DRDO and PSU's

Arihant Roy said:
This specs sheet was displayed at Pitch Black 24. Initially I thought that mention of Nirbhay must be a fluke.

View attachment 8441


But then I came across this.

View attachment 8442


This slide is a bit old. The ground launched Nirbhay TD missile had already been integrated with Su-30MKI. Each Sukhoi can carry three Nirbhays.

Plus there's also a definitive ALCM variant of Nirbhay in the works. Most likely ready by now. There hasn't been any news on this for the past few years. I am certain, captive carriage trials have already taken place. Launching this from a Su-30MKI won't be a big deal. Maybe we will come to know when DRDO babus wish to reveal.

View attachment 8443

View attachment 8444

View attachment 8446
Click to expand...
Great find sirji
So we can assume few tests could have been conducted as many area warnings are being released but no aftermath story

It's infact great to have nirbhay with su-30mki will give us cost and quantity advantage

Question is numbers being procured I heard baseline variant has been ordered in 200nos and all services are waiting for improved variant with stfe

Is it true
 
Arihant Roy said:
Some of the sub assemblies of annular combustor. The TBC coatings.

One of the most critical tech is casting of SC turbine blades using investment casting. I have written about this in detail in DFI.

AL-31FP is already a reliable engine. Only drawback is that it's TTSL is less. 2000 hrs. Vs 6000 hrs of GE F414.

We need to shift to AL-41F1S instead of AL-31FP. This will require minor mods to the air intake and engine nacelles. But nothing major. AL-41F1S has a 6000 hr service life. Max thrust of 142 kN.

VKS ie Russians have already decided to switch to AL-41F1S on their Su-30 SM2.

NPO Saturn has developed another AL-31FP which has the exact same dimensions as the older engine but incorporates tech from 41 to enhance service life to 6000 hrs. New HPT and LPT. New HPC. We can also go for that.
Click to expand...
Even with low service life it can be beneficial as it will keep the manufacturing running.
 
Arihant Roy said:
Some of the sub assemblies of annular combustor. The TBC coatings.

One of the most critical tech is casting of SC turbine blades using investment casting. I have written about this in detail in DFI.

AL-31FP is already a reliable engine. Only drawback is that it's TTSL is less. 2000 hrs. Vs 6000 hrs of GE F414.

We need to shift to AL-41F1S instead of AL-31FP. This will require minor mods to the air intake and engine nacelles. But nothing major. AL-41F1S has a 6000 hr service life. Max thrust of 142 kN.

VKS ie Russians have already decided to switch to AL-41F1S on their Su-30 SM2.

NPO Saturn has developed another AL-31FP which has the exact same dimensions as the older engine but incorporates tech from 41 to enhance service life to 6000 hrs. New HPT and LPT. New HPC. We can also go for that.
Click to expand...
Any reason we aren't going in either for a new iteration of AL-31FP or the AL-41FS if as you've pointed out the modifications in the TF per se & presumably the mfg processes are minor & easily achievable without incurring much cost ?

Further if we're already mfg indigenously ~ 87 % of the components & sub assemblies locally , how's it only ~ 54% of the content by value ?
 
SlayingHell said:
So what components do we source from Russia still? Since you presented a detailed reply. Can you please list what kind of manufacturing technologies we have already mastered and what need to be mastered to make 1. AL-31F 2. F-414 Class Reliable Engine.
Click to expand...

Then Tech was transferred for drilling very fine narrow dia channels in the HPT. This is done through EDM. Bleed air is made to flow through the high pressure turbine blades once they cross a certain temp in order to cool them down. Because tensile strength and creep resistance starts decreasing with increase in temp.

EnFtbBgXMAElZCQ (3).jpeg


EnFtbEDWMAA-fvu (3).jpeg


EnFtbF7XcAAJVvR (3).jpeg


DMRL is also working to enhance the technical life of AL-31FP.

