DRDO, PSU and Private Defence Sector News

[omaebakabaka]

Agree with this.


Instead of tactical light weight MLRS, better to go for heavy automatic mortars. Mortars are suited to mountain warfare much more than MLRS due to steep angle of firing. Moreover, even a 120mm mortar has the same lethal radius to a 155mm artillery round. Imagine 120mm or heck even 180mm mortars on motorized platforms.
Another idea better than MLRS at tactical ranges is the MRPKS, which IA is already pursuing.

Yes, mortars are terrifying for trenchers and infantry in general. Very effective and cheap but kinda short range? I have seen MLRS rockets releasing pellets with chutes but that means less destructive smaller warheads or AP mines....its important to take out critical node points and c&c in the very beginning stages in order not to collapse....I wonder how we would have fared if we were fighting Russia in place of Ukraine

 

[gutenmorgen]

Here is one exhibit of how Grad performs in mildly hilly terrain. The fall of those rounds isn't nearly as uniform and the barrage is not nearly as effective as our imagination of what a grid square removal system would be capable of.:-


Ofcourse this problem will be magnified many-fold with long range vectors (even if guided) landing in Himalayan terrain where the defilade afforded by the ridges would shield a smart unit/detachment/formation.

There is a reason why Brahmos Block III with steep dive was created for the Himalayas and why more than Pinaka, Indian Army is more interested in MRPKS.

In mountains, even the headline CEP figure (of a long range guided missile) derived from testing in the plains and deserts would stretch out to ineffective numbers due to terrain. You miss the ridge by 5 meters and the round would fall down in the valley a couple km away. In some cases it will end up looking similar to the dispersion of the Grad's unguided rounds. So Chinese long range vectors are far from a silver bullet in Himalayas. Yet Chinese persist in these weapon systems because we aren't their only enemy. They can use these long range vectors to wreak havoc in Taiwan while standing in Mainland China. To them, that would be a more lucrative use of these systems than in the Himalayas.

Agree with that. Using guided rockets in the himalayas will need a somewhat better precision than a typical mlrs but i was mostly talking about the long ranged ones (300-350 km ones). With those kinda distances i am hoping we ll always be using them on china's side of the terrain which is a bit different and probably won't require as much precision. But still, your point stands.
Do you think Prahaar/Pranash/Pragati series of missiles are still in testing or maybe the user (Army) hasn't found what it is looking for (on price point or operationally)? We don't have any of these systems in induction afaik.

 

[no smoking]

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.

No, it doesn't matter where you stay, considering the modern technologies, there is plenty of weapons can hit those hiding at the foot of the mountain. The key part is how fast you can prepare, shoot, pack up and move away.

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.

For these kind of systems which have over 200km range, it is really not a big issue for them to find a right shooting spot.

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.

Firstly, the increase of complexity of TVC and control surfaces is NOT minor. And don't forget the increase of maintenance. If you time that with the mass number demanded for this kind of weapon......

Secondly, the CEP has nothing to do with how the missile is flying out of the tube. It is decided by the self-positioning, the manufacturing precision of the rocket/missile shell, aiming calculation methodology and navigation system.

 

[SUPERPOWER]

A Very Good Drone.

 

[Vamsi]

one more gem of private industry fan.....
How can these idiots think that ADA cannot develop AMCA, but TATA can & that too without any experience in doing so....
It's really frustrating to see this...these idiots think private industry are some sort of magic wands

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Do you think Prahaar/Pranash/Pragati series of missiles are still in testing or maybe the user (Army) hasn't found what it is looking for (on price point or operationally)? We don't have any of these systems in induction afaik.

True, we don't have these inducted yet. The story goes like this:-
OG Prahaar (150km range and bulkier missile possibly due to it being made of maraging steel instead of composites and older lower burn rate propellant) was once tested about a decade ago. Army found it lacking and asked for modifications like faster ripple fire, etc. So around 2017 they came up with Pragati with 170 km range. Then in 2018 there was a missile tested that was labelled Prahaar but was very different from the OG Prahaar. And then in 2020 news came that in the next couple of years there will be new missile "Pranash" with 200 km range based on Prahaar according to new Army requirements. Till now no new tests have occurred so Pranash is still likely in development. While DRDO is promising lowest unit price in its category in the world, we've yet to see it fly so lets wait and watch how this develops and what the actual unit price of the missiles turns out to be.

No, it doesn't matter where you stay, considering the modern technologies, there is plenty of weapons can hit those hiding at the foot of the mountain. The key part is how fast you can prepare, shoot, pack up and move away.

Do tell me which weapons can get to that defilade. I can only think of Infantry, Mortars, aircraft or drones. Former two don't have the range, latter two are not ubiquitous. The last one especially has long time on target.

