Indian Army Artillery

great news indeed..plans to manufacture more under license?

i don't think so.. as the requirement is very low only 145....though we will be making 1180 heavy towed howitzers under ToT and 640 Mounted Under ToT ... Rest 400 Heavy , 200 Mounted 100 Wheeled and 180 Tracked we will buy off the shelf

Means the total artillery deal is done or only for the Light Weight Howitzers are over?? Please clarify on this.:sporty85:

well the news is a bit contradicting .....as first it says goverment has agreed then it says

If the government takes the foreign military sales route, the order is likely to go to BAE Land Systems

but i suppose it means that the government is showing heavy inclination towards M777

i am sorry i intended to put a couple of ?? at the end of the title but forgot ....
anyways this is for light weight howitzers only ... trials for the rest are still to be conducted

Great news this. I think if there is any more delay in the acquisition process of the towed guns, i think the army might pressure the government to use the Foreign Military sales route for that too. Would not be a bad option. We need all those guns badly especially since the army is now working on a two front doctrine.

Agantrope said:

Means the total artillery deal is done or only for the Light Weight Howitzers are over?? Please clarify on this.:sporty85:

Click to expand...

it means only the deal for Light Weight Howitzers is over.

What is strange is that the IA had previously made public their preference for the ST Pegasus based on the guns independent power pack i.e the gun has a small engine that allows it to change position after every shot thereby foiling Counter-artillery barrages. The ability to say" shoot and scoot " was a favorite of the IA's since they bought the Bofors( the bofors can also shoot and scoot) .Also St had offered to increase the calibers from 39 to 45 on the Pegasus if selected.The M777 comes with only 39 calibers and conversely a shorter range of fire. However i believe that this decision may have been made on the fact that the M777 is battle proven whereas the Peagus still has to go through its baptism of fire. I'm forseeing an unhealthy amount of American persuasion behind this deal as well.

If India gets these M777 this might also mean that we will probably get the C-17 aircraft because you can fit 2 M777 in it. All in all I am happy with the artillery gun and hopefully we will get the C-17 also.

bengalraider said:

What is strange is that the IA had previously made public their preference for the ST Pegasus based on the guns independent power pack i.e the gun has a small engine that allows it to change position after every shot thereby foiling Counter-artillery barrages. The ability to say" shoot and scoot " was a favorite of the IA's since they bought the Bofors( the bofors can also shoot and scoot) .Also St had offered to increase the calibers from 39 to 45 on the Pegasus if selected.The M777 comes with only 39 calibers and conversely a shorter range of fire. However i believe that this decision may have been made on the fact that the M777 is battle proven whereas the Peagus still has to go through its baptism of fire. I'm forseeing an unhealthy amount of American persuasion behind this deal as well.

Click to expand...

That is an interesting take. And I must say, I appreciate the depth of political intuition.

However, "shoot and scoot" is ineffective against MLRS. Because the mobility and the short burn time of the rockets result in little warning for maneuver forces, and their shorter range precludes engagement by current missile defense systems. Advanced MLRS's like the ASTROS I and II also employ a range of other options like hi-explosive white phosphorous incendiary warheads, smoke to to conceal an impending attack and mine-deploying warheads to render "shoot and scoot" mute.

The Shoot and Scoot is versatile primarily to SPH's like the Primus and the Paladin. For howitzers, towed or otherwise, reaction time, particularly at high altitudes and gradient conditions, coupled with things like fatigue, C&C, etc. will not allow it to escape its artillery footprint sufficiently to avoid damage, destruction or debilitation. If you approximate the enemy counter-battery arrival in 15 mins, and a pick-up time of between 3-5 mins for the APU, and a travel rate of 12kmph over rough terrain, then the howitzer could not have moved more than 2 kms from its initial position. At that speed, the artillery will still be within the perimeter of the enemy artillery's kill blanket, and the preclusion is that enemy batteries would have anticipated it and incapacitated access.

Additionally, the M777 is more easily transportable via truck or helicopter. It has a fly weight of 9317 lbs (9772 lbs for the M777E1 with DFCS) as opposed to a fly weight of 11,905 lbs for the Pegasus (rendering it inoperable via a Boeing CH-47D/F ‘Chinook’, which India has shown interest in).

The Pegasus also has an untested hydraulic APU, via which it derives its additional energy for propulsion to electro-hydraulically actuated front wheels as a means to escape (the 'scoot' in the event of the 'shoot and scoot') and other functions such as deployment and autoloading, as opposed to the conventional APU's of howitzers such as the FH88 and FH2000. Apparently, a hydrazine and water mixture is released to pass across a catalyst of iridium, spontaneously igniting it and releasing hot expanding gases which drive the turbine. Now, iridium is the same element which was discovered under layers of soil in meteor craters in Gubbio, Italy [postulating the hypothesis for the elimination of dinosaurs via meteorite impact], and is one of the rarest elements in the earth's crust (greater quantities of it are found on the moon), with an annualized production and consumption of three tonnes - rendering the APU expensive, with little corresponding benefit.

On the other hand, a negative point for the M777 is that unlike the SLWH, most of its essential functions are not automated. This affects crew fatigue, traverse ranges, ammunition feed mechanisms, recoil management, cyclic and sustained rates of fire, etc.

Now, I garner that the M777's prime adversary will be the A-100 MLRS systems being procured by Pakisthan from China under a contract in 2008; and the Chinese PHL03 / AR-2 (one and that same 'thang) artillery system. Which is why the M777 is perfectly fine without an APU for shoot and scoot, operable as it is with a towing detachment and a tonner/ FMTV support.

StealthSniper said:

If India gets these M777 this might also mean that we will probably get the C-17 aircraft because you can fit 2 M777 in it. All in all I am happy with the artillery gun and hopefully we will get the C-17 also.

Click to expand...

You can airlift an M777 via a Chinook too. Here's a video straight out of Afghanistan:

LiveLeak.com - M777 Cannon being airlifted by CH-47 Chinook in afganistan

'fact, judging by weight and set constraints, you can probly sling two M-777's from a Chinook as opposed to 1 set for the Pegasus (although the probability of transporting multiple guns via a single sortie is low).

Judging from the same weight criterion, you can also transport two sets of M-777's via a C-130 aircraft (six of which are bein' supplied by Lockheed Martin to the IAF under a $596 million contract in 2008) as against 1 set for the Pegasus.

I Agree on the weight advantage that the M777 has however(3.14 tonnes against the pegasus's 5.4) as you so rightly pointed out earlier the main nemesis of tube artillery is counter-battery fire by rocket artillery and the A-100 with it's long range would be a better adversary than most.(conversly the main CB assets of india would be the Smerch and the Pinaka) however i believe that the M777 shall be just as much of a sitting duck if not more in the case of CB fire from rocket artillery systems, especially in the Sikkim and NE sectors where towing these guns or hanging them under choppers shall be an entirely different nightmare in itself.Also the M777 has previously been reported to have a problem with the hydraulics for the braking system freezing up in cold temperatures. However all in all i am happy that the IA got a battle tested system also this raises an interesting possibility for the IA's SP gun program might we resurrect the M777 Portee as well?I sure hope so!


The M777 portee was esentially based on the M777 mounted on the SUPACAT 8X8 high mobility truck.

The reason we went for M777 is because 2 times tender of artillery was cancelled because of single vendor scenario, this is my guess. We have no time to waste and hence this decision, however it is not the only gun we are buying. They are buying 2 if not 3 for different use, all from USA. I cannot post link from phone.

