Made in India military weapons and support systems

[fsayed]

for which one?

Project pralay

 

[Spectre]

View attachment 314927

and some article that appeared in swrajyamarg
http://swarajyamag.com/magazine/building-the-fbr


i am paging @anant_s
He is the best man when it comes to reactors... and also @Chanakya's_Chant

Hopefully they can give more updates

Thanks but i was interested in FBR not Prototype. Whether the proposal for next FBR has been put up or some preliminary work done on sight selection. PFBR is a TD and has more less validated the design. I wish they could take help on certain things but with the NSG thingie still pending let's see. The problem is that there is not much interest int'ally and Indian design still has a lot of question marks with scalablity.

 

[PARIKRAMA]

Project pralay

The process of dissolution and destruction of the universe...

I have a gut feeling its a high speed Anti Radiation Missile (HARM). Since, its being made by RCI...

On top its shaping.. see this

and

 

[anant_s]

Thanks but i was interested in FBR not Prototype. Whether the proposal for next FBR has been put up or some preliminary work done on sight selection. PFBR is a TD and has more less validated the design. I wish they could take help on certain things but with the NSG thingie still pending let's see. The problem is that there is not much interest int'ally and Indian design still has a lot of question marks with scalablity.

Sir,
PFBR is designed as a commercial technology demonstrator and proposed to put following design concepts into practice:
1. Use of Metal oxide fuel (UO2+PuO2) inside ferrite Stainless steel clad sheaths.
2. Qualification and reliable running of liquid Sodium piping including valves, EM pumps and Heat Exchangers.
3. Post irradiation fuel analysis.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With your permission, i would like to write a bit about fuel configuration.
Breeder reactors are called so because they have excess neutrons (n) which is significantly larger than what you get from thermal reactors (v (average number of neutrons generated per fission): 2.91 for fast reactors against 2.4-2.5 for thermal reactors)
Now we require one n per fission reaction to be available for next generation fission and effectively what it means is for fast fission we have 1.91 additional n available for non fission use and ~1.4-1.5 n in thermal regime.
These additional n can then be used for either converting or breeding fuel. the difference here is if same fuel is generated, the assembly is called Breeder (example if 94Pu239 is used as fuel and 94Pu239 is produced using 92U238) or Convertor if a different fuel is produced (example 94Pu239 is used as fuel and 92U233 is produced from 90Th232) or Burner if the reactor burns (reduces radio toxicity) of long lived actinides wastes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now coming back to your query.
FBTR was designed as a Metal carbide assembly to study and develop components (metallurgical part), controls (software included), in core flux monitoring and overall steam cycle structure.
With good experience gained, the design of assembly is extrapolated and a metal oxide assembly with 500 MWe net output is developed. this initial reactor is called Prototype fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) and it is a precursor for 600 and later Metal fuel 1000 MWe assemblies.
PFBR

The basic migration philosophy is that when you use a metal oxide in a core, number of fissile (94Pu239) and fertile (92U238) atoms are lower (other being oxygen atoms), so the additional neutrons available would have a lower statistical probability (expressed as capture cross section area, measured in Barns 1 barn = 10e-24 sq cm) of striking an atom of Plutonium to undergo fission or get radiatively captured in U238 to form Plutonium. So a metal fuel has better characteristics as far as neutron use economy is concerned. Further to this, a term used a s doubling time is used which expresses time in years for a reactor to generate a mass of fuel equal to that of its original feed inventory. metal reactors have lower doubling time as compared to oxide or carbide fuel and hence metal is preferred.
Challenge:
As you know, oxides of metal have a higher melting point than pure metals, the basic engineering challenge is to set the safety limits with metal fuel. As i said above metal fuel is better but owing to lower melting point, poses chalenge to set power limits in design.

Future

It is planned to upgrade the design to first 600 MWe and then to 1000 MWe in steps. in future we will have large capacity 1000 MWe designs operating in India.
@PARIKRAMA @Abingdonboy @nair @SpArK @ranjeet

[QUOTE="Spectre, post: 8426682, member: 169484"]Whether the proposal for next FBR has been put up[/QUOTE]
[ATTACH=full]315153[/ATTACH]

 

[Spectre]

Sir,
PFBR is designed as a commercial technology demonstrator and proposed to put following design concepts into practice:
1. Use of Metal oxide fuel (UO2+PuO2) inside ferrite Stainless steel clad sheaths.
2. Qualification and reliable running of liquid Sodium piping including valves, EM pumps and Heat Exchangers.
3. Post irradiation fuel analysis.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With your permission, i would like to write a bit about fuel configuration.
Breeder reactors are called so because they have excess neutrons (n) which is significantly larger than what you get from thermal reactors (v (average number of neutrons generated per fission): 2.91 for fast reactors against 2.4-2.5 for thermal reactors)
Now we require one n per fission reaction to be available for next generation fission and effectively what it means is for fast fission we have 1.91 additional n available for non fission use and ~1.4-1.5 n in thermal regime.
These additional n can then be used for either converting or breeding fuel. the difference here is if same fuel is generated, the assembly is called Breeder (example if 94Pu239 is used as fuel and 94Pu239 is produced using 92U238) or Convertor if a different fuel is produced (example 94Pu239 is used as fuel and 92U233 is produced from 90Th232) or Burner if the reactor burns (reduces radio toxicity) of long lived actinides wastes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now coming back to your query.
FBTR was designed as a Metal carbide assembly to study and develop components (metallurgical part), controls (software included), in core flux monitoring and overall steam cycle structure.
With good experience gained, the design of assembly is extrapolated and a metal oxide assembly with 500 MWe net output is developed. this initial reactor is called Prototype fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) and it is a precursor for 600 and later Metal fuel 1000 MWe assemblies.
PFBR
View attachment 315148
The basic migration philosophy is that when you use a metal oxide in a core, number of fissile (94Pu239) and fertile (92U238) atoms are lower (other being oxygen atoms), so the additional neutrons available would have a lower statistical probability (expressed as capture cross section area, measured in Barns 1 barn = 10e-24 sq cm) of striking an atom of Plutonium to undergo fission or get radiatively captured in U238 to form Plutonium. So a metal fuel has better characteristics as far as neutron use economy is concerned. Further to this, a term used a s doubling time is used which expresses time in years for a reactor to generate a mass of fuel equal to that of its original feed inventory. metal reactors have lower doubling time as compared to oxide or carbide fuel and hence metal is preferred.
Challenge:
As you know, oxides of metal have a higher melting point than pure metals, the basic engineering challenge is to set the safety limits with metal fuel. As i said above metal fuel is better but owing to lower melting point, poses chalenge to set power limits in design.

Future
View attachment 315150
View attachment 315147 View attachment 315146
View attachment 315151
It is planned to upgrade the design to first 600 MWe and then to 1000 MWe in steps. in future we will have large capacity 1000 MWe designs operating in India.
@PARIKRAMA @Abingdonboy @nair @SpArK @ranjeet


[ATTACH=full]315153[/ATTACH]

Dada thank you but I have a done a project on FBR so I know about the details to the marrow. I ll give you a brief idea about the associated challenges which have resulted in failure of commercialization of Breeder tech. Tech is not knew - Everything has been validated since the late 40s/50s by GEH and Soviets. Lot of other countries tried and then gave up. We have to understand why

Let's examine the rationale behind FBR not going mainstream

Common reasons for given adoption of FBR are

- Scarcity of uranium and the fear it would be depleted if Nuclear energy is used widely
- FBR would be commercially competitive with light water reactor
- FBR would be developed to be as safe as LWR
- Proliferation risks would be reduced

Now i will attempt to illustrate what went wrong

1. Uranium is cheap and abundant - Price of Uranium is currently $130/kg and is estimated to drop to $50 per kg as more and more sources are found. New discovery estimates put the new supply to greater that 5 million tonnes per annum. Infact Uranium is supposed to account for only 10-20% of the cost per KWH in newer breed LWR

2. FBR are much more costlier to build and operate -

US has spent 15 Billion $, Russia 12 Billion, UK 8 Billion, Germany 6 Billion and Italy 5 Billion on FBR research and each country gave up on it due to lack of financial feasibility.

