DRDO and PSUs

1741786106382.webp1741786114135.webp
1741786126977.webp


Reading the CAG reports, we are incredible lucky that we were not involved in a real shooting war (or unlucky). Import bahadurs are not entirely wrong when this is what they are up against. In 1997, requirement for system was given. DRDO objected to imports (but 0 capability in developing one at that time). A whopping 10 years later, MOD finally sanctions some funds for research for a local variant. LRDE/DRDO as usual proceeds to severely overestimate their own capabilities, and ended up missing every deadline, giving excuse after excuse in the timeframe. It was not until 2018/19 where this finally materialized.... And then a new cycle by the usual systems and their "user trials" began.

If government wants to reform DRDO, then first they need to completely revamp the project management division, and start firing project directors who give bogus dishonest deadlines and fail to meet them.
 
bakofbakchod said:

View: https://x.com/AjayshreeSamby3/status/1899795487433339202

View attachment 27375

A whopping 15 years after the project was first sanction, this is finally ordered. I have to say, DRDO + forces really need to increase the pace. Taking almost 16 years is unacceptable.
Click to expand...


Can anyone guess the numbers? How many?

Also why difference of almost 450 crores in reports? 2906 - 2463 = 443

www.thehindu.com

Ministry of Defence signs ₹2,906 crore radar contract with BEL for the Indian Air Force

MoD signs ₹2,906 crore contract with BEL for advanced LLTR radar, enhancing Indian Air Force's operational preparedness.
www.thehindu.com www.thehindu.com



Even PIB is saying 2906 crores

pib.gov.in

Aatmanirbhar Bharat: Rs 2,906 crore contract signed with BEL for Low-level Transportable Radar (Ashwini) for IAF

As part of the Government’s efforts to strengthen indigenous defence capabilities of the country, Mi
pib.gov.in
 
Last edited:
iNorthernerOn9 said:
Can anyone guess the numbers? How many?

Also why difference of almost 450 crores in reports? 2906 - 2463 = 443

www.thehindu.com

Ministry of Defence signs ₹2,906 crore radar contract with BEL for the Indian Air Force

MoD signs ₹2,906 crore contract with BEL for advanced LLTR radar, enhancing Indian Air Force's operational preparedness.
www.thehindu.com www.thehindu.com



Even PIB is saying 2906 crores

pib.gov.in

Aatmanirbhar Bharat: Rs 2,906 crore contract signed with BEL for Low-level Transportable Radar (Ashwini) for IAF

As part of the Government’s efforts to strengthen indigenous defence capabilities of the country, Mi
pib.gov.in
Click to expand...
18 radars are bought
 
  • Like
Reactions: SKC
Astra test fired from Tejas mk1 prototype



Ministry of Defence
azadi ka amrit mahotsav

Tejas LCA AF MK1 test-fires Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile​

​

Posted On: 12 MAR 2025 10:03PM by PIB Delhi

Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) has successfully conducted test-launch of homegrown ASTRA, Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile (BVRAAM) from LCA AF MK1 prototype fighter aircraft. The test launch was carried out on March 12, 2025 off the coast of Chandipur, Odisha.

image.jpeg


The test-firing successfully demonstrated the direct hit of the missile on flying target. All the subsystems performed accurately meeting all mission parameters and objectives. ASTRA missile is designed and developed by DRDO capable of engaging the targets over 100km and equipped with advanced guidance and navigation capabilities allows missile to destroy targets with greater accuracy. The missile is already inducted into the Indian Air Force.

The successful test-firing is a significant milestone towards the induction of LCA AF MK1A variant. The success is the result of hard work by the integrated team of Scientists, Engineers and Technicians from ADA, DRDO, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) along with support from CEMILAC, DG-AQA, IAF & Test range team. Further trials are planned towards the performance evaluation.

Raksha Mantri Shri Rajnath Singh has congratulated the teams of DRDO, IAF, ADA, HAL and all involved in the trial. Secretary, Department of Defence R&D and Chairman DRDO Dr Samir V Kamat appreciated the efforts of Scientists, Engineers and Technicians from various organisations and industry.

