DRDO, PSU and Private Defence Sector News

[Blademaster]

MILHUB.TECH - Everything military

Everything military

milhub.tech

nice choice, 450 qty not bad for Aussies

Its not 450. It is only 129. Barely enough for one mechanized battalion.

 

[Lonewarrior]

Its not 450. It is only 129. Barely enough for one mechanized battalion.

 

[Blademaster]

View attachment 216221

Article says 129 not 450.

 

[Lonewarrior]

Article says 129 not 450.

Maybe this is just the initial tranche
The official Australian ministry of defence website still lists "upto" 450

 

[Freedom Thru Firepower]

 

[FireStar]

Maybe this is just the initial tranche
The official Australian ministry of defence website still lists "upto" 450

If i am correct India will need somewhere approx 1700 i think. Heard that number somewhere inDFI.

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

If i am correct India will need somewhere approx 1700 i think. Heard that number somewhere inDFI.

Given we have ~5000 tanks, I would wager the number would be higher. Not everything can be handled by attaching light infantry to it.

 

[Blademaster]

Maybe this is just the initial tranche
The official Australian ministry of defence website still lists "upto" 450

Article says that Australian MoD made the decision to reduce the number to 129 after a strategic defense review and redirected the unspent funds on other items, namely the Australian version of the K9 and Australian version of the US HIMARS.

 

[Corvus Splendens]

Bu but dodo wala bad

 

[Lonewarrior]

If i am correct India will need somewhere approx 1700 i think. Heard that number somewhere inDFI.

You're correct...and incorrect too.
Latest RFI was for 1700 similar platform, so yeah. And we actually need almost 3000 such vehicles, so naah. These bits and pieces will let you understand what's happening

> We currently have some 2,500 BMP-2s in various roles
> We intend to procure some 500 vehicles that would use BMP-2 as it's platform; NAMICA, CBRN reconnaissance vehicle, de-mining UGV
> In 2011 Indian Army published a requirement of 2,600 tracked vehicle under the project FICV
> A decade of numerous RFI and re-RFI later the requirement reduced to 1,750 in the latest RFI of 2021. Most probably because of funds

So ya, that's pretty much everything

 

[Fatalis]

@Aniruddha Mulay
@Chinmoy
@Lonewarrior

There was a doc which mentioned semi active seeker for Project Kusha. Do you think the semi active seeker will be for the longest range missile? And what will be its pros/cons over the active seeker.

 

[Lonewarrior]

@Aniruddha Mulay
@Chinmoy
@Lonewarrior

There was a doc which mentioned semi active seeker for Project Kusha. Do you think the semi active seeker will be for the longest range missile? And what will be its pros/cons over the active seeker.

Are you sure it's semi-active "only"? Most of the time these kind of long range missiles have both semi/active mode.

As for semi-active seeker there's no pros and cons; after a certain range semi-active radar seeker becomes the only viable option to use as if you use only active radar + INS/Datalink then there are chances that the missile may not lock on the target.

Let's say you have an active radar seeking missile with a range of 100km. The on-board seeker has a range of something like 40km and this range would never be pleasing because of SWaP constraints of a missile. So after firing it the missile would have to travel some 60km by using just the datalink before the on-board seeker acquires it.

Add semi-active guidance too and you can now take care of this 60km too.
All "longer range" SAMs like those of S-400 or Murican SM-3/6 tend to have this semi-active in mid-course + active in endgame guidance system.

One slight con of this is that instead of the Radar Warning Receiver getting triggered as a close range, it'll now get triggered at a much longer distance giving few more seconds to react.

 

[Fatalis]

Are you sure it's semi-active "only"? Most of the time these kind of long range missiles have both semi/active mode.

As for semi-active seeker there's no pros and cons; after a certain range semi-active radar seeker becomes the only viable option to use as if you use only active radar + INS/Datalink then there are chances that the missile may not lock on the target.

Let's say you have an active radar seeking missile with a range of 100km. The on-board seeker has a range of something like 40km and this range would never be pleasing because of SWaP constraints of a missile. So after firing it the missile would have to travel some 60km by using just the datalink before the on-board seeker acquires it.

Add semi-active guidance too and you can now take care of this 60km too.
All "longer range" SAMs like those of S-400 or Murican SM-3/6 tend to have this semi-active in mid-course + active in endgame guidance system.

One slight con of this is that instead of the Radar Warning Receiver getting triggered as a close range, it'll now get triggered at a much longer distance giving few more seconds to react.

Not sure about "semi-active only".

 

[NoobWannaLearn]

Holy shit that first drone is massive @Lonewarrior @Chinmoy what is the role of a drone this massive

 

[Lonewarrior]

Holy shit that first drone is massive @Lonewarrior @Chinmoy what is the role of a drone this massive

Maybe dropping stuff that go boom-boom if by kinetic attack he doesn't mean loitering munition.

Also NewSpace list it's propulsion as "hybrid" instead of electric, so maybe it's using an engine + fuel tank + alternator type set-up that's why it's bigger. It make sense to have a Quadcopter that simply runs on same fuel as your Jeep instead of dealing with electricity and spare battery.

 

[NoobWannaLearn]

 

[NoobWannaLearn]

Also NewSpace list it's propulsion as "hybrid" instead of electric, so maybe it's using an engine + fuel tank + alternator type set-up that's why it's bigger. It make sense to have a Quadcopter that simply runs on same fuel as your Jeep instead of dealing with electricity and spare battery

That's quite interesting hearing it for the first time

 

[Chinmoy]

So you know which submarine got selected for P-75I? Even Navy chief does not know that and you want money for that? Anyway, this worthless chatting with you not going anywhere. Bye.

Exactly. It means even if a technocrat sits at the position of Def Min, things would not roll on. So you could rest in peace now after putting a One Liner.

 

[raju1982]

Exactly. It means even if a technocrat sits at the position of Def Min, things would not roll on. So you could rest in peace now after putting a One Liner.

Thats similar argument put by pakis after Chandrayaan launch! Just like you, your theory has expired as soon as you opened your mouth. A technocrat will move things forward, will reduce red tapes and will understand requirements and importance of submarines in a modern navy.

After putting so much links and facts, if you think I am putting one liner, thn why do we say pakis are idiots

 

[AnantS]

Exactly. It means even if a technocrat sits at the position of Def Min, things would not roll on. So you could rest in peace now after putting a One Liner.

DM Parrikar was rare em. He had background of an engineer and also as an industrialist. He knew what are the right questions to be asked to forces and DPSU. Both were pulled and encouraged. Its because of his small yet effective stint LCA is seeing light of the day in the services.

Merely having a person with technocrat background is not going to solve issue. Had that been case - Kejriwal and J ramesh would have shone in their stint.

Lastly our defence procurement suffers because of fickle and short sighted nature of planning and procurement dept of Forces. But all the buck stops at PMO(all of them) - who simply like to leverage each and every requirement of forces (which cant be fulfilled within) by breaking them into piece meal requirements and then going into lengthy quagmire of process of tenders,discussions and negotiation tactics to win Diplomatic brownie points. Be it C17, Chinooks, Rafale,Scorpene .. everything is a piecemeal order.