BAE’s US arm to shift Howitzer assembly here

[Indo-guy]

Well I am sure new MOD is seeking TOT that will actually help us & aren't these guns & Bofors of the same caliber

too costly to replace Boffors !!!

 

[Echo_419]

too costly to replace Boffors !!!

Ya but if they don't word out for MSC we can use it to replace Bofors

 

[Indo-guy]

Ya but if they don't word out for MSC we can use it to replace Bofors

and what will we use for MSC then ?

we need ultra low weight artillery guns which can be towed underslung heavy lift helos ...for rapid mobilization .

since numbers are limited ..they are almost exclusively used in mountainous regions ...

Off course few will find place along Kargil , Ladakh sector ...

For bofors replacement we need cheaper alternative so that we can mass induct and that's why the emphasis for indigenous artillery gun.

 

[Echo_419]

and what will we use for MSC then ?

we need ultra low weight artillery guns which can be towed underslung heavy lift helos ...for rapid mobilization .

since numbers are limited ..they are almost exclusively used in mountainous regions ...

Off course few will find place along Kargil , Ladakh sector ...

For bofors replacement we need cheaper alternative so that we can mass induct and that's why the emphasis for indigenous artillery gun.

Let me rephrase myself
These guns will surely be used for MSC but what t think that we should wait a few more years & let the Bharat Forge comeup & induct it in large nos

 

[Indo-guy]

Let me rephrase myself
These guns will surely be used for MSC but what t think that we should wait a few more years & let the Bharat Forge comeup & induct it in large nos

Indeed . I agree .
We know what role bofors gun played in Kargil war. So artillery is still going to form backbone of any mountain warfare in near future . we need to induct ultra low weight artillery guns in large number for that reason .

 

[sancho]

That was hardly going to happen overnight and doesn't mean that every single deal India has with the US will follow this route (CH-47F, AH-64E, S-70B, MQ-4C etc won't).

Of course not, but that's what we want and that's not what we get now with the M777 offer, so lets not make more out of it than it is. Btw as I said earlier, I would prefer the M777 in the simpler and faster FMS route, just as we bought C130Js, or P8s, because it's a specific arm that we need to secure the country, while LUH, MMRCA, NMHR, or even the ATGM tender have a higher aim on industrial advantages and that's where ToT, JV's or even joint developments are important. For the earlier the US is a good option today, for the latter THEY have to change things.

A small step in the right direction is a step in the right direction nonetheless and I don't think it is reasonable to expect everything at once from the outset.

That's what I said, but it's not like we don't give them anything right? Apache, Chinook, S70, additional C130 and most likely P8s, engine deals...., so it's up to them to come closer to us, if they want more and not on us to lower our demands only to make them happy.

@sancho @Abingdonboy . I've read your posts from time to time and I have a question for Sancho. Could you tell me, as I'm not much into the military side of things, how many NON- NATO partners have we made such offers to, as we've offered India?

I ask because we are very particular on who gets TOT, especially to what we feel is the best technology.

But with you the expectations seems to be either your way or highway.

What offer do you mean, howitzers in general and why limit it to non NATO partners? Howitzers in general are on offer from all sides Russia, Israel, Europe, partially Asia, Siingapore for example offered a light howitzer in competition to the M777 initially and they offered self-propelled howitzers in licence production deals under ToT as well.
What the US feels to be the best technology and what they are ready to share don't have to be the same what we have access to, just look at the MMRCA and the fact that you didn't offered critical ToT of AESA radars or avionics, while the whole world did, partially even of superior techs. So it's not about our way or highway, but about the options we have apart from what the US offers. The India market is not like selling stuff to Australia, Canada or even Israel, where you have control and influence. We are independent, can choose what actually is the best for us, not what the US decides is the best for us. F18s and F16s today with AIM 120D and JSOW are nice, especially since that offer is better that what you offer even your close ally Pakistan, but simply not good enough to Eurocanards with METEOR and Scalp / Storm Shadow, critical ToT or even partnerships. So make us better offers and we will be happy to buy more US stuff.

 

[Foggy_Bottom]

What offer do you mean, howitzers in general and why limit it to non NATO partners? Howitzers in general are on offer from all sides Russia, Israel, Europe, partially Asia, Siingapore for example offered a light howitzer in competition to the M777 initially and they offered self-propelled howitzers in licence production deals under ToT as well.
What the US feels to be the best technology and what they are ready to share don't have to be the same what we have access to, just look at the MMRCA and the fact that you didn't offered critical ToT of AESA radars or avionics, while the whole world did, partially even of superior techs. So it's not about our way or highway, but about the options we have apart from what the US offers. The India market is not like selling stuff to Australia, Canada or even Israel, where you have control and influence. We are independent, can choose what actually is the best for us, not what the US decides is the best for us. F18s and F16s today with AIM 120D and JSOW are nice, especially since that offer is better that what you offer even your close ally Pakistan, but simply not good enough to Eurocanards with METEOR and Scalp / Storm Shadow, critical ToT or even partnerships. So make us better offers and we will be happy to buy more US stuff.

I was asking why do you expect us to give so much more than we give our NATO allies, and especially when we have the most technologically advanced military assets over others.

Take for example your AESA example. You make it sound like the offer was made by others on an existing, mature, tested AESA they have/posses. They don't- they are making these offers based on an AESA they will have in future, fully knowing that it won't be as technologically advanced as a ours. And.... make sure that costs are not factored in within the existing package on the table.

It's not about comparing F18 to some aircraft. I was asking about this expectation of us to give you TOT on those assets you want to buy from us. Some we can, some we can limited, some we won't.

