India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby shiv » 16 Jul 2015 13:34

Raman wrote: Using SDB-like weapons
<snip>
blanket pronouncement that SDB-like PGMs are a meaningless wet dream
Define "SDB-like". I don't know what that means. it could mean anything.

Raman wrote:The problem was exactly CEP - uneven terrain multiplies guidance errors, it does not render the problem of guidance moot. When a miss by a few meters causes the bomb to go down the cliff and explode at the bottom, a larger weapon buys you absolutely nothing. A more accurate weapon is exactly what you want.
Nothing succeeds like success. The IAF is on record that dumb bombs did the job that you so painstakingly and diligently point out as being nearly impossible except with "more accurate" weapons. Is it safe to assume that dumb, unguided bombs do not know what CEP means and so all your objections disappear? They did work despite all the gyan Google has thrown up.


Raman wrote:Is it safe to assume that the Pakistanis and Chinese will forever more be unable to fire upwards with sufficient range?
The Pakis and the Chinese had that capability in 1999 but did not use it. If the conditions that made them unable to use such resources in 1999 are recreated again in any future war it is safe to assume that they will once again be unable to "fire upwards with sufficient range".

Raman wrote:If not, what is your proposed solution, if not for precision guided weapons with stand-off range?
LOL! My proposed solution is that you stop imagining that SDB or SDB like (whatever you mean by that) is the only solution that exists. Once you get past the "Fog of America" thought block what I have beeen saying time and again will become clear.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby shiv » 16 Jul 2015 13:41

rohitvats wrote:
shiv wrote: That is why I request that the term SDB should not be used. SDB is currently a very specific American weapon. Not a general thing that can fit any classification or definition or warhead weight that is convenient for a given discussion<SNIP>


Actually, this latching on to 'next best thing' from USA by BRFites is something we accuse our Armed Forces, or to be politically correct, IA and IAF, of being habitual of. Guess, the fruit does not fall far from the tree!

But we digress.

The way I see this SDB thing is this - It is a unique American solution to American problem. But the great salesmen that Americans are, they'll advertise it as 'Revolution in Military Affairs' and how it is a must have weapon to win the next war against your favorite bad-boys. Hey, it doesn't hurt if I can get more customers outside of USAF and get more orders and profit.

The SDB is akin to a specially manufactured bullet fired by a very high precision/accurate and VERY EXPENSIVE sniper rifle - it will be used to take out high value targets but needs to ensure that every shot counts as the Sniper carries limited ammo and has limited holding power; after all, he needs to infiltrate the enemy camp and be as close as possible (scope and gun range being limiting factors) and get out quickly.

Now, the Americans want you to believe that even the Johnnies need to carry this special ammunition for their assault rifles as well - and use it for everything that an infantry soldier is expected to do.


Precisely Rohit. But the American propaganda apparatus is so tempting that once it is advertised in the media as the best thing everyone picks it up. My real worry is that some people in influential positions in the armed forces too might be somewhat charmed by the slick propaganda apparatus. It happens in medicine. Some perfectly expensive and not particularly useful technologies are adopted because America says they need to be adopted. Doctors are not above being bewitched by the maya of America.

If you have been following the discussions I have had over the last week you will believe that the only targets that need to be hit in war are trucks or aircraft shelters and the only way to do them is using "Small Diameter Bombs". Such is the power of American propaganda to catch the imagination of any slightly interested person.

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby geeth » 16 Jul 2015 13:53

Coming to think of it, why the bombs should be in the shape they are made? Why cant it be cylindrical in shape like a missile? For eg., remove the control gadgets and fill it from top to bottom with rocket fuel..like a Aakash with 4 inch dia and 13 ft long will weigh 250 kg and will be much slender than an SDB and more of them can be carried internally or externally. Add controls as you please and you get a precision bomb..

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby shiv » 16 Jul 2015 14:11

geeth wrote:Coming to think of it, why the bombs should be in the shape they are made? Why cant it be cylindrical in shape like a missile? For eg., remove the control gadgets and fill it from top to bottom with rocket fuel..like a Aakash with 4 inch dia and 13 ft long will weigh 250 kg and will be much slender than an SDB and more of them can be carried internally or externally. Add controls as you please and you get a precision bomb..

Americans were managing perfectly well with their JDAMs and JSOWs. Even the F-22s and F-35s could carry them - albeit just two at a time.

But I read somewhere that taking off from ships -planes fully loaded with these extremely expensive weapons, they had to either use them all up or jettison them before landing. They could not land with those weapons on board. With a cheaper smaller SDB they can land on ships now.

A recent concern I read about the SDB on F22 or F-35 is how many times the weapons could be made "hot" for an attack mission and then not used and the plane landing with the weapon. Needless to say once these weapons are exported to countries who don't need them, they will become even cheaper for the USA

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 948
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby KrishnaK » 18 Jul 2015 05:23

Even if it takes 2-3 SDBs to a target, what's the cost of delivering those SDBs vs an equal number of much heavier dumb bombs. Cost here being everything from fuel and airframe fatigue to support staff on the ground. How will the less accurate and heavier bombs affect intensity ? Maybe the maya, fog and what not will become clear onlee.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16548
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby NRao » 18 Jul 2015 06:00

The way I see this SDB thing is this - It is a unique American solution to American problem. But the great salesmen that Americans are, they'll advertise it as 'Revolution in Military Affairs' and how it is a must have weapon to win the next war against your favorite bad-boys. Hey, it doesn't hurt if I can get more customers outside of USAF and get more orders and profit.


Wait for the Indian "MIC" to mature. :)

They are all different shades of the same color.

Ambani will not sleep until he sells a WC on the new ship for $10K.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby shiv » 18 Jul 2015 06:16

KrishnaK wrote:Even if it takes 2-3 SDBs to a target, what's the cost of delivering those SDBs vs an equal number of much heavier dumb bombs. .

Valid question. I am sure you will be able to find the answer if you search. My interest was never in an equal number of heavier dumb bombs. I am talking about an equal number of heavier smart bombs that are slightly less accurate, but the difference in accuracy is made up by explosive power. A 5 meter miss by an SDB carrying a mere 20 kg of explosive would be ineffective while 5 meter miss with a bomb that has 100 kg of explosive would still kill the target.

Unfortunately few people seem to understand the point that SDBs were made ridiculously light on explosive power because they had to be fitted into F-22 bays in larger numbers. And because they are ridiculously light on explosive power they require a whole lot of extra guidance infrastructure to take their accuracy (CEP) from the more easily attained 10 meters to less than 2 meters.

The Americans have done perfectly well - better than every country on earth in using heavier smart bombs with reasonable accuracy like JDAM and JSOW to take out whatever target was wanted. The SDBs were a move away from that for very very American reasons. The SDBs may be good for Americans because they continue to field all the other heavier bombs with lesser accuracy as required. The F-35 will carry 8 SDBs when that is thought to be necessary; and it will carry 2 JSOWs if the latter are needed. For India it makes no sense to have puny SDBs without the heavier JSOWs as well. Let India get to JSOW level competence and then we can think about niche weapons like SDB if we find a compelling need,

Other than hitting moving vehicles (which only SDB II will do when it comes into service) the heavier JSOW can do everything the SDB can do and much more. India would do well to develop something in between the JSOWs 250 kg explosive power and the SDBs miniscule 20 kg explosive power. I suggest making a 250 kg all up weight +/- glide smart bomb with 100 kg explosive power

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54275
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby ramana » 18 Jul 2015 10:08

That's about 40% explosive weight. Will work for blast weapon. Penetration is less more like 15-20%. Reason is you need density: weight per unit volume. Newton's second rule about penetrating projectiles. First is L/D around 8-10. So thin and long. Then there is big momentum. More mass equals more kinetic energy focused on small frontal area.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby Viv S » 18 Jul 2015 14:45

shiv wrote:Valid question. I am sure you will be able to find the answer if you search. My interest was never in an equal number of heavier dumb bombs. I am talking about an equal number of heavier smart bombs that are slightly less accurate, but the difference in accuracy is made up by explosive power. A 5 meter miss by an SDB carrying a mere 20 kg of explosive would be ineffective while 5 meter miss with a bomb that has 100 kg of explosive would still kill the target.


The L-SDB (based on the SDB I) packs about 95kg of explosive.

What you're referring to is the SDB II which is intended for use primarily against mobile targets. And with a tri-mode seeker GPS/INS+MMW+IIR, the chances of it missing a target (let alone by 5 metres) are minuscule.

Unfortunately few people seem to understand the point that SDBs were made ridiculously light on explosive power because they had to be fitted into F-22 bays in larger numbers. And because they are ridiculously light on explosive power they require a whole lot of extra guidance infrastructure to take their accuracy (CEP) from the more easily attained 10 meters to less than 2 meters.

