Why are indigenous weapons discouraged in India ?

[Kunal Biswas]

OK ! , @Bachchu Yadav >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



The main requirement is to have a Rifle which use interchangeable barrels and can fire different rounds from Russian AK rounds to NATO 5.56 rounds, Having a same Rifle reduce spare issues unlike today we are using both INSAS as well as AK in Counter Insurgency warfare for different roles, this is why we are looking into mulit-cal rifles, Of-course induction of new Rifle will bring new training and logistics ..

Now what is fishy with it ? >>

The issue is that for such a simple modification we are going for so expensive deal, INSAS is well proven and improved over years, It has been the most recognized and well known from inside out within Indian Army, Now there is no problem to make a INSAS chambered for Russian 7.62 and it already use NATO rounds, This small modification will reduce logistics as both Rifles will be INSAS just the Round they use will be different as We need..


Questions are most Welcome from the above..

 

[Bachchu Yadav]

Multi barrel will have its own problem.

Plus all these feature will going to increase the cost INSAS cost 2500 INR unit.
While multi barrel rifle with all the above features minues the UBGL costs 150,000 INR per unit.(cost of kickbacks not added)

OK ! , @Bachchu Yadav >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



The main requirement is to have a Rifle which use interchangeable barrels and can fire different rounds from Russian AK rounds to NATO 5.56 rounds, Having a same Rifle reduce spare issues unlike today we are using both INSAS as well as AK in Counter Insurgency warfare for different roles, this is why we are looking into mulit-cal rifles, Of-course induction of new Rifle will bring new training and logistics ..

Now what is fishy with it ? >>

The issue is that for such a simple modification we are going for so expensive deal, INSAS is well proven and improved over years, It has been the most recognized and well known from inside out within Indian Army, Now there is no problem to make a INSAS chambered for Russian 7.62 and it already use NATO rounds, This small modification will reduce logistics as both Rifles will be INSAS just the Round they use will be different as We need..


Questions are most Welcome from the above..

1. If I got it right , IA want a multi-barrel (you left all other specification just a multi calibre) but You don't want that ... You want two INSAS 5.56 and 7.62.

2. Do you not know about complains of Nepal army towards Insas or being over-Nationalistic ?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

1. Multical purpose to reduce logistics issue of spares, Even if we use Multical we will be using two Rifles, same as what i described about two version of INSAS.. ( Other specs about scopes, UBGL, Bayonet and laser already operational on INSAS ) ..

2. Read post no #40, Nepalese issue is cleared there..

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-army/49038-why-indigenous-weapons-discouraged-india-3.html

1. If I got it right , IA want a multi-barrel (you left all other specification just a multi calibre) but You don't want that ... You want two INSAS 5.56 and 7.62.

2. Do you not know about complains of Nepal army towards Insas or being over-Nationalistic ?

 

[Bachchu Yadav]

1. Multical purpose to reduce logistics issue of spares, Even if we use Multical we will be using two Rifles, same as what i described about two version of INSAS.. ( Other specs about scopes, UBGL, Bayonet and laser already operational on INSAS ) ..

2. Read post no #40, Nepalese issue is cleared there..

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-army/49038-why-indigenous-weapons-discouraged-india-3.html

Ohh please I am not buying that argument that only because we want multi calibre guns so we are replacing INSAS ... I mean why US,Russia and China continue with Single caliber gun as Main service rifle ?

Multical for special operation is understanble but Service rifle to just reduce logistic does not sound logical ...

There may be some thing which you don't know ...

 

[Mariner HK]

US,Russia and China continue with Single caliber gun as Main service rifle ?

Multical for special operation is understanble but Service rifle to just reduce logistic does not sound logical ...

There may be some thing which you don't know ...

its corruption

 

[Bachchu Yadav]

its corruption

Complete it ... who is doing corruption in this case ? PM , Defence minister, Army Generals or all or anyother

 

[p2prada]

Ohh please I am not buying that argument that only because we want multi calibre guns so we are replacing INSAS ... I mean why US,Russia and China continue with Single caliber gun as Main service rifle ?

Multical for special operation is understanble but Service rifle to just reduce logistic does not sound logical ...

There may be some thing which you don't know ...

The requirement is purely logistics and nothing to do with INSAS being faulty or not.

For one, the army wants a lighter weapon. With a 3.6 Kg limit, it is lighter than INSAS. There may be requirements with regards to maintenance and servicing as well, I don't know.

Apart from that, we currently need two types of rifles. We need a 5.56mm rifle that can injure or maim the enemy. In this case, the enemy will be busy worrying about their injured comrades instead of fighting back, thereby affecting morale. This is for the conventional army. The second rifle is a 7.62mm rifle meant for paramilitary forces and irregular army units that are fighting terrorists. In this case, most of the engagements are localized and the aim is to kill the enemy, not injure.

Currently, IA uses two types of rifles. INSAS for conventional forces with the 5.56mm bullets and the AK-47 for anti-insurgency forces with 7.62mm bullets.

