Indian MBRLS Pinaka Thread

[Yusuf]

MLRS was used in Kargil. Was extensively used in Iraq. IIRC the Iraqi called it steel rain or something.

 

[Zebra]

1.What is the primary role of artillery and how does Pinaka fit into fulfilling that role.

Pinaka Rocket Artillery....!


http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Rocket_artillery

 

[blueblood]

A few questions to the Pinaka enthusiasts :

1.What is the primary role of artillery and how does Pinaka fit into fulfilling that role.

Contemporary artillery is supposed to provide fire support to infantry, armour or both in the designated AOO. Pinaka being a rocket artillery can saturate or soften much larger area in lesser time when compared to tube artillery because of larger warheads and rapid rate of fire and significantly longer range.

2. What is the relevance of range ( space) in fighting the war, particularly tactical war which all combat elements of Army fit in and engage in..

It could range from harassment of enemy forces or infrastructure to conduction of counter battery operations while out-ranging the enemy.

3. What is sphere of interest and sphere of influence of a Division engaged in a war ?

Depends on the mandate of the Corps.

4. What are the means available at the disposal of an army Division or for that matter a Corps to control the battle at 60 km away from it?

CSD entails that 6-8 IBGs are to penetrate the non-threatening nuclear threshold which essentially translates to 40-60 km deep AAO for a division sized IBG.

5. What is the cost of Pinaka as compared to neutralisation of the targets by the shells of the field or medium artillery?

Depends, from a mere bunker to targeting Karakoram highway. Latter could be a game changer if India is able to disrupt supplies from China.

6. How many times or how many opportunities will be there for a strike corps to engage targets at 60 km range and what will be its effect on operational or tactical battle field. What will be the redundancies ?

I would say plenty since Pakis are repeatedly threatening India with 60 km ranged Nasr. Out-ranging your enemy's nuke launchers by 5 km or even by 500 mteres should come in handy.

Can someone in the forum including experts answer these questions before we sing ballets for Pinaka.

Not an expert, not even close to it but I would still welcome the rebuttal from a "defence professional".

 

[Bhadra]

MLRS was used in Kargil. Was extensively used in Iraq. IIRC the Iraqi called it steel rain or something.

Those were shorter range GRAD rockets and due to heavy shells did cause greater damages. Those were used to influence the immediate battle in front that is tactical battle. Rockets though are neither designed nor meant for such usage.

Moreover, Kargil is not a bench mark which many members quote here. It was a typical situation where India threw every Sh*t it has at its disposal.

 

[power_monger]

Pinaka was never meant to complement Artillery guns.It was always meant to Supplement artillery guns.

Its primary uses are

1) neutralization/destruction of the exposed troop concentrations, ‘B’ vehicles and other such soft targets
2) neutralization of enemy guns/rocket locations & missile launcher locations
3) Destruction of FOL & ammunition dumps
4) Engagement of enemy concentration areas,communication centers,air terminal complexes,Armour and mechanized formations..

 

[Bhadra]

Contemporary artillery is supposed to provide fire support to infantry, armour or both in the designated AOO. Pinaka being a rocket artillery can saturate or soften much larger area in lesser time when compared to tube artillery because of larger warheads and rapid rate of fire and significantly longer range.

The role of Artillary in a battle is to provide fire support to neutralise a "target". Please pay attention to the word " neutralise" as destruction is cost prohibitive and in many cases impossible. There two basic operations of war any Armed Forces engage in - that Defensive and offensive. The role of artillery is to provide fire support to attacking troops and take them to the target as near as possible with minimum interference from the enemy. In Defence the role of artillery is to bring fire on attacking troops to as near as possible of own troops. Thus the basic tasks of artillery are neutralise, destroy if possible, harass, cause attraction, demoralise etc. To quote FM-03-9 of US Army "

Fire support is defined as fires that directly support land, maritime, amphibious, and specia


operations forces to engage enemy forces, combat formations, and facilities in pursuit of tactical and

operational objectives (JP 3-09).


