DRDO, PSU and Private Defence Sector News

[another_armchair]

Just why??? Systems like Nora, Zuzana and G6 would be much better. Anyway Archer much more is costly and huge in weight compared to systems like Caesar which are like light and cheap.
Archer is somewhat a mix of truck arty and wheeled arty.

A very handy offensive weapon and can replace the 120mm mortar in several scenarios.

The possibilities it opens up with VLAP munitions makes it a very cheap option to hit piglet base camps without fear of serious collateral damage that the 155mm inflict.

Puts the fear of the devil into the piglets and keeps the engagement at low caliber without attracting the attention of Puki many daddy's.

 

[Kuldeepm952]

Can the Nora, Zuzana and the G6 be carried by the C130J Super Hercules? That might be something that our forces would definitely benefit from. AFAIK the CAESAR, ATMOS 2000 are definitely transportable by the C130J, the OFB one looks like it would fit (I might be wrong) , the Kalyani 4x4 definitely fits. I doubt Kalyani will make a 155/52 Caliber MGS as they’ve partnered with Elbit for the ATMOS. Unless they’re going to make one from ATAGS.

Yeah that's why I am saying why think of having bulky mgs like Archer when you can have lighter and cheap systems like Caesar. The advantage and need of a complex autoloader mainly seen in tracked SPH for a truck based arty is not justified in our scenario. I hope a truck based ATAGS materialise soon, that in itself would be a major upgrade in firepower and mobility.

 

[Johny_Baba]

I hope a truck based ATAGS materialise soon, that in itself would be a major upgrade in firepower and mobility.

I'm not that well versed in artillery etc but i know someone on TG, also is a former DFIan etc,
as per him Bofors design is not that flexible either to be turned into truck mounted or even tracked vehicle mounted version, mainly due to centre of gravity issues,
and since ATAGS is Bofors based etc...
copy pasting as it is off my Teligram, with of course censoring out names of my contacts,

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 11:53 AM]
For starters, say,
Is it true that Bofors FH-77 gun is not compatible design for making an SPH like K-2 and so ?

<Sensei>, [02/02/2022 11:53 AM]
Yes its fundamentally too heavy

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 11:53 AM]
Due to centre of gravity and height issues ?

<Sensei>, [02/02/2022 11:54 AM]
Bofors themselves made the Archer built on the FH77 base but it has its own problems

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 11:56 AM]
[In reply to <Sensei>]
Isn't that truck mounted one

<Sensei>, [02/02/2022 11:57 AM]
[In reply to Johny_Baba]
Yes..not just normal truck..the base is a Volvo heavy articulated dump truck

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 12:09 PM]
Sensei sir,
Say, what are those IFG 105mm etc are based upon

<Sensei>, [02/02/2022 12:14 PM]
[In reply to Johny_Baba]
Royal Ordnance L118 Light Field Gun...but GCF made major modifications to the carriage to give it unprecedented high angle fire capability

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 02:40 PM]
[In reply to <Sensei>]
Sir what sort of problems are there in Bofors ARCHER thing ?

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 02:41 PM]
i tried to find on internet but most of them consider it one of the best arty system or dunno what

Navyboy, [02/02/2022 02:50 PM]
[In reply to Johny_Baba]
Tendency to topple over when doing MRSI

<Sensei>, [02/02/2022 02:58 PM]
[In reply to Johny_Baba]
Weight balance is whacked...it cannot operate on rough uneven ground because it tips over. It can also only operate its turret in a very specific movement and firing arc for the same reason. The turret is completely unmanned and automated but the hydraulics are prone to failure which puts the whole system out of commission because opening up the system requires a specialist service crew. The system is also too tall to find under most regular overhead bridges. Basically like most Swedish systems it is far too highly optimised for the very specific operating environment and conditions of the Swedish military which makes it unsuitable for anyone else

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 03:20 PM]
[In reply to <Sensei>]
so even with redesign they weren't able to resolve weight imbalance issues on archer hhmm

i mean it's gotten bigger cannon than original FH-77 and now on a new platform and what not

<Sensei>, [02/02/2022 03:34 PM]
[In reply to Johny_Baba]
Nobody's bought the new 8x8 platform version

 

[Johny_Baba]

I wish Bharat Forge (Kalyani group) would take an initiative to make Bharat-52 based SPH and an M777 equivalent lightweight artillery etc and so, probably a truck-mounted version too,

i mean from getting GHN-45 Tech and Assembly line etc stuff he's effectively gotten one of the best howitzer design to home, GC-45,
This same GC-45 was base for south african Denel G-5 howitzer that we were trying out on Bhim SPH but due to certain political bakchodi etc stuff it never got actualised and we're stuck with importing-assembling K-2 etc from South Korea

also GHN-45 originally was way much better design than the FH-77 Bofors we got here in late 80s, and all these issues with FH-77 design seems to be further inherited by its derivatives here with Dhanush and ATAGS...giving to these reports coming out and so,

so since we have a better design in hand with Bharat-52 ( GC-45 at core ), i wish Baba Kalyani would take an initiative to make SPH, Truck-Mounted versions and Light Artillery etc sort of derivatives from that.

