DRDO and PSUs

[randombully]

View: https://t.me/diplomatic_delta/20981

It would be great as long range awacs killer, but against fast and manurable fighter jets, it so-so, still decent against them, but for super long range air to air missile primarly targeted against fighter jets, it would be better to instead go for a astra mk2 on steroids( more bigger, 3or4 pulse, solid rocket motor) than a ramjet powered missile.

The problem comes with having to maintain decent airflow to the ramjet, just like any other airbreathing engine, ramjets also don't like disturbance in the airflow they are receiving, and when missile constantly changes it's trajectory and perform high g maneuvers that airflow gets chocked out.
Due to which manurablity of ramjets( and airbreathing) missiles is significantly less than manoeuvrability of rocket power missiles.
And given fighter jets while also being airbreathing has lot more fuel, so they constantly try to bleed the missile's energy( missiles have quite limited fuel and energy compared to fighter jets) by performing maneuvers, so you would want a missile that can out manoeuver the jets by a big margin to prevent it, and significantly increase the chances of hitting the jet.


Same problem is also in Meteor, tho it does outranges any missile in Pakistan's service, so first shot capability is present.

So if you can get the desired range from a solid rocket motor( 3 or 4 pulses, bigger missile) then missiles with solid rocket motors are preferred over airbreathing( ram jet in this case) missiles.

This is also the reason US and Russia are not going for ramjet for their long(200+km) range air to air missiles.

I think we should also go for solid rocket fuel missile with 200-250km max range for primarly use against fighter jets.

while 340+km gandiva can be used primarily for awacs/tanker etc killer role and secondary role against fighter jets.

 

[Satish Sharma Ji]

It would be great as long range awacs killer, but against fast and manurable fighter jets, it so-so, still decent against them, but for super long range air to air missile primarly targeted against fighter jets, it would be better to instead go for a astra mk2 on steroids( more bigger, 3or4 pulse, solid rocket motor) than a ramjet powered missile.

The problem comes with having to maintain decent airflow to the ramjet, just like any other airbreathing engine, ramjets also don't like disturbance in the airflow they are receiving, and when missile constantly changes it's trajectory and perform high g maneuvers that airflow gets chocked out.
Due to which manurablity of ramjets( and airbreathing) missiles is significantly less than manoeuvrability of rocket power missiles.
And given fighter jets while also being airbreathing has lot more fuel, so they constantly try to bleed the missile's energy( missiles have quite limited fuel and energy compared to fighter jets) by performing maneuvers, so you would want a missile that can out manoeuver the jets by a big margin to prevent it, and significantly increase the chances of hitting the jet.


Same problem is also in Meteor, tho it does outranges any missile in Pakistan's service, so first shot capability is present.

So if you can get the desired range from a solid rocket motor( 3 or 4 pulses, bigger missile) then missiles with solid rocket motors are preferred over airbreathing( ram jet in this case) missiles.

This is also the reason US and Russia are not going for ramjet for their long(200+km) range air to air missiles.

I think we should also go for solid rocket fuel missile with 200-250km max range for primarly use against fighter jets.

while 340+km gandiva can be used primarily for awacs/tanker etc killer role and secondary role against fighter jets.

We should follow USA's aim120 D3s progression.

 

[randombully]

We should follow USA's aim120 D3s progression.

It's in pl15 category.
And astra mk2 category( yeah I'm not believing max range is just 130, effective range of 130km is more realitistic).

We need a missile with ~250km max range.
And be highly maneuverable.

Kind of like Russian R-77 m( bigger and heavier than standard R77 which has max range if 80-110km) which has max range of~200km.

While ramjets allow lot of size and weight saving, but unless you carrying it internally( iwb), the size ain't gonna be a problem, it's still just an air to air missile.

 

[randombully]

We should follow USA's aim120 D3s progression.

I would also like to clarify that ramjet air to air missiles are not inherently bad, like a ramjet missile with 300+km range and target is at 130-160km( coming towards you) and you fire the missiles and as it gets closer to target it's start to turn back when it detects the missile coming towards it, the ramjet missile would still have lots of fuel left to chase the jet and play the game where fighter will try to depelete it's Energy, but because lots of energy(fuel) Is still present it will continue to get close and have very decent changes of hitting it.

Or if your primary goal is to force the fighter jet to retreat from a long distance(200+km) than ramjets powered ones are good too.

But If you wish to have higher chances of "hitting" the fast(supersonic capable) manurable targets like fighter jets at loong ranges( 200+km) than rocket motor that does not depend on airflow is much better than airbreathing missiles if you can fulfill the range requirements.

 

[randombully]

We should follow USA's aim120 D3s progression.

If this news is is true, then good news, work for a 3 pulse solid rocket motor astra mk4 missile has started.

So it seems astra mk3 is intended for mainly awacs killer role in long(250-300+km) range and secondary role against fighter jets( at 130-160km range for good kill probability).

DRDO’s Next-Gen BVRAAM: Astra Mk IV to likely Feature Triple Pulse Solid Motor – Indian Defence Research Wing

idrw.org

DRDO to Develop Future-Ready BVRAAM with Enhanced Capabilities – Indian Defence Research Wing

idrw.org

Higher speed and high altitude =fighter jets.
( rocket motor will help in this role due to high maneuverability and also range that 3 pulses and bigger size of missile with provide)

With targeting system designed to me more effective against stealth jets compared to traditional targeting systems used in current missiles.