Israel: Spice 250
France: AASM 125
UK: SPEAR III
China: LS-6/100

The F-35 will carry 8 SDBs when that is thought to be necessary; and it will carry 2 JSOWs if the latter are needed. For India it makes no sense to have puny SDBs without the heavier JSOWs as well. Let India get to JSOW level competence and then we can think about niche weapons like SDB if we find a compelling need,

1. If the munition's guidance and software are precise enough, a Litening G4 is more than capable of guiding an SDB-type weapon to within 2 metres of any target.
2. Drones or JSTARS aren't necessary for the above, but for the record, we will have both operational and enmeshed into the IAF's network by 2025.
3. That's more than sufficient to kill the majority of targets that the IAF will be tasked with (especially enemy air defences). An enemy radar or TEL hit by it will still be a write-off.

We're already developing our own JSOW-XL, so where exactly is the neglect?

A 1000-kg “glide bomb”, designed and developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), was successfully tested on Friday by dropping it on from a fighter-aircraft over the Bay of Bengal, off the Odisha coast. - Link

That's good enough for large targets like say... bridges. Eventually we will also have a lighter 500kg variant of the above allowing for true stand-off ranges.

Other than hitting moving vehicles (which only SDB II will do when it comes into service) the heavier JSOW can do everything the SDB can do and much more.

There are downsides to that as well:

- the typical fighter carries only two JSOWs, so can attack only two targets in a single sortie compared to eight targets when equipped with SDBs.
- the JSOW costs about 3 times more than even a laser-guided SDB would, and can therefore often be overkill for a target.

India would do well to develop something in between the JSOWs 250 kg explosive power and the SDBs miniscule 20 kg explosive power. I suggest making a 250 kg all up weight +/- glide smart bomb with 100 kg explosive power

That would be the L-SDB, which is likely what the DRDO is proposing as well.

Question for India is, do we face a small number of hard targets or a large number of light targets? The answer is we face both, and the proportion of the two should determine the proportion of heavy and light glide bombs we buy. But there little doubt that both are needed.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby abhik » 18 Jul 2015 20:17

shiv wrote:Unfortunately few people seem to understand the point that SDBs were made ridiculously light on explosive power because they had to be fitted into F-22 bays in larger numbers. And because they are ridiculously light on explosive power they require a whole lot of extra guidance infrastructure to take their accuracy (CEP) from the more easily attained 10 meters to less than 2 meters.

Firstly "Extra guidance infrastructure" required for CEP of 2 meters vs 10 meters argument should be valid only for GPS guidance as against laser or TV/IR/MMW terminal guidance.
Secondly the statement that a bomb with a larger explosive content (say 100kgs) with a CEP of 10m will do the job that a smaller 20 kg explosive bomb with 2 meter accuracy is unqualified and will not necessarily be true. Just take for example the scenario of the "propaganda" video of the SDB penetrating the hardened enclosure and destroying the fighter within. With a 10 meter CEP the bomb may not hit the enclosure at all and the explosive power may get deflected completely leaving the aircraft undamaged. Or consider the scenario where you are trying to take out a railway bridge which is only 3-4m wide. With a 10m CEP there is no guarantee that you may hit the bridge at all.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby shiv » 18 Jul 2015 20:31

abhik wrote:Secondly the statement that a bomb with a larger explosive content (say 100kgs) with a CEP of 10m will do the job that a smaller 20 kg explosive bomb with 2 meter accuracy is unqualified and will not necessarily be true. Just take for example the scenario of the "propaganda" video of the SDB penetrating the hardened enclosure and destroying the fighter within. With a 10 meter CEP the bomb may not hit the enclosure at all and the explosive power may get deflected completely leaving the aircraft undamaged. Or consider the scenario where you are trying to take out a railway bridge which is only 3-4m wide. With a 10m CEP there is no guarantee that you may hit the bridge at all.

These arguments are endless. Imagine that the SDB does not hit the center and is off to one side. It will do not damage. Imagine the a much larger bomb hitting one side of the hangar - It will do more damage. Another thing people don't seem to relate to when their eyes are blinded by propaganda pics and minds clouded by American Maya that the SDB has a CEP of 5-8 meters. That means that 50% of the bombs are likely to fall 5-8 meters away and that 20 kg will do peanuts at that distance -unlike a heavier bomb. Imagine an SDB hitting 5-8 meters away from the support of a bridge. It will simply kill some fish or at most make a neat hole in the road.

Propaganda pics are always made to impress. No one will post a miss. Read the comparison article I posted.

In fact the way hardened aircraft shelters have been handled includes so many different ways but on here some people seem to think one photo of SDB means it is the only and best thing. One method is to drop a standard 1000 lb laser guided bomb CEP of around 10 meters to weaken the structure and then drop a second 1000 lb LGB to break it. Lots of ways to skin the cat.