IMG-20240905-WA0087~2.jpg
 
Arihant Roy said:
Some of the sub assemblies of annular combustor. The TBC coatings.

One of the most critical tech is casting of SC turbine blades using investment casting. I have written about this in detail in DFI.

AL-31FP is already a reliable engine. Only drawback is that it's TTSL is less. 2000 hrs. Vs 6000 hrs of GE F414.

We need to shift to AL-41F1S instead of AL-31FP. This will require minor mods to the air intake and engine nacelles. But nothing major. AL-41F1S has a 6000 hr service life. Max thrust of 142 kN.

VKS ie Russians have already decided to switch to AL-41F1S on their Su-30 SM2.

NPO Saturn has developed another AL-31FP which has the exact same dimensions as the older engine but incorporates tech from 41 to enhance service life to 6000 hrs. New HPT and LPT. New HPC. We can also go for that.
Click to expand...
They will ask for exorbitant amount of money for change, I want to know can we replace those systems from our own systems like in SC blades and reach close to 6000 hr service life?!
 
fire starter said:
Project kusha.
3 types of interceptors.
View attachment 8581
Click to expand...
Or to be more precise; just a single, modular interceptor that can be tailored for different threats.

> You've a missile with similar and hence proven planform of Akash-NG and Barak-8 as the baseline interceptor.
Who's knows maybe we "replace" both Akash-NG and Barak-8 in future with M1 in a bid to declutter things
> Add a medium-thrust but sustained burning booster to it and now you've a long range SAM for maneuvering targets.
> Replace the previous booster with a high-thrust but fast burning booster and now you've a short-ranged ABM.

Pretty ingenious way of having a multi-tier system where instead of making a distinct missile for each tier you just need the additional expense of a booster and a TVC assembly; nothing more than that.

If I'm not wrong then MBDA is the only firm to currently utilize this concept in their Aster series to its full potential.
Screenshot_2024-09-06-18-36-26-25_c37d74246d9c81aa0bb824b57eaf7062.jpg
Well to some extent the new Barak-MX series also does it but then again it has just two missile and lacks dedicated ABM capabilities.
Other than that, every multi-tier SAM system uses different missiles.
From Russian/Chinese S-400...
Screenshot_2024-09-06-18-39-14-93_6bcd734b3b4b52977458a65c801426b0.jpg
...to USA's Standard Missile series.
Screenshot_2024-09-06-18-40-00-45_6bcd734b3b4b52977458a65c801426b0.jpg
 
Ayan Barat said:
Or to be more precise; just a single, modular interceptor that can be tailored for different threats.

> You've a missile with similar and hence proven planform of Akash-NG and Barak-8 as the baseline interceptor.
Who's knows maybe we "replace" both Akash-NG and Barak-8 in future with M1 in a bid to declutter things
> Add a medium-thrust but sustained burning booster to it and now you've a long range SAM for maneuvering targets.
> Replace the previous booster with a high-thrust but fast burning booster and now you've a short-ranged ABM.

Pretty ingenious way of having a multi-tier system where instead of making a distinct missile for each tier you just need the additional expense of a booster and a TVC assembly; nothing more than that.

If I'm not wrong then MBDA is the only firm to currently utilize this concept in their Aster series to its full potential.
View attachment 8593
Well to some extent the new Barak-MX series also does it but then again it has just two missile and lacks dedicated ABM capabilities.
Other than that, every multi-tier SAM system uses different missiles.
From Russian/Chinese S-400...
View attachment 8594
...to USA's Standard Missile series.
View attachment 8595
Click to expand...
M1 missile is different from M2 and M3 missiles.

M1 looks more like Akash-NG whereas M2 and M3 look like MRSAM with different boosters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Replies

Featured Content

Trending Threads

Share this Site

Donate via Bitcoin - bc1qpc3h2l430vlfflc8w02t7qlkvltagt2y4k9dc2

qrcode
Back
Top