DRDO and PSU's

[Bleh]

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.

Anyone please, what's the need for having Akash-G & MRSAM both with similar ranges?

 

[username unkown]

Anyone please, what's the need for having Akash-G & MRSAM both with similar ranges?

Akash ng indian while mrsam is indo israeli

 

[fire starter]

View: https://x.com/ANI/status/1832073505980006900?t=tKeoS52YTUlWIXRer52tEA&s=19

 

[Bleh]

Akash ng indian while mrsam is indo israeli

Yes, but beyond that?... now shouldn't we settle for one of the two, whichever suits better?

Presently I know of no capability or op.role difference between the two.

 

[Blood+]

View: https://x.com/wartrophy_414/status/1832001463612285439

They should name it Ball Buster or Egg Scrambler (or how 'bout Nut Cracker??).

 

[Blood+]

Anyone please, what's the need for having Akash-G & MRSAM both with similar ranges?

Wasn't there a recent poster showing Akash NG's range as ~30 km??!!

 

[Ayan Barat]

Yes, but beyond that?... now shouldn't we settle for one of the two, whichever suits better?

Presently I know of no capability or op.role difference between the two.

We can't keep manufacturing LRSAM for very long as it's not viable. When you've a smaller home market and also a very unreliable one then the only way to survive is on foreign markets. Today people are all praise for MKU and Tonbo Imaging but imagine what would have happened if they had not received international orders in their initial years.

But the problem with using someone else's IPR like in the case of Barak-8 is that they define the market in which you're allowed to sell it and most of time it's just the home market. PLR can't sell its Tavors or Galils in USA because then they would be eating market share of IWI-US.

Another interesting and quite funny fact is that we also have some IPRs in Barak-8 as it was a joint development; especially the later upgradation to a dual-pulse rocket motor are all ours. So by the same logic, IAI can't sell a dual-pulse rocket motor variant of Barak-8 in international market unless we allow them. This was the whole reason why IAI ditched this whole Israel - India joint venture thing and made a completely new Barak-8 family by the name Barak-MX all by itself so that they can sell it without needing any permission or sharing royalty.

 

[Ayan Barat]

They should name it Ball Buster (or how 'bout Nut Cracker??).

Don't give ideas, God forbid if they like it

I'm not ready for a Nut Cracking Cum Ball Blasting Munition

 

[BlackViking]

They should name it Ball Buster or Egg Scrambler (or how 'bout Nut Cracker??).

@Nutcracker

 

[Blood+]

We can't keep manufacturing LRSAM for very long as it's not viable. When you've a smaller home market and also a very unreliable one then the only way to survive is on foreign markets. Today people are all praise for MKU and Tonbo Imaging but imagine what would have happened if they had not received international orders in their initial years.

But the problem with using someone else's IPR like in the case of Barak-8 is that they define the market in which you're allowed to sell it and most of time it's just the home market. PLR can't sell its Tavors or Galils in USA because then they would be eating market share of IWI-US.

Another interesting and quite funny fact is that we also have some IPRs in Barak-8 as it was a joint development; especially the later upgradation to a dual-pulse rocket motor are all ours. So by the same logic, IAI can't sell a dual-pulse rocket motor variant of Barak-8 in international market unless we allow them. This was the whole reason why IAI ditched this whole Israel - India joint venture thing and made a completely new Barak-8 family by the name Barak-MX all by itself so that they can sell it without needing any permission or sharing royalty.

Ok, so why don't we just replace the seeker with an Indian one (perhaps one of those new AESA ones they made for AAMs and , scaled to a suitable proportion of course) and call it a day?? Maybe add a booster to it.

 

[Ayan Barat]

Ok, so why don't we just replace the seeker with an Indian one (perhaps one of those new AESA ones they made for AAMs and , scaled to a suitable proportion of course) and call it a day?? Maybe add a booster to it.

View attachment 8583

Credits: marich01

 

[fire starter]

.

 

[Ayan Barat]

.
View attachment 8617

The most interesting part of this is not that we're doing a CFD of bus but rather the bus diameter of 754mm

We only have three missiles that use more or less the same rocket motor; a 740mm caliber motor...

...Pralay, Shaurya and Sagarika

So apparently a Pralay with three N-capable MIRV
Noice

 

[fire starter]

View: https://x.com/Rethik_D/status/1832128105466781914?t=tH7bN6PbRCtq-BLeVanxZQ&s=19

 

[Azaad]

The most interesting part of this is not that we're doing a CFD of bus but rather the bus diameter of 754mm

We only have three missiles that use more or less the same rocket motor; a 740mm caliber motor...
View attachment 8622
...Pralay, Shaurya and Sagarika

So apparently a Pralay with three N-capable MIRV
Noice

How's a TBM capable of being an MIRV missile ? What are we missing here ? Besides the Shaurya & Sagarika are practically one & the same.

 

[Ayan Barat]

How's a TBM capable of being an MIRV missile ? What are we missing here ? Besides the Shaurya & Sagarika are practically one & the same.

Not just two, but rather all three are just different stages of a metamorphosis like process.

Sagarika (pure SLBM, with hydrodynamic cap) -> Shaurya (unmodified Sagarika, still having the hydrodynamic cap but used as a quasi-ballistic missile) -> Pralay (highly refined version of Shaurya, with all SLBM featured omitted)

You can definitely use MIRV in TBM role. Why wouldn't you want more redundancy against an threat that has sophisticated ABM capabilities? And even if cost factor doesn't make sense in last two, you'd definitely want MIRV capability in your SLBMs.

 

[Blood+]

Are these the Su-35 engines?... 122kN upgraded to 132kN?

There's even a 142kN version for Su-37.

Where did you find that??!!

 

[Bleh]

Where did you find that??!!

AL-31FM1 version made for RAF Su-30SM gives out 132kN wet thrust. You can find the variants on wiki itself. There Chinese version AL-31 all has between 130-140kN thrust. Baaas hum hi chutiye hy, 25 saal me no progress.

The AL-41-F1S of Su-35 & Su-30SM2 gives out 137kN with afterburner. Older versions had AL-31FP of Su-30MKI

 

[Blood+]

AL-31FM1 version made for RAF Su-30SM gives out 132kN wet thrust. You can find the variants on wiki itself. There Chinese version AL-31 all has between 130-140kN thrust. Baaas hum hi chutiye hy, 25 saal me no progress.

The AL-41-F1S of Su-35 & Su-30SM2 gives out 137kN with afterburner. Older versions had AL-31FP of Su-30MKI

Oh, ok never mind. I misunderstood your point, I thought you were saying that somehow WE had managed to find a way to increase the thrust of these engines. Anyways, I'm more interested in the dry thrust and what can be done to squeeze more of it out of these AL-31FPs.

 

[Nutcracker]

AL-31FM1 version made for RAF Su-30SM gives out 132kN wet thrust. You can find the variants on wiki itself. There Chinese version AL-31 all has between 130-140kN thrust. Baaas hum hi chutiye hy, 25 saal me no progress.

The AL-41-F1S of Su-35 & Su-30SM2 gives out 137kN with afterburner. Older versions had AL-31FP of Su-30MKI

Where did you find that??!!

Here.. 2200lbf

View: https://x.com/Varun55484761/status/1823918363925516644?t=2tDcMSjB3Wi6k7xDuiixEw&s=19
View attachment 6601