DRDO, PSU and Private Defence Sector News

[SwordOfDarkness]

View attachment 250009

I also saw this pic only
On GodOfParadoxed twitter


Was there any other info?

 

[Chinmoy]

But our industry IS making more than 51.5% of the components already, at least according to the report.

Our stake is 50.5% and Russian stake is 49.5%. It means, whatever we are making constitutes of 50.5% from cost point of view. We might make 90% of BRAHMOS components. But from cost evaluation, what is the value of those 90% material is the whole product?

 

[Bleh]

Dude, not to sound like a Russian shill but you speak as if the US/ NATO weapons are fairing any better.

There's not enough data... What they've given is mostly old obsolete models that can't survive in drone-guided artillery dominated landscape.

Plus the numbers are also miniscule. US has 1000 mothballed Abrams. They've given 50. What good is 50 tanks?
On near equal footings not even numerical near parity, ie, of they had above hundred Himars instead of life 38. Maybe Russian arty would be suppressed & supplies decimated enough for tank assault to be possible. Rn they're just showing up piecemeal & getting immediately identified from air & taken out within 30mins.

Most boring war ever. Didn't even feel like an alleged superpower is involved.

 

[Chinmoy]

Take it as licencing fee.

IMO, it will be anyway replaced in the medium term, and played an important part in developing our capabilities, so even the high licencing fee is worth paying.

In that case we could have produced Oniks under license agreement rather then going for a JV where we have to share nearly half of the profit. Sharing 20% under license agreement was always better then sharing 49.5% in JV. Isn't it?

 

[Blood+]

There's not enough data... What they've given is mostly old obsolete models that can't survive in drone-guided artillery dominated landscape.

Dude, Leo 2A6 and STRVs.

Plus the numbers are also miniscule. US has 1000 mothballed Abrams. They've given 50. What good is 50 tanks?

I never even mentioned tanks. Obviously, the NATO tanks are better than their Russian counterparts excluding Armata of course) but the technological gap between a latest variant of Abrams/ Leopard and a T-90M isn't nearly as wide as some of us make it sound like. That's all I'm saying.
And what good supplying a big number of such tanks would do if you can't provide the required spare parts and ammunition to keep them running??

On near equal footings not even numerical near parity, ie, of they had above hundred Himars instead of life 38. Maybe Russian arty would be suppressed & supplies decimated enough for tank assault to be possible. Rn they're just showing up piecemeal & getting immediately identified from air & taken out within 30mins.

HIMARS is about the only thing that is proven itself to be decidedly better than their Russian counterparts.

Most boring war ever. Didn't even feel like an alleged superpower is involved.

This is how real wars are like, contrary to what Hollywood and CoD would have us believe.

 

[Chinmoy]

Cargo UAV from yesterday's pics

Endure UAV
Sabal Tandem Rotor Cargo UAV.

View attachment 250011

Along with foldable rotor blades.

 

[Chinmoy]

I also saw this pic only
On GodOfParadoxed twitter


Was there any other info?

As per the report, its speed is Mach 5.5.

https://www.aajtak.in/defence-news/...issile-revealed-test-fired-1873240-2024-02-05

 

[Chinmoy]

Thats a Tangetial discussion. You posted chronological order claimed to be an excerpt of now defunct page from Tejas. Gov site - in which it was listed ASQR stated 90kn as requirement for Kaveri. I sourced the exact chorological from Tejas.gov archive and nowhere there was ever mention of 90KN ASQR for GTRE kaveri. So I have asked on what basis you came to conclusion that design intent of Kaveri was 90 kn from ab initio? Because this is a new assertion I have heard in all the years I have been following this program news in open.

Everywhere GTRE Kaveri Is mentioned that its designed for maximum thrust of 82 KN (thrust at which it never could achieve stability), and now they have accepted 75Kn as the thrust which works. Had 90kn been aim from start, why would you design Engine for 80sh kn thrust? That would non-sensical for GTRE or even any Engineer to make something which was never demanded.

Remember need for GE414 90 kn came later with need of LCA Mk2. Kaveri is counterpart to GE404. GE 404 top model has peak thrust of 85 KN(latest iteration). That was holy grail for Kaveri. Later came need for Mk2 and higher thrust hence 90Kn GE414(which is latest iteration), consequently Kaveri team was asked to achieve even higher figure of 90. Kaveri has slightly larger dia(by .8 inch) than GE414 and GE 404, but is shorter than both! You can make out Kaveri was never designed with 90 kn figure. I am not even sure with kind of metallurgical knowhow gap we have had - how could we have achieved 90kn with Kaveri without redesign. By 2008 itself they were talking about need to new programs(never realised) like Kaveri K9, K10 etc for achieving uprated figures. If Kaveri design was capable of achieving 90kn - they would not have felt the need for redesign...

