Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Vips »

And the comedy continues.....

Wait for the CQBs for the Indian Army to get longer.

The Indian Army has to wait a bit longer for getting 93,895 close-quarter-battle carbines (CQB) a deal which is worth $ 553.33 million. The deal which has been put on Fast Track Procurement (FTP) process is awaiting approval from the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC), which is now likely to meet in August. “The decision on the procurement from the UAE based Company was expected to be taken at the DAC meeting which took place in July. However, it did not make it to agenda for that meeting. Also, the Chief of Defence Services Gen Bipin Rawat wanted to know more about the urgency for procuring CQB. (He should know better then to ask this question now. It has been nearly 2 years since this contract is hanging fire and was finalised when he was the Army Chief) A top Infantry officer has made a presentation to the CDS last week on the urgent requirement of the CQBs and its importance for troops deployed in the Valley,” (More Chai, Biskoot and Samosa please for Gen Rawat :roll: )top sources confirmed to Financial Express Online.

With the border tensions along the Line of Actual Control between India and China and the constant terrorist attacks from Pakistan side, has made the Indian Army ensure that the procurement of CQBs for the troops is expedited. The Indian Army was looking for the CQBs to modernize its infantry arm. So far the UAE based company has not received the contract. Though there is no requirement for a DAC approval as it is coming through FTP route, the UAE company is stuck in procedural requirements. (Indian Bureaucracy is unbeatable)

Meanwhile European Company Thales with Indian company Bharat Forge has written to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) that they are willing to supply the CQBs at the price being offered by the UAE based company Caracal.

The Story So Far
As has been reported by Financial Express Online earlier, it has been more than 16 months since the UAE based Caracal Company after extensive trials was declared L1 for$ 553.33 million procurement. An Oversight Committee which was tasked to submit its report on the issues raised by other companies who failed during trials, has done so.

The UAE based Caracal which was declared L1 has already and has been through the already been through the Commercial Negotiating Committee (CNC), and has completed the Acceptance Test Procedure report, and has submitted the documents required under the RfP.

While the company claims to be NATO compliant, the trials for the Indian requirement were extensively and carried out not only here in the country but outside as well in different terrains with Indian ammunition.

The deal has to happen through the FTP route which means that from the time the order is placed within one year the deliveries need to start.

Who all bid for this order?
The companies who failed to make the cut after extensive trials registered their complaints with the MoD against the UAE based company which was declared L1. To address these concerns raised by the South Korean Company S&T Motiv, and European Company Thales, a nine-member committee headed by an Indian Army Brigadier was set up.

Since the deal expected to be inked with the UAE Company is for 93,895 CQBs, concerns were also raised by others about its ability to supply within one year
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

Vips the carbine are not needed for Valley. The 5.56 calibre is not awful without NATO ammo. Valley has been.using AK 47 and Sig Sauer

CDS is not being facetious.

The carbine is for tank corps, the second line troops officers.

When Sig Sauer is coming for 5000 crores the $554M is not an urgent purchase.

Chief can buy more useful stuff then Sterling replacement.
Bharadwaj
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 09 Oct 2006 11:09

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Bharadwaj »

First video of the sig in action at the range

http://twitter.com/manishindiatv/status ... 9090295808

To be honest the recoil does not look bad but neither did the recoil look bad for the OFB 7.62. With a decent sight, the pigs crossing the LOC can be fried at stand off ranges. The aks they carry will not have the same accuracy at very long ranges.
Hiten
BRFite
Posts: 1130
Joined: 21 Sep 2008 07:57
Location: Baudland
Contact:

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Hiten »

a new publication 'Raksha Anirveda'. Current issue has profiled Indian Companies manufacturing Small Arms

https://www.raksha-anirveda.com/wp-cont ... t-2020.pdf

via https://www.spansen.com/2020/07/small-a ... ndian.html
mody
BRFite
Posts: 1439
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by mody »