The most amusing part for me is that the US has destroyed hundreds of aircraft shelters in Iraq using various methods - none of which has this amazing <2 meter CEP. The SDB has not destroyed a single aircraft hangar in real life but is being pushed on here as some great new solution to a previously insoluble problem. The ONLY problem SDB solves is it puts 8 bombs in the bay of the F-35 that could carry only 2. If that is not American Maya I don't know what is. :lol:

The SDB solves the following problems for America
1. It allows the F-35 and F-22 to carry 8 bombs
2. It is likely to allow naval aircraft to land with an unused bomb load on carriers rather than jettisoning unused expensive JSOW
3. It is cheaper than JSOW except under some circumstances when JSOW scores higher
4. The SDBs low explosive power is to avoid hurting US troops in Urban combat in conflict zones.

SDB is great for America and if I was an America Rakshak I would stand by the SDB as a great addition to all the other weapons that my country has like JDAM and JSOW each with its own unique role depending on the target to be killed. God bless America.
Last edited by shiv on 18 Jul 2015 21:04, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby shiv » 18 Jul 2015 20:58

Here is a nice action image of the Paveway from the 1980s, entering the driver's window of a Russian truck, from a book I bought in 1984
What a pity bombs in those days could not hit pinpoint targets. Thank God for SDB. Thank God for America. Such capability has never ever existed before.

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8641
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby brar_w » 18 Jul 2015 21:07

Who said that LGB's could not hit pin point accuracy? You are the one that has claimed previously that LGB's with 20 m CEP's. LGB's have always had a better CEP than GPS/INS guided weapons at the expense of range, bad weather performance and cost. That is a well established fact. Similarly, you now have SDB's that can get you a very competitive CEP using differential GPS and INS, allowing you to target from longer ranges in fire-and forget modes. Even the Newer generation of JDAM kits (actually ones from a decade ago) have actual CEP's that is between 4 and 5 Meters (reference provided earlier), a big difference from the 13m that was the target from back when they were conceived.

As mentioned earlier, modern LGB's have claimed 1 m CEP and Multi-mode weapons match or exceed that with additional benefits that they can be launched in fire-and-forget mode, from longer distances and in all weather conditions.

Lets get some numbers into the discussion

Modern advanced LGB's - Around 1m CEP
Current JDAM Kit - 4-5 m CEP (Janes IDR)
SDB I (GPS/INS) - <4m CEP (Janes)
SDBII - Should be comparable to the most advanced LGB's plus moving target capability and bad weather performance

SDB-L (What viv-suggested) - 1m CEP


In case you didn't read the points listed by some of us earlier, the SDB family accuracy is in relation to GPS guided bombs such as the J series of munitions, not the LGB's of which even the SDB had a variant (that didn't survive the down-select).

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby chaanakya » 19 Jul 2015 10:47

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... te-player/


In a path-breaking decision, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has approved a proposal by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) for transfer of technology (ToT) for commercial production of its Lakshya pilotless target aircraft (PTA) to private sector defence manufacturer Larsen and Toubro (L&T).

The L&T will pay a royalty to DRDO for every Lakshya PTA produced and sold by it. Prospective customers for Lakshya include foreign militaries, including those of Singapore, Malaysia and Israel

L&T will have to take permission from the MoD while selling Lakshya abroad. This condition is part of the approval granted by the Defence Procurement Board.

...
...

According to sources in the DRDO, this new model of engagement will interest other private defence manufacturers to bid for defence technologies developed by DRDO. It will also help DRDO pull back its resources from constant improvements to an existing platform.
....
...

The new ToT guidelines framework has been approved by the Defence Minister and is likely to be announced next month. A case by case sanction for ToT from the MoD will not be required once comprehensive guidelines are issued.

The new ToT framework will provide all manufacturers, whether private or Defence PSU, an equal opportunity to access defence technology on royalty basis. This will redress one of the major complaints of the local private defence manufacturing industry that it did not have a level playing field with Defence PSUs.

Exclusivity rights in ToT will, however, continue to reside with the government. This means that the rights will come back to the government in case the private defence manufacturer, who has bought the ToT, shuts shop for any reason.

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby d_berwal » 19 Jul 2015 21:57

shiv wrote:Here is a nice action image of the Paveway from the 1980s, entering the driver's window of a Russian truck, from a book I bought in 1984
What a pity bombs in those days could not hit pinpoint targets. Thank God for SDB. Thank God for America. Such capability has never ever existed before.


well just to point out its not a Russian truck but an American M35 series truck.

hanumadu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4688
Joined: 11 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby hanumadu » 19 Jul 2015 22:28

It will also help DRDO pull back its resources from constant improvements to an existing platform.


