DRDO and PSU's

[Patriots]

View: https://youtu.be/2IEbTnv4-oo?si=py_CHCWVKSalnH-5

 

[Azaad]

Really
ADE was behind the fly by wire controls for Tejas. They did this in less than a decade with peanuts.
Itcm is another success from ADE.
I hope Archer ng would achieve best what a piston powered aircraft could.

CLAW from NAL developed the FCL of the Tejas. ADE developed the DFCC of the Tejas. As far as ITCM goes on paper it's been developed by the ADE . We don't know what's going on behind the scenes. I say this coz on paper ADE is also developing the Ghatak .

However we are also aware that the entire team along with the project was offloaded to the ADE from the ADA by the then DG DRDO & it was specifically done coz the ADE didn't enjoy a good track record in executing successful projects .

Look at the Nirbhay / ITCM project & see how many years have they taken from concept to final certification. Mind you the project is still under testing.

 

[samsaptaka]

I heavily criticize the IAF, but I strongly doubt that Safran would offer anything beyond directly selling their core. They would siphon off all the money, and we would receive no ToT under any circumstances.

We'd end up back at square one. To make progress with the Kaveri, we need the "Know-Why," not just the "Know-How" of the hot section, which is unlikely to be provided. The fully built hot section would likely come from France, with HAL merely assembling it, similar to the Shakti engines.

Still would have been more reliable than depending on GE completely? Meanwhile we could have tried to fully indigenize Kaveri both hot and cold sections. This IMO could have completely avoided the current deplorable delays in delivery of Mk1A....

I'm very sure IAF having got the taste of the fuel efficiency and reliability of GE were not convinced of GTRE doing the same with Kaveri

 

[shade2]

Still would have been more reliable than depending on GE completely? Meanwhile we could have tried to fully indigenize Kaveri both hot and cold sections. This IMO could have completely avoided the current deplorable delays in delivery of Mk1A....

The jhumla back then was by decoupling Kaveri from Tejas program we could get it flying and ready faster by depending on the quality, 10 foot, gigachad GE engine.
The GE engine is ofc all of the above but it's vendor nation is a massive two-faced, scheming kike but this factoid never occurred to our esteemed Baboo[n]s who normally are very (((detail oriented)))

 

[samsaptaka]

The jhumla back then was by decoupling Kaveri from Tejas program we could get it flying and ready faster by depending on the quality, 10 foot, gigachad GE engine.
The GE engine is ofc all of the above but it's vendor nation is a massive two-faced, scheming kike but this factoid never occurred to our esteemed Baboo[n]s who normally are very (((detail oriented)))

At that time that was the only way Parrikar (aum shanti) could shove Tejas down IAF backside. What I am unable to understand is why Kaveri dev didn't proceed in 2 tracks parallelely after the above ? Viz - One track aiming for complete indig. and another track aiming for integration of Snecma hot core (without any ToT) so as to decouple the risk of US sabotage

 

[fire starter]

View: https://x.com/ANI/status/1857055619401777327?t=X4rQQB9bkpuIDdbXOfRm9g&s=19

 

[Varoon4]

Indigenous SDR's on naval air assets

Romeos done, Navy to install indigenous software-defined radio in all its aerial assets

SDR, which has been developed by Navy along with BEL, is already fitted in surface ships. Device helps in carrying out signal processing using radio frequency communication systems.

theprint.in

 

[Fatalis]

I have a gut feeling that AD-1 and AD-2 won't be going onboard NGD because of their dimensions. Project Kusha will act as Anti ASBM for the Navy.

 

[Ayan Barat]

I have a gut feeling that AD-1 and AD-2 won't be going onboard NGD because of their dimensions. Project Kusha will act as Anti ASBM for the Navy.

