DRDO, PSU and Private Defence Sector News

[Enquirer]

Heron is unarmed. The payload is the additional sensors. Yes, Rustom-1 can have the additional sensors too. Rustom-1 did carry 2 Helina which meant that its payload should have been at least 100kg.

For heaven's sake, how many times do I need to tell people that Rustom-1 NEVER FLEW with Helina! It was for DISPLAY only!!!

 

[Kshithij]

For heaven's sake, how many times do I need to tell people that Rustom-1 NEVER FLEW with Helina! It was for DISPLAY only!!!

Rustom 1 was seen on a runway with th3 missiles. Helina may not have been fired but the weight carrying ability has been tested

 

[Enquirer]

Rustom 1 was seen on a runway with th3 missiles. Helina may not have been fired but the weight carrying ability has been tested

It just taxied!! Never flew!!
I am trying not to engage with you. But I see that u spread so much misinformation, that I feel compelled to correct u, so other don’t believe in your wild imaginations!!!

 

[ash2win]

Heron is unarmed. The payload is the additional sensors. Yes, Rustom-1 can have the additional sensors too. Rustom-1 did carry 2 Helina which meant that its payload should have been at least 100kg.

Who said it cant? are you capable of debating? You asked the difference and i showed 100kg and 250kg.

Every MALE UAV can be armed. IDF uses it for strikes.

MQ1C has MToW of 1650kg and has 165HP engine. TAI Anka also is similar in MToW and engine power. Tapas has 2 engines of 180HP and MToW of 3tonnes. It is bigger than MQ1C. TAI Anka is inferior to Tapas. Tapas has SAR radar and many other electro-optical sensor to do much more powerful surveillance.

Yet in payload/endurance smaller designs are better. From 1800kg designed weight to 2800kg failure.

Getting bigger without getting more capable is a fail deal. Anka,MQ1C all the same.

The next 4-5 ton UAV is AURA. The only reason to have a heavy UAV is to carry heavy ammunition and not surveillance. Surveillance can be done by lighter UAVs. So, the best bet for heavy UAV is AURA with non-afterburning Kaveri engine. I don't see a reason to go for MQ9 drones

You think AURA is 4-5 ton with a Kaveri engine ? :biggrin2:

I'm out sanghi ji.

 

[Kshithij]

You think AURA is 4-5 ton with a Kaveri engine ? :biggrin2:
I'm out sanghi ji.

Do you think a drone that uses 50kN thrust engine will have MToW of 2-3 tons? Do you understand that Tejas has MToW of 13.5tons with max thrust of 86kN? Even the empty weight of Tejas is 6.7tons.

Naturally, the empty weight of AURA is expected to be in 4-5tons and with additional fuel and bomb payload, The MToW could reach 10 tons, IMHO. You must be seriously nuts if you think AURA is light weight drone.

Yet in payload/endurance smaller designs are better. From 1800kg designed weight to 2800kg failure.

Getting bigger without getting more capable is a fail deal. Anka,MQ1C all the same.

You really think Anka is similar to Tapas? And even MQ1C? Do you know the exact specification of the drones to say that? Which part weighs more than others? India already has mastered composite usage and uses it in Tejas, missiles etc. So, why did the drone become so heavy? If you can't answer this question, how can you say that the drones are similar?

Here is a more detailed description of various features of Tapas:

Unless you can prove that Tapas does the same thing as MQ1C but is simply overweight I won't agree with you. It is like saying F16 does the same thing as MiG21 but is overweight.

 

[AMCA]

BEL is starting new overseas marketing offices in four countries in the coming months. These countries are strategically located in South Asia, South East Asia and Middle East with a focussed approach towards enhancement of exportsenhancement of export.

8 new products by BEL:

 

[ash2win]

It just taxied!! Never flew!!
I am trying not to engage with you. But I see that u spread so much misinformation, that I feel compelled to correct u, so other don’t believe in your wild imaginations!!!

Can feel the pain. Its too hard to ignore BS. Thats how they get in to your psyche.

 

[porky_kicker]

Ghatak UCAV model..................
.

 

[porky_kicker]

Drdo bots....................