Does that mean L & T will continue to improve the system?

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby TSJones » 20 Jul 2015 01:31

mighty big bomb for such an itty bitty target.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby Sagar G » 23 Jul 2015 21:48

Navy, DRDO, SAIL in tie-up for producing steel for submarines

The Indian Navy’s Directorate of Naval Design, in collaboration with Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL), has developed a special grade of steel for indigenously designed nuclear-powered stealth submarines.

The Indian Navy’s Directorate of Naval Design, in collaboration with Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL), has developed a special grade of steel for indigenously designed nuclear-powered stealth submarines.

The joint initiative of DRDO and SAIL for local production of the new grade of steel would allow the country to progress on indigenous development of nuclear-powered submarines. It would also help the country to save precious foreign exchange.

The special steel has been tested for use by nuclear powered submarines at SAIL’s Rourkela plant. Codenamed DMR292A, the special steel is exclusively for “underwater projects”. “This a big achievement for the country as other exporting nations that produce the special steel were either unwilling or unable to continue selling it to India. In the absence of the domestic R&D initiative, India’s indigenous submarine development programme would have moved back by several years,” senior officers from DRDO told FE on conditions of anonymity.

The new special steel is military-grade, which means it is far more sturdier than ordinary trpe and is capable of being used in temperatures as low as minus (-) 40°C. Above all, iot has power to absorb ballistic impact. These special features make the steel almost unbreakable, but it could be bent to suit tailor-made requirements of the armed forces.


State-owned SAIL is already actively participating in projects of the Indian Navy. It is supplying steel for country’s single largest military platform — a 42,000-tonne Indigenous Aircraft Carrier. SAIL has so far delivered about 28,000 tonnes of the warship-grade steel for the Indigenous Aircraft Carrier-1, called Project 71 (P-71).

The PSU has set up exclusive facilities at a Special Plates Plant in Rourkela to meet the requirements of the aircraft carrier. A team of scientists of the Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory worked with technologists to develop and set up a production line of the steel, called DMR249A at the Bhilai plant over the last seven years.

Another variant of the steel, called DMR249B, was made at the Alloy Steel Plant in Durgapur. It is used in the repair of the Indian Navy’s Russian-origin Kilo-class submarines and to build anti-submarine warfare corvette, the INS Kamorta.

“The special steel has twice the price of other grades of industrial-purpose metal but comes at almost half the cost of the imported variety. This would help in saving foreign exchange,” said a SAIL executive not wanting to be named.

SAIL is also producing armoured plates for Russian-origin T-72 and T-90 tanks, the indigenous Main Battle Tank ‘Arjun’ and for mine-protected vehicles.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54275
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby ramana » 23 Jul 2015 22:18

So its high fracture toughness steel. The key to reducing cost is making more of it and using it in new applications.


Maitya is this like HY 100 steel?

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby Sagar G » 23 Jul 2015 22:34

Indigenous integrated coastal surveillance soon

A chink in India’s coastal security armour is that unlike bigger vessels (300-tonne ones and above) that are mandatorily fitted with automatic identification system (AIS) — which provides for automatic locating and tracking — the thousands of smaller vessels operating along the country’s shores are largely unaccounted for, necessitating physical authentication of their identity.

This is set to be passé, if the multi-sensor network developed by the communication cluster laboratories of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is chosen to replace the predominantly Israeli sensor suite in the Coastal Surveillance Network steered by the Coast Guard during the project’s Phase-II expansion.

The fully indigenous network — known as the Integrated Coastal Surveillance System — capable of mounting real-time surface and subsurface surveillance over the coastal seas is in the final stages of pilot-testing and trials at coastal Kochi in Kerala, confirm defence sources.

The system has taken about four years to attain a certain level of maturity.

Assembly and trials

Dehradun-based Defence Electronics Application Laboratory (DEAL) has developed the Indian AIS while the coastal surveillance radar for the package has been developed by the Electronics and Radar Development Establishment (LRDE) in Bengaluru, and the electro-optical sight by the Instruments Research and Development Establishment (IRDE) in Dehradun. The Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (CAIR) in Bengaluru has developed the software and the Kochi-based Naval Physical and Oceanographic Laboratory (NPOL) has put together the underwater sensors (the diver detection system) besides coordinating the project assembly and trials.

Nearly 150 boats — in the under 20-tonne category — operating along the Kochi coast have been fitted with the Indian AIS (IAIS) for trials. Radars have been set up at Aroor, Malippuram, and Fort Kochi.

