|
|
Kfir mishap averted
Full News Article
GreyFox
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1339
Member Profile
|
 11 Dec 2006 18:01:52 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Snake2
Its good to hear that we have the industrial machinery needed to produce our own ammo. Its sad to hear that we are not taking advantage of it.
I should have been more clearer. The mine resistant unibuffel made in Lanka is an APC first and an IFV second. Its first job of the unibuffel is to transport troops not to engage the enemy head on even though it is capable of combat.
I think the IFVs produced during the Kobbekaduwa era, are the same as the modern day Unibuffels. The only difference being that the current unibuffels are more advanced than the ones produced in the 1980s and 1990s. |
Sandman
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1720
Member Profile
|
11 Dec 2006 22:31:36 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Snake2
That's because they (props) operated above the reach of the SAMs etc, and carried plenty of flares and counter-measures. |
SenaM
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1908
Member Profile
|
 12 Dec 2006 03:10:51 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Sandman
Snake 2
The keywords are decoys, flares, counter-measures .. If the PUCARA which went down - after taking a missile-hit- had been equipped with proper counter-measures, the on-coming missile may have been deflected, and the aircraft may have come to no harm. In which case the PUCARAS would still be flying, and performing yeo-man service to the air-force, and the nation. (The writer continues to maintain, wihdrawing PUCARAS from service was a 'bad' decision).
As regards SLAF Mi-24s - also slow, and vulnerable in the CAS role - they are now equipped with anti-missile systems.
It needs to be borne in mind, close air support aircraft get peppered by small arms fire, and should strictly have protection from up to half-inch (12.7mm) guns. The PUCARA and the Mi-24 have such 'skin' material, attached.
It takes courageous men to fly these missions ..
Edited By - SenaM - 12 Dec 2006 03:14:42 GMT |
Saervek
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 102
Member Profile
|
 12 Dec 2006 11:28:37 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Yes, local munitions production is a must. I think though, we do already have some capability in this department, I'm pretty sure that some of the bombs and rockets that the SLAF use are manufactured locally. That was basically the question that I asked Mig-29C a little while back. There was also a plan round 2004/5 in Kotegoda's time to buy an ammunition manufacture plant from Iran I think, along with some other equipment, but I don't think that deal eventuated? At least, I've heard nothing else about it.
GreyFox,
The crux of my point is basically that we do need some need large combatants, but not so many as 15, and preferably armed well enough to be useful in a post-conflict scenario. All the money has to come from somewhere, and at least some of it will have to be sourced from the FACs. This is a problem because we are already outnumbered at sea, and accordingly the priority should be to bolster the units in the line of battle.
Although a frigate would also be vulnerable, it would be nowhere near as vulnerable as an OPV. As we all know, the only real threat to the Navy is from the tiger suicide boats. A frigate which is capable of making a (approximately) 40kt 'dash' would be able to stay out of the way of those boats and give the main gun more than enough time to turn the tiger fiberglass dingies into so many matchsticks. An OPV like Sayura, which at best is capable of making 21kts simply doesn't have that kind of security.
The missiles are expensive, and this is a problem, but they should be used tactically, either to pick off sea tiger flotilla leaders, disrupting their command and control, or to sink the suicide boats. Once the suicide boats are removed from the equation, the sea tigers are ineffective. It would be worth expending a missile on them because the SLN could sink the other boats without much fear of damage or losses. We'd probably see a dramatic reduction in the number of FAC losses we suffer.
Really though, there probably isn't much point debating this at least not as far as a locally produced large combatant is concerned because as far as I know, CDL couldn't start building before around 2008 anyway, so why bother. |
SenaM
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1908
Member Profile
|
12 Dec 2006 12:10:22 GMT Report for Abuse
|
I have my loyalties to the air force, as an ex- air force person .. but I am prepared to concede there may be a 'case' for an 'air-element' to be closely integrated with the Army .. I am talking of the 'Close Air Support' function. It is obvious, at this time even high-ranking officers in the Army are not fully informed of this very important function .. Close Air Support .. and how it bears on army operations. (That is how the Army went on make those crucial mis-calculations, leading to the Muhamalai debacle).
If the air force is not 'interested' in the PUCARAS, they could be 'resuscitated' and made the 'core' of an 'air-element', closely integrated with the Army - for the Close Air Support function.
(Muhamalai is only one of those vital battles lost by the Army - due to failure to take advantage of 'air-capabilities' we possess. The Army Base at Elephant Pass need never have been lost .. if the air force had been asked to provide necessary support to the army garrison, when they were under pressure. LTTE massed formations could have been repulsed/decimated by air attack .. and the result would have been quite different).
Edited By - SenaM - 12 Dec 2006 12:28:24 GMT |
Saervek
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 102
Member Profile
|
12 Dec 2006 12:20:09 GMT Report for Abuse
|
GreyFox,
Not quite sure why you've rejected my T-55 (or arguably a Type 59/69) on the basis of cost and replaced it with a Stryker/BMP-3 type vehicle mate. When I suggested building T-55s locally, it was for a good reason. Firstly, the vehicle is already in local service, and moreover it is a simple vehicle to make. The technology used in it is around 50-20 years old (depending on model and options) , and most of it could be fabricated locally without much hassle.