 

[porky_kicker]

400 HP engine for BMP

 

[porky_kicker]

DRDO mast mounted mobile surveillance system

 

[porky_kicker]

CRN 91 gun for naval use ..........................

 

[Kshithij]

Any news on Night vision technology by DRDO? India still imports the night vision optical tubes and needs to indigenise it at the earliest

 

[ezsasa]

Any news on Night vision technology by DRDO? India still imports the night vision optical tubes and needs to indigenise it at the earliest

Night vision devices is a closed chapter, there are 7 private companies other than OFB with can supply NVD.
Orders started Dec 2016 for domestic companies.

 

[porky_kicker]

Adamya autonomous underwater vehicle for launch from submarine torpedo tubes

 

[porky_kicker]

SDR NC

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

 

[Kshithij]

Night vision devices is a closed chapter, there are 7 private companies other than OFB with can supply NVD.
Orders started Dec 2016 for domestic companies.

I am speaking of technology, not the manufacturing. The private companies only make part of the NVD. The main component - NVD tube is imported from France. That is why I spoke of DRDO. DRDO is the one responsible for all defence technology. Even private companies have to give the technology to DRDO (they will be given first rights for order, but technology is Indian property).

As of now, India has 2nd generation NVD manufacturing inhouse. Third generation ones are partially made except for the sensor tube. We need the sensor technology ASAP

 

[NeXoft007]

The table below shows the warhead weight of each vehicle.

Interestingly, it states Pralay have 350kg and 700kg warhead options, while the one at the poster in DefExpo showed 500kg @ 400km and 1000kg @ 350km warhead options. DRDO is surely trying to hide its actual range from the public.

Pralay being a modern smaller cousin of Shaurya and Shaurya being able to deliver 1 ton warhead at 750km, we can safely assume that Pralay can deliver 700kg warhead atleast 500km away and 350kg warhead around 900-1000km away.

 

[porky_kicker]

Various types of directional warheads

@sayareakd

Remember the discussion we had months ago , and this was the pic I posted then.

It seems I was correct but drdo went for 1 axis gimbal in the azimuth axis only, while I had predicted 2 axis gimbal in azimuth and pitch axis.

Which allowed for more no of orientation points of the directional warhead .

Maybe they will later incorporate 2 axis gimbal for the directional warhead as it will allow more options like numerous firing postions to cater for possible last few seconds manuver of target and even allow extreme off axis orientations during cross over , especially if the target is pulling laterally away at high G's.

I am looking forward to drdo incorporating this concept in AAMs . Combined with a good seeker , dual pulse motor and 2 axis gimballed warhead, no amount of extreme manuvering even last few seconds manuvering by the target aircraft will not save it's ass from becoming a complete kill , no limping back to base. It will enforce a watertight NEZ.

 

[Enquirer]

Interestingly, it states Pralay have 350kg and 700kg warhead options, while the one at the poster in DefExpo showed 500kg @ 400km and 1000kg @ 350km warhead options. DRDO is surely trying to hide its actual range from the public.

Pralay being a modern smaller cousin of Shaurya and Shaurya being able to deliver 1 ton warhead at 750km, we can safely assume that Pralay can deliver 700kg warhead atleast 500km away and 350kg warhead around 900-1000km away.

Wasn't this topic beaten to death weeks ago?? Pralay is a single stage missile, as such it won't have dramatic increase in range with reduction in the warhead weight. Follow the below posts from earlier time....

Payload maybe reduced by 50% but the total weight might be reduced by only around 10%-15% depending on the total weight of the missile (assuming it to be around 4-5 tonnes)!

Even if I humor your analysis:
Total weight as last kg of propellant is burnt(1 T payload) : 1000(payload) + 1060(casing/motor) = 2060kg
Total weight as last kg of propellant is burnt(0.5 T payload) : 500 (payload) + 1060(casing/motor) = 1560kg

So, even the FINAL moment's momentum is LESS than 25% more in the lower payload case!
Given all other aspects :
-increased drag
-reduced stability (I bet you didn't know that less weight on top reduces stability) &
-the fact that x % increase in VELOCITY OF TRAJECTORY will only increase horizontal velocity by only 85%of x%

............it's not inconceivable that the total increase in range is about 15%