“The beauty of the project is that it’s all done in-house. The trials have given encouraging results, with just the fine-tuning left to be done now. The network can be scaled up for deployment along the country’s 7,500 km coastline,” revealed a top source.


“Given the asymmetric threats posed by smaller craft, a tracking system for vessels regardless of their size is a hugely positive development. Better still, if the system is indigenous, developed by DRDO labs and productionised for trials by the Machilipatnam unit of Bharat Electronics,” he added.

Once operational, the IAIS can be integrated with the IMO-mandated AIS. While the prototype of the IAIS made for trials cost about Rs.25,000 apiece, volume production will render it far cheaper and affordable to boatmen, said another official.

In return for equipping their boats with the IAIS, fishermen will get weather and fish shoal data from INCOIS (Indian National Centre for Ocean Information Services) relayed to the system, which will double up as a distress alert beacon, he pointed out.


Image

NOTE - The *deleted* word in the beginning of the article is c_h_i_n_k.

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4454
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby sanjaykumar » 23 Jul 2015 22:36

What the...? New treatment for cerumen impaction?

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2323
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby VinodTK » 24 Jul 2015 03:28

Government eases export regulations for private defence firms
NEW DELHI: Clearing the way for Indian private firms to enter the global defence supply chain on a large scale, the government has eased several bureaucratic hurdles in export regulations and done away with a provision that demanded multiple assurances by foreign governments even for the sale of components and parts by Indian entities.

The Manohar Parrikar-led defence ministry has come up with a new set of rules for exports for both the private and public sector that does away with the controversial 'ultimate end user' certificate clause for parts and components of military equipment and opens up sectors like armoured equipment, engines, software and sensor systems for easy exports.
:
:
:

Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby Hobbes » 24 Jul 2015 06:39

ramana wrote:So its high fracture toughness steel. The key to reducing cost is making more of it and using it in new applications.


Maitya is this like HY 100 steel?


This document from SAIL sheds some light on their naval special steels efforts:
http://www.sail.co.in/sites/default/files/news/The%20Voyage%20of%20the%20Vikrant.pdf

SAIL's flagship plants at Bhilai, Rourkela, Bokaro and Durgapur have produced three special
steels for the Vikrant, which will also be used for all subsequent Indian warships. These are
DMR 249A for the hull and body; DMR 249B, a more resilient steel, for the flight deck that
must take the repeated impact of 20-30 tonne fighter aircraft landing; and DMR Z25 for the
floor of compartments that house engines and generators. This absorbs the compression and
decompression from the heavy equipment. With expertise growing, SAIL is now developing
DMR 292A, special steel for the hull of Indian submarines.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby shiv » 25 Jul 2015 06:22

This is the capability/incapability of Indian Private Players to join defence manufacturing in a hurry:

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 462224.ece
Public sector agencies in the strategic areas of aerospace and defence on Friday said it may be a tall order in the near term to reverse the 70 per cent import of military hardware. However, they have started changing production strategies to meet the challenge.

To meet the government’s ‘Make in India’ mandate, public defence manufacturing majors are ready to source more from small and medium industries but suppliers are falling short on facilities, quality and time lines, was the refrain at the Aerospace & Defence Manufacturing Summit organised by Bengaluru-based Society of Indian Aerospace Technologies and Industries (SIATI).

V. Udaya Bhaskar, Chairman & Managing Director of Bharat Dynamics Ltd, Hyderabad, said a paradigm shift would be needed to get quality components on time. Public and private sectors must work in tandem. In recent years, BDL had outsourced up to 80 per cent of the work for Akash and other missiles. “Now we have to outsource high-end sub-assemblies. The private sector must also gear up,” he said.

K. Tamilmani, DRDO Director General (R&D Aero Systems), stressed that its labs developing aircraft and combat products for the military badly need high-end testing and other facilities. Future military requirements would be high but existing facilities are grossly inadequate. “For example, we must be the only country doing intensive aeronautical research and trying to succeed without a proper wind tunnel [to test aircraft systems]. How long can we continue to take our products to [Moscow’s testing facility] TsAGI or Calspan in the U.S.? We cannot take some of our development products outside the country — such as the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft, Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles and the UAVs for reasons of security and secrecy,” he said.


nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7558
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby nachiket » 26 Jul 2015 04:59

The private sector will sort itself out, once more players get into the game and competition increases. It is this which is a bigger concern :

K. Tamilmani, DRDO Director General (R&D Aero Systems), stressed that its labs developing aircraft and combat products for the military badly need high-end testing and other facilities. Future military requirements would be high but existing facilities are grossly inadequate. “For example, we must be the only country doing intensive aeronautical research and trying to succeed without a proper wind tunnel [to test aircraft systems]. How long can we continue to take our products to [Moscow’s testing facility] TsAGI or Calspan in the U.S.? We cannot take some of our development products outside the country — such as the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft, Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles and the UAVs for reasons of security and secrecy,” he said.