Our system will be capable of shoot and scoot as well. The situation is simple:-

• While your long range vectors are protected against counter-battery by only AD and shoot & scoot.
• Our long range vector will be protected against counter-battery by an additional layer of protection: Defilade behind a mountain.

Do whatever mental gymnastics you want, the aforementioned fact remains.

For these kind of systems which have over 200km range, it is really not a big issue for them to find a right shooting spot.

Right back at you. You said "plenty of weapons can hit in mountain defilade". For systems with range of over 200km, it has plenty of hiding spots and launching areas. Its just that our long range vector will be better hidden and have more and safer choices for launching spots than your long range vectors because ours can launch vertically. Now cope.

Firstly, the increase of complexity of TVC and control surfaces is NOT minor. And don't forget the increase of maintenance. If you time that with the mass number demanded for this kind of weapon......

Secondly, the CEP has nothing to do with how the missile is flying out of the tube. It is decided by the self-positioning, the manufacturing precision of the rocket/missile shell, aiming calculation methodology and navigation system.

1.) Our TBM have TVC, yours might not. That doesn't mean ours won't be cannistered. And if they are canistered, there goes your point about maintenance.
2.) Control Authority. If you know, you know. And this is directly linked to your missile's impact velocity and CEP.

one more gem of private industry fan.....
How can these idiots think that ADA cannot develop AMCA, but TATA can & that too without any experience in doing so....
It's really frustrating to see this...these idiots think private industry are some sort of magic wands

TATA manufacturing AMCA is one thing, but TATA designing AMCA? That is Abhijit Iyer Mitra level analysis.
@Raj Malhotra WTF is this?

 

[AnantS]

A Very Good Drone.

I like it! Actually whats needed is compact Air motorcycles, which can drop one two crack commando personnel and fly back to base automatically. Think this in LAC situation- they will give quick reaction capability. Yes it will require R&D - in creating much more powerful yet compact motors.

Swarm Mega Compact UAV shall find uses in construction activity in hills too. Its an exciting era, I see these UAV shall cause disruption in day to day life.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

I like it! Actually whats needed is compact Air motorcycles, which can drop one two crack commando personnel and fly back to base automatically. Think this in LAC situation- they will give quick reaction capability. Yes it will require R&D - in creating much more powerful yet compact motors.

Swarm Mega Compact UAV shall find uses in construction activity in hills too. Its an exciting era, I see these UAV shall cause disruption in day to day life.

Better idea could be LUH dropping the two commandos (sniper-spotter pair would be better) while carrying a drone swarm that can be deployed mid-flight in quick reaction time. Because if your air motorcycle gets attacked by enemy MANPAD, its game over, while LUH can mount a few MAWS and when it detects a MANPAD approaching, promptly deploy the drone swarm to act as hard-kill against the MANPAD. Add to that LUH can be armoured against small arms while air motorcycle would be fcuked.
Both ideas are too futuristic IMHO. But worth pursuing after studying which one is tactically more feasible.

 

[AnantS]

Better idea could be LUH dropping the two commandos (sniper-spotter pair would be better) while carrying a drone swarm that can be deployed mid-flight in quick reaction time. Because if your air motorcycle gets attacked by enemy MANPAD, its game over, while LUH can mount a few MAWS and when it detects a MANPAD approaching, promptly deploy the drone swarm to act as hard-kill against the MANPAD. Add to that LUH can be armoured against small arms while air motorcycle would be fcuked.
Both ideas are too futuristic IMHO. But worth pursuing after studying which one is tactically more feasible.

Well you could already have combat UAVs in lead to neutralize the threat. What I am visualizing is traversing narrow jagged valleys and dropping near to conflict zone within our LAC and scooting away after drop. Of course unlike helicopters I dont see them flying high and across LAC. These drones can be at every remote base for quick reaction. Helicopters have one drawback - Main rotor Dia. I visualize compact huge drone multi small dia rotors may solve the issue.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Well you could already have combat UAVs in front tp neutralize the threat. What I am visualizing is traversing narrow jagged valleys and dropping near to conflict zone and scooting away. Of course just like helicopters I dont see them flying high and across LAC. These drones can be at every remote base for quick reaction. Helicopters have one drawback - Main rotor Dia. I visualize compact huge drone multi small dia rotors may solve the issue.

So something like this but for two people:-


But given the thin air at that altitude and that its carrying two with full combat load, it would need much larger rotors.

 

[AnantS]

So something like this but for two people:-


But given the thin air at that altitude and that its carrying two with full combat load, it would need much larger rotors.

True that - Much Larger rotors or More Powerful rotors. Also Rotors should be on top and Cargo/Crew Basket attached at bottom. With this I see they could attach two more rotors providing more lift. The above design is quite compact but will be useless in LAC/LoC. These UAV's would be only for Short Hop. As I said I dont see having enough power to fly over the mountains. But enough to caress around slightly narrow alleyways/pathways/river course.
Why I am proposing UAV against Hepters - latter are expensive to own and difficult to maintain. I think it would be difficult to maintain hepters at remote bases in Jagged Mountains base. These UAV's are different case all together. They will require less maintenance than Hepters.

