DRDO, PSU and Private Defence Sector News

omaebakabaka

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
4,089
Likes
11,567
This is where you are wrong/lacking vision. In my previous comment above I gave the simple example of AC that you control using remote. That is what you are talking about: PID control to get to a user specified temperautre. Keep in mind that when you change AC temperature, you also use other options like removing or wearing layer of clothing, etc to optimize the temperature to your suiting. And usually you use AC inside a room shielded from elements while sitting/lying down. Not when carrying a rucksack across terrain open to elements. In the latter case, the external factors vary a lot with time making the ideal temperature that needs to be maintained to fluctuate much more frequently than the AC in the room situation.
The jacket instead aims to cut down need for user inputs after learning from user feedback over a period of time. Because that is indeed important in combat and even outside of it. Read my previous comment on the factors involved in this.
Understand the difference?
well said, with AI or ML, after few adjustments it will train and learn and offer finer adjustments that are more personalized. Stupid buzz is more around some other less useful and vain applications like advertizing and recommendations and so on or other overhyped smart nonsense.
 

flanker99

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
1,821
Likes
10,185
Country flag
Pehle IMRH to bahar nikalo and why to wait till IMRH to be completed they can start now...Saala Jhumlabaaji.
Paisa ke mamla hai...HAL rotor divison has been doing good work for a while now ....they have been using internal funds for imrh preliminary designs and the govt is yet to sanction the project again causing delays
 

ezsasa

Designated Cynic
Mod
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
27,075
Likes
120,596
Country flag
i have been a proponent of modularity in design for years, basic idea is that if a system is less rigid by design it will be able to withstand the test of time, years down the line new scenarios will develop and whatever engineering product you build will need modifications to be in circulation. all technologies have a expiry date, but atleast with modularity your product will be in the market longer. this concept manifests itself in different ways, depending the technology.
an example of how concept of modularity plays out in defence equipment design

 

ezsasa

Designated Cynic
Mod
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
27,075
Likes
120,596
Country flag
First they need to implement this in the FMBT program. That is where this concept has existed for the longest time.
is FMBT GSQR available online? customer needs to ask for it.
without customer appreciating the value of modularisation, product designer will not invest time on it.

WhAP had modular mentioned in it's GSQR, and we are already seeing the results.
 

Okabe Rintarou

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
2,336
Likes
11,942
Country flag
is FMBT GSQR available online? customer needs to ask for it.
without customer appreciating the value of modularisation, product designer will not invest time on it.

WhAP had modular mentioned in it's GSQR, and we are already seeing the results.
FMBT is the DRDO program, right? The Army gave FRCV as the requirement. The FRCV RFI does mention modularity:-

temp.png


EDIT:
Also seems like modular in terms of overall design, modules for subsystems and modular armour are all requirements in the FICV program as well, as specified in the FICV RFI:-

temp.png


Lets see how far the modular approach is taken in these two programs.
 
Last edited:

Lonewolf

Psychopathic Neighbour
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
7,084
Likes
26,829
Country flag
Wasted effort/ dumb thought by the private company. We already have Pinaka Guided in that category. Unless they are aiming to modify Pinaka somehow, such as mounting a single pod of Pinaka on a 6X6 HMV, instead of an 8X8 HMV. And does that bring in enough advantage to justify a new system?
Himars could be thinner rocket on 4*4
 

gutenmorgen

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2021
Messages
172
Likes
532
Country flag
Wasted effort/ dumb thought by the private company. We already have Pinaka Guided in that category. Unless they are aiming to modify Pinaka somehow, such as mounting a single pod of Pinaka on a 6X6 HMV, instead of an 8X8 HMV. And does that bring in enough advantage to justify a new system?
Do we have a system that can be used for area bombardment beyond 150km (maybe upto 400-500km)? I.e., it needs to be very cheap with decent accuracy which can be produced en masse. Smerch with 9M544 rockets is an example for the lower ranges of the category I mentioned and PHL-16 should be at the high end (at least non-TBM versions). Do Pralay/Prahaar etc fall into that category? AFAIK they are vertically launched systems (or can they be launched directionally?) and as far as a simpleton like me can understand, being vertically launched, they will burn more fuel for course correction and it will put at least some limitations vis-a-vis their size vs range. And that extra bit of complexity will surely add to the cost as well.

Sorry if this has been answered before.
 

Okabe Rintarou

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
2,336
Likes
11,942
Country flag
Himars could be thinner rocket on 4*4
Depends. We could, but where does it fit in with our doctrine and ORBAT? That is the question we need to ask ourselves. Do we have areas in the front that are so remote where infrastructure can't be developed to take a sub-20 ton Tatra 8X8 High Mobility Vehicle mounted Pinaka? If yes, does it make tactical sense to take an MLRS system there? Keep in mind that if we can't take Pinaka there, then that also means we likely can't take any 155mm artillery piece there either, unless by Chinook (M777 only). And if there are such areas, we had better focus on road infrastructure development there otherwise such areas will only be defended by 105mm and infantry.

