DRDO and PSUs

[karn]

Are BSDK waalo itna bada khulasa Kiya Hai kuch to read karna seekh lo.
Lengthy paragraph dekhe sab ignore Marne lagte.

The thing is
1. Many memberaan know speculate this ..
2. The source isn't DRDO (wtf is Bharat pratham research).
3. We literally saw an A5 in a test turn horizontal instead of going in a ballistic arc and then DRDO pres release claimed that it had reached it "max" range of 5000Km and yet someone was going ballistic (pun intended) on old DFI about, no its a ballistic trajectory and we are fools to suspect a depressed trajectory.. Which I strongly suspect is a case of "zor zor se sabko scheme bata de *slap*"
4. Unless this comes from DRDO directly it remains in speculation=.

 

[Hawkeye]

View attachment 30862
An old graph of shauyra missile, for members who are not aware.
See the selected part written as hypersonic glide.
This trajectory reduces it's max range to just 700 from max range of "1800km using ballistic then depressed+Maneuver( evasive manurvers) in terminal phase".
In 700km max range mode its flies only depressed+manurable trajectory at an altitude of 40km at hypersonic speeds

Now, do you know what else flies at depressed trajectory with good manurability at an altitude of 30-50km with hypersonic speed?
The future Scramjet powered hypersonic cruise missile, which is all the rage as the latest/future missile tech.

So our shaurya missile in terms of speed, detection, difficultly to intercept is already in the league to HCM when it flies in 700km max range trajectory.
( now you may wonder why are we then developing scram jet, the answer is efficiency, an airbreathing scramjet will be lot more efficient than rocket motor, so lot more range in same size/weight missile or similar range with smaller missile).
But HCM are hyped due to their
1, depressed trajectory that makes them harder to detect.
2, ablility to manurable and not have predictable path( unlike ballistic and quasi ballistic missiles)
3, and do both of these at "hypersonic speed"( subsonic and supersonic missiles can do both 1 and 2 both but limited by speed, also supersonic and subsonic missile can fly at even more depressed trajectory, and can even do sea skimming).
And shaurya in depressed mode can do all three of these.
In depressed trajectory shaurya Is basically a land attack hypersonic cruise missile( cruise part is a flight characteristics not a method of propulsion) with max range of 700km, and we had this missile for more than a decade.

Also, from wikipedia.
"On 3 October 2020, DRDO successfully test-fired an advanced version of the Shaurya with an 800km range from Balasore as part of user trials."
Max range of just 800km means they are talking about depressed trajectory.


This also questions, the definition of hypersonic cruise missiles, for general public it became synonyms with scramjet engine.
But again scram jet is just a method of propulsion to reach hypersonic speed and cruise at that speed, you can do the same with rocket motor( tho as said before efficiency is lot worse).
So currently we can create subcategories of hypersonic cruise missiles.
HCM-RP( rocket powered) And HCM-AB( air breathing aka, scramjet in this case).


So again, we already possessed A land attack HCM with max range of 700-800km for more than a decade.

Also russian hypersonic zircon, from the pics released and leaked doesn't seem to have any air intake, and I'm 90% sure it's rocket powered.
Plus it's dimensions are similar to shaurya and max range is Said to be 1000km, which further bolster my suspension of it being rocket powered HCM( a scramjet powered missile of that size should have lot more range)
Though unlike shaurya which is land attack, zircon is antiship( thrust vectoring, seeker, smaller warhead) tho can be used for land attack.
( now 1000km range seems good for ships based anti ship missiles but if Russians used scramjet they could have made a smaller missile with similar range as zircon, so more missiles could be fitted on the ship)

IN terms of dimensions both shaurya and zircon are slighly longer and slightly thicker than brahmos( tho both should be lot heavier because brahmos has airbreathing ramjet engine, while shaurya and zircon both need to carry all the fuel inside)

And if we want to we can develop a anti ship HCM-RP similar to zircon using shaurya as a base.
LR-ASHM from land to ship
Shurya based HCM from ship to ship.

