Pinaka Multi Barrel Rocket Launching System
- Thread starter Gautam
- Start date
Making a bad comparison just for the sake of it.
Prahar uses a 12x12 TEL because it weighs 1.2 tons, which is more than twice as heavy as EXTRA. It is not an optimized system compared to the Israeli offering. It will also be more expensive.
The Prahar series has a 420mm diameter and is 7.3 meters long, while the Israeli offering has a 306mm diameter and is 4.7 meters long. Thus you can carry 8 in one 6x6 TEL. The only advantage the Prahar series offers is a larger warhead size. However, for a tactical rocket system, mobility and versatility are more important.
Same goes for LORA. Unless DRDO work on a ~600 diameter missile fast LORA is coming.
Correction: Predator Hawk has 370mm calibre while the EXTRA rocket has a 306mm calibre.
So a 8x8 TEL would not be able to carry more than 4 Predator Hawk TBMs or 8 EXTRA rockets.
I doubt the Army would complicate it's own logistics line by inducting a sub 600mm calibre rocket when its already committed to the Pralay SRBM which offers a 100km range advantage over the LORA.
My guess is the Army would look to field the following as part of its Rocket Force setup:-
Pinaka Mk1, Mk2, Guided (214mm)
Pinaka Mk3 LRGR (300mm)
IAI Extra (306mm)
Pinaka Mk4 (370mm)
IAI Predator Hawk (370mm)
Pralay (740mm)
This setup in itself is going to complicate Army's logistics, doubt they want to complicate it further.
I was only talking about EXTRA.
Pralay and Brahmos are not part of this calculation. They are very expensive precision strike missiles. The Army keeps discussing the requirement for 22 regiments of MBRL. We are discussing that.
Its not about some range differential. LORA/ATACM is 1.6 ton which can be swapped with MBRL pods. Pralay is 5 ton on a 12x12 TEL. There is no comparison.
Prahar was a knee jerk reaction to Pakistani missile. No value to army. They used the same airframe of AAD missile. DRDO/Army had a chance to course correct and work on better caliber like Israel ore south koreans.
Army also needs to state it's requirement clearly in time for DRDO to come up with solutions. That would require procurement plans with 10 year vision. And also state the role and quantity required for a 2/3 front scenario. This needs to be systematic, not dependent on personal, off the record relationship, chats b/w personnel of army and scientists of DRDO.
And I do not know if DRDO has creative freedom to work on solutions without GSQR etc. i.e. the mould stated by our armed forces. Perhaps they could just give the problems they face, general solutions they require i.e. A system to saturate AD ( not specific parameters) then DRDO with its long experience can work on it without copying. Not saying for every systems.. but wondering if DRDO was given free hand for any. But EW, CYBER TOOLS etc are tech driven which should be left to DRDO to work on entirely. Not components but systems.
So, product can be developed and scaled before emergency.
And I do not know if DRDO has creative freedom to work on solutions without GSQR etc. i.e. the mould stated by our armed forces. Perhaps they could just give the problems they face, general solutions they require i.e. A system to saturate AD ( not specific parameters) then DRDO with its long experience can work on it without copying. Not saying for every systems.. but wondering if DRDO was given free hand for any. But EW, CYBER TOOLS etc are tech driven which should be left to DRDO to work on entirely. Not components but systems.
So, product can be developed and scaled before emergency.
That fellow doesn't know the difference between a tactical missile and rocket. Go and see the weight difference of these two projectiles.
Ashwin, how's the reload efficiency like for different variants( calibre, launcher etc) of Pinaka ? Does PULS exceed it considerably?
Dont know about pinaka as its not multi caliber as of now.
PULS is modular by design. 8x8 TEL for germans.