Let me quote myself here again...

Based on the ASQR requirement, in 1986 Kaveri program was initiated. During this time, GTRE was confident that based on the experience gained on GTX-37, they could build a engine to power Tejas and the requirement was put at 90kN max thrust to achieve the ASQR requirement. F-404, producing 78kN was chosen to power the initial prototypes. Along with engine, two more projects were initialized. They were MMR and FBW system.

Now I am sorry if anyhow my statement implied that IAF asked for 90kN engine in there ASQR. I tried to imply that, ADA proposed 90kN engine based on ASQR.

Another myth is that F-414 with 90kN came for Mk2. While saying that, we categorically sideline the fact that with the deficiency observed in IOC variant of Tejas, where thrust is one major issue, IAF had proposed for Mk2 with the higher thrust that as been agreed upon initially. Mk1A has came up as stop gap measure with 84kN F-404 engine, for which ASQR has been released on 2014. In Mk1 FOC variant, IAF has given 135 concession over the original ASQR.

 

[mamamia12]

Let me quote myself here again...



Now I am sorry if anyhow my statement implied that IAF asked for 90kN engine in there ASQR. I tried to imply that, ADA proposed 90kN engine based on ASQR.

Another myth is that F-414 with 90kN came for Mk2. While saying that, we categorically sideline the fact that with the deficiency observed in IOC variant of Tejas, where thrust is one major issue, IAF had proposed for Mk2 with the higher thrust that as been agreed upon initially. Mk1A has came up as stop gap measure with 84kN F-404 engine, for which ASQR has been released on 2014. In Mk1 FOC variant, IAF has given 135 concession over the original ASQR.

Sorry for asking question not related to it. But can you please tell me these, I searched for some hours but couldn't find. Is there a size limit of Jet Fuel Starter-Generator for Kaveri Class Engine?, I mean for future 5th Generation Stealth Aircraft, I think Electric Power Output of JFS is as important as its thrust due to presence of heavy onboard electronics whether its for Computing or AESA or dIRCM or Laser. Hence in Kaveri engine I heard it has 110kW output where as Japanese XF9 has the record output of 180kW. d
1. Do you know output of J-20's WS-15 Engines in kW
2. Also for F414 in kW which we are gonna use in Tejas Mk2 and AMCA?
3. Since Kaveri, F404-F414 are of similar size or thrust class compared to F110-AL-31FP-XF-9, how much more in electric power output can we increase like from 110kW to 130kW or 150kW?
Can you please answer, I searched for a lot of time but couldn't find any.

 

[Varoon2]

kinda wrong, Russian maal came here as the last resort thing than actual desire to induct their stuff (even genruls used to comment 'kuchh nahi toh ruusi hi le aao'); do not forget our past geopolitical experiments in that ;non-aligned; times where we used to do lots of monkey-balancing between suppa powahs (sometimes out of necessity) and it pretty much irked the western powers that we weren't so willing to toe their lines so "no weapons for ya!"

before Paxtan ever got those Sabre jets from weimericans, we tried for it, and got rejected...we inducted Mystere, Ouragan, Gnat etc...in rising era of Supersonic Fighter Jets we tried for F-104 and got rejected again, we inducted Mig-21 and so on

only former European powers like Britain, France etc were good to us due to old colonial era relations but once the weimerican python swallowed them up geopolitically even they looked away and we were forced to rely on Soviets for most of our stuff

If we were ever so pro-russia to start with, we wouldn't have gone for whatever limited stuff west had to offer to us

Well said. The US would have given ( or sold) India weaponry like Sabre jets and Patton tanks, had India joined their strategic defense pacts like CENTO and SEATO, opened its economy to investment and trade, foresworn any close economic and military engagement with Russia( and China) and made some concession on Kashmir. India, rightly, wasn't willing to commit to any of those political demands. Economically, India would have helped itself by being more acceptable to MNC investment into India, besides allowing its own private sector freedom to grow. But this wasn't the outlook and philosophy of the times. Except probably for the economic dimension, India cannot be criticised too strongly for those stances, particularly given what India had so recently experienced.

 

[Chinmoy]

Sorry for asking question not related to it. But can you please tell me these, I searched for some hours but couldn't find. Is there a size limit of Jet Fuel Starter-Generator for Kaveri Class Engine?, I mean for future 5th Generation Stealth Aircraft, I think Electric Power Output of JFS is as important as its thrust due to presence of heavy onboard electronics whether its for Computing or AESA or dIRCM or Laser. Hence in Kaveri engine I heard it has 110kW output where as Japanese XF9 has the record output of 180kW. d
1. Do you know output of J-20's WS-15 Engines in kW
2. Also for F414 in kW which we are gonna use in Tejas Mk2 and AMCA?
3. Since Kaveri, F404-F414 are of similar size or thrust class compared to F110-AL-31FP-XF-9, how much more in electric power output can we increase like from 110kW to 130kW or 150kW?
Can you please answer, I searched for a lot of time but couldn't find any.

