DRDO, PSU and Private Defence Sector News

BON PLAN

-*-
Contributor
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
5,282
Likes
3,846
Country flag
US fought for 20 years in Afghanistan and objective of dismantling taliban is still not achieved.
US fought for 20 years in Vietnam and still defeated.
We fought for 13 days and liberated Bangladesh.
US always focus upon military aspect in wining a war but soft power matters a lot. US spend trillions in Afghanistan just for weapon and not a single penny on development on life of afghan people.Humanitarian assistance also matters a lot
How many US soldiers in Afghanistan? far too few.
In Vietnam it was not a US-Vietnam war, but a US-USSR war.
Remember how the US lead coalition (but Mainly US) beat Saddam 2nd biggest of the world army...
 

BON PLAN

-*-
Contributor
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
5,282
Likes
3,846
Country flag
View attachment 87908View attachment 87909


Pugachev Cobra is useful in certain scenarios . I have troled for saying this in FB few years back .
Absolutely useles. You are a nice non movable target in the sky : easy to shoot even with inboard canon.

It's just to show the mastery of the FBW but russia.

Rafale was able to fly up to 100° AoA, and negative speed (slowdown descent by the rear) but never implemented in the fighters on line, because totally useless.
 

Chinmoy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
5,844
Likes
10,477
Country flag
"hardware implication"
View attachment 87911
""" "hardware " implication of increasing the internal bore or caliber or tube artillery. """ what does that even mean.

do you mean the technical changes required or engineering challenges; again mechanical/structural challenges for launcher platforms and tubes? or electrical and electronic hardware? data links for guidance systems? change in aerodynamic profile for increasing launch velocity of rocket(for higher range) & decreasing drag?

you need to be atleast clear in asking questions.

just for your reference of pinaka mk-2 rockets.


solid rockets motors (motor is the technical name) are able to achieve some 2.5- 2.8 km/s of exit velocity.

pinaka has a solid mono cylindrical propellant. it is unknown about the internal grain shape since such data is not made public. however an assumption can be made about its thrust profile it could either be a "progressive" thrust cylindrical cross section or finned cylindrical cross section.


also the nozzle design is extremely important.

the most prominent design is the de-laval nozzle

View attachment 87913

its external profile or shape can be approximated into cones for easier calculations.
View attachment 87912
reference photo from our courses...

note that ; the above de laval nozzle is if the exit velocity of burned mass is greater than mach 1. M > 1

the higher the mach number, the Area of cross section of diverging nozzle end will be much higher.

for M< 1, Area of diverging nozzle Ad <<< Ac area of converging section.
thats why pulse jet engines have smaller ends and larger inlets. thats why jet fighters during takeoff have smaller ends in their variable nozzles and the cross section is maximum when fighter jets cross mach 1.

nozzles have similar principles for both turbo machinery planes and rockets and also both solid motor(propellant), liquid motor, or hybrid motor.

the entire nozzle structure is fit into a cylinder tube for easier launch thats why you don't see the nozzle. cuz its internal.

View attachment 87918

pinaka mk1 rocket. notice the end section.

increasing the caliber increases the size of nozzle too. also if L/D ratio (length /diameter of rocket superstructure) is increased, more exotic materials need to be used. which increases cost.

so increasing caliber or bore while keeping L/D ratio same is generally preferred.

for hypothetical example 200 mm caliber, 5 meters length . L/D = 25.
so for 300 mm caliber, the length would be 7.5 meters.

but there is a problem. the thickness of the superstructure increases( outer dia of rocket -(minus) outer dia of the propellant -(minus) thickness of abrasive thermal sleeves).
thermal sleeves prevent the superstructure from being destroyed mid flight.

that thickness should be able to hold compressive stress under normal static condition and also during acceleration condition since extra pseudo force acts if the rocket is accelerating. constant acc. or increasing acc. again depends on grain shape of the rocket. which once again affects the propellant mass.

it should hold the bending stress.
View attachment 87922

reference purpose.

after that. it also needs to hold the torsional stress. (twisting stress). why you ask?
because generally rockets are unstable. and fins are added to provide good stability. larger the fins, better stability. however larger the fins, increased viscous drag from air. cause air is a fluid just like any other gas.

so to prevent that, the motor exhaust are designed such a way to provide spin stability.
in gun artillery, the barrel has rifling so the shells spin during its projection, throughout the flight.

in tanks, we have the new smooth bore guns, but they can fire only fin stabilised HEAT and APFSDS. cannot fire ordinary rounds.

so the rockets are generally spun by angling the exhausts. in the case of pinaka mk-1 and 2, there are folded fins. as observed in the above images.

so, for extended range spin stabilised rockets, the superstructure needs to hold torsional stress also.
View attachment 87924
you don't want the superstructure to twist itself mid flight due to extreme speeds.

i can go in a lot detail. but i am sure you understood the '''" hardware implications" ''''as mentioned by you.
This happens when you study all theory but don't get involve in on field practical experience. Neither you try to study the practical cases. I asked you a simple question and you just gone to complex answering system to show your knowledge. But sadly you have just shown your sheer ignorance.

User don't give a damn about your theoretical lessons when it come to onfield deployment. When you increase the caliber of a any tube artillery, you increase the overall mass of the system. Example----

BM-21 Grad ---- Caliber 122 mm------ Mass 13 Tons
Pinaka----------- Caliber 214mm------ Mass 22 Tons
BM-30----------- Caliber 300mm------ Mass 43 Tons.


Now lets see the implication of this increased weight on field deployment. ATAGS weighs 18tons, 4 tons less then Pinaka. Still user is asking to cut the weight by 4 more tons. Why?
When it comes to mountain warfare, weight of the platform to be deployed matters a lot. A BRAHMOS launcher with 3 missiles is lighter then BM-30. Surprisingly both uses T816 in our case.
Have you ever wondered why IA haven't ordered for more BM-30 instead of sticking around with 214mm Pinaka?

What have we used in Kargil? The most extensively used artillery system was FH-77 instead of BM-21 or Pinaka. BM-30 was distant last in matter of usage.

When you compare deployment of artillery for PLA and IA across LAC, you have to keep in mind the geography. For PLA they have the Tibbet region which is more of a plain to deploy their system unlike the foot hills or mountainous terrain where we would need to deploy our artillery. Talking of efficiency in operations, it would be challenging for both, but atleast for their part, deployment is on their side.

We want light category weapons with increased range for deployment in LAC. Tube artillery is not the answer for that. We want more guns with increased range and that is the only practical solution for us. Mountain warfare is more like an Urban combat where whenever you have to call in arty- support, guns are the weapons of choice and we have practically used it.

So, get out of the books and world of theories.
If the question of my credibility arises on your mind, do read the books written by people who fought Kargil. I'll only say that I've spend 1.5 years of my hay day in LAC.
 

mist_consecutive

Selling Wuhan Fried Bats
Contributor
Joined
Oct 2, 2018
Messages
1,146
Likes
7,431
Country flag
Western aviation fanboys think Russian jets are junk, then their sweetheart F-16 get rammed by R-73 high-off boresight by a Mig-21s and they choose to not believe it.


See this video, how high AoA can wreak havoc on pretty much all 4th gen. jets if they don't have high-off boresight LOAL missile (AIM-9X, Python-5, ASRAAM) cued with HMS.

The high AoA pulling capacity of Russian jets (Mig-29, Su-27+ family) are invincible in 1 vs. 1 WVR scenarios.

The argument western jet fanboys throw is doing high AoA/Pugachev Cobra slows you down and makes you vulnerable. Sure enough, but you should be able to survive after the Russian jet takes consecutive potshots at you while standing mid-air, noise pointing at you.
Absolutely useles. You are a nice non movable target in the sky : easy to shoot even with inboard canon.

It's just to show the mastery of the FBW but russia.

Rafale was able to fly up to 100° AoA, and negative speed (slowdown descent by the rear) but never implemented in the fighters on line, because totally useless.
I see you wrote exactly what I mentioned in last paragraph of my answer. Care to debate on a relevant thread ?
 

airstrike99

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2021
Messages
228
Likes
969
Country flag
This happens when you study all theory but don't get involve in on field practical experience. Neither you try to study the practical cases. I asked you a simple question and you just gone to complex answering system to show your knowledge. But sadly you have just shown your sheer ignorance.

User don't give a damn about your theoretical lessons when it come to onfield deployment. When you increase the caliber of a any tube artillery, you increase the overall mass of the system. Example----

BM-21 Grad ---- Caliber 122 mm------ Mass 13 Tons
Pinaka----------- Caliber 214mm------ Mass 22 Tons
BM-30----------- Caliber 300mm------ Mass 43 Tons.


Now lets see the implication of this increased weight on field deployment. ATAGS weighs 18tons, 4 tons less then Pinaka. Still user is asking to cut the weight by 4 more tons. Why?
When it comes to mountain warfare, weight of the platform to be deployed matters a lot. A BRAHMOS launcher with 3 missiles is lighter then BM-30. Surprisingly both uses T816 in our case.
Have you ever wondered why IA haven't ordered for more BM-30 instead of sticking around with 214mm Pinaka?

