DRDO, PSU and Private Defence Sector News

Chinmoy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
5,844
Likes
10,478
Country flag
I know, but our aim is Atmanirbhar.
Hmm. That's why I am not happy with the path taken by Baba.

TATA is collaborating with DRDO for WhAP. But Kalyani took the easiest route ahead. Not sure about how much tech he could absorb, but would have loved it if he could have bring his metallurgy knowledge to upgrade or help in designing a inhouse design.
 

mist_consecutive

Selling Wuhan Fried Bats
Contributor
Joined
Oct 2, 2018
Messages
1,151
Likes
7,459
Country flag
It is a copy of South African vehicle, and how can we call it Atmanirbhar then?
Hmm. That's why I am not happy with the path taken by Baba.

TATA is collaborating with DRDO for WhAP. But Kalyani took the easiest route ahead. Not sure about how much tech he could absorb, but would have loved it if he could have bring his metallurgy knowledge to upgrade or help in designing a inhouse design.
Not much cut-throat technology in a light armoured vehicle, is there? There is no point in re-inventing the wheel.
Freedom to domestic production means our freedom to manufacture or modify the vehicle according to our needs while generating jobs.
 

Karthi

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2018
Messages
1,942
Likes
13,959
Country flag
Star Wars.jpg


To counter China, India’s DSA begins scouting for star wars technology

Nearly two years after India demonstrated its anti-satellite (ASAT) technology through ‘Mission Shakti’, the newly formed Defence Space Agency (DSA), a quiet dedicated organisation established to drive India’s counter-space activities has officially begun scouting for technologies to augment its capabilities to deal with threats in, and from space.
The agency has requested proposals from multiple companies for technologies that provide complete SSA (space situational awareness) solutions which can detect, identify and track enemy assets while also warning about any impending attacks.
The DSA, the nod to form which under the ministry of defence (MoD) was granted in mid-2019, is a tri-services agency headed by air vice marshal SP Dharkar. The agency had been talking with multiple space technology companies as early as last year, but it officially issued an RFI — to select companies — sometime in January 2021.

“Companies have time till the first week of March to respond to the RFI,” a source said, adding that the DSA is looking for a complete solution that can be enhanced to play an offensive role in the future.

The DSA is also looking for a system that can fuse space surveillance data available from various sources into a common operating picture (COP) so as to better evaluate threats and to maximise the effectiveness of Indian operations in space, land, sea and air domains.

From neighbourhood watch screenings to analysis and prediction of threats — from ASAT, space debris, DE (direct energy) weapons and RF (radio frequency) interference, the DSA’s requirements are specific. It is also looking to catalog space objects, acquire analysis tools for predictive assessment.

The move assumes importance given that China, notwithstanding its public stance, has been strengthening its military space capabilities by continuing to develop and acquire a variety of space capabilities designed to limit or prevent an adversary’s use of space-based assets during crisis or conflict.

As reported by TOI in September 2020, the PLA continues to acquire and develop technologies including kinetic-kill missiles, ground-based lasers, and orbiting space robots, as well as expanding space surveillance capabilities, which can monitor objects in space within their field of view and enable actions.

According to a 200-page annual report to the US Congress prepared by the Department of Defence fnds, China is developing electronic warfare capabilities such as satellite jammers, offensive cyber capabilities and directed-energy weapons.