^i made this very post on same day, albeit my post came earlier and ;confirmation; of my hypothesis came a tad later on same day, but yeah...
ATAGS etc good but better focus on GC-45 we got here thanks to Baba Kalyani and turn it into SPH, Truck-Mounted etc versions since it's proven design elsewhere...

I'm not that well versed in artillery etc but i know someone on TG, also is a former DFIan etc,
as per him Bofors design is not that flexible either to be turned into truck mounted or even tracked vehicle mounted version, mainly due to centre of gravity issues,
and since ATAGS is Bofors based etc...
copy pasting as it is off my Teligram, with of course censoring out names of my contacts,

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 11:53 AM]
For starters, say,
Is it true that Bofors FH-77 gun is not compatible design for making an SPH like K-2 and so ?

<Sensei>, [02/02/2022 11:53 AM]
Yes its fundamentally too heavy

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 11:53 AM]
Due to centre of gravity and height issues ?

<Sensei>, [02/02/2022 11:54 AM]
Bofors themselves made the Archer built on the FH77 base but it has its own problems

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 11:56 AM]
[In reply to <Sensei>]
Isn't that truck mounted one

<Sensei>, [02/02/2022 11:57 AM]
[In reply to Johny_Baba]
Yes..not just normal truck..the base is a Volvo heavy articulated dump truck

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 12:09 PM]
Sensei sir,
Say, what are those IFG 105mm etc are based upon

<Sensei>, [02/02/2022 12:14 PM]
[In reply to Johny_Baba]
Royal Ordnance L118 Light Field Gun...but GCF made major modifications to the carriage to give it unprecedented high angle fire capability

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 02:40 PM]
[In reply to <Sensei>]
Sir what sort of problems are there in Bofors ARCHER thing ?

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 02:41 PM]
i tried to find on internet but most of them consider it one of the best arty system or dunno what

Navyboy, [02/02/2022 02:50 PM]
[In reply to Johny_Baba]
Tendency to topple over when doing MRSI

<Sensei>, [02/02/2022 02:58 PM]
[In reply to Johny_Baba]
Weight balance is whacked...it cannot operate on rough uneven ground because it tips over. It can also only operate its turret in a very specific movement and firing arc for the same reason. The turret is completely unmanned and automated but the hydraulics are prone to failure which puts the whole system out of commission because opening up the system requires a specialist service crew. The system is also too tall to find under most regular overhead bridges. Basically like most Swedish systems it is far too highly optimised for the very specific operating environment and conditions of the Swedish military which makes it unsuitable for anyone else

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 03:20 PM]
[In reply to <Sensei>]
so even with redesign they weren't able to resolve weight imbalance issues on archer hhmm

i mean it's gotten bigger cannon than original FH-77 and now on a new platform and what not

<Sensei>, [02/02/2022 03:34 PM]
[In reply to Johny_Baba]
Nobody's bought the new 8x8 platform version

 

[Kuldeepm952]

I'm not that well versed in artillery etc but i know someone on TG, also is a former DFIan etc,
as per him Bofors design is not that flexible either to be turned into truck mounted or even tracked vehicle mounted version, mainly due to centre of gravity issues,
and since ATAGS is Bofors based etc...
copy pasting as it is off my Teligram, with of course censoring out names of my contacts,

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 11:53 AM]
For starters, say,
Is it true that Bofors FH-77 gun is not compatible design for making an SPH like K-2 and so ?

<Sensei>, [02/02/2022 11:53 AM]
Yes its fundamentally too heavy

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 11:53 AM]
Due to centre of gravity and height issues ?