If one pays attention to that the closer artillery can cover own troops the better both in attack and defence. Artillery has to stop firing the moment own troops safety is endangered by own fire.

In this context, rockets can not provide what is called "closed fire support" because their safety distances are more than 600m. Now imagine I am attacking an objective and rockets have stopped firing 600 before I reach on objective, the attacking troops are that much vulnerable.

Hence, rockets are not used for fire support. They are a special purpose fire shells which are required for firing on targets much away from own troops. The utility of rockets is thus limited and can not provide close. fire support

It could range from harassment of enemy forces or infrastructure to conduction of counter battery operations while out-ranging the enemy.

If there is paucity of close fire support artillery, should a force abandon that and instead be pleased to possess a weapon for harassment? Harassment is not kill and does not contribute to attrition directly.

Any commander in battle is interested in an area ( space or call it range) from where his battle could be influenced / interfered by the enemy which he must take care of or influences by means at his disposal. Suppose I am a divisional commander in attack, I would be interested in a range from where the enemy would be firing on my offensive actions. That is to say 30 km from FEBA. That area can be taken care of by medium range artillery in counter bombardment role. However, the advantages of medium guns is that same can be used in supporting the troops whereas rocket artillery can not. Therefore rocket artillery is inhibited by the limitations.

Depends on the mandate of the Corps.

Why I asked that was to tell that even if a Corps size force is in echelon operations seprated by a depth of 20 kms - that is one operation at zero point and another operation simultaneously 20 km deep inside, even then forces do not require 68 km range. 20 Km from border and add another 20 as area of influence, it is 40 km from the border at the maximum.

It is not for the Army to look 68 Km deep into enemy areas and start firing there. There other and better means of doing that. What army requires and lacks is close support artillery. Pinaka can not fulfil that role.

CSD entails that 6-8 IBGs are to penetrate the non-threatening nuclear threshold which essentially translates to 40-60 km deep AAO for a division sized IBG.

IBG and 40 -60 Km inside Pakistan ? Then what will left of Pakistan? When have the Indians ever gone more than 10 -15 km inside Pakistan ? 6-8 IBG will only make shallow penetrations and tie down Pakistan's 8 - 10 divisions thereby facilitating strike corps to easily penetrate.

Even if the IBG go 40 kms deep they need close support artillery rather than rockets.

Depends, from a mere bunker to targeting Karakoram highway. Latter could be a game changer if India is able to disrupt supplies from China.

Karakoram by Pinaka ? I thought the nearest point of Karakoram Highway from LOC is about 100km. Unless you want to take those to Bila Fond La or Soltoro !!.

OK.. granted . But who is going to observe and correct that fire? Hmm .. Para Commando ?? So we would need Para Commandoes for Pinka. Happy situation, is not it ??

You may say UAV. I would agree but it is better to have an armed UAV rather than Pinaka for such a situation.

I would say plenty since Pakis are repeatedly threatening India with 60 km ranged Nasr. Out-ranging your enemy's nuke launchers by 5 km or even by 500 mteres should come in handy.

First, we must agree that Nasar would be single launcher if it is nuclear tipped. Even if grouped as a battery only singlr launcher would have nuclear tipped missile. It is a rocket launcher type vehicle and would be a point target. Pinaka is for area target. . What is the amount of guaranteed success required for neutralising a nuclear weapon launcher. It requires 100 per cent guarantee of neutralisation. Pinaka can not assure that. If I have no other resources I would use Brahmos rather than Pinaka. Other wise I would SF for that.

Not an expert, not even close to it but I would still welcome the rebuttal from a "defence professional".

WHAT IS MY POINT OF ARGUMENT ?

Indian Army needs their close support / support artillery much more urgently rather than Pinaka.

Pinaka is a welcome addition. But If I am suffering from malaria and sponsored doctor says get well with multi - vitamins only, then I have all reasons to shout.

