DRDO, PSU and Private Defence Sector News

[AnantS]

Same for artillery shell. That's why it comes under artillery.

Still unguided artillery is more accurate than unguided rocket for same range. Both have specific uses. But when you go for really really long range mbrl - accuracy takes hit. in order to make them accurate - things you add make it as costly as comparative guided missile - and accuracy may not be even as good as latter.

 

[Chinmoy]

Still unguided artillery is more accurate than unguided rocket for same range. Both have specific uses. But when you go for really really long range mbrl - accuracy takes hit. in order to make them accurate - things you add make it as costly as comparative guided missile - and accuracy may not be even as good as latter.

Yes. Guided or Unguided, rockets would not be as accurate as shell and there is one very good reason for that.

Artillery shell as on their own is not accurate no matter how much GPS guidance you put on that. Accuracy of arty shell are as good as your FOB. Now rockets are designed and used as area denial weapon rather then as a target specific.

 

[Photon]

DRDO A-321 ELINT currently flying towards Pak border!!!

 

[Photon]

DRDO A-321 ELINT currently flying towards Pak border!!!

View attachment 236982

Over Pokaran!

 

[Tridev123]

But with accuracy as trade off. If you want it more accurate long range mbrl - better go for guided missile.

That is one of the limitations associated with unguided rockets flying for very long distances. Accuracy goes for a toss. You would ideally want an MBRL system to destroy a sq. km or a few sq. km of targeted area. This would happen only if the CEP of the rockets are within acceptable limits.

Once you start integrating guidance devices on the unguided rocket, the cost goes up. Becomes more of a guided missile.

An hypothetical situation. Assume Pakistan has an Iron Dome or its equivalent system guarding Kahuta nuclear complex.
Option 1. Now suppose we fire an 8 or 12 MBRL system whose rockets are targeted to impact on Kahuta. Fired from a single location..
Option 2. Suppose we fire the same number of guided missiles at Kahuta. But these missiles will be launched from different locations. Say two from Gujarat, two from Rajasthan etc. These missiles will reach Kahuta at approximately the same time. We can arrange that to happen. Not too difficult.

Now which will be easier for the Pak Iron Dome to successfully intercept.
An incoming barrage of 12 rockets flying in quite close formation.
Or 12 missiles coming towards Kahuta from different directions.

So are MBRL systems always superior.

 

[AnantS]

That is one of the limitations associated with unguided rockets flying for very long distances. Accuracy goes for a toss. You would ideally want an MBRL system to destroy a sq. km or a few sq. km of targeted area. This would happen only if the CEP of the rockets are within acceptable limits.

Once you start integrating guidance devices on the unguided rocket, the cost goes up. Becomes more of a guided missile.

An hypothetical situation. Assume Pakistan has an Iron Dome or its equivalent system guarding Kahuta nuclear complex.
Option 1. Now suppose we fire an 8 or 12 MBRL system whose rockets are targeted to impact on Kahuta. Fired from a single location..
Option 2. Suppose we fire the same number of guided missiles at Kahuta. But these missiles will be launched from different locations. Say two from Gujarat, two from Rajasthan etc. These missiles will reach Kahuta at approximately the same time. We can arrange that to happen. Not too difficult.

Now which will be easier for the Pak Iron Dome to successfully intercept.
An incoming barrage of 12 rockets flying in quite close formation.
Or 12 missiles coming towards Kahuta from different directions.

So are MBRL systems always superior.

MBRL would be easier to intercept for IRon Dome compared to salvo of shaurya as latter would be having quasi ballistic with final s Maneuver capability. Cheaper MBRLs fired in numbers can overwhelm Iron dome and make few go through. But on Kahuta accurate missiles would be more preferable.

 

[NoobWannaLearn]

 

[NoobWannaLearn]

 

[jai jaganath]

Jo samajhna hai samajh lo

 

[NoobWannaLearn]

Jo samajhna hai samajh lo

TD to what project?

 

[jai jaganath]

TD to what project?

Archer ng
IG
It's a coverup basically

 

[Kuldeepm952]

Rocket artillery is a very potent weapon system, perfect combination of more range than tube arty but cheaper than ballistic missiles.
Any sane serious country like ours should learn from other countries who have succeeded in this tech, mainly the Chinese, koreans and Israelis. What's common between them? Simply, they put different caliber projectiles pods on their mlrs for different tasks.

For us, the most optimal solution seems to be to replicate Chinese model, a medium weight system like SR-5 mlrs which will take the responsibility of striking targets upto 300km with lighter warheads. Our current Pinaka is perfectly capable of becoming such a system, given that user and developing agency exactly spell out the requirements and capability needed.

2nd one being a heavier system like PCL-191 mlrs which will take care of targets upto 600km using heavier warheads.

Diff between king dragon and fire dragon missile

Clearly you can't use Single launcher design base for all tasks. It has to be a medium weight and heavy weight system.