Even if we violated their intellectual property rights, the Russians wouldn't object with a tank like that. Most importantly, if the project were to start today, production could begin in about a year, because there would be no need to be innovative. We probably wouldn't even need the blueprints, just get one of the battle-damaged ones, take it apart, buy some machine tools and lathes, and off you go. We could buy the engine and any parts too complicated to manufacture locally from the Ukrainians/Russians/Chinese.
You simply cannot do this with a BMP-3/Stryker. The level of technology used in such a weapon system is simply too sophisticated to reverse engineer like that, because we have absolutely no experience in building IFVs. Even the Unibuffel is built on a TATA chassis. Also, once the original manufacturer found out that we were simply violating their patents on such a modern machine, we would have a great deal of difficulty obtaining the more complicated parts, such as the engine/weapon system/drive-train/FCS/armour (especially anything more complicated than simple steel).
That would mean adapting different parts into the base IFV, which would increase development time greatly, because (for example) you cannot simply replace a UTD-32 with a VTA-903T. This is analogous to attempting to develop the whole project indigenously, development time would probably range between 5-10 years. Even worse, the whole thing would be quite expensive, especially if they have to opt for a license. A more realistic place to start might be with a BTR-60/70/80/90, the BTR-80A for preference since it's already in service, perhaps with the 30mm 2A42 if you want it more in the fire-support role. All of these are likely to be quite expensive though, probably more so than that T-55 MBT... which incidentally can be converted into a heavy APC (BTR-T et al). |
SenaM
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1908
Member Profile
|
12 Dec 2006 15:17:57 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Saervek
What you propose may not be such a bad idea .. building the T-55 MBT locally, will certainly give a boost to the dynamics of 'arms production' in Sri Lanka .. some-thing we had ignored all these many years, and as a result making us totally (or very largely) dependent on foreign purchases .. for arms and ammunition. This has turned out to be very costly.
There are also 'hidden' or, not so obvvious gains to be had from a dynamic domestic arms production program. The skills & know-how (as well as tools and equipment), are made available at the next stage for investing in other industrial activity. It is a 'snow-balling' process, expanding the scope & horizon of industrial activity in general.
Worth taking a second look .. but cost-structure for the project should not be prohibitive. |
snake2
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1035
Member Profile
|
12 Dec 2006 15:51:22 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Greyfox,
To add to the subject of local armament production capabilities, I had a chance to do an internship (while at Uni) working for a Government Fabrication facility. This was around 1994. I was told there that they used to manufacture rockets for the Military in the late eighties/early nineties.
(They might have said Mortars not Rockets, but I am getting senile ;0))
According to them, their products actually performed better than the foreign products.
But this production was apparently stopped. The workers think it was due to the intervention of a newly appointed chief engineer who happened to be Tamil.
I am again not sure if this is a valid claim. Perhaps the workers were trying to figure out why production was stopped, and guessed that this was the reason.
But nevertheless, the production did not continue.
Its funny looking through the equipment in this facility, a lot of which actually dates to around the second world war. But all of it is in great working order and the workmen are very skilled. |
Biggles
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 65
Member Profile
|
12 Dec 2006 15:56:39 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Hello Chaps!
It seems that there is an interesting discussion going on... you are all good eggs. (A bit green around edges, on occasion I might add!)
Mosquitoes... ah, I see they are not available. Pucaras, now they are even better (but the speed is lower, the Mosquito did 400 mph with a 4000lb load), but they must hug the tree tops to be effective. Still given the type of sortie, Bertie would love to fly these! You know, they should mount two more guns on it (30mm) and get the boys to fly over the trenches spraying... Can your boys fly like Bertie? Actually, if they keep that low the chances of getting hit by a big one is low. It seems your Pucara was built for this purpose, so why not use it?
They should be given a min load of bombs, and maximum flexibility on where they go. Knocking out smaller targets matters, as that will put pressure on the supply lines and also divert the enemy's resources and attention. Imagine removing 10% of the enemy lorries in a month? It is all tactics old boy, tactics! Hit 'em where it hurts and when they least expect it!
I have yet to see a discussion on knocking out their shipping while still berthed... you know, accidents happen to tubs full of ammo.
Of course they are reading your letters here, but that is OK, it will keep them guessing, and they will have less time to worry about other things. Pressure itself is a tactic.
Edited By - Biggles - 12 Dec 2006 16:13:25 GMT |
snake2
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1035
Member Profile
|
12 Dec 2006 16:10:38 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Biggles old chap,
It is all tactics old boy, tactics! Hit 'em where it hurts and when they least expect it!
I have yet to see a discussion on knocking out their shipping while still berthed... you know, accidents happen to tubs full of ammo.
You are spot on old man! By the way, you wouldn't happen to know Sun Tzu would you? Chinese chap, brilliant general, wrote a best selling book.Bit before your time though, I think. You and he would have gotten along famously. |
|
Search All News and Discussions