Along with working on its own scramjet China seems to be going the route of making anti ship varient of its df17 HGV( anti ship varient tested already, tho in service ones are land attack only, for now)
And doublking down on its df21 ballistic anti ship hypersonic missile.( very hard to intercept also but very hard to make it accurate enough to hit ships, plus needs to fire lots of missiles just for good probability of hit due to lack of accuracy, plus need to be supported by dedicated kill chains comprised of satellites, ground and aerial radars and all these are very expensive and also vunrable to enemy attacks both cyber and physical )


Our recently tested LR-ASHM is also a HCM-RP, thought drdo calls it "glide vehicle".

Drdo also called the trajectory of shaurya as hypersonic "glide".
But the trajectories of both these missiles seems identical to trajectories of HCM rather than trajectories of HGV's.
Plus both do not generate enough lift to be called a HGV like Russians Avangard or chinese dfzf HGV.


The only benifit of scramjet in HCM over rocket motor is it being "lot more efficienct".
But there are lots of difficulties to overcome to get the benifit of efficiency.

1, scramjet itself difficult to develop while rocket motors are already present and decades of experience with these motors.

2, even if scramjet is developed designing a missile around it is also lot more difficult, with rocket motors you can just put them in back and have rest of frontal space available for fuel and sensors a design that had been used for decades.



lastly in 2020 north korea also seemed to tested a two stage" land attack rocket powered missile" and description of the trajectory makes it look similar to similar to HCM-RP, so once you take away the "scramjet" aspect of HCM, they become lot more easier to develop, the only downside being significant reduction in efficiency.
But that missile is land based( size is not that big of a problem) and korean peninsula is small so range will be more than sufficient,Like our land based anti ship LR-ASHM gives already 1500+km max range( NK one is land attack varient)
And shaurya in "hypersonic glide" mode already gives 700-800km range.
With zircon having ~1000km.


So if size and range are sufficient for you/ meets the requirements, then HCM-RP is better choice than HCM-AB

And if you wanna know, why HCM are so much hyped.
This is a good video

View: https://youtu.be/AT7y94mb-eA?si=JFKN06VuDkEWquo_




So we are actually the *1ST* country to biuld a HCM( in terms of difficulty to intercept, As HCM are hyped due to how much harder it is to intercept them, right now nobody in the world has air defense who have good/decent chances to intercept HCM, tho US has made the most progress in developing that type of air defense).
As for scramjet engine, US is leading in that, with India being not far behind.

I think most of the HCM discussion revolves on the basis if the missile is a waverider or not bcoz that's what most of the people associate it with. I am sure most of the people have been quite sceptical of LRAshM being a hypersonic weapon since it doesn't look anywhere near the notional image of HGV or HCM.
And I have always wondered about the true range of Pralay which is just a tad shorter than Shaurya but using better propellents and lighter structure materials or maybe even composite body.
After seeing LRAshM, I came to a realisation that I don't need to confine hypersonic a to a notional design prevalent.

 

[randombully]

The thing is
1. Many memberaan know speculate this ..
2. The source isn't DRDO (wtf is Bharat pratham research).
3. We literally saw an A5 in a test turn horizontal instead of going in a ballistic arc and then DRDO pres release claimed that it had reached it "max" range of 5000Km and yet someone was going ballistic (pun intended) on old DFI about, no its a ballistic trajectory and we are fools to suspect a depressed trajectory.. Which I strongly suspect is a case of "zor zor se sabko scheme bata de *slap*"
4. Unless this comes from DRDO directly it remains in speculation=.

Now top DRDO scientists have revealed that the Shaurya is not a ballistic missile, as it has been thought to be; it is actually a hypersonic cruise missile, which never leaves the atmosphere. A ballistic missile is like a stone being lobbed towards a target. Rockets toss it upwards and towards the target; after the rocket burns out, gravity pulls the missile warhead down towards the target. Buffeted by wind and re-entry forces, accuracy is a problem; and, since the ballistic missile’s path is predictable, shooting it down is relatively easy.

The Shaurya has none of these issues. Its solid-fuel, two-stage rocket accelerates the missile to six times the speed of sound before it reaches an altitude of 40 kilometers (125,000 feet), after which it levels out and cruises towards the target, powered by its onboard fuel. While ballistic missiles cannot correct their course midway, the Shaurya is an intelligent missile. Onboard navigation computers kick in near the target, guiding the missile to the target and eliminating errors that inevitably creep in during its turbulent journey.