What have we used in Kargil? The most extensively used artillery system was FH-77 instead of BM-21 or Pinaka. BM-30 was distant last in matter of usage.

When you compare deployment of artillery for PLA and IA across LAC, you have to keep in mind the geography. For PLA they have the Tibbet region which is more of a plain to deploy their system unlike the foot hills or mountainous terrain where we would need to deploy our artillery. Talking of efficiency in operations, it would be challenging for both, but atleast for their part, deployment is on their side.

We want light category weapons with increased range for deployment in LAC. Tube artillery is not the answer for that. We want more guns with increased range and that is the only practical solution for us. Mountain warfare is more like an Urban combat where whenever you have to call in arty- support, guns are the weapons of choice and we have practically used it.

So, get out of the books and world of theories.
If the question of my credibility arises on your mind, do read the books written by people who fought Kargil. I'll only say that I've spend 1.5 years of my hay day in LAC.


Now lets see the implication of this increased weight on field deployment. ATAGS weighs 18tons, 4 tons less then Pinaka. Still user is asking to cut the weight by 4 more tons. Why?
yeah,, look at the range. max 50km for ATAGS. pinaka mk-2 can hit upto 60km. smerch can hit upto 90km


if you are able to field a 40 tonne tank at those locations, you can even field a 40 tonne rocket artillery.

ramjet artillery will be extremely costly, you literally have liquid propellant with small fuel tank and ramjet engine coupled with a micro turbo pump and atomiser to release fuel into the engine per EACH SHELL.

the cost of manufacturing will be so high per each shell. not to mention the cost of training work force to assemble them. you are literally manufacturing small scale ramjet engines coupled with ordinary detonatable charged cells(6 or 7).

thats not all. a single artillery gun in itself is useless. you need to field atleast 10-15 guns to destroy an area each gun weighing 15 -20 tonnes. the same amount of destruction could be achieved by a single truck with 10-15 rockets in salvo firing.

the main issue is here.

rocket artillery
advantage : massive firepower, destruction and chaos in salvo under a minute. enemy has less time to react or even take cover. longer ranges.
disadvantage : reloading between salvos takes a lot of time. enemy, if survived might hit back.

gun artillery
advantage : sustained firepower for days and even weeks. denying enemy any offensive role. enemy has to literally wait until the artillery is gone. lower reload per each gun.
disadvantage : need to localise a lot of guns(a lot of mass) to destroy an area. enemy can easily survive and escape even if some % is lost. lower ranges. impractical to increase ranges. (however not impossible if you want to have a rail gun with 150km range)

same guns but better shells: like ramjet artillery : i have already explained it above in this comment.
 

airstrike99

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2021
Messages
228
Likes
969
Country flag
This happens when you study all theory but don't get involve in on field practical experience. Neither you try to study the practical cases. I asked you a simple question and you just gone to complex answering system to show your knowledge. But sadly you have just shown your sheer ignorance.

User don't give a damn about your theoretical lessons when it come to onfield deployment. When you increase the caliber of a any tube artillery, you increase the overall mass of the system. Example----

BM-21 Grad ---- Caliber 122 mm------ Mass 13 Tons
Pinaka----------- Caliber 214mm------ Mass 22 Tons
BM-30----------- Caliber 300mm------ Mass 43 Tons.


Now lets see the implication of this increased weight on field deployment. ATAGS weighs 18tons, 4 tons less then Pinaka. Still user is asking to cut the weight by 4 more tons. Why?
When it comes to mountain warfare, weight of the platform to be deployed matters a lot. A BRAHMOS launcher with 3 missiles is lighter then BM-30. Surprisingly both uses T816 in our case.
Have you ever wondered why IA haven't ordered for more BM-30 instead of sticking around with 214mm Pinaka?

What have we used in Kargil? The most extensively used artillery system was FH-77 instead of BM-21 or Pinaka. BM-30 was distant last in matter of usage.

When you compare deployment of artillery for PLA and IA across LAC, you have to keep in mind the geography. For PLA they have the Tibbet region which is more of a plain to deploy their system unlike the foot hills or mountainous terrain where we would need to deploy our artillery. Talking of efficiency in operations, it would be challenging for both, but atleast for their part, deployment is on their side.

We want light category weapons with increased range for deployment in LAC. Tube artillery is not the answer for that. We want more guns with increased range and that is the only practical solution for us. Mountain warfare is more like an Urban combat where whenever you have to call in arty- support, guns are the weapons of choice and we have practically used it.