That is what the picture is so far.

 

[Bhadra]

Pinaka was never meant to complement Artillery guns.It was always meant to Supplement artillery guns.

I appreciate that clear cut understanding. However many here propagate it as complementing or rather replacing Artillary Guns. There have been many questions as to why Army needs guns if they have Pinaka.? That was the sole idea behind asking some very basic questions.

Its primary uses are

1) neutralization/destruction of the exposed troop concentrations, ‘B’ vehicles and other such soft targets
2) neutralization of enemy guns/rocket locations & missile launcher locations
3) Destruction of FOL & ammunition dumps
4) Engagement of enemy concentration areas, communication centers , air terminal complexes, Armour and mechanized formations..

very fine. But those are secondary targets.
If these are primary targets then one does not require a range of 60 km for that as those targets must be neutralised within area of influence. There is no use killing open troops 68 km away from FEBA. There is no use of putting FOL on fire 60 km away from battle field. No artillery deploys 60 km away from the battle field.

Point is, enhanced range means enhanced cost. Enhanced costly methods of SATA and damage assessment. Merely having a weapon of 68 km by itself has no use and no meaning. We do not want "andhe ki laathi".

when Army does not require to influence battle deep 68 km inside enmy territory, why should Army be made to pay for it. Unit cost of Pinaka is $ 0.58 million. It is not a joke.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

What you know abt Kargil with relation to MBRLS .. ?

Moreover, Kargil is not a bench mark which many members quote here.

 

[Bheeshma]

Pinaka was used in kargil. Not sure why ppl are complaining so much about improvement in lethality of IA weapons. This means smerch will not have to be imported.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Pinaka was used in kargil. Not sure why ppl are complaining so much about improvement in lethality of IA weapons. This means smerch will not have to be imported.

Smerch deal might be dead? Tot was denied (as usual)


http://www.tribuneindia.com/2014/20140717/main5.htm

Russia says no to technology transfer for Smerch rockets

 

[blueblood]

If one pays attention to that the closer artillery can cover own troops the better both in attack and defence. Artillery has to stop firing the moment own troops safety is endangered by own fire.

In this context, rockets can not provide what is called "closed fire support" because their safety distances are more than 600m. Now imagine I am attacking an objective and rockets have stopped firing 600 before I reach on objective, the attacking troops are that much vulnerable.

Hence, rockets are not used for fire support. They are a special purpose fire shells which are required for firing on targets much away from own troops. The utility of rockets is thus limited and can not provide close. fire support

What makes you say that every single operation need close fire support? Is this a pre-requisite condition that rocket artillery is supposed to fulfill?

You just reduced a versatile weapon system like MBRLs to a singular purpose of providing close support. Missing forest for the trees are we?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-30_Smerch#Rocket_projectiles

1 MLRS firing all twelve rockets can blanket a target area and cause more damage than three regiments of 155mm artillery guns (howitzers), such as the M109 Paladin.

http://tanknutdave.com/the-m270-mlrs-multiple-launch-rocket-system/

If there is paucity of close fire support artillery, should a force abandon that and instead be pleased to possess a weapon for harassment? Harassment is not kill and does not contribute to attrition directly.

This statement would have made sense if Pinaka was being procured at the cost of tube artillery, something which is not true.

Of the 220 arty regiments how many do you think have been converted to rocket regiments?

Paucity of tube arty is not because of the Pinaka acquisition resulting in fund crunch. It is because of the mind boggling incompetence of Army and MOD.
It you believe otherwise, speak now or forever hold your peace.

Indian Army whose supplies got disrupted by enemy arty on NH-1 in 1999 should know a thing or two about "harassment". Not targeted destruction of each supply truck but general "harassment" which rendered the route unsafe.

