Pakistan's Artillery Upgrade Discussions

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Thank you. G6 is a complete mobile system not a bolted G5 on back of a commercial truck. G5 is a wheeled unit which is towed by a SAMIL truck; it has its own apu which is used to move it from place to place as well. The range of G5/G6 is well know as well as its accuracy.

We got our backsides kicked by Nora in first Angola ops which prompted us to start work on G5/G6s. Following engagements, G5/G6s proved themselves worthy against the cubans.

I'm impressed by the goals laid in the G7 LEO program. Granted, there are some very lightweight 105 mm guns emerging from the US and Turkey, but a 105 mm guns with the terminal performance and range of a 155 mm - whilst being 50-60% the total mass - is enticing. If Denel can bring the weight down to less than 3,000kg then it'd be possible to Integrate the gun to a light armoured vehicle and use as an agile SPH. Not to mention ease of lifting it by air (with its crew and munitions).

 

[pzfz]

Nora B52 is not upgunned M46. We have developed more then two decades ago a separate kit for upgunning M-46 based partial on previously developed Nora M84 technology. And Pakistan could use that kit to modernise existing M-46 - Type 59, 59-1. It includes new longer barrel, combustible powder charges, FCS and many other improvements.

Nora B-52 has a range depending on charge and missile used between 27km and 56km when we talk about ammo that Serbia produce and additionally can use ammo from any other manufacturer for 155mm guns with appropriate characteristics. There is currently few version of Nora B-52 that Serbia offers: K-I, K1 and KE version. All have different features and level of automation and all have one of the best FCS in world for artillery.

Newly developed version MGS-25 it is fully robotic system that can be operated by remote control. It could be operated with only 1 crewman in a case of need , standard crew is three.

The M84 is the result of work done on the M46 and the US M114. Nora SPA is essentially a M84 mated to a truck.

Don't get me wrong, Nora would be excellent to up-gun the existing type 59s in service; but as the primary modern howitzer for the next 50 years? No Thanks. Using different ammo isn't something new to the Nora, nor is the range. Denel outguns it - that too with a higher rate of fire. Denel also provides a full range of products: tracked, wheeled, trucked, and apu. Simply i like the lineage of the Denel gun (Gerard Bull's GC45) vs that of the Nora.

The Aleksandar is like i (and you) said an automated Nora B52 similar to the Swedish Archer. A very good feature. But the gun remains the same.

 

[denel]

I'm impressed by the goals laid in the G7 LEO program. Granted, there are some very lightweight 105 mm guns emerging from the US and Turkey, but a 105 mm guns with the terminal performance and range of a 155 mm - whilst being 50-60% the total mass - is enticing. If Denel can bring the weight down to less than 3,000kg then it'd be possible to Integrate the gun to a light armoured vehicle and use as an agile SPH. Not to mention ease of lifting it by air (with its crew and munitions).

Yes, 105mm was specifically evolved from the need during an internal conference to address the needs of SANDF deployment on AU missions for light weight artillery which could give same results as G5. Our biggest challenge has been from European competitors who try to block and use proxy dominions to get their sales in; everyone knows that neither the US artillery or europeans are capable of matching this for past several decades.

 

[Ahmet Pasha]

Also their mraps are good enough today because of South African technical expertise.

Yes, 105mm was specifically evolved from the need during an internal conference to address the needs of SANDF deployment on AU missions for light weight artillery which could give same results as G5. Our biggest challenge has been from European competitors who try to block and use proxy dominions to get their sales in; everyone knows that neither the US artillery or europeans are capable of matching this for past several decades.

 

[denel]

Also their mraps are good enough today because of South African technical expertise.

Yes they are. I was on flight with GM chief engineer and when I told him, the casualties which would be incurred with their vehicles in Iraq because of flatbeds, he laughed at me. My 2cents were, time will tell and you will see our expertise come to serve you. That is exactly what then occurred in 2008.

 

[Ahmet Pasha]

Yes they are. I was on flight with GM chief engineer and when I told him, the casualties which would be incurred with their vehicles in Iraq because of flatbeds, he laughed at me. My 2cents were, time will tell and you will see our expertise come to serve you. That is exactly what then occurred in 2008.

Yeah muricans are hard headed that way. Too arrogant towards other people until they need help.

 

[Path-Finder]

Yes they are. I was on flight with GM chief engineer and when I told him, the casualties which would be incurred with their vehicles in Iraq because of flatbeds, he laughed at me. My 2cents were, time will tell and you will see our expertise come to serve you. That is exactly what then occurred in 2008.