And, India appears to be lagging compared to its most apparent competitor, notwithstanding some commissioned project within the DRDO. It was in this background that the Centre created DSA.
 

ezsasa

Designated Cynic
Mod
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
18,866
Likes
67,801
Country flag
Just a thought...

argument : Even if DRDO wants to build autonomous armed robots for room intervention type activities at some point in time, they might have to build a rifle or LMG (or even MMG) with minimum recoil so as to avoid damaging servos of the robot.

they may have to start working on the rifle that goes on the robot, even before working on the robot, considering that small arms development is sub par in the country.

counter argument : number of such robots will be so low that they can probably import such rifles.

counter counter argument : such a rifle will not be useful just for a robot, it could also be useful for existing Mine protected vehicle mounted RCWS . might decrease the weight of existing RCWS as such a strong frame would no longer be necessary.
 

mist_consecutive

Selling Wuhan Fried Bats
Contributor
Joined
Oct 2, 2018
Messages
1,151
Likes
7,459
Country flag

Aniruddha Mulay

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2019
Messages
617
Likes
2,339
Country flag

Only 27 M4 ordered :tsk: Probably just to patrol in Ladakh.
Just an initial order under emergency procurement route, the next order would take the number to 200
 

Chinmoy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
5,844
Likes
10,478
Country flag
Not much cut-throat technology in a light armoured vehicle, is there? There is no point in re-inventing the wheel.
Freedom to domestic production means our freedom to manufacture or modify the vehicle according to our needs while generating jobs.
If there is no need to re discover the wheel, then why import the wheel? Why not try to make it inhouse?

Reason. The profit margin would come down drastically in such a scenario and gestation period would be too high. Example- DRDO WhAP/TATA Kestrel.
So the easiest way out is to partner a established firm and make profit with valuable outflow of money. From business point of view there is no problem, but when you talk from technical point of view, even after being in vehicle manufacturing, we are trying to reinvent wheel here from a foreign OEM.

We already have a platform in form of Casspir in operation. We could have learnt and worked on that in terms of design and metallurgy part. But .......
If OFB would have done the same, people would have drawn out sword. But when Kalyani is doing the same?

I am not against the deal here nor against the platform. But Baba turned out to be a disappointment for me. He too preferred screwdriver-giri instead of investing in R&D.
 

Karthi

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2018
Messages
1,942
Likes
13,959
Country flag
dsc06721jpg.jpg


Breakthrough in Quantum Communications.

The Quantum Information and Computing lab (QuIC) at the Raman Research Institute (RRI) in Bengaluru has made an important breakthrough as its team members have been successful in demonstrating free space quantum key distribution between two buildings at the institute across an atmospheric free space channel.

This is India’s first reported free space quantum key distribution experiment which connects two buildings using an atmospheric channel. QuIC is leading India’s first project on satellite-based long- distance quantum communications. It will enable safe communications across strategic sectors, ranging from banking to defence.

This project was a collaboration between Professor Urbasi Sinha’s lab at the institute and Indian Space Research Organisation. It named quantum experiments using satellite technology (QuEST) with several ambitious milestones and deliverables in its journey towards ultimately establishing satellite-based secure quantum communication between two Indian ground stations, using an Indian satellite. Sinha said that this is a breakthrough milestone for the QuEST project as this will pave the way for longer distances using atmospheric channels, ultimately culminating with ground to satellite-based secure quantum communications.

The institute said that this breakthrough will be an important stepping stone towards the government’s vision of connecting up different nodes in the country through free space and fibre-based channels, towards a secure quantum communications network. Besides this is poised to revolutionise security for strategic sectors like banking, defence services, cyber security as well as for applications involving the common man, which need to be kept safe from unwanted intrusions.
 

BlackViking

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
505
Likes
1,745
Country flag
If there is no need to re discover the wheel, then why import the wheel? Why not try to make it inhouse?

Reason. The profit margin would come down drastically in such a scenario and gestation period would be too high. Example- DRDO WhAP/TATA Kestrel.
So the easiest way out is to partner a established firm and make profit with valuable outflow of money. From business point of view there is no problem, but when you talk from technical point of view, even after being in vehicle manufacturing, we are trying to reinvent wheel here from a foreign OEM.

We already have a platform in form of Casspir in operation. We could have learnt and worked on that in terms of design and metallurgy part. But .......
If OFB would have done the same, people would have drawn out sword. But when Kalyani is doing the same?

I am not against the deal here nor against the platform. But Baba turned out to be a disappointment for me. He too preferred screwdriver-giri instead of investing in R&D.
We have Tata as well as Leyland MPV. There's M&M's ASLV Tata's LAMV. Leyland was setting up a JV with Panhard for VBL. If screw-driving was to be done then they should have done that 10 years earlier. Indian companies have invested in R&D but still there is no foresight.
 

Chinmoy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
5,844
Likes
10,478
Country flag
Have attached two files to show whether addition of about 150-250 kg RCWS at foredeck will alter the 'draft' of 90-110 tonnes displacement interceptor craft substantially as claimed by @Chinmoy.

Members can check the change in draft of the boat when light displacement is changed to full load/ departure displacement/ load test in the thesis attached.
Also, the boat in the study is substantially smaller than the Indian Coast Guard I/C whose specifications have been attached in the second attachment ( ABG class).

I am not trying to foretell the outcome of RCWS trial with Indian Coast Guard. But, if it fails it will most likely be not related to reason/s mentioned by the said member.
I would categorically ask you point out where I said that it would fail?

Second, you yourself said that the mount for a RCWS would just increase the weight by just 150kg.
1. Weight of RCWS including mount is between 150-250 kg. ( Similar to or twice the weight of operator and helper/spotter on the same raised deck)
A normal mount for 12.7 mm gun would weigh 30 kg. Means we are talking here about 5 times weight increment atleast. And I don't know from where you have got the impression that "No deck penetration required" for fixing a gun mount.
2. No deck penetration required.
I would not even go into the power consumption increment part while using a RCWS. You could see for yourself the equipment used in this class of boats. I am attaching the document here.

I am not saying that we can't integrate RCWS on these boats. My only point is that we would affect its performance in such a scenario. When you design a boat, the most important part is the weight distribution and load bearing capability. If you have to do some changes in it, the design needs to be changed. On top of that, these boats are made for SS6 category. These are not some inland boats. They are made to operate with a maximum draft of 4.6 foot. Just imagine on how much swallow water it was designed to operate. A increase of weight on any section by 5 times is definitely going to affect its performance.

Other details of the product you could find in the document attached.
 

Attachments

ladder

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
6,094
Likes
6,750
Country flag
I would categorically ask you point out where I said that it would fail?

Second, you yourself said that the mount for a RCWS would just increase the weight by just 150kg.

A normal mount for 12.7 mm gun would weigh 30 kg. Means we are talking here about 5 times weight increment atleast. And I don't know from where you have got the impression that "No deck penetration required" for fixing a gun mount.

I would not even go into the power consumption increment part while using a RCWS. You could see for yourself the equipment used in this class of boats. I am attaching the document here.

I am not saying that we can't integrate RCWS on these boats. My only point is that we would affect its performance in such a scenario. When you design a boat, the most important part is the weight distribution and load bearing capability. If you have to do some changes in it, the design needs to be changed. On top of that, these boats are made for SS6 category. These are not some inland boats. They are made to operate with a maximum draft of 4.6 foot. Just imagine on how much swallow water it was designed to operate. A increase of weight on any section by 5 times is definitely going to affect its performance.

Other details of the product you could find in the document attached.
Rather than the static weight, it's the recoil energy and recoil harmonics that determine size and calibre of weapons on fore-deck. ( Similitude can also be found with LCA Tejas gun issue)

Check what is the failure weight of a bare 4mm aluminium plate. Also check the same for 4mm aluminium plates intregated with longitudinal and transverse structural members.

Example, a smg can weigh 3x of a pistol ( of the same calibre). So can't a human operate it? It is the capacity of the operator rather than the differential wight of the two systems alone.

I don't have original RFI/ RFP of interceptor boats by CG but secondary gun mounts for IPV/FPV are already rated for 400kg.

If you are worried about a differential weight of 150 kg to 250 kg,
I hope you need to be worried about the weight of 10 detainees/ guests ( designed for) over and above the 13 crew. As it may capsize the boat. (Joking)

If you may go through the pdf attached by me, you may find an additional 1000kg wouldn't change the draft by even 0.1 m.

The draft required is also a function of hull form, the L&T interceptor has a plan/planning type hull form. It would have different drafts at different points below the hull.
The singular value of draft that you see is the average of the the different drafts at different points below the hull.
Even speed of boat has an effect on the bouyancy band thus draft.

And, additional electrical power required? Well within provision of the interceptor boat.

'No deck penetration' claim is by the manufacturer itself.

-------
EDIT.
No, you have never said it will fail. I also can't claim it will pass the test.
Just that I don't believe your assertions for the probable reason of failure or non-inclusion. It is only an academic exercise.
 
Last edited:

mist_consecutive

Selling Wuhan Fried Bats
Contributor
Joined
Oct 2, 2018
Messages
1,151
Likes
7,459
Country flag
If there is no need to re discover the wheel, then why import the wheel? Why not try to make it inhouse?

Reason. The profit margin would come down drastically in such a scenario and gestation period would be too high. Example- DRDO WhAP/TATA Kestrel.
So the easiest way out is to partner a established firm and make profit with valuable outflow of money. From business point of view there is no problem, but when you talk from technical point of view, even after being in vehicle manufacturing, we are trying to reinvent wheel here from a foreign OEM.

We already have a platform in form of Casspir in operation. We could have learnt and worked on that in terms of design and metallurgy part. But .......
If OFB would have done the same, people would have drawn out sword. But when Kalyani is doing the same?

I am not against the deal here nor against the platform. But Baba turned out to be a disappointment for me. He too preferred screwdriver-giri instead of investing in R&D.
If there is no need to re discover the wheel, then why import the wheel? Why not try to make it inhouse?
It will be made in-house by Kalyani?


Reason. The profit margin would come down drastically in such a scenario and gestation period would be too high. Example- DRDO WhAP/TATA Kestrel.
So the easiest way out is to partner a established firm and make profit with valuable outflow of money. From business point of view there is no problem, but when you talk from technical point of view, even after being in vehicle manufacturing, we are trying to reinvent wheel here from a foreign OEM.

We already have a platform in form of Casspir in operation. We could have learnt and worked on that in terms of design and metallurgy part. But .......
If OFB would have done the same, people would have drawn out sword. But when Kalyani is doing the same?
We bought Cassipir, and then OFB made it into Aditya MPV, which is being operated in large numbers. I see this as a win-win.
Of course, if we start re-inventing the wheel, we might get breakthrough discoveries around it, file patents, and improve our manufacturing. But that is the work of DRDO Labs/Universities, and that takes time.

If we let Kalyani/Tata/Mahindra bring supply lines into India, set up manufacturing, and start producing here, there are numerous advantages apart from getting a proprietary technology/patent.
  • We set up the necessary ecosystem in India for manufacturing armoured vehicles. For example, after some time, to push profit margins higher, Kalyani/Private manufacturers will turn to local vendors/in-house manufacturing for parts & raw material that are being imported.
  • We not only generate jobs but train workforce & experts upon these technology & manufacturing. That is where you get skilled labour. This will also bud entrepreneurs trying to create a breakthrough in this field.
  • We have the freedom to manufacture & modify according to our needs. Which is a big deal only some people realise. It also means we can choose to sell or ramp up production during our needs.
I am not against the deal here nor against the platform. But Baba turned out to be a disappointment for me. He too preferred screwdriver-giri instead of investing in R&D.
There are some ideal goals, and there are realistic goals. The ideal goal is we invent the APC platform from scratch, everything from metallurgy to the relaxed-stability suspension being our R&D. But that takes like 25-30 years and a lot of $$$.

Realistic goals are, we buy/copy/steal/JV existing technology & try to make it in-house because our army needs them now, while trying our best to learn & improve upon it.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top