Artillery Discussion Thread

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 07 Jan 2010 01:18

negi wrote:That looks like CH-53E super stallion (I guess vanilla CH-53Ds do not have IFRs ) given its specs it can easily haul up a M777A1/A2 (heavier than the vanilla M777 at least by couple of hundred kgs) , its crew and loads of ammo and still be left with ample space and payload to spare.

It will be interesting to see if M777 can be hauled up by a Mi-17s, may be it will require two Mi-17s , one for hauling the gun while other for the crew,logistics and the ammo. Fwiw afaik the new versions of the UH-60M (powered by GE T700-GE-701D engines giving out 2000shp each) are capable of hauling an external load of 9000lbs and reported to have the capability to lift the M777A1 * . (can some one confirm ?)

* UH-60 (page 17)

Negi saab, the CH-53 are IFR capable. Example include the ones in current inventory with Germany with the uprated engine and the ones scheduled to come in for a reset/refit. But you are correct, the one above LACKS IFR capability.

negi · Post by **negi** » 07 Jan 2010 02:15

Well I guess it is pretty difficult to visually ID and distinguish between the CH-53D from the CH-53E (super stallion) ; the latter has an additional third engine (may be indicated by the exhaust manifold on the port side just behind the main rotor in the right picture) .Also is it only me but the tail rotor of the one in the left pic is skewed towards the port side (need to check if this is common for both CH-53D and CH-53E).

Craig the chopper on the left I guess has a IFR boom on its starboard side, yes both sea stallion and its larger cousin are IFR capable and yes apologies for the blunder.

Marut · Post by **Marut** » 07 Jan 2010 09:58

negi wrote:Well I guess it is pretty difficult to visually ID and distinguish between the CH-53D from the CH-53E (super stallion) ; the latter has an additional third engine (may be indicated by the exhaust manifold on the port side just behind the main rotor in the right picture) .Also is it only me but the tail rotor of the one in the left pic is skewed towards the port side (need to check if this is common for both CH-53D and CH-53E).

Craig the chopper on the left I guess has a IFR boom on its starboard side, yes both sea stallion and its larger cousin are IFR capable and yes apologies for the blunder.

You are correct in ID'ing the left pic as CH53E. The tail rotor in the CH53E is tilted from the vertical to provide some lift during hover.

wikipedia on CH53E wrote: The low-mounted symmetrical horizontal tail was replaced by a larger vertical tail and the tail rotor tilted from the vertical to provide some lift in hover while counteracting the main rotor torque.
..
..
..
This led to two preproduction aircraft and a static test article being ordered. At this time the tail was redesigned to include a high-mounted, horizontal surface opposite the rotor with an inboard section perpendicular to the tail rotor then at the strut connection cants 20 degrees to horizontal.

See this pic for the above features

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 08 Jan 2010 23:36

Aditya G wrote:I wonder if IFG and LFG have ever been deployed by helicopter. If not, then are these light howitzer for some new Artillery unit mandated with such rapid deployment?

The requirement for the Light howitzers like M777 is for ensuring mobility in the mountainous areas. Like RayC sir said, ability to be transported by helicopters. This capability will be a must if we have to add teeth to our mountain formations and realize the "Mountain Strike Corps" formations. As for the units, most likely existing ones will be equipped with the same and will train with AAC chaps for the heli lift role.

Bheem · Post by **Bheem** » 09 Jan 2010 10:34

It seems from other reports that M777 will undergo trials in US & India before the order. Which I read as "there is no possibility of quick order".

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 09 Jan 2010 17:54

Does a buy through the FMS route mean that none of them will be made in India and no offsets?
Remember BAE claims about building and assembling the thing with their JV with Mahendra and also giving some share of the work OFB and BEL.
Wont be good news if they are being imported entirely 'cos making it here would have made it somewhat sanction proof.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 09 Jan 2010 20:51

I think even when we are going thru FMS route for light weight and import others with TOT, we should also start designing the one indigenous.

20/30 years down the line even they become obsolete. Then? Again import. With no indigenous capability, we even then will not be in position to make ourselves. All this guns would also would have been improved a lot by then. Just compare bofors of 1980 and current archers.

One reason for delay in LCA was the technology gap. We designed a 4.5 gen fighter aircraft with the only experience of 2nd gen marut. But now with LCA, we are capable of participating in FGFA and can dream of NGFA/MCA.
Similar is case of Arjun.

The same needs to happen here also. If we start designing guns now, we might learn after a decade or so to make a comparable gun that the world might be operating then. But if we decide to import only no matter what level of TOT is given, we might end up another import once the current orders gets obsolete/completes its useful life.

