India to buy $ 100 billion weapons, defence equipment

Koji

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
758
Likes
1
India wants more vendors to supply howitzers, guns

i think it will work for you and then Rage have already answered your question
From your source:

Under the Field Artillery Rationalisation Plan, the army plans by 2020-25 on acquiring a mix of around 3,600 155mm/52 cal towed, wheeled and tracked guns for some 180 of some 220 artillery regiments that could cost $5-7 billion. The army's remaining 40-odd artillery regiments are equipped with light guns and missiles.
 

ajay_ijn

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
422
Likes
28
Country flag
looking at the costs & requirements , 100 billion doesn't seem to be enough. and surely India will spend much more than 100 billion in the next decade on defence equipment.
 

Rage

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
1,001
So you are saying all 2814 guns are Self-propelled like Vik claimed?

First, you are still 800 short.

and second, only a small, small fraction is self-propelled.

Listen to me carefully:

The Indian Artillery Modernization Programme aims to buy 2814 pieces of artillery in toto.

The first of these tenders, the most recent one floated, the one we know NOW, is for the induction of 814 pieces of self-propelled / motorized artillery.

He may be "800 short", but you are a whole 2,714.

P.S.: My source is the most recent.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,799
Likes
48,281
Country flag
If India is spending 30 billion+ a year, if everything stays the same India will be spending well over 300 billion easily if things change 1/2 a trillion dollars or more is more likely.
 

Koji

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
758
Likes
1
He claimed: 3600 self-propelled howitzers.

If you can read your own sources, you'll realize how wrong he is.
 

Rage

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
1,001
We don't KNOW how many of those artillery units will be self-propelled. All we know is the number in toto, and the range of propulsion/portee types that can be expected.

His claim may well be closer to the truth than yours.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,799
Likes
48,281
Country flag
India is getting the TOT so it probably means 2800+ will be bought and much more than that will be built by India, even 3600 will be low

The eventual contract is to include transfer of technology to locally build the howitzers.
 

ajay_ijn

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
422
Likes
28
Country flag
If India is spending 30 billion+ a year, if everything stays the same India will be spending well over 300 billion easily if things change 1/2 a trillion dollars or more is more likely.
but all the 30 billion isn't for buying weapons. For 2009-10, around 12 billion was meant buying new weapons.
 

ant80

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2009
Messages
141
Likes
22
The artillery modernization includes off-the-shelf purchase of 200 155mm/52-calibre mounted gun systems from overseas, which will be followed by indigenous manufacture of another 614 such howitzers under transfer of technology.

The 17-tonne motorized howitzers will arm 40 regiments.

Another major project includes the purchase of 100 155mm/52-calibre self-propelled tracked guns for five artillery regiments and its field trials are slated for May-June 2010.

India is also looking to finalize the Rs 8,000 crore project to buy 400 155mm/52-calibre towed artillery guns, which is to be followed by indigenous manufacture of another 1,180 howitzers.

The contenders are BAE Systems, ST Kinetics of Singapore and Israeli Soltam.

Another project was to acquire 140 air-mobile ultra-light howitzers (ULHs) for Rs 2,900 crore. This is being eagerly awaited since the Indian Army needs ULHs to ensure artillery can be deployed in remote inaccessible areas.
From this part of your post, I am summarizing here

155mm/52-calibre mounted gun systems: 200 off-the-shelf; 614 TOT indigenous production

155mm/52-calibre self-propelled tracked guns: 100 off-the-shelf

155mm/52-calibre towed artillery guns: 400 off-the-shelf; 1180 TOT indigenous production

Air-mobile ultra-light howitzers: 140 off-the-shelf

For those that are not as knowledgeable, such as myself, in the differences between these different guns, could you please elaborate on the same differences, and in what circumstances they are used for, and why that is important?

Also, in a country that has made significant advances in technologies such as the ATV, ADS, Tejas, Arjun (I am fully aware that none are fully successful and inducted yet, but we definitely have the capability) why can't we go for indigenous development and production instead of relying on scandal-ridden and costly out-of-country acquisition?
 

