DRDO, PSU and Private Defence Sector News

[Indibomber]

The ballistic missile weighs in tons and the plane can't launch it like ASM135. The ASM135 had almost no warhead or very small warhead weighing a few kgs. Otherwise, it will be impossible to launch a heavy missile from a plane. The fuel economy will not be worth it.

Secondly, the chute system is also not appropriate as the fuel to carry the missile on the plane is not worth the distance traveled. It would have been simpler to simply fire the ballistic missile from land base itself. ALso, the chute is not exactly stable and the initial position and speed may have to be later adjusted with advanced computers on board. Ballistic missiles tend to not use advanced course correction and is simple.

We have air launched ballistic missiles, The Diplomat reported that China has developed ALBM named CH-AS-X-13, Missile has a nuclear war head. Bombers can carry and launch such missiles.

https://thediplomat.com/2018/04/revealed-chinas-nuclear-capable-air-launched-ballistic-missile/

 

[porky_kicker]

Finally pic of KALYANI ultra light howitzer 155x39mm MGS (mounted gun system)

 

[porky_kicker]

Bel Drone interception and countermeasure system

 

[porky_kicker]

Border surveillance system

 

[abingdonboy]

Finally pic of KALYANI ultra light howitzer 155x39mm MGS (mounted gun system)

View attachment 24302

Completly POINTLESS, the entire USP of a ULH is that it is able to be transported by helo, a MGS clealry cannot do that so it has all of the cons of a 155/39 titanium ULH (heavy cost, limited range vs 45/52 and maintenence heavy) without its major selling point (low weight).

Where would this even be useful?

 

[Tanmay]

Completly POINTLESS, the entire USP of a ULH is that it is able to be transported by helo, a MGS clealry cannot do that so it has all of the cons of a 155/39 titanium ULH (heavy cost, limited range vs 45/52 and maintenence heavy) without its major selling point (low weight).

Where would this even be useful?

Low cost replacement for 105mm for BSF and army? If that requirement ever exists. We did see truck mounted 105mm with bsf idk either prototype or serving.

 

[porky_kicker]

Another pic of KALYANI 155x39mm MGS

 

[porky_kicker]

BEML MPV.............

 

[porky_kicker]

OFB Sarang..................

 

[AMCA]

...................................................................................................

 

[Chinmoy]

The ballistic missile weighs in tons and the plane can't launch it like ASM135. The ASM135 had almost no warhead or very small warhead weighing a few kgs. Otherwise, it will be impossible to launch a heavy missile from a plane. The fuel economy will not be worth it.

Secondly, the chute system is also not appropriate as the fuel to carry the missile on the plane is not worth the distance traveled. It would have been simpler to simply fire the ballistic missile from land base itself. ALso, the chute is not exactly stable and the initial position and speed may have to be later adjusted with advanced computers on board. Ballistic missiles tend to not use advanced course correction and is simple.

Aahaa................. Now let me quote myself here.

This project had been shelved due to its technical challenges. Land based ICBM are much simpler to operate then Air Launched one. But at the peak of Cold War, it gave a tactical advantage to US over USSR.

Post# 3484

And lets see what you said at that time.

Don't make things complicated by using words like "technical challenges". Simply say that BM can't be launched by fast moving object as ballistic trajectory requires the initial firing location to be clearly defined and known with high accuracy. This is the definition of the word "ballistic"

Post# 3485

Its not that a BM can't be launched from air. But there are many technical challenges to take care of before doing it. This project has been shelved not because it can't be done, but because of the parallel USN project of SLBM.

Just have a look at this video for eye pleasure.

 

[Kshithij]

Aahaa................. Now let me quote myself here.


Post# 3484

And lets see what you said at that time.


Post# 3485

Its not that a BM can't be launched from air. But there are many technical challenges to take care of before doing it. This project has been shelved not because it can't be done, but because of the parallel USN project of SLBM.

