DRDO, PSU and Private Defence Sector News

[porky_kicker]

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.

Let's think logically

The radome section of the LRSAM is obviously radar transparent

But the cutoff section on LRSAM radome is not radar transparent since it is not part of the radar transparent radome ( obvious conclusion, since made of different material )

And given this fact , the presence of a non transparent radar section at the tip on the radome should obstruct the view of the onboard radar , won't it ?

But has that presented a problem to LRSAM radar seeker ?

Obviously no , since it is now operational.

And this very same logic applies to your query regarding stunner plus the shaping of the nose of stunner has nothing to do with the presence or workings of its dual seeker , rather the mission parameters mandated for stunner has dictated the shaping with regard to requirements of velocity , lateral acceleration , intercept trajectory profile own and of the specific type of targets it is meant to intercept by design etc.

 

[debspark90]

Let's think logically

The radome section of the LRSAM is obviously radar transparent

But the cutoff section on LRSAM radome is not radar transparent since it is not part of the radar transparent radome ( obvious conclusion, since made of different material )

And given this fact , the presence of a non transparent radar section at the tip on the radome should obstruct the view of the onboard radar , won't it ?

But has that presented a problem to LRSAM radar seeker ?

Obviously no , since it is now operational.

And this very same logic applies to your query regarding stunner plus the shaping of the nose of stunner has nothing to do with the presence or workings of its dual seeker , rather the mission parameters mandated for stunner has dictated the shaping with regard to requirements of velocity , lateral acceleration , intercept trajectory profile own and of the specific type of targets it is meant to intercept by design etc.

So you are saying that the dual seeker theory about LRSAM is indeed true ? Then why isn't it declared officially just like Stunner. I mean it's not that much of a secret to be kept. I would be really happy if it turns out to be true though.

And yeah the stunner shape has more to do with lateral acceleration which I forgot about initially.

 

[Akula]

Any updates on Pralay missile or it got delayed?

 

[porky_kicker]

So you are saying that the dual seeker theory about LRSAM is indeed true ?

No absolutely not

I am not claiming anything of that sort with respect to LRSAM.

Reason why I deleted by initial post in the first place.

I have only put across queries regarding the same, for which presently there seems to be no answer / available info.

 

[debspark90]

No absolutely not

I am not claiming anything of that sort with respect to LRSAM.

Reason why I deleted by initial post in the first place.

I have only put across queries regarding the same, for which presently there seems to be no answer / available info.

Yes it did give me some second thoughts regarding this. But then I too thought deep enough and then you deleted the post all these made me think otherwise.
But yes indeed that was a good find and it is i deed quite an intriguing aspect regarding the transparent plug.

 

[Chinmoy]

Spoiler

View attachment 38198

@Chinmoy

I did some digging around and found out that the above was for

Spoiler

ANSP ( advance naval system programme ), DRDL and is part of K-4 , used to implement rolling of article inorder to distribute aerodynamic heating over the ablative coating , especially in high depressed trajectories with the primary objective of increasing range due to reduction of resistance

Link please.

Please enter a message with at least 30 characters.

 

[NeXoft007]

Any updates on Pralay missile or it got delayed?

A private industry is now preparing to manufacture its new composite propellant, it will be tested soon, don't worry!

 

[Chinmoy]

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.

So who told you that we are not pursuing our goal of self reliance? Lets take BRAHMOS. India as of now could design the whole thing from scratch. But since its a JV, we have to follow the norms and even if we could replace all the subsystems, we would not do it. Now again we can't build a direct competitor to replace the system unless we break off our contract. So a direct rival of BRAHMOS would never be there as long as BRAHMOS.inc exists. But we are developing the others like subsonic missile and DMRJ engine Anti ship missile. One post has been made probably in last couple of page back.

Now coming into induction part, again its a question of economy. Any system which is developed domestically would have to undergo tests for around a decade before user would put forward the demand. So in such a scenario, we can't expect to see a lot of indigenous weapons in a short notice.

 

[Chinmoy]

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.

I already pointed out, subsonic as well as DM AShM missiles are already in development phase.

 

[Chinmoy]

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.

For a start, no amount of civilian market or commodity could replace a defence market.

We are in WTO and are bound to have trade with Pakistan inspite of what happens in LOC. So unless and untill there is a diplomatic fallout, trade would exists in between two countries directly or indirectly. Do you think US made cars have gone out of sale in Iran? Do you think the wheat import from US has seized in Iran?

Civilian market would always exist no matter what. But its the defence or arms market which shows the level of confidence a government have on you. So in political terms, defence market means a lot.

 

[Anikastha]

View attachment 38246

So now ladies and gentlemen, possibly how many SSBNs are in water unofficially ? :biggrin2:

what r these bottles.....
000000
000000

 

[Chinmoy]

what r these bottles.....
000000
000000

Silencers

Please enter a message with at least 30 characters.

 

[Aaj ka hero]

View attachment 38246

So now ladies and gentlemen, possibly how many SSBNs are in water unofficially ? :biggrin2:

Do sarkar, ek Arihant aur doosra arighat.

 

[porky_kicker]

Do sarkar, ek Arihant aur doosra arighat.

S-2 was built very long ago.

S-3 and S-4 was almost being simultaneously built but even than there was a certain time lag between the 2 during build phase , hence various product manifests from OEMs refer S-3 and S-4 together.

If S-3 has been in water since sometime , so S-4 is also surely in water.

Total 3 SSBNs are in water as of now
AFAIK S-3 & S-4 have 8 silos each.

Note S-3 & S-4 nomenclature was been used interchangeably. Most probably S-4 is Arighat.

 

[NeXoft007]

S4 Star under construction now

 

[Tridev123]

For a start, no amount of civilian market or commodity could replace a defence market.

We are in WTO and are bound to have trade with Pakistan inspite of what happens in LOC. So unless and untill there is a diplomatic fallout, trade would exists in between two countries directly or indirectly. Do you think US made cars have gone out of sale in Iran? Do you think the wheat import from US has seized in Iran?

Civilian market would always exist no matter what. But its the defence or arms market which shows the level of confidence a government have on you. So in political terms, defence market means a lot.

The assumptions made are not fully justified. I would like to clarify.

The main assumption is that larger volume and value of arms sale means a closer relationship both political and strategic.
Let us compare
Saudi Arabia. and Canada

US arms sales to each in the year 2018.Source usatoday. com
3.35 billion us dollars. 121 million us dollars

By extending the logic of the assumption the US must have a stronger relationship with Saudi Arabia than with Canada.
But in reality it is exactly the opposite. The US has deep ethnic, religious and cultural ties with Canada which leads to both political and strategic convergence.

Saudi Arabia is important only for its oil and in a crisis the US will not sacrifice Canada for Saudi Arabia.

US exports to Canada in the year 2018 were 300 us billion dollars. Compare with arms exports of only 121 us million dollars.
Source. Trading Economics. tradingeconomics. com
The US arms exports to Canada form only 0.00040 % of total US exports to Canada. In spite of such low arms sales the US-Canada relationship is cast in iron.

I do agree that arms sales have both political and strategic dimensions. But quantity of arms sales alone does not dictate the level of closeness between 2 nations. A country may not even sell arms to a particular state but still have a deep political and strategic relationship with it.

I will give two more examples to cla further.
Let us take the case of Japan. and Mexico

Arms exports by the US to both in 2018 are
Japan. 675 million US dollars. Mexico. 18 million USdollars
Source. USA Today. usatoday. com

Now let us look at total US exports to both in 2018
Japan. 75 billion us dollars Mexico 265 billion us dollars
Source Trading Economics. tradingeconomics. com

The US sells arms worth only 18 million us dollars to Mexico but has a strong relationship with it. Similarly for Japan.

I conclude.

 

[porky_kicker]

DMDE is one of the very few institutes closely related to the sub program so one can learn a lot.............

@Chinmoy do you know of this ?

 

[aditya10r]

DMDE is one of the very few institutes closely related to the sub program so one can learn a lot.............

@Chinmoy do you know of this ?

Can you guys me the tonnage and approx armament of S-2,S-3 and S-4 class subs?

This nomenclature is kinda hard to keep up with.

______________________________________

 

[porky_kicker]

DMDE is one of the very few institutes closely related to the sub program so one can learn a lot.............

@Chinmoy do you know of this ?

I meant you heard of DMDE ?

my english has detoriated over the years .

 

[porky_kicker]

Can you guys me the tonnage and approx armament of S-2,S-3 and S-4 class subs?

This nomenclature is kinda hard to keep up with.

______________________________________

S-2 4

AFAIK
S-3 8
S-4 8,
Tonnage of S-3 & S-4 is more than S-2
Exact tonnage is not known to me.