DRDO, PSU and Private Defence Sector News

[LETHALFORCE]

We can build an pucca ICBM but camouflage it. Agni 6 can have a publicly stated range of 6000km and payload of 3 or 4 tonnes. The 3/4 tonnes payload is for multiple independently target able re entry vehicles for use against China, possibly 10 warheads. This will be our public press release.

Of course, reduce the warhead/payload capacity to 1 tonne and then automatically the range would increase significantly. Exactly how much can be calculated by the missile designers. I am assuming it will reach ICBM ranges beyond 10,000km.

The only major work to be done is the guidance system which we must be ready with.

Questions like will an ICBM have larger re entry velocity compared to an IRBM and necessitate an redesigned nose cone wiil be tackled by the missile designers.

So the IRBM Agni 6 can be modified into an ICBM pretty quickly.

If our guidance system can take us to the moon doesn't this reveal that guidance system unofficially exists?

 

[Tridev123]

India also has huge market for USA multinational .
We also had nuclear weapons since 1974.
Again no difference. Our not having icbm has more to do with internal decisions rather than external pressure.

Yes, ultimately it has to be a political decision. Capability wise we are almost there. How much time our scientists will need to operationalise the capability is unknown. But testing will need to be carried out. Simulation alone is inadequate.
The previous DRDO chief Dr Avinash Chander in a press briefing stated that feasibility studies for an ICBM range Agni missile were being carried out. After that there has been silence. Does anybody have info on any recent statement made by the government or DRDO regarding ICBM type missile development.

 

[sorcerer]

If our guidance system can take us to the moon doesn't this reveal that guidance system unofficially exists?

If the Lander can orbit and SEARCH for the landing spot AUTOMATICALLY doesnt that reveal that we have TERRAIN MAPPING system unofficially exists?

Well!! We could develop better and awesome SPICE kits!

 

[Tridev123]

If our guidance system can take us to the moon doesn't this reveal that guidance system unofficially exists?

I wouldn't like to comment on this. I have come across information that even though the Chinese had ICBM 's for a long time they were not accurate. Russia provided technical help to the Chinese in guidance technology for ICBM.

If it was difficult for the Chinese there must be something to it. The Chinese had a space programme bigger than us. Please research on gimballed gyroscopes and ICBM guidance and how many countries have the technology. DRDO experts could better answer your query.

You can get an ICBM to travel the distance but how close to the target will it strike. It should have acceptable CEP. You cannot have a Beijing targeted missile miss the city itself. The very objective of hitting their capital city goes to waste.

Anyway if you have contacts in DRDO they will clarify better.

 

[Craigs]

I wouldn't like to comment on this. I have come across information that even though the Chinese had ICBM 's for a long time they were not accurate. Russia provided technical help to the Chinese in guidance technology for ICBM.

If it was difficult for the Chinese there must be something to it. The Chinese had a space programme bigger than us. Please research on gimballed gyroscopes and ICBM guidance and how many countries have the technology. DRDO experts could better answer your query.

You can get an ICBM to travel the distance but how close to the target will it strike. It should have acceptable CEP. You cannot have a Beijing targeted missile miss the city itself. The very objective of hitting their capital city goes to waste.

Anyway if you have contacts in DRDO they will clarify better.

One correction, not the Russians, it was Bill Clinton though disguised as satellite launch tech.

 

[no smoking]

If our guidance system can take us to the moon doesn't this reveal that guidance system unofficially exists?

Completely different guidance systems: Chandrayaan-2 kept correcting her own flying trajectory under the instruction of flying control center on the earth; The ICBM is required to fly with inertial guidance system strictly with none or minimum external interference, GPS signal is only providing a minor assistance.

 

[charlie]

Completely different guidance systems: Chandrayaan-2 kept correcting her own flying trajectory under the instruction of flying control center on the earth; The ICBM is required to fly with inertial guidance system strictly with none or minimum external interference, GPS signal is only providing a minor assistance.

Well it’s not completely different as chandrayaan 2 lander/orbiter uses INS and optical navigation.

GSLV mkIII uses SINS I am guessing but even gslv uses INS. A quick google search would revile that.

The INS for lander and ICBM re-entry should be somewhat same including algorithms with some different sensors I assume.

In some part you are right that it does uses ground control instructions but that is very minimal

The re entry stage Only INS is used in ICBM they don’t want any rf based inputs it seems
Good to read materials
https://engineering.purdue.edu/RDSL/aiaa-guidance-navigation.pdf

Chandryan 2 navigation PDF at the end of the page.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...andrayaan-2_in_Lunar_Transfer_Trajectory#pf1c


Boeing ns50
https://minutemanmissile.com/missileguidancesystem.html

Lazy and hard to write on phone, took me lot of time to post.

 

[Tridev123]

Well it’s not completely different as chandrayaan 2 lander/orbiter uses INS and optical navigation.

GSLV mkIII uses SINS I am guessing but even gslv uses INS. A quick google search would revile that.

The INS for lander and ICBM re-entry should be somewhat same including algorithms with some different sensors I assume.

In some part you are right that it does uses ground control instructions but that is very minimal

The re entry stage Only INS is used in ICBM they don’t want any rf based inputs it seems
Good to read materials
https://engineering.purdue.edu/RDSL/aiaa-guidance-navigation.pdf

Chandryan 2 navigation PDF at the end of the page.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...andrayaan-2_in_Lunar_Transfer_Trajectory#pf1c


Boeing ns50
https://minutemanmissile.com/missileguidancesystem.html

Lazy and hard to write on phone, took me lot of time to post.

Good to see members do some hard work and research. As far as my understanding goes, all long range missiles ICBM category use INS based navigation modules. The two main types of INS are
1)Strap down INS
2)Gimballed INS
Both use accelerometers and gyroscopes as essential components.
India has been using strap down INS for quite some time and has the technology.
Gimballed INS is technologically more difficult because of certain reasons. Superior machining skills are needed as very high quality ball bearings etc need to be produced. The gyroscopes are suspended in a horizontal plane which remains constant irrespective of the movements of the frame to which it is connected. This is a rather simple view of the system. Then we need to write down the algorithms which will make sense of the sensors readings and calculate the precise position and trajectory of the missile and issue necessary instructions to the control thrusters.

It is a complex process. Present day guidance mechanisms also make use of GPS signals to correct any deviations in the flight path. Use of astro sensors to compliment the INS has been around for some time. Micro navigation systems are also used. Ring laser gyroscopes are extensively used.

The concerned member can perhaps further expand the discussion and give an insight into our indigenous capabilities in this field. We would welcome further information.

 

[Chinmoy]

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 ?

Yes.... A very old institute and had a phenomenal role to play in ATV project along with others.

 

[Chinmoy]

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.

You are taking the whole thing in different path. I am talking of diplomacy and you are talking of cost.

US supplies arms to both Saudis as well as NATO. But look at the level of diplomatic trust in between NATO and US and Saudi and US. Saudis are simply getting off the self product and not tech with it.

Look at US and Pak relationship. Pakistan too was getting arms from US, but a fall in diplomatic relation meant a halt of arms sale to Pakistan. US is not asking its consumer product manufacturers to stop sale in Pakistan. Trust deficit in between any two countries would directly impact its strategic interest first. Arm sale is and tech sharing is all dependent of trust buildup. US has opened up its arms market to India only after we have earned enough trust.

Bill Clinton on record has told that middle class of India is larger then the whole US population. But this had not resulted in US arms sale to India. The arms sale took up only after diplomatic overtures in between MMS and George Bush govt. So comparing a Arms market with General market is illogical to start with.

 

[Tridev123]

You are taking the whole thing in different path. I am talking of diplomacy and you are talking of cost.

US supplies arms to both Saudis as well as NATO. But look at the level of diplomatic trust in between NATO and US and Saudi and US. Saudis are simply getting off the self product and not tech with it.

Look at US and Pak relationship. Pakistan too was getting arms from US, but a fall in diplomatic relation meant a halt of arms sale to Pakistan. US is not asking its consumer product manufacturers to stop sale in Pakistan. Trust deficit in between any two countries would directly impact its strategic interest first. Arm sale is and tech sharing is all dependent of trust buildup. US has opened up its arms market to India only after we have earned enough trust.

Bill Clinton on record has told that middle class of India is larger then the whole US population. But this had not resulted in US arms sale to India. The arms sale took up only after diplomatic overtures in between MMS and George Bush govt. So comparing a Arms market with General market is illogical to start with.

Let us not get confused. The whole argument and reasoning is

Arms sales are the only barometer to measure trust between nations.

Why have you chosen to ignore the significance of the data I provided.

As per you if arms sales do not happen mutual trust is absent.

In the year 2018 Canada and Mexico purchased almost zero arms from the US. Does this mean that mutual trust between Canada and US and also Mexico and US went down or disappeared.

Coming closer home look at the relation between India and Bhutan. Does India export large quantities of arms every year to Bhutan. We have supplied only light infantry weapons like rifles mostly and certainly not heavy weapons like 155mm artillery or tanks. Neither have we given them fighter aircraft. I doubt whether any weapons were given to Bhutan in recent years. If you have information to the contrary please post it with references.

The economic relationship between us and Bhutan forms the bedrock of the ties. The focus of Indian assistance is mainly economic - hydropower plants, roads building, information technology, space etc.
The major security assistance that we give Bhutan is that Indian troops are stationed there in limited numbers to guard against a Chinese attack.

Mauritius is another neighbour which is very close to us. India has not provided advanced weaponry to them. The focus is on economic help.

On the other hand there have been instances of arms being sold only for the money. Various ragtag outfits in Africa and Latin America have bought arms from China and other countries.

Economic relations between the US and Pakistan are not flourishing. Pakistan is under serious economic pressure also.
Pakistan would not mind if the US stops military aid but allows American multinationals to invest billions of dollars. Pakistan would simply turn to China for arms.

Every country generates money for military spending only through normal economic activity. Money earned through taxes finance the military budget. Ultimately economic inter dependence binds nations closer.

I think we can close this discourse. If you are not convinced we can agree to disagree.

 

[Chinmoy]

Let us not get confused. The whole argument and reasoning is

Arms sales are the only barometer to measure trust between nations.

Why have you chosen to ignore the significance of the data I provided.

As per you if arms sales do not happen mutual trust is absent.

In the year 2018 Canada and Mexico purchased almost zero arms from the US. Does this mean that mutual trust between Canada and US and also Mexico and US went down or disappeared.

Coming closer home look at the relation between India and Bhutan. Does India export large quantities of arms every year to Bhutan. We have supplied only light infantry weapons like rifles mostly and certainly not heavy weapons like 155mm artillery or tanks. Neither have we given them fighter aircraft. I doubt whether any weapons were given to Bhutan in recent years. If you have information to the contrary please post it with references.

The economic relationship between us and Bhutan forms the bedrock of the ties. The focus of Indian assistance is mainly economic - hydropower plants, roads building, information technology, space etc.
The major security assistance that we give Bhutan is that Indian troops are stationed there in limited numbers to guard against a Chinese attack.

Mauritius is another neighbour which is very close to us. India has not provided advanced weaponry to them. The focus is on economic help.

On the other hand there have been instances of arms being sold only for the money. Various ragtag outfits in Africa and Latin America have bought arms from China and other countries.

Economic relations between the US and Pakistan are not flourishing. Pakistan is under serious economic pressure also.
Pakistan would not mind if the US stops military aid but allows American multinationals to invest billions of dollars. Pakistan would simply turn to China for arms.

Every country generates money for military spending only through normal economic activity. Money earned through taxes finance the military budget. Ultimately economic inter dependence binds nations closer.

I think we can close this discourse. If you are not convinced we can agree to disagree.

Whatever you are saying, it is far from reasoning.

Relationship between two nation is based on trust. But business is another game. A trust deficit between two nations would not mean zero business, but it would sure mean that there would be no arms deal. Under the table, behind curtain business doesn't count in diplomacy. For example Boeing could do some under the table or behind curtain deal with Chinese companies or sale some crucial tech, but it doesn't mean US is having friendly ties with China. Apple is doing business in Russia as well as China, but we know how cordial the relationship is between US & China or US & Russia. Even Russia is the biggest arms supplier to China, but have a look at the Indo-Russian deal and compare it with China-Russia deal.

As far as India-Bhutan relationship is concerned, you have forgot that India is protectorate of Bhutan and Bhutan doesn't posses a Tank regiment or 155mm Arty battery. The 105mm field gun which Royal Bhutanese army use is supplied by OFB. US and Canada does maintain a neighborly relation and Indo-US strategic partnership is far deep then US-Canada relationship. Being in NATO alliance Canada is getting benefit of US & Europe just like Turkey.They don't share a cordial relation between them. Same is with US-Mexico. Its even worse.

See the reasoning.......... There is a difference in between a vegetable market and a weapons market. You can't replace one with another.

 

[porky_kicker]

LRSAM canisterised round

It's being loaded into the VLS.

 

[Tridev123]

Whatever you are saying, it is far from reasoning.

Relationship between two nation is based on trust. But business is another game. A trust deficit between two nations would not mean zero business, but it would sure mean that there would be no arms deal. Under the table, behind curtain business doesn't count in diplomacy. For example Boeing could do some under the table or behind curtain deal with Chinese companies or sale some crucial tech, but it doesn't mean US is having friendly ties with China. Apple is doing business in Russia as well as China, but we know how cordial the relationship is between US & China or US & Russia. Even Russia is the biggest arms supplier to China, but have a look at the Indo-Russian deal and compare it with China-Russia deal.

As far as India-Bhutan relationship is concerned, you have forgot that India is protectorate of Bhutan and Bhutan doesn't posses a Tank regiment or 155mm Arty battery. The 105mm field gun which Royal Bhutanese army use is supplied by OFB. US and Canada does maintain a neighborly relation and Indo-US strategic partnership is far deep then US-Canada relationship. Being in NATO alliance Canada is getting benefit of US & Europe just like Turkey.They don't share a cordial relation between them. Same is with US-Mexico. Its even worse.

See the reasoning.......... There is a difference in between a vegetable market and a weapons market. You can't replace one with another.

I did not want to continue this aimless discussion further but I simply had to point out factual errors.

1.India is not a protectorate of Bhutan. Rather Bhutan is a protectorate of India. Please refer to the Dictionary before disputing this also.

2.The US and Canada are very close. What you read in the press is hyped up. They are both Anglo-Saxons, white Caucasians, both speak English mostly, mostly Christian Protestants.
Similar to Indian Jats in Haryana and UP or Punjabis in Delhi and Indian Punjab.
Man, you need to speak to Americans and Canadians. They might say in public they have disputes but are actually very close.

Nearly 10 to15% of the population of the US are Hispanics namely Spanish speaking people from Mexico. Their original mother tongue is Spanish though they may not use it in the US.
Similar to the Nepalese population in India. Are we not close to the Nepalese. Disputes between Mexico and the US are exaggerated.

How can you draw an analogy between a vegetable market and arms market.. The US allows its companies to sell products and services to Pakistan and Russia because money goes out to the US and adds to its foreign exchange reserves. They will not buy Pakistani or Russian products in significant quantities. Also no hi-tech items will be sold to Pakistan or Russia. The US will not invest big in Pakistan and Russia.

Who wins here. You sell mostly low tech products and make money. The US is not transferring money to Pakistan or Russia. Money goes out of Pakistan and Russia when they buy US products.

I am finished. Please believe in your own theory. I cannot argue anymore.

I think we need to put a full stop and move on to other topics.

 

[porky_kicker]

Wind tunnel model of Rustom 2 UAV for testing configuration with structural sensor appendages.

Note the placement of the structural sensor appendages.

1. EO pod
2. SATCOM antenna
3. COMINT antennas
4. ELINT slot
5. SAR/MPAR radar dome

Regarding the antenna which I labelled as SATCOM antenna , it could be a C/S band antenna also. Because main SATCOM antenna is AFAIK housed inside the top nose section

 

[Akula]

View attachment 38360

Wind tunnel model of Rustom 2 UAV for testing configuration with structural sensor appendages.

Note the placement of the structural sensor appendages.

1. EO pod
2. SATCOM antenna
3. COMINT antennas
4. ELINT slot

IMO there seems to be plans for multiple variants of Rustom 2 UAV depending on specific roles like surveillance and reconnaissance with EO pod , SAR/MPAR radar with certain add on EW capabilities , full blown EW variant with ELINT , COMINT , SIGINT etc capabilities and a armed variant.

Russia Altius drone and Indian Rustom drone looks similar in design except the tail design ( v shape).

 

[Gautam Sarkar]

View attachment 38361

Wind tunnel model of Rustom 2 UAV for testing configuration with structural sensor appendages.

Note the placement of the structural sensor appendages.

1. EO pod
2. SATCOM antenna
3. COMINT antennas
4. ELINT slot
5. SAR/MPAR radar dome

Regarding the antenna which I labelled as SATCOM antenna , it could be a C/S band antenna also. Because main SATCOM antenna is AFAIK housed inside the top nose section

Haven't heard anything about this for so long I almost forgot it even existed. Same as the Arjun tanks. Have any updates to share about the Rustom-2 ?

 

[porky_kicker]

View attachment 38361

Wind tunnel model of Rustom 2 UAV for testing configuration with structural sensor appendages.

Note the placement of the structural sensor appendages.

1. EO pod
2. SATCOM antenna
3. COMINT antennas
4. ELINT slot
5. SAR/MPAR radar dome

Regarding the antenna which I labelled as SATCOM antenna , it could be a C/S band antenna also. Because main SATCOM antenna is AFAIK housed inside the top nose section

Updated and corrected the labelling

The screw like structure on top is the C band LOS antenna

 

[porky_kicker]

Haven't heard anything about this for so long I almost forgot it even existed. Same as the Arjun tanks. Have any updates to share about the Rustom-2 ?

Undergoing integration / compatibility / evaluation tests relating to the various mission packages , along with tests pertaining to the UAV itself

 

[porky_kicker]

Interesting RUSTOM 2 design configuration
Another variant in the pipeline ?

Something for you guys to ponder on