Different calibres. RBUs are 212mm while this one is 150mm, my guess is for decoys.
the IN shouldnt, with the current world moving towards underwater UAVs they could very well need the RBU and would be better equipped to handle it than quite literally every navy apart from US and china.
Even without drone involvement , IRL and er-asr ( upgraded and indigenised RBU-6000 and its rockets) are surprisingly effective anti-torpedo defense system, intercepting underwater drones which are lot slower than torpedo will be even easier.
Imo, they must modify the below deck magazine and make it more compact. The current design is 60s vintage and takes up a lot of space on the foredeck (blast shields et all).
The 12 tubes can just as easily be accommodated in a box launcher. Who uses a rotary launcher these days?
The Russians themselves have moved on to a new gen system.
The below deck magazine houses 72-96 rockets for 1 system below deck, its fairly compact for the fire-power it houses, allowing for 7-9 full salvos(12 rockets in 1 full slavo) to be fired.
We have even electrified the drive of the IRL/Rbu-6000( IRL= Indegenious rocket launcher), plus its a versatile system can be used in lot of other roles, retaining it in our current warships will not be a negative even if we move on to newer philosophy for anti-sub hard kill defense.
For box launcher, what benifits/positives would a box launcher bring? Its not a trend or fashion choice, I see it actually causing more complication in reloading process of the Rockets.
The currents launcher configuration provides both ample horizontal and vertical traverse, simple and quick reloading, rapid firing of a salvo .
There's no recent direct new gen successor of rbu-6000/IRL/rbu-12000/RPK-8.
Its still used on lot of russian ships, tho Russians are going towards a new philosophy of using of a smaller torpedo to destroy incoming enemy torpedo, instead of using salvo of rockets with depth charges.
( similar in spirit as using an interceptor missile to intercept an incoming enemy cruise-missile)
The system needs to fire entire salvos to counter targets because the rockets lack onboard guidance. At the very least, it should be moved to the stern on larger FFG/DDG class ships to free up deck space for VLS upfront.
This will be essential as heavy HCMs and ASBMs start entering service on frontline ships in the next 10 yrs.
Box launchers are modular and allow tubes and effectors of multiple diameters - much like Pinaka or other MLRS.
The Russians have switched to the Medvedka-2 on new gen ships which is a more conventional quad launcher for ASW missiles.
Last edited:
VLS is typically more heavy, if we have enough space on stern for rbu, than using that space for VLS system instead makes more sense longitudinal stress wise, though again there are plethora of other factor in play.
China's 055 destroyers stores their ASBM's in their stern section
About the modular box launcher concept, the problem is the below deck magazine that reloads the launcher, you can't just effortlessly change calibers.
The russian medvedka-2 is a missile that carries a torpedo as its payload, its an equivalent of US arsoc, its not an anti-torpedo defense system its an anti-submarine system , not a similar system as rbu-6000 in spirit that uses salvos of rockets and depth charges.
The Chinese seem to have done away with the automated below deck magazine entirely on their RBU rip-off. Their Type 87 is a 6 tube 240mm ASW rocket launcher uniquely positioned ahead of the main gun on the bow.
We don't even have to look too far for a solution.
A scaled up version of L&Ts WM-18 rocket launcher (already operational on LST class ships) can be an excellent alternative. However, we'll need to develop ASW rockets with homing heads to make up for the lack of magazine.
The type 87 ASW rocket launcher system is *manually reloaded* ,carries total of 36 rockets including the 12 ready to fire in two launchers and 24 stored elsewhere, they are sacrificing lot of volume/magzine while still using *unguided rockets* can't call it a upgrade.
For a solution in close quater anti-sub and anti torpedo defense, if you are sacrificing volume/magzine for more precision we can skip rockets entirely & and move on to Paket-E/NK - Wikipedia , tho will loose versatility for precision.
The least they could do is enclose the rbu-6000 in a stealthy turret with clamshell doors.
This would reduce head-on rcs on which WDB otherwise puts a lot of effort. Perhaps it would remove the need for those blast shields too.
Wishful thinking, I know.
Heck, we haven't even updated the turret on the AK-630 yet.
Last edited:
Uhm there are corner reflectors built in some "stealth" frigates. I wouldn't evaporate my blood over non-stealthy turrets.
Not a deal breaker. But the irony is DRDO has gone to the extent of developing radar transparent stanchions (railings) for surface ships but things like turrets are conveniently forgotten.
In surveillance bands those long metal cables are quite reflective. Even more so compared to gun turrets.
This effect is often used in missile tests where you see a wire mash installed on a small vessel to simulate RCS of a large ship. Since wavelengths are quite large for L/S bands, those railings (including their vertical holds) are perfect for "bright" reflections.
This effect is often used in missile tests where you see a wire mash installed on a small vessel to simulate RCS of a large ship. Since wavelengths are quite large for L/S bands, those railings (including their vertical holds) are perfect for "bright" reflections.
Something with Turbojet by RCI, maybe NASM
Questionable utility.There was news floating yesterday, and today there's some slides on this. Mods should delete this if they want to, since I can see "RESTRICTED" in upper case at bottom right.
View attachment 50232View attachment 50233
DRDO का सीक्रेट हथियार हो रहा तैयार! जेट इंजन से लैस, रडार को भनक लगे बिना 600 किमी दूर बैठे दुश्मन को मार गिराएगा
DRDO Jet Powered Swarm Drone: इस प्रोजेक्ट में एक स्टील्थ डिजाइन वाले फ्लाइंग विंग प्लेटफॉर्म पर काम किया जा रहा है. इस डिजाइन में पुराने विमान की तरह अलग फ्यूजलेज या पूंछ नहीं होती है. इससे रडार पर इसकी पहचान करना काफी मुश्किल हो जाता है. इस तरह की तकनीक कई आधुनिक स्टील्थ विमानों में इस्तेमाल...zeenews.india.com
Will the 200kg mtow one, carry weapons internally?
Or if its just gonna be used for tactical reconnaissance.
As for kamikaze role.
typical future stealth cruise missiles(with loitering and autonomous capability) that are developed just seem better( more compact, more efficient, cheaper,faster)
Efficient? Not really, these are kamikaze swarms that can loiter for longer. And these being flying wings will likely have lesser RCS as well.
1 tonne SLCM carries just 165kg fuel, that's 16.5% fuel fraction. Ghatak design has 34% fuel fraction, obviously. Although a cruise missile is more compact and can carry more warhead while being faster.
Different purposes altogether.
On a sidenote, India being the world's largest manufacturer of motorcycles and probably their engines too is gonna be beneficial for mass-producing these in very large numbers.Someones riding a Vicky or a pulsar there?
These could be very useful in the anti-radar role with an esm/hadf + small warhead as a stealthy, low-cost complement to the Harop/Harpy.
The IA has been developing for similar plywood drones like 'Kharga' in-house.
