Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Artillery Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: laser-guided Krasnopol 152 mm projectile
reefdiver    11/14/2006 8:28:20 PM
Anyone heard much about the laser-guided Krasnopol 152 and 155 mm projectiles designed for the Soviet Army in the mid-1980s? I see that its in service with Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine and has been exported to China and India. How well does this compare to the Copperhead - in footprint, quality, and cost?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
neutralizer       11/15/2006 2:56:13 AM
You'd have to ask the French, they've formally trialled it. 
 
Quote    Reply

Herc the Merc    Here ask the Indians- duds r us--Indian tests not good   11/26/2006 7:39:19 PM

EXPRESS EXCLUSIVE

Most of Krasnopol ammo for Bofors guns turn out duds

Shishir Gupta

Posted online: Sunday, November 26, 2006 at 0000 hrs http://www.indianexpress.com/sunday/story/res/images/print_icon_1.gif" width=24 align=absMiddle border=0>Print http://indianexpress.com/story/17346.html' ,'EmailArticle','width=500,height=400')" href="http://www.indianexpress.com/sunday/story/17346.html#">http://www.indianexpress.com/sunday/story/res/images/email_icon_1.gif" width=21 align=absMiddle border=0> Email

Russian manufacturers summoned to fix problem in a majority of the 2000-strong inventory of guided ammunition; each shell over Rs 15 lakh, plans to buy 6000 more

NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 25:The precision strike capability of the Indian military has taken a hit with the Russian Krasnopol 155-mm terminally guided ammunition turning out to be “defective” during Army test-firing in the Mahajan ranges in Rajasthan.

 

The Krasnopol deal, cleared by the NDA government during the Kargil war, is already under the CBI’s scanner with a case for alleged violation of defence procurement procedures being registered last October.

Top Government sources have told The Sunday Express that a majority of the 2,000-strong Krasnopol inventory has been found defective: the shell, priced over Rs 15 lakh per piece, hits the target accurately during test-firing but fails to explode on impact. In military parlance, these shells are “blind” or duds.

The Krasnopol shells are used on FH77 Bofors artillery guns, considered the teeth of strike formations in the Indian Army.

Some 1,000 Krasnopol shells, despite failing in high-altitude tests in the Kargil sector in 1999 — after the Kargil war — were bought from M/s KBP Instrument Design Bureau, based in Tula in Russia, at the cost Rs 151 crore and delivered in May 2000. Two years later, New Delhi contracted another 2,000 shells at the cost of some $80 million with plans firmed up for buying another 6,000.

While the Army has not replied to The Sunday Express questionnaire on the dud shells given that Parliament session is on, Defence Ministry officials have confirmed that “technical problems have been encountered with Krasnopol munition.”

They said: “The Army has incorporated the original equipment manufacturer (KBP) in a round of trials to resolve the problem.”

KBP didn’t respond to an email query from this newspaper.

Defence Ministry sources said Army Headquarters had already taken the matter up with KBP but there has been no ban on future shipments. This is despite the fact that the defects were first noticed during test-firing in Mahajan ranges in the end of 2004 after the UPA government came into power. And also in 2005 during exercises at the test-firing range.

KBP representatives were summoned to India and were present at test-firings conducted at Mahajan ranges three months ago so that the problem could be rectified.

The Krasnopol uses a seeker unit (to identify) and a Laser designator (LDR) to be guided to the target. At first, the Army thought that the problem was with the designator so they replaced Israeli and French designators with original KBP ones but the problem still could not be resolved.

Army officials said that KBP representatives have again been summoned to rectify the defects during test-firing in the forthcoming winter exercises. Officials, however, added that with KBP getting a new chief, R.A. Lenoidovich, only as recently as September, the process could be delayed.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S       11/28/2006 7:21:36 PM
This reminds me a bit of the high tech weapons of my USMC career.  The Copperhead was susposed to be a one shot one kill munition.  However when we started serious training with it the reality was it didnt.  By 1991 the guidance or tactical doctrine was to fire two at the target & expect 75% hits.   Testing & trials of the Copperhead were typically one target shots.  When we tried training for engaing a target group of 30, 60, 90 or more vehicals with multiple spot teams and multiple batterys the drill would get a bit tense and the results a bit less than as advertised. 
 
Quote    Reply

reefdiver       12/13/2006 11:19:52 AM

This reminds me a bit of the high tech weapons of my USMC career.  The Copperhead was susposed to be a one shot one kill munition.  However when we started serious training with it the reality was it didnt.  By 1991 the guidance or tactical doctrine was to fire two at the target & expect 75% hits.   Testing & trials of the Copperhead were typically one target shots.  When we tried training for engaing a target group of 30, 60, 90 or more vehicals with multiple spot teams and multiple batterys the drill would get a bit tense and the results a bit less than as advertised. 

The SYSOPS post about the Excalibur suggests its not doing much better.  Not surprising when combining massive G-forces with sophisticated electronics.
 
Speaking of the Copperhead, since the Copperhead R&D is long gone, could its actual manufacturing costs today be akin to that of the Excalibur or are its components simply too expensive? There would still seem to be a role for the Excalibur. When it works it will still generally be more precise than the Excalibur.
 
Quote    Reply

reefdiver       12/13/2006 11:19:54 AM

This reminds me a bit of the high tech weapons of my USMC career.  The Copperhead was susposed to be a one shot one kill munition.  However when we started serious training with it the reality was it didnt.  By 1991 the guidance or tactical doctrine was to fire two at the target & expect 75% hits.   Testing & trials of the Copperhead were typically one target shots.  When we tried training for engaing a target group of 30, 60, 90 or more vehicals with multiple spot teams and multiple batterys the drill would get a bit tense and the results a bit less than as advertised. 

The SYSOPS post about the Excalibur suggests its not doing much better.  Not surprising when combining massive G-forces with sophisticated electronics.
 
Speaking of the Copperhead, since the Copperhead R&D is long gone, could its actual manufacturing costs today be akin to that of the Excalibur or are its components simply too expensive? There would still seem to be a role for the Excalibur. When it works it will still generally be more precise than the Excalibur. It souls
 
Quote    Reply

reefdiver       12/13/2006 11:19:56 AM

This reminds me a bit of the high tech weapons of my USMC career.  The Copperhead was susposed to be a one shot one kill munition.  However when we started serious training with it the reality was it didnt.  By 1991 the guidance or tactical doctrine was to fire two at the target & expect 75% hits.   Testing & trials of the Copperhead were typically one target shots.  When we tried training for engaing a target group of 30, 60, 90 or more vehicals with multiple spot teams and multiple batterys the drill would get a bit tense and the results a bit less than as advertised. 

The SYSOPS post about the Excalibur suggests its not doing much better.  Not surprising when combining massive G-forces with sophisticated electronics.
 
Speaking of the Copperhead, since the Copperhead R&D is long gone, could its actual manufacturing costs today be akin to that of the Excalibur or are its components simply too expensive? There would still seem to be a role for the Excalibur. When it works it will still generally be more precise than the Excalibur. It
 
Quote    Reply

reefdiver       12/13/2006 11:24:52 AM

This reminds me a bit of the high tech weapons of my USMC career.  The Copperhead was susposed to be a one shot one kill munition.  However when we started serious training with it the reality was it didnt.  By 1991 the guidance or tactical doctrine was to fire two at the target & expect 75% hits.   Testing & trials of the Copperhead were typically one target shots.  When we tried training for engaing a target group of 30, 60, 90 or more vehicals with multiple spot teams and multiple batterys the drill would get a bit tense and the results a bit less than as advertised. 

The SYSOPS post about the Excalibur suggests its not doing much better.  Not surprising when combining massive G-forces with sophisticated electronics. The Army appears to want these for urban, low collateral, attacks.  This seems to at times imply "danger close" attacks.  Wonder how the infantry feels about something like a 75% reliability in such a scenerio - assuming the Excalibur has Copperhead reliability ?
 
 
Quote    Reply

mustavaris       12/13/2006 1:17:36 PM
Hmmm... if the shell hits the target but just doesnt explode, it shouldnt be that bad: better fuse could solve the problem. If the sensitive electronics fail it shouldnt be able to hit the target more often than a normal unguided shell. Besides that I think that Krasnopol has proven itself during the Kargil conflict, nothing else can explain the new order and plans to order even more.
 
And in any case Krasnopol is a lot cheaper than Copperhead.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics