AKASH-NG ( next generation )

[Enquirer]

@Enquirer
There's no incidence where DRDO overstated the missile capabilities. They are now instructed to minimize the reveal of even basic details of new missiles.

They do that all the time - being boastful and misleadingly overstate the capabilities of their products!
e.g.
Guided Pinaka Mk2 has a CEP of 80 meters! They fire dozens of missiles during test, one of them lands 25m from the target & some scientists give misleading statements to journalists that the "accuracy" is below 25m!

The more classic (&routine) example is to say that everything that they produce is the "BEST in it's class". What class is this? Class of one?? They define their own class and put their product in it!

All said & done, DRDO has done quite well & India should be thankful; however their over the top boastful claims unnecessarily gives fanboys the impression that their products time traveled from the future!

 

[NeXoft007]

They do that all the time - being boastful and misleadingly overstate the capabilities of their products!
e.g.
Guided Pinaka Mk2 has a CEP of 80 meters! They fire dozens of missiles during test, one of them lands 25m from the target & some scientists give misleading statements to journalists that the "accuracy" is below 25m!

The more classic (&routine) example is to say that everything that they produce is the "BEST in it's class". What class is this? Class of one?? They define their own class and put their product in it!

All said & done, DRDO has done quite well & India should be thankful; however their over the top boastful claims unnecessarily gives fanboys the impression that their products time traveled from the future!

Ummm... Just FYKI, Guided Pinaka has achieved accuracy as high as "5m" during maiden trial of 65km range and "2m" accuracy during second trial of 75km range. And several senior Army Officers including Deputy COAS have witnessed the tests. So declaring lower than 25m CEP for Guided Pinaka ain't nowhere near overexaggeration of capabilities.

 

[Enquirer]

Ummm... Just FYKI, Guided Pinaka has achieved accuracy as high as "5m" during maiden trial of 65km range and "2m" accuracy during second trial of 75km range. And several senior Army Officers including Deputy COAS have witnessed the tests. So declaring lower than 25m CEP for Guided Pinaka ain't nowhere near overexaggeration of capabilities.

That is precisely what I am saying!!!
The CEP for the missile is 80m!! But just because one or two (among the dozens or hundreds that are fired) land at a certain distance (2m) from the target, that doesn't become the 'accuracy' of the missile! A CEP of 80m actually means HALF of the missile fired actually land more than 80m away from the target!!!
However, DRDO folks reveal such misleading statements to journalists as "accurate to 2m"! That's is disingenuous at worst or loose talk at best!

 

[Enquirer]

@Advaidhya Tiwari
I refute a lot of things that you postulate; I feel I should commend you however for being civil all the time.

 

[NeXoft007]

That is precisely what I am saying!!!
The CEP for the missile is 80m!! But just because one or two (among the dozens or hundreds that are fired) land at a certain distance (2m) from the target, that doesn't become the 'accuracy' of the missile! A CEP of 80m actually means HALF of the missile fired actually land more than 80m away from the target!!!
However, DRDO folks reveal such misleading statements to journalists as "accurate to 2m"! That's is disingenuous at worst or loose talk at best!

1. LOL. First tell me, since when DRDO fired Guided Pinaka even a dozen time, let alone hundreds of times?

2. We all know what CEP is. The number becomes more mature as more and more tests are done.

3. That's your own delusional claim of DRDO misleading statements. Army officials were present there. Any Indian Defence Journalists who follow India's Military Affairs is fully aware of the unforgiving trials Army does for satisfaction, so lying to the Army officials about doesn't makes sense here.

 

[Enquirer]

1. LOL. First tell me, since when DRDO fired Guided Pinaka even a dozen time, let alone hundreds of times?

2. We all know what CEP is. The number becomes more mature as more and more tests are done.

3. That's your own delusional claim of DRDO misleading statements. Army officials were present there. Any Indian Defence Journalists who follow India's Military Affairs is fully aware of the unforgiving trials Army does for satisfaction, so lying to the Army officials about doesn't makes sense here.