There can be multiple reasons because of which AD-1/2 might not get into NGD like the problem of Hot-Cold launching or maybe cost...but I'm pretty sure dimension is not one of them.
Assuming the wheel diameter to be 1,400mm (typical for these kinds of trucks) the whole canister comes out to be around 13,000mm

Also based on the wheel and cab arrangement I've this feeling that this launcher is more or less the same standard launcher used on Nirbhay

And Nirbhay is pretty much a sub-BrahMos sized missile

So definitely it'll be bigger but not so much that you can't mount it. Even if there's space problem in the bow then also you can very easily use the mid-ship to mount the VLS.

 

[Blood+]

There can be multiple reasons because of which AD-1/2 might not get into NGD like the problem of Hot-Cold launching or maybe cost...but I'm pretty sure dimension is not one of them.
Assuming the wheel diameter to be 1,400mm (typical for these kinds of trucks) the whole canister comes out to be around 13,000mm
View attachment 15355
Also based on the wheel and cab arrangement I've this feeling that this launcher is more or less the same standard launcher used on Nirbhay
View attachment 15356
And Nirbhay is pretty much a sub-BrahMos sized missile

So definitely it'll be bigger but not so much that you can't mount it. Even if there's space problem in the bow then also you can very easily use the mid-ship to mount the VLS.

Or have a raised platform on the bow like they did with P 15A and Bs.

 

[Bhaubai]

MDL on twitter is only Psu posting content related to their work unlike HAL and other who only post jahdu, poocha, swach bharat lawda lasan

View: https://x.com/MazagonDockLtd/status/1857312721697689741?t=egg2RNFrWKAaSNQZ9KMeLQ&s=19

 

[Corvus Splendens]

From IDRW. My blood pressure is already rising. So take your pick gentlemen, K-2 ? T-14 ? EMBT ?


Also this implies the Zorawar will be replaced, with scope for even more foreign OEM shenanigans.


Can someone verify this crap ?

 

[shade2]

EMBT

We will be China's ukraine

 

[Ayan Barat]

From IDRW. My blood pressure is already rising. So take your pick gentlemen, K-2 ? T-14 ? EMBT ?
View attachment 15371View attachment 15369

Also this implies the Zorawar will be replaced, with scope for even more foreign OEM shenanigans.
View attachment 15370

Can someone verify this crap ?

T-14 : Exponentially better crew protection compared to previous Teas but still lacking compared to contemporaries. Also a single hit in carousel and you lose your whole turret...and now just three of your buddies are chilling there in a burnt out hull with just an engine.

KF-51/EMBT : All bells and whistles perhaps the best tank, but on paper. Even if we ignore the "still untested" thing the biggest problem would be it's high cost being a western design and its high cost being far away from economies of scale.

K-2 : Perhaps the best option but strictly with one modification; all ammunition in the bustle auto-loader instead of half being in the hull. Have all the features of future tank but is cheaper given it's a Korean tech. Also a lot has been produced and inducted by other nations driving the cost down. And on top of everything, L&T already has an understanding with Korean tech given the ToT of K9 Vajra.

Spoiler: Btw, my honest reaction to this news

 

[Ayan Barat]

Also this implies the Zorawar will be replaced, with scope for even more foreign OEM shenanigans.

And then we'd hear news that to boost Atmanirbharta and as an encouragement to local manufacturing the order would be split into 3:2 among L1 and L2.

So by 2030 we'd be having 50 Zorawars, 180 Zorawar Mk-1A (Tata) and 120 Zorawar Mk-1A (L&T).

Logistics goes Brrrrr

 

[Blood+]

From IDRW. My blood pressure is already rising. So take your pick gentlemen, K-2 ? T-14 ? EMBT ?
View attachment 15371View attachment 15369

Also this implies the Zorawar will be replaced, with scope for even more foreign OEM shenanigans.
View attachment 15370

Can someone verify this crap ?

T-14.

 

[Blood+]

T-14 : Exponentially better crew protection compared to previous Teas but still lacking compared to contemporaries.

WRONG!! It has the absolute BEST crew protection amongst all the current generation MBTs, including that of the latest blocks of Abrams!! It achieves so by moving the entire crew into the hull, which is several times less likely to get hit than the turret - both from top attack ATGMs/ drones and other tanks.