The reason why IA wants an entirely new rifle that can fire both bullets is simply meant for what is the most important factor for the army when running an operation. Logistics. A single gun simplifies training, maintenance and logistics by a huge margin. Over the long run the logistics chain would be cut by half, maybe more. Soldiers will be trained and equipped to use any ammunition that they can get their hands on since ammo is a precious commodity. They don't have to worry about the physically impossible task of carrying two different rifles. Hence the requirement for multi-caliber rifles.

Other countries don't have to follow our methods since their threat environment is different. There have been plenty of cases where American soldiers have discarded their 5.56mm M-4 and M-16 rifles and picked up fallen enemies' AK-47s for the extra stopping power. If this new gun requirement works out, we will push our soldiers a notch above the rest when it comes to firepower.

Btw, IA wants the new rifles to fire 5.56mm, 7.62mm and 6.8mm rounds.

 

[Bachchu Yadav]

@p2prada

1. What you are telling here is already been told by @Kunal Biswas , so what's new thing you are adding ?

2. Military and Para military are two different institution under guidance of two different ministries. Don't Mix them.

3. INSAS is for army and AK47 for Paramilitary ... so what's problem ? .. Counter -insurgency is a localised phenomena so we need special operation teams for them , so Give multical guns to them ... why replacing Main service Rifle ?? for eg. Russia too is not replacing AK74 Gun (5.56) in order to get new Multical Gun ..

4. Why weight is issue with India only ? either Single calibre Guns used by say USA,RUSSIA AND CHINA army is lighter than INSAS or Indian Jawans are weaker to carry a standard rifle ?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

@Bachchu Yadav, Join Indian Army or Ask any relative you have in Army if you think i missed anything

As you are an civilian and many others in the forum and guests, with Little knowledge about Indian Army, I will en-light that Indian Army operate World largest CT forces call ' Rashtriya Rifles or RR ', hence you have the requirement..

I am not related to China or America etc, Our requirement is as per our needs..


===========================

Btw, Improved INSAS 1B1 is 3.5-8kg same as modern Rifles like Bren 805 taking part in RFI..

 

[Bachchu Yadav]

@Bachchu Yadav, Join Indian Army or Ask any relative you have in Army if you think i missed anything

As you are an civilian and many others in the forum and guests, with Little knowledge about Indian Army, I will en-light that Indian Army operate World largest CT forces call ' Rashtriya Rifles or RR ', hence you have the requirement..

I am not related to China or America etc, Our requirement is as per our needs..


===========================

Btw, Improved INSAS 1B1 is 3.5-8kg same as modern Rifles like Bren 805 taking part in RFI..

1. That's hell lot of confidence to say it's only Indian Army know more than you. Cool!

2. You are saying same thing again and again ... give that Multi-calibre gun to Rastriya Rifle who needs it in counter insurgency.. but why to replace INSAS of whole Army ? as you say INSAS is one of the best rifle around (Which I doubt) !

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Don`t put words in other`s mouth, I say issue INSAS 7.62 version along 5.56mm version which will share common parts not Multi-caliber Rifle which is alien from every part to every spare and unproven ..

Well you dont read post well, It is call Rashtriya not Rastriya Rifles which is largest CT forces in the World consist of almost thirty battalions ( Each Battalion is 1,800 at max ) and it part of Indian Army and Units from different Regiments change periodically so does Regiments involve in it from the Whole Army, The Numbers are mind cracking and there are no fix regiments or unit deployed but all units from different Regiments goes cyclic in RR, So its a loge-tic strain if one issue two different Rifles from barrel to butt in One Unit..

One can only erase his doubts when use INSAS and other Rifles not just in firing range but on field where he live with the Rifle for days in mud and rain so does sand and heat of mother India, to know it ..

Ask more Questions .. >>>>>>>>

2. You are saying same thing again and again ... give that Multi-calibre gun to Rastriya Rifle who needs it in counter insurgency.. but why to replace INSAS of whole Army ? as you say INSAS is one of the best rifle around (Which I doubt) !

 

[Bachchu Yadav]

@Kunal Biswas

You are just defending your idea about INSAS 7.62 ... I don't really bother about your personal Idea.

What original question is about why we are replacing INSAS ? you say army in need of multi-calibre gun to reduce logistic (only reason) ... which does not sound logical to me (I told )

Do you have any more reason to share ?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

@Bachchu Yadav,

I don't really care to replay your repeated questions but i am doing for all those who have same questions..

And about the rest is already discussed, For more Join Army or Keep doubting, Choice is yours..


Gud day..

 

[Bachchu Yadav]

@Kunal Biswas

I don't need to join IA or MOD .. just to know Why INSAS is being replaced !

your answer may be acceptable to jingoist people.. but not for those who have their head above their soldier ..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Yes, Sir we know very well about that ..

Gud luck with it in next election rally or something..