Rage

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
1,001
From this part of your post, I am summarizing here

155mm/52-calibre mounted gun systems: 200 off-the-shelf; 614 TOT indigenous production

155mm/52-calibre self-propelled tracked guns: 100 off-the-shelf

155mm/52-calibre towed artillery guns: 400 off-the-shelf; 1180 TOT indigenous production

Air-mobile ultra-light howitzers: 140 off-the-shelf

That is correct. It however does not add up to the 2,814 artillery pieces proposed (and the 814 pieces of 'determined' self-propelled artillery; ostensibly independent).


For those that are not as knowledgeable, such as myself, in the differences between these different guns, could you please elaborate on the same differences, and in what circumstances they are used for, and why that is important?

Being by no means an artillery expert myself, I could make cursory floundering attempts to explain the whole shabang to you. Or I could direct you to the fairly well-written wikipedia article on artillery. Refer to the sub-section: 'Equipment Types' under the 'Classification of Artillery' section in the article here:

Artillery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Also, in a country that has made significant advances in technologies such as the ATV, ADS, Tejas, Arjun (I am fully aware that none are fully successful and inducted yet, but we definitely have the capability) why can't we go for indigenous development and production instead of relying on scandal-ridden and costly out-of-country acquisition?

Because defence ordnance factories have to date, failed to develop an indigenous calibre beyond the 106 mm RCL Gun. Arguably, given that we procured the Bofors 155 mm FH-77B howitzer in the 1980's, we should have been able to reverse-engineer. That however has not occurred, and I believe is the primary reason.


Increasingly also, India is beginning to use defence contracts as an instrument of foreign policy. A $ 4 billion dollar artillery deal is by no means a trivial amount, and with contenders from Britain, Israel and Singapore in the fray, there are bound to be political spinoffs, which we will not ofcourse get to see.


The third reason is expediency and capacity: with the outsourcing of the purchase abroad, and particularly in the event that the contract is segmented between the contracted bidders, the procurement ought to be completed within an established time frame, since management seems to be the bane of the Indian defence factories. In terms of capacity, the Field Gun Factory at Kanpur (FGK) which is spreads over an area of 104.10 hectares yet occupies only 40.49 hectares, with as many as 53.61 hectares, strategically located in this industrial city, waiting to be gainfully utilized.
 

StealthSniper

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
1,111
Likes
61
Does anybody know if we can just continue license maunfacturing artillery guns right now. I know we need new guns but I guess we didn't get any TOT on the ones we currently have.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,799
Likes
48,281
Country flag
Bofors was suppose to be TOT manufactured in India until the whole scandal hit.
 

StealthSniper

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
1,111
Likes
61
If you look at the Army indigenous development compared to the Navy development you can see how they are behind. I would have thought they could at least designed a new howitzer in house from the knowledge and use of the guns but I guess not. Compared to the Army the Navy is already making aircraft carriers.:sad:
 

sweethoneyall4u

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
11
Likes
0
Coming to indigenous development of systems army is lagging behind the other two forces IN and IAF. Army strictly needs to consider indigenous development of arms, tanks, and other systems. All it is looking for is the imported candies and neglecting the in-house developments. The example for such thing is MBT Arjun. They should remember that inspite of the difficulties importing critical technologies because of the sanctions held on india our research organizations did a splendid job in developing indigenous weapons and systems. They are not cutting edge but are decent enough to induct into the forces.

They got to sit with the DRDO people and support the research by putting more funds from its side into the arjun programme and give them feedback by doing rigorous testing and figure out the areas it needs upgradation. This helps the institutions in aiming in the critical areas of research as well as the inspiration to the people which motivates them in achieving anything.
 

1.44

Member of The Month SEPTEMBER 2009
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
4,359
Likes
52
U.S. Eyes Bigger Slice Of Indian Defense Pie

U.S. Eyes Bigger Slice Of Indian Defense Pie

NEW DELHI -- In the ballroom of a five-star hotel here, executives from Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin, the world's biggest arms supplier, threw a candlelight reception one recent night to woo Indian defense experts as their country embarks on a major military shopping spree.

India plans to spend an estimated $100 billion on defense over the next decade to modernize its Soviet-era arsenal. With its growing military footprint, India is steering away from traditional ally Russia, its main weapons supplier, and looking toward the United States to help upgrade its weapons systems and troop gear.

