DRDO, PSU and Private Defence Sector News

[porky_kicker]

Various subsystems of Akash SAM

Launcher

Radar

Command and control

Power supply


I must say the build quality is excellent and says a lot about the good industrial production process associated with the Akash SAM system.

Only regret is the inclusion of the Tatra trucks , should have gone for Tata or Ashok Leyland or L&T.

 

[porky_kicker]

Another picture of the underwater glider

 

[porky_kicker]

Galley equipments for Indian nuclear submarines

 

[porky_kicker]

6 months at once . Holy crap a lot of these will be swarming Indian Ocean then and we will probably weaponise them too.

Surveillance only , that too with the capability to work in a swarm inorder to cover a very large area.

Their mode of propulsion which gives them high endurance is not conducive to deploy weapons .

Watch the video to clear doubts if any

 

[IndianHawk]

Surveillance only , that too with the capability to work in a swarm inorder to cover a very large area.

Their mode of propulsion which gives them high endurance is not conducive to deploy weapons .

Watch the video to clear doubts if any

Fine . Can they atleast act sucidal when they find a chinki / porky sub . Just smash into enemy sub poking holes . ( Not serious though). Lol

 

[porky_kicker]

Fine . Can they atleast act sucidal when they find a chinki / porky sub . Just smash into enemy sub poking holes . ( Not serious though). Lol

Difficult for me to say
Unless they have a secondary propulsion system which will allow them to make a quick dash towards their target.

Basically it depends on the designers and what they want . Additional capabilities can be built in if so desired I guess . Only time will tell.

 

[patriots]

Here dhruv with quad atgm luncher

In its old days

The atgm looks like ....lahat

 

[Chinmoy]

A detailed and informative post. While I agree with you on most of the points, I would like to expand the discussion. The Chinese sub surface threat namely subs both conventional and nuclear is a real one with their subs making port visits to Gwader, Karachi, Sri Lankan ports and African ports etc regularly. They can threaten our maritime trade especially the supply of petroleum just as we can threaten their merchant ships.

But let us consider some relevant facts. The missile carrying capacity of submarines is limited compared to surface ships. As far as carriers of nuclear weapons goes even one Mirv SLBM is too much and 200 kt warheads can cause havoc. But in a conventional war without resort to nuclear weapons the fire power that submarines can deliver is limited as vis-a-vis surface ships. Modern destroyers and cruisers with displacement exceeding 8000 tonn can carry even 100 cell VLS. Contrast this to the conventional missiles count of submarines.

Initial war between India and China would be non nuclear and probably be a land war across the Himalayas. This war could extend to the air and also the sea as it drags on. In a sea war submarines will have a vital role to play as silent assassins but their role in launching mass attacks on enemy territory is limited. A destroyer with 50 land attack cruise missiles can cause large damage. So neutralising lethal surface ships is important in a conventional war. The submarine threat can be more effectively countered by having our own submarines on patrol in sufficient numbers. Nobody is underestimating the threat posed by the PLAN submarines. I am only stating that the surface fleet of the PLAN poses an equal threat to our iinterests.

We presently have a mix of Eastern and Western anti ship missiles. Missiles like... the Exocet are battle proven. Remember the Soviet Styx anti ship missiles used effectively to pound Karachi in the 1971 war. Other Russian missiles also enjoy a good reputation. But what should be the ideal solution. Do we always want to depend on imported weapons.and take pride in owning them. The Harpoon anti ship missile comes with a dangerous reputation and when the Pakistanis had them we took the threat very seriously. But 10 or 20 years from now do we still want mainly imported weapons to equip our forces.There is always a possibility that imported weapons can come with a kill switch or their technology can be leaked to our opponents.

The ultimate aim of every major power is to produce indigenous weapons as you cannot depend 100% on outside suppliers in times of war.

China is doing precisely that. They are trying to base their defence on indigenous weapons. India should emulate them.

Regarding our inventory of anti ship missiles only the Brahmos has a significant Indian content. The other missiles are outright imports. Do you want to depend on them in case of war. Of course one important point has to be highlighted. The relationship between India and Russia is unique and each pose no threat to the other. Russian weapons ensured our freedom to a large extent.