The caracal carbine is more expensive then the Sig-716!! Opt for the indigenous carbine only.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2904
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Bharadwaj wrote:First video of the sig in action at the range

http://twitter.com/manishindiatv/status ... 9090295808

To be honest the recoil does not look bad but neither did the recoil look bad for the OFB 7.62. With a decent sight, the pigs crossing the LOC can be fried at stand off ranges. The aks they carry will not have the same accuracy at very long ranges.
The issue was never about the recoil...
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2904
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

mody wrote:The caracal carbine is more expensive then the Sig-716!! Opt for the indigenous carbine only.
Which one?
Bharadwaj
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 09 Oct 2006 11:09

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Bharadwaj »

ks_sachin wrote:
Bharadwaj wrote:First video of the sig in action at the range

http://twitter.com/manishindiatv/status ... 9090295808

To be honest the recoil does not look bad but neither did the recoil look bad for the OFB 7.62. With a decent sight, the pigs crossing the LOC can be fried at stand off ranges. The aks they carry will not have the same accuracy at very long ranges.
The issue was never about the recoil...
Which issue are we talking about? My statement was more a general comment about expectations (including my own) that any 7.62 will be a bit of a beast. Thankfully it looks very much under control. As far as an indigenous alternative to the caracal is concerned, there is a ofb carbine said to be based on the last iteration of the insas ( the one that supposedly set new benchmarks in testing).
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2904
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Bharadwaj wrote:
ks_sachin wrote: The issue was never about the recoil...
Which issue are we talking about? My statement was more a general comment about expectations (including my own) that any 7.62 will be a bit of a beast. Thankfully it looks very much under control. As far as an indigenous alternative to the caracal is concerned, there is a ofb carbine said to be based on the last iteration of the insas ( the one that supposedly set new benchmarks in testing).
We are getting our signals crossed.
Recoil has been an issue used to beat the 7.62 version of the INSAS.
Anyhow there is little that the OFB produces that the Army would like to touch carbine included
Bharadwaj
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 09 Oct 2006 11:09

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Bharadwaj »

ks_sachin wrote:
Bharadwaj wrote: Which issue are we talking about? My statement was more a general comment about expectations (including my own) that any 7.62 will be a bit of a beast. Thankfully it looks very much under control. As far as an indigenous alternative to the caracal is concerned, there is a ofb carbine said to be based on the last iteration of the insas ( the one that supposedly set new benchmarks in testing).
We are getting our signals crossed.
Recoil has been an issue used to beat the 7.62 version of the INSAS.
Anyhow there is little that the OFB produces that the Army would like to touch carbine included
I am very much on the same page as you bit unfortunately no point in saying anything about it is there? I just console myself with the fact that the jawan is finally getting his due one way or the other.
Rs_singh
BRFite
Posts: 201
Joined: 21 Jun 2020 23:16

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Rs_singh »

I was looking at some of pics from RM's photo op today mostly to see if our kit has been upgraded. Our LBV's are still a hark back to 71 - I suppose the material and use of velcro is new. no flak vests issued to reg inf units. ah! those helmets are indeed new and a marginal weight improvement over the piss pot issued from ww2 surplus back in the day. Same battle boots, only SF is using goretex. no knee pads or elbow pads - which to me, given the terrain I would like to see on my men. Makes me livid. that or they were going for the throwback Thursday theme!

For OFB making SIG ammo, are you sure OFB produces 7.62X51rd? As far as I know only the 39 and 54mm opt is what OFB makes. Besides I wouldn't trust OFB with making anything. if we can get some private players involved that would be ideal.
Rs_singh
BRFite
Posts: 201
Joined: 21 Jun 2020 23:16

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Rs_singh »

ramana wrote:Vips the carbine are not needed for Valley. The 5.56 calibre is not iswful.without NATO ammo. Valley has been.using AK 47 and Sig Sauer

CDS is not being facetious.
Ramana Sir,

I would argue, the valley is exactly where you would need a CQC carbine. On another note, I have pointed out here previously that having ak203,sig716 and the caracal makes absolute zero sense whatsoever. Particularly with ak203 providing both single and auto mode. Similarly, doesn't make sense to have ak203 and the caracal. This whole procurement process is piece meal approach to plugging perceived gaps without a comprehensive assessment done on the needs of the army.