The Shaurya, say DRDO sources, will strike within 20-30 metres of its target after travelling 750 kilometres.

Conventional cruise missiles, like the American Tomahawk and the Indo-Russian , offer similar accuracy. But their air-breathing engines carry them along slowly, rendering them vulnerable to enemy aircraft and missiles. The Shaurya’s solid-fuel, air-independent engine propels it along at hypersonic speeds, leaving enemy fighters and missiles far behind.

“I would say the Shaurya a hybrid propulsion missile”, says Dr Saraswat. “Like a ballistic missile, it is powered by solid fuel. And, like a cruise missile, it can guide itself right up to the target.”
Making the Shaurya even more capable is its ability to manoeuvre, following a twisting path to the target that makes it very difficult to shoot it down. In contrast, a ballistic missile is predictable; its trajectory gives away its target and its path to it.

Shaurya surfaces as India’s underwater nuclear missile: New “hybrid” technology more advanced than China’s or Pakistan’s

www.ajaishukla.com

Best i could find, tho can't confirm if it's from actual interview.
With that Said.
Here's russian zircon missile.

And here's shaurya.

 

[karn]

Now top DRDO scientists have revealed that the Shaurya is not a ballistic missile, as it has been thought to be; it is actually a hypersonic cruise missile, which never leaves the atmosphere. A ballistic missile is like a stone being lobbed towards a target. Rockets toss it upwards and towards the target; after the rocket burns out, gravity pulls the missile warhead down towards the target. Buffeted by wind and re-entry forces, accuracy is a problem; and, since the ballistic missile’s path is predictable, shooting it down is relatively easy.

The Shaurya has none of these issues. Its solid-fuel, two-stage rocket accelerates the missile to six times the speed of sound before it reaches an altitude of 40 kilometers (125,000 feet), after which it levels out and cruises towards the target, powered by its onboard fuel. While ballistic missiles cannot correct their course midway, the Shaurya is an intelligent missile. Onboard navigation computers kick in near the target, guiding the missile to the target and eliminating errors that inevitably creep in during its turbulent journey.

The Shaurya, say DRDO sources, will strike within 20-30 metres of its target after travelling 750 kilometres.

Conventional cruise missiles, like the American Tomahawk and the Indo-Russian , offer similar accuracy. But their air-breathing engines carry them along slowly, rendering them vulnerable to enemy aircraft and missiles. The Shaurya’s solid-fuel, air-independent engine propels it along at hypersonic speeds, leaving enemy fighters and missiles far behind.

“I would say the Shaurya a hybrid propulsion missile”, says Dr Saraswat. “Like a ballistic missile, it is powered by solid fuel. And, like a cruise missile, it can guide itself right up to the target.”

Shaurya surfaces as India’s underwater nuclear missile: New “hybrid” technology more advanced than China’s or Pakistan’s

www.ajaishukla.com

Best i could find, tho can't confirm if it's from actual interview.
With that Said.
Here's russian zircon missile.
View attachment 30870View attachment 30871View attachment 30872View attachment 30873View attachment 30874
And here's shaurya.
View attachment 30875View attachment 30876

Yes we know that it flies in a depressed trajectory .. But the question is the 1900 KM max range in boost + glide with max warhead. The 1900 KM range could easily be due to lighter warhead with a full ballistic trajectory.
I believe your case BTW its just that we havn't heard it officially spelled out like that.

 

[Satish Sharma Ji]

Bhaijaan, that company has partnered with some German UNDSTEINGER-MISTEINGER company for this technology.

Indian Start-up Azista BST Aerospace Captures Video from Space Over Kuwait Airport with AFR Satellite – Indian Defence Research Wing

idrw.org

Do, you think germans will give us this important technology? I have huge doubt though.

We already have put eo satellite in leo we have the tech developed already.
Even we have mastered X band sar's since 2019 atleast 2-3 X band sar ha e been put in leo indi ones.
Ones is with Israeli tech sar radar.