Damn you got around! GM make bad cars that is a fact

 

[denel]

Damn you got around! GM make bad cars that is a fact

ja man. we have opel here which is rubbish. GM just pulled out completely.

 

[peruni]

The M84 is the result of work done on the M46 and the US M114. Nora SPA is essentially a M84 mated to a truck.

Don't get me wrong, Nora would be excellent to up-gun the existing type 59s in service; but as the primary modern howitzer for the next 50 years? No Thanks. Using different ammo isn't something new to the Nora, nor is the range. Denel outguns it - that too with a higher rate of fire. Denel also provides a full range of products: tracked, wheeled, trucked, and apu. Simply i like the lineage of the Denel gun (Gerard Bull's GC45) vs that of the Nora.

The Aleksandar is like i (and you) said an automated Nora B52 similar to the Swedish Archer. A very good feature. But the gun remains the same.

Nora M-84 has nothing to do with M-46. It is a program started in 1975 in order to get better gun than M-65 that was based on US M-114 and was graded as unsatisfactory by Yugoslavia Peoples Army and was already produced in SFRY(Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia) in small series. New gun NORA(short for - New artillery weapon - in Serbian) program had many other goals like to be better than D-20 but in same time to use ammo for D-20 and etc. I repeat Nora M-84 has nothing to do with M-46. Later when M-84 was already since 1984 in production and use in 1986 MTI(Military Technical Institute in Belgrade) developed a set for modernization of existing M-46 called M-46/86 in two calibers:155 and 152mm one for domestic use and one for export. That set was finally developed in 1986 and has been modernized since then. Latest version of M-46 set in 155mm caliber has designation M46/10 and was developed in 2010 it comes with many improvements and comes with new charges and modern FCS.

Don't you get me wrong but if you knew anything about NORA and artillery development in Yugoslavia and now in Serbia you would knew that Gerard Bull was employee of Yugoslavia Peoples Army in 80's as specialist consultant for development of new artillery weapons and he assisted partially in M-46/86 program.
Later in 80's trough many Yugoslavia armament deals with Iraq(we sold them D-30J license, Orkan M-87 and there was many more industry military cooperation including export of constructing documentation for 400mm 120km rocket etc.) he was introduced by Yugoslavian officers directly to Saddam Hussein and started selling his constructions and actively working in Iraq in order to develop super-gun and to improve Iraq Scud missile.

Nora-B was self — propelled 152mm gun M-84 with 45 caliber barrel that used FAP-2832 truck with manual loading and it was first version of TMG that used commercial truck chassis for a gun with such caliber and had scope and shot concept in mind. Nora B52 is a new developed weapon in 155mm caliber and has little to do with Nora-B except part of a name.

Gun MGS-25 has larger chamber and only big thing(not counting cables, hydraulic pipes, valves, switches, most part of FCS software and other smaller parts that has in common) the same with Nora B-52 is caliber 155mm and possibility to use same Kamaz truck chassis. MGS-25 has fully automated features including new auto-loader, new automatic reloading mechanism, new bigger chamber, new barrel, better FCS that use all new automated features etc.

Archer does not have automatic reloading and lacks many other features compared to MGS-25 and it was only in 2013 introduced with technical improvements that was common on Nora B-52 since 2008 as a working model. Working prototypes of Archer was delivered first time in 2014 and it was plagued with technical problems that delayed further deliveries.

Archer is not fully automated and not on pair with latest version of Nora-B52 in terms of automation and FCS.

And when we talk about history, technology and tradition in artillery you should know that in '80 Military Technical Institute in Belgrade was developing rail-gun and successfully tested two working prototypes. And now is 2017 and how many countries have achieved anything similar as of today?

As I sad before in terms of artillery Serbia is one of leading countries in world. You cannot find better deals in terms of money/performance and we could develop for money many solutions even to complete new designs according your needs as we had done for many other customers around world.

You already for example use M-56 105mm gun developed in Military Technical Institute in Belgrade and we have introduced new model M-56A1 of that gun with 33 caliber and possibility to be mounted of truck called
M-09 Soko 105mm self-propelled gun. We are now developing a new light version of 105mm gun.

G6-52 with same ammo and in same firing condition would probably have equal range like NORA B-52, but it still lacks automation level of NORA B-52.

G-52 extended range is probably similar with ranges of MGS-25 with same ammo but it is a lot worse in terms of automation compared to MGS-25.

