DRDO, PSU and Private Defence Sector News

[porky_kicker]

I think i have found proof that A3 is MIRVed. Lets see

No of MIRVs <=3 in my opinion ( as i have maintained since long )

 

[Vamsi]

Mean while GSAT-29 (launched in 2018) and upcoming GISAT-2 are laughing from a corner

 

[Karthi]

Safety Arming mechanism of ASTRA missile

Astra warhead schematic , Astra warhead , last two pics Astra propellent grains .

 

[Bleh]

INS Anvesh

View attachment 117086

I have a feeling, INS Anwesh & Dhruv are going to be the basis for our 200m-long 4 LPDs/LHDs.

 

[SUPERPOWER]

Is Anvesh operational? This is the ship from which missiles can be tested, as opposed to the missile tracking Dhruv.

Yes now its Operational..It has nothing to do with Missile tracking ..its a Deep Sea Research Vessel...

 

[flanker99]

Yes now its Operational..It has nothing to do with Missile tracking ..its a Deep Sea Research Vessel...

The thing has 4 big ass missile launchers plus a huge aesa radar ...it has everything to do with missile testing plus more

 

[UnderFingy]

Yes now its Operational..It has nothing to do with Missile tracking ..its a Deep Sea Research Vessel...

Sea trials for floating missile test range INS Anvesh begin this month

The FTR will not only speed up the missile projects of DRDO but also allow live testing of interceptor missiles for phase II of Ballistic Missile Defence program.

www.hindustantimes.com

 

[FalconSlayers]

 

[FalconSlayers]

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

I have a feeling, INS Anwesh & Dhruv are going to be the basis for our 200m-long 4 LPDs/LHDs.

How? INS Anvesh is around 3,500-4,000 tons. INS Dhruv is 10,000 tons. LHD will be 20,000 tons at least.

 

[Bleh]

How? INS Anvesh is around 3,500-4,000 tons. INS Dhruv is 10,000 tons. LHD will be 20,000 tons at least.

I mean the shape & structure etc. They can scale up. INS Jalashwa type something will happen only, not like they American LHDs i think

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

LHD willl most likely be made will foreign designs. Likely contenders are Minstral and Juan carlos. The IN Naval design directorate is still not confident that they can design an indegeneous LHD.

 

[Kuldeepm952]

Marine component of armed forces hasn't even started to take form. Atleast Navy doesn't seems to have appetite for more than 4 LHDs. Maybe when our own china like moment of post 2010s come and we start going ape crazy on buliding everything in huge numbers.

 

[Akula]

I have a feeling, INS Anwesh & Dhruv are going to be the basis for our 200m-long 4 LPDs/LHDs.

I had posted same thing on Navy developments thread, that why not design a LPD/LHD based on Ins Dhruv design.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Marine component of armed forces hasn't even started to take form. Atleast Navy doesn't seems to have appetite for more than 4 LHDs. Maybe when our own china like moment of post 2010s come and we start going ape crazy on buliding everything in huge numbers.

91st Infantry Brigade has been permanently assigned for that role and is being trained for it. There was news of another couple of brigades being considered for the job, though not sure what became of it. Till now, 91st Inf Bde has the most experience in amphibious ops and has benefited a lot from joint exercises with USMC.

I had posted same thing on Navy developments thread, that why not design a LPD/LHD based on Ins Dhruv design.

An LHD the kind of which Navy wants and has put out an RFI for will be far more superior than any indigenous LPD based on INS Dhruv design.
First off, how do we even know that the INS Dhruv design is good enough for an LPD to be based off of it?

 

[Kuldeepm952]

Have been a while, we heard anything of Nirbhay, ITCM or whatever you like to call it?? Any updates?? Here are few questions:-
1.) Can we expect reduced signature airframe design in ITCM? Maybe further iterations/versions??
2.) Rf seeker, IIR seeker, DSMAC and TERCOM capability by when?
3.) Why nirbhay has smaller warhead 200-300 kg and stiil having lesser range when compared to other similiar missiles of same weight(1.5 tons clas) having 450 kg warhead and ranges in 1500km range plus?? Design issues, inefficiency or just taking it slow and building up? Apparently North Korea will probably deploy their cruise missile ahead of us??
3.) Can we see new weapons like smaller cruise missiles(500kg class) like SOM or JSM with 200kg class warheads, maybe able to be launched form current pinaka launchers by replacing one of it's boxes??

Would be great if someone influential can ask to Tarmak007, he seems to have good relations with ADE team.