Private players aren't going to build expensive testing infrastructure anytime soon. They don't have the resources for it and the ROI won't be immediate in monetary terms. We need government investment for this.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby shiv » 26 Jul 2015 05:13

nachiket wrote:Private players aren't going to build expensive testing infrastructure anytime soon. They don't have the resources for it and the ROI won't be immediate in monetary terms. We need government investment for this.

I'm not sure it is so difficult to build a wind tunnel. Private universities should be able to invest in one as part of their engineering training infrastructure. That does not absolve the government - but a tube with air being blown by itself is not a difficult trick to achieve. A window and camera and smoke blown in was all that was used in early wind tunnels.

I tried making a vertical wind tunnel at home a couple of weeks ago and failed. Not because it is difficult but because I needed a longer standing tube and a method of continuously varying fan speed to keep a model plane suspended in mid air while it spins and "falls" relative to airflow. This could be a high school project, let alone an engineering one.

Most kids used to learn about flight and aerodynamic behaviour with models and not a single book in sight. It is remarkable how 100 ton planes behave exactly like 100 gram plane models in the air.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7558
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby nachiket » 26 Jul 2015 05:19

Shiv, if it was that easy DRDO would have built it themselves by now. I'm pretty sure that there is a lot of complexity involved in a supersonic wind tunnel and the sensors and other equipment that would actually make it useful, that we are unaware of.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby shiv » 26 Jul 2015 05:25

nachiket wrote:Shiv, if it was that easy DRDO would have built it themselves by now. I'm pretty sure that there is a lot of complexity involved in a supersonic wind tunnel and the sensors and other equipment that would actually make it useful, that we are unaware of.

No Nachiket. Basic ones are easy and a lot of stuff can be done and hundreds of people can learn about how planes behave. Supersonic wind tunnels are a different ball game and the DRDO should have done one by now. I blame DRDOs lack of planning and foresight. How come Tata Institute (later IISc) got a wind tunnel in 1959?

We need 2000 wind tunnels across the country in colleges and universities. Our lack of progress in producing a plethora of aircraft designs reflects in our lack of infrastructure. I don't believe that the IJTs spin/stall issues would have been so acute if we had a vertical wind tunnel in India rather than sending DRDO people to Yamirika/Phrance every time that needs to be done

If you have 1000 young engineers trained up and working in equipped design centers we would also produce new designs every 6 months like USA, Russia, China, UK rather than hanging on to the few models - IJT. Tejas AMCA HTT 40 etc we have seen in 30 years. It is far easier to build a model plane see if the fukin thing flies than to read 1000 pages and do 50 million equations which is what our engineering students currently do.

A young man playing can do things that a man with a pen and calculator cannot do. Did you know Kalam built a hovercraft in 1962? Lots of nations build Hovercraft. But in India we think "It must be too difficult"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnBvuahUyCc
Last edited by shiv on 26 Jul 2015 06:03, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16548
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby NRao » 26 Jul 2015 05:59

I think India does have wind tunnels. The picture I get is that India lacks the specialized wind tunnels - there seems to be some 5 of them world wide. And, I bet they lack the consultancy that goes along with such instruments.

Such items should be a national strategic asset. IF the nation can build huge statues for their politicians and film heroes, then this is a far better investment from anyone.

Such things will be rarely used, but that is what makes them so expensive.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16548
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby NRao » 26 Jul 2015 06:14

But in India we think "It must be too difficult"


There are many reasons I would imagine. Cultural is the one that I have filed it under. India is - in general - a very low risk society. The two main areas where the nation did very, very well (Space + nukes) IMHO they were forced into the situation.

I would not be surprised if the Paki plane (Thunder/ J-17? whatever) + the progress that China has made spurs the aerospace industry in India. Being low risk, India is invariably reactive.

At times I dread to think what would have happened if one LCA had crashed. From that PoV it is really great to see the AWACS, IJT and whatever is that prop plane revived.