Even Koreans are now following the Chinese footsteps

Here the Israelis as well

PULS Rocket Artillery Systems, Israel

PULS is an autonomous artillery rocket system developed by Elbit Systems capable of precision strike up to the range of 300km.

www.army-technology.com

You can see bothe Extra and Predator hawk rockets on same mlrs.

3rd, for beyond 500km targets, we will simply need to produce different types of Ballistic missiles and cruise missiles for different ranges and payloads for ranges upto 2500km. For such systems, being rather easy to produce, highly mobile and ability to evade enemy air defenses would be a key system requirement.
This would be the way our rocket forces should ideally be structured. Ofcourse this includes the systems and ability needed to even determine, locate and acquire the targets upto that range.

Now, if you ever need to ask why we haven't done this. It's not that Drdo can't do it, it's that our Forces have never envisaged such a concept of long range fires, even when successful similiar examples are there around the world.
There is also some kind of miopia in Drdo as well, as one would think that instead of maxxing range on a 214mm projectile why can't they boost the projectile to 280-300mm while keeping the length same at 5ish metres and warheads same to deliver effects even greater than current smerch range albeit at reduced warhead weight. Current Pinaka can't handle 7+ metres rockets of 300mm+ class.

My views are somewhat similiar to IA Addl DG Arty

Even they know what they need to do but will they do it, this is Indian forces we are talking about especially IA. Let's see, if you see Drdo projects addressing these requirements, steps are being taken in right direction. Well I still remember F-INSAS from a decade ago, the future Indian Soldier!!!!!! with whatnot kits And here is the so called future Soldier I am seeing now, devoid of even basic modern military eqpmt

 

[Kuldeepm952]

MLPGM missile truck concept being used by South korea, although we devised the idea a long time ago, it never came to fruition.

And here Turkish doing what they do best, maxxxing their UAV usage by equipping them with cheap aerial launched long range vectors. While here we are trying our hardest to obtain the superb unobtanium Israeli and amriki UAV and keeping the curry smelling indian UAV at bay.

Roketsan - UAV-230 Air-to-Surface Ballistic Supersonic Missile

www.roketsan.com.tr

 

[Coalmine]

 

[Tridev123]

Rocket artillery is a very potent weapon system, perfect combination of more range than tube arty but cheaper than ballistic missiles.
Any sane serious country like ours should learn from other countries who have succeeded in this tech, mainly the Chinese, koreans and Israelis. What's common between them? Simply, they put different caliber projectiles pods on their mlrs for different tasks.

For us, the most optimal solution seems to be to replicate Chinese model, a medium weight system like SR-5 mlrs which will take the responsibility of striking targets upto 300km with lighter warheads. Our current Pinaka is perfectly capable of becoming such a system, given that user and developing agency exactly spell out the requirements and capability needed.View attachment 237044
View attachment 237045

2nd one being a heavier system like PCL-191 mlrs which will take care of targets upto 600km using heavier warheads.
View attachment 237047
View attachment 237048
Diff between king dragon and fire dragon missile
View attachment 237049
Clearly you can't use Single launcher design base for all tasks. It has to be a medium weight and heavy weight system.

Even Koreans are now following the Chinese footsteps

Here the Israelis as well

PULS Rocket Artillery Systems, Israel

PULS is an autonomous artillery rocket system developed by Elbit Systems capable of precision strike up to the range of 300km.

www.army-technology.com

View attachment 237050
You can see bothe Extra and Predator hawk rockets on same mlrs.

3rd, for beyond 500km targets, we will simply need to produce different types of Ballistic missiles and cruise missiles for different ranges and payloads for ranges upto 2500km. For such systems, being rather easy to produce, highly mobile and ability to evade enemy air defenses would be a key system requirement.
This would be the way our rocket forces should ideally be structured. Ofcourse this includes the systems and ability needed to even determine, locate and acquire the targets upto that range.

Now, if you ever need to ask why we haven't done this. It's not that Drdo can't do it, it's that our Forces have never envisaged such a concept of long range fires, even when successful similiar examples are there around the world.
There is also some kind of miopia in Drdo as well, as one would think that instead of maxxing range on a 214mm projectile why can't they boost the projectile to 280-300mm while keeping the length same at 5ish metres and warheads same to deliver effects even greater than current smerch range albeit at reduced warhead weight. Current Pinaka can't handle 7+ metres rockets of 300mm+ class.

My views are somewhat similiar to IA Addl DG Arty
View attachment 237052

Even they know what they need to do but will they do it, this is Indian forces we are talking about especially IA. Let's see, if you see Drdo projects addressing these requirements, steps are being taken in right direction. Well I still remember F-INSAS from a decade ago, the future Indian Soldier!!!!!! with whatnot kits And here is the so called future Soldier I am seeing now, devoid of even basic modern military eqpmt
View attachment 237053

Welcome to the debate.
You have done quite a bit of work.
But my simple question has not yet been answered.