 

[Kuldeepm952]

91st Infantry Brigade has been permanently assigned for that role and is being trained for it. There was news of another couple of brigades being considered for the job, though not sure what became of it. Till now, 91st Inf Bde has the most experience in amphibious ops and has benefited a lot from joint exercises with USMC.


An LHD the kind of which Navy wants and has put out an RFI for will be far more superior than any indigenous LPD based on INS Dhruv design.
First off, how do we even know that the INS Dhruv design is good enough for an LPD to be based off of it?

Here's a good template on which we can create a Marines capability closely knitted with IN while avoiding turf war among IA as I think Naval infantry definitely needs to be not under the command of Army, interestingly all over world naval infantry are put under naval forces with US Marines being different branch albeit the obvious US Navy as the driving force:-

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Here's a good template on which we can create a Marines capability closely knitted with IN while avoiding turf war among IA as I think Naval infantry definitely needs to be not under the command of Army, interestingly all over world naval infantry are put under naval forces with US Marines being different branch albeit the obvious US Navy as the driving force:-

As stated in the video, China's amphibious capabilities center not just around PLA Navy's Marines but also around PLA Ground Forces' Amphibious CABs. The Marines are meant to conduct island hopping campaigns, performing amphibious landings after amphibious landings on smaller islands such as the senkaku or other islands in SE Asia. Meanwhile the PLAGF's CABs seem to be geared towards attacking mainlands, such as the Taiwanese or Vietnamese or maybe even Japanese mainland. The Marines have less staying power and while they can establish a beachhead, they can't breakout of it. Meanwhile, the Ground Force's CABs are meant to do exactly that.
The biggest takeaway is that China looked at its intended goals and crafted formations that fit that role perfectly.

As for India's case, we don't need amphibious capability nearly as extensive as that of USMC or PLA. The primary role of any Indian amphibious operation is bound to be defensive in nature. We need a force that can defend our islands. As a result, our forces should be structured differently, based on our needs and resources.
I don't think there is much issue of a turf war here. Navy has constrained finances, doesn't want to spend money creating an infantry type force that is manpower intensive and will divert substantial part of its CAPEX to revenue expenditure. Army will have to divert at least a division sized formation for amphibious duties. And it will have to be tailored to the task, something like two or three Amphibious IBGs are needed. Work towards that end would already have begun.


Indian Navy doesn't have nearly the amount of sealift capability to transport, launch and sustain a large amphibious force. For the foreseeable future, even after we get the 4 LHDs, our total amphibious force is unlikely to exceed 1 or 2 brigades, even getting to a Division sized force is a challenge. Look at how many ships PLAN and USN have for their amphibious forces, we aren't getting anywhere near that number anytime this half of the century. Nor do we need to. We just need enough capability to defend our own islands. Our expeditionary capabilities will remain paltry as long as we have a two-front threat remains as an existential threat that demands most of our attention and resources.

 

[Kuldeepm952]

As stated in the video, China's amphibious capabilities center not just around PLA Navy's Marines but also around PLA Ground Forces' Amphibious CABs. The Marines are meant to conduct island hopping campaigns, performing amphibious landings after amphibious landings on smaller islands such as the senkaku or other islands in SE Asia. Meanwhile the PLAGF's CABs seem to be geared towards attacking mainlands, such as the Taiwanese or Vietnamese or maybe even Japanese mainland. The Marines have less staying power and while they can establish a beachhead, they can't breakout of it. Meanwhile, the Ground Force's CABs are meant to do exactly that.
The biggest takeaway is that China looked at its intended goals and crafted formations that fit that role perfectly.

As for India's case, we don't need amphibious capability nearly as extensive as that of USMC or PLA. The primary role of any Indian amphibious operation is bound to be defensive in nature. We need a force that can defend our islands. As a result, our forces should be structured differently, based on our needs and resources.
I don't think there is much issue of a turf war here. Navy has constrained finances, doesn't want to spend money creating an infantry type force that is manpower intensive and will divert substantial part of its CAPEX to revenue expenditure. Army will have to divert at least a division sized formation for amphibious duties. And it will have to be tailored to the task, something like two or three Amphibious IBGs are needed. Work towards that end would already have begun.


Indian Navy doesn't have nearly the amount of sealift capability to transport, launch and sustain a large amphibious force. For the foreseeable future, even after we get the 4 LHDs, our total amphibious force is unlikely to exceed 1 or 2 brigades, even getting to a Division sized force is a challenge. Look at how many ships PLAN and USN have for their amphibious forces, we aren't getting anywhere near that number anytime this half of the century. Nor do we need to. We just need enough capability to defend our own islands. Our expeditionary capabilities will remain paltry as long as we have a two-front threat remains as an existential threat that demands most of our attention and resources.