So, get out of the books and world of theories.
If the question of my credibility arises on your mind, do read the books written by people who fought Kargil. I'll only say that I've spend 1.5 years of my hay day in LAC.


We want light category weapons with increased range for deployment in LAC.
indian army mechanised procurment be like :

"We wANt 40 TONne taNK wITH '4 ' meMBER crEW aNd ArMOUr LIKe 70 tonne M1A2 AbRAms "
 

airstrike99

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2021
Messages
228
Likes
969
Country flag
This happens when you study all theory but don't get involve in on field practical experience. Neither you try to study the practical cases. I asked you a simple question and you just gone to complex answering system to show your knowledge. But sadly you have just shown your sheer ignorance.

User don't give a damn about your theoretical lessons when it come to onfield deployment. When you increase the caliber of a any tube artillery, you increase the overall mass of the system. Example----

BM-21 Grad ---- Caliber 122 mm------ Mass 13 Tons
Pinaka----------- Caliber 214mm------ Mass 22 Tons
BM-30----------- Caliber 300mm------ Mass 43 Tons.


Now lets see the implication of this increased weight on field deployment. ATAGS weighs 18tons, 4 tons less then Pinaka. Still user is asking to cut the weight by 4 more tons. Why?
When it comes to mountain warfare, weight of the platform to be deployed matters a lot. A BRAHMOS launcher with 3 missiles is lighter then BM-30. Surprisingly both uses T816 in our case.
Have you ever wondered why IA haven't ordered for more BM-30 instead of sticking around with 214mm Pinaka?

What have we used in Kargil? The most extensively used artillery system was FH-77 instead of BM-21 or Pinaka. BM-30 was distant last in matter of usage.

When you compare deployment of artillery for PLA and IA across LAC, you have to keep in mind the geography. For PLA they have the Tibbet region which is more of a plain to deploy their system unlike the foot hills or mountainous terrain where we would need to deploy our artillery. Talking of efficiency in operations, it would be challenging for both, but atleast for their part, deployment is on their side.

We want light category weapons with increased range for deployment in LAC. Tube artillery is not the answer for that. We want more guns with increased range and that is the only practical solution for us. Mountain warfare is more like an Urban combat where whenever you have to call in arty- support, guns are the weapons of choice and we have practically used it.

So, get out of the books and world of theories.
If the question of my credibility arises on your mind, do read the books written by people who fought Kargil. I'll only say that I've spend 1.5 years of my hay day in LAC.
This happens when you study all theory but don't get involve in on field practical experience. Neither you try to study the practical cases. I asked you a simple question and you just gone to complex answering system to show your knowledge. But sadly you have just shown your sheer ignorance.

User don't give a damn about your theoretical lessons when it come to onfield deployment.
3l8314.jpg
 

airstrike99

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2021
Messages
228
Likes
969
Country flag
This happens when you study all theory but don't get involve in on field practical experience. Neither you try to study the practical cases. I asked you a simple question and you just gone to complex answering system to show your knowledge. But sadly you have just shown your sheer ignorance.

User don't give a damn about your theoretical lessons when it come to onfield deployment. When you increase the caliber of a any tube artillery, you increase the overall mass of the system. Example----

BM-21 Grad ---- Caliber 122 mm------ Mass 13 Tons
Pinaka----------- Caliber 214mm------ Mass 22 Tons
BM-30----------- Caliber 300mm------ Mass 43 Tons.


Now lets see the implication of this increased weight on field deployment. ATAGS weighs 18tons, 4 tons less then Pinaka. Still user is asking to cut the weight by 4 more tons. Why?
When it comes to mountain warfare, weight of the platform to be deployed matters a lot. A BRAHMOS launcher with 3 missiles is lighter then BM-30. Surprisingly both uses T816 in our case.
Have you ever wondered why IA haven't ordered for more BM-30 instead of sticking around with 214mm Pinaka?

What have we used in Kargil? The most extensively used artillery system was FH-77 instead of BM-21 or Pinaka. BM-30 was distant last in matter of usage.

When you compare deployment of artillery for PLA and IA across LAC, you have to keep in mind the geography. For PLA they have the Tibbet region which is more of a plain to deploy their system unlike the foot hills or mountainous terrain where we would need to deploy our artillery. Talking of efficiency in operations, it would be challenging for both, but atleast for their part, deployment is on their side.

We want light category weapons with increased range for deployment in LAC. Tube artillery is not the answer for that. We want more guns with increased range and that is the only practical solution for us. Mountain warfare is more like an Urban combat where whenever you have to call in arty- support, guns are the weapons of choice and we have practically used it.

