When mediocrity has seeped so deep that now it's basically a part of your DNA then it becomes bit too futile to pull you out of the little "Allegory of the Cave" you're stuck in.
Every single component of the MIC including academia and FanBois seems to be stuck in "Why should I strive for excellence? X/Y/Z should first do this then only I'll think of". Fine then, enjoy the peace of mind you get by whataboutism.
Someone, somewhere trying to achieve something great would be the only one to ultimately succeed. Maybe not in the first go, maybe not even in the same field they first tried their luck but in the end they'll definitely.
This is what we should be looking at seriously now for if we're not our northern neighbours definitely are & they've already an entire eco system for it.
However, conceptually I can't seem to understand how does having a fibre optic cable not hinder operational efficiency.
I mean if the drone itself flies for 5 kms how does one ensure that much cable is contained within the spool at the launch pad which in itself is a logistical nightmare .
Besides how does one ensure the cable doesn't get entangled within the vegetation or other features while traversing the terrain.
TOW & other such ATGMs faced more or less the same issues before a new generation of Fire & Forget missiles took over.
Would someone with more knowledge shed light on these aspects?
IMO the Chinese are truly older bros of the inbreds to our west. Like the latter always does, they showed their hand too soon. Its been a trend with them since Doklam.
This is something you'd rarely see the Americans do especially if they expect a showdown.
I mean if the drone itself flies for 5 kms how does one ensure that much cable is contained within the spool at the launch pad which in itself is a logistical nightmare .
Besides how does one ensure the cable doesn't get entangled within the vegetation or other features while traversing the terrain.
The spool does not lie at the launch pad. The spool is placed on the drone itself. As the drone moves, it releases the cable from the spool. This is also the reason why it doesn't get entangled with vegetation. Because even if goes around a tree 100 times, the drone keeps releasing the cable. As there is no tension, it doesn't get entangled. Essentially the drone releases the cable like a spider releases web from itself.
I mean if the drone itself flies for 5 kms how does one ensure that much cable is contained within the spool at the launch pad which in itself is a logistical nightmare .
Even more interesting is the fact that all that cable is not stored at the launching point, but rather the whole spool is carried by the drone itself. More on that in the next point
Fibre optics cable are relatively light, at just few kilograms per kilometres. But most of that weight comes from protecting cladding and insulation, not the fibre itself. In missiles or drone, you don't need that much protection for a single use item so the ultimate weight is extremely low.
Now coming to this; if the spool is on the launcher
and it gets tangled then the result would be a fibre fixed at one end to the tree and the UAV on the other. A force (the drone pulling it) is being applied to this fixed length of fibre; resulting in it getting yielded.
Now let's assume the spool's on the UAV
again one end gets fixed but the other end is not, rather the spool is fixed. So instead of breaking, the fibre'll simply reel out more and continue.
This is the reason why since the inception of wire guided ATGMs, the wire's always in the missile itself.
You can see the copper spool below the red rocket motor.
The biggest problem with fibre optics cable is not it's length but rather the consequences of a longer length. In case of electricity transmission lines we have poles at ever 100 or 500m so that the cable doesn't sag. But in case of fibre optic, there's no intermediate support; just a 4-5km long cable dangling between two points. If you increase this length too much then it'll sag enough to touch the ground and this can cause issues because now instead of getting taut at one point, the fibres starts to drag on rough surfaces
Not even remotely knowledgeable, but can try my best
Even more interesting is the fact that all that cable is not stored at the launching point, but rather the whole spool is carried by the drone itself. More on that in the next point
Fibre optics cable are relatively light, at just few kilograms per kilometres. But most of that weight comes from protecting cladding and insulation, not the fibre itself. In missiles or drone, you don't need that much protection for a single use item so the ultimate weight is extremely low.
Now coming to this; if the spool is on the launcher View attachment 24038
and it gets tangled then the result would be a fibre fixed at one end to the tree and the UAV on the other. A force (the drone pulling it) is being applied to this fixed length of fibre; resulting in it getting yielded.
Now let's assume the spool's on the UAV View attachment 24039
again one end gets fixed but the other end is not, rather the spool is fixed. So instead of breaking, the fibre'll simply reel out more and continue.
This is the reason why since the inception of wire guided ATGMs, the wire's always in the missile itself. View attachment 24040
You can see the copper spool below the red rocket motor.