The other - IMHO - is crabbing. That is carried over elsewhere.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36409
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby SaiK » 30 Jul 2015 17:00

http://www.financialexpress.com/article ... al/110345/
thank you HAL! what more shaming when IAF clearly points this often? now, when it comes to LCA, we have to make sure HAL's legs are cut a bit.. not speaking from jingo angle, but only safety-critical. HAL must improve or brake them up. divide and conquer quality problems.

member_23360
BRFite
Posts: 152
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby member_23360 » 01 Aug 2015 00:18

I remember some members were so proud that supplying these spare part by HAL is no ordinary feat. now that HAL has lost even that prestige, I wonder what will be next.

just one word describes it - "PATHETIC", Govt. should seriously start a surgical disinvestment of HAL !

member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby member_23694 » 01 Aug 2015 21:52

for once agree with most of the things written by Bharat Karnad in this article

http://bharatkarnad.com/2015/07/31/not- ... enisation/

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby Austin » 01 Aug 2015 23:05

HAL was making some some terrible high tech parts for Boeing like weapons bay doors ,gun bay doors and wire harnesses and they failed so miserably that Boeing had to cancel the contract

Need Jurnos to justify Boeing cancelling its orders as offset to HAL to justify their pay masters

HAL has been doing not so terrible high tech parts for Airbus for a long time now

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/ind ... 916261.ece

Not to mention the pathetic HAL has been delivering these pathetic aircraft like Mig-21 , 27 , Jags , MKI , 228 , HS-748 , ALH for decades and getting flogged by IAF on many occassion for not sticking to timelines.

What a shame HAL cant make real high tech stuff like Weapon Bay Doors

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby shiv » 02 Aug 2015 06:50

SaiK wrote:http://www.financialexpress.com/article/economy/boeing-ends-contract-with-hal/110345/
thank you HAL! what more shaming when IAF clearly points this often? now, when it comes to LCA, we have to make sure HAL's legs are cut a bit.. not speaking from jingo angle, but only safety-critical. HAL must improve or brake them up. divide and conquer quality problems.

The news item says
Boeing’s decision came after repeated reminders to HAL about its “poor quality” of production, sources said


In general companies like Boeing do not publicly denounce partners because it is bad for business. What about the customers who are currently using HAL sourced parts? They will sue Boeing at the first opportunity. So one needs to take this news item with some caution.

Without attempting to "protect" HAL I would say that this news could be an attempt to run down HAL by a paid presstitute

I think Boeing may have struck a much better deal with a private company like Tata which will benefit them in the long term - getting and keeping a foothold in India with the news offset clauses.

Please read the item in full
Boeing refused to comment for this story, while senior HAL officials said although “there were problems” (with the Boeing contract), these would be resolved.


If Boeing has refused to comment, then who has made a comment on behalf of Boeing? Aerospace is big business and most of us are naive children who swallow anything we are told and we represent public opinion.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19453
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby Karan M » 02 Aug 2015 10:35

^^ That part is true, this "sources said" stuff can be very iffy. If I may, Huma Siddiqui though was a BRF member and definitely not one of the paid media cabal that has run amuck in many newspapers/media. Might be the sources played fast and loose.

Question is whether HAL was late or whether HALs work was bad. Given HAL can make large components for ISRO, whose quality standards are pretty high, navigation systems for Brahmos (failure unacceptable), the comment attributed to Boeing seems a tad fishy.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36409
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby SaiK » 02 Aug 2015 18:40

can HAL or Boeing come specifically what quality problems they are talking about? is it material, finish, structure, design, construction, precision, accuracy, yadi yada?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby shiv » 02 Aug 2015 18:49

SaiK wrote:can HAL or Boeing come specifically what quality problems they are talking about? is it material, finish, structure, design, construction, precision, accuracy, yadi yada?

In the news item that you have posted, Boeing has made no comment and HAL has not specified the problems.

Yet the news headline says that the problem is "poor quality" and that is the take home message that everyone seems to have got. Note that other than the headline, neither HAL or Boeing have used the words "quality" that you are asking about quality in your question which is based on the headline. Shows exactly how the media can manipulate opinions with no information from the very entities they are reporting about.

It is possible that 75% of our discussions on this forum revolve around manipulated media opinions.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3959
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby deejay » 02 Aug 2015 19:23

^^^ It is Shiv Sir. I am convinced. Just check the Rafale thread for the latest bomb ... MMRCA II

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36409
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby SaiK » 02 Aug 2015 21:47

shiv saar, that is the problem in general.. as a general policy we always ask link? we were mandated by few breaper community to discuss based on news media or with strong links to articles and reports only.

otoh, we should also have some laws to regulate news media to ensure they don't wildly state things without having reported by the concerned organizations. so, how do we do this?

media must be pulled down.. they can't be above the law.

media can be questioned by the victim organization - HAL here, to take them to courts on misinformation.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests