperforming alternate [howitzer].
There is a small thing of approval from 1000 different folks for funding.
If the higher-up decides to go about despite the opposite of the number crunching babus, he might later be hauled up for wasting precious funding if there is cost-overrun etc!!!
Kailash wrote:A question. We have the original bofors and would definitely have disabled/cannibalized ones - is it not possible to study the % composition and microscopic structure and try to deduce the manufacturing process?
It's like looking at a roti and then figuring out which season the wheat was grown, how long the atta was rested after mixing, how much water was used in the mix, how long the mixing was done, the temperature of the tava at the time of making and the time taken. None of these can actually be figured out by examining the roti in minute detail.
As doc lays it out, the only way is to make lots of rotis with different parameters and then record the outcomes to zero in on the combination that gives you the best roti. Translate that to guns and you will need deep pockets to go down this route. But the results will definitely be worth it. Maybe Bharat Forge or others are doing it already...
hence it is important that even if trailing edge one keeps on manufacturing and supporting small pilot projects to build skills and generate knowledge. the chinis seem to do this deliberately and well. eventually they move some idea to full production once enough local and stolen data is gathered to reach a critical mass.
sum wrote:There is a small thing of approval from 1000 different folks for funding.
If the higher-up decides to go about despite the opposite of the number crunching babus, he might later be hauled up for wasting precious funding if there is cost-overrun etc!!!
Two things are out of the equation when DRDO works on a product without a customer:
- GSQR would be what is achievable and relatively fixed. Incentives would be capture of global market share and profitability.
- Money put into the project would be seen as an investment than expense. Calculations should be made based on projected export sales, inflation, INR exchange rate against buyer's etc. From cost saving, DRDO should shift to being a profit making organization.
All the cry about cost and time overruns will stop when the project is not affecting our own services. An unfortunate side effect is that they need to hire more scientist and will consume more funds than before. It is better than the unused millions that are NOT being spent by armed forces due to kickbacks and corruption.
Kailash wrote:A question. We have the original bofors and would definitely have disabled/cannibalized ones - is it not possible to study the % composition and microscopic structure and try to deduce the manufacturing process?
It's like looking at a roti and then figuring out which season the wheat was grown, how long the atta was rested after mixing, how much water was used in the mix, how long the mixing was done, the temperature of the tava at the time of making and the time taken. None of these can actually be figured out by examining the roti in minute detail.
For those needing an explanation, the above superb post from Shiv is, IMO, as simple and clear an explanation as possible.
kailash, they don't need to hire more scientists, the consortium approach pioneered by Kalam sir is the perfect solution for this. we have dozens and dozens of material science labs in CSIR, DST and universities which are capable of doing thorough investigation into roti making and are already involved in similar works in other fields. there are already DRDO projects which are taken up by such labs.
all one would need to do is set up a national coordinating body (like DMRL, say) for the arty project that would liaise with the academic institutions for material science investigations.
Rahul M wrote:kailash, they don't need to hire more scientists, the consortium approach pioneered by Kalam sir is the perfect solution for this. we have dozens and dozens of material science labs in CSIR, DST and universities which are capable of doing thorough investigation into roti making and are already involved in similar works in other fields. there are already DRDO projects which are taken up by such labs. all one would need to do is set up a national coordinating body (like DMRL, say) for the arty project that would liaise with the academic institutions for material science investigations.
though it is ambiguous the report says ARDE is the lead agency for the drdo 155mm howitzer gun -
There are reports that the Armament Research and Development Establishment, the DRDO's lab in Pune, has already started working on developing indigenous artillery guns for the armed forces. It is said that other DRDO laboratories will also be involved in the programme but ARDE will be the lead agency.
Marut wrote:
People hyperventilating about this need to take a deep breath and relax. We are capable of making barrels - Arjun's main gun as someone pointed out. But then these tank barrels shoot projectiles upto 4-5kms max. They are 120mm bore and are effective for about 500-600 shots. Compare this with an arty gun - 155mm bore, 20km min range, effective for upto 1500 shots - and you can see the difference in stresses and wear & tear the guns undergo during their operations. The metallurgy is the key that will solve this conundrum.