Any commander in battle is interested in an area ( space or call it range) from where his battle could be influenced / interfered by the enemy which he must take care of or influences by means at his disposal. Suppose I am a divisional commander in attack, I would be interested in a range from where the enemy would be firing on my offensive actions. That is to say 30 km from FEBA. That area can be taken care of by medium range artillery in counter bombardment role. However, the advantages of medium guns is that same can be used in supporting the troops whereas rocket artillery can not. Therefore rocket artillery is inhibited by the limitations.

Your obsession for clubbing MBRLs with tube arty is amusing. We get it, tube artillery can provide close support.

Why I asked that was to tell that even if a Corps size force is in echelon operations seprated by a depth of 20 kms - that is one operation at zero point and another operation simultaneously 20 km deep inside, even then forces do not require 68 km range. 20 Km from border and add another 20 as area of influence, it is 40 km from the border at the maximum.

You realize that in an unpredictable phenomenon like war, your confidence of providing concrete numbers like "40 km at the maximum" is plain weird.

You could explain the rationale behind the numbers or am I to assume that you know something I don't, never will and can't possibly understand.

It is not for the Army to look 68 Km deep into enemy areas and start firing there. There other and better means of doing that. What army requires and lacks is close support artillery. Pinaka can not fulfil that role.

So, according to you spec ops or airborne ops should be limited your prescribed "maximum 40 km"?

Oh, I forgot rocket arty ≠ close support.

Apparently, a 10m CEP is not good enough for you.

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/mlrs-g.htm

Brits don't seem to mind the range. Same goes for very other nation.

During theatre they have fired the new GMLRS XM30 rocket with its 200lb high explosive warhead, which has been developed by the UK, other European countries and the US. It has a range of over 70km and earn’t the nickname ’70km Sniper’ because of its high accuracy thanks to the rockets on board GPS system.

http://tanknutdave.com/the-m270-mlrs-multiple-launch-rocket-system/

IBG and 40 -60 Km inside Pakistan ? Then what will left of Pakistan? When have the Indians ever gone more than 10 -15 km inside Pakistan ? 6-8 IBG will only make shallow penetrations and tie down Pakistan's 8 - 10 divisions thereby facilitating strike corps to easily penetrate.

I would say plenty will be left of Pakistan. It is not Bhutan you know.
Depends on your definition of Pakistan, India reached Dhaka in the last Indo-Pak war.

Those shallow penetrations are not there to facilitate Strike Corps but to hold land to coerce Pak. If Strike Corps are being used then CSD losses it's purpose of non nuclear conflict.

Even if the IBG go 40 kms deep they need close support artillery rather than rockets.

Fetish?

You are right, anti tank, mine laying, anti personnel operations don't matter. Blunting the enemy armour's edge from a safe distance is the coward's way of fighting.

Karakoram by Pinaka ? I thought the nearest point of Karakoram Highway from LOC is about 100km. Unless you want to take those to Bila Fond La or Soltoro !!.

Not really, plenty of bridges and choking points within range from places like Teetwal, Tangdhar, Leepa etc.

OK.. granted . But who is going to observe and correct that fire? Hmm .. Para Commando ?? So we would need Para Commandoes for Pinka. Happy situation, is not it ??

You may say UAV. I would agree but it is better to have an armed UAV rather than Pinaka for such a situation.

Happy situation, not at all? Your assumption that IA is stupid is sad to say the least.

An expensive UCAV armed with 2,4,8 short range missiles with 8 kg warheads which could be shot down VS relatively inexpensive guided rocket with 100 kg warhead. You be the judge.

Before you say that a UAV is needed anyway. Observation UAVs used in SATA regiments are way cheaper than the "Reaper" like drone you are advocating.

First, we must agree that Nasar would be single launcher if it is nuclear tipped. Even if grouped as a battery only singlr launcher would have nuclear tipped missile. It is a rocket launcher type vehicle and would be a point target. Pinaka is for area target. . What is the amount of guaranteed success required for neutralising a nuclear weapon launcher. It requires 100 per cent guarantee of neutralisation. Pinaka can not assure that. If I have no other resources I would use Brahmos rather than Pinaka. Other wise I would SF for that.