Also a single hit in carousel and you lose your whole turret...and now just three of your buddies are chilling there in a burnt out hull with just an engine.

A single hit to the bustle ammo rack of any NATO style MBT would result in the same as the Russo-Ukrainian war has proved, as have the Houthis against Saudi Abrams. At least in T-14's case, the whole ammo is completely isolated by a thick-ass bulkhead rather than a thinner (and obviously weaker as there are more points of failure) blast door!!

KF-51/EMBT : All bells and whistles perhaps the best tank, but on paper. Even if we ignore the "still untested" thing the biggest problem would be it's high cost being a western design and its high cost being far away from economies of scale.

Not even close!! It retains the same unprotected hull ammo racks, therefore still as much the death trap as its predecessors. Although, in terms of firepower, it does trump over the others.

K-2 : Perhaps the best option but strictly with one modification; all ammunition in the bustle auto-loader instead of half being in the hull. Have all the features of future tank but is cheaper given it's a Korean tech. Also a lot has been produced and inducted by other nations driving the cost down. And on top of everything, L&T already has an understanding with Korean tech given the ToT of K9 Vajra.

Nah, the turret just sucks balls, plus still too expensive for what capabilities it brings to the table.

Spoiler: Btw, my honest reaction to this news

View attachment 15372

Agreed.

 

[Ayan Barat]

I myself said this

Exponentially better crew protection compared to previous

To which you said it's Wrong in bold and all caps

WRONG!!

Then corrected me saying exactly the same thing that I said

It has the absolute BEST crew protection amongst all the current generation MBTs, including that of the latest blocks of Abrams!! It achieves so by moving the entire crew into the hull, which is several times less likely to get hit than the turret - both from top attack ATGMs/ drones and other tanks.

Abe saale Blood

And by the way, that "lacking" part was not for crew protection. It was for other things like having a fixed APS system, a vulnerable top, still using two piece ammunition that limits the maximum length of APFSDS...

A single hit to the bustle ammo rack would result in the same as the Russo-Ukrainian war has proved, as have the Houthis against Saudi Abrams. At least in T-14's case, the whole ammo is completely isolated by a thick-ass bulkhead rather than a thinner (and obviously weaker as there are more points of failure) blast door!!

First thing first; blast "doors" are only used when there manual loading. As soon as you introduce a auto-loader, especially a bustle mounted the whole blast door thing gets reduced to a single 200mm port (just enough to pass a single round). This teal colored thing inside the orange thing

Now coming to your "more points of failure" thing...what will happen to a bustle auto-loader that has more points of failure when it's hit? Exactly, it'll fail. And that's what you want. There's no way you can handle the pressure generated by 15 120mm shells propellant so you want the system to fail and vent out the pressure. That's why the whole top portion of a bustle auto-loader is blow out panel.

And now here's your T-14 with its carousel auto-loader.

And there absolutely no points of failure...which again is not a good thing. There's no blowout panel, rather the whole 15t turret IS THE BLOWOUT PANEL. So in best case scenario the turret would fly off and in worst case scenario the hull would get split in half from the side. Definitely you'd be safe in the front capsule but the only defence you'd now have would be your personal rifles. But in case of a bustle auto-loader you'd still have atleast two heavy machine guns left even after a catastrophic detonation.

Not even close!! It retains the same unprotected hull ammo racks, therefore still as much the death trap as its predecessors. Although, in terms of firepower, it does trump over the others.

In EMBT, yes. But in case of KF-51 all the ammo's in bustle.

Nah, the turret just sucks balls, plus still too expensive for what capabilities it brings to the table.

You need to pay a price for capability, that's how things happens in a real world my Man, especially when your in-house R&D is screwed big times.

Or if price is too big of an issue then you can go for a more subtle innovation...like our indigenous one, placing a T-90 turret on top of a T-72 hull; the Atharva.