M777 Howitzer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TQXPpobo-8

Canadian Artillery in action during exercise in Ft. Bliss Texas

3 rounds in 20 seconds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBjGyt0Ga9Q

3 round fire mission during operation phantom fury in Iraq,November 2004. Gun 6, C battery, 1st BN 12th Mar

Rage! i appreciate your clinical analysis .could you pls explain to me how much this M777
is better than our bofors FH77,,, I am thinking its the same with an improved DFCS. only difference is that its being sold by BAe land systems. During Kargil it was reported FH77 gave a fitting replay and saved the situation for the IA. pakistanis fired copper shells acquired from US during kargil. are we procuring them now? to sum it up are we going to benefit from this ?

I have a question. The road connectivity to the border areas in Auranchal Pradesh is not very good. Same is the case with Sikkim. So how we are going to transport these light weight howitzers? If I am not wrong we have MI-35 which may carry these howitzers. Is MI-17 having the capability to carry it? What are the logistics supports needed for maintenance of these guns at such height?

NSG i am guessing but I think Bofors or Pinaka 1 and 2 may possibly be used first in terrain like Arunachal, the Howitzers could possibly be transported by IL-76's we have or by C-17's in the not to distant future? and the Smerches can also possibly be used as back up.

well it's light and can be lifted by the soon to be aquired new heavylift choppers such as chinook or mi 26 . thats the whole point of buying them .

bengalraider said:

I Agree on the weight advantage that the M777 has however(3.14 tonnes against the pegasus's 5.4) as you so rightly pointed out earlier the main nemesis of tube artillery is counter-battery fire by rocket artillery and the A-100 with it's long range would be a better adversary than most.(conversly the main CB assets of india would be the Smerch and the Pinaka) however i believe that the M777 shall be just as much of a sitting duck if not more in the case of CB fire from rocket artillery systems, especially in the Sikkim and NE sectors where towing these guns or hanging them under choppers shall be an entirely different nightmare in itself.Also the M777 has previously been reported to have a problem with the hydraulics for the braking system freezing up in cold temperatures. However all in all i am happy that the IA got a battle tested system also this raises an interesting possibility for the IA's SP gun program might we resurrect the M777 Portee as well?I sure hope so!

Click to expand...

Yehp. But my response was directed at the argument that the 'shoot and scoot' constituted some sort of advantage the Pegasus had over the M777. As I've tried to demonstrate, at that speed and at that APU strength, the advantage is largely superfluous. As I understand it, the APU is primarily for facilitating autoloading and deployment functions- to power the Pegasus's automated ammunition-loading system reducing the manual workload of the Pegasus' crew, and for rapid redeployment in an unslung position without assistance from other ground vehicles. The APU is not without its own advantages, but to scoot out of the effective range of an MLRS counter-barrage isn't one of them.


The entire 'shoot and scoot' scenario is compounded by the fact that the APU doesn't allow the Pegasus to carry its own ammo. Meaning that escorting troops will have to run alongside it in the event of an (improbable) secure 'shoot and scoot' at 12 kmph, in world perfect conditions, laden with arty rounds and supplies! Heck, I can't even chalk that with my 60 lbs. boxing weight-pack on.


The problems with moisture freezing up in the winter in the hydraulic/air brakes are a concern. On commercial/highway vehicles in North America, this is mitigated by a dryer install within the system. On highway trucks, 'gladhands' or hose-couplers are used to connect the service and emergency air lines from the truck/tractor to the trailer. Given that the entire braking system on the M777 is actually a commercial off-the-shelf ripoff, I assume the same 'gladhands' or coupling devices are used. In which case, freezing can be mitigated by clipping the gladhands to 'dummy' connectors to keep the lines closed when they're stowed on the weapon. The M777 may also have a one-way relief valve or 'bleed valve' to check the amount of moisture within the system, and to release any residual moisture or pressure.


My point wasn't to suggest that the M777 wouldn't be as much of a sitting duck in CB as the Pegasus. Merely to palliate the marketing gimmick that DTSA and ST Kinetics have resorted to to fabricate the ground abilities of the 'shoot and scoot'.