1) Nasr is not going to be fired on move.
2) Pak will definitely use decoys, i.e. trucks with appearance of Nasr launchers. Makes targetting difficult with precision weapons like Brahmos.
3) Rockets can be eqipped with sensor fuzed AT warheads.
4) Special forces did less than commendable job in Iraq for scud hunting.

Pinaka is one of the options to be used here not the only option.
Brahmos regiments are not part of IBGs. They are part of arty divisions which are in turn part of Strike CORPS.

WHAT IS MY POINT OF ARGUMENT ?

Indian Army needs their close support / support artillery much more urgently rather than Pinaka.

Pinaka is a welcome addition. But If I am suffering from malaria and sponsored doctor says get well with multi - vitamins only, then I have all reasons to shout.

That is what the picture is so far.

Your thinking is wildly flawed if you believe that close support is the only thing arty do.

I repeat myself, Pinaka or other MBRLs are not being inducted at the cost of tube arty.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

The Unit involve in Kargil highly praised MBRL roles, I have proper documentation for this including Pinaka role and its success from serving IA personal ..

 

[sob]

Sir,

Posts have been restored. Let us not get distracted from a very fascinating discussion.

I am partially inclined to Pinaka due to my involvement as a vendor to L&T , however the very subtle difference of complimentary and supplementary role of MLRS is very interesting.

 

[sob]

The Unit involve in Kargil highly praised MBRL roles, I have proper documentation for this including Pinaka role and its success from serving IA personal ..

Sir,

As per my information there was a point of the accuracy of the MLRs as compared to Artillery Guns.

 

[Bhadra]

What makes you say that every single operation need close fire support? Is this a pre-requisite condition that rocket artillery is supposed to fulfill?

You just reduced a versatile weapon system like MBRLs to a singular purpose of providing close support. Missing forest for the trees are we?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-30_Smerch#Rocket_projectiles


1 MLRS firing all twelve rockets can blanket a target area and cause more damage than three regiments of 155mm artillery guns (howitzers), such as the M109 Paladin.

http://tanknutdave.com/the-m270-mlrs-multiple-launch-rocket-system/



This statement would have made sense if Pinaka was being procured at the cost of tube artillery, something which is not true.

Of the 220 arty regiments how many do you think have been converted to rocket regiments?

Paucity of tube arty is not because of the Pinaka acquisition resulting in fund crunch. It is because of the mind boggling incompetence of Army and MOD.
It you believe otherwise, speak now or forever hold your peace.

Indian Army whose supplies got disrupted by enemy arty on NH-1 in 1999 should know a thing or two about "harassment". Not targeted destruction of each supply truck but general "harassment" which rendered the route unsafe.



Your obsession for clubbing MBRLs with tube arty is amusing. We get it, tube artillery can provide close support.



You realize that in an unpredictable phenomenon like war, your confidence of providing concrete numbers like "40 km at the maximum" is plain weird.

You could explain the rationale behind the numbers or am I to assume that you know something I don't, never will and can't possibly understand.



So, according to you spec ops or airborne ops should be limited your prescribed "maximum 40 km"?

Oh, I forgot rocket arty ≠ close support.

Apparently, a 10m CEP is not good enough for you.

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/mlrs-g.htm

Brits don't seem to mind the range. Same goes for very other nation.

During theatre they have fired the new GMLRS XM30 rocket with its 200lb high explosive warhead, which has been developed by the UK, other European countries and the US. It has a range of over 70km and earn’t the nickname ’70km Sniper’ because of its high accuracy thanks to the rockets on board GPS system.

http://tanknutdave.com/the-m270-mlrs-multiple-launch-rocket-system/



I would say plenty will be left of Pakistan. It is not Bhutan you know.
Depends on your definition of Pakistan, India reached Dhaka in the last Indo-Pak war.

Those shallow penetrations are not there to facilitate Strike Corps but to hold land to coerce Pak. If Strike Corps are being used then CSD losses it's purpose of non nuclear conflict.



Fetish?

You are right, anti tank, mine laying, anti personnel operations don't matter. Blunting the enemy armour's edge from a safe distance is the coward's way of fighting.



Not really, plenty of bridges and choking points within range from places like Teetwal, Tangdhar, Leepa etc.



Happy situation, not at all? Your assumption that IA is stupid is sad to say the least.

An expensive UCAV armed with 2,4,8 short range missiles with 8 kg warheads which could be shot down VS relatively inexpensive guided rocket with 100 kg warhead. You be the judge.

Before you say that a UAV is needed anyway. Observation UAVs used in SATA regiments are way cheaper than the "Reaper" like drone you are advocating.



1) Nasr is not going to be fired on move.
2) Pak will definitely use decoys, i.e. trucks with appearance of Nasr launchers. Makes targetting difficult with precision weapons like Brahmos.
3) Rockets can be eqipped with sensor fuzed AT warheads.
4) Special forces did less than commendable job in Iraq for scud hunting.

Pinaka is one of the options to be used here not the only option.
Brahmos regiments are not part of IBGs. They are part of arty divisions which are in turn part of Strike CORPS.



Your thinking is wildly flawed if you believe that close support is the only thing arty do.

I repeat myself, Pinaka or other MBRLs are not being inducted at the cost of tube arty.

All irrelevant and diversion from the topic. Read basics first and then we shall discuss.

PS: I had worked to reply to this post for a long time but got washed off. Have no energy to do it again.

 

[Bheeshma]

The only one making irrelevant posts is you. The 155 mm guns and MRLS complement each other and are not at the cost of each other. That arty needs guns is a given and 155mm guns are needed urgently but the BM-30 grads are getting long in the tooth and Pinaka-II's are a must. Unless you have proof that IA is being made to purchase Pinaka at the cost of 155 mm guns, you are simply ranting. Get a grip.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

The topic is called here with relation to kargil and usage of MBRLS, Tube and MBRLS in Kargil used in similar ways, One who has knowledge about the situation first hand would call off these posts ..

I will not approve such post without knowing the motive of member, What asked here need to be answered before going further ..

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

Regarding your question of accuracy, The difference is quite large for both system but when talking Kargil which is talked here, The usage is of MBRLS has edge in many ways and benefits then tube, In Kargil only, MBRLS get more support and today for that reason we are mordanising BM-21s and Induction more regiments of Pinaka into Army ..

I will go more on it, Unless i like to know what Bhadra has to say abt basics here, I have deleted those post again unless i get proper answer for what i asked ..

@pmaitra , @Ray Sir , @sayareakd Sir ..

Posts have been restored. Let us not get distracted from a very fascinating discussion..

Sir,

As per my information there was a point of the accuracy of the MLRs as compared to Artillery Guns.

 

[acetophenol]

Hope they use Tata or any other Indian brands instinstead of Tatra trucks as the platform.

 

[blueblood]

All irrelevant and diversion from the topic. Read basics first and then we shall discuss.

PS: I had worked to reply to this post for a long time but got washed off. Have no energy to do it again.

Dear sir, the topic is Pinaka MRL. Both of my posts were on the topic of Pinaka and other MRLs, their capabilities, their usage, their advantages and disadvantages.

I am here to learn so if you want to teach me something about the basics please go ahead.

As for the reply, don't sweat it but please refrain from making unsubstantiated claims and provacative statements that lead nowhere.

 

[Bhadra]

Sir,

Posts have been restored. Let us not get distracted from a very fascinating discussion.

I am partially inclined to Pinaka due to my involvement as a vendor to L&T , however the very subtle difference of complimentary and supplementary role of MLRS is very interesting.

Where are you in this chain :