***

SR/Savvy



(Release ID: 2111068) Visitor Counter : 1899









 
2-3 things to note
1. The Astra fired from lca mk1 prototype ( means it's from one of the lsp variant )
2. If so , then good news is ,from now all Tejas variant s are certified for Astra
3. Tejas mk1a is ready for induction
4. For evaluation trials will be done ...
5. When uttam aesa will be in Tejas , then definitely another trial will happen ( hope instead of Astra mk1 , they go for Astra mk2 , as it's 2 yrs from now )
 
fire starter said:
🤡🤡

View: https://x.com/cvkrishnan/status/1900047005189366193?t=S-sPFRJgxarAX5Gc9acNZA&s=19
Click to expand...


Even Armchair experts like us can dig internet to find the product is manufactured in India or not.

Meanwhile entire IA is getting taken for an ride.
1. Plates from some unknown company.
2. Vest from local kirana shop
3. Selling off Foreign product as Indigenous product.

I hope we simply declare the product R&D is done in India as Indigenous. Because every product is claiming ToT and later truth is coming out where goras delayed X component.

I mean OFB (HVF) claim full T series tank production from Engines to final nut. Even claimed full Indigenous Engines and upgradation is possible.

Only to sign an agreement again for Engines.

Whatever product coming from Foreign company is more or less CKD and SKD.
 
I have a question, as we know sfdr bvr aka gandiv is in developmental trials ..
As the specs from brochure says it will be a longer range missile with nez more that of meteor

After the developmental trials ends , the user trial will go on..

As Iaf didn't have the experience of such bvrs , max they have meteor...in user trial from users perspective what they will test ...
May be specs which given the developer matches or what
 
Corvus Splendens said:
Can't we do this with ATAGS ?
Click to expand...
but why should we?
We are not going the route of shore bombardment( chinks have Taiwan, that big gun will provide them 40+km range for shore bombardment lot cheaper than surface to surface missiles, and with rocket powered/ramjet shells in future could extend to 100+km range).
We don't need shore bombardment capabilities.

We're going the route of having deck gun that is on a smaller side and higher fire rate.
en.m.wikipedia.org

OTO Melara 76 mm - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
Its high rate of fire and the availability of several types of ammunition make it capable of short-range anti-missile point defence, anti-aircraft, anti-surface, and ground support. Ammunition includes armour-piercing, incendiary, directed fragmentation effects, and a guided round marketed as capable of destroying maneuvering anti-ship missiles.

Basically our rapid fire 76mm can be used as point defense( main function)

Bigger is not always better.
Depends on the requirements.
 
Corvus Splendens said:
Can't we do this with ATAGS ?
Click to expand...

I asked the same question to Chatgpt few months.

Here is the answer.

Installing the Advanced Towed Artillery Gun System (ATAGS) on naval ships instead of the current 76mm OTO Melara and MK 45 127mm naval guns would not be practical for several reasons:


1. ATAGS is a Towed Artillery System, Not a Naval Gun​


  • ATAGS is designed as a land-based towed artillery system with a 155mm caliber and a long-range firing capability.
  • It is optimized for land warfare where it can be deployed in defensive and offensive roles, typically requiring a stable ground setup.

2. Naval Guns Need to Withstand Harsh Marine Conditions​


  • Naval guns like the 76mm OTO Melara and MK 45 127mm are specifically designed to operate in corrosive saltwater environments, with materials and coatings that prevent rust and wear.
  • ATAGS is not designed to handle continuous exposure to seawater, high humidity, and ship movements.

3. Naval Guns Are Built for Fast Engagements​


  • Naval guns are used for anti-aircraft, anti-missile, and shore bombardment roles.
  • They have automatic loading and high rates of fire (e.g., the OTO 76mm fires 85-120 rounds per minute).
  • ATAGS, being a manual/semi-automatic towed artillery, has a much lower rate of fire.