So, get out of the books and world of theories.
If the question of my credibility arises on your mind, do read the books written by people who fought Kargil. I'll only say that I've spend 1.5 years of my hay day in LAC.

What have we used in Kargil?

If the question of my credibility arises on your mind, do read the books written by people who fought Kargil.
yeah sure. please live in 1999. for some reason we all live in 2021, including our enemies. thats 5088 years since the kurukshetra war.
 

airstrike99

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2021
Messages
228
Likes
969
Country flag
This happens when you study all theory but don't get involve in on field practical experience. Neither you try to study the practical cases. I asked you a simple question and you just gone to complex answering system to show your knowledge. But sadly you have just shown your sheer ignorance.

User don't give a damn about your theoretical lessons when it come to onfield deployment. When you increase the caliber of a any tube artillery, you increase the overall mass of the system. Example----

BM-21 Grad ---- Caliber 122 mm------ Mass 13 Tons
Pinaka----------- Caliber 214mm------ Mass 22 Tons
BM-30----------- Caliber 300mm------ Mass 43 Tons.


Now lets see the implication of this increased weight on field deployment. ATAGS weighs 18tons, 4 tons less then Pinaka. Still user is asking to cut the weight by 4 more tons. Why?
When it comes to mountain warfare, weight of the platform to be deployed matters a lot. A BRAHMOS launcher with 3 missiles is lighter then BM-30. Surprisingly both uses T816 in our case.
Have you ever wondered why IA haven't ordered for more BM-30 instead of sticking around with 214mm Pinaka?

What have we used in Kargil? The most extensively used artillery system was FH-77 instead of BM-21 or Pinaka. BM-30 was distant last in matter of usage.

When you compare deployment of artillery for PLA and IA across LAC, you have to keep in mind the geography. For PLA they have the Tibbet region which is more of a plain to deploy their system unlike the foot hills or mountainous terrain where we would need to deploy our artillery. Talking of efficiency in operations, it would be challenging for both, but atleast for their part, deployment is on their side.

We want light category weapons with increased range for deployment in LAC. Tube artillery is not the answer for that. We want more guns with increased range and that is the only practical solution for us. Mountain warfare is more like an Urban combat where whenever you have to call in arty- support, guns are the weapons of choice and we have practically used it.

So, get out of the books and world of theories.
If the question of my credibility arises on your mind, do read the books written by people who fought Kargil. I'll only say that I've spend 1.5 years of my hay day in LAC.
We want light category weapons with increased range for deployment in LAC. Tube artillery is not the answer for that. We want more guns with increased range and that is the only practical solution for us.

"WhaT dO YoU MeAN thE aRJuN tAnK weIGHT can'T bE redUCED AtleAST BELoW 50 tonNES. MUh LOok AT RussIAN TanKS, Less THAn 50 TONneS."

" WE wON"T oRder ARjUN taNK. ItS IMPRACticaL, EVEN thouGH WE AsKED FOR ImpoSSIBLE desiGN"

"yOU UseLESS CVRDE EngInEERS & woRTHLEss DRDO ScientisTS". " MUH RussiAN TECHnoLOGY traNSFER wiTH A bit OF (FluID NOTES :megusta: / $) for OURseLVES "
 

BON PLAN

-*-
Contributor
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
5,282
Likes
3,846
Country flag
I see you wrote exactly what I mentioned in last paragraph of my answer. Care to debate on a relevant thread ?
No western pilot is afraid of a foe doing a Cobra. He expect it ! So as to sent you a WVR missile on a wonderfully non movable target, or depending of the situation, sending it a half second burst of bullets.
Nothing to add, nothing to complain.
 

omaebakabaka

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
1,578
Likes
3,374
No western pilot is afraid of a foe doing a Cobra. He expect it ! So as to sent you a WVR missile on a wonderfully non movable target, or depending of the situation, sending it a half second burst of bullets.
Nothing to add, nothing to complain.
In theory it should be helpful in dogfights at times under right conditions and sometime even outdo missiles....you don't need canon's either if your point is maneuvering is obsolete?
 

Okabe Rintarou

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
707
Likes
2,684
Country flag
Cross-posting:
If anyone ever talks about "bro it takes so long for SMART to travel 600 km to the target area that the enemy submarine will be long gone", slap them with this video (made by a former American submariner):-


PS Video has some inaccuracies regarding Indian weapon system dependence on American weapons, but that does not take away from the employment tactics explained for SMART.
 

Global Defence

Articles

Top