Well firstly MBT guns have their own set of challenges they fire shells at a higher muzzle velocity than a comparable howitzer-gun/Arty and even there the latter's higher range has more to do with the fact that it is employed in indirect fire mode. As for the life of the barrel how do we know if it's not a function of the required/desired accuracy ? In case of a MBT it has to engage moving targets while the host platform itself is on the move that is not the case with Arty so need to change a barrel on more frequent basis can very well be attributed to it (btw fwiw there are references to Rhienmetall's L44 gun having a barrel life of around 1500 rounds and it fires APFSDS rounds at anywhere around 900-1600 m sec i.e. much more than a typical 39cal arty gun/howitzer).
The very fact that Arjun is ready today and we haven't seen any major project as a follow on to the IFG tells me the problem is more to do with vision and not technology.
I'm somehow convinced that the Russian Iskander & our Prithvi are somehow intertwined. They both seem to be of similar class, payload, dimensions, etc. I hope DRDO has the capabilities of the Iskander at hand and will make the Prithvi similarly capable.
Blurb of the Islander: 3800 kg, single stage solid propellant, 400km range, Inertial & GPS guidance, Mobile TEL launcher, air-fuel & EMP payload capable*.
Weaknesses in Prithvi: 5600kg (P III), liquid propellants required, only 500kg HE or fragmentation explosive payload*.
when can we have bad ass brute force demonstration like this..
What does bas ass mean? I think I get it. I can see white fumes rising up in the air - is that what it is then - fumes and "bad ass" and all. That's funny - but no smell. But what has that got to do with artillery?
Except for India, SRBM is the sole responsibility of the Army, specifically Artillery. Both the Iskander & Prithvi fall in this category and should be controlled by the Artillery.
Bad Ass, does not have anything to do with anybody's arse, it means bad guy.
Shiv, you must be a Rajnikant clone or something. Your BR joining date (31 Dec 1969) is similar to the date on Rajnikant's driver's license (his DOB).
The Iskandler is like the bad guy that everybody envies.
Singha, Prahaar has a much smaller payload; not exactly suitable for nuclear or EMP warheads. And insufficient range for nuclear warhead.
There is a cost to damage ratio that needs to be factored in every time you press that launch button. And the ratio of the times say the US (compared to India) will press that button is directly proportional to the exchange rate. So, India will press the button 1 in 50 times that the US will.
This simile, implies that the Prahaar with its smaller warhead will only be used against high priced or immediate targets, while the larger or wider dispersion warhead missile will be used to KILL enemy combatants and/or equipment.
when can we have bad ass brute force demonstration like this..
What does bas ass mean? I think I get it. I can see white fumes rising up in the air - is that what it is then - fumes and "bad ass" and all. That's funny - but no smell. But what has that got to do with artillery?
very good.. I am very bad... you are very smart and knowledgeable. . I am just a newbie.... you are a veteran.. I should be careful in future to make sure I do proper validation of what comes out of my over enthusiasm and keyboard....
imo for nuclear delivery we dont exactly have 1000s of small warheads to be using prahaars or prithvis for it. the Agni-1 is likely the weapon of choice for short ranges.
coming to conventional firepower, a salvo of prahaar should be able to saturate a bigger area than a 1-2 Iskander. and prahaar would come in factory sealed tubes for a quicker reload cycle vs the Iskander/Prithvi types.
a more containerized soln like Prahaar and ATACMS seems the current trend vs the older Iskander/Prithvi concepts.
and we can certainly upsize the Prahaar into a fatter missile like ATACMS to deliver more payload (carry 3 tubes instead of 6) should the desire for a 1:1 prithvi replacement come from IAF/IA....at present it occupies the niche above smerch in our holding but I get the feeling when it enters volume production, either prahaar or micro-prahaar (thinner rockets) might actually overlap and cap the smerch purchase down to around 50km range as it might end up cheaper and more domestic control of supply chain.
prahaar:
1280kg, 7.3m, 16.4" diameter,200kg warhead - 150km range
smerch:
815kg, 7.6m, 12" , 240kg warhead - 90km range
so if we easily build a micro-prahaar (thinner) we get a desi-smerch, complete with the tatra telar, C3I and launch cabin already made for prahaar. similar we build a mota-prahaar to rival the ATACMS types and permit even deeper BAI strikes upto 400-500km and cover for brahmos which is a costly weapon and not suitable for volume usage.
we can fit the Pinaka TCS on it if we want it cheap but a subset can also have more expensive guidance systems for precision hits while externally looking the same.
producing it in huge volumes and having it in every corps with pinaka is the key.