4. Weight and Space Constraints​


  • ATAGS weighs around 18 tons, whereas naval guns like the OTO 76mm weigh only 7.5 tons.
  • ATAGS needs stabilizers and a large footprint for firing, which is impractical on a moving ship.

5. Ship Movement and Stability Issues​


  • Ships constantly move due to waves, making it difficult to aim and fire a wheeled land-based artillery system like ATAGS.
  • Naval guns are stabilized and gyro-controlled for precision, which ATAGS lacks.

6. Lack of Naval Integration​


  • Naval guns are integrated into fire control radar systems and ship combat systems for automated targeting.
  • ATAGS lacks the necessary electronic and targeting integration for naval combat.

Conclusion: Not Feasible​


While ATAGS is an excellent artillery system for the Army, it is not suitable for naval applications due to its design limitations. Instead, if the Navy wants a more powerful gun, they would likely upgrade to advanced naval 155mm AGS (Advanced Gun Systems) or similar automated naval howitzers.
 
ArjunMK1A said:
I asked the same question to Chatgpt few months.

Here is the answer.

Installing the Advanced Towed Artillery Gun System (ATAGS) on naval ships instead of the current 76mm OTO Melara and MK 45 127mm naval guns would not be practical for several reasons:


1. ATAGS is a Towed Artillery System, Not a Naval Gun​


  • ATAGS is designed as a land-based towed artillery system with a 155mm caliber and a long-range firing capability.
  • It is optimized for land warfare where it can be deployed in defensive and offensive roles, typically requiring a stable ground setup.

2. Naval Guns Need to Withstand Harsh Marine Conditions​


  • Naval guns like the 76mm OTO Melara and MK 45 127mm are specifically designed to operate in corrosive saltwater environments, with materials and coatings that prevent rust and wear.
  • ATAGS is not designed to handle continuous exposure to seawater, high humidity, and ship movements.

3. Naval Guns Are Built for Fast Engagements​


  • Naval guns are used for anti-aircraft, anti-missile, and shore bombardment roles.
  • They have automatic loading and high rates of fire (e.g., the OTO 76mm fires 85-120 rounds per minute).
  • ATAGS, being a manual/semi-automatic towed artillery, has a much lower rate of fire.

4. Weight and Space Constraints​


  • ATAGS weighs around 18 tons, whereas naval guns like the OTO 76mm weigh only 7.5 tons.
  • ATAGS needs stabilizers and a large footprint for firing, which is impractical on a moving ship.

5. Ship Movement and Stability Issues​


  • Ships constantly move due to waves, making it difficult to aim and fire a wheeled land-based artillery system like ATAGS.
  • Naval guns are stabilized and gyro-controlled for precision, which ATAGS lacks.

6. Lack of Naval Integration​


  • Naval guns are integrated into fire control radar systems and ship combat systems for automated targeting.
  • ATAGS lacks the necessary electronic and targeting integration for naval combat.

Conclusion: Not Feasible​


While ATAGS is an excellent artillery system for the Army, it is not suitable for naval applications due to its design limitations. Instead, if the Navy wants a more powerful gun, they would likely upgrade to advanced naval 155mm AGS (Advanced Gun Systems) or similar automated naval howitzers.
Click to expand...
So in summery: It hasn't been done yet, so it won't work. Man I love AI. Wish I could stay as innocent.
 
Anants said:
instead of ATAGS rail gun would be much more effective, and that is in works i think.
Click to expand...
We'd need a dedicated power supply for that gun, and solid supercapacitor banks. Muzzle will wear out fast too so we'd need superior metallurgy. Railguns can generate plasma at nearly 10,000°C inside the chamber, the barrel will fall out after 5-6 rapid shots. It's not worth it right now considering the stupid high cost per shot and incredibly short uptime. Guided artillery shots and missiles do the job far cheaper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
DRDO VSHORAD
Replies
1
Views
199
Pundit Pikachu
P

Latest Replies

Featured Content

Trending Threads

Share this Site

Back
Top