You're making a convoluted case for DRDO. Just because Army officials were present, DRDO officials wouldn't make boastful claims to journalists?
Has any Army official made the claim that Guided Pinaka's accuracy is 2m??
If it's CEP is indeed 2m then why would DRDO's own brochures on Guided Pinaka claim it's accuracy as 80m?

The fact that fanboys like you BELIEVE that Guided Pinaka has accuracy of 2m even when their official brochure says something way different is Exhibit 1A on how DRDO disseminates misleading information!

Also, Pinakas are not Akash/Astra missiles to be tested one-at-a-time(which needs elaborate target setup etc). Several Pinakas are tested at any given time - this is standard practice for artillery.

Also, the accuracy of Guided Pinakas won't improve with more testing....but will only help benchmark and record the trial data. Guided Pinaka uses Israeli guidance kit (replete with actuators etc.). So, there's no real scope for 'redesigning' the guidance kit.

(Note that I am not interested in bashing DRDO, but merely pointing out some irresponsible statements)

 

[NeXoft007]

@Enquirer
Since you mentioned Brochure, DRDO's Brochure also claimed Pralay to be a 5 ton Missile, having 500kg/400km and 1000kg/350km capability.

Any person with common sense knows the above infos of Pralay are false. I am well aware of the Pralay Missile's actual weight, it's cannister weight, it's payload options, and it's range capability.

The same goes to Pinaka as well. Where Army never denied what DRDO claimed during maiden trials of Guided PINAKA MBRL.

 

[Enquirer]

@Enquirer
Since you mentioned Brochure, DRDO's Brochure also claimed Pralay to be a 5 ton Missile, having 500kg/400km and 1000kg/350km capability.

Any person with common sense knows the above infos of Pralay are false. I am well aware of the Pralay Missile's actual weight, it's cannister weight, it's payload options, and it's range capability.

The brochure info about Pralay may or may not be correct.
But how does anyone with commonsense infer that the info is incorrect? Please do enlighten me on the logical reasoning steps.
(deja vu: there might have been a long discussion on Pralay's range already, if not it's weight!)

The same goes to Pinaka as well. Where Army never denied what DRDO claimed during maiden trials of Guided PINAKA MBRL.

Army's not in the habit of giving out press releases everytime there's a DRDO test. Although top on their peeve list about DRDO, they do specifically ask DRDO to stop the braggadocio commentary.
E.g.
The same journalists who're touting Guided Pinaka's astounding accuracy also reported after initial ATAGS test that Army was completely ok with the 18+ tonne weight! But a year later, we hear that DRDO is working on weight reduction!!

I understand that you've inside sources in DRDO; and some of the info you put out is quite helpful to the forum; but let's not get too carried away and throw out logic !!!

 

[NeXoft007]

The brochure info about Pralay may or may not be correct.
But how does anyone with commonsense infer that the info is incorrect? Please do enlighten me on the logical reasoning steps.
(deja vu: there might have been a long discussion on Pralay's range already, if not it's weight!)


Army's not in the habit of giving out press releases everytime there's a DRDO test. Although top on their peeve list about DRDO, they do specifically ask DRDO to stop the braggadocio commentary.
E.g.
The same journalists who're touting Guided Pinaka's astounding accuracy also reported after initial ATAGS test that Army was completely ok with the 18+ tonne weight! But a year later, we hear that DRDO is working on weight reduction!!

I understand that you've inside sources in DRDO; and some of the info you put out is quite helpful to the forum; but let's not get too carried away and throw out logic !!!

Achieving accuracy of 2m and 5m at maiden trials doesn't means it becomes CEP. I understand that. But claiming it has 80m CEP even after achieving single digit accuracy is preposterous. I would rather stick with <25m CEP of Guided Pinaka, then listen to the poor skills of DRDO to downplay weapon capabilities.