Ofcourse I oversimplify here- and give primary credit to the enemy. In all probability, enemy artillery has also been suppressed by CAS or MLRS/artillery barrage, or has not obtained situational awareness of friendly guns' firing positions. However, I assume, under a liberal estimate - for it is better to assume thus, that once enemy positions are triangulated, access routes, ground conditions (via prior intelligence), estimated positions, etc. can be gauged. Also, under gradient conditions/mulchy ground, it is difficult to expect the APU to be able to squeeze out 12kmph. The APU won't be able to achieve sudden cross-country rapid movement, nor will it offer any worthwhile ancillary mobility relative to towed howitzers. What it offers is a redundancy, and a capability to move unaided or self-propelled without a tonner / FTMV support, but it doesn't mean it is designed to operate without a tonner and/or aerial replenishment.

venkat said:

Rage! i appreciate your clinical analysis .could you pls explain to me how much this M777
is better than our bofors FH77,,, I am thinking its the same with an improved DFCS. only difference is that its being sold by BAe land systems. During Kargil it was reported FH77 gave a fitting replay and saved the situation for the IA. pakistanis fired copper shells acquired from US during kargil. are we procuring them now? to sum it up are we going to benefit from this ?

Click to expand...

v,

If difference is what you're looking at, then I could suggest the following basic parameters:

Intense and sustained rates of fire for the M777 vary between 5 and 3 rounds a minute. For the vanilla FH77/A 'Haubtis', the wikipedia page says it "could fire 3 rounds in 8 seconds, or 6 rounds in 25 seconds. In a sustained firing role it could fire 6 rounds every second minute for 20 minutes." For the FH77-BW L2, the howitzer has a continuous rate of fire of 75 rounds an hour, an intensr rate of fire of 20 rounds (from a full magazine) in 2.5 minutes, and a salvo rate of fire of three rounds in 15 seconds.

In terms of weight, the FH77 is a superweight at 11,500 kg (25,353 lbs), compared to the M777, rightly called a ULH, at 3,175 kg (7,000 lb).

In terms of range and calibre, a modern extended-range (guided) round like the Excalibur will only travel 40km when fired from a 39cal M777 as compared to about 60km from a 52cal FH77 Archer.

In terms of crew sizes and operability, the M777 has a crew-size of 5, while the FH77 has a 'typical' crew setup of between 10-14 men according to the wikipedia, with a minimum crew setup of 5 (commander, layer, loader 1, loader 2 and loader 3) as opposed to the FH77-BW L2 'Archer' with a typical crew setup of 4.

The FH77, if I rightly recall, uses the traditional glass and iron sights/mounts. This relies on aligning reticles and aim points to achieve initial weapon lay and to set deflection and quadrant. That can be a major source of error and irritation, regardless of how accurate and well aligned the equipment is. The M777, that India would procure, would use either the DFCS on the M109A6 Paladin (U.S. forces), or the Digital Gun Management System (DGMS) produced by SELEX (Cdn. forces). In either case, both are better than the conventional FCS, the heart of which being a combined inertial navigation and GPS guidance unit with an accuracy of upto < 1 mils. In addition, with the introduction of the DFCS, the battery only requires survey control points to initialize the system.

In the interim though, for our FH77's, we should look to procure the new propellant being developed for Bofors' FH77/L-39 called the: UNIFLEX 2IM Modular Charge system. Based on low-sensitive GUDN, it significantly improves performance by offering no less than "nine velocity increments" and "enhancing the MRSI capacity significantly". Check this for example:
Business forecast


Btw, the FH77-BW L2 'Archer' now also belongs to the same stable. BAE systems bought 'UDI', which owns the artillery division of Bofors Weapons.

On another note, BAE announced yesterday that the US FAB had ordered another 63 M777 ultralight howitzers, in addition to the 62 ULH's they procured some time ago and that are now providing field support in Afghanistan.