All problem statements
SIH26098HardwareSmart Vehicles

Development of a Low-Cost Precision Guidance and Smart Electronic Fuze System for a 155 mm Artillery Shell

Ministry of Defence (MoD)

Ideas submitted
30 / 500
Deadline
30 September 2026
Category
Hardware
Theme
Smart Vehicles

• Problem Title Design and Development of a Precision Guidance Kit with Canard Actuation and Multi-Mode Electronic Fuze for a 155 mm Artillery Shell • Background Conventional 155 mm artillery shells rely on unguided ballistic trajectories, resulting in relatively high Circular Error Probable (CEP), particularly at long ranges. Improving strike accuracy while utilizing existing shell hardware can significantly enhance operational effectiveness, reduce ammunition consumption, and minimize collateral damage.

The YIL (Yantra India Limited) possesses extensive expertise in manufacturing the mechanical hardware of 155 mm artillery shells and seeks innovative solutions to transform conventional shells into precision-guided munitions through the integration of an advanced guidance and fuze system.

• Problem Statement Develop a compact, robust, and cost-effective precision guidance solution for a standard 155 mm artillery shell by integrating: • A Canard Actuation Assembly (CAA) for in-flight trajectory correction. • A Guidance,Navigation and Control (GNC) system capable of improving terminal accuracy. • A Multi-mode Electronic Fuze supporting: • Proximity Mode • Time Mode • Impact Mode • Embedded electronics and software for real-time flight control. • Power management suitable for high-g launch and flight conditions. • Communication and programming interface for fuze configuration prior to firing.

The integrated system should achieve a Circular Error Probable (CEP) of 30 meters or better, while maintaining compatibility with the existing 155 mm shell design and surviving the extreme mechanical and environmental conditions experienced during artillery launch and flight.

• Expected Outcome Participants should propose a complete system architecture including: • Guidance and navigation methodology. • Canard deployment and actuation mechanism. • Flight control algorithms. • Multi-mode electronic fuze design. • Sensor selection (e.g., IMU, GNSS, barometric sensor, proximity sensor, etc.). • Embedded hardware architecture. • Power supply and environmental protection strategy. • Simulation and validation methodology. • Manufacturability and cost optimization. • Desired Deliverables • System architecture document. • CAD model of the canard actuation assembly. • Electronics block diagram. • Guidance and control algorithm. • Simulation demonstrating trajectory correction. • Prototype or proof-of-concept (preferred). • Performance estimation showing the capability to achieve a CEP of ?30 m. • Constraints • Compatible with a standard 155 mm artillery shell casing. • Must withstand high launch acceleration, vibration, spin, and harsh environmental conditions. • Low Size, Weight, Power, and Cost (SWaP-C). • High reliability and safety. • Modular design suitable for future upgrades. • Skills Expected from Participants • Mechanical Design • Mechatronics • Embedded Systems • Control Systems • Guidance, Navigation & Control (GNC) • Aerospace Engineering • Electronics

How contested this one is

as of 29 Sept
30ideas submitted+5 in 2 days

That puts it 233rd of the 240 statements that have any ideas at all, out of 240 on the board. It is moving, so the field here is already forming.

See what the whole field is picking →

Counted from the official portal twice a day. The portal itself only shows today.

What a jury will ask about this

  1. 01“Who actually faces this problem today?”

    What works: Naming one real person and what they do instead right now. Reading the statement back is not an answer, they already read it.

  2. 02“This already exists. Why yours?”

    What works: That existing tools are consumer products. Yours is built for the ministry, works offline, in the local language, on official data.

  3. 03“Then why has nobody solved it yet?”

    What works: The real blocker. No connectivity, no incentive, nobody owns the data. You only know this if you read the ministry's own reports.

All 18 questions, with the trap answers →

More in Smart Vehicles

See all →