 

[randombully]

I think most of the HCM discussion revolves on the basis if the missile is a waverider or not bcoz that's what most of the people associate it with. I am sure most of the people have been quite sceptical of LRAshM being a hypersonic weapon since it doesn't look anywhere near the notional image of HGV or HCM.
And I have always wondered about the true range of Pralay which is just a tad shorter than Shaurya but using better propellents and lighter structure materials or maybe even composite body.
After seeing LRAshM, I came to a realisation that I don't need to confine hypersonic a to a notional design prevalent.

Keep it to the characteristics.
Modern hypersonics are characterised by not having a predictable path, being able to fly at relatively lower altitude than ballistic/quasi ballistic missile thus reducing the vunrability to be detected at early phase of flight, and still being hypersonic thus giving the enemy very small time to react, while the hypersonic speed also makes it hard to be intercepted even if interceptor missile fired, plus lack of predictable path further makes it harder to intercept( now they can be either land attack, anti ship, both or even nuclear)

If a missile regardless of its shape or propulsion or lack of propulsion achieves all that then yeah, it's a modern hypersonic missile.

Now if that missile has body that generates lots of lift, it can be called a hgv.
( hgv are generally lot less controllable than powered cruise missiles that's why not much suitable for accuracy or anti ship role, but doesn't mean you can't make a more controllable and maneuverable varient of hgv, china is taking on that challenge by developing anti ship varient of dfzf hgv)

If it's not a lifiting body but propelled by propulsion then cruise missile

If it is hybrid and has both than boost-glide.

 

[randombully]

Yes we know that it flies in a depressed trajectory .. But the question is the 1900 KM max range in boost + glide with max warhead. The 1900 KM range could easily be due to lighter warhead with a full ballistic trajectory.
I believe your case BTW its just that we havn't heard it officially spelled out like that.

Imo, 1900km range in HCM trajectory is not believable to me.
Ballistic trajectory makes sense for 1900km max range with lighter warhead.

 

[fire starter]

Silicon Photonics chip based QRNG module.

 

[Varoon4]

We already have put eo satellite in leo we have the tech developed already.
Even we have mastered X band sar's since 2019 atleast 2-3 X band sar ha e been put in leo indi ones.
Ones is with Israeli tech sar radar.

And have indigenously developed the C-Band radar tech, and successfully placed it in orbit with RISAT-1 back in 2012. At the time, India was only the 3rd country to have the know how. China may have developed it in 2019-20. And some Chinese hack had to post the news on an Indian site, just to say " see, anything you can do, we can do" .

 

[Satish Sharma Ji]

And have indigenously developed the C-Band radar tech, and successfully placed it in orbit with RISAT-1 back in 2012. At the time, India was only the 3rd country to have the know how. China may have developed it in 2019-20. And some Chinese hack had to post the news on an Indian site, just to say " see, anything you can do, we can do" .

Yeah here I have some abt it in 2nd post

Poisoned For Developing Indigenous Radar System, Alleges ISRO Scientist

Scientist Tapan Misra expressed suspicion that people who were afraid of losing orders from the Indian government might have been involved in the attack on him.


A day after claiming that he was poisoned with arsenic over three years ago, top Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) scientist Tapan Misra today alleged he was attacked over his contributions to the development of indigenous radar imaging satellites.

Talking to reporters at his residence in Ahmedabad, Mr Misra expressed suspicion that people who were afraid of losing orders from the Indian government might have been involved in the attack on him.

On Tuesday, Tapan Misra had claimed that he was poisoned with deadly arsenic trioxide on May 23, 2017, during a promotion interview at the ISRO headquarters in Bengaluru.

"My contribution was in developing radar imaging satellites - RISAT, considered a very high-grade technology. We can watch the earth's surface in any situation, be it day or night, using this system.

"This radar system is 10 times costlier (than the indigenous one) if we buy it (from others)," Mr Misra said.

"This system is useful for the military because of its ability to capture images despite clouds and dust. So, if we develop such a system in our own country, it's obvious that others (who are selling it to India) will lose their business," he said when asked about the reason behind the attack.

Tapan Misra is presently working as Senior Advisor at the ISRO and is superannuating at the end of this month.

He had earlier served as Director of Ahmedabad-based Space Application Centre of ISRO.

Poisoned For Developing Indegenous Radar System, Alleges ISRO Scientist

A day after claiming that he was poisoned with arsenic over three years ago, top Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) scientist Tapan Misra today alleged he was attacked over his contributions to the development of indigenous radar imaging satellites.

www.ndtv.com

For those don't know the alleged company is Israeli aerospace industry who was selling us there SAR used in TECSAR satellite. In 2008 we brought there X band SAR for 200 million dollars for RISAT 2. While we had C band SAR but we lacked x band SAR's.
Israeli SAR was put on RISAT 2. post 26/11 mumbai attack RISAT 2 was prioritised over RISAT 1 which had indigeneous C band SAR.
For comparison RISAT 2B & RISAT 2BR2 satellite which had the Indigeneously developed x band sar costed us 125 crore in 2019 & 2020. This includes SAR along with satelite. While back in 2008 we paid 200 million dollars to IAI for there x band SAR.
even the costliest satellite launched under RISAT program was around 500 crores.
while yahudis are willing to give us the tech nobody else's willing to but at what costs an arm and leg.
I think it must have been mossad behind poisoning of scientists Misra for securing orders for IAI. And given our satellite Fleet ambition of launching 56 satellite they wouldn't mind going to this extend.

 

[randombully]

Pralay "ballistic"( )missile.

Max range 500km(with lighter warhead).

Length~9m, width~740mm, weight~5 tons.

Warhead weight:- 300 to 700kg.




Iskander ballistic missile.

Max range 500km(with lighter warhead).

Length~7.3m,width~920mm,weight~3.7tons

Warhead weight:- max weight upto 800kg.



Our missile tech really sucks when our 5ton missile has same range as 3.7 ton russian missile of the "same" category.

It's "unbelievable"() that after decades of experience in missile field our "ballistic"( ) missile pralay while being significantly heavier than iskandar just have similar range and payload capacity.
Especially when "most" of that extra weight compromises of is "extra fuel"sneaky



It doesn't make "sense".

In 3.7-3.8 ton Iskander.
Fuel would weigh 2-2.5 tons.

And in 5ton pralay.
Fuel would weigh 3-3.5 tons.

Pralay basically should carry ~50% more fuel Than iskander, yet same range and similar warhead weight( ).



Not to mention pralay is not the first iteration, it's based on Shaurya "ballistic"love missile.
Tho, pralay does have "thrust vectoring" in the form of jet vanes, it will just make it more accurate and precise.



I.E. just like shaurya there's no chinky air defense that has "decent" chances of interception of pralay.
Unless they develop a air defense effective against HCM.



Now another topic.
Our lovely HMART missile carrying light torpedo.

 

[randombully]

View attachment 30949
Pralay "ballistic"( )missile.

Max range 500km(with lighter warhead).

Length~9m, width~740mm, weight~5 tons.

Warhead weight:- 300 to 700kg.



View attachment 30950
Iskander ballistic missile.

Max range 500km(with lighter warhead).

Length~7.3m,width~920mm,weight~3.7tons

Warhead weight:- max weight upto 800kg.



Our missile tech really sucks when our 5ton missile has same range as 3.7 ton russian missile of the "same" category.

It's "unbelievable"() that after decades of experience in missile field our "ballistic"( ) missile pralay while being significantly heavier than iskandar just have similar range and payload capacity.
Especially when "most" of that extra weight compromises of is "extra fuel"sneaky



It doesn't make "sense".

In 3.7-3.8 ton Iskander.
Fuel would weigh 2-2.5 tons.

And in 5ton pralay.
Fuel would weigh 3-3.5 tons.

Pralay basically should carry ~50% more fuel Than iskander, yet same range and similar warhead weight( ).



Not to mention pralay is not the first iteration, it's based on Shaurya "ballistic"love missile.
Tho, pralay does have "thrust vectoring" in the form of jet vanes, it will just make it more accurate and precise.



I.E. just like shaurya there's no chinky air defense that has "decent" chances of interception of pralay.
Unless they develop a air defense effective against HCM.



