DRDO and PSU's

> Need for accuracy in MLRS
I've already said it multiple times but today I'm coming with data on how accurate or to be honest, inaccurate MLRS are.
This is official poster of Pinaka-II; the unguided one
Screenshot_2024-11-27-11-22-43-65_6bcd734b3b4b52977458a65c801426b0.webp
1.5% of range at 60km of max range would be...0.9km. This number becomes bonkers when you compare it with that of tube artillery firing cheap unguided HE shells...M549A1
IMG_20241127_114219.webp
Almost half the deviation of MLRS
Infact we also have exact data comparing the dispersion of unguided Vs guided rocket artillery at a constant distance but I'm sure about the source of this data...so I don't know

> GMLRS
Each GMLRS is guided using Honeywell's GG1308 ring laser gyroscope, Honeywell's RBA-500 and NavStrike GPS module.
Someone was asking why it was so accurate...you can get specifications for each of them in open source.

> Accuracy of BrahMos Vs Pinaka
There can be multiple factors that may ultimately contribute to the contrast in the accuracy like the presence of an intake channel, better INS or geometry. Without getting the exact bias and drift values of the INS used in BrahMos it'd be foolish to comment on it so other than that I'd say there are three things that may contribute to its accuracy.
• Increased stability
IMG_20241127_005211.webp
There are more surfaces and also comparatively bigger on BrahMos
• Different trajectory
IMG_20241127_005325.webp
Pinaka follows a traditional ballistic trajectory with more chances of deviation than BrahMos which follows a bit unorthodox one
• Powered flight
We know that in the endgame phase a BrahMos performs S-maneuvers or climbs to dive down and as both are extremely energy consuming, it's safe to assume that atleast up until that point the engine on a BrahMos is lit and providing some thrust. (A vertical line on the trajectory in the above pic shows the theoretical thrust cut-off point for both the systems.) As BrahMos has a way longer power availability it's chances of accuracy also increases.

> Blast radius Vs CEP
• In GMLRS you get a 90kg one with 1,82,000 tungsten fragments, blast radius is not published but there are multiple videos showing it to be quite good and the CEP is 2-5m. Basically the CEP is just a small fraction of the lethal radius.
InCollage_20241127_102610640.webp
• In Pinaka you get a 100kg one with 20,000 tungsten fragments, blast radius of 60m (backward calculated from the Mean Area of Effectiveness of 12000sq m) and a CEP of <30m
images.webp
The CEP figures of 60-80m is from an older poster
Screenshot_2024-11-27-10-51-14-07_6bcd734b3b4b52977458a65c801426b0.webp
In newer ones it comes down to 30m
Screenshot_2024-11-27-10-50-45-32_6bcd734b3b4b52977458a65c801426b0.webp
It's an impressive feat to half the CEP and deserve to be appreciated. But on a flip side it also means we're closer to the saturation point.

> Cost
• In the poster by DRDO itself the quoted figure of GMLRS is from 2013.
IMG_20241127_110343.webp
• But we should look at 2024's cost. As per the last disclosed FMS report it was just $110,000
Screenshot_2024-11-27-11-12-18-69_c37d74246d9c81aa0bb824b57eaf7062.webp
93 lakh Vs 70 lakh is still a considerable diffrence but not so much that it would feel absurd when an army comes up with the argument of "it's bit pricey, but you must consider it being better and more mature and battle tested"
I know it's illogical, but then again end of day you're no different than a FMCG firm trying to sell a toothpaste
• USA has economies of scale, they started earlier, guided Pinaka is still in R&D...all are valid arguments; but sadly for an army looking for a guided rocket in 2025 the only thing that matters is how much it needs to pay in 2025 for getting the most value.

And as always, these are just my yapping with me being terminally retarded...so take it at your own risk

Bit exhausted by all this work, quoting various parts from multiple posts was bit cumbersome so just mentioning everyone involved in that discussion; ask whatever I missed baaki bhul chuk maaf 🙏

@Bleh @Azaad @Anants @shuturmurg
Hmm...and you were complaining about my posts the other day.
😏
 

Here's a very simple question you can ask anyone with these kind of shallow takes and trust me, it'll crash their OS

Ask them how much money was spent by Volkswagen or BMW on R&D in one financial year. Just 22-23 for example.
And now ask them to compare that with how much money we've spent to date, from 1985 to develop our very first engine core.
 