And we all agree Tanks /Artillery are to army what Air superiority aircrafts are to the airforce. (ie strategic)

Bheem · Post by **Bheem** » 09 Jan 2010 23:44

I think in FMS route, the offset clause is fully applicable

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Jan 2010 11:17

for some reason we are peaceful dharmic hindu onlee and our ability to even design a world class sniper rifle or 9mm automatic pistol is not there. the INSAS is the only success story.

with such a lacking base, we are out of depth if we talk of things like 52-cal howitzers with high sustained fire rates and automation. such things emerge from decades of product development history.

we cannot make a Snecma M88-3 from scratch nor we can Archer.

I feel we should target some low hanging easier targets under a new IGDMP type mission:
[a] a new MMG with 100rd box mag
a automated HMG weapon station equipped with thermal/cctv for COIN/IA/BSF to be fitted on
everything from trucks to IFVs
[c] a basic 105mm wheeled gun with a reload crane that can feed in 3 round clips the way bofors does
It DOES NOT have to be ultralight and gee whiz, just light enough for a Mi17 to sling it.
SHOULD BE PRODUCED IN MASSIVE NUMBERS. even Mumbai police should be given a few.
[d] a automated "feeder" truck for this weapon that replaces the crane where feasible and beltfeeds the
rounds -
[e] a 120mm rapid fire mortar that fires a mix of basic and anti-armour bomblet rounds
[f] work on totally absorbing the tech base for 105mm and 155mm rounds and improving it to the next
level, like smart rounds and mines. This is HIGH VOLUME item - criminal to import.
[g] a project to replace the ZSU23-4/Tunguska with something better -a new 30mm dual cannon with closed
loop ciws type radar guidance. these can play a useful role supporting infantry batallions also in ground
fire mode.

in 7-10 yrs when all this is done, this would be our Tejas project to close the gap.

we can pakdream of desi archers and xm777s then.

Bheem · Post by **Bheem** » 10 Jan 2010 18:42

pandyan wrote:
Bheem wrote:I think in FMS route, the offset clause is fully applicable
How? The negotiated price is the same as US Gov purchase price + service charges...how is offset taken into account? Appears that any FMS sale would be transfer of fully built unit or all parts built by the vendor and basic assembly in desh.

If the company does not agree to offset, no contract is signed. It is company's / vendor headache to fullfill its commitments

sum · Post by **sum** » 10 Jan 2010 18:54

with such a lacking base, we are out of depth if we talk of things like 52-cal howitzers with high sustained fire rates and automation. such things emerge from decades of product development history.

Well said, Singha-ji...

Even if by some miracle, we do come up with such a system, the IA is 1000% certain to reject it saying doesn't meet even basic GQSRs.

Bheem · Post by **Bheem** » 10 Jan 2010 19:06

INTERVIEW - Boeing orders $600mln from India defence companies
Mon Dec 7, 2009 3:39pm IST Email | Print | Share| Single Page[-] Text [+] By Bappa Majumdar

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - U.S. aircraft manufacturer Boeing Co said on Monday it has started sourcing equipment worth more than $600 million from Indian firms for submarine fighting planes it is building for India.

India signed a $2.1 billion contract with Boeing in January to procure eight P-8I aircraft for its navy as part of an overhaul of the South Asian nation's mainly old Soviet military hardware.

"We have started to place contracts worth over $600 million with Indian companies, which will include supply of defence equipment for manufacturing the P-8I planes," Vivek Lall, India country head of Boeing's Integrated Defense Systems told Reuters in an interview.

"Suppliers recently awarded for this contract include Electronics Corporation of India, HAL's (Hindustan Aeronautics Limited) avionics division and Bharat Electronics Ltd," Lall said.

India, which is fast becoming one of the world's biggest arms importers, wants the P-8I warfare planes by 2013, Lall said.

The contracts were issued to comply with government's policy to manufacture 30 percent equipment locally on all defence deals with foreign companies, he said.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 11 Jan 2010 15:23

sum wrote:
with such a lacking base, we are out of depth if we talk of things like 52-cal howitzers with high sustained fire rates and automation. such things emerge from decades of product development history.
Well said, Singha-ji...

Even if by some miracle, we do come up with such a system, the IA is 1000% certain to reject it saying doesn't meet even basic GQSRs.

While agree with all being said, LCA was similar. When the project got approved there were many who rubbished it saying we should first design basic glider and than think of LCA. But today there are many who are ready to bet on LCA being inducted in good numbers even before IOC (refer key pub). While i don't mean we will develop archer but a decade of working on such tec will make us competent to think of designing one then.