 

[Enquirer]

Achieving accuracy of 2m and 5m at maiden trials doesn't means it becomes CEP. I understand that. But claiming it has 80m CEP even after achieving single digit accuracy is preposterous. I would rather stick with <25m CEP of Guided Pinaka, then listen to the poor skills of DRDO to downplay weapon capabilities.

Other than for the strategic weaponry, DRDO/MOD has been craving to tap the international weapons market. They've absolutely nothing to gain in downplaying basic artillery/missile capabilities in their brochures!!!

 

[Raj Malhotra]

Just because you read a few Drdo brochures, does not mean you are a know all. Using a rude term simply shows that you are loser with keyboard as your only life. Chutiya in short.

Akash mk 1 role in army strike corps will be taken over by QRSAM. With improvement in missile technology, Akash is considered srsam.

@Raj Malhotra
WTF are you talking about? QR-SAM isn't replacing Akash Mk. 1. QR-SAM is designed to complement SPyDer System. And should have a range of upto 35km. Although not officially revealed, I believe QR-SAM has single pulse rocket motor, same as the new Barak MRAD.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Akash mk 1 role in army strike corps will be taken over by QRSAM. With improvement in missile technology, Akash is considered srsam.

Akash is SRSAM but not QRSAM. QR means quick reaction. We need quick reaction to attack enemy aircrafts when in forward territory. In Indian territory, we have sams deployed on border to prevent any incursion. But when in strike corps, there will be no SAM deployed. There, QRSAM will be used as a mobile SAM that will also move along with the strike corps and protect it from aerial threats. SInce enemy territory has various terrains, there may be very little reaction time between detection and engagement. Here, the quick reaction part becomes important.

QRSAM is not about range whereas SRSAM is just short range SAM. Reaction time while being mobile is not part of SRSAM

 

[NeXoft007]

The yet to be named QR-SAM won't replace Akash, both are different category SAMs.

Maturing of QR-SAM have utmost importance to develop a credible indigenous mobile VSHORADS.

 

[NeXoft007]

Other than for the strategic weaponry, DRDO/MOD has been craving to tap the international weapons market. They've absolutely nothing to gain in downplaying basic artillery/missile capabilities in their brochures!!!

If everything is about Brochures, then I guess there's no need of an interested country's delegation to watch the performance of weapon systems by themselves. Brochures are mainly made for public consumption. Although Guided Pinaka is not yet cleared for export, but I guess the export variant of Guided Pinaka will have slightly downgraded performance to 60-80m CEP as mentioned in the Brochure.

P.S - More tests of Guided Pinaka are coming.

 

[Enquirer]

If everything is about Brochures, then I guess there's no need of an interested country's delegation to watch the performance of weapon systems by themselves. Brochures are mainly made for public consumption. Although Guided Pinaka is not yet cleared for export, but I guess the export variant of Guided Pinaka will have slightly downgraded performance to 60-80m CEP as mentioned in the Brochure.

P.S - More tests of Guided Pinaka are coming.

All defense expos are primarily aimed at defense purchasers; public are allowed to just pile on at the end!
Defense analysts & actual purchasers "express interest" and have further discussions based on preliminary information they glean from brochures!

General public is thrown some raw meat by releasing unsolicited braggadocio to unwitting journalists.

Either ways, Guided Pinaka with 60-80m accuracy at 80kms range is a good deal too!

 

[no smoking]

Achieving accuracy of 2m and 5m at maiden trials doesn't means it becomes CEP. I understand that. But claiming it has 80m CEP even after achieving single digit accuracy is preposterous. I would rather stick with <25m CEP of Guided Pinaka, then listen to the poor skills of DRDO to downplay weapon capabilities.

Claiming the CEP<25m based on achievement of single digit in couple of tests is laughable. CEP is calculated the comprehensive performance of the weapon in various environments: different weather sunny, windy, rain; different terrains, plain, mountain; different soil condition, hard, soft; different battle conditions, long transportation, worst maintenance condition, etc, etc. If you test the weapon in ideal conditions (especially the test site of weapon developers), the results are always perfect but meaningless to soldiers.

