DRDO and PSU's

[SwordOfDarkness]

I think it's pretty evident our generals are operating with an antiquated mindset or at any rate it's a pre Ukraine mindset . If regular artillery isn't going to cut it with mobility being an issue then mounting ULH on a vehicle should be explored.

If there are limitations on range due to the calibre & mobility is still an issue then we should be exploring long range rockets on reverse slopes . Unfortunately the pace of development here too is glacial.

The general bought up a point I found interesting, but I dont agree with how he responded to it.....


He said atrillery cant do shoot and scoot in mountain due to terrain issues, so it is a "dig in and fight" thing.

But that doesnt solve how 15 ton gun>18ton gun ques.

One thing he said was they used the pack gun (75/24 pack gun, <1 ton in weight). for this, but I think heavy mortars can do the same job (in some cases even better due to higher angle of firing) with much more protability (man portable).....


Basically

If terrain suitable to transport heavy arty, take ATAGS.

If 18 is just a little over, then take dhanush/bofors (we will have some 300 total ig after orders finished, enough for this niche)

If even that doesnt work, light 105 MGS should be best, get a near 20km range with scoot and shoot from roadside if needed.

If no vehicle is possible, put a section with a 120mm mortar and just manpack it (or animals, both work ig with newer mortars like K6)

 

[Hawkeye]

To you maybe.

I've asked around a lot regarding this during when I was helping Kuntal model the Tejas & Mark2... The HSLD is longer & doesn't fit Jaguar's tandem carrier. The old bombs will remain till remains in service, for massed groud-attack. Takes lesser space.
View attachment 16415

The HSLD is much lower drag & we use it in future. Currently lighter jet doing a bomb run with lesser payload uses it for efficiency. Such runs thus happen to be smaller target orientedView attachment 16417


Sudarshan beard on the older bomb has been discarded because of same reasons, excessive drag & vibration at high speeds. Going ahead we'll be using either of the two below.
View attachment 16418View attachment 16419

Are you sure PGHSLD is even gonna see service with IAF. Have seen production pics of LRGB and news of its orders but strangely nothing about PGHSLD has been mentioned in past few years.
Even TARA came out of nowhere.
And then we have REK kits for HSLD and GP bombs mentioned in positive indigenous list.

 

[Ayan Barat]

To you maybe.

Ahh thanks

But then even it doesn't make much sense. On Jags the centreline and inboard pylons use a rack to accomodate two tandem bombs. Two HSLD in tandem may be bit too long for the centreline pylon but for the wing pylons it won't be an issue; Jags regularly carry the huge 1200l drop tanks on these pylons. You can very well designed a new double rack.

You correctly pointed the fact that HSLD 450s are longer in range than 1000lb MCs and takes up lesser space. If volume is constant (both 450kg) and you increase the length then this means HSLD 450 should have slightly smaller diameter than the MCs. So you can very well carry them in dual racks on all the three pylons quite easily.

One counterpoint that you can come up with would be that the width of 2x HSLD 450s on centreline pylon would be too much and might interfere with the landing gears. But Jags were designed to carry a large reconnaissance pod on the centreline pylon.