Now another topic.
Our lovely HMART missile carrying light torpedo.
View attachment 30952

We have nuclear, land attack, even anti sub torpedo carrier.

Bas ship based anti ship version aur mil Jaye.( land based anti ship missile Is already In later stages to be fielded)

Ya shaayad Size could be a issue, plus drdo is already working on scram jet so maybe navy is looking at a more compact missile for ship based anti ship missiles.

 

[vampyrbladez]

View: https://x.com/alpha_defense/status/1913538539649733017

 

[Satish Sharma Ji]

View attachment 30949
Pralay "ballistic"( )missile.

Max range 500km(with lighter warhead).

Length~9m, width~740mm, weight~5 tons.

Warhead weight:- 300 to 700kg.



View attachment 30950
Iskander ballistic missile.

Max range 500km(with lighter warhead).

Length~7.3m,width~920mm,weight~3.7tons

Warhead weight:- max weight upto 800kg.



Our missile tech really sucks when our 5ton missile has same range as 3.7 ton russian missile of the "same" category.

It's "unbelievable"() that after decades of experience in missile field our "ballistic"( ) missile pralay while being significantly heavier than iskandar just have similar range and payload capacity.
Especially when "most" of that extra weight compromises of is "extra fuel"sneaky



It doesn't make "sense".

In 3.7-3.8 ton Iskander.
Fuel would weigh 2-2.5 tons.

And in 5ton pralay.
Fuel would weigh 3-3.5 tons.

Pralay basically should carry ~50% more fuel Than iskander, yet same range and similar warhead weight( ).



Not to mention pralay is not the first iteration, it's based on Shaurya "ballistic"love missile.
Tho, pralay does have "thrust vectoring" in the form of jet vanes, it will just make it more accurate and precise.



I.E. just like shaurya there's no chinky air defense that has "decent" chances of interception of pralay.
Unless they develop a air defense effective against HCM.



Now another topic.
Our lovely HMART missile carrying light torpedo.
View attachment 30952

Comparison is quite some might argue pralay might be having faster burn rate for higher speeds and muneuverability so does iskander has both share philosophy. While there could be some variants of slow burn fo higher range as well. Even with increased altitude least depressed trajectory i suppose same pralay would give more range.
atacms were quite effective against s400s in Ukraine. While ours even has onboard seeker along with depressed muneuverabile trajectory which wouldn't require higher number as much as s400 to destroy s400/hq16,hq9. However we also need better satellite numbers.

Another thing we should be taking notes
iskander carry 4 decoys

 

[TopWatcher]

Troops get 4G/5G connectivity at high-altitude posts in Ladakh on China & Pak frontiers | India News - The Times of India

India News: In a significant stride, the Indian Army has facilitated 4G and 5G mobile connectivity in Ladakh's high-altitude regions, benefiting troops and civili

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

 

[randombully]

Comparison is quite some might argue pralay might be having faster burn rate for higher speeds and muneuverability so does iskander has both share philosophy. While there could be some variants of slow burn fo higher range as well. Even with increased altitude least depressed trajectory i suppose same pralay would give more range.
atacms were quite effective against s400s in Ukraine. While ours even has onboard seeker along with depressed muneuverabile trajectory which wouldn't require higher number as much as s400 to destroy s400/hq16,hq9. However we also need better satellite numbers.

Another thing we should be taking notes
iskander carry 4 decoys

Both pralay and iskandar has top speed of Mach 6-7.
But I do beleive pralay has higher burn rate of fuel, but not in ballistic trajectory.
if pralay needs to achieve sustained mach 6+ hypersonic speed in its "cruise phase" it will need to have higher burn rate of fuel.
So higher burn rate only makes sense for pralay when it's flying like a hcm because it has similar max speed as iskandar, while iskander uses gravity as the major source for its max speed not it's own fuel.

If pralay was also "ballistic" and had higher burn rate( more fuel, same range) then it should have higher top speed than mach 6-7

Now I'm not saying pralay can't be used in ballistic mode, but then it's range should be vastly more not just due to extra fuel but also because pralay is 2 stage missile while iskander is 1stage missile.
Should be 800-1000km max range in ballistic mode, and also higher top speed, mach8+ or something.