This article is plain and outright rubbish. Turret I believe is part of a tank rather than a gun. The article may be referring to Chamber where the propellant is ignited to propel the artillery shell. The technology is adequately available through 105mm artillery guns, 105mm tank guns, 120mm Arjun Gun and 125mm T-xx guns. The article is outright junk which is basically trying to promote screw driver Mahindra tech through BAe /Bofors rather than indigenous efforts of L&T, Bharat Forge, DRDO.
Assuming that this tech is not available even then it can easily be obtained by hiring a retired engineer from any number of European Nations etc.
Marut wrote:
People hyperventilating about this need to take a deep breath and relax. We are capable of making barrels - Arjun's main gun as someone pointed out. But then these tank barrels shoot projectiles upto 4-5kms max. They are 120mm bore and are effective for about 500-600 shots. Compare this with an arty gun - 155mm bore, 20km min range, effective for upto 1500 shots - and you can see the difference in stresses and wear & tear the guns undergo during their operations. The metallurgy is the key that will solve this conundrum.
Well firstly MBT guns have their own set of challenges they fire shells at a higher muzzle velocity than a comparable howitzer-gun/Arty and even there the latter's higher range has more to do with the fact that it is employed in indirect fire mode. As for the life of the barrel how do we know if it's not a function of the required/desired accuracy ? In case of a MBT it has to engage moving targets while the host platform itself is on the move that is not the case with Arty so need to change a barrel on more frequent basis can very well be attributed to it (btw fwiw there are references to Rhienmetall's L44 gun having a barrel life of around 1500 rounds and it fires APFSDS rounds at anywhere around 900-1600 m sec i.e. much more than a typical 39cal arty gun/howitzer).
The very fact that Arjun is ready today and we haven't seen any major project as a follow on to the IFG tells me the problem is more to do with vision and not technology.
Accuracy is a function of many factors including muzzle velocity, fire control system computing ability, sensor fit to read atmospheric conditions, etc. So it is not singularly responsible for barrel life.
L44 Rheinmetall gun barrel you refer to has a weight of 1200kg while the L55 weighs in at 1350kgs. Compare this to Arjun gun barrel which is similar to L55 which weighs near 1600kg and you will know where the shoe pinches us in metallurgy. One very significant difference between these two barrels is the rifling in the Arjun gun. By default rifled guns have shorter barrel life than smoothbore . Thus Arjun barrel has an EFC of 500 rounds compared to the 1000-1500 rounds for the Rheinmetall ones. So you can't really bring in a smoothbore barrels to compare to the rifled guns
It is lack of vision which prohibited the development of IFG into incremental higher caliber variants which would have yielded us the technology to make a 155mm barrel with acceptable performance. That IMO is criminal.
Marut wrote:
It is lack of vision which prohibited the development of IFG into incremental higher caliber variants which would have yielded us the technology to make a 155mm barrel with acceptable performance. That IMO is criminal.
Same story as the Marut but in the IA domain this time around.
Leo.Davidson wrote:The Iskandler is like the bad guy that everybody envies.
Singha, Prahaar has a much smaller payload; not exactly suitable for nuclear or EMP warheads. And insufficient range for nuclear warhead.
There is a cost to damage ratio that needs to be factored in every time you press that launch button. And the ratio of the times say the US (compared to India) will press that button is directly proportional to the exchange rate. So, India will press the button 1 in 50 times that the US will.
ummm.. so if IAF have say 500 fighters in its inventory USAF will have 25,000.
and If IN will have two carriers USN will have 100!
they must be hiding them in Bermuda triangle.. because I can't find them anywhere
I always thought that drdo developed Prahar to facilitate a cheaper alternative for IA, I think cost to damage mathematics is well covered there. And with recent breakthrough in missile grade steel it will further come down.
Marut wrote:
Accuracy is a function of many factors including muzzle velocity, fire control system computing ability, sensor fit to read atmospheric conditions, etc. So it is not singularly responsible for barrel life.