To have different rifles for inf and armd also does not make any sense. A lot of officers go on secondment. Besides the purpose of having a carbine exclusively for the armd corp defeats me, unless you also proliferate it to the inf, AD, eng, and other combat arms.
Rs_singh
BRFite
Posts: 201
Joined: 21 Jun 2020 23:16

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Rs_singh »

Bharadwaj wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:

I am very much on the same page as you bit unfortunately no point in saying anything about it is there? I just console myself with the fact that the jawan is finally getting his due one way or the other.
They most certainly are not. not by a long shot.
Bharadwaj
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 09 Oct 2006 11:09

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Bharadwaj »

Rs_singh wrote:
Bharadwaj wrote:
They most certainly are not. not by a long shot.
Ok- what do you suggest needs to be done ?
Rs_singh
BRFite
Posts: 201
Joined: 21 Jun 2020 23:16

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Rs_singh »

Bharadwaj,

I would start by issuing them decent combat boots first, try goretex first, not the shit we have which weighs a ton and makes your feet feel like they have been under water permanently at the first hint of rain. follow up with LBV's and flak vests. knee and elbow pads when required. optics. decent heated MREs. Lightweight coat parkas. Better BDUs. I could go on and on and on. Like I said, this makes me livid. But not the right thread for this chat.
souravB
BRFite
Posts: 631
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by souravB »

mody wrote:The caracal carbine is more expensive then the Sig-716!! Opt for the indigenous carbine only.
I do not know if it was sarcasm or not but caracal is SS piston operated and 716i is DI. Hence the price difference.
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by abhik »

souravB wrote:
mody wrote:The caracal carbine is more expensive then the Sig-716!! Opt for the indigenous carbine only.
I do not know if it was sarcasm or not but caracal is SS piston operated and 716i is DI. Hence the price difference.
Interesting, did not know it was DI (unlike the more expensive Sig-716 (no "i")), we essentially bought a brand new gun (based on AR-10 though) that won by on being L1 on cost. Most TFTA assault/battle rifles are piston designs (considered to more reliable by pundits). It may be more TFTA and an upgrade compared to INSAS, but wether it works well in the extreme conditions here is to be seen.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

Rs_singh wrote:Bharadwaj,

I would start by issuing them decent combat boots first, try goretex first, not the shit we have which weighs a ton and makes your feet feel like they have been underwater permanently at the first hint of rain. follow up with LBV's and flak vests. knee and elbow pads when required. optics. decent heated MREs. Lightweight coat parkas. Better BDUs. I could go on and on and on. Like I said, this makes me livid. But not the right thread for this chat.
RS-Singh This is the right thread. Please let us know.
who makes those boots you talk about.
Give a list of all that gear.
Rs_singh
BRFite
Posts: 201
Joined: 21 Jun 2020 23:16

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Rs_singh »

Ramana Sir,

Give me a bit to collect my thoughts and data to support. I’ll post on here for our basic E1 eqpt. Need to write it out on paper first. Only some 60lbs of combat load. Ha.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

Sure. Try to ready list by Monday.

Will give my email.
Bharadwaj
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 09 Oct 2006 11:09

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Bharadwaj »

https://www.overtdefense.com/2020/07/16 ... sig-sauer/

Indian Army Orders More 716i Rifles from SIG Sauer
Following reports in several Indian media outlets, SIG Sauer have now confirmed to TFB that a second batch of 716i rifles has been ordered by the Indian Army.
SIG Sauer confirmed that the Indian Army has procured the 7.62x51mm direct impingement 716i Tread, not the short-stroke piston-driven SIG716 G2. They also noted that the Indian Army carried out extensive trials of the 716i and its competitors with testing continuing after selection.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