<Sensei>, [02/02/2022 11:54 AM]
Bofors themselves made the Archer built on the FH77 base but it has its own problems

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 11:56 AM]
[In reply to <Sensei>]
Isn't that truck mounted one

<Sensei>, [02/02/2022 11:57 AM]
[In reply to Johny_Baba]
Yes..not just normal truck..the base is a Volvo heavy articulated dump truck

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 12:09 PM]
Sensei sir,
Say, what are those IFG 105mm etc are based upon

<Sensei>, [02/02/2022 12:14 PM]
[In reply to Johny_Baba]
Royal Ordnance L118 Light Field Gun...but GCF made major modifications to the carriage to give it unprecedented high angle fire capability

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 02:40 PM]
[In reply to <Sensei>]
Sir what sort of problems are there in Bofors ARCHER thing ?

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 02:41 PM]
i tried to find on internet but most of them consider it one of the best arty system or dunno what

Navyboy, [02/02/2022 02:50 PM]
[In reply to Johny_Baba]
Tendency to topple over when doing MRSI

<Sensei>, [02/02/2022 02:58 PM]
[In reply to Johny_Baba]
Weight balance is whacked...it cannot operate on rough uneven ground because it tips over. It can also only operate its turret in a very specific movement and firing arc for the same reason. The turret is completely unmanned and automated but the hydraulics are prone to failure which puts the whole system out of commission because opening up the system requires a specialist service crew. The system is also too tall to find under most regular overhead bridges. Basically like most Swedish systems it is far too highly optimised for the very specific operating environment and conditions of the Swedish military which makes it unsuitable for anyone else

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 03:20 PM]
[In reply to <Sensei>]
so even with redesign they weren't able to resolve weight imbalance issues on archer hhmm

i mean it's gotten bigger cannon than original FH-77 and now on a new platform and what not

<Sensei>, [02/02/2022 03:34 PM]
[In reply to Johny_Baba]
Nobody's bought the new 8x8 platform version

Question is how much is ATAGS based on Bofors FH-77 that a mounted system may present a problem. I don't really know but I think DRDO would not have initiated AMAGS project have it not been feasible or good enough. About FH-77 being adaptable for mounted system like caesar, only Bofors can answer, though I did found a pic of that.
IMO ATAGS should be able to adapt to truck mounting system though I am not sure if it could be adapted to tracked SPH like K9 due to the design of gun and recoil system.
Otherwise we do have BHARAT-52 and perhaps Kalyani should develop a mounted system based on it.

 

[porky_kicker]

old tweet, but 7000 kms....is it true.. really??

7000 km ?


2 additional zeros lol , common sense - earth's curvature is the limiting factor for a given height of the sensors involved in the system

 

[porky_kicker]

I'm not that well versed in artillery etc but i know someone on TG, also is a former DFIan etc,
as per him Bofors design is not that flexible either to be turned into truck mounted or even tracked vehicle mounted version, mainly due to centre of gravity issues,
and since ATAGS is Bofors based etc...
copy pasting as it is off my Teligram, with of course censoring out names of my contacts,

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 11:53 AM]
For starters, say,
Is it true that Bofors FH-77 gun is not compatible design for making an SPH like K-2 and so ?

<Sensei>, [02/02/2022 11:53 AM]
Yes its fundamentally too heavy

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 11:53 AM]
Due to centre of gravity and height issues ?

<Sensei>, [02/02/2022 11:54 AM]
Bofors themselves made the Archer built on the FH77 base but it has its own problems

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 11:56 AM]
[In reply to <Sensei>]
Isn't that truck mounted one

<Sensei>, [02/02/2022 11:57 AM]
[In reply to Johny_Baba]
Yes..not just normal truck..the base is a Volvo heavy articulated dump truck

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 12:09 PM]
Sensei sir,
Say, what are those IFG 105mm etc are based upon

<Sensei>, [02/02/2022 12:14 PM]
[In reply to Johny_Baba]
Royal Ordnance L118 Light Field Gun...but GCF made major modifications to the carriage to give it unprecedented high angle fire capability

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 02:40 PM]
[In reply to <Sensei>]
Sir what sort of problems are there in Bofors ARCHER thing ?

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 02:41 PM]
i tried to find on internet but most of them consider it one of the best arty system or dunno what

Navyboy, [02/02/2022 02:50 PM]
[In reply to Johny_Baba]
Tendency to topple over when doing MRSI

<Sensei>, [02/02/2022 02:58 PM]
[In reply to Johny_Baba]
Weight balance is whacked...it cannot operate on rough uneven ground because it tips over. It can also only operate its turret in a very specific movement and firing arc for the same reason. The turret is completely unmanned and automated but the hydraulics are prone to failure which puts the whole system out of commission because opening up the system requires a specialist service crew. The system is also too tall to find under most regular overhead bridges. Basically like most Swedish systems it is far too highly optimised for the very specific operating environment and conditions of the Swedish military which makes it unsuitable for anyone else