There is no simple calculation to calculate the power generated by engine as most of it goes waste in form of heat. Moreover its the onboard generator and alternators who produce bulk of the power in any flying platform.
Al-31 engine does produce somewhere in between 125 to 130kW power. F-414 produces 90kW to 98kW of power. This I came to know with discussion with subject people. But there is hardly any written document as the primary function of these engines are to produce thrust rather then electric power.

 

[AnantS]

Let me quote myself here again...



Now I am sorry if anyhow my statement implied that IAF asked for 90kN engine in there ASQR. I tried to imply that, ADA proposed 90kN engine based on ASQR.

Another myth is that F-414 with 90kN came for Mk2. While saying that, we categorically sideline the fact that with the deficiency observed in IOC variant of Tejas, where thrust is one major issue, IAF had proposed for Mk2 with the higher thrust that as been agreed upon initially. Mk1A has came up as stop gap measure with 84kN F-404 engine, for which ASQR has been released on 2014. In Mk1 FOC variant, IAF has given 135 concession over the original ASQR.

I am still yet to get any official specifications for Kaveri. But there are few old non Indian sites (2002 -2006 era) which quote figure of 20200 lbs/89.8 kn (like the one linked) . And there is 2003-2004 Mod Annual Report which does not talk about thrust figures but Talks about Kaveri K9, Kaveri K10 programs back then - with improved K10 version to be configured for production.

Kaveri engine has undergone The Light Combat Aircraft Tejas has completed 202 flight tests. The Kaveri engine for the Tejas has successfully completed phase I and II of high altitude testing and undergone more than 1300 hours of development test. 102 FINAL 26.9.04 development test of more than 1300 hours. K5 engine of Kaveri has successfully completed phase I & II of high altitude testing at M/s CIAM, Russia. K9 engine is presently under testing at GTRE, with an aim to integrate it with LCA ahead of post-production clearance. General arrangement for the new layout (K10 configuration) addressing various issues, like improved surge margin in fan, better structural integrity of compressor and improved combustor pressure loss, is being made with the objective to realise the weight budgeted engine and to firm up this configuration for production release.

So it seems K10 was 20200 lbs version that was supposed to mate with Tejas but that did not come.

 

[Chinmoy]

I am still yet to get any official specifications for Kaveri. But there are few old non Indian sites (2002 -2006 era) which quote figure of 20200 lbs/89.8 kn (like the one linked) . And there is 2003-2004 Mod Annual Report which does not talk about thrust figures but Talks about Kaveri K9, Kaveri K10 programs back then - with improved K10 version to be configured for production.


So it seems K10 was 20200 lbs version that was supposed to mate with Tejas but that did not come.

Yes. The last line is what it is.

They planned 10+ prototypes for Kaveri with 90kN version to be used for Tejas.

 

[Kuldeepm952]

I don't know about you guys but this new riwaz of inducting some foreign maal for so called evaluation purposes is extremely worrying to me. It started with Hermes drone and now even all tests passed Whap has become it's target.

Anyway I already decided to give myself some time off from my this defense hobby after Yahoodi HPR getting inducted.

It's our institutional failure that rather than systematically studying enemy and making out timely tenable procurement plans, training and command structures. We are banking on emergency purchases of few launchers, equipments here and there, and calling it a modernisation.
Ab hum in emergency purchases se China ko maat denge. Pathetic.

I have been seeing our Forces in such a pathetic sorry state for more than a decade now, it almost makes me a doomer.

 

[patriots]

Tender out for integrating rudram 3 with su 30 mki

 

[patriots]

Ade is doing a 3rd party insurance with full claim,for its uav

 

[NoobWannaLearn]

Ade is doing a 3rd party insurance with full claim,for its uav

Which one?

 

[mamamia12]

Ade is doing a 3rd party insurance with full claim,for its uav

What does it mean in layman terms?

 

[no smoking]

Our stake is 50.5% and Russian stake is 49.5%. It means, whatever we are making constitutes of 50.5% from cost point of view. We might make 90% of BRAHMOS components. But from cost evaluation, what is the value of those 90% material is the whole product?

No, 50.5% and 49.5% are the share of ownership of this company, that are the original investments from the 2 parties. The indigenous ratio or who contributes what components are daily operational issue. As an independent entity, the company can purchase any component from anyone. The different suppliers will only affect the product quality and financial performance of the company. As long as Brahmos is still produced by this JV, as the share holder of this JV, Russians will always be entitled to 49.5% of the profit.

 

[Azaad]

Posting this here for its relevance to our scenario for tomm some wise guy in either the services or DRDO may well conceive the bright idea of developing these items.