DRDO and PSU's

GodEmperorDoom said:
There's a lot of online discussion, particularly among Americans, suggesting that stealthy subsonic cruise missiles are superior to their supersonic counterparts. The main argument is that the stealthy missiles are nearly invisible to radar. However, this thinking seems outdated, possibly stemming from past encounters with Soviet-era ships that had inferior electronics. It doesn't account for the fact that many Tier-2 navies now, aside from the massive PLAN, deploy advanced GaN AESA radars. Why assume that evading radar will be easy? And aside from radar, what about electro-optical (EO) sensors, which can track sea-skimming missiles by detecting the heat signature? Even stealthy missiles can't completely hide their thermal footprint, unless one assumes EO sensors are ineffective in other countries' systems.
Click to expand...
A lot of these assumptions come from DCS "simulations"
 
GodEmperorDoom said:
There's a lot of online discussion, particularly among Americans, suggesting that stealthy subsonic cruise missiles are superior to their supersonic counterparts. The main argument is that the stealthy missiles are nearly invisible to radar. However, this thinking seems outdated, possibly stemming from past encounters with Soviet-era ships that had inferior electronics. It doesn't account for the fact that many Tier-2 navies now, aside from the massive PLAN, deploy advanced GaN AESA radars. Why assume that evading radar will be easy? And aside from radar, what about electro-optical (EO) sensors, which can track sea-skimming missiles by detecting the heat signature? Even stealthy missiles can't completely hide their thermal footprint, unless one assumes EO sensors are ineffective in other countries' systems.
Click to expand...
Remember t=d/v from middle school?
Both try to achieve this using the exact same method...reducing the time or t. The only difference is that one reduces it by increasing the v and the other does this by decreasing d.

A BrahMos would be picked up earlier than a LRASM by the radars given it's higher RCS but as it's travelling at Mach 3 it would give very little time to the ship to react. A LRASM would hardly enter transonic regime but as it'd be picked up late compared to BrahMos it would give very little time to engage.

So at this point (I'd say something around 2015) both the approaches resulted pretty much the same.

Now comes the tricky part, even if you've picked up a stealthy missile on your radar how are you going to kill it? Its stealth would be designed around X-band so your missile's seekers would also struggle to maintain a lock-on. If designed properly then IR signature would also be low. Not to mention something like LRASM would be using passive seekers, so you can't just blindly fire an ARM (RIM-116 is an ARM too) at it and still you'd get a kill. And even after all these the missile would certainly have a ton of ECM, ECCM or even decoys.

As for a missile relying only on supersonics...it's just a matter of how fast can your SAMs respond.
The standard target at which US Navy has been practising anti-missile engagements for nearly two decades is GQM-163 Coyote; a Mach 3 "missile". Even we've successfully intercepted one with Barak-8. So it can be said that at this point the stealthy approach is having a slight upper hand.

But in weapons development we look beyond X is better than Y and try to come up with a Z having all the pros of X and Y with none's cons. This is also something like convergent evolution where two different platforms, completely isolated from each other evolve to ultimately become something similar. Like how Germans wanted a lighter rifle/machine gun and Russians wanted a more powerful SMG but ultimately they both arrived on the same solution; StG-44 and AK-47.

So to answer your question of which one's better; the one that does both.
A BrahMos-2 that would have reduced RCS with passive seekers and a LRASM-2 which can attain Mach 3 in the endgame phase...so basically the exact same missile.
 
Last edited:
705-Lira said:
I guess LRDE is already at work developing a Long range anti-stealth radar


View: https://x.com/GODOFPARADOXES/status/1721151622795891186?t=tEmJ91MKE5_Toz_uS8CgUw&s=19
Click to expand...


There are radar bands that can detect stealth fighters. Detecting is one thing, tracking and targeting them is another thing. Just knowing that they are there is useless if you have no way of tracking and targeting them with missiles.

We have to totally defeat the first shot first kill advantage that stealth planes currently have.
 
Anants said:

View: https://x.com/zone5aviation/status/1855903778534215682


View: https://x.com/ReunionSoviet/status/1856010917055443361
Click to expand...

Just goes to show you the pace of progress of this program . Wangfeng Aviation acquired Diamond Aircraft the parent company of Austro Engines in 2017-18.

The arrangement to acquire these engines must have definitely predated this acquisition by years .

So what now ? Nothing much . First our favourite lab flies & certifies this drone then changes the engine flies & re certifies the drone which would involve another delay in a much delayed program .

ADE is not a serious organization. MoD should take steps to disband the lab , distribute it's workshare among sister labs where it can & private bodies in other cases as well fire all the scientists there .

It's high time someone is held accountable & paid a price . We need to set examples .
 
Azaad said:
Just goes to show you the pace of progress of this program . Wangfeng Aviation acquired Diamond Aircraft the parent company of Austro Engines in 2017-18.

The arrangement to acquire these engines must have definitely predated this acquisition by years .

So what now ? Nothing much . First our favourite lab flies & certifies this drone then changes the engine flies & re certifies the drone which would involve another delay in a much delayed program .

ADE is not a serious organization. MoD should take steps to disband the lab , distribute it's workshare among sister labs where it can & private bodies in other cases as well fire all the scientists there .

It's high time someone is held accountable & paid a price . We need to set examples .
Click to expand...
its more likely glacial red tapism that caused delay than anything else. Its understandable till recently they were trying to refine Tapas till recently.
 
Azaad said:
Just goes to show you the pace of progress of this program . Wangfeng Aviation acquired Diamond Aircraft the parent company of Austro Engines in 2017-18.

The arrangement to acquire these engines must have definitely predated this acquisition by years .

So what now ? Nothing much . First our favourite lab flies & certifies this drone then changes the engine flies & re certifies the drone which would involve another delay in a much delayed program .

ADE is not a serious organization. MoD should take steps to disband the lab , distribute it's workshare among sister labs where it can & private bodies in other cases as well fire all the scientists there .

It's high time someone is held accountable & paid a price . We need to set examples .
Click to expand...

for VRDE 180 HP engine development project to reach it's conclusion, a flying prototype needs to done first. there is only so much testing that can be done on ground at high altitudes.

folks wanted India to spend more on R&D, well this is how R&D projects will look like. not everything is a well laid out predictable path, and a guaranteed success.
 
ezsasa said:
for VRDE 180 HP engine development project to reach it's conclusion, a flying prototype needs to done first. there is only so much testing that can be done on ground at high altitudes.

folks wanted India to spend more on R&D, well this is how R&D projects will look like. not everything is a well laid out predictable path, and a guaranteed success.
Click to expand...
The issue here is how did the Tapas / Archer program end up / proceed with a Chinese make engine .

Once it was clear that the said company was acquired by a Chinese organization what were the steps taken to ameliorate the situation if any .

I mean even without a government circular or notification to the effect it's common sense we ought not to be going in for a Chinese component consciously especially if it is a government defence lab .

Would we have done so if it was a Paxtani company instead of a Chinese one ?
 
I'm going on an opposite tangent...what exactly is the problem in using a Chinese engine during development?
An engine's an air-gapped, mostly mechanical thing so it's nothing like some software system that can be hacked. Also for R&D and prototype development you need low cost, rapidly replaceable components. I guess most here don't have much insight into the manufacturing scene here in India; just try getting quotation for 5-axis CNC machining a part here Vs doing that in China + importing it. Also it's not like they ordered it from AliExpress, rather the OEM was acquired by a Chinese firm...even after 15 years, Volvo still has the same reputation.

Definitely it's something that shouldn't have happened in the first place but c'mon, this much hue and cry
 
Azaad said:
The issue here is how did the Tapas / Archer program end up / proceed with a Chinese make engine .

Once it was clear that the said company was acquired by a Chinese organization what were the steps taken to ameliorate the situation if any .

I mean even without a government circular or notification to the effect it's common sense we ought not to be going in for a Chinese component consciously especially if it is a government defence lab .

Would we have done so if it was a Paxtani company instead of a Chinese one ?
Click to expand...

what matters is which engine goes on production variant, preferably a domestically designed and certified one at some point in time.

if it was murican or british or german engine, discussion would still be the same.
it it was murican, some one would have mentioned hafta.
if it was british, some one would have mentioned corbham.
if it was german, some one would have mentioned zorawar engine delay.

we have to assume, project managers of this archer project have already gone thru all possibilities and decided this austrian engine is the best way forward from a technical standpoint.

off topic but, as far as dependencies go.
US continues to pay russia one billion $ a year, for their nuclear fuel.

U.S. Reactors Still Run on Russian Uranium​

foreignpolicy.com

U.S. Reactors Still Run on Russian Uranium

But Washington and its partners are working to change that.
foreignpolicy.com foreignpolicy.com
 
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