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 03:20 PM]
[In reply to <Sensei>]
so even with redesign they weren't able to resolve weight imbalance issues on archer hhmm

i mean it's gotten bigger cannon than original FH-77 and now on a new platform and what not

<Sensei>, [02/02/2022 03:34 PM]
[In reply to Johny_Baba]
Nobody's bought the new 8x8 platform version

For Atags if stripped down gun is mounted as low as possible ( better if it penetrates the base of the platform so that Firing stress is evenly distributed to platform and than ground ) and at the farthest point possible at rear to align the CG at the middle or < middle where CG remains within the stable range while gun elevates or rotates azimuth , than system should be stable

Anyways let's see

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

7000 km ?


2 additional zeros lol , common sense - earth's curvature is the limiting factor for a given height of the sensors involved in the system

Cant we bounce it off the ionosphere like in Radio waves?

 

[Dark Sorrow]

145 vehicles for 7000 sq kms sounds expensive both in terms of investment and also for logistics.
What sort of ability is it offering?

Interception and analysis of enemy RF-Communication, jamming of enemy RF-Communication, SIGINT, Satellite guidance jamming, jamming of enemy RF-target seeker, jamming of ground and airborne radar.

 

[Dark Sorrow]

Cant we bounce it off the ionosphere like in Radio waves?

Not all RF-bands are bounced back off from ionosphere with similar characteristics.
Reflection from ionosphere screws your signal integrity, accuracy, strength and causes phase shift. All these important factors used in counter-jamming and jamming-detection.

 

[Johny_Baba]

Question is how much is ATAGS based on Bofors FH-77 that a mounted system may present a problem. I don't really know but I think DRDO would not have initiated AMAGS project have it not been feasible or good enough. About FH-77 being adaptable for mounted system like caesar, only Bofors can answer, though I did found a pic of that.
IMO ATAGS should be able to adapt to truck mounting system though I am not sure if it could be adapted to tracked SPH like K9 due to the design of gun and recoil system.
Otherwise we do have BHARAT-52 and perhaps Kalyani should develop a mounted system based on it.
View attachment 153856

For Atags if stripped down gun is mounted as low as possible ( better if it penetrates the base of the platform so that Firing stress is evenly distributed to platform and than ground ) and at the farthest point possible at rear to align the CG at the middle or < middle where CG remains within the stable range while gun elevates or rotates azimuth , than system should be stable

Anyways let's see

Truck mounted Dhanush has already been done, Dhanush = also Bofors based and in 155mm/45 cal config,

^and this is from DefExpo 2017 i think
so @porky_kicker sir i think suggestions you gave have already been implemented to some extent but still observing this design, seems the mount on which Dhanush is put is even slightly below height of that trailer, most likely due to reasons mentioned in previous posts, so yeah probably they'll be able to solve all these issues with larger ATAGS after extensively working on this but seems a tough engineering challenge based on these pics...

 

[Aditya Ballal]

I'm not that well versed in artillery etc but i know someone on TG, also is a former DFIan etc,
as per him Bofors design is not that flexible either to be turned into truck mounted or even tracked vehicle mounted version, mainly due to centre of gravity issues,
and since ATAGS is Bofors based etc...
copy pasting as it is off my Teligram, with of course censoring out names of my contacts,

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 11:53 AM]
For starters, say,
Is it true that Bofors FH-77 gun is not compatible design for making an SPH like K-2 and so ?

<Sensei>, [02/02/2022 11:53 AM]
Yes its fundamentally too heavy

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 11:53 AM]
Due to centre of gravity and height issues ?

<Sensei>, [02/02/2022 11:54 AM]
Bofors themselves made the Archer built on the FH77 base but it has its own problems

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 11:56 AM]
[In reply to <Sensei>]
Isn't that truck mounted one

<Sensei>, [02/02/2022 11:57 AM]
[In reply to Johny_Baba]
Yes..not just normal truck..the base is a Volvo heavy articulated dump truck

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 12:09 PM]
Sensei sir,
Say, what are those IFG 105mm etc are based upon

<Sensei>, [02/02/2022 12:14 PM]
[In reply to Johny_Baba]
Royal Ordnance L118 Light Field Gun...but GCF made major modifications to the carriage to give it unprecedented high angle fire capability

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 02:40 PM]
[In reply to <Sensei>]
Sir what sort of problems are there in Bofors ARCHER thing ?