I don't need to join IA or MOD your answer may be acceptable to jingoist people.. but not for those who have their head above their soldier ..

 

[Bachchu Yadav]

Yes, Sir we know very well about that ..

Gud luck with it in next election rally or something..

This one was indeed good Sir ! satire at best ... I like it

 

[Dinesh_Kumar]

Many times 1st batch of weapons supplied have some shortcomings.


Examples are:

i) 120mm mortar is overweight.

ii) 105mm Field Guns don't have effective shell for hardened bunkers

iii) INSAS weight more (4.5 kg), stopping power of 5.56mm rounds have complaints from jawan in front line.

iv) Arjun issues are there (T-90 also has issues, but this thread is for "Indigenous weapons")

Now, many of problems which are technical in nature, and can be solved.

The Navy has dedicated engineering assets, and embedded teams of System Designer, Navy Engineering branch and Navy user (Commander ?) working together to solve the issue.

Navy has no choice, being the smallest branch and getting the least budget support (approx. 12%). It is used to troubleshooting and debugging systems, till they get what they require.

I understand Army doesn't have something similar, and more importantly, culture of working on tight budget and realization that only indigenous system is possible, is something lacking.

I'm an Army brat, and keeping hearing the old fogies from army saying stuff like, " I was head of technical evaluation, and 2 systems were available, from country A and Country B, and I went for better option. Its working well, and when you hear about that system, remember it was I who introduced it into army"

This was one of crowning glory in above gentleman's career.

I wished there was Navy like culture. Navy Officers I come across are not given to speaking much and usually stay quiet.

But, for them the challenge while inducting new indigenous weapon system would have been something like this:-

i) See closest local solution possible.

ii) Compare performance to benchmark in database available with us.

iii) Talk to Technical People, Commanders, Scientists in DRDO, PSUs,Private Sector ,etc.

iv) Build best possible system, what performance is possible.

v) Submit for evaluation

vi) Once accepted, induct into Navy.

vii) Improve in areas where shortcomings are seen.

Army and Air Force also need to have such embedded teams, and acceptance of different upgraded versions such as Mk-I, Mk-II, etc.

Imported versions should be discouraged.

Countries like Russia and S. Korea need special acts of parliament to import weapon systems (As seen in recent Mistral Deal with France)

 

[lcatejas]

Its all commission game of babus, ministers and big ones in army .............

 

[TrueSpirit]

Many times 1st batch of weapons supplied have some shortcomings.


Examples are:

i) 120mm mortar is overweight.

ii) 105mm Field Guns don't have effective shell for hardened bunkers

iii) INSAS weight more (4.5 kg), stopping power of 5.56mm rounds have complaints from jawan in front line.

iv) Arjun issues are there (T-90 also has issues, but this thread is for "Indigenous weapons")

Now, many of problems which are technical in nature, and can be solved.

The Navy has dedicated engineering assets, and embedded teams of System Designer, Navy Engineering branch and Navy user (Commander ?) working together to solve the issue.

Navy has no choice, being the smallest branch and getting the least budget support (approx. 12%). It is used to troubleshooting and debugging systems, till they get what they require.

I understand Army doesn't have something similar, and more importantly, culture of working on tight budget and realization that only indigenous system is possible, is something lacking.

I'm an Army brat, and keeping hearing the old fogies from army saying stuff like, " I was head of technical evaluation, and 2 systems were available, from country A and Country B, and I went for better option. Its working well, and when you hear about that system, remember it was I who introduced it into army"

This was one of crowning glory in above gentleman's career.

I wished there was Navy like culture. Navy Officers I come across are not given to speaking much and usually stay quiet.

But, for them the challenge while inducting new indigenous weapon system would have been something like this:-

i) See closest local solution possible.

ii) Compare performance to benchmark in database available with us.

iii) Talk to Technical People, Commanders, Scientists in DRDO, PSUs,Private Sector ,etc.

iv) Build best possible system, what performance is possible.

v) Submit for evaluation

vi) Once accepted, induct into Navy.

vii) Improve in areas where shortcomings are seen.

Army and Air Force also need to have such embedded teams, and acceptance of different upgraded versions such as Mk-I, Mk-II, etc.

Imported versions should be discouraged.

Countries like Russia and S. Korea need special acts of parliament to import weapon systems (As seen in recent Mistral Deal with France)

@kushalappa Good post. Nice to know about apparent cultural differences between the 3 wings from an insider perspective. So, I take, you are an active serving personnel, right ?

 

[Dinesh_Kumar]

No No Sir.

I am an Army Brat.

Dad was in Engineering Regiment and retired in the '80s. As he doesn't share any details with me, all my knowledge is mostly from the internet.


Above mentioned is my opinion only, not insider perspective. I may be wrong also, on some counts.

@kushalappa Good post. Nice to know about apparent cultural differences between the 3 wings from an insider perspective. So, I take, you are an active serving personnel, right ?