T5-52 is a copy of NORA-B SP concept from 1984 with low level of automation mostly in electronics field(automatic laying and navigation system, new telecommunication, muzzle velocity radar and gun management computer). If we add this electronic to Nora-B concept from 1984 you get "modern" T5-52. Nora B-52 K0 first version produced in 2007 for Myanmar had more automatic features than this Denel version except automatic laying that is introduced in B-52 Nora K1.

How many soldiers and how big logistic you need to supply for example 18 battery of 6 MGS-25 or Nora B-52 K-I and how many for same number of G6-52 or T5-52? That is one question aside weapons characteristic in terms of rate of fire and range that is very important.

And one more but not less important thing that is not connected with any specific type of weapon. You should carefully chose country you cooperate. In terms of dealing with South Africa they are known as not reliable partner when it come to military cooperation. They depend largely on US Congress and other countries to give them go ahead for many deals. Serbia is reliable partner in all military cooperation since ever, even if you are struck by sanction we would honor our part of deal.

 

[denel]

Nora M-84 has nothing to do with M-46. It is a program started in 1975 in order to get better gun than M-65 that was based on US M-114 and was graded as unsatisfactory by Yugoslavia Peoples Army and was already produced in SFRY(Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia) in small series. New gun NORA(short for - New artillery weapon - in Serbian) program had many other goals like to be better than D-20 but in same time to use ammo for D-20 and etc. I repeat Nora M-84 has nothing to do with M-46. Later when M-84 was already since 1984 in production and use in 1986 MTI(Military Technical Institute in Belgrade) developed a set for modernization of existing M-46 called M-46/86 in two calibers:155 and 152mm one for domestic use and one for export. That set was finally developed in 1986 and has been modernized since then. Latest version of M-46 set in 155mm caliber has designation M46/10 and was developed in 2010 it comes with many improvements and comes with new charges and modern FCS.

Don't you get me wrong but if you knew anything about NORA and artillery development in Yugoslavia and now in Serbia you would knew that Gerard Bull was employee of Yugoslavia Peoples Army in 80's as specialist consultant for development of new artillery weapons and he assisted partially in M-46/86 program.
Later in 80's trough many Yugoslavia armament deals with Iraq(we sold them D-30J license, Orkan M-87 and there was many more industry military cooperation including export of constructing documentation for 400mm 120km rocket etc.) he was introduced by Yugoslavian officers directly to Saddam Hussein and started selling his constructions and actively working in Iraq in order to develop super-gun and to improve Iraq Scud missile.

Nora-B was self — propelled 152mm gun M-84 with 45 caliber barrel that used FAP-2832 truck with manual loading and it was first version of TMG that used commercial truck chassis for a gun with such caliber and had scope and shot concept in mind. Nora B52 is a new developed weapon in 155mm caliber and has little to do with Nora-B except part of a name.

Gun MGS-25 has larger chamber and only big thing(not counting cables, hydraulic pipes, valves, switches, most part of FCS software and other smaller parts that has in common) the same with Nora B-52 is caliber 155mm and possibility to use same Kamaz truck chassis. MGS-25 has fully automated features including new auto-loader, new automatic reloading mechanism, new bigger chamber, new barrel, better FCS that use all new automated features etc.

Archer does not have automatic reloading and lacks many other features compared to MGS-25 and it was only in 2013 introduced with technical improvements that was common on Nora B-52 since 2008 as a working model. Working prototypes of Archer was delivered first time in 2014 and it was plagued with technical problems that delayed further deliveries.

Archer is not fully automated and not on pair with latest version of Nora-B52 in terms of automation and FCS.

And when we talk about history, technology and tradition in artillery you should know that in '80 Military Technical Institute in Belgrade was developing rail-gun and successfully tested two working prototypes. And now is 2017 and how many countries have achieved anything similar as of today?

As I sad before in terms of artillery Serbia is one of leading countries in world. You cannot find better deals in terms of money/performance and we could develop for money many solutions even to complete new designs according your needs as we had done for many other customers around world.

You already for example use M-56 105mm gun developed in Military Technical Institute in Belgrade and we have introduced new model M-56A1 of that gun with 33 caliber and possibility to be mounted of truck called
M-09 Soko 105mm self-propelled gun. We are now developing a new light version of 105mm gun.

G6-52 with same ammo and in same firing condition would probably have equal range like NORA B-52, but it still lacks automation level of NORA B-52.

G-52 extended range is probably similar with ranges of MGS-25 with same ammo but it is a lot worse in terms of automation compared to MGS-25.

T5-52 is a copy of NORA-B SP concept from 1984 with low level of automation mostly in electronics field(automatic laying and navigation system, new telecommunication, muzzle velocity radar and gun management computer). If we add this electronic to Nora-B concept from 1984 you get "modern" T5-52. Nora B-52 K0 first version produced in 2007 for Myanmar had more automatic features than this Denel version except automatic laying that is introduced in B-52 Nora K1.

How many soldiers and how big logistic you need to supply for example 18 battery of 6 MGS-25 or Nora B-52 K-I and how many for same number of G6-52 or T5-52? That is one question aside weapons characteristic in terms of rate of fire and range that is very important.

And one more but not less important thing that is not connected with any specific type of weapon. You should carefully chose country you cooperate. In terms of dealing with South Africa they are known as not reliable partner when it come to military cooperation. They depend largely on US Congress and other countries to give them go ahead for many deals. Serbia is reliable partner in all military cooperation since ever, even if you are struck by sanction we would honor our part of deal.

My friend. Your last note that we need US congress authorisation. We are not US puppets; in fact our former president told Clinton to jump in a swimming pool in front on the world media. We choose our alliances are not subject to anything from US especially given the long history of US support for Apartheid and how they shafted us time and time again.

South Africa is not dependent on anything from US. In fact it has been the US and Europeans who have muzzled every attempt to sell our weaponry. We have nothing from US in our technology that we need authorisation for. Please check your facts before writing this. In fact it has been the US who has come to us with a begging bowl for mine proof vehicles and thousands of vehicles were dispatched across to Iraq from here; Casspir then others formed the basis of their oshkosh and other named vehicles.

South Africa has been a reliable partner and supplier - Look at PAF, all the IFRs and mirage changes, H2 into Raad and so many other areas. We would have have been solid partners with Finns and others for technologies such as HMS etc if that was not the case; we have very specific and niece products and battle tested from radar, HMS, EW, ECM, artillery, Comms, AAms, stand off weapons, not to mention leaders in the field of mine proof vehicles (note, MARP is america coinage - we dont use that term here).

Biggest issue is corruption and minions that Europeans and Americans have at their fingers. They have proxies minions who sell out where ever we try to sell and we keep getting shut out because of that. For example, Pakistan is crying for mine proof vehicles; there is no political will to go against the establishment which is on US payroll to get useless vehicles instead of establishing a TOT/JV for complete in house development with either Armscor, or Paramount or additional smaller companies which are able to do this work.

Will appreciate you getting facts right before putting such false narratives out there. We know what sanctions are and that was a blessing for us to get our industries in place. thank you.

 

[peruni]

My friend. Your last note that we need US congress authorisation. We are not US puppets; in fact our former president told Clinton to jump in a swimming pool in front on the world media. We choose our alliances are not subject to anything from US especially given the long history of US support for Apartheid and how they shafted us time and time again.

South Africa is not dependent on anything from US. In fact it has been the US and Europeans who have muzzled every attempt to sell our weaponry. We have nothing from US in our technology that we need authorisation for. Please check your facts before writing this. In fact it has been the US who has come to us with a begging bowl for mine proof vehicles and thousands of vehicles were dispatched across to Iraq from here; Casspir then others formed the basis of their oshkosh and other named vehicles.

South Africa has been a reliable partner and supplier - Look at PAF, all the IFRs and mirage changes, H2 into Raad and so many other areas. We would have have been solid partners with Finns and others for technologies such as HMS etc if that was not the case; we have very specific and niece products and battle tested from radar, HMS, EW, ECM, artillery, Comms, AAms, stand off weapons, not to mention leaders in the field of mine proof vehicles (note, MARP is america coinage - we dont use that term here).

Biggest issue is corruption and minions that Europeans and Americans have at their fingers. They have proxies minions who sell out where ever we try to sell and we keep getting shut out because of that. For example, Pakistan is crying for mine proof vehicles; there is no political will to go against the establishment which is on US payroll to get useless vehicles instead of establishing a TOT/JV for complete in house development with either Armscor, or Paramount or additional smaller companies which are able to do this work.

Will appreciate you getting facts right before putting such false narratives out there. We know what sanctions are and that was a blessing for us to get our industries in place. thank you.

Ok, first I understand your point of view. But some things has nothing to do with puppet state or not puppet state.

Gerald Bull was later in his life US citizen that developed weapons and his howitzer technology is developed in USA and in one stage of his life he transferred that technology developed in USA and in part in Canada to Denel in South Africa. Any design and or technology developed in US and in case of transfer or sale under US law is required to have clearance of State Department office of Munitions Control in order to sale internationally. Gerald got approval so he was able to transfer technology to Denel. But that does not means that Denel can sell US technology again to third party without again seeking approval.

If you think that you can sale any peace of hardware or technology for military use and not just you but any country(it is not related to South Africa only) in world that is in part or fully developed or produced in US without their approval you are wrong.

In case of G-6 or any associated weapon with this design you are not just selling your own product and or design but a design developed in USA.

And you have many weapons system for example developed with technology from Israel and they will ask you also if you have permit to sale their technology to third party if you want to sale their designs in part or full.

This is in accordance of many domestic and international laws that are connected and regulate arms sale. Nothing to do with puppet or not.

And that is just one point of view...

One example of other point of view.

You have tried to sale in recent years weapons to Syria.

Than it came this:
USA: US WARNING TO SOUTH AFRICA OVER WEAPONS SALE TO SYRIA

And this was why in some cases you could have made deals:
"Because of the international stature of South African President Nelson Mandela, the United States has up to now been willing to overlook the close ties he maintains with nations at odds with the United States, including Libya and Cuba."

But president Mandela is not longer among as living so they don't care any more about media picture related to South Africa and they will not turn a blind eye.

Did you finish sale of 650 millions USD weapons to Syria?

Nora is fully developed in Serbia, no other party can stop sales as no third party technology is involved. That is one point of view, and about other we proved that despite heavy sanctions or other meddling of third parties we always honored our deals for example take Iraq.

I wish you and South Africa all the best...And let the best weapon win

 

[denel]

Ok, first I understand your point of view. But some things has nothing to do with puppet state or not puppet state.

Gerald Bull was later in his life US citizen that developed weapons and his howitzer technology is developed in USA and in one stage of his life he transferred that technology developed in USA and in part in Canada to Denel in South Africa. Any design and or technology developed in US and in case of transfer or sale under US law is required to have clearance of State Department office of Munitions Control in order to sale internationally. Gerald got approval so he was able to transfer technology to Denel. But that does not means that Denel can sell US technology again to third party without again seeking approval.

If you think that you can sale any peace of hardware or technology for military use and not just you but any country(it is not related to South Africa only) in world that is in part or fully developed or produced in US without their approval you are wrong.

In case of G-6 or any associated weapon with this design you are not just selling your own product and or design but a design developed in USA.

And you have many weapons system for example developed with technology from Israel and they will ask you also if you have permit to sale their technology to third party if you want to sale their designs in part or full.

This is in accordance of many domestic and international laws that are connected and regulate arms sale. Nothing to do with puppet or not.

And that is just one point of view...

One example of other point of view.

You have tried to sale in recent years weapons to Syria.

Than it came this:
USA: US WARNING TO SOUTH AFRICA OVER WEAPONS SALE TO SYRIA

And this was why in some cases you could have made deals:
"Because of the international stature of South African President Nelson Mandela, the United States has up to now been willing to overlook the close ties he maintains with nations at odds with the United States, including Libya and Cuba."

But president Mandela is not longer among as living so they don't care any more about media picture related to South Africa and they will not turn a blind eye.

Did you finish sale of 650 millions USD weapons to Syria?

Nora is fully developed in Serbia, no other party can stop sales as no third party technology is involved. That is one point of view, and about other we proved that despite heavy sanctions or other meddling of third parties we always honored our deals for example take Iraq.

I wish you and South Africa all the best...And let the best weapon win

that is fine from your view point. it was CSRC GC45 not US for correction. G5 had so many changes that it is a completely new system (rather was); Mr Bull was here as an independent contractor. We have continued so much work thereafter which is a credit; G6 was a much later development and Mr bull was long gone. The fact that we have continued forward with 105mm is a testament on its own.

In terms of US warnings, it is a matter of prespective; they continue to supply lethal weapons which have been used in the indiscriminate use by KSA and GCC, they really have no leg to stand on.

Lets see, it is very unlikely G5/G6 will win frankly; as I said I expect Europeans to take this just like with others they keep stealing by virtue of paying more than us. It is fine, this is really not a high ticket item for us to be hung up on as we are making more money in others very high margin items.

 

[Gryphon]

OTO-Melara Mod 56

 

[Zarvan]

Any updates on Wheeled Artillery Systems we were testing ???

@Horus @balixd

 

[jupiter2007]

MGS-25 Aleksandar self-propelled 155 mm artillery system???