While iskander remain hypersonic in its terminal( due to gravity).
Pralay is stated to decelerate to higher supersonic speeds(~mach4) in its terminal just like shaurya,
Pralay also has seeker( either radar of IIR) and both will struggle at hypersonic speeds due to plasma, especially IIR( imaging infra red).

As for "varients" of iskander with slow or higher burnrate.
More speed means more aerodynamic and thermal stress,you can't just change the burn rate for higher speed, entire structure and subcomponents will need to be modified.
iskander achives more range by while flying higher.
For max range it flies to 100km then descents into a ballistic arc.
For intermediate range might fly upto 50-70km and them descent.
Also gravity plays the major role in the top speed of iskandar not it's fuel.

So iskander will be more deadly the more closer it is to its max range.
If it ascends to 100km( with max horizontal range of 500km) altitude gravity will help more in acceleration then will achieve it's top speed of Mach 6-7 and have speed of ~mach5 in terminal
If it ascends to just 50-60km altitude it may barely reach mach5 top speed in descent phase and mach 2-3 in terminal, hence easier to defend against.
Same case for pralay if it follows "ballistic" path.


So it feels like a huge waste of potential for pralay to use it in significantly more easier to shoot down trajectory( reportedly ajerbeijani barak 8 shot down Armenian iskander) but then also restrict to it just 500km max range.
A highly Idiotic move, when it's based on shaurya.


Specially when russian "kinzhal" aero ballistic missiles which can do evasive maneuvers in terminal is shown to be vastly more difficult to shot down generally require firing of all 32 interceptor missiles of thaad battery of ukraine yo have 25% chance of shooting it down.( according to a paper released by a German Institute)
A hcm trajectory will be even more difficult to shoot down.

And pralay resembles shaurya and zircon instead of iskander.
North and south korean SRBM resemble iskander.
Pralay also have two sets of movable fins and now even has tvc with jet veins.

 

[Anonymous Bharata]

Either a fool or a traitor (I'm not talking about OP here) will say that our enemy will handover such complex technologies to us for money

View: https://x.com/shreedharsingh9/status/1913585332911513986

 

[Azaad]

Comparison is quite some might argue pralay might be having faster burn rate for higher speeds and muneuverability so does iskander has both share philosophy. While there could be some variants of slow burn fo higher range as well. Even with increased altitude least depressed trajectory i suppose same pralay would give more range.
atacms were quite effective against s400s in Ukraine. While ours even has onboard seeker along with depressed muneuverabile trajectory which wouldn't require higher number as much as s400 to destroy s400/hq16,hq9. However we also need better satellite numbers.

Another thing we should be taking notes
iskander carry 4 decoys

In order to threaten China apart from the Pralay & Shaurya (which unfortunately is with the SFC) , you need conventionally armed IRBMs like a land based version of the recently tested Hypersonic AShM reaching distances of upto 4000 kms to cover every inch of China like they do ours & in great numbers like thousands of them not the piece meal procurements we undertake of a few dozens in 5 year plans .

The reason for this is simple. If we reach a stalemate on the LAC , CCP will start targeting the hinterland like Russia is doing Ukraine aiming at our population centres, industrial hubs , power generation facilities , storages , oil depots , refineries etc .

Then the only option which our Dhotis would have is to threaten usage of N weapons. What if Beijing isn't deterred ? We lob on a few into China ? What then ? Ironically China's faced with the same possibility vis a vis the US when it undertakes the invasion of Taiwan .

The only way we can deter the Chinese is to have Long Ranged Missiles from 300 kms - 4000 kms , whether BMs , CMs or Hypersonic Missiles whether HGV , HCM or what have you in the thousands such that Beijing thinks four or five times before escalating what's essentially a border war .

That's not all . Our wartime mfg capacities needs to churn out equivalent replacements in the shortest time possible for all manner of consumables not just missiles.

In any case our Air Force is handicapped , our ADS & ISR evolving , our drone program though good is nowhere near theirs , our space based assets negligible compared to theirs & we don't have the slightest clue on our cyber capabilities & capacities where they've an extremely advanced program going.

