Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
US set to bag $5 bn defence deals from India
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostBad 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.
- 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
-
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
-
Originally posted by lemontree View PostSir, 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.
Originally posted by ArtyEngineer View PostTo 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
-
Originally posted by anil View PostLT, 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?
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
Comment
-
Originally posted by lemontree View PostRubbish, 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.
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
-
Originally posted by Defcon5 View PostYou are wrong.
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"
Comment
-
Originally posted by gf0012-aust View PostAs 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
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
-
Originally posted by gf0012-aust View PostAs 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
By the way, what did In P-8I Neptune lose that P-8 Poseidon retained?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Defcon5 View PostYou are wrong.
They act as Forward Operators - Laser Designators, they are a complete Special Forces, akin to MARCOS and Paracommando's
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
Cheers!...on the rocks!!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Blademaster View PostWell 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?
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
Comment
-
Originally posted by Firestorm View PostIf 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
Comment