Existing data suggest Liquid sodium cooled reactors cost as much as two times per KW to operate than water cooled ones. Capital costs are 25% higher.

3. Safety and reliability concerns -

You have touched on the safety concerns, I can go in much more detail but for now in this forum that would suffice.

I would like to talk about reliability and maintenance problems

- Large amount of time is spent on the FBR in repairing hardware instead of producing electricity. Various studies including the Indian experience has shown that the hardware parts immersed in sodium degrade much more rapidly. In contrast modern LWR operate at 80% efficiency

- During maintenance a. Fuel has to be removed. b. Sodium has to be drained C. entire system flushed. This process can take upto 1-2 years. In contrast LWR top the vessel is removed and reactor cavity flooded which is a much easier process. Repairs can also be now guided using imaging tech and automated systems

4. Proliferation

It would suffice to say that all reactors have plutonium involved but FBR have a plutonium cycle which involves seperation of plutonium from radioactive spent fuel. This weapons grade plutonium has lot of naughty uses. India's FBR alone is estimated to produce 90 kg of weapons grade plutonium.

@Joe Shearer @nair @SpArK @PARIKRAMA @MilSpec

Now that India has signed multiple treaties ensuring uninterrupted supply of uranium, FBR seems like an exercise of folly just aimed at boosting national ego. We would spend more than two times to produce energy. Doesn't seem viable for poor country such as India, That is why such emphasis is on securing Uranium supply and non on FBR.

As per privileged information - India would too put it in the cold basket after usual hurrays.

 

[Foxbat Alok]

AR with Excalibur
@Water Car Engineer @Abingdonboy

 

[PARIKRAMA]

Source based news..

• NGARM integration was carried out with Su30 MKI last week (28/06/16 -03/07/2016)
• 2 MKIs are prepped side by side.
• Weapon station 5,6,7 and 8 are being readied for NGARM loading (single or all 4 depending upon mission profile)
• Extension of Avionics and Display 1553 Bus (main and standy) to station 5 and 6
• HAL has to certify the integration
• DRDL to coordinate for the captive trial followed by live firing
• Ground test to be done soon.
• A special modification is being carried out as the test aircraft is the same one which was used to fire Astra Missile. This is with the thinking that the mission load will involve both Astra and NGARM

@Abingdonboy @MilSpec @SpArK @AUSTERLITZ @anant_s @zebra7 @randomradio @Stephen Cohen @Spectre @fsayed @Water Car Engineer @GURU DUTT @others

 

[zebra7]

Point No 5 LR SAM -
Thats Barak 8 for Navy. The version with teh range of 100 km and above.. 18 such systems will be procured in phase 1.The old slide for LRSAM

the same as MRSAM for IAF

Point No 16 Kautilya
Top secret project for Satellite based Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) Payload “Kautilya"

• KAUTILYA involves development of Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) payload for integration on an indigenous mini Satellite.
• Partial work by DRDO done and same is getting reviewed by ISRO
• Hardware development is in progress.

Point No 44 Project Pralay
Its something special...
View attachment 314907

What is Project Pralay ??

 

[fsayed]

Source based news..