The biggest problem with fibre optics cable is not it's length but rather the consequences of a longer length. In case of electricity transmission lines we have poles at ever 100 or 500m so that the cable doesn't sag. But in case of fibre optic, there's no intermediate support; just a 4-5km long cable dangling between two points. If you increase this length too much then it'll sag enough to touch the ground and this can cause issues because now instead of getting taut at one point, the fibres starts to drag on rough surfaces
Well use two drones, with spool on parent drone and target drone hooked to that spool. with this you can raise parent drone high and target drone can descend to the target
Well use two drones, with spool on parent drone and target drone hooked to that spool. with this you can raise parent drone high and target drone can descend to the target
Yeah...that's an ingenious idea
> A large hex or octocopter hovers high above the launching point
> The controller is connected wirelessly to this launcher as you have clear LoS
> The FPV is connected using fibre optics
> You can counter not just the sagging of fibre optics but also lower the chances of it getting tangled in vegetation
One issue that might come up in long term would be like that of ballistic Vs sea skimming missiles; the higher (an also a bigger in this case) an UAV would be, the easier it'd get to detect it
One issue that might come up in long term would be like that of ballistic Vs sea skimming missiles; the higher (an also a bigger in this case) an UAV would be, the easier it'd get to detect it
Thats true.. thats something which came into my mind. But given the distances we are talking about are like 5 km - Large drone may not be easy to detect. Also Hexcopter may be used if you want to launch multiple swarm drones. But for single shot and refill kind of scenario smaller parent drones can be used. Also I am wondering if instead of Fiberoptic - Laser could be used ?
If its only academia - it's not really "all-stakeholders" or "coordinated" is it?
And yes, all are necessary.
And some of our stakeholders like DRDO have finally realized that they need to voice this out, i.e. it's not enough to DIY.
This is from the GTRE Director's presentation during the 'Atmanirbharta in Aerospace' forum.
That's not a simple process and a government IS necessary for coordination.
Once in a while I will scour thru some random US DoD report to see how they do things and they have so many reports and sub-categories of specialization, it automatically becomes clear how technocratically proficient they are and the theme of multi-domain and stakeholder coordination becomes apparent.
Complicated things like Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) cannot come to be if the US government isn't actively trying to coordinate between all the stakeholders.
Their involvement is so obvious it's like breathing for defence companies in the US.
The academia can come up with as many innovations as they want, it will all be for naught if the innovations can't be mass produced by a company willing to take the risk and the final user actually buys them.
The government's job here would be to
make sure that academia has enough money to undertake the R&D,
the company has a relatively de-risked environment to operate
and the military is made willing to accept the product or even better, the military is made to seek out innovations from the get go.
I meant, "GOVERNMENT SHOULD ARM-TWIST THE MILITARY ELITES AND FORCE THEM TO GET WITH THE PROGRAM AND SUPPORT ATMANIRBHARTA".
So no, "Positive Indigenization List" is not enough as they can always ignore everything and go the emergency purchase route to circumvent Atmanirbharta.
There's a small firm by the name BEL, don't know whether you've heard about them or not but they're the og
of our country. Almost all of their radar portfolio comes from foreign or DRDO's technology transfer. Tell me how much have they managed to innovate after absorbing these technologies for years?
It's a government run PSU, bloated, worker's union, strike blah blah blah...leave it; let's talk private firms. Tata, Adani, Mahindra, L&T...which one has managed to make something radically improved by combining all the different technologies they've had ToT of? Tata is making C-295 right? Quote the number of years it would take Tata to make a similar plane in-house, based on the experience of C-295.
They can't do it because the forces are not known to go for the desi product so why risk being proactive and R&Ding, also there is no real coordination between stakeholders and other issues like institutional discipline, low funding for R&D, no to little precedent set by earlier administrations, etc.
DPSUs are one part of the node, private companies are also one part of the node. For big projects, they all need to come together to get a system inducted.
You can't cherry-pick one of them and claim they haven't achieved success. We haven't even tried an Indian-centric way for a long enough period of time to see if it works.
____________________________________________________
Your solution of "innovate something...groundbreaking" is borderline impossible in most cases.
Even in the scenario you described, you think if academia churns out some "groundbreaking" IP and gives it to a private company, they'll be able to/willing to MASS-PRODUCE it?
We saw how the AMCA special-purpose-vehicle failed multiple times, that was government's attempt at including the private sector in a PPP model. Government was even willing to fund the project in part.
So where was this magical initiative that you are inferring the private sector is especially capable of?
Our dhandos were simply unwilling to take the risk.
And in the end, it was DRDO and DPSUs that had to be included in the program alongside the private companies. The former probably doing the majority of the work.
You can't R&D and mass-produce a 6th gen, variable-cycle aero-engine when you can't even do the same for a 4th gen aero-engine.
And you can't R&D and mass-produce a 4th gen aero-engine if all the stakeholder aren't involved including the BUYER. (ref. 1st image)
You see the issue here?
We have to acknowledge that we are not America and America is no laissez-faire, libertarian utopia where companies and academia thru sheer private-initiative "just make innovative stuff".
US government is very technocratic and mechanistic, and they absolutely manipulate their environment to keep their institutions alive, productive and competitive.
We can't print the world reserve currency to buy a 100 5th gen fighters, i.e. we can't do it completely like how the US does it, but we have found one system that works, DCPP.
Let's let that play out and see how well our industries do.
Hell, I don't even care if Tata or Adani are not able to innovate(for the near future at least) on their own, as long as enough IPs are flowing and Tata and Adani but MORE IMPORTANTLY STARTUPS are sourcing said IP and mass producing in India, enough to completely substitute foreign imports.
> You chipped in with Kalyani, that they've indigenously designed and yet no orders so why bother in R&D
> I countered thar they're not saint in this mess of ScrewdriverGiri-ed products. There's a saying, "Hamaam me sab hi nange hain"
You did a whataboutism, you didn't counter.
Everyone has to start with screwdrivergiri.
You can't expect the "groundbreaking" thing for a majority of our dhandos.
You have an insanely high bar for our fledgling companies. Why should they do R&D and take that risk when they know how our military brass have behaved for decades? Are these "muh super CEOs" supposed to be irrationally and infinitely conscientious?
You do realize R&D is not cheap and it takes supreme effort to instill in a company culture to 'earmark a part of its funds to R&D'? Especially when the company has hardly done much R&D.
The military and the government are supposed to make it easy for the companies to do R&D and not the other way around.
They are generally, "ToTing with foreign vendors" because they are dhandos, but we need to work with something right? Or are we to patiently wait for 200IQ smart-boi engineers and CEOs to eventually arrive and give us "groundbreaking" innovations and only then do we give the go ahead?
In the poster, I see a Bharat 52, Bharat 45, Bharat ULH ER & S, Garuda 105, ATAGS, MArG and MGS.
I could be mistaken but iirc, most of them are indigenous. Except for the vehicles for Garuda 105 and MArG, all of the guns are made by Kalyani with some degree of ToT from DRDO and the MGS gun and vehicle are indigenous.
The IA can afford to buy desi products with ToT from DRDO, the desi companies otoh cannot R&D or keep production lines empty in perpetuity while import-bahadurs ignore said products in perpetuity.
Eugene Stoner made AR-10 in America and it was rejected by US Army. He simply sold it to Portugal and Dutch because he knew his design was groundbreaking. Imagine what would have happened to the AR platform if he has kept doing rudaali instead of believing that what he has made is good.
Yeah... IN THE 60'S, when competition wasn't high and Armalite was a part of Fairchild(an aircraft giant). Armalite had the luxury of being subsidized by a rich parent company which itself was a a success story because it got juicy government contracts and was funded heavily during WW-II by the US government and the US military.
Cmon man, these are bad comparisons one after the other. India is not America and we cannot emulate their later successes without emulating their initial initiatives. Hell, we probably need more cushioning since we are late entrants.
Excellent example and even best in terms of context.
> They made WhAP
> Didn't find success here
> Simply stated marketing it overseas
> Profit
That's my whole point.
I'm repeatedly getting the counter of why invest in R&D if no order from Army!? So? Why are you so mohtaaz to get order from Army? You've done R&D, which means your product is good, which means it can win competition wherever it's pitched...so pitch it! How long are you going to keep crying on this failed relationship of Indian Army!? It would have been great if things would have gone your way but they didn't, break-up happened. So just move on......
......But if somehow they decide to take a Bhishm-Pratigya that for them Indian defence forces are the only [{(user)}] and no-one else, then I can't do much. They've the whole civilian market, they've some smaller foreign countries with lax IPR laws...they can easily get sufficient user.........
.........Leave foreign firm, MKU and Tonbo. These firms are what they're today just because they had tried their luck in international tenders after getting ignored by Army.
tl;dr: If you've really done some innovation then you won't bicker about someone not buying your product, because then everyone's a potential customer for you. And if you're stuck on just your local customer then it means you also know you don't have much luck anywhere else.
