Volume 2(3)
November-December 1999

INDIA'S  ARTILLERY COMPETITION
DENEL LIW T-6 VS. CELSIUS FH-77AD

The Indian Army is shortly expected to place an order for new 155mm/52-caliber howitzers as part of its Field Artillery Rationalization Plan. It is expected that a total of up to 4000 howitzers will be procured to equip its 185 tube artillery regiments. This procurement programme is expected to be spread over the next two decades, and filled through a combination of outright purchase and licensed manufacture. This requirement for 155mm/52-claiber guns has been motivated by four main considerations.

1. The need to deal effectively with heavily reinforced concrete fortifications that form part of Pakistan's linear defences. Experience since 1971 shows that the successful engagement of hardened defences is possible only with heavier caliber shells with high terminal velocities.
2. Restrictions imposed by political considerations may limit the Army’s ability to strike well behind enemy lines. In such a scenario, long range artillery offers the best tool for engaging enemy logistical and command nodes at extreme ranges. Kargil has also demonstrated the importance of engaging hardened targets with precision in order to inflict meaningful damage. Therefore a guided munitions capability has become indispensable for tube artillery. Recent purchases of several thousand rounds of 155mm guided rounds from Krasnapol in Russia is indicative of the Army’s desire to retain tactical flexibility in the face of non-military constraints, economically augment the Indian Air Force’s PGM capability and free itself from excessive dependence on air support.
3. The expansion of mechanized forces within the armies of India and Pakistan has underscored the need for large caliber artillery systems with higher rates of fire and greater mobility. With the mothballing of the Army’s Catapult and Abbot systems, the Army is without self-propelled guns for its mechanized formations.
4. The determination to reduce the logistical complexities of operating guns of 14 different calibers is pushing the artillery to standardize on around a single caliber. Although such a programme has been on the cards a long time, the recent conflict in Kargil has provided added impetus to it.

The Indian Army is finalizing its modified General Staff Qualitative Requirement (GSQR) for self-propelled and towed howitzers and will be inviting a number of overseas companies to bid. The seven companies likely to take part in trials early next year include Celsius (Bofors) of Sweden, Giat Industries of France, Denel (LIW) of South Africa, ODE of Singapore, Patria Vamas of Finland, Santa Barbara of Spain and Marconi Marine, Land & Naval Systems (VSEL) of the UK. Only two of the firms expected to participate (ODE and Patria Vamas) have 52-caliber systems in production. The rest are either in the process of testing 52-caliber systems or are gearing up to begin serial production. Nevertheless, reports suggest that systems produced by Denel and Celsius are the forerunners in this competition. This is because:

1. Denel’s T-6 155mm/52-caliber system has already undergone a round of successful tests in India. The successful integration of the T-6 with an Indian produced Arjun chassis (The Bhim) further strengthens their case.
2. Celsius, on the other hand, already has a large local presence because the Indian Army already operates several regiments of the FHB-77B howitzers. This, at the very least, ensures the easy integration of any new system bought from Celsius. Celsius, however, is currently only offering a 155mm/45-caliber system, which would ultimately be upgraded to fill the 155mm/52-caliber requirement, once contracts were signed.
3. Furthermore, both Celsius and Denel offer combat proven systems.

In this article we review of Denel’s T-6 and Celsius’s FH-77AD self-propelled systems and how they match up to the Indian Army’s requirements. The article is organized as follows. We first list the Army’s requirements, we then consider the capabilities of each system, and finally we evaluate how far these systems meet the Army’s requirements. It should be noted that the Army’s requirements stem from its recent operational experiences and the need for any weapon system to be deployable in the varying terrain that the Army operates.

Any new system that is selected is expected to:

1. Allow for engagements at the greatest range possible.
2. Allow automatic high angle and 360º traverse capability.
3. Allow flexibility of employment (including in the direct fire role and NBC environment).
4. Allow maximum flexibility in tactical deployment and inter-sector movement.
5. Allow for ease of maintenance and economy of operations.
6. Be affordable.

Points 3, 5, 6 require a further elaboration. Point 3 - High angle engagement is of particular importance in the mountains, against both Pakistan and the China. Years of dueling across the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir and at Siachen demonstrates the value of weapons capable of firing at a high angle in order to achieve crest clearance and bring down fire on reverse slopes. Since it is difficult for artillery to accompany units moving off the main axis on flanking maneuvers or special tasks, a system’s traverse capabilities determine the efficacy with which an artillery detachment can cover - from existing gun areas - an advance both along the main axis and on an outflanking maneuver. The ideal system is therefore one that has a high trajectory and offers maximum traverse. Point 5 – There are two sides to this requirement. First, the guns should be able to rapidly change positions so as to avoid counter battery fire. The inadequacy of the FHB-77B in this respect during Kargil brought into shaper focus the need to deploy highly mobile systems in difficult terrain. Second, guns should be easily deployable to any theatre of combat. A few guns were reportedly lost after they slid off precipitous hillsides whilst negotiating sharp bends along National Highway 1A. The compactness of self-propelled systems reduces overall bulk and volume, and hence turn radius, thereby allowing for safer transportation in difficult theatres of operation such as jungles, mountains and marshes. Point 6 – This requirement is partly covered by point 3 (traverse/high angle). However, there are two more issues that are covered by this point. First, given recent nuclearization in South Asia the artillery expects its system to be operable in an NBC environment. Second, based on historical experience (1965, 1971) the artillery expect the system to be flexible enough that it allows a detachment to train their weapons in defence of gun areas (in the direct fire mode) against attacks at close range, if the need arises. This requirement is the flip side of need for the High angle engagement capability and may require weapons to engage targets at depressed angles. In such a situation the need for maximum traverse becomes extremely important.

Listed below are the vital statistics of the two competing systems and will form the basis of our later discussion. Note that the figures for Celsius are for the 45-caliber system. The respective companies have supplied the data presented below.

The data above permits an evaluation of each system’s suitability.

Allow for engagements at the greatest range possible

This is one of the most important criteria for the selection of any artillery system. The Celsius howitzer in its 45-caliber form offers a maximum range of just over 39,000m with ERFB-BB (Extended Range Full-Bore - Base Bleed) rounds. The Denel 52-caliber system offers a maximum range of 42,100 with similar ammunition. However, Denel also offers a Very Long-range Artillery Projectile (VLAP) round which allows engagements at ranges of about 52,000m. It is expected that any upgrade of the Celsius system will strive to achieve ranges offered by the Denel howitzer. However, for the time being the Denel weapon remains unmatched in range. Both systems are capable of firing guided rounds. Despite the Denel howitzer’s accuracy (probable errors of between 0.3-0.4% of range were achieved for the T-6 during trials), guided rounds offer the best (and most economic) alternative to air power for accurate engagements against hardened enemy targets over very long ranges.

Automatic high angle and 360º traverse capability

As noted earlier, the former capability is particularly important for operations in mountainous areas. The Denel system offer better high angle capability with a maximum elevation of +75º, 5º greater than for the Celsius system. It should be noted, however, the Indian Army has had no problems achieving crest clearances in excess of 4000 m even with the 70º elevation of the FH-77B. The FH-77AD, however, doesn’t offer anywhere near the kind of traverse capability of the T-6 system. While in the plains repositioning of the system can overcome this limitation, confined deployment areas in mountainous or jungle terrain may seriously limit the FH-77AD’s tactical flexibility.

Flexibility of employment

The demonstrated ability of both systems to employ a wide range of munitions (guided and unguided) weighs significantly in their favor. With the nuclear capabilities of the potential protagonists confirmed, the Indian Army will have to be prepared to operate in a NBC environment. In this regard the extent to which the two systems afford protection to their crews is important.

The Celsius FH-77AD’s armoured cab offers crew protection only when in transit and when the system is operated in full auto mode. In the full auto mode the system can utilize only two-thirds of its magazine. Furthermore, because the projectiles and charges are stowed outside of the NBC protected cab crew can alter the composition of shots only by exposing themselves. In contrast, the Denel T-6 turret is fully autonomous and allows the crew to utilize the entire magazine in both the auto fire and manual modes. This would allow the T-6 to a) remain in action longer and b) bring down greater firepower in a contaminated environment, without compromising mobility.

During both the 1965 and 1971 Indo-Pak wars, Indian gun areas often came under attack at close ranges from enemy infantry who had infiltrated (sometimes in company strength) across the frontlines. On many occasions gun areas had to be defended by field and medium guns shooting at close ranges over open sights. Many engagements took place with gun barrels at ultra low elevations, or even slightly depressed. With the introduction of self-propelled systems some of the limitations of protecting gun area are alleviated, however there remains the need to allow for all types of contingencies. In this regard the Celsius system’s performance is somewhat lacking due to the limitations of low angle (20 degree is minimum elevation) capability and restricted traversability (30 º). The Denel system comes out flying colours on both these counts (-5º and 360º respectively). The Denel system also has a self-defense capability apparently lacking in the Celsius system.

Flexibility in tactical deployment and inter-sector movement

Flexibility of deployment and movement is determined by four things: Cross-country capability, Combat Weight, Dimensions and last, but not the least, weapon performance in different terrain. The Celsius system it is based on a proven commercial chassis and is capable of travelling long distances under its own power. However, its wheeled mount limits the Celsius system’s off-road performance. Conversely, the Arjun mounted Denel system’s road range is constrained, while it offers superior off-road performance.

Combat weight remains an important consideration. The Arjun MBT’s acceptance into service have been held up by (among other things) its weight. In particular most bridges in the potential areas of deployment are not stressed for such heavy loads. Even though the Denel T-6 is several thousand kilos lighter (52-54k kg vs. 58k kg) than the MBT, its weight is bound to impact flexibility of deployment and movement. The Celsius system’s 6X6 chassis allows for a lighter system at 30,000 kg.

The dimensions of both systems remain a concern as far as transportation by rail is concerned. Despite the lower combat weight of the Celsius system, it has similar physical dimensions close to the Denel T-6. It remains to be seen how the Indian Railways will choose to bill the Army for either system, given that both their physical dimensions are likely to put them in the "Oversized Consignment" category (attracting a 50% surcharge).

Furthermore, key questions remain about the performance of the Celsius weapon in the desert. The performance of FH-77B now in service with the Army is known to have been affected by dusty conditions. In contrast to this the Denel T-6 has successfully completed trials in the desert. Given that the deserts of Rajasthan are likely to be the scene of major mechanized operations in the future, Celsius’s less than satisfactory performance record could count against it.

Ease of maintenance and economy of operations

That the Army already fields a Celsius weapon, the FH-77B, and has built up the infrastructure and expertise to support it weighs favorably on the possibility for a future Celsius purchase. The main advantages that the Celsius FH-77AD offers over the Denel T-6 is that it is based on a proven and easy to maintain 6X6 chassis. The Arjun chassis, in contrast, yet to enter full service. It’s off-road performance notwithstanding, the Celsius system is expected to be cheaper to maintain and offers greater fuel economy than the T-6. Reported problems with low barrel life for the Denel howitzers seem to have been overcome. Since the Army expects to standardize both its towed and self-propelled units on one type of system, purchasing the Denel gun, it has been argued, might lead to further complications in logistics support for towed units. It should be pointed out, however, that even if the Denel system is selected, it would still allow the Army to standardize by replacing older Soviet, Indian and British systems first, and then replacing the FH-77Bs as they reach the end of their lives. The smaller complement required to operate the Denel system in the manual mode adds to its economy and weighs in its favour. And by the time the re-equipment plan is completed this may be an important consideration.

Affordability

For a country with limited resources the initial cost of a system is likely to be an important factor in any procurement decision. On this count (along with economy of operations) the Celsius system has a tremendous advantage. At US$ 2.4 million a piece, the Denel T-6 turret alone costs more than a complete FH-77AD system. The turret’s cost is attributable in part to modifications made in repose to Indian requirements. It differs from the existing G-6 turret in being fully autonomous. The turret has been re-designed to provide storage for both projectiles and charges, in addition to the power pack.

Conclusions

From our discussion it is clear that neither system completely meets the Army’s requirements. This is often the case with GSQRs, and it is inevitable that tradeoffs will have to be made when a final decision is reached. The Denel T-6 meets many more of the Army’s tactical requirements than the Celsius FH-77AD does. It offers greater range, superior cross- country mobility, better crew protection and satisfactory performance in all theatres of operations. Overall, the Army considers that T-6 to be a superior weapon. Furthermore, dealings with Denel are considered less vulnerable to international pressure during periods of crisis. However, there are at lest two things working to the Celsius’s advantage. First, the Indian Army already has the experience of working with Celsius guns. Since the FH-77AD 155mm/45 or 155mm/52 have evolved from the 155mm/39 currently in service that former will be easier to integrate and support in Indian service. Second, the price and, potentially, operating costs of the Celsius system are substantially lower than that of the Denel T-6 . Whether these factors are significant enough to help Celsius win the contract remains to be seen. For now we patiently await the results of next years trials.