As the world's largest democracy, India is seen as the most dependable U.S. ally in a part of the world that also includes Afghanistan and Pakistan, both of which are racked by Islamist insurgencies. But India's expanding military ambitions, and the U.S. role in selling this nuclear-armed nation more firepower, is starting to worry its neighbors, especially perennial rival Pakistan. India also has ongoing border disputes with another Asian giant, China, which defeated it in a short 1962 war.

"This increase in India's military spending is seen with rising anxiety here in Pakistan," said Hasan-Askari Rizvi, a leading defense analyst in Pakistan, which receives substantial U.S. military assistance in its fight against Taliban insurgents in the country's northwest. "As long as India builds pressure on Pakistan militarily, Pakistan won't move troops to fight the Taliban, period. In the future, there could potentially be a situation like the 1965 war between India and Pakistan, where both used American weapons against each other."

India is pushing the Obama administration to ease the acquisition of U.S. weapons and technology. Already this year, a high-level U.S. government group cleared the way for Lockheed and Boeing to offer India cutting-edge radar technology for fighter jets. At the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi, defense contractors such as Northrop Grumman are sponsoring little league baseball teams, the companies' names stitched onto the uniforms.

About 70 percent of India's military equipment comes from Russia, said Sitanshu Kar, a spokesman for the Indian Defense Ministry. But some Indian military officials have complained about the quality and cost of Russian equipment and have advocated a shift to U.S. suppliers.

"We've had a long-standing relationship with Russia. But that's changing now," Kar said.

The country that spawned the Gandhian principles of nonviolence now has a shopping list that includes 126 fighter jets, 155mm howitzers, long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft, vast cargo planes used in long-distance conflicts, high-tech helicopters and deep-water submarines. Boeing is vying with Lockheed -- along with French, Russian and Swedish companies and a European consortium -- for a fighter jet deal worth about $10 billion.

India is holding flight tests for the fighter jets. Lockheed and Boeing have conducted demonstration flights for Indian celebrities and defense experts. Irrespective of who wins the deal, New Delhi is requiring that at least 50 percent of the contract value be farmed out to Indian companies for goods, labor and material.

After terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India's financial capital, in November, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh vowed to overhaul the country's intelligence service and weaponry. And he has since reiterated the pledge.

"We will do all that is necessary to modernize the security and intelligence services, and that's a commitment which is essential," Singh said after a budget announcement this summer.

Almost every weekend, there are cocktails and closed-door presentations in the suites of New Delhi's five-star hotels, hosted by retired admirals and generals from the U.S. armed forces who now work for defense firms, such as Raytheon and Northrop Grumman.

"America's relationship to India is maturing and expanding. India is an important global player now," said William S. Cohen, a defense secretary during the Clinton administration who is a member of the U.S.-India Business Council's board of directors.

The bond between New Delhi and Washington was strengthened last year with a historic nuclear deal. The deal paves the way for India to grow its civilian nuclear power industry, part of a $100 billion pie, of which the United States is hoping for a large slice.

Defense experts say that India is lagging in the Asian arms race against China. This year, Chinese defense spending reached $71 billion, second only to the United States'. China's military buildup is a concern for both the United States and India, with the latter seen by Washington as a counterbalance to China's growing dominance in the region. India is spending about $29 billion on defense this year, an increase of 25 percent over 2008 but still far below China's budget. India spends about 2 percent of its gross domestic product on defense, while China spent 4.3 percent last year and Pakistan spent 3.5 percent.

Much of India's 2,200-mile border with China is unsettled, said Ashok K. Mehta, a retired Indian general and security expert. Tensions between India and China escalated this month after media reports indicated that Chinese soldiers had crossed into Indian territory and had left Chinese calligraphy on some boulders. At the same time, China has been cementing strategic ties with many of India's neighbors: Pakistan, Burma, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

"A lot of people think India's number one problem is Pakistan, but it's China," said Mehta, adding that perceived threats from China, not Pakistan, prodded India to build its nuclear arsenal. "The best way to prevent a war is to reduce the gap in the military balance. The onus is now on India to catch up to China."

The Mumbai attacks, in which more than 170 people were killed by 10 gunmen who had traveled from Pakistan by sea, exposed vast gaps in India's security system. The three-day siege became a pivotal point in the country's drive to beef up and modernize its armed forces and its arsenal.

India wants its strategic reach to extend beyond the Indian Ocean and the Arabian Sea, where Indian naval forces protect vital sea lanes from pirates. Nearly 90 percent of India's oil imports arrive by sea.