> Need for accuracy in MLRS
I've already said it multiple times but today I'm coming with data on how accurate or to be honest, inaccurate MLRS are.
This is official poster of Pinaka-II; the unguided one
View attachment 16700
1.5% of range at 60km of max range would be...0.9km. This number becomes bonkers when you compare it with that of tube artillery firing cheap unguided HE shells...M549A1
View attachment 16701
Almost half the deviation of MLRS
Infact we also have exact data comparing the dispersion of unguided Vs guided rocket artillery at a constant distance but I'm sure about the source of this data...so I don't know

> GMLRS
Each GMLRS is guided using Honeywell's GG1308 ring laser gyroscope, Honeywell's RBA-500 and NavStrike GPS module.
Someone was asking why it was so accurate...you can get specifications for each of them in open source.

> Accuracy of BrahMos Vs Pinaka
There can be multiple factors that may ultimately contribute to the contrast in the accuracy like the presence of an intake channel, better INS or geometry. Without getting the exact bias and drift values of the INS used in BrahMos it'd be foolish to comment on it so other than that I'd say there are three things that may contribute to its accuracy.
• Increased stability
View attachment 16647
There are more surfaces and also comparatively bigger on BrahMos
• Different trajectory
View attachment 16648
Pinaka follows a traditional ballistic trajectory with more chances of deviation than BrahMos which follows a bit unorthodox one
• Powered flight
We know that in the endgame phase a BrahMos performs S-maneuvers or climbs to dive down and as both are extremely energy consuming, it's safe to assume that atleast up until that point the engine on a BrahMos is lit and providing some thrust. (A vertical line on the trajectory in the above pic shows the theoretical thrust cut-off point for both the systems.) As BrahMos has a way longer power availability it's chances of accuracy also increases.

> Blast radius Vs CEP
• In GMLRS you get a 90kg one with 1,82,000 tungsten fragments, blast radius is not published but there are multiple videos showing it to be quite good and the CEP is 2-5m. Basically the CEP is just a small fraction of the lethal radius.
View attachment 16689
• In Pinaka you get a 100kg one with 20,000 tungsten fragments, blast radius of 60m (backward calculated from the Mean Area of Effectiveness of 12000sq m) and a CEP of <30m
View attachment 16690
The CEP figures of 60-80m is from an older poster
View attachment 16691
In newer ones it comes down to 30m
View attachment 16692
It's an impressive feat to half the CEP and deserve to be appreciated. But on a flip side it also means we're closer to the saturation point.

> Cost
• In the poster by DRDO itself the quoted figure of GMLRS is from 2013.
View attachment 16697
• But we should look at 2024's cost. As per the last disclosed FMS report it was just $110,000
View attachment 16698
93 lakh Vs 70 lakh is still a considerable diffrence but not so much that it would feel absurd when an army comes up with the argument of "it's bit pricey, but you must consider it being better and more mature and battle tested"
I know it's illogical, but then again end of day you're no different than a FMCG firm trying to sell a toothpaste
• USA has economies of scale, they started earlier, guided Pinaka is still in R&D...all are valid arguments; but sadly for an army looking for a guided rocket in 2025 the only thing that matters is how much it needs to pay in 2025 for getting the most value.

And as always, these are just my yapping with me being terminally retarded...so take it at your own risk

Bit exhausted by all this work, quoting various parts from multiple posts was bit cumbersome so just mentioning everyone involved in that discussion; ask whatever I missed baaki bhul chuk maaf 🙏

@Bleh @Azaad @Anants @shuturmurg

😏
Excellent Post as usual @Ayan Barat !! This clearly explains to @Azaad question the reason why you need fewer Guided rockets than multiple unguided ones - besides cost.
Also Laser Ring Gyro I believe is what deriving cost of GMLRS up - and is what also causing better accuracy in it.

DRDO I believe uses Ring Laser Gyros on Bigger Ballistic Missiles - because of cost. Though it has developed Fiber Optic Gyro - I am not sure if they can use them to enhance accuracy of rockets further. Whether technically and financially it is feasible.

Pinaka - which has been in trials since I was in teens - I believe somehow developer fatigue must have set in - as for quite long Army kept quiet on need for Longer Range Rockets or any enhancements.
 
Here's a very simple question you can ask anyone with these kind of shallow takes and trust me, it'll crash their OS

Ask them how much money was spent by Volkswagen or BMW on R&D in one financial year. Just 22-23 for example.
And now ask them to compare that with how much money we've spent to date, from 1985 to develop our very first engine core.

I did (admittedly with one or two expletives thrown in the mix), but motherfucker deleted my comment.
 
Excellent Post as usual @Ayan Barat !! This clearly explains to @Azaad question the reason why you need fewer Guided rockets than multiple unguided ones - besides cost.
Also Laser Ring Gyro I believe is what deriving cost of GMLRS up - and is what also causing better accuracy in it.

DRDO I believe uses Ring Laser Gyros on Bigger Ballistic Missiles - because of cost. Though it has developed Fiber Optic Gyro - I am not sure if they can use them to enhance accuracy of rockets further. Whether technically and financially it is feasible.

Pinaka - which has been in trials since I was in teens - I believe somehow developer fatigue must have set in - as for quite long Army kept quiet on need for Longer Range Rockets or any enhancements.

I don't think so, because otherwise, we wouldn't be getting reports such as this one here -

From the article -
re.webp

Which brings me to another of my pet peeves about the Indian defence community in general. Like seriously, all you guys had to do to render all my yappings about MLRS accuracy was to bring up GPS denial!! That's it!! But instead, you guys chose the option of hard coping and throwing ad hominems like a bunch of five year olds.
 
> Need for accuracy in MLRS
I've already said it multiple times but today I'm coming with data on how accurate or to be honest, inaccurate MLRS are.
This is official poster of Pinaka-II; the unguided one
View attachment 16700
1.5% of range at 60km of max range would be...0.9km. This number becomes bonkers when you compare it with that of tube artillery firing cheap unguided HE shells...M549A1
View attachment 16701
Almost half the deviation of MLRS
Infact we also have exact data comparing the dispersion of unguided Vs guided rocket artillery at a constant distance but I'm sure about the source of this data...so I don't know

> GMLRS
Each GMLRS is guided using Honeywell's GG1308 ring laser gyroscope, Honeywell's RBA-500 and NavStrike GPS module.
Someone was asking why it was so accurate...you can get specifications for each of them in open source.

> Accuracy of BrahMos Vs Pinaka
There can be multiple factors that may ultimately contribute to the contrast in the accuracy like the presence of an intake channel, better INS or geometry. Without getting the exact bias and drift values of the INS used in BrahMos it'd be foolish to comment on it so other than that I'd say there are three things that may contribute to its accuracy.
• Increased stability
View attachment 16647
There are more surfaces and also comparatively bigger on BrahMos
• Different trajectory
View attachment 16648
Pinaka follows a traditional ballistic trajectory with more chances of deviation than BrahMos which follows a bit unorthodox one
• Powered flight
We know that in the endgame phase a BrahMos performs S-maneuvers or climbs to dive down and as both are extremely energy consuming, it's safe to assume that atleast up until that point the engine on a BrahMos is lit and providing some thrust. (A vertical line on the trajectory in the above pic shows the theoretical thrust cut-off point for both the systems.) As BrahMos has a way longer power availability it's chances of accuracy also increases.

> Blast radius Vs CEP
• In GMLRS you get a 90kg one with 1,82,000 tungsten fragments, blast radius is not published but there are multiple videos showing it to be quite good and the CEP is 2-5m. Basically the CEP is just a small fraction of the lethal radius.
View attachment 16689
• In Pinaka you get a 100kg one with 20,000 tungsten fragments, blast radius of 60m (backward calculated from the Mean Area of Effectiveness of 12000sq m) and a CEP of <30m
View attachment 16690
The CEP figures of 60-80m is from an older poster
View attachment 16691
In newer ones it comes down to 30m
View attachment 16692
It's an impressive feat to half the CEP and deserve to be appreciated. But on a flip side it also means we're closer to the saturation point.