My question is are MBRL systems preferable while targeting an very long range high value target. Say the Chinese underground nuclear submarine base on Hainan Island. A fully hypothetical situation.

It would be protected by an ABM shield, no doubt.
Is it not the rule that rockets in an MBRL system fly in close proximity to one another and usually detonate on the target at the same time. A salvo attack.

Now if you were manning an computer console in the ABM control room, would it not be easier for you to launch interceptor missiles at an incoming missile attack where the missiles are flying closer to each other than if the missiles were approaching from dispersed trajectories.

I guess an couple of air burst detonations with prefragmented warheads in front of an 8/12 rocket barrage will be quite effective.
As against launching interceptor missiles at a number of enemy missiles approaching the target from different angles.These enemy missiles were fired individually from different locations and not from an MBRL based in a single location.


To put it simply : The ABM system will find it easier to neutralise an MBRL attack.
The very strength of an MBRL system i.e. an salvo of multiple rockets flying together(not exactly that) and impacting together on the target becomes its weakness because a flock of 12 missiles flying close is easier to intercept than 12 individual missiles coming in from different directions.

The ABM computer will have to generate 12 different targeting solutions and launch a minimum of 12 interceptors aimed in different directions to target each missile. In case an MBRL is not used.

Using an MBRL for very long range attacks may well turn out to be counter productive.
An question up for debate.

 

[AnantS]

Until those are in numbers - flaunting them is pointless.

 

[raju1982]

Rocket artillery is a very potent weapon system, perfect combination of more range than tube arty but cheaper than ballistic missiles.
Any sane serious country like ours should learn from other countries who have succeeded in this tech, mainly the Chinese, koreans and Israelis. What's common between them? Simply, they put different caliber projectiles pods on their mlrs for different tasks.

For us, the most optimal solution seems to be to replicate Chinese model, a medium weight system like SR-5 mlrs which will take the responsibility of striking targets upto 300km with lighter warheads. Our current Pinaka is perfectly capable of becoming such a system, given that user and developing agency exactly spell out the requirements and capability needed.View attachment 237044
View attachment 237045

2nd one being a heavier system like PCL-191 mlrs which will take care of targets upto 600km using heavier warheads.
View attachment 237047
View attachment 237048
Diff between king dragon and fire dragon missile
View attachment 237049
Clearly you can't use Single launcher design base for all tasks. It has to be a medium weight and heavy weight system.

Even Koreans are now following the Chinese footsteps

Here the Israelis as well

PULS Rocket Artillery Systems, Israel

PULS is an autonomous artillery rocket system developed by Elbit Systems capable of precision strike up to the range of 300km.

www.army-technology.com

View attachment 237050
You can see bothe Extra and Predator hawk rockets on same mlrs.

3rd, for beyond 500km targets, we will simply need to produce different types of Ballistic missiles and cruise missiles for different ranges and payloads for ranges upto 2500km. For such systems, being rather easy to produce, highly mobile and ability to evade enemy air defenses would be a key system requirement.
This would be the way our rocket forces should ideally be structured. Ofcourse this includes the systems and ability needed to even determine, locate and acquire the targets upto that range.

Now, if you ever need to ask why we haven't done this. It's not that Drdo can't do it, it's that our Forces have never envisaged such a concept of long range fires, even when successful similiar examples are there around the world.
There is also some kind of miopia in Drdo as well, as one would think that instead of maxxing range on a 214mm projectile why can't they boost the projectile to 280-300mm while keeping the length same at 5ish metres and warheads same to deliver effects even greater than current smerch range albeit at reduced warhead weight. Current Pinaka can't handle 7+ metres rockets of 300mm+ class.

My views are somewhat similiar to IA Addl DG Arty
View attachment 237052

Even they know what they need to do but will they do it, this is Indian forces we are talking about especially IA. Let's see, if you see Drdo projects addressing these requirements, steps are being taken in right direction. Well I still remember F-INSAS from a decade ago, the future Indian Soldier!!!!!! with whatnot kits And here is the so called future Soldier I am seeing now, devoid of even basic modern military eqpmt
View attachment 237053

This is what i was talking about for last many years. China not only developed them but also sold to many countries. While our forces rejected Prahar though it was first tested in 2012. Apart from expensive Brahmos we do not have any battlefield weapon for theatre.

Our important forward airbases like Hasimara, Leh even, Ambala can showered with these guided rockets from Tibet. IAF and IA are sleeping.

Only good thing, if DRDO can convert Rudram series for ground.

 

[Chinmoy]

TD to what project?

TD to MALE UAV

 

[NoobWannaLearn]

TD to MALE UAV

Archer ng?

 

[Chinmoy]

Archer ng?

Archer would incorporate whatever we learned from Tapas program.