"Everywhere India turns, it sees enemies. China is breathing down India's neck. Afghanistan is a failed state. Pakistan is aflame. Sri Lanka is still unstable. The list goes on and on," said Brahma Chellaney, professor of strategic studies at the Center for Policy Research. "It's really saying something when we see our most stable neighbors as Bangladesh and Myanmar," he added, referring to Burma by its other name.

Indian analysts say that U.S. priorities in India have shifted since a decade ago, when Washington brought military sanctions against New Delhi after its 1998 nuclear tests. Those sanctions have slowly been phased out.

"India will look back -- generations down the road -- at this period as a defining moment for its new, modern military," said Roger Rose, chief executive of Lockheed Martin India, which is renting half a wing of New Delhi's Taj Palace Hotel for a 12-person office. "I think we can all see that there are a lot of threats shared between our two democracies."

U.S. Firms See Opportunity as India Boosts Defense Budget
 

Martian

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
1,624
Likes
423
Many countries around the world buy American in the belief that there's an implicit guarantee that America will come to the aid of the purchasing country. America liberating Kuwait from Saddam is a good example. It is also the most likely explanation that South Korea keeps buying American weapons regardless of the competition from European companies.

Should India purchase large quantities of American weapons in the hope of a similar implicit guarantee?
 

StealthSniper

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
1,111
Likes
61
Many countries around the world buy American in the belief that there's an implicit guarantee that America will come to the aid of the purchasing country. America liberating Kuwait from Saddam is a good example. It is also the most likely explanation that South Korea keeps buying American weapons regardless of the competition from European companies.

Should India purchase large quantities of American weapons in the hope of a similar implicit guarantee?

Well I don't think India needs America to help defend her in times of crisis. On top of that I think India will be causing more problems if it keeps on buying arms from Western or European countries. If you think about it, America is actually making it worse for us if we keep on buying weapons from them. Because some contracts we sign with America have clauses in them that say we can't use that weapon in times of war. Also because of the advanced weapons that America offers, their may be software monitors or inhibitors that might do funny stuff to the equipment if we use it in a certain way.


One thing that I like about Russian arms (and even some Israeli arms) is that they don't really have any terms of use attached to their weapons and they usually offer full TOT with whatever they offer. Yes I agree they are not as advanced but in the end we feel more comfortable buying weapons from them and I think a big chunk of our defence spending should still go to them.
 

Martian

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
1,624
Likes
423
Good point StealthSniper. I saw a tv program on the history of the Chechen war with Russia. The Chechens said they captured a Russian AAA gun and fired it at a Russian warplane. The gun was fully functional, but it would not fire at the Russian plane. It appears that the Russian anti-aircraft gun had a IFF (identify friend or foe) system installed.

I have often wondered if the U.S. could push a button and disable all American-made weaponry that is aimed at U.S. warplanes. My friends and I believe that there is a good probability that clever American engineers have installed some sort of a back-door device to enable U.S. control. Look on the bright side, if you buy U.S. equipment, it will be cutting-edge and deadly, as long as you don't try to use it against the U.S. or its friends.
 

StealthSniper

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
1,111
Likes
61
Good point StealthSniper. I saw a tv program on the history of the Chechen war with Russia. The Chechens said they captured a Russian AAA gun and fired it at a Russian warplane. The gun was fully functional, but it would not fire at the Russian plane. It appears that the Russian anti-aircraft gun had a IFF (identify friend or foe) system installed.

I have often wondered if the U.S. could push a button and disable all American-made weaponry that is aimed at U.S. warplanes. My friends and I believe that there is a good probability that clever American engineers have installed some sort of a back-door device to enable U.S. control. Look on the bright side, if you buy U.S. equipment, it will be cutting-edge and deadly, as long as you don't try to use it against the U.S. or its friends.

Well at the end of the day I don't blame the Russians or even the Americans for installing software to inhibit them from working against their own equipment. But as you can see every country does everything in their best interest. And for India, if they are going to buy $100 billion dollars in arms we should have a very strict protocol we go by to weed out the bad proposals and accept the good ones.


I think we will buy from any country that gives us what we want but we should be careful about what we are getting and what we giving up when we buy it. And if we have a good procurement system then we should have no problem.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top