• NGARM integration was carried out with Su30 MKI last week (28/06/16 -03/07/2016)
• 2 MKIs are prepped side by side.
• Weapon station 5,6,7 and 8 are being readied for NGARM loading (single or all 4 depending upon mission profile)
• Extension of Avionics and Display 1553 Bus (main and standy) to station 5 and 6
• HAL has to certify the integration
• DRDL to coordinate for the captive trial followed by live firing
• Ground test to be done soon.
• A special modification is being carried out as the test aircraft is the same one which was used to fire Astra Missile. This is with the thinking that the mission load will involve both Astra and NGARM

@Abingdonboy @MilSpec @SpArK @AUSTERLITZ @anant_s @zebra7 @randomradio @Stephen Cohen @Spectre @fsayed @Water Car Engineer @GURU DUTT @others

Any pics of ngarm or specifications details

Anytime line announced by DRDO for NGARM

 

[PARIKRAMA]

Some details about planned Brahmos NG

• Smaller Diameter
• Higher Speed 3.3 Mach
• Better packaging and routing of pipes with computer aided design and latest electronics
• Air force version weight 1.4 tonnes
• Navy version 1.6 tonne
• Upto 5 Brahmos NG will be carried by MKI (9 tonnes ordanance)
• 2 under each wing and 1 on the belly
• Upto 2 under each wing in Mig 29K
• The seeker of the new Brahmos NG could have sufficient redundancies to include anti radiation, radio frequency, and Imaging Infra Red capabilities
• Guidance will include triple systems like US GPS, Indian Gagan and Russia's Glonass and also will take informaion from indigenous IRNSS satellite system
• At first the Air version will be inducted .. Tests are scheduled for October November 2016 - 1 test and will be inducted.

 

[Agent_47]

Some details about planned Brahmos NG

• Smaller Diameter
• Higher Speed 3.3 Mach
• Better packaging and routing of pipes with computer aided design and latest electronics
• Air force version weight 1.4 tonnes
• Navy version 1.6 tonne
• Upto 5 Brahmos NG will be carried by MKI (9 tonnes ordanance)
• 2 under each wing and 1 on the belly
• Upto 2 under each wing in Mig 29K
• The seeker of the new Brahmos NG could have sufficient redundancies to include anti radiation, radio frequency, and Imaging Infra Red capabilities
• Guidance will include triple systems like US GPS, Indian Gagan and Russia's Glonass and also will take informaion from indigenous IRNSS satellite system
• At first the Air version will be inducted .. Tests are scheduled for October November 2016 - 1 test and will be inducted.

What about the BRAHMOS-NG?

Concept-wise, it is very attractive. But, so many developments are taking place and hence we are not able to come up with a definitive plan. It is much smaller in size and range is quite good and it can be launched from several platforms. An aircraft can carry two or three BRAHMOS-NG. It can go into torpedo tubes and smaller ships can use them too. Even a missile boat can carry it. It is miniaturization of the missile and its range will not be affected and it will go the full distance in the ideal trajectory. But in other trajectories, it may reduce. We have not started the programme and it is too early to discuss it. But it is one of the business prospects.

27 March 2016

http://www.brahmos.com/pressRelease.php?id=54

Test by year end ?! I don't think so.

 

[PARIKRAMA]

What about the BRAHMOS-NG?

Concept-wise, it is very attractive. But, so many developments are taking place and hence we are not able to come up with a definitive plan. It is much smaller in size and range is quite good and it can be launched from several platforms. An aircraft can carry two or three BRAHMOS-NG. It can go into torpedo tubes and smaller ships can use them too. Even a missile boat can carry it. It is miniaturization of the missile and its range will not be affected and it will go the full distance in the ideal trajectory. But in other trajectories, it may reduce. We have not started the programme and it is too early to discuss it. But it is one of the business prospects.

27 March 2016

http://www.brahmos.com/pressRelease.php?id=54

Test by year end ?! I don't think so.

You mis understood..

test by year end is present Brahmos Air launched version.. not NG,, thats why i wrote

At first the Air version will be inducted .. Tests are scheduled for October November 2016 - 1 test and will be inducted.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

@PARIKRAMA

Brahmos NG will take a lot of time

AT least five years

 

[Foxbat Alok]

DRDO daksha

 

[Water Car Engineer]