Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US set to bag $5 bn defence deals from India

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    I don't know, Captain. In one, you're shaking too much to notice that you're freezing. The other, you're freezing too much to notice that you're being shaken apart.
    Lol....

    Cheers!...on the rocks!!

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
      Bad buy.

      What Western militaries have learned is that truck mounted howitzers are a very bad idea. It's a compromise between tracked SPH and towed with none of the advantages of either. Tires are no replacement for track and the weight of the gun makes wheels just sink in the mud.

      Tows are much lighter and you have the advantage of bigger ammunition storage with the truck which can be used for other purposes such as resupply. A good gun crew ... and you really new good crews anyway, can be just as fast to set up a tow as well as the truck mount.

      The USMC and the RCHA abandoned the SPH for those very reasons.
      Sir, I would differ from you on this, as the SPH give the following advantages over towed systems:-
      - Quicker action time almost same as the tracked system.
      - Rate of fire is high (burst fire of 3 rounds in 15 - 18 sec).
      - Unrefuelled range is better than tracked system (about 600 km average).

      An SPH system can be in and out of action within 3 min, same as a tracked system.
      Besides an SPH system is much cheaper, (180 guns within $900 million - $ 1 billion; a tracked system would cost $800 milllion for 100 guns ), which is good for a country like ours, ecause we need about 1800.

      Cheers!...on the rocks!!

      Comment


      • #33
        LT, the US hardware is messed up.

        Besides the political constraints, I don't any indian officer likes shifting out equipment on a regular basis because of the mandatory "end-user verification" inspections(End Use Monitoring Agreement) which has been already signed by india(a pre-condition for the nuke deal).

        Could you imagine a scene as the US technicians arrive at yelahanka for inspecting the fighter planes and the indian pilots welcoming them with a red carpet?
        Last edited by anil; 17 Sep 13,, 14:38.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by lemontree View Post
          Sir, I would differ from you on this, as the SPH give the following advantages over towed systems:-
          - Quicker action time almost same as the tracked system.
          - Rate of fire is high (burst fire of 3 rounds in 15 - 18 sec).
          - Unrefuelled range is better than tracked system (about 600 km average).

          An SPH system can be in and out of action within 3 min, same as a tracked system.
          Besides an SPH system is much cheaper, (180 guns within $900 million - $ 1 billion; a tracked system would cost $800 milllion for 100 guns ), which is good for a country like ours, ecause we need about 1800.
          Once you add in target acquisition, then truck mounted howitzer lost all its appeal.

          Originally posted by ArtyEngineer View Post
          To be honest I dont see the point of Truck Mounted Howitzers myself. As others have pointed out they have all the disadvantages of both Towed and Tracked SPH rolled into one package.

          Disadvantages of Truck Mounted Howitzer:

          Crew exposed.
          As Maintenance Intensive as a Tracked SPH
          Rate of Fire, Emplacement and Displacement times not appreciably faster than a modern towed system. (Proven by British Army during a comparative asseesment of Caeser vs M777/Portee System)
          Limited on Carriage Traverse.
          Tactical Mobility less than a Tracked SPH
          Tactical Mobility less than a Towed Howitzer when Airlift options considered.

          Advantages of Truck Mounted Howitzer:

          Lighter than a Tracked SPH means Strategic Mobility easier.
          Reduced Lane Length compared to Towed Plus Prime Mover.
          Capable of mounting 45 or 52 Cal tube compared to 39 Cal in M777, Pegasus.
          Smaller Crew size than Towed. (However this can impact crews ability to perform Daily Maintenance and sustain 24/7 operations)

          Those are the main things that I can think of just of the top of my head.

          Regards

          Arty

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by anil View Post
            LT, the US hardware is messed up.

            Besides the political constraints, I don't any indian officer likes shifting out equipment on a regular basis because of the mandatory "end-user verification" inspections(End Use Monitoring Agreement) which has been already signed by india(a pre-condition for the nuke deal).

            Could you imagine a scene as the US technicians arrive at yelahanka for inspecting the fighter planes and the indian pilots welcoming them with a red carpet?
            As someone who has been involved with FMS issues I have no idea where you got this from.

            It is incorrect on so many levels.

            Feel free to point out where any country that has purchased their platforms from the US since GW1 which has been subjected to these constraints

            The FMS provisions are more about securing the tech from being passed on inapprop or about onselling

            India has no special constraints applied to her FMS sales over any other country - and if she did have additional constraints it would have ended up doing the congressional approval dance.

            I've also deal with a few contract platform negotiations for InMil and at no stage have I ever heard of India being constrained and where snap inspections (or even contracted inspections) would occur.

            Like every country that sells mil gear, the US might get excited if their equipment was used in an action which was seen as stepping outside the bounds their political philosophies in the event of use a conflict - but thats not unique to the americans.

            The swiss and the swedes have done it to Australia, The french, germans have similar constraints

            In fact the claims made are so wrong to make me wonder whether your source understands military contracts at all
            Linkeden:
            http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
            http://cofda.wordpress.com/

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by lemontree View Post
              Rubbish, it is just a flying truck.


              The Garuds are for combat and rescue of downed pilots and as an emergency response team for any attacks on airforce installations. They do not need C-130Js.
              You are wrong.

              They act as Forward Operators - Laser Designators, they are a complete Special Forces, akin to MARCOS and Paracommando's

              C-130J - Please look at the kit it is outfitted with.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Defcon5 View Post
                You are wrong.
                The term truck comes from the traditional banter that happens between fighter pilots and other pilots

                in a number of airforces, the fighter pilots refer to transport pilots as "truck drivers"

                irrespective of what the platform has been fitted out with (and look at the vast range of specialised hercs in USAF/USMC/USN service), the base platform is a transport - or in the parlance of anyone who wants to take a rise out of them :) - a truck

                thats not meant to disparage air transport, as the obvious applies. no logistics, no meaningful fighting beyond "point or day nn"
                Linkeden:
                http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
                  As someone who has been involved with FMS issues I have no idea where you got this from.

                  It is incorrect on so many levels.

                  Feel free to point out where any country that has purchased their platforms from the US since GW1 which has been subjected to these constraints

                  The FMS provisions are more about securing the tech from being passed on inapprop or about onselling

                  India has no special constraints applied to her FMS sales over any other country - and if she did have additional constraints it would have ended up doing the congressional approval dance.

                  I've also deal with a few contract platform negotiations for InMil and at no stage have I ever heard of India being constrained and where snap inspections (or even contracted inspections) would occur.

                  Like every country that sells mil gear, the US might get excited if their equipment was used in an action which was seen as stepping outside the bounds their political philosophies in the event of use a conflict - but thats not unique to the americans.

                  The swiss and the swedes have done it to Australia, The french, germans have similar constraints

                  In fact the claims made are so wrong to make me wonder whether your source understands military contracts at all
                  I always had this feeling that India will not buy military hardware from US, if there are constraints about using those in times of war. However, try arguing about this on an Indian Board to a bunch of my paranoid countrymen.

                  OTOH, could you please point out some articles that says the same in your post. Things like End-User monitoring etc.
                  Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
                    As someone who has been involved with FMS issues I have no idea where you got this from.

                    It is incorrect on so many levels.

                    Feel free to point out where any country that has purchased their platforms from the US since GW1 which has been subjected to these constraints

                    The FMS provisions are more about securing the tech from being passed on inapprop or about onselling

                    India has no special constraints applied to her FMS sales over any other country - and if she did have additional constraints it would have ended up doing the congressional approval dance.

                    I've also deal with a few contract platform negotiations for InMil and at no stage have I ever heard of India being constrained and where snap inspections (or even contracted inspections) would occur.

                    Like every country that sells mil gear, the US might get excited if their equipment was used in an action which was seen as stepping outside the bounds their political philosophies in the event of use a conflict - but thats not unique to the americans.

                    The swiss and the swedes have done it to Australia, The french, germans have similar constraints

                    In fact the claims made are so wrong to make me wonder whether your source understands military contracts at all
                    Well the Indian military made a big hullaboo about the end user licensing and the CISMOA whatever you call it and as a result, the US removed certain communication equipments and signals to get around it.

                    By the way, what did In P-8I Neptune lose that P-8 Poseidon retained?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Defcon5 View Post
                      You are wrong.

                      They act as Forward Operators - Laser Designators, they are a complete Special Forces, akin to MARCOS and Paracommando's
                      Incorrect as far as I know. The above tasks are duplication of what the SFs units do, the airforce chaps are not taking over the Para SFs jobs. Besides, they do not have officers who are qualified in even basic inf tactics.

                      Their primary job is combat search and rescue and as a response unit to base attacks.

                      C-130J - Please look at the kit it is outfitted with
                      That kit would be for the Para SF units.

                      Cheers!...on the rocks!!

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        If the IAF wants to use the C-130J as a regular flying truck like their An-32's, they will need a lot more than just the 12 they have ordered.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          You're not junking the An-32s. The C-130Js are supposed to augment, not replace the An-32s.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                            Well the Indian military made a big hullaboo about the end user licensing and the CISMOA whatever you call it and as a result, the US removed certain communication equipments and signals to get around it.

                            By the way, what did In P-8I Neptune lose that P-8 Poseidon retained?
                            The Indian excitement was over the push for complete transfer of tech, those conditions even apply to the US's 3 primary allies (4 eyes community)

                            As for IAF P8's 'm unsure whats been removed. I know that there is minimal difference between RAAF P8's and USN, and that it boils down to inherent comms reqs. I can't imagine the IAF trying to retain much of the prev IAF owned ASW suite as they haven't been exactly happy about it - and hence the reason why they bit the bullet in the first place
                            Linkeden:
                            http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                            http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                              If the IAF wants to use the C-130J as a regular flying truck like their An-32's, they will need a lot more than just the 12 they have ordered.
                              They're complimentary assets
                              Linkeden:
                              http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                              http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
                                They're complimentary assets
                                For everyone but the logistics
                                No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                                To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X