IA approach is definitely an issue. But some learns hard and some learns harder. IAF learned hard. IA will also have to learn but they will learn in harder way.

I salute those visionaries who initiated the LCA in spite of being humiliated by one and all incl those from own country, who from scratch took the job of designing and today we are partnering Russians in FGFA and also working on our own MCA/NGFA both being 5th gen

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 11 Jan 2010 18:38

ACIG SPECIAL REPORTS

The OFB has upgraded atleast 180 M-46 guns from 130 mm to 155 mm calibre using kits supplied by Soltam Artillery Systems of Israel. Another 300 guns will be upgraded at the OFB facility in Jabalpur.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 12 Jan 2010 22:58

Even if it takes decades to develop modern howitzers, what the hell has the MoD been doing in the last quarter century that it hasn't been buying any artillery for the army? If South Africa and countries smaller than many Indian cities ( Singapore, Israel) can do it, why can't we.

This seems to be more a case of criminal neglect than anything else. We pretend to be "jointly" developing a 5th generation fighter and can't even manufacture 155 mm artillery shells. This would be laughable if the situation wasn't so serious.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 15 Jan 2010 15:50

Pinaka Launchers from comissioning unit

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 15 Jan 2010 16:01

^^^ The formation sign on the TEL shows that the systems are being inducted into units with one of the Artillery Divisions. Livefist mentions the units number in which it is inducted-1880 Rocket Regiment.

Can anyone id the division?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Jan 2010 16:54

hopefully these puppies are already on a flatbed train and heading to demchok.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 15 Jan 2010 18:50

Excuse the naivity but can someone enlighten me on the advantages traditional 155mm Howitzer fire enjoy over a Pinaka MRLS launcher with 12 rockets capable of releasing it's load in 44 seconds and 4 minutes of replinishment time

Venu · Post by **Venu** » 15 Jan 2010 19:34

Nihat wrote:Excuse the naivity but can someone enlighten me on the advantages traditional 155mm Howitzer fire enjoy over a Pinaka MRLS launcher with 12 rockets capable of releasing it's load in 44 seconds and 4 minutes of replinishment time

Simple. Cost. A Pinaka rocket is much more expensive than shell used for 155mm howitzers.

And our baki friends are not just worthy of that cost.

Added later: And perhaps may be range and precision. Unless howitzers use precision guided special long range munitions viz excalibur

neeraj · Post by **neeraj** » 15 Jan 2010 20:04

Venu wrote:
Simple. Cost. A Pinaka rocket is much more expensive than shell used for 155mm howitzers.

And our baki friends are not just worthy of that cost.

Added later: And perhaps may be range and precision. Unless howitzers use precision guided special long range munitions viz excalibur

Also you cant really deploy Pinanka in all terrains

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 15 Jan 2010 21:42

A question on shoot and scoot artillery...

say a point X is to hit in the enemy terriroty. a bofors run is ranged / guided to the point by a observer while located at a point P1 . after firing a few shells say the area is not destroyed. Now to escape the counter fire, it moves/scoots to a new location P2. now will the same ranging process need to be undertaken again or the guns computer is able to calculate the displacement in the guns position and get the firing parameters accurate enough to fire roughly on the same spot X. ??

Venu · Post by **Venu** » 15 Jan 2010 22:13

Manjgu,

A very good question. But I dont know the answer and leave it to the gurus.

However, this should be possible using GPS effectively.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 16 Jan 2010 01:38

an old video from DD with very shuddh Hindi being used, but has some great footage of the Arjun..and makes very pertinent points about rate of production, cost, technology challenges and the known advantages of the Arjun. I'm posting this to show how ridiculous it is for the IA Chief to calmly admit that 80% of IA's tanks were night-blind, when they so adamantly refuse to induct more of the Arjun.

Note what the tank gunner and driver had to say about the Arjun compared to the T-72 and T-90S.

youtube Arjun video

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Jan 2010 02:00

He has his reasons. So dont get anxious. Its related to the fears in TSP and US about Cold Start etc..