Let's not even bring in the IA who've all the necessary tools at their disposal that too of indigenous origin unlike what it is with the IAF where most of our programs will fructify next decade or rely on imports like the Rafales / MRFA , but are going about things at their own sweet time trialing platforms & ammo to glory.

Hence to sum up my rant - where exactly do our advantages lie ?

 

[randombully]

Both pralay and iskandar has top speed of Mach 6-7.
But I do beleive pralay has higher burn rate of fuel, but not in ballistic trajectory.
if pralay needs to achieve sustained mach 6+ hypersonic speed in its "cruise phase" it will need to have higher burn rate of fuel.
So higher burn rate only makes sense for pralay when it's flying like a hcm because it has similar max speed as iskandar, while iskander uses gravity as the major source for its max speed not it's own fuel.

If pralay was also "ballistic" and had higher burn rate( more fuel, same range) then it should have higher top speed than mach 6-7

Now I'm not saying pralay can't be used in ballistic mode, but then it's range should be vastly more not just due to extra fuel but also because pralay is 2 stage missile while iskander is 1stage missile.
Should be 800-1000km max range in ballistic mode, and also higher top speed, mach8+ or something.







While iskander remain hypersonic in its terminal( due to gravity).
Pralay is stated to decelerate to higher supersonic speeds(~mach4) in its terminal just like shaurya,
Pralay also has seeker( either radar of IIR) and both will struggle at hypersonic speeds due to plasma, especially IIR( imaging infra red).

As for "varients" of iskander with slow or higher burnrate.
More speed means more aerodynamic and thermal stress,you can't just change the burn rate for higher speed, entire structure and subcomponents will need to be modified.
iskander achives more range by while flying higher.
For max range it flies to 100km then descents into a ballistic arc.
For intermediate range might fly upto 50-70km and them descent.
Also gravity plays the major role in the top speed of iskandar not it's fuel.

So iskander will be more deadly the more closer it is to its max range.
If it ascends to 100km( with max horizontal range of 500km) altitude gravity will help more in acceleration then will achieve it's top speed of Mach 6-7 and have speed of ~mach5 in terminal
If it ascends to just 50-60km altitude it may barely reach mach5 top speed in descent phase and mach 2-3 in terminal, hence easier to defend against.
Same case for pralay if it follows "ballistic" path.


So it feels like a huge waste of potential for pralay to use it in significantly more easier to shoot down trajectory( reportedly ajerbeijani barak 8 shot down Armenian iskander) but then also restrict to it just 500km max range.
A highly Idiotic move, when it's based on shaurya.


Specially when russian "kinzhal" aero ballistic missiles which can do evasive maneuvers in terminal is shown to be vastly more difficult to shot down generally require firing of all 32 interceptor missiles of thaad battery of ukraine yo have 25% chance of shooting it down.( according to a paper released by a German Institute)
A hcm trajectory will be even more difficult to shoot down.

And pralay resembles shaurya and zircon instead of iskander.
North and south korean SRBM resemble iskander.
Pralay also have two sets of movable fins and now even has tvc with jet veins.

@Satish Sharma Ji https://militarywatchmagazine.com/a...er1000-missile-doubled-range-greater-accuracy
Another thing I found.
The 500km range is for older "iskander" the new iskander 1000,As the name states has 1000km max range
Due to better fuel and more efficient engine.

But still retaining similar weight.




Now our rocket fuel and propulsion must be seriously outdated compared to Russians if our "latest" 5ton pralay actually turned out to "ballistic" and max range of just 500km.
With russian achieving 1000km from their latest ballistic missile while still retaining similar weight.



Now I'm 100% sure.
Pralay is rocket sustained HCM.
Not a ballistic missile.

 

[randombully]

Either a fool or a traitor (I'm not talking about OP here) will say that our enemy will handover such complex technologies to us for money

View: https://x.com/shreedharsingh9/status/1913585332911513986

Technically we don't need the tech.
We need help to develop industry and infra need oversight, guidance and consultation.
We have the basic tech, we have developed DMS4.
Tho getting that industry and those machines will also be challenging.