DRDO and PSUs

Mail-SPL-468-X60-2x
Blood+ said:
Yeah, but why would you want to lob 155mm shells at them when guided rockets can cause far higher destruction at pretty much the same cost??!! Heck, it'd probably cost you even less as you will require fewer numbers of rockets to do the same job.
Click to expand...
Rockets can be shot down by a good layered airdefence but ramjet artillery can't be stopped.
 
Blood+ said:
Yeah, but why would you want to lob 155mm shells at them when guided rockets can cause far higher destruction at pretty much the same cost??!! Heck, it'd probably cost you even less as you will require fewer numbers of rockets to do the same job.
Click to expand...
My point was not about debating use of artillary shells over rocket.

It was purely focused on damage caused by 100s of munitions hitting the airbase, even if they individually posses smaller warheads.
 
Rai89 said:
Would a ramjet artillery round be not difficult to intercept than a guided rocket?

Anyway Pakistan is a very narrow country with most of their population and military infrastructure located within a few hundred kilometres of the border. India should be investing in thousands of rocket and gun artillery. It's much cheaper to hit military targets with artillery than with expensive cruise missiles.
Click to expand...
While ramjet shells, are technically much harder to intercept Than guided rockets, but for modern air defense missile( short range, medium range) systems both are realtively easy targets to intercept.


Though Ramjet shells will be significantly harder to intercept for missile &gun based Ciws systems compared rocket artillary.

But guided rockets can carry much much bigger warheads( +250kg warheads) compared to 5-10 kg warhead ramjet shells can carry.
So even if more rockets are intercepted by ciws than ramjet shells, the destruction caused by few guided rockets that will penetrate past the ciws layer will be far higher than that of ramjet shells even if larger no. Of ramjet shells get past the ciws layers.
 
According to Abhijit Iyer Mitra, Indrajaal Drone defense system developed by a Hyderabad based startup has been the biggest unsung hero of conflict with Pakistan. It takes inputs from multiple sensors to not only detect the drones, but makes automatic decision on what is the most cost effective way to take out that incoming drone depending on size of drone (missile, intercepter drone, anti drone gun, etc). He said we have found a cost effective way of countering drone swarms.

This is their product PDF :
 
shuturmurg said:
According to Abhijit Iyer Mitra, Indrajaal Drone defense system developed by a Hyderabad based startup has been the biggest unsung hero of conflict with Pakistan. It takes inputs from multiple sensors to not only detect the drones, but makes automatic decision on what is the most cost effective way to take out that incoming drone depending on size of drone (missile, intercepter drone, anti drone gun, etc). He said we have found a cost effective way of countering drone swarms.

This is their product PDF :
Click to expand...
Indrajaal - thats some dope, sigma alpha name af compared to ghatak vajra tejas

Name taken from brihad indrajaal
 

View: https://t.me/diplomatic_delta/23901

HYPERSONIC GLIDE VEHICLE🇮🇳

DRDO unveiled a full-scale model of the Dhvani hypersonic glide vehicle during the 'Vigyan Vaibhav' exhibition at Hyderabad's Gachibowli Stadium in the February 2025.

- Program is currently in the prototype and development phase.

- The Intercontinental ranged system is expected to enter into the trials in the late 2028 or early 2029
 
Hawkeye said:
Why is LFRJ based STAR anti AWACS variant is going to be better than a SFDR based AAM for the said anti AWACS role?
Click to expand...
Liquid fuel is more energy dense and throttleable, so a missile that uses liquid fuel instead of solid fuel will have significantly more range and better energy retention.

Solid fuel once ignited will continue to burn until it's empty, though limited throttle response can be achieved by clever designing of rocket casing.
Solid fuel is also more cheap and much easier to store for long time, while it's more complex, expensive risk toxic leaks to store liquid fuel.
Solid fuel missiles can also be immediately readied for a mission, while liquid fuel missiles will need to be prepared and checked before being deployed.
So ICBMs that are stored in silos for years, use Solid fuel.
 
randombully said:
Liquid fuel is more energy dense and throttleable, so a missile that uses liquid fuel instead of solid fuel will have significantly more range and better energy retention.

Solid fuel once ignited will continue to burn until it's empty, though limited throttle response can be achieved by clever designing of rocket casing.
Solid fuel is also more cheap and much easier to store for long time, while it's more complex, expensive risk toxic leaks to store liquid fuel.
Solid fuel missiles can also be immediately readied for a mission, while liquid fuel missiles will need to be prepared and checked before being deployed.
So ICBMs that are stored in silos for years, use Solid fuel.
Click to expand...
Isn't Astra mk3 (SFDR) using similar engine & fuel as STAR?

Agree regarding range, energy retention and terminal energy but dual & triple pulse solid fuel AAMs kind of negate some of those advantages. One key advantage of solid AAM is less reaction time as they may have higher average velocity during duration of flight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pundit Pikachu
DRDO VSHORAD
Replies
5
Views
934
Pundit Pikachu
Pundit Pikachu
VPN-HSL-468-X60-2x

Latest Replies

Featured Content

Trending Threads

Share this Site

Back
Top