DRDO and PSU's

There was a notam for a missile test...most probably air lunched , or naval
The notam was for 6-7 nov with max range 800 km
Most probably , brahmos may be ....no news on that


View: https://x.com/detresfa_/status/1852972120017379667/photo/1

Another notam is on 15-17 nov

May be a balllasitic missile test


View: https://x.com/detresfa_/status/1855195889150939486



Heard that itcm ...gonna test in this month ....no news on that .....
Itc chandipur is busy now a days , many tests are happening no news ...though
 
Corvus Splendens said:
INB4 it gets rejected again. The excuse issue this time will probably be lower firing range.

View: https://x.com/8r02s125558/status/1855475198457213197
Click to expand...

Mobility is low but as you shoot way farther, the options of counter battery fire decreases and you get more time to scoot.
Vs
Mobility is high but you now shoot at a shorter range, the options of counter battery fire increases and you get less time to scoot.

A pretty funny conundrum...with the end result being more or less the same.
 
Ayan Barat said:
Mobility is low but as you shoot way farther, the options of counter battery fire decreases and you get more time to scoot.
Vs
Mobility is high but you now shoot at a shorter range, the options of counter battery fire increases and you get less time to scoot.

A pretty funny conundrum...with the end result being more or less the same.
Click to expand...
Army is likely focused on mobility here. They are used to handle Dhanus/FH77 towed guns, and are probably confident of repositioning a lighter gun in time. We give the army a lot of flak here, but they don't screw around with logistics. The heavier 25 liter gun has it's merits, and it'd be ideal if both variants were inducted. They'd shave off a lot of weight with a titanium barrel. I suspect the MGS will carry the heavier gun, and the lighter gun will be towed only.
1731229002805.png
 
Corvus Splendens said:
Army is likely focused on mobility here. They are used to handle Dhanus/FH77 towed guns, and are probably confident of repositioning a lighter gun in time. We give the army a lot of flak here, but they don't screw around with logistics. The heavier 25 liter gun has it's merits, and it'd be ideal if both variants were inducted. They'd shave off a lot of weight with a titanium barrel. I suspect the MGS will carry the heavier gun, and the lighter gun will be towed only.
View attachment 14847
Click to expand...

Titanium will make the system way too costly, though.
 
Yeah, it can also be a reason.

But then again a more elegant way of solving this could have been a single modular platform (either Dhanush or ATAGS) and the options to swap between a 39 cal small and 52 cal large chamber barrel based on the deployment sector like people do with 5.56/300BLK guns.

As for this
Corvus Splendens said:
titanium barrel
Click to expand...
Naaah my Man...titanium is a big no no for gun barrels.

The biggest reason is thermal conductivity; for steel it's 45W/(mK) and that for titanium it's just 11.5W/(mK). This slows down the conduction of heat form the bore surface to the other surface of barrel where it can dissipated in the atmosphere. The resulting accumulation of heat causes uneven stress zones in the barrel with even chances of catastrophic rupture.

Another factor is wearing properties of titanium. And not just that but titanium is also more prone to suffers from a problem unique to it called galling.
 
Blood+ said:
Titanium will make the system way too costly, though.
Click to expand...
Ayan Barat said:
Yeah, it can also be a reason.

But then again a more elegant way of solving this could have been a single modular platform (either Dhanush or ATAGS) and the options to swap between a 39 cal small and 52 cal large chamber barrel based on the deployment sector like people do with 5.56/300BLK guns.

As for this

Naaah my Man...titanium is a big no no for gun barrels.

The biggest reason is thermal conductivity; for steel it's 45W/(mK) and that for titanium it's just 11.5W/(mK). This slows down the conduction of heat form the bore surface to the other surface of barrel where it can dissipated in the atmosphere. The resulting accumulation of heat causes uneven stress zones in the barrel with even chances of catastrophic rupture.

Another factor is wearing properties of titanium. And not just that but titanium is also more prone to suffers from a problem unique to it called galling.
Click to expand...
Only so many ways to make it light and maintaining chamber capacity. Regardless, I don't think the Army would induct Titanium barrels in bulk. Electrochemical Machining cost alone would take a big bite from the budget. I don't know exactly what they are doing to shave off 3 tons from the gun, but it may come at a cost of reduced barrel life. It'd Be interesting to see the barrel life comparison between an FH77 and the 15 ton ATAGS.
 
Corvus Splendens said:
Only so many ways to make it light and maintaining chamber capacity. Regardless, I don't think the Army would induct Titanium barrels in bulk. Electrochemical Machining cost alone would take a big bite from the budget. I don't know exactly what they are doing to shave off 3 tons from the gun, but it may come at a cost of reduced barrel life. It'd Be interesting to see the barrel life comparison between an FH77 and the 15 ton ATAGS.
Click to expand...
Arrrrrreee...you just can't use titanium in a gun barrel; at least with the current available technology. Period.

This is the exact same reason why we're yet to see large scale adoption of carbon fibre barrels; theoretically carbon has the best conductivity but because it's held together using an epoxy the overall thermal conductivity is far lower. And even when used, carbon fibre barrels are strictly limited to either hunting rifle or Precision Shooting Rifles; both cases where a far lower volume of fire would be used.

These are the sub-assemblies of a M777 without the barrel and breech
IMG_20241110_153135.jpg
These are the typical places where steel is replaced by titanium or even aluminium to save weight.
 
Blood+ said:
So that they can later import K9A3s from 'good' Korea.
Click to expand...
Yes thats what came to my mind : that this way it could be a way of allowing multiple guns to complete.

Anyway for our industries: keep originak atags alive and export more. And develop even more longer range atillery.Other countries shall dig.
Indian Army shall do about turn and ask for Atags ++ in about decade again.
 
shade2 said:
We need the SPAAG one of K9 like 300 more units.
Pakeez have burger-made SPAAGs for a total of 500 units
Click to expand...

K9A3s are proposed L/58 variants of the current version. What I'm saying is that by curbing the current ATAGS, the Army brass is just keeping their options open - option to fill their pockets I mean.
 
Last edited:
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