> Cost
• In the poster by DRDO itself the quoted figure of GMLRS is from 2013.
View attachment 16697
• But we should look at 2024's cost. As per the last disclosed FMS report it was just $110,000
View attachment 16698
93 lakh Vs 70 lakh is still a considerable diffrence but not so much that it would feel absurd when an army comes up with the argument of "it's bit pricey, but you must consider it being better and more mature and battle tested"
I know it's illogical, but then again end of day you're no different than a FMCG firm trying to sell a toothpaste
• USA has economies of scale, they started earlier, guided Pinaka is still in R&D...all are valid arguments; but sadly for an army looking for a guided rocket in 2025 the only thing that matters is how much it needs to pay in 2025 for getting the most value.

And as always, these are just my yapping with me being terminally retarded...so take it at your own risk

Bit exhausted by all this work, quoting various parts from multiple posts was bit cumbersome so just mentioning everyone involved in that discussion; ask whatever I missed baaki bhul chuk maaf 🙏

@Bleh @Azaad @Anants @shuturmurg

😏

The while basis of this calculation is wrong...
If they're saying accuracy is 60-80m at all times, then CEP can't be the same number. 🙄

CEP is the radius where atleast 50% of the rounds will falls, not all. CEP radius is usual ⅓rd or ⅕th of the largest deviation. For visual reference:
IMG_20241127_140404.webp
 
Last edited:
CEP should've been better. 10m atleast.
If its due to cost considerations, its ok for an supposedly area saturation weapon. But if not all the excuses are bogus as even technically underdeveloped countries too have local weapons more accurate than this.
 
"Geopolitical" ones do not tend to have kknowledge about defense.
Mf's doesn't know that both are different categories of engineand developing an entire domestic engine for su 30mki can take 10-15 years or more even when you have experience in engine development.
One thing I’ve noticed about us Indians that we have set a lot of mental barriers by ourselves. Like we can’t do this, we cant do that. We have unlimited amount of excuses for that in our arsenal and we don’t even think about solving them. We need a Century of time to develop aero engine and a couple more to develop something else. We just love to brag that we are developing this thing and that thing without anything at hand to show.
And then we get shocked when others come up with those things akl of a sudden.
 
The while basis of this calculation is wrong...
If they're saying accuracy is 60-80m at all times, then CEP can't be the same number. 🙄

CEP is the radius where atleast 50% of the rounds will falls, not all. CEP radius is usual ⅓rd or ⅕th of the largest deviation. For visual reference:
View attachment 16709
First thing first; it's not 60-80m rather it's less than 30m. I've already clarified this in the post

Anyways let's just assume that the term "Accuracy of <30m" doesn't mean CEP and simply means that it's the maximum deviation that has been observed till date in a guided Pinaka. If we draw a 30m radius circle with all the Pinaka hits, then not a single one would be outside of it.
So in terms of E100 radius it should be 30m. Right?
For a GMLRS it's E50 radius should be 5m...because both E50 and CEP means that half the hits are inside this range.

I'm agreeing myself that there's no valid mathematical model to calculate it except for just intuition; but if a system's E50 value is 5m then how much would be it's E100 value?

Even if it's 4 times, then also don't you think it'd still be lesser than the E100 value of Pinaka; 30m!?
 
I don't think so, because otherwise, we wouldn't be getting reports such as this one here -
iirc Laser Ring Gyros Complement GPS or Star tracker Navigation etc - depending on area of application
 
Here's a very simple question you can ask anyone with these kind of shallow takes and trust me, it'll crash their OS

Ask them how much money was spent by Volkswagen or BMW on R&D in one financial year. Just 22-23 for example.
And now ask them to compare that with how much money we've spent to date, from 1985 to develop our very first engine core.
Main question one should ask is Do we really want to develop the product or not? And if answer is Yes we do, then what is it take to do it ? If answer is Money, and can we arrange it or not ?
If evey answer is yes and still we don’t have that product in our hand, then in all probability, Financial excuse is a lie and problem lies elsewhere. You can’t just throw petrol over few billions dollars and all of a suddden a shiny product will appear from the ashes
 
iirc Laser Ring Gyros Complement GPS or Star tracker Navigation etc - depending on area of application
I know that but what I'm trying to say here is that without a continuous flow of real time positional data from their NAVSTAR constellation, the accuracy of those GMLRS rounds plummets almost to the level of unguided rockets, as has been shown by the Ruskies. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that their otherwise pinpoint accuracy is not the result of the RLG-INS, but rather the supporting GPS receiver modules.
 