 

[Aditya Ballal]

 

[mokoman]

So something like this but for two people:-


But given the thin air at that altitude and that its carrying two with full combat load, it would need much larger rotors.

Sounds like chinese gyrocopters

 

[ShukantC]

Sounds like chinese gyrocopters

A gyrocopter fight reminds me of the old James Bond movie You only Twice. In which James Bond flies and fights in a Gyrocopter named "Little Nellie"

 

[AnantS]

Gyros-again, same drawback as hepters -- main rotor dia. Also Gyros need short runaway to take flight and land

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

True that - Much Larger rotors or More Powerful rotors. Also Rotors should be on top and Cargo/Crew Basket attached at bottom. With this I see they could attach two more rotors providing more lift. The above design is quite compact but will be useless in LAC/LoC. These UAV's would be only for Short Hop. As I said I dont see having enough power to fly over the mountains. But enough to caress around slightly narrow alleyways/pathways/river course.
Why I am proposing UAV against Hepters - latter are expensive to own and difficult to maintain. I think it would be difficult to maintain hepters at remote bases in Jagged Mountains base. These UAV's are different case all together. They will require less maintenance than Hepters.

Nah. Air bikes will remain limited to the niche you mentioned: infiltrating small detachments using nap of earth flying. Heptrs are much more capable, general purpose and survivable, so I don't agree with the maintenance overhead of a helicopter above an air bike being a drawback. Its a necessary expense.
The endurance issue you mentioned is accurate. Right now air bikes are only capable of short hops, which is not tactically useful at all. Anything not powered by hydrocarbons faces this problem for now. Once energy density of batteries gets high enough, we might see air bikes actually being used in their niche military role.

Sounds like chinese gyrocopters

Gyros can't fly nap of earth as well as these air-bikes IMHO. Gyro is too slow and high-flying and a lumbering target like that is bound to get shot down by VSHORADs if it ever tries to infiltrate the front. It might be fine in some rear area movements though.
Point is these are much more niche platforms than an actual helicopter which is more general purpose, versatile and survivable.

Please also post in GLSV MkIII thread.

 

[mokoman]

Gyros-again, same drawback as hepters -- main rotor dia. Also Gyros need short runaway to take flight and land

True , but still , u can land one vertically down with no engine power - meaning lesser noise . It's something of value.

 

[Srinie]

Prahaar is tragic comedy movie of MIC of India. Initially prahaar was VL ssm version of AAD missile . Army did not bother about it . Then 2017 happened they gave a relook at missile and then Galwan happened . Finally army decided that it wants prahaar missile to be slant launched for increase in range for paltry 50 KM's. A missile ready for production since 2017 kept on the backburner because of institutional incompetence

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Prahaar is tragic comedy movie of MIC of India. Initially prahaar was VL ssm version of AAD missile . Army did not bother about it . Then 2017 happened they gave a relook at missile and then Galwan happened . Finally army decided that it wants prahaar missile to be slant launched for increase in range for paltry 50 KM's. A missile ready for production since 2017 kept on the backburner because of institutional incompetence

The increase in range is due to higher use of composites and maybe even higher burn rate propellant. There is only one poster mentioning that its slant launch and all test flights, including the latest one with the newer missile frame (2018) were vertically launched. But lets wait and watch what eventually happens because the final configuration of the missile isn't out yet.
I see the low number of Pinaka inductions as a larger sign of Army's incompetence. In Prahaar-Shaurya -> Pranash-Pralay saga I see more of Army's insistence on a weapon system meeting tactically potent specifications, instead of inducting sub-par systems.

 

[AnantS]

Nah. Air bikes will remain limited to the niche you mentioned: infiltrating small detachments using nap of earth flying. Heptrs are much more capable, general purpose and survivable, so I don't agree with the maintenance overhead of a helicopter above an air bike being a drawback. Its a necessary expense.
The endurance issue you mentioned is accurate. Right now air bikes are only capable of short hops, which is not tactically useful at all. Anything not powered by hydrocarbons faces this problem for now. Once energy density of batteries gets high enough, we might see air bikes actually being used in their niche military role.

See mate, I visualize UAV's stationed at remote base depots along with jeep. Heck even remote outposts in Arunachal. Yes they are for short hops. And thatt what I envisage- covering those last treacherous miles quickly. As more dense compact batteries come online, there range load carying capability shall increase accordingly.

Hepters are not going anywhere-special ops, deep insertion, logistics, cargo shall remain their domain. Yaar to give rough analogy, if Hepters are your uber/Ola, UAV's shall be your mini electric rickshawas for last minute connectivity in those tight Gullies