The way I see it is that as China becomes bolder year by year, India will have to take tough decisions and US would be very much be in favour of having a formal military angle to QUAD, if India signs a formal pact among members(who knows what will happen, threat of China is THAT MUCH), there would certainly be some contributions to be made by members in almost each domain including all 3 major domains naval, land and Air. In this context, I think some kind of expeditionary force albeit small can't be ruled out and that's where Marines come in our context.

I expect post 2040, our industrial and tech base to expand significantly and Budget for Armed forces be available in good amount to really be able to mass induct indigenous systems and finally days of chindi being gone. Thanks to our increased GDP, unless something unfortunate happens.
What do you think?? Or is this still a wishful thinking and we will still be compromising on even seemingly necessary capabilities.

What do you think of such low squadron strengths of IAF projected upto 2040. They will surely have more CAPEX and OPEX by 2030, magnitudes higher than what we have now according to forecasts by various agencies, in the fact that most of foreign fighters will be retired post 2030 doesn't this makes case for ORCA even stronger and dare I would say 300+ numbers of Tejas mk2, perphaps even a mk3 with 110 kn common engine of AMCA with reduced signature and other new tech. To me it looks like IAF is setting itself poorly for 2 front war when CHINA behemoth will be producing tons of j10, j series of copied flankers, j20, j31/35, vtol fighter jet, stealth bomber, various transport planes and perphaps even a new design 6th gen fighter.

At this stage, evn the thought of atleast defending borders seems to be a hyperbole.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

The way I see it is that as China becomes bolder year by year, India will have to take tough decisions and US would be very much be in favour of having a formal military angle to QUAD, if India signs a formal pact among members(who knows what will happen, threat of China is THAT MUCH), there would certainly be some contributions to be made by members in almost each domain including all 3 major domains naval, land and Air. In this context, I think some kind of expeditionary force albeit small can't be ruled out and that's where Marines come in our context.

I expect post 2040, our industrial and tech base to expand significantly and Budget for Armed forces be available in good amount to really be able to mass induct indigenous systems and finally days of chindi being gone. Thanks to our increased GDP, unless something unfortunate happens.
What do you think?? Or is this still a wishful thinking and we will still be compromising on even seemingly necessary capabilities.

What do you think of such low squadron strengths of IAF projected upto 2040. They will surely have more CAPEX and OPEX by 2030, magnitudes higher than what we have now according to forecasts by various agencies, in the fact that most of foreign fighters will be retired post 2030 doesn't this makes case for ORCA even stronger and dare I would say 300+ numbers of Tejas mk2, perphaps even a mk3 with 110 kn common engine of AMCA with reduced signature and other new tech. To me it looks like IAF is setting itself poorly for 2 front war when CHINA behemoth will be producing tons of j10, j series of copied flankers, j20, j31/35, vtol fighter jet, stealth bomber, various transport planes and perphaps even a new design 6th gen fighter.

At this stage, evn the thought of atleast defending borders seems to be a hyperbole.

I agree that our CAPEX will be substantially larger in 2040 and our military industry would also have come of age.
The current modernization cycle should get completed by 2040. That is the bare minimum we require for defending our two fronts while defending the IOR as well. After that, we can start thinking of significant expansion. But till then, our focus needs to undivided and towards just one goal: current modernization efforts.

What China is doing right now, its only doing after its modernization completed (for the most part). We will only reach that stage in 2040 (and that too if we work expeditiously towards that goal).

As for forming a formal military alliance with the USA, that decision should be informed by India's Grand Strategy rather than to make up for some military shortfall. If we enter an alliance with USA just to defend ourselves against China, that would be myopic. Indian Grand Strategy doesn't naturally converge with the American one, and so any partnership will be one of opportunity and will thus be temporary. The threat of China will always be there, but its up to us to ensure that we make ourselves capable enough to manage that threat on our own. Partnerships when formed, should be done from a position of strength. So form partnerships with countries like Israel, France and Japan. Indian Grand Strategy should be to strive for a position where India becomes an alternative of USA to the democratic world. That will undo the American global alliance structure in a subtle manner and lead to our vision of a multipolar world.

Even post-2040, the size of India's expeditionary capabilities needs to match our posturing on the international stage. And any such capability should be secondary to our primary goal of defending our own front.