 

[sancho]

I was asking why do you expect us to give so much more than we give our NATO allies

For the reasons I mentioned:

The Indian market is not like selling stuff to Australia, Canada or even Israel, where you have control and influence. We are independent, can choose what actually is the best for us, not what the US decides is the best for us

If you want a pice of our market, you have to change your policy according to our demands, otherwise we simply choose one of the plenty options, because we can!

They don't- they are making these offers based on an AESA they will have in future, fully knowing that it won't be as technologically advanced as a ours.

They don't have to, since that never was the requirement, they only needed to have AESAs as the base to evaluate the performance in the trials, as well as in time for the delivery and neither the F16 nor the F18SH AESA can keep up with the Captor E swashplate AESA, so please lets not confuse proven and capable with eachother. The US fighters were proven true, but the EF and Rafale were capable and came with far superior tech or industrial offers, that's why they were shortlisted and the US fighters rejected.

 

[sancho]

Exactly, it is a move to fix the offset problem and in that regard it's a wellcomed step, that they finally moved to fix this deal but nothing more, since minor offsets doesn't improve our industrial capability.

Let me quote myself here:

Can you elaborate on the M777 proposal?

Ian King: It is under Foreign Military Sales (FMS) route of the US government. It is a Government to Government arrangement and in terms of the final assembly, it will be done here. One can really kick-start the M777 because you've got a very mature plan. We know there's going to be an offset obligation, and we will commit to that obligation but we will go even further than that and have committed that we will do the final assembly of the howitzer in India. We will create a facility for final Assembly-Integration-Testing (AIT) with an Indian industrial partner. Previously we had a facility in the US. So we will basically take a replica and put it here in India. And then we will sign up an Indian partner to do it with us.


In case, things move forward on the M777, what will be the likely components that can be manufactured or moved to India?

Ian King: I think that will be subject to arrangements at that time. It’s quite a complex thing. Generally, with these programmes, you move bit by bit till you get the finals. The way we’ve done on Hawk. It will be better to start at the end with the assembly line first and then its easier to start manufacturing components.

BAE Systems enthused about 'Make in India', upbeat on M777 guns - The Hindu

As expected, they only trying to move around the former offset problem, by setting up an assembly line, so the Indian industry only gets to know, how to assemble the parts produced in the UK and the US, so basically scewdriver work, rather than actually producing something.
In comparision, as part of the C130J or P8I deals, airframe parts of both aircrafts are now produced at TATA or HAL and that even for exports => Make in India!!!

 

[Omega007]

I am hoping higher number of Arty guns will finally bring about a change in deployment doctrine of IA along the western border. It is quite dismal that heavy artillery has been not used to mitigate the transgressions of neighbor. If India does want to have lower threshold for tolerating pakistani transgression, it is imperative to have forward deployment of arty units. Procurement of more arty units will be the right direction that previous governments have deliberately undermined due to spineless foreign policy.

I think it is not because of lack of 155mm medium guns that Indian Army doesn't use artillery during cross border engagements,but it is more to do with a pact made earlier with Pakistan which prohibits both sides from deploying weapons of bigger profile than mortars.If the artillery were to be used,there are about 1200 M 46 field guns in service with Indian Army that can be used,which has got greater range than most Pakistani guns (except few of the Panters) anyway.So the situation is not as desperate as it is made out to be.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

lol obsolete crap

 

[Echo_419]

Let me quote myself here:



BAE Systems enthused about 'Make in India', upbeat on M777 guns - The Hindu

As expected, they only trying to move around the former offset problem, by setting up an assembly line, so the Indian industry only gets to know, how to assemble the parts produced in the UK and the US, so basically scewdriver work, rather than actually producing something.
In comparision, as part of the C130J or P8I deals, airframe parts of both aircrafts are now produced at TATA or HAL and that even for exports => Make in India!!!

Better to go for a limited number of these guns as a stop gap measure & wait till the Kalyani gun is ready

 

[sancho]

Better to go for a limited number of these guns as a stop gap measure & wait till the Kalyani gun is ready

It's actually the other way around, we can add the Kalyani gun later, whtn it's fully developed and if it fulfills the operational requirements, but we can't make the defence of the country dependent on the hope of that gun. Until that is ready and capable we have to plan with the M777 and the faster we can get it, the better. China is pushing it's capabilities in the high altitude warfare hard and our pace is far too low to counter that. In some procurement cases, we have to forget about the production of basic parts in India, for faster induction benefits and this is such a case.

 

[Echo_419]

It's actually the other way around, we can add the Kalyani gun later, whtn it's fully developed and if it fulfills the operational requirements, but we can't make the defence of the country dependent on the hope of that gun. Until that is ready and capable we have to plan with the M777 and the faster we can get it, the better. China is pushing it's capabilities in the high altitude warfare hard and our pace is far too low to counter that. In some procurement cases, we have to forget about the production of basic parts in India, for faster induction benefits and this is such a case.

Fair Points & we should buildup at least till 2020(By that time our Nuclear deterrent will be mature enough to give Chinese a response they won't forget)

 

[sancho]

Fair Points & we should buildup at least till 2020(By that time our Nuclear deterrent will be mature enough to give Chinese a response they won't forget)

Our nuclear deterrent haven't stopped them to cross north / north eastern borders so far right? So we have to be prepared even for small scale conflicts and that's where these light howitzers, combat helicopters, light tanks / tank destroyers, improved infrastructure and air transportability will be key factors. Sadly in most of these fields we lack behind schedule and far far behind Chinese efforts.