But I am sure most Indians would want indigenous weapons to replace imported weapons in the long run. This is where the importance of indigenous anti ship missiles lies. An fully indigenous sub sonic anti ship missile will give us greater confidence in defending ourselves. If we manage to make even supersonic anti ship missiles indigenously, very good for us.

The very reason why India is increasing its diplomatic reach and presence in East is to counter the Chinese threat. The Look East policy is only because of this. Now you simply can't counter your adversary with weapons, diplomacy and politics is equally important. We have seen the same in Doklam crisis.

Now coming to weapons part, as I said earlier, we are working on present and clear danger as of now. Our impetus is on to counter the sub surface leg of PLAN which is making its way into our territory and we have been able to contain it to a large extent in past couple of years. As of the surface leg of PLAN, the idea is to restrict them outside our territory right now. So again the diplomatic reach to countries like Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia and even Taiwan is to hold the surface ships in SCS.

Coming to increasing the rate of production and indigenous content. Even if we achieve 100% capability, we would not go for it. The reason is both Political as well as Economic.
Politically, the arms market and tech is what attracting the whole P5 & Russia to us. The moment we start substituting their components with ours, our clout or importance would start declining. Look at US, although they have a thriving weapon industry and R&D, they are still using armaments from NATO countries and Israel. Even they have set up JV with many leading arms manufacturer from these countries. Politically it is a tool to make friends and keep them close to you. Same with us. Replace the whole Russian and Israeli arms with indigenous ones or break the JV and you would simply loose an ally.
Economically, the moment you start producing all by yourself, you would start stretching your economy. Arm industry is dynamic industry where every other day one tech is getting replaced by other. So its just not the end product which matters, its the R&D behind that product which would cost you a bomb. For that you would have to increase the budget manifolds which in turn would stretch and put pressure on other aspect of your nation. Especially a country like India don't have that luxury. So buying products which are already available off the self is better then producing each and every product. Even other countries follow the same path.
Another thing is to take note of your absorption capability. If we consider PLAN and IN, the rate of production for PLAN is second to none as of now, but absorption rate is also second to none from below. @binayak95 would be able to show you the real operational aspect of PLAN. Although quantity itself is a quality, but quality does matter a lot in itself.

So bottom line is, we should increase our rate of production from what it is right now. But saying that we should replace everything with indigenous is a disaster in itself.

 

[Tridev123]

The very reason why India is increasing its diplomatic reach and presence in East is to counter the Chinese threat. The Look East policy is only because of this. Now you simply can't counter your adversary with weapons, diplomacy and politics is equally important. We have seen the same in Doklam crisis.

Now coming to weapons part, as I said earlier, we are working on present and clear danger as of now. Our impetus is on to counter the sub surface leg of PLAN which is making its way into our territory and we have been able to contain it to a large extent in past couple of years. As of the surface leg of PLAN, the idea is to restrict them outside our territory right now. So again the diplomatic reach to countries like Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia and even Taiwan is to hold the surface ships in SCS.

Coming to increasing the rate of production and indigenous content. Even if we achieve 100% capability, we would not go for it. The reason is both Political as well as Economic.
Politically, the arms market and tech is what attracting the whole P5 & Russia to us. The moment we start substituting their components with ours, our clout or importance would start declining. Look at US, although they have a thriving weapon industry and R&D, they are still using armaments from NATO countries and Israel. Even they have set up JV with many leading arms manufacturer from these countries. Politically it is a tool to make friends and keep them close to you. Same with us. Replace the whole Russian and Israeli arms with indigenous ones or break the JV and you would simply loose an ally.
Economically, the moment you start producing all by yourself, you would start stretching your economy. Arm industry is dynamic industry where every other day one tech is getting replaced by other. So its just not the end product which matters, its the R&D behind that product which would cost you a bomb. For that you would have to increase the budget manifolds which in turn would stretch and put pressure on other aspect of your nation. Especially a country like India don't have that luxury. So buying products which are already available off the self is better then producing each and every product. Even other countries follow the same path.
Another thing is to take note of your absorption capability. If we consider PLAN and IN, the rate of production for PLAN is second to none as of now, but absorption rate is also second to none from below. @binayak95 would be able to show you the real operational aspect of PLAN. Although quantity itself is a quality, but quality does matter a lot in itself.