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 16 Jan 2010 02:02

Kartik wrote:
youtube Arjun video

Thanks for that link. I had watched it long time back, but still enjoyed it again

If only the army had inducted them as Mark-I while refining them further. anyway, that discussion will be OT for this thread.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 16 Jan 2010 02:02

manjgu wrote:A question on shoot and scoot artillery...

say a point X is to hit in the enemy terriroty. a bofors run is ranged / guided to the point by a observer while located at a point P1 . after firing a few shells say the area is not destroyed. Now to escape the counter fire, it moves/scoots to a new location P2. now will the same ranging process need to be undertaken again or the guns computer is able to calculate the displacement in the guns position and get the firing parameters accurate enough to fire roughly on the same spot X. ??

a visual observer is going to send back a lat/long or grid reference to the artillery unit, so its upto him to correctly identify the location of the target. if the arty is scooting, it still knows where the target was, and hopefully, where it now is and the aiming dude can look up the relevant tables or punch the right keys.

if the observer is laser ranging then either he is simply fixing the position (on the map) or reflecting the laser off the target to allow a laser seeker warhead/bomb to home in on the target

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 16 Jan 2010 02:04

Nihat wrote:Excuse the naivity but can someone enlighten me on the advantages traditional 155mm Howitzer fire enjoy over a Pinaka MRLS launcher with 12 rockets capable of releasing it's load in 44 seconds and 4 minutes of replinishment time

pinaka is an area denial weapon, artillery can be when massed, but more likely to be used for more accurate strikes. pinaka can probably also carry precision munitions, but the overall effect will be the same

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Jan 2010 02:32

Kartik wrote:an old video from DD with very shuddh Hindi being used, but has some great footage of the Arjun..and makes very pertinent points about rate of production, cost, technology challenges and the known advantages of the Arjun. I'm posting this to show how ridiculous it is for the IA Chief to calmly admit that 80% of IA's tanks were night-blind, when they so adamantly refuse to induct more of the Arjun.

Note what the tank gunner and driver had to say about the Arjun compared to the T-72 and T-90S.

youtube Arjun video

watching this vid after a long time. just watch at 5:35, the huge machine literally turns on a dime !

kartik, please X-post in military multimedia thread as well.
TIA.

negi · Post by **negi** » 16 Jan 2010 02:33

Arty has distinct advantages over MLRS when it comes to indirect firing mode for it can send a projectile over a large elevation angle to engage targets behind a hill or even a steep ravine . I guess with the advent of MRSI fewer number of Arty pieces can achieve a MLRS like effect as compared to older pieces to a limited extent without compromising on accuracy.

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 16 Jan 2010 07:21

ST Kinetics Targets Major Opportunities in Indian Defence

ST Kinetics today said that it will be fielding the world's first and longest in-service 155 mm 52 Calibre towed Howitzer, the FH 2000, in field trials next month. The company is hopeful that the stalled trial of the 155 mm calibre 39 Pegasus Lightweight Howitzer (LWH) will also recommence very shortly.

The curious case of Singapore arms firm's 'blacklisting'

New Delhi, Jan 15 : For about a year now, there have been reports of a $3.8- billion Singapore arms firm being “blacklisted” on corruption charges. On Friday, the company said this was far from being so.

“We have never been told we have been blacklisted. The CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) has spoken to us but we have never been told what the charges against us are,” Patrick Choy, the chief marketing officer of Singapore Technologies Kinetics (ST Kinetics), said at a press conference here, at which he also announced that the Indian Army would begin trials next month of the company's towed 155 mm artillery gun.

“We are more than willing to open our books for inspection. We have not done any wrong. Our corporate governance is of a very high standard. In the last 40 years, there has not been a single instance of our having done wrong,” Choy maintained.

“We have a reputation to keep. Now that trials are to begin of our gun, that speaks for itself,” he added.

At the same time, he admitted to a “setback” in the company's bid to sell its Pegasus 155 mm ultra light howitzer (ULH), trials of which were stalled last year when allegations of corruption first emerged.

At that time, the defence ministry had said it had blacklisted seven firms, including ST Kinetics, after allegations of their bribing Indian officials surfaced against them.

On May 17, 2009, the CBI had registered a first information report (FIR) against former Ordnance Factory Board director general Sudipto Ghosh under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The seven companies were mentioned in the FIR.

Late last year, the defence ministry had permitted the trials of ST Kinetics' towed howitzer but said a contract would be signed only after the CBI cleared the firm.

Speaking about this company's dealings with the OFB, Choy said: “We had been speaking to them about the manner in which we would have to fulfil our offset obligations.

“We are also sourcing from the OFB the 5.56 mm ammunition for our SAR-21 assault rifle that we have offered to the (Indian) home ministry as part of its homeland security requirements,” he pointed out.

Choy said that six ST Kinetics' proposals were pending with the Indian government - four with the defence ministry and two with the home ministry.

Apart from the Pegasus and ULH howitzers, the company has also offered to the defence ministry a self-propelled version of the Pegasus and the Bronco all-terrain tracked vehicle for front line defence and disaster relief applications.
The home ministry, apart from the SAR-21, is also considering the company's 9 mm folding submachine gun.