Generally, defence companies earn from their home nation 1st before going abroad. The money made and the trust from their home nation bleeds into foreign purchases. The alternative is insanely time consuming and for all we know result in puny-purchases. Are these companies suposed to bleed money as they wait for their home militaries, while the production lines remain empty and the employees don't do anything only to secure foreign orders in the double digits? If you are not a large company, there's a good chance you also won't be able to compete in the open markets for extended periods of time. Smaller companies and startups can't be expected to get "international tenders after getting ignored by Army". And no, Tonbo is an exception to the rule.
Also, remember, US had 'M-14s(another American domestic option) to go back to, if AR-10s failed', which btw IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.
We don't have the luxury of multiple domestic options.
American companies have the luxury to fail because there are other American companies that can pick up the slack, which means, US military seldom has to be afraid of foreign defence contractors choking them for whatever reason.
We tend to get swayed by the jai-ho types on twitter but the success of our private company for bragging rights is not what's important here. Who cares if a DPSU or a Private Co. is making the pistol?
The issue is securing a consistent supply of entire weapon systems, spare parts, accessories, etc. SSS Defence making assault rifles and carbines in-house for the [{(user)}] keeps the entire R&D and production chain within the country. And its not like their products are deficient or are anywhere near the DPSUs.
Not doing the same means some virtue-signalling, Euro-progressive bureaucrat disallowing H&K or FN Herstal from providing weapons to our forces because "muh poor jihadi in Kashmir is not being allowed to enact his jihad" or worse, because daddy-murica whipped the Euros into not giving the brown-people the white-people-guns.
We can't risk waiting to eventually have a "groundbreaking product" or prove it in the open market while simultaneously depending on sanction-prone foreign alternatives.
When mediocrity has seeped so deep that now it's basically a part of your DNA then it becomes bit too futile to pull you out of the little "Allegory of the Cave" you're stuck in.
Oh we see the light, we are at the precipice of the cave, but we also see that the sun is millions of miles away. So how about we not try to touch the sun just yet and work with what little light is ahead of us?
Every single component of the MIC including academia and FanBois seems to be stuck in "Why should I strive for excellence? X/Y/Z should first do this then only I'll think of". Fine then, enjoy the peace of mind you get by whataboutism.
Someone, somewhere trying to achieve something great would be the only one to ultimately succeed. Maybe not in the first go, maybe not even in the same field they first tried their luck but in the end they'll definitely.
We don't have the time to wait for geniuses.
And correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like you're asking for a wholesale change in the entire culture, which to me seems impossible in the short term, and we can only work with what we have.
So I don't care how we do it, or how it looks, or who does it; as long as they do it, it's generally indigenous in nature and do it in India.
Idealism can gtfoh.
Aatmanirbhar Bharat: MoD inks contracts totalling Rs 10,147 crore with EEL, MIL & BEL for rockets of PINAKA Multiple Launch Rocket System to enhance Indian Army’s firepower
Ministry of Defence has inked contracts with Economic Explosive Limited (EEL) and Munitions India Limited (MIL) for the procurement of Area Denial Munition (ADM) Type-1 (DPICM) and High Explosive Pre Fragmented (HEPF) Mk-1 (Enhanced) rockets respectively for PINAKA Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) at a total cost of Rs 10,147 crore. In addition, a contract for upgrades in SHAKTI Software has also been signed with Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL). The contracts were signed in the presence of Defence Secretary Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh in New Delhi on February 06, 2025.
ADM Type-1 of PINAKA MLRS has a specialised warhead to deliver a quantum of sub-munitions over a larger area targeting mechanised forces, vehicles and personnel, thereby denying specific areas to the enemy. HEPF Mk-1 (E) rockets are advance version of inservice HEPF rockets which have enhanced range to strike deep into enemy territory with precision and lethality.
The procurement of ADM Type-1 (DPICM) and HEPF Mk-1 (E) rockets will mark a significant milestone in the modernisation of the Artillery Rocket Regiments. These advanced ADM (DPICM) and HEPF ammunition will play a crucial role in bolstering the Indian Army’s firepower by enabling precise and long-range strikes.
Beyond enhancing national defence capabilities, these projects have immense potential of direct and indirect employment generation by encouraging the Indian MSME sector through components’ manufacturing. The procurement marks a pivotal step towards modernising India's defence infrastructure and empowering indigenous industries, which will be a proud flag-bearer of 'Aatmanirbhar Bharat’ vision of the Government.
)