The while basis of this calculation is wrong...
If they're saying accuracy is 60-80m at all times, then CEP can't be the same number. 🙄

CEP is the radius where atleast 50% of the rounds will falls, not all. CEP radius is usual ⅓rd or ⅕th of the largest deviation. For visual reference:
View attachment 16709
It absolutely IS the CEP, it's just that DRDO guys have a rather weird way of putting things in writing. For example, using the term FSAPDS to denote kinetic energy penetrators when everyone else calls them APFSDS and I'm not even gonna mention stuff like PCB and BBD here.
 
It absolutely IS the CEP, it's just that DRDO guys have a rather weird way of putting things in writing. For example, using the term FSAPDS to denote kinetic energy penetrators when everyone else calls them APFSDS and I'm not even gonna mention stuff like PCB and BBD here.

Ok, possible... anyways that sheet is old. Guided Pinaka's continued trialing after that & present pic of 8m deviation is pretty ok.
 
Ok, possible... anyways that sheet is old. Guided Pinaka's continued trialing after that & present pic of 8m deviation is pretty ok.
If it's really 8 meter (or even 15 meters, as we can clearly see the rocket missing the circle), I'd consider it as excellent.
 
I know that but what I'm trying to say here is that without a continuous flow of real time positional data from their NAVSTAR constellation, the accuracy of those GMLRS rounds plummets almost to the level of unguided rockets, as has been shown by the Ruskies. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that their otherwise pinpoint accuracy is not the result of the RLG-INS, but rather the supporting GPS receiver modules.
I understand but what I am trying to say is that extra precision/accuracy GMLRS gets is from use of Laser Ring Gyro along GPS. Without RLG does not do much. And with GPS alone you get good enough accuracy. But combining both gives you more precision.

Its for this reason countries spend a lot in developing RLG. Or at one point till recent it was one of the hot items marked for proliferation
 
One thing I’ve noticed about us Indians that we have set a lot of mental barriers by ourselves. Like we can’t do this, we cant do that. We have unlimited amount of excuses for that in our arsenal and we don’t even think about solving them. We need a Century of time to develop aero engine and a couple more to develop something else. We just love to brag that we are developing this thing and that thing without anything at hand to show.
And then we get shocked when others come up with those things akl of a sudden.
My guy we are working on Kaveri albit slowly.
The best way would be work with french In developing next gen adaptive cycle engine which will be used in amca mk2 and their own fcas and having 100% Technology transparency with conventional ownership of ip right.
That way we Wil catch up in jet engine Tech and have a engine for amca mk2 along with not having to spend as much time and money in development we would had to other wise.
As for su 30mki, if we start engine development for it now, su 30 will come close retirement when it's engine will be developed, so it's common sense not a mental barrier.
 
My guy we are working on Kaveri albit slowly.
The best way would be work with french In developing next gen adaptive cycle engine which will be used in amca mk2 and their own fcas and having 100% Technology transparency with conventional ownership of ip right.
That way we Wil catch up in jet engine Tech and have a engine for amca mk2 along with not having to spend as much time and money in development we would had to other wise.
As for su 30mki, if we start engine development for it now, su 30 will come close retirement when it's engine will be developed, so it's common sense not a mental barrier.
Have you ever seen GTRE R&D centre and manufacturing facility? Do you seriously think that they can design a modern engine in this century?
What I see is they are just waiting for government to buy and handover some foreign engine IP to them
 

Latest Replies

Featured Content

Trending Threads

VPN-HSL-250-X250
Back
Top