“ST Kinetics plans to address India's strategic needs and is fielding tailored solutions to meet the requirements of the modernisation programmes of the armed forces,” Choy pointed out.

The company is also planning a major presence at next month's DEFEXPO international defence exposition here

Bheem · Post by **Bheem** » 16 Jan 2010 12:15

Tube artillery is more accurate than unguided MLRS. Artillery can be as accurate as .25% to 1% of the range while rockets have accuracy of around 2% to 5% of the range, that is why MLRS are called area denial weapons.

But as the range increases then due to climate, base bleeds, rocket boosts, sabot etc use, the artillery accuracy can decrease to 1% to 2% of the range where it starts loosing benefits over MLRS.

Instead of using shoot & scoot with costly tracked and wheeled artillery, it makes more sense to use long range guided MLRS. Even if GPS fails even the INS makes it more accurate then artillery. One can replace a tracked long range heavy 155mm gun with say 100-200 guided Pinaka-2 type of rockets which would have faster response, no need to scoot, more accurate

Low cost INS available today for more accurate MLRS is changing the dynamics that required thousands of 155mm guns in 1980s. Tech has moved on.

Even USA is going towards MLRS + ULH 155mm + 120mm mortars

We should also go for Pinaka-2+ M777+120mm mortars

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 16 Jan 2010 20:14

merlin wrote:Pinaka Launchers from comissioning unit

Beautiful. Any idea on how the launcher is reloaded with projectiles? Is it one at a time or the whole magazine is replaced by the reloader?

soumik · Post by **soumik** » 16 Jan 2010 20:56

Aditya G wrote:
merlin wrote:Pinaka Launchers from comissioning unit
Beautiful. Any idea on how the launcher is reloaded with projectiles? Is it one at a time or the whole magazine is replaced by the reloader?

There are two independent six tube magazine pods that can each be changed as a set.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 16 Jan 2010 21:05

^^^

isn't size of hydraulics here too big for its payload? If we compare it to Smerch or Grad, they appear to be a bit bigger.

Also, wont access height of vehicle make it less friendly for strategic deployment (i.e. air lifted to fwd areas)?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Jan 2010 22:17

the corresponding hydraulics on smerch looks amazingly compact but I wonder how it will hold up.
the tubes seem to lack any form of support or protective framework unlike pinaka or american mlrs.

and smerch tubes cannot be reloaded as "magazines" for sure, I have seen pix of a kuwaiti reload vehicle backed up to the smerch TEL and tubes being loaded one by one as in grad. with such big rockets, its better to have a system where clips of 4 rockets can be swung into place preloaded.

this is not what you want to be doing in a env rife with wlrs and snoopy drones
http://www.army-technology.com/projects ... erch3.html

UK army's cancelled light rocket system even had a integral boom to reload a 6 round mag
all by itself.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects ... maws7.html

maybe the pinaka's hydraulics help in some way during the reload process.

Rahul M, atleast this time we are big rather than small, short and rice/fish eating.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Jan 2010 22:26

Sid wrote:^^^

isn't size of hydraulics here too big for its payload? If we compare it to Smerch or Grad, they appear to be a bit bigger.

Also, wont access height of vehicle make it less friendly for strategic deployment (i.e. air lifted to fwd areas)?

we sure do a good job at nitpicking don't we ?

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 16 Jan 2010 22:47

Rahul M wrote:
Sid wrote:^^^

isn't size of hydraulics here too big for its payload? If we compare it to Smerch or Grad, they appear to be a bit bigger.

Also, wont access height of vehicle make it less friendly for strategic deployment (i.e. air lifted to fwd areas)?
we sure do a good job at nitpicking don't we ?

saar ji.... that's what we are here for. After all we are no bunch of cheer girls.. are we

ye dil maange more

I am pretty sure smaller size in hydraulics will be proportional to extra weapon payload, i.e. 6 more tubes. That will reduce its extra height too, which will allow it to be covered like any TATRA transport truck hence making it more difficult to track.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 16 Jan 2010 23:48

there is also the matter of exponential cost increase of a higher pressure (and therefore smaller) hydraulic system

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 17 Jan 2010 05:20

See this response in Shiv Aroor's Livefist in the comments section of the Pinaka Pictures: Link

Col VT Venkatesh(retd) said...

As the person who conducted the final trials on the Pinaka,it makes me very proud to see the system being introduced into service.
Hope the software has been upgraded to include more features like Fire mission planning,better integration with aerial observation platform etc.
I dont know whether the system finally includes the Fire Direction Radar foir better first salvo effectiveness

Gurus what's your take?