As far as I can see, there would only be a handful of such areas, if at all. And only in the mountains. In such areas, would we benefit from 90km range MLRS? Immediate tactical needs would be better served by mortars. Lots of them. Interdiction can be done iva other means if MLRS can't be brought there. Such as MRPKS of Army and DAS by Air Force.

Keep in mind, the Americans named that system as HIMARS because there MLRS system was the tracked M270 MLRS. HIMARS was a lighter version mounted on a 6X6 wheeled High Mobility Vehicle mostly for the USMC. In our case, Pinaka already has that level of high mobility. Do we really need a higher level of mobility for a 90km range MLRS?

Do we have a system that can be used for area bombardment beyond 150km (maybe upto 400-500km)? I.e., it needs to be very cheap with decent accuracy which can be produced en masse. Smerch with 9M544 rockets is an example for the lower ranges of the category I mentioned and PHL-16 should be at the high end (at least non-TBM versions). Do Pralay/Prahaar etc fall into that category? AFAIK they are vertically launched systems (or can they be launched directionally?) and as far as a simpleton like me can understand, being vertically launched, they will burn more fuel for course correction and it will put at least some limitations vis-a-vis their size vs range. And that extra bit of complexity will surely add to the cost as well.

Sorry if this has been answered before.
There is Pinaka 2, a 300mm MLRS that is said to be in the works for ranges upto 150km and warhead weights of around 100kg.
Then there is Prahaar for upto 200km/250kg and Pralay for upto 500km/500kg. If mass produced, their cost wouldn't be prohibitively high.

You said PHL-16. That has got around 8 370mm rockets with a range and warhead similar to Prahaar. And the PHL-16 can also fire two TBM like American MLRS that fire ATACMS. The Chinese TBM is a 750mm missile with less range and warhead capacity than Pralay missile.

As for the disadvantage of vertical launch you mentioned, the tactical advantages outweigh them in Himalayas, where vertical launch means you can hide in defilade behind a mountain range right at the foot of the mountain, safe from counter-battery fire. Chinese PHL-16 will face this limitation that it will have to come out in the open or else its rockets won't clear the ridgeline. Compared to that, the minor increase in complexity due to a TVC and control surfaces that would otherwise still be needed to improve CEP means its an acceptable trade off for the ability to fire from defilade.

We have systems comparable to the Chinese ones. Its just that they aren't tested and deployed yet.
 

Indx TechStyle

Kitty mod
Mod
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
16,397
Likes
43,849
Country flag
Do we have a system that can be used for area bombardment beyond 150km (maybe upto 400-500km)? I.e., it needs to be very cheap with decent accuracy which can be produced en masse. Smerch with 9M544 rockets is an example for the lower ranges of the category I mentioned and PHL-16 should be at the high end (at least non-TBM versions). Do Pralay/Prahaar etc fall into that category? AFAIK they are vertically launched systems (or can they be launched directionally?) and as far as a simpleton like me can understand, being vertically launched, they will burn more fuel for course correction and it will put at least some limitations vis-a-vis their size vs range. And that extra bit of complexity will surely add to the cost as well.

Sorry if this has been answered before.
Off course Pralay/Prahar series are tactical ballistic missiles being used for artillery roles. Their low mobility hinders the comparability of artillery systems of US, Russia and China which have highly mobile and cheap, longer range proper MLRS than Pinaka.

We will take a while to develop a formidable artillery force.
 

ClawReed787

New Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2020
Messages
912
Likes
3,332
Country flag
FMBT is the DRDO program, right? The Army gave FRCV as the requirement. The FRCV RFI does mention modularity:-

View attachment 173017

EDIT:
Also seems like modular in terms of overall design, modules for subsystems and modular armour are all requirements in the FICV program as well, as specified in the FICV RFI:-

View attachment 173018

Lets see how far the modular approach is taken in these two programs.
Saurav jha says specs of ngmbt has been withdrawn by the user. What does that mean?
 

Okabe Rintarou

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
2,336
Likes
11,942
Country flag
Off course Pralay/Prahar series are tactical ballistic missiles being used for artillery roles. Their low mobility hinders the comparability of artillery systems of US, Russia and China which have highly mobile and cheap, longer range proper MLRS than Pinaka.

We will take a while to develop a formidable artillery force.
Pralay and Prahaar are not low-mobility.....We do need Pinaka 2 to replace obsolete Smerch, yes.

Saurav jha says specs of ngmbt has been withdrawn by the user. What does that mean?
No idea. NGMBT is DRDO designation. Maybe Army is shifting goalposts again or maybe taking an honest re-look at the PSQRs given to DRDO for NGMBT/FMBT. I have no idea how much things have changed at DGMF, although recently they did seem to be taking ownership of the project to improve APFSDS performance, so maybe they have become more serious about indigenization. Recent RFI for LAMV also points to such a trend. Wonder who the current DGMF is and what his thoughts on indigenziation are.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top