So bottom line is, we should increase our rate of production from what it is right now. But saying that we should replace everything with indigenous is a disaster in itself.

Again a very informative post. Thanks. I don't disagree with many of the points made by you. But

As far as economics goes I fully agree that we can and should invest only that much in defence that our resources allow. We cannot bankrupt our country in the pursuit of weapons. The trick is to have a cost effective defence. An example, the US and NATO could not match the weapons output of the Soviet Union in the beginning and middle years of the Cold War. So instead of matching tank for tank etc they relied on nuclear weapons both tactical and strategic to raise the costs for the Eastern block.

I am not advocating replacing all imported weapons by indigenous ones. It would take us decades to even build a IL76. plane or a C17 Globemaster. Maybe when our GDP reaches 20 trillion we may be in a position to consider such mega projects.

We are not competing with the Superpowers to dominate the world. But certain categories of weapons if indigenous can guarantee our security better. Surface to Air missiles, Anti ship missiles, anti tank missiles etc are basic to defending our land borders, airspace and territorial waters. Using our own developed missiles having own mission computer, microprocessor, seeker etc means more confidence and reliability in our defence.

An example. During the US Iraq Gulf war the Iraqis had a lot of French weapons. The Americans arm twisted the French to reveal all the technology used in the arms sold to Iraq so that they could develop countermeasures.

We need to identify our core needs in weapons and technology and decide in which areas we will work for fully indigenous technology and weapons. In other non core areas we can import from friendly countries.

Let me caution you about Chinese warships. I believe that their latest destroyers are larger in displacement than even US destroyers. 052D or its successor has 13,000 tonnes displacement with 120 cell VLS. Please confirm these specifications as I don't recollect the source at this point of time. But their ambition is big and India will be the first target before they take on the US.

I have to discontinue now due to some urgent business.

 

[Tridev123]

Continuation
Regarding the subsonic anti ship cruise missile I would like to point out why I am putting emphasis on it. We already have most of the technology needed for creating it courtesy the Nirbhay Land Attack cruise missile. It is within our financial and technical capability to realise it. It was not given priority due to reasons of not offending a particular power. The concerned power mainly projects power through the sea to influence and intimidate uncooperative nations. But this power is our ally at present in order to use us to balance China. India does not regard it as an adversary but the past events breed caution. Intentions can change over time.

Russian and French weapons have been with us for a long time and may be not compromised. But will you not feel more confident with an fully indigenous alt.

I am not stating that we build a hypersonic anti ship cruise missile which is presently beyond our capability. A subsonic Ascm is very much achievable. People ask you have the best Ascm in the form of the Brahmos. Why do you need an subsonic Ascm. Would you use a multi million dollar Brahmos to sink a Pakistani patrol ship or small corvette less than 1000 tonnes displacement. The cost of the missile would probably be more than the cost of the target.

Another reason is if it is fully indigenous we can mass produce it during war and also modify it.

We are not building a billion dollar missile.

Diplomacy is certainly a tool to check mate China but when matters become serious do you think China will listen to Japan and S. Korea. The US voice would probably carry more weight but ultimately it will be our own capability especially our armed forces capability which can deter China. We must have the capability to inflict unacceptable damage to Chinese interests.

International experts have said that the focus of the Chinese has shifted from land forces to the naval arm. The navy is getting increased resources compared to the army and airforce. The Chinese know very well that the US mainly projects power through Aircraft Carriers and their accompanying battle ships. To counter them the Chinese are investing heavily in their navy.

Their naval build up also unfortunately poses a threat to us.

I have completely ignored the nuclear weapons angle as it is a totally unknown scenario. Let us not discuss about it.

France is not a bad example as a nation striving for strategic autonomy using limited resources. India could learn some lessons from them.

I have hope that our government and policy makers will make the right choices. Jai Hind.

 

[porky_kicker]

AFAIK this is a the initial CAD rendering of MLPGM missile system.

MLPGM is basically a smart munition aka miniature guided missile. A few of which will be loaded as payload onto carrier missiles for release over the target area, where the MPLGMs will autonomously search acquire and home in on any available targets.

This type of system has the potential to counter a entire SAM system or a entire WMD launch system by targeting TELs, C&C vehicles , support vehicles , reload vehicles , radars etc associated with the systems simultaneously.

 

[porky_kicker]

Both of these are pics of the same system - missile assembly and transporter system.

Used to assemble different sections of the missile , carry out BITE functionalities , transport the assembled system to launcher loading points.

 

[Tridev123]

Forgot to reply to one specific observation made by you. The premises is that we will lose friends and influence if we do not buy other countries weapons. I do not consider it as very valid. India like China with a huge population and market is very attractive to the West. Our civilian non military market is large enough to absorb US and European products and services in a big way. India is a major market for almost all US multinational companies.

We buy US weapons because sometimes they are the best and are needed to counter China. Of course they come with the burden of restrictive controls.

Russia is a completely different case. Presently in their current economic condition they do not have many non military products to sell to India. Trade between India and Russia is mainly in military products. If we stop importing weapons from Russia our bilateral trade will plummet. Also Russia provides certain categories of weapons which nobody else gives like nuclear subs, help in IRBM and ICBM development especially guidance technology. So it is a complicated situation.

 

[porky_kicker]

Spoiler

Interstage of Agni missile

 

[porky_kicker]

This one is interesting

This is the erector and guide rail for an unknown missile.

The only available info is that the missile is subsonic.

So this qualifies Nirbhay which is the only publically known sub sonic missile .

But problem is Nirbhay uses a different type of erector / guide rail.

 

[debspark90]

@porky_kicker why did you remove the LRSAM dual seeker comment ? Anything sensitive?

 

[patriots]

Hmm

This one is interesting

View attachment 38207

This is the erector and guide rail for an unknown missile.

The only available info is that the missile is subsonic.

So this qualifies Nirbhay which is the only publically known sub sonic missile .

But problem is Nirbhay uses a different type of erector / guide rail.

View attachment 38208

Looks like nirbhay luncher..,...............
..........
.......

 

[porky_kicker]

@porky_kicker why did you remove the LRSAM dual seeker comment ? Anything sensitive?

No , later some doubts rose in my mind regarding the cutoff section housing a optically transparent window/plug. In the 2nd LRSAM pic the cutoff section is not in HD resolution , so difficult to be 100% certain that it is a optically transparent window plug by looking at it visually.

Since the % of uncertainty increased in my mind I deleted it.

The cutoff section can be anything , it could be a optically transparent plug or a some other type of plug .

But this much is clear that the presence of the cut off section in the radome of lrsam is out of the ordinary not seen in other comparable missiles. I have yet to come across a radar guided missile whose top radome section is missing and is replaced by a plug/window of some sort.

Something is definitely odd with the nose section of LRSAM.

It needs more investigation , anybody interested can attempt it.

For example STUNNER missile has dual seeker , now compare. Visually both looks similar , if both the missiles were in scale then one could have compared the scale and size of the plug vis a vis both the missiles.

I have reposted the pics for those who are willing to look into it

 

[porky_kicker]

Some info on reentry capsule

 

[debspark90]

No , later some doubts rose in my mind regarding the cutoff section housing a optically transparent window/plug. In the 2nd LRSAM pic the cutoff section is not in HD resolution , so difficult to be 100% certain that it is a optically transparent window plug by looking at it visually.

Since the % of uncertainty increased in my mind I deleted it.

The cutoff section can be anything , it could be a optically transparent plug or a some other type of plug .

But this much is clear that the presence of the cut off section in the radome of lrsam is out of the ordinary not seen in other comparable missiles. I have yet to come across a radar guided missile whose top radome section is missing and is replaced by a plug/window of some sort.

Something is definitely odd with the nose section of LRSAM.

It needs more investigation , anybody interested can attempt it.

View attachment 38214


For example STUNNER missile has dual seeker , now compare. Visually both looks similar , if both the missiles were in scale then one could have compared the scale and size of the plug vis a vis both the missiles.

View attachment 38217

View attachment 38218

I have reposted the pics for those who are willing to look into it

But for MRSAM/LRSAM in order to be dual seeker enabled it has to have a shape like that of stunner or anything that keeps the space infront of both the seekers open and does not obstruct the seeker at the back.