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 02:41 PM]
i tried to find on internet but most of them consider it one of the best arty system or dunno what

Navyboy, [02/02/2022 02:50 PM]
[In reply to Johny_Baba]
Tendency to topple over when doing MRSI

<Sensei>, [02/02/2022 02:58 PM]
[In reply to Johny_Baba]
Weight balance is whacked...it cannot operate on rough uneven ground because it tips over. It can also only operate its turret in a very specific movement and firing arc for the same reason. The turret is completely unmanned and automated but the hydraulics are prone to failure which puts the whole system out of commission because opening up the system requires a specialist service crew. The system is also too tall to find under most regular overhead bridges. Basically like most Swedish systems it is far too highly optimised for the very specific operating environment and conditions of the Swedish military which makes it unsuitable for anyone else

Johny_Baba, [02/02/2022 03:20 PM]
[In reply to <Sensei>]
so even with redesign they weren't able to resolve weight imbalance issues on archer hhmm

i mean it's gotten bigger cannon than original FH-77 and now on a new platform and what not

<Sensei>, [02/02/2022 03:34 PM]
[In reply to Johny_Baba]
Nobody's bought the new 8x8 platform version

Source of ATAGS being based on FH-77B? AFAIK only Dhanush is essentially based on the Bofors gun.

 

[Aditya Ballal]

Truck mounted Dhanush has already been done, Dhanush = also Bofors based and in 155mm/45 cal config,
View attachment 153861
View attachment 153862
^and this is from DefExpo 2017 i think
so @porky_kicker sir i think suggestions you gave have already been implemented to some extent but still observing this design, seems the mount on which Dhanush is put is even slightly below height of that trailer, most likely due to reasons mentioned in previous posts, so yeah probably they'll be able to solve all these issues with larger ATAGS after extensively working on this but seems a tough engineering challenge based on these pics...

The OFB MGS is a 52 cal gun not a 45 cal gun.

 

[Johny_Baba]

Source of ATAGS being based on FH-77B?

? isn't that obvious ? just observe both designs...
but if you still want ;source; then kopy pasting my <sensei>'s reply off teligram...

Johny_Baba,
<Sensei> sir, which gun system is used on ATAGS ?
Is it bofors derived stuff with some additional new tech Integrated on it or something else gun system ?

<Sensei>,
[In reply to Johny_Baba]
Basic blueprint is FH77B but with extended barrel and redesigned chamber for higher charge capacity. Dhanush is a straight up FH77B extended barrel copied from an existing Bofors validated blueprint that was part of the original tech transfer package

 

[Johny_Baba]

The OFB MGS is a 52 cal gun not a 45 cal gun.
View attachment 153868

hhmm alright i knew about this one based on dhanush so assumed it was in 45 cal, but if they're able to upscale dhanush to 52 cal one and make this and still it doesn't get moved ahead towads induction then... what to say

 

[Aditya Ballal]

hhmm alright i knew about this one based on dhanush so assumed it was in 45 cal, but if they're able to upscale dhanush to 52 cal one and make this and still it doesn't get moved ahead towads induction then... what to say

They also have a 52 Caliber version of the Dhanush(towed).

155mm Dhanush MK2 of 52 caliber

Work on version 2 of the Dhanush was also under way, officials said. "The sub-systems for this product are being developed and once this gun fires successfully, work on the next-generation Dhanush would gather momentum." Dhanush heads for summer trials ==================== Shared By...

defenceforumindia.com

More pics here.

 

[Srinie]

Chandigarh Wale Shuklaji wants us to believe that GE will pass on one of its crown jewels to BHEL . These babus and military pimps are Ram milaye jodi they deserve each other. The only thing BHEL will contribute is it's logo in the product .

This will include two Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbines and an alternator supplied by GE Energy, and two Rolls-Royce propellers. The alliance between GE and BHEL is expected to build the alternator in India.

BHEL-GE Power Conversion deal to make propulsion systems for Navy

The Indian Navy is considering building a second indigenous aircraft carrier to add to the combat capability

wap.business-standard.com

 

[The Saffron Knight]

A CSIR-NAL video on the development of Saras Mk-2.

 

[ShukantC]

I was looking at this tweet from Alpha defense and got curious about the Abhay IFV, apparently when it was being designed army rejected cause it was not considered advanced enough, the same army that still continues to use the BMP2 with all its shortcomings known to everyone.

Frankly this could have been design with little improvements over the years been a world beating platform as we can see with other platforms for eg the K 21 original and the Redback version offered to Australia looks entirely different.

Abhay on the other has been just been used as a tech demonstrator for a FICV project that may never come to fruition......

If anyone knows the actual status of IFV Abhay please share


K21 Redback :-

 

[Bhaubai]

Helicopter helicopter