 

[Satish Sharma Ji]

I would also like to clarify that ramjet air to air missiles are not inherently bad, like a ramjet missile with 300+km range and target is at 130-160km( coming towards you) and you fire the missiles and as it gets closer to target it's start to turn back when it detects the missile coming towards it, the ramjet missile would still have lots of fuel left to chase the jet and play the game where fighter will try to depelete it's Energy, but because lots of energy(fuel) Is still present it will continue to get close and have very decent changes of hitting it.

Or if your primary goal is to force the fighter jet to retreat from a long distance(200+km) than ramjets powered ones are good too.

But If you wish to have higher chances of "hitting" the fast(supersonic capable) manurable targets like fighter jets at loong ranges( 200+km) than rocket motor that does not depend on airflow is much better than airbreathing missiles if you can fulfill the range requirements.

With proliferation of stealth the engagement distance is only going to reduce that's why there is no ramjet missile coming from Trend setter aka USA.
It's not like they haven't made one they had proved baseline technologies like gas generator control valve intakes ramjet combustors all in there high speed Anti radiation demonstrators program much before anyone else did.
Usa is working on missiles like kuda for future which are quite smaller in size and can be carried in numbers. The current ramjet bvr are very capable but they.are primarily oriented toward anti fighter role. You can't have best of both worlds.
SFDR's due to propulsion inherently have long ranges but they won't stand a chance in upcoming anti force multiplier a2a weapons. A bulked up sfdr would be very costly while the existing ones are already so costly. And add to that there manufacturing complexities. I dont oppose SFDR's being mainstay of iaf.

Stealth being common the engagement zone will shrink. The large engagement zone is gone look first shoot first distance will shrink with advent of stealth. The one who would detect first would shoot first and the distance between them would be much lower. What would matter would be the stealth.

Hence the range-energy advantage of SFDR will no longer be that important if current rocket powered are delivering needed punch in that engagement zone between two stealth fighters.
while for long range shots against force multiplier much simpler and effective options would make sense. Prefered big rocket powered missile like pl17/aim174b along with 3 pulsed motor which are under development. It's just SFDR doesn't stand up with its pros in this equation.
And that's why USA never went that way.
That's why usa has 2 staged aim260 under development it not just provide a longer shot with conventional rocket motor but can be carried in more number with lone first stage kinda like kuda under development one.

Eventually when 4.5 gen will be retired either SFDR would adapt with much different form or would go extinct.

In order to reduce engagement duration.
I suppose they would evolve for much higher sustained speeds something rocket powered ones can't deliver fitted in internal weapons bay.

 

[Patriots]

There are many tender s from bdl , for subsystem s of helina
So helina is in production

 

[randombully]

With proliferation of stealth the engagement distance is only going to reduce that's why there is no ramjet missile coming from Trend setter aka USA.
It's not like they haven't made one they had proved baseline technologies like gas generator control valve intakes ramjet combustors all in there high speed Anti radiation demonstrators program much before anyone else did.View attachment 32806
Usa is working on missiles like kuda for future which are quite smaller in size and can be carried in numbers. The current ramjet bvr are very capable but they.are primarily oriented toward anti fighter role. You can't have best of both worlds.
SFDR's due to propulsion inherently have long ranges but they won't stand a chance in upcoming anti force multiplier a2a weapons. A bulked up sfdr would be very costly while the existing ones are already so costly. And add to that there manufacturing complexities. I dont oppose SFDR's being mainstay of iaf.

Stealth being common the engagement zone will shrink. The large engagement zone is gone look first shoot first distance will shrink with advent of stealth. The one who would detect first would shoot first and the distance between them would be much lower. What would matter would be the stealth.

Hence the range-energy advantage of SFDR will no longer be that important if current rocket powered are delivering needed punch in that engagement zone between two stealth fighters.
while for long range shots against force multiplier much simpler and effective options would make sense. Prefered big rocket powered missile like pl17/aim174b along with 3 pulsed motor which are under development. It's just SFDR doesn't stand up with its pros in this equation.
And that's why USA never went that way.
That's why usa has 2 staged aim260 under development it not just provide a longer shot with conventional rocket motor but can be carried in more number with lone first stage kinda like kuda under development one.

Eventually when 4.5 gen will be retired either SFDR would adapt with much different form or would go extinct.

In order to reduce engagement duration.
I suppose they would evolve for much higher sustained speeds something rocket powered ones can't deliver fitted in internal weapons bay.

Us is developing aim-260 jtam with minimum threshold max range of 200+km and potentially reaching 300km.

Russia has r77m with ~200km max range.

Both are rocket powered.

You have to understand, loyal wingman will act as sensors so stealth jets will stay behind while carrying mossiles( bvr) and non stealth missile trucks like f15, su30 will stay even more behind( 150-(200+km), so long range missiles are a need.
Plus long range missiles are also useful to intercept against incoming antiship/land attack missiles, while short range can be used and good against subsonic, but against fast supersonic missiles you want to intercept them as far away from as possible.

So wvr missiles will likely go extinct, smaller wvr size but range similar to bvr missiles will replace them.
100-160km range bvr will still have their place.
And extra long range (200-300km) will also come into play.