 

[Blood+]

I myself said this

To which you said it's Wrong in bold and all caps

Then corrected me saying exactly the same thing that I said

Then you should have clarified it better, na?? The way you framed that sentence made it seem like you were claiming the T-14s to be inferior to contemporary western style MBTs in terms of crew protection. You should have mentioned that you meant it lacked in other segments, which I can definitely agree with.

Abe saale Blood

And by the way, that "lacking" part was not for crew protection. It was for other things like having a fixed APS system, a vulnerable top, still using two piece ammunition that limits the maximum length of APFSDS...

Yeah, I see that now, although the two-piece ammo is less of a problem in the T-14 as in this new autoloader, they have the whole height of the hull to play with unlike the autoloaders in the older T-series MBTs.

First thing first; blast "doors" are only used when there manual loading.

Correct.

As soon as you introduce a auto-loader, especially a bustle mounted the whole blast door thing gets reduced to a single 200mm port (just enough to pass a single round). This teal colored thing inside the orange thing
View attachment 15385

Again, correct, but that tiny window is still a weak spot and a hazard as compared to a thick solid bulkhead, even if less so than a blast door found on the Leopards and Abrams.

Now coming to your "more points of failure" thing...what will happen to a bustle auto-loader that has more points of failure when it's hit? Exactly, it'll fail. And that's what you want. There's no way you can handle the pressure generated by 15 120mm shells propellant so you want the system to fail and vent out the pressure. That's why the whole top portion of a bustle auto-loader is blow out panel.

By point of failure, I didn't mean the bustle auto loader!! I meant the blast door mechanism itself!! The doors (or shutters in case of the autoloaders) are exponentially more likely to fail (especially when the racks are full or near full) than a solid thick heavy plate of metal welded into the structure itself!!

Watch this -

And now here's your T-14 with its carousel auto-loader.
View attachment 15386
And there absolutely no points of failure...which again is not a good thing. There's no blowout panel, rather the whole 15t turret IS THE BLOWOUT PANEL. So in best case scenario the turret would fly off and in worst case scenario the hull would get split in half from the side.

True but it won't be that much different for something like an Abrams or a Leopard either, even if all the safety protocols work perfectly. Well, the turret may not become a space ship but there won't be much left there to salvage regardless.

Definitely you'd be safe in the front capsule but the only defence you'd now have would be your personal rifles. But in case of a bustle auto-loader you'd still have atleast two heavy machine guns left even after a catastrophic detonation.

Highly unlikely!! If the bustle racks does brew up, then you can kiss your tank good bye, forget the machine guns on the top, the fire, in all likelihood will sip into the crew compartment as well (shocking, I know)!! The best you may hope for then is for the crew to escape unharmed.

Remember, those safety features such as the blast doors and blowout panels are put in there to save the crew, not the vehicle itself as people have come so erroneously to believe!! The scores of burnt out Leopards and Abrams bear testimony to this fact.

Well, under some rare circumstances, you might be able to salvage it but the whole turret would need either replacing or extensive repair works.

Here, take a looksee -

As you may notice, the propellant charges burn hot enough to melt right through the bustle and then the engine deck to finally set the engine itself on fire, which then would inevitably sip into the crew compartment unless the turret is turned sideways.

In EMBT, yes. But in case of KF-51 all the ammo's in bustle.

Sorry, I got those two mixed up, my bad. KF-51 would be a great choice indeed.

You need to pay a price for capability, that's how things happens in a real world my Man, especially when your in-house R&D is screwed big times.

Or if price is too big of an issue then you can go for a more subtle innovation...like our indigenous one, placing a T-90 turret on top of a T-72 hull; the Atharva.

Price is not the only issue here - the K2 itself is rather poorly designed with a bunch of structural weak spots strewn all around the vehicles.
At any rate, I would pick the T-90MS turret any day over that abomination they have on the K2. Well, may be I'd change the ERA arrangement to something like this instead
-

from side -