L44 Rheinmetall gun barrel you refer to has a weight of 1200kg while the L55 weighs in at 1350kgs. Compare this to Arjun gun barrel which is similar to L55 which weighs near 1600kg and you will know where the shoe pinches us in metallurgy. One very significant difference between these two barrels is the rifling in the Arjun gun. By default rifled guns have shorter barrel life than smoothbore . Thus Arjun barrel has an EFC of 500 rounds compared to the 1000-1500 rounds for the Rheinmetall ones. So you can't really bring in a smoothbore barrels to compare to the rifled guns
Challenger L30 120 mm rifled gun spec:
1. Weight: 1803 kg
2. EFC : 500
Challenger L11A5 120 mm rifled gun spec:
1. Weight: 1778 kg
2. EFC: 400 (Ball park figure)
I think correct comparison should be between rifled guns.
Marut wrote:People hyperventilating about this need to take a deep breath and relax. We are capable of making barrels - Arjun's main gun as someone pointed out. But then these tank barrels shoot projectiles upto 4-5kms max. They are 120mm bore and are effective for about 500-600 shots. Compare this with an arty gun - 155mm bore, 20km min range, effective for upto 1500 shots - and you can see the difference in stresses and wear & tear the guns undergo during their operations. The metallurgy is the key that will solve this conundrum.
A glaring example about the importance of metallurgy is the DRDO mortar developed for mountain use around 2007. It had a range of 10km but IA went for an Israeli one with 9km range. DRDO hyperventilated about the lack of support from IA till it was pointed out that their system was twice the weight of the Israeli system.
Metallurgy was a problem then and it still is now. The learning curve is steep and long winding and there will be no one holding hands on this road. We have to traverse it all alone.
Whatever may be reasons that resulted in IA not choosing Indian product, Sir, do you see (from your trained eyes) any improvements whatever after 2007 onwards to till this date from our national institutions on the metallurgical front which could give some hope of reaching global standards atleast marginally?
In simple, how you read our developments in this area over this period?
I have followed the metallurgy news for long and have yet to see any of the new developments in that front being applied to arty barrels specifically. There hasn't been much movement from DRDO side or IA side for that matter after the 120mm mortar tussle. The tendency has been to go for *KD kits for upgrading of arty guns so far. It's only recently that there has been talk from DRDO side about indigenous development of a 155mm gun with local industry. Brfite sum had posted some tidbits about the presentation from Bharat Forge VP who also mentioned metallurgy being one of the six key areas of concern. Hence my deduction of not much development on the metallurgy front for arty till date.
All the above is based on open source newsletters and articles I have come across till date. I have no chaiwala/paanwala info regarding these developments.
PS: Thanks for info on Challenger guns. It slipped my mind that Chally still uses rifled guns. So we are there with Arjun guns. What will it take to translate it to 130 & 155mm arty guns? My best guess - more research and testing aka more time & money.
To my little knowledge, the metallurgy is interesting. It needs high strength to minimize weight from firing stresses. It has to have high wear resistance aka fretting resistance to have barrel long life. It also needs high fracture toughness to be able to withstand the shocks. And has to be heat treatable to attain the right hardness. So some of these are process oriented.
The mortar saga is not very enouraging. Because its smooth barrel so doesn't need the fretting resistance and the fact it was 2x heavy than SOTA (state of the art) means they were using low strength steels. They should have known by literature search what is the weight for comparable systems. Looks like weight was never a requirement for the DRDO design even after knowing its to be carried on a mule. Either complacency or plain bad.
The original Arjun ASQR specified a 105 MM gun. The PPV in the mid 80s had one. That is before the Army Specified a 120 MM gun. Resulting in the present Arjun config.
Now the question I have is, was that gun (105MM) a DRDO design or was that a re use of the Vickers L 7 A1.
If that was an indigenous design. Then Please consider that the DRDO and its associate lab designed two main guns for MBTs in a period of little over 10 years or so.
Could the same lab not have been able to design an 155 mm, if they were required to?
Changing tack, WRT, the 120 mm mortar, was the problem the barrel & bipod or the Base plate? If it was the barrel & bipod, then the DRDO fraked up. Pure & simple. If the problem was the over weight base plate then the Army sucks, as that problem could have been solved with minor R&D work.
In the 80s, the 105mm Vickers tank gun was a standard. Most likely the 105mm was the British design already used on the Vijayanta. The 120mm was being adopted in Europe around that time and probably redesigned by DRDO.
Havent seen any more inputs on the mortar issue. DRDO should work on guidance package(Krasnopol type) for the 120mm mortar rounds to make it more effective. That would be a game changer.
