Need to merge all the atgm projects under this thread, Nag, helina, mpatgm all.
Last edited:
Man Portable Anti-Tank Guided Missile (MPATGM) Developments : Updates & Discussions
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- drdo indian army mpatgm
Third Generation Fire & Forget Man Portable Anti-Tank Guided Missile (MPATGM) with top attack capability was flight-tested successfully against a moving target in KK Ranges, Ahilya Nagar, Maharashtra by DRDO’s Defence Research & Development Laboratory, Hyderabad on January 11, 2026.
How many Gazillion trials still left for this national science project.
Depends on where it is in terms of its maturity. You need an active RFQ for it to undergo user trials (If I am wrong someone can correct me here). So, the IA needs to come forward and say I need such a system and the vendors may apply to supply it. This however does not apply to projects that come under Indigenous Development category. They should follow a step process like the one below:
- PSQR (Preliminary Staff Qualitative Requirements): The Army tells DRDO what they want.
- Developmental Trials: DRDO tests the system (Internal).
- User Trials (FET - Field Evaluation Trials): Once DRDO is confident, they hand it over to the Army for testing.
- Indent/Order: If trials are successful, the Army places an indent with the production agency.
A lot depends on process management when it comes to procurement. If the IA wishes to induct it, they can start a user trial and see if it meets its requirement. The will of the user plays a part as well - I can make things harder for you or I can keep it fair and give you a shot. Apples to Oranges - ATAGS went through a 7 odd year trial period (I do not have the details for trial).
I am not tracking the MPATGM and cannot say if it ready for user trials. Someone monitoring the trails can let you the status (if it is user trial ready). The Spike and the Javelin are being ordered so....
Last edited:
Suppose an indigenous system is ready for user trials and something similar exists in the market from another country. Is there a system which mandates the Army at least conduct user trials of the indigenous weapon before considering foreign systems? Or conduct them in parallel with the foreign weapon system to compare reliability performance etc?
Why are the user trials for our indigenous products so long?
My exposure to the whole procurement cycle is not first hand. There are multiple reasons cited for different systems. OSINT will not give you the exact root cause. Folks have commented that there exists a bias and it seems that in some cases things indeed appear like it. I made a post about small arms AR procurement. The whole thing was just designed to fail. The trial parameters will make you laugh. You can read the article regarding it on the relevant thread.
Yes, if we go by DAP (2020), the Indian product should get the user trials before the foreign lot gets evaluated. Priority is applied even before an open RFQ entailing a global participation is sent out.
IIRC there is a categorization that exists. It goes like this:
Buy (Indian - IDDM): Indigenously Designed, Developed and Manufactured (Highest Priority).
Buy (Indian): Manufactured in India, potentially with foreign design.
Buy and Make (Indian): Initial purchase + Transfer of Technology (ToT).
Buy (Global - Manufacture in India).
Buy (Global): Direct import (Lowest Priority).
So, if an Indian product stand ready via say IDDM it has to be given a certain level of priority during system procurement. The version should be acceptable and the user trial can commence if the nod is given. It be can said that a mechanism exists to promote products based on origin.
Also, If the category for procurement is Indian - IDDM, only Indian vendors are trialed. Foreign systems are excluded from the competition entirely. This is an exclusive trial.
Others should feel free to jump in. I am sure someone monitoring procurement for longer can give an even more detailed reply.
A similar product from another country which is available to buy from global market means it has completed all the IVV stages, respective certification and is it active production or has been cleared for production which is past the LSP/LRIP stages (most of the time).
A product offered for user trial by DRDO means it has neither completed any mandatory certification required , nor any final QAP BoM etc finalised, ivv stages completed, ahsp handed over, forget about production clearance stage past LSP batch. User trial is DRDO demonstration of their technology proven prototypes at an advanced stage. These items are mostly full of huge issues, thereby nothing more than glorified proto units that is passing thru the user eye.
How much confusion can persist between the day night difference of the 2 ?
A product offered for user trial by DRDO means it has neither completed any mandatory certification required , nor any final QAP BoM etc finalised, ivv stages completed, ahsp handed over, forget about production clearance stage past LSP batch. User trial is DRDO demonstration of their technology proven prototypes at an advanced stage. These items are mostly full of huge issues, thereby nothing more than glorified proto units that is passing thru the user eye.
How much confusion can persist between the day night difference of the 2 ?
This should answer why available weapon systems already deployed by leading forces are sought after. Folks unfamiliar with the terms can search for them. Also, read the DAP for clarity about procurement management and procedures.
Coming to the crux - OEMs who have active, deployed systems have the following set of advantages:
QAP/BoM frozen and certified (there should be no doubts regarding this aspect). Low failure rate; issues are usually doctrinal fit. Proven performance specs (Field Evaluation). A mature system that is already deployed/in service stands ready on a gargantuan pile of paperwork and real world deployment data. Hence, the ease for them when it comes to immediate procurement requirements.
QAP/BoM frozen and certified (there should be no doubts regarding this aspect). Low failure rate; issues are usually doctrinal fit. Proven performance specs (Field Evaluation). A mature system that is already deployed/in service stands ready on a gargantuan pile of paperwork and real world deployment data. Hence, the ease for them when it comes to immediate procurement requirements.
But in the guise of op readiness, foreign product maturity, we cannot let indigenous programs languish forever. Funds, oversight, transparency need to be brought to the testing and induction of indigenous platforms while buying only a few of imported items. Sindoor made it clear what happens when we rely on imported silver bullets like Meteors and Rafales instead of indigenous mass produced and networked solutions. That Astra series BVRMs have not been produced in numbers despite a program start in 1989 is a near shameful thing. Same goes for other systems.
Continuous use through deployed military status is also a important way of refining and readying a weapons use for the battlefield not only letting it languish through user trials and then firing it once every few months or years for ops.
Agreed. Let's see how things move. Political will should be a good start. However, it is not everything. Reforms are harder to implement than I thought earlier. My interaction with Marich and Ashwin have made me realise that saying things are 'bad' would be an understatement.
We've deviated from the thread purpose. Hope things become better.
This part is debatable. original astra spec was 45-50km. It has gradually evolved as did its enabling tech, sensors, seeker, the gyro stabilizing mechanism which is incredibly hard to make. Only a few companies world over make such precision parts. So as an user you get choice of mass procuring a product with lesser spec legroom and later have a problem to upgrade those to modern standard which would easily double the cost. Now Astra mk1 being made in good nos but each batch will have some obsolence of parts no doubt. Therefore small to mid sized batch wise induction is practical.
A high heap of stock is never ideal, it creates problem in the long run. Inventory management & capacity expansion are two vital parts of the whole process, along with supply chain management. Each element dictates the outcome or intake of the overall process whichever way you want to look. Building a decent inventory is that process. In our line of work, we let the compounding do the work, not massive one time input. You will never be able to justify one huge shot thru risk analysis.
Astra will be going through this process, mk1 is doing this already. We got to consider the huge multi sourced jets in IAF disposal, it will take time to integrate with the intended platform. First gen established system does get this issue because it is carried by another carrier which we did not make before either. Over the time, it should stabilise across multi platform.
Wasn't Bharat Forge supposed to roll-out their IFV prototype in October 2025?
What happened to that?
All the atgm systems are soon to enter production related activity. There are various phases in it. So I guess we do not need to second guess anymore.