This is the second tranche that we already discussed.
Bharadwaj
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 09 Oct 2006 11:09

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Bharadwaj »

ramana wrote:This is the second tranche that we already discussed.
Yes but the article confirms that the order has now been placed with Sig. It also includes other details including an mlock bayonet fitment etc. The extra testing information also helps dispell the doubts about the weapon courtesy of the ftp process.
MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 915
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by MeshaVishwas »

MeshaVishwas wrote:What is the Army thinking?!
:shock:
The Indian military will get an obsolescent VSHORADS that will be almost two decades old by the time it enters service, and almost fifty years old at the end of its service life cycle.
https://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2020/03 ... y.html?m=1

I am not too keen on the Ka226T as well but this system is absurdly old.Might as well keep the Igla in operation.
Edit:This is my problem with L1 nonsense.I believe all the 3 systems passed the trials so it came down to the number of beans.And this was L1!
Shook Law is uber gora is known here but I want too see a proper counter to his argument for me to believe the ministry is right in choosing this.
Yes! Insha Ganesha the Igla S will be S***canned!
It seems DRDO have started prototyping works for desi-MANPADS dubbed "MPDMS" (Man Portable Defensive Missile System). The 100mm diameter missile will be guided by a miniaturized infrared seeker.
https://twitter.com/Nexoft034/status/12 ... 38242?s=20
Thanks to Adminullah IR for the newj.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2904
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

ramana wrote:This is the second tranche that we already discussed.
There could well be a third tranche..
These two tranches are for Northers and Eastern Commands.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9199
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by nachiket »

deejay wrote: An Army veteran read these discussions and sent me a message to post his comments here. This not a response to Sankum Ji's post but I have quoted that to keep it as a reference point

<snip>
Please convey my thanks to him deejay sir. Very informative.
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10533
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Yagnasri »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7emN3gY9XE

Totally designed and made in India. Sorry if already posted.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2904
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Yagnasri wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7emN3gY9XE

Totally designed and made in India. Sorry if already posted.
They had a tie up with LMT AFAIK.

How have they come up with a design and many with no prior exp?
jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 1698
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by jaysimha »

Image
CAN PVT ENTITIES HIT TARGET IN SMALL ARMS DEVELOPMENT?
The government’s go ahead to private entities entry in small arms
development has intensified the competition. Will they hit the target?

https://www.raksha-anirveda.com/
https://www.raksha-anirveda.com/wp-cont ... t-2020.pdf
Bart S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2938
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Bart S »

ks_sachin wrote:
Yagnasri wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7emN3gY9XE

Totally designed and made in India. Sorry if already posted.
They had a tie up with LMT AFAIK.

How have they come up with a design and many with no prior exp?
This is their in-house effort. They did have a tie-up with LMT but that went nowhere because of ITAR and reluctance to license IPR. The company is a world class manufacturing setup in thier niche (precision manufactured springs, an essential component of most small arms) and there is no reason why they cannot come up with good quality weapons. They do need support from the forces and MOD though to refine their product and test it.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

Forces and MOD don't give support to in-house ARDE and OFB and to expect them to support a spring maker to leapfrog into automatic small arms to equip an infantry with two and a half fronts is quite a stretch,
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2904
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

ramana wrote:Forces and MOD don't give support to in-house ARDE and OFB and to expect them to support a spring maker to leapfrog into automatic small arms to equip an infantry with two and a half fronts is quite a stretch,
Sir Kalyani had little experience of Arty before they went into it. I wish these guys get the support from a testing and knowledge share perspective. But alas...
I have been looking at their 5.56 carbine. I don't see why that could not come instead of the Caracal for support arms...After all we have the Sig for Frontline inf.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2904
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Bart S wrote:
ks_sachin wrote: They had a tie up with LMT AFAIK.

How have they come up with a design and many with no prior exp?
This is their in-house effort. They did have a tie-up with LMT but that went nowhere because of ITAR and reluctance to license IPR. The company is a world class manufacturing setup in thier niche (precision manufactured springs, an essential component of most small arms) and there is no reason why they cannot come up with good quality weapons. They do need support from the forces and MOD though to refine their product and test it.
Agree Bart.
However a small arms design is an art. Since it is not their DNA they will need IA support to refine. I think one thing they have going for them is precision tooling and metallurgy exp.
souravB
BRFite
Posts: 631
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by souravB »

According to Vivek Krishnan, the executive of SSS defense, they were regularly going to US for testing of the rifles. Now, I wouldn't be surprised if they used some US consultant(s) to actually design the rifle and productionize them.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2904
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

souravB wrote:According to Vivek Krishnan, the executive of SSS defense, they were regularly going to US for testing of the rifles. Now, I wouldn't be surprised if they used some US consultant(s) to actually design the rifle and productionize them.
Any tech details?
Bart S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2938
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Bart S »

souravB wrote:According to Vivek Krishnan, the executive of SSS defense, they were regularly going to US for testing of the rifles. Now, I wouldn't be surprised if they used some US consultant(s) to actually design the rifle and productionize them.
They were testing in the US because the test facilities in India were owned by OFB/DRDO/Services and were out of bounds for a private startup. IIRC the same issue was faced by artillery vendors like Bharat Forge.

If they did indeed get some assistance in design, that is a good thing and way better route for us than buying from Caracal (who had a Western designer come up with their weapon in the first place) which we are doing anyway. But it looks like there is a lot of in-house passion and effort (not to mention the level of risk that Indian cos usually don't take) that should be acknowledged and ideally encouraged and rewarded by our establishment.
souravB
BRFite
Posts: 631
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by souravB »

ks_sachin wrote: Any tech details?
No Sirji. This is why I usually refrain from commenting on SSS since we do not even have the specs. I had even asked them that during their #AMA on Twitter but no response. AFAMI the assaults are still going through development (maybe at a high TRL) and not yet ready to be user tested. Only the BA snipers are being evaluated by IA. There are lengthy interviews on YouTube but nobody seems to ask what is the operating mechanism or can it even use old INSAS mags.
Bart S wrote: If they did indeed get some assistance in design, that is a good thing and way better route for us than buying from Caracal (who had a Western designer come up with their weapon in the first place) which we are doing anyway. But it looks like there is a lot of in-house passion and effort (not to mention the level of risk that Indian cos usually don't take) that should be acknowledged and ideally encouraged and rewarded by our establishment.
Bart ji, never said that is a bad thing. In fact I have been advocating it for ages. I just pointed out this over the discussion of design. IMO This is the ideal solution for IA infantry rifle woes.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2904
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

souravB wrote:According to Vivek Krishnan, the executive of SSS defense, they were regularly going to US for testing of the rifles. Now, I wouldn't be surprised if they used some US consultant(s) to actually design the rifle and productionize them.
Hmmm quite similar to the cz 805/6 Bren..
What do you think?
souravB
BRFite
Posts: 631
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by souravB »

ks_sachin wrote: Hmmm quite similar to the cz 805/6 Bren..
What do you think?
Sirji, as I said, there's very little technical info out to make a guess even. outside similarities are superficial.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

ks_sachin wrote:
ramana wrote:Forces and MOD don't give support to in-house ARDE and OFB and to expect them to support a spring maker to leapfrog into automatic small arms to equip an infantry with two and a half fronts is quite a stretch,
Sir Kalyani had little experience of Arty before they went into it. I wish these guys get the support from a testing and knowledge share perspective. But alas...
I have been looking at their 5.56 carbine. I don't see why that could not come instead of the Caracal for support arms...After all we have the Sig for Frontline inf.

Kalyani bought the Austrian artillery maker Voest lock stock and barrel and moved the line ot India. Besides they make thousands of shell casings which are filled by OFB. So its not the same thing. And Kalyani makes the Top Gun fuze. Please searcch for that image.
BTW Voest gun was the chosen one by IA till Bofors came up with their scam.
Post Reply