EuroPULS: a multiple rocket launcher with munitions à la carte - EDR Magazine
At DSEI 2023 KNDS and Elbit Systems signed a teaming agreement for the development of the EuroPULS future rocket artillery system.
www.edrmagazine.eu
Here's a picture of Pinaka's reloader cum replenishment vehicle, so if anything the reload efficiency of the Pinaka should be similar to PULS.
Attachments
Comparing trade-offs between payload size and range, Prahar seems to slot in as one might expect. With some of the PGM payload sizes used in Op Sindoor, I am not sure that decreased payload size is the need, especially since these battlefield support weapons will be taking on targets under increasingly hardened environments?
| Wt | Payload | Caliber | Range | |
| EXTRA | 570 | 120 | 306 | 150 |
| Predator Hawk | 800 | 140 | 370 | 300 |
| Prahaar | 1280 | 200 | 380 | 200 |
| LORA | 1600 | 570 | 624 | 430 |
As far as the need for a 12x12 TEL, the brochure below shows it on 8x8 TEL config and seems to indicate they had plans for a 6x6:
I believe that is the sentiment the meme is trying to convey is that if Prahaar was in discussion back in 2008, why did it take a EP in 2026 after PULS matured for the user to get its act together? Continue copying the QR homework of another nation... and 2047 will continue to remain a distant dream.
One hopes that the articles so far about this being a limited EP remains true.
This poster is confusing. This is definitely not the original Prahar that was tested. Must be later renamed export variant called pranash. They changed the entire caliber and weight increased?!. 8x8 TEL doesnt matter when it can only carry one or two. It stops being part of MBRL system.
Looking at this poster, why cant DRDO reach weight/payload/range ratios like that of israelis. Is there some technological gap? @marich01 @Gautam
EP cost is penny change for the system. Let them try out and improve the future versions of pinaka. Meme crowd getting too dramatic IMO.
yep, metallurgy gap exists , plus avionics, electronic items , connector etc. For instance to move the tail fins, you got ema controlled with small pcb. Now you need microcontroller for each set. Designing the same is quite complex apparently. So before they did not have multi packed controller on same pcb. So for 4 set of fins you need 4 different pcb each as single controller board, means more connecting wires etc more weight. Now they have made quad and octo microcontrollers where a single pcb can control all 4 fins. So less weight now due to less pcb , its attach rack, less connectors. Various other stuff are also involved.
Tata Advanced Systems has been awarded a supply order to support the Indian Army's 510 Advance Base Workshop (ABW) in the overhaul cum upgradation of in-service first-generation Pinaka Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS) and Battery Command Posts (BCPs).
"Tata Advanced Systems partnered with the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to design and develop Pinaka MLRS, an all-weather, indirect fire artillery weapon capable of delivering high-volume firepower against critical targets".
"Tata Advanced Systems partnered with the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to design and develop Pinaka MLRS, an all-weather, indirect fire artillery weapon capable of delivering high-volume firepower against critical targets".
While People are Debating whether PULS should be inducted or not , their Appearance in ARMY Day Rehearsal Parade leaves No doubt at all
The futile part of the debate going on is that people are dismissing the chance of a weapon system that has had 1 single trial after multiple years of work vs some system already established & export cleared.
For Prahaar, if army had to induct, it would be with 2016 (pre 2019) approved technology specified amendment basis AHSP. I am sure many small lru parts are already obsolete & not available from the bill of material list , or better alternative available now in smarter packaging that will need proof fired for replacement. Some SRBM specified system can not do the work of a different class like MBRL/MLRS which is volume centric approach somewhat even with guided, therefore after the cost benefit analysis the user would have selected a different system.
For Prahaar, if army had to induct, it would be with 2016 (pre 2019) approved technology specified amendment basis AHSP. I am sure many small lru parts are already obsolete & not available from the bill of material list , or better alternative available now in smarter packaging that will need proof fired for replacement. Some SRBM specified system can not do the work of a different class like MBRL/MLRS which is volume centric approach somewhat even with guided, therefore after the cost benefit analysis the user would have selected a different system.