 

[Enquirer]

This is what I mean when I imply that some DRDO folks can't tell their own ass from their mouth :

DRDO's newsletter has re-purposed a fanboy created fictional image of 'Helina in quad pack'. The missile in the picture is actually Israeli Lahat; the fanboy photoshopped 'Helina' word onto it. This image has circulated in so many forums - convincing other fanboys that it's Helina in quad-pack. But one would expect DRDO to know it's own missile better!! DRDO doesn't care squat when it's doing PR towards common 'junta'

 

[porky_kicker]

Claiming the CEP<25m based on achievement of single digit in couple of tests is laughable. CEP is calculated the comprehensive performance of the weapon in various environments: different weather sunny, windy, rain; different terrains, plain, mountain; different soil condition, hard, soft; different battle conditions, long transportation, worst maintenance condition, etc, etc. If you test the weapon in ideal conditions (especially the test site of weapon developers), the results are always perfect but meaningless to soldiers.

Factually you are correct

But enlighten us as to this , don't all the global OEMs including Chinese give the CEP , performance ratings etc based on test data generated under test and stimulated conditions ?

Or do they give test data generated under actual combat / operational conditions ?

Even then how does one judge the credibility of such data ?

My point being if one can raise fingers at DRDO figures , then 3 fingers can be pointed at others, especially Chinese isnt it ?

And unfortunately you ended up at the receiving side of your own joke

@NeXoft007
@Enquirer your misgivings regarding DRDO are related to the stupid buracracy, the technical aspects are free from it to a very large extent. I hope you know the large no of certifications and validation by multiple agencies a drdo product has to pass through for vetting of parameters.

 

[Enquirer]

Factually you are correct

But enlighten us as to this , don't all the global OEMs including Chinese give the CEP , performance ratings etc based on test data generated under test and stimulated conditions ?

Or do they give test data generated under actual combat / operational conditions ?

Even then how does one judge the credibility of such data ?

My point being if one can raise fingers at DRDO figures , then 3 fingers can be pointed at others, especially Chinese isnt it ?

And unfortunately you ended up at the receiving side of your own joke

@NeXoft007
@Enquirer your misgivings regarding DRDO are related to the stupid buracracy, the technical aspects are free from it to a very large extent. I hope you know the large no of certifications and validation by multiple agencies a drdo product has to pass through for vetting of parameters.

The official brochures and technical data released/shared by DRDO to the armed forces is mostly accurate & goes through rigorous reviews. No one is really doubting that.

The point I am making is regarding the 'loose talk' that DRDO officials indulge in, in informal settings - like talking to idiot journalists & in informal lectures or their own stupid newsletters etc.
Because these are government employees, there's not much of accountability for their loose talk. The worst are the mid and low level engineers, who don't really know the full picture but are ever eager to brag to journalists!

Global OEMs will also share their test data with their customers. Then there's always customer testing. M777 fired 1000s of rounds by Indian Army before its induction! Rafale will fly several sorties in full envelope before induction!
Global OEMs don't fudge the data - at least not when they want to be in business for a long time. (Not sure about China though - most of their tech is stolen from US!)

 

[no smoking]

Factually you are correct

But enlighten us as to this , don't all the global OEMs including Chinese give the CEP , performance ratings etc based on test data generated under test and stimulated conditions ?

Or do they give test data generated under actual combat / operational conditions ?

Even then how does one judge the credibility of such data ?

Unlike internet fanboy, those users are not going to believe any word from these OEMs without thorough tests.

My point being if one can raise fingers at DRDO figures , then 3 fingers can be pointed at others, especially Chinese isnt it ?

And unfortunately you ended up at the receiving side of your own joke

Certainly, Chinese OEMs have their share of overstating their achievement, but not even close to the level of DRDO. At the best, they only exaggerate their weapons to the level of US while DRDO claims something on par of alien tech.