The 120mm mortar had problems primarily with barrel weight and its dimensions, which had been specified by IA to enable mule transport of disassembled pieces. DRDO going to town about the Israeli option added salt to IA wounds (metaphorically) and hence their lack of request to develop indigenous gun.
To the best of my knowledge, we planned to use the L7A1 from our Vijayantas. We loved it so much that our T-55s were upgraded with it.
Indeed, they should also work to add the IIR, to a 120 mm mortar shell, like the Stix and develop a cargo shot for 155mm shell with 2 ten kg shaped charges fitted with IIR. That, will be ultimate surprise to the Panda Armour units truing to force the passes. The payload can also be fitted to the cargo rockets for pinaka carrying, say 10 warheads / rocket. One full salvo and one tank regiment will vanish.
Has any one any idea regarding the 115 MM Chetak project of OFB Kanpur. What it was all about.
The OFB site has 1979 - ORDNANCE 115MM : CHETAK PROJECT & - SHELL 115MM TK HESH written under the project name. Will I be wrong to conclude the project to be a main Tank gun along with the AT Shell.
If this was a home grown project. Then the OFB designed 2 main guns in a gap of two years. As under 1980 they mention 120MM ordinence for Arjun.
Viney G,
I was looking at that particular page when I posted this.
Last edited by Pratyush on 23 Nov 2011 23:11, edited 2 times in total.
ramana wrote:To my little knowledge, the metallurgy is interesting. It needs high strength to minimize weight from firing stresses. It has to have high wear resistance aka fretting resistance to have barrel long life. It also needs high fracture toughness to be able to withstand the shocks. And has to be heat treatable to attain the right hardness. So some of these are process oriented.
The mortar saga is not very enouraging. Because its smooth barrel so doesn't need the fretting resistance and the fact it was 2x heavy than SOTA (state of the art) means they were using low strength steels. They should have known by literature search what is the weight for comparable systems. Looks like weight was never a requirement for the DRDO design even after knowing its to be carried on a mule. Either complacency or plain bad.
To add to your points
1. High strength typically reduces ductility/malleability thus limiting the choice of forging/casting process which in turn will affect barrel strength.
2. Forging/casting process has significant impact of barrel stress capacity due to amount of residual stresses.
3. Fretting resistance can be improved by auto frettage of the barrel or by plating it with chromium etc.
4. Heat treatment is again dependent on the chemical composition of the metal and manufacturing process. Steels, used in high tech applications- defence, space, nuclear, etc, have different variants closely spaced and have a tendency to shift to different variants during heat treatments and each variant will some significant difference.
Marut wrote:
Accuracy is a function of many factors including muzzle velocity, fire control system computing ability, sensor fit to read atmospheric conditions, etc. So it is not singularly responsible for barrel life.
Boss and where did I say it is the 'only' variable ? Also all other variables being a constant (after all the howitzers too have the luxury of employing the similar state of the art technology as far as ballistic computers and relevant sensor fit is conerned) the fact is an MBT gun has to engage targets in DIRECT firing mode which are on the move, there is simply no need for a howitzer to engage moving targets like a MBT hence I raised accuracy as a factor when talking about barrel life.
L44 Rheinmetall gun barrel you refer to has a weight of 1200kg while the L55 weighs in at 1350kgs. Compare this to Arjun gun barrel which is similar to L55 which weighs near 1600kg and you will know where the shoe pinches us in metallurgy. One very significant difference between these two barrels is the rifling in the Arjun gun. By default rifled guns have shorter barrel life than smoothbore . Thus Arjun barrel has an EFC of 500 rounds compared to the 1000-1500 rounds for the Rheinmetall ones. So you can't really bring in a smoothbore barrels to compare to the rifled guns
Boss you claimed that Arty pieces can fire 1500 rounds before needing a barrel change; I simply showed you an example of MBT gun (by far one of the most common ones in use in the world today) which has a similar life, btw what is the ARTY piece in question ? If India can induct a tank whose main gun needs to be replaced after 500-600 rounds then what prevents us from inducting an ARTY piece whose barrel will be changed after 500-600 rounds ? Why are you comparing Arjun's gun barrel life to that of a ARTY piece (which btw must be of a western ARTY gun ) ?
We need not have to aim for a Archer or PZH2000 that is like setting oneself for failure; a heavier version of Arjun's gun can be a first step; can't help myself but to quote GJ man "it's a tube onlee".