Just have a look at this video for eye pleasure.

By launch, one means launch from fighter jets, not by parachuting. Parachutes are just dropping. Secondly, the accuracy of such parachuted BM is a suspect as there is no initial location stability. Third, USN ballistic missile is not related to canceling of parachute launched BM. There is simply no reason to parachute a BM after carrying it on a plane. The plane as big as a C130/C17 will be easily shot down, the landing and refuelling of plane is very difficult without friendly base. If there is a friendly base, why use the plane to parachute a BM instead of simply launching it from base?

Parachuting a BM from a cargo plane is pointless. It may be feasible, but serves no purpose. So, ALBM is either unfeasible (from fighter jets) or simply pointless. Technical challenge does not arise.

 

[Guest]

Completly POINTLESS, the entire USP of a ULH is that it is able to be transported by helo, a MGS clealry cannot do that so it has all of the cons of a 155/39 titanium ULH (heavy cost, limited range vs 45/52 and maintenence heavy) without its major selling point (low weight).

Where would this even be useful?

It could be a very useful weapon, in forward locations where road is not of good quality or a newly captured area from where the Army might want to field such howitzers. At some areas the climb is steeper and turns shorter so moving a ~15 ton or ~18 ton howitzer along with 8x8, or 6x6 might not be a good idea. Army has used FH77 in direct firing mode, to soften up fortifications in the past. This gun is mounted on 4x4 so It can squeeze up the mountains in forward areas well, Both on LoC and LAC.

Heli drops are not always possible, and If enemy is using Stinger, or even RPG It could be disaster.

 

[AMCA]

DRDO outlines Rs 18,000 crore investment plans
PTI|
Apr 13, 2018, 06.00 PM IST
1Comments
CHENNAI: The DRDO has earmarked Rs 18,000 crore as investment plans for the current fiscal, which includes developing the next generation lighter Brahmos missile, a top official said today.

The country's premier defence research institute has allocated about 25-30 per cent for developing new projects during the current financial year, Defence Research and Development Organisation Chairman S Christopher said.

Christopher, who is also Secretary, Research and Development, DRDO, wa ..

Read more at:
//economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/63749080.cms?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=ETTWMain&utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

 

[Prashant12]

An up-close look at the long range precision guided SAAW armament, developed by RCI

 

[porky_kicker]

Upgraded L70

 

[Arihant Roy]

View attachment 24323 View attachment 24324 View attachment 24325

Upgraded L70

Has anyone got the pic of the specs sheet?

 

[porky_kicker]

Has anyone got the pic of the specs sheet?

Go to Bel website......................

 

[porky_kicker]

Integrated EW suite

looks like roll on roll off type

 

[Chinmoy]

By launch, one means launch from fighter jets, not by parachuting. Parachutes are just dropping. Secondly, the accuracy of such parachuted BM is a suspect as there is no initial location stability. Third, USN ballistic missile is not related to canceling of parachute launched BM. There is simply no reason to parachute a BM after carrying it on a plane. The plane as big as a C130/C17 will be easily shot down, the landing and refuelling of plane is very difficult without friendly base. If there is a friendly base, why use the plane to parachute a BM instead of simply launching it from base?

Parachuting a BM from a cargo plane is pointless. It may be feasible, but serves no purpose. So, ALBM is either unfeasible (from fighter jets) or simply pointless. Technical challenge does not arise.

Your logic are really something. You are most welcome to distort meaning of words at your own discretion. I have no problem with it. I just want to provide you a link to dictionary here. Look out what launch means.

http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/air%20launch

Regarding next part, I would like to request something, if I may. Try to read, listen and understand. ALBM was conceived as a second strike capability. The planes carrying them would have been in US airspace instead of Russian, so there is no issue of bringing them down or refueling. But the overall process of launching it doesn't make it a practical weapon of choice over SLBM. The success of Polaris gave US a potent second strike capability over ALBM.

Try to read history.