DRDO and PSU's

Bleh said:
  • <10km - VSHORAD (IA, IN?)
View attachment 8738
  • 30km - mobile QRSAM (IA)
View attachment 8737
  • 30km - static Akash Prime (IAF, maybe replaced by)...

  • 75km - Dual pulse, multifunctional radar Akash NG (IA & IAF)
View attachment 8735
  • 100KM - land based Barak8 MRSAM (IA, IAF)
  • 100km LOBL-LOAL capable VL-SRSAM Naval Astra (IN)
View attachment 8736
  • 150km - naval Barak8 LRSAM (IN)
  • S-400 & BMD (IA, to be replaced by)...
  • XRSAM Kusha Projects with 2way data link & tvc
View attachment 8734
Click to expand...
• VSHORAD
IA for sure, IN maybe integrated with an indigenous Kashtan like system or more likely as a primary air-defence system on auxiliary and smaller vessels.
• VL-SRSAM
Primary short range air-defence on vessels. Desi ESSM
• QRSAM
Primary army "formation SAM" to support maneuvering forces; Osa replacement
• Akash & Akash-Prime
We can't continue using Kub like non-containerized missiles and that too just three for its range. Also Akash is a bulky SAM for its category
• Akash-NG Kusha-M1
IA, IN & IAF. I've nothing to back me but I've strong intuition that the current Akash-NG will get further upgraded to eventually become M1. The general planform, the dimensions, everything suggest so.
• Barak-8/MRSAM/LRSAM
No need of this expensive system that too with strings attached when Kusha-M1 is direct analogous to it.
• Barak-8 ER
We won't be having the 150km ranged Barak-8. It uses a larger diameter booster and is also longer which means a serious overhaul of add new VLS that too when its performance can be replicated by Kusha-M2.
• Kusha-M2
IA, IN & IAF. If Kusha-M1 is similar to Barak-8 then just like booster added Barak-8 it should also be a 150-200km ranged SAM.
• Kusha-M3
IA, IN & IAF. Bit hard to guess the range as the 9M82 like booster suggest it's more focused on velocity. It can be PAC-3 analogous, long range SAM with ABM capabilities.
• S-400
It has to go. Even if not on the ground of shortcomings but rather on magazine depth. You can't plan a full fledged two front war when each interceptor is imported. Ukraine has some of the best ADS but as soon an overwhelming Russian attack happens they get short on missiles because there's no continuous supply.
• BMD
IAF & IN. I'm not sure whether AD-1 and AD-2 are going to replace AAD and PAD or complement them because guys in DRDO repeatedly write "Phase-1/2" but two of these are definitely going on IN vessels; we've already tested. We have absolutely no ABM capabilities on ships especially when a good chunk of PLA's budget is just for anti-Ship BMs. For IAF, this would be the replacement of S-400.
 
Blood+ said:
Nah, VLSRSAM will be in 45-50 km range at best, maybe 60-65 if they make a version out of Astra Mk2.
Click to expand...

Ok maybe... It has altitude to gain. 100km of Astra & 150 of Mk2 will become half.

But there should be one based on SFDR or STAR. There's more to SAM classes than range.

We need each:
  1. Cheap swarmers for MANPADs & short-range.
  2. Deployable & mobile quick reaction (QRSAM)
  3. Dual-pulse for energy mid range
  4. Solid-fueled for engaging at long-ranges
  5. BMD capable ballistic missiles
  • Additionally:
    • Heat seeker option (VSORAD & BVR)
    • 2-way data link to guide those IR-ones
    • Multifunctional radars for stealth
    • LOAL-LOBL for beyond-mid range
    • TVC for last ditch short-range ones
 
Last edited:
Today, MoD signed the contract for 240 AL-31FP engines .

GXBpUavX0AI1Wt_.webp

The pertinent point to note here is the 63 percent figure indigenous content figure. This is to be achieved at the end of the delivery period. This 63 percent is by cost. At present, we have achieved 53 percent by cost . And we make 87.7 percent of all the components from raw material stage. Most of these are made by HAL while some are supplied by Tier 2 and 3 Indian MSME.

Making engines from raw material stage constitute the fourth phase of the license production of AL-31FP. In the first two phases, we used to assemble the engines from CKD and SKD kits and sub assemblies supplied by the Russian OEM NPO Saturn.

So even after achieving 63 percent IC by cost towards the end of delivery schedule, the IC content will average out to 54 percent over the entire program delivery phase.
 
Bleh said:
Fair... You want just some ATGM capabilities on a APC platform.

For a dedicated missile platform you got attack-helos & drones, or a pick-up can take that many missiles. For a tracked platform, they might want cannon with ATGM as primary.View attachment 8899
Click to expand...
> you take a standard BMP-2 with 30mm 2A42 auto-cannon and twin ATGM launchers
> remove the turret and add 8 ATGM launchers to make a dedicated Nag Missile Carrier; NAMICA
> reduce ready launchers to 6
> reduce ready launchers to 4 and add the same 2A42 30mm cannon you had removed earlier

So now I've a Ship of Theseus question for you; is it still a dedicated NAMICA or a BMP-2?

How this x4 ATGM + 30mm auto-cannon arrangement of a "missile carrier" any different from the current market standard of regular turrets like UT-30 or ZSSW-30?
 
Ayan Barat said:
• VSHORAD
IA for sure, IN maybe integrated with an indigenous Kashtan like system or more likely as a primary air-defence system on auxiliary and smaller vessels.
• VL-SRSAM
Primary short range air-defence on vessels. Desi ESSM
• QRSAM
Primary army "formation SAM" to support maneuvering forces; Osa replacement
• Akash & Akash-Prime
We can't continue using Kub like non-containerized missiles and that too just three for its range. Also Akash is a bulky SAM for its category
• Akash-NG Kusha-M1
IA, IN & IAF. I've nothing to back me but I've strong intuition that the current Akash-NG will get further upgraded to eventually become M1. The general planform, the dimensions, everything suggest so.
• Barak-8/MRSAM/LRSAM
No need of this expensive system that too with strings attached when Kusha-M1 is direct analogous to it.
• Barak-8 ER
We won't be having the 150km ranged Barak-8. It uses a larger diameter booster and is also longer which means a serious overhaul of add new VLS that too when its performance can be replicated by Kusha-M2.
• Kusha-M2
IA, IN & IAF. If Kusha-M1 is similar to Barak-8 then just like booster added Barak-8 it should also be a 150-200km ranged SAM.
• Kusha-M3
IA, IN & IAF. Bit hard to guess the range as the 9M82 like booster suggest it's more focused on velocity. It can be PAC-3 analogous, long range SAM with ABM capabilities.
• S-400
It has to go. Even if not on the ground of shortcomings but rather on magazine depth. You can't plan a full fledged two front war when each interceptor is imported. Ukraine has some of the best ADS but as soon an overwhelming Russian attack happens they get short on missiles because there's no continuous supply.
• BMD
IAF & IN. I'm not sure whether AD-1 and AD-2 are going to replace AAD and PAD or complement them because guys in DRDO repeatedly write "Phase-1/2" but two of these are definitely going on IN vessels; we've already tested. We have absolutely no ABM capabilities on ships especially when a good chunk of PLA's budget is just for anti-Ship BMs. For IAF, this would be the replacement of S-400.
Click to expand...
Isn't there overlapping of qrsam and vlsrsam
Drdo has made mobile srsam now why ?
The c band search radar of qrsam has 120km range for 2m² and x band fire control has 80km range for 2m². Given specs of qrsam 270 kg with 32kg warheads I guess they made a Sustained motor with high speed to capitalise this radars enough.

Which can also be done by astra mk2(if made).
I think alot of logistical burden can be reduced with astra mk1 &mk2 in common with Navy, army & Airforce.
M1,m2 along with vlsrsam would fullfill Navy's needs.

Or qrsam is altogether a different beast.

More than that we should capitalise astra mk3 in xrsam mass production can bring it's cost down we have state owned players too.
1000020975.jpg
Given the threat of ballistic missiles this days we should optimise m1 for ballistic role like Israeli stunner or should atleast have a variant like that. For Future Readiness while astra mk3 with booster taking lead role in area denial. Anyways xrsam is gonna cost alot. Mk3 can make sense there.
There was some noise regarding mk3 initially with the booster it was tested the whole system could act as a good sam.
 
Last edited:
Ayan Barat said:
> you take a standard BMP-2 with 30mm 2A42 auto-cannon and twin ATGM launchers
> remove the turret and add 8 ATGM launchers to make a dedicated Nag Missile Carrier; NAMICA
> reduce ready launchers to 6
> reduce ready launchers to 4 and add the same 2A42 30mm cannon you had removed earlier

So now I've a Ship of Theseus question for you; is it still a dedicated NAMICA or a BMP-2?

How this x4 ATGM + 30mm auto-cannon arrangement of a "missile carrier" any different from the current market standard of regular turrets like UT-30 or ZSSW-30?
Click to expand...

Think of it like this. Our BMP-2 had 1 low-quality old gen ATGM... that too optionally mounted, not always. That was when NAMICA was envisioned.

Today if they have the option of 4 Fire-&-Forget ATGMs on each IFV of the squadron than there's no need for a dedicated platform which replaces the auto-cannon with 4 more ATGMs.
 
Bleh said:
Think of it like this. Our BMP-2 had 1 low-quality old gen ATGM... that too optionally mounted, not always. That was when NAMICA was envisioned.

Today if they have the option of 4 Fire-&-Forget ATGMs on each IFV of the squadron than there's no need for a dedicated platform which replaces the auto-cannon with 4 more ATGMs.
Click to expand...
Yeah but we are talking about a dedicated ATGM carrier here, not an IFV!! And such a system with just 4 ready to fire missiles is plain atrocious.
 
Bleh said:
Think of it like this. Our BMP-2 had 1 low-quality old gen ATGM... that too optionally mounted, not always. That was when NAMICA was envisioned.

Today if they have the option of 4 Fire-&-Forget ATGMs on each IFV of the squadron than there's no need for a dedicated platform which replaces the auto-cannon with 4 more ATGMs.
Click to expand...
And if I am not wrong same turrent will be used in ficv as well
 
Blood+ said:
Yeah but we are talking about a dedicated ATGM carrier here, not an IFV!! And such a system with just 4 ready to fire missiles is plain atrocious.
Click to expand...

We are, they're not.

Now they can have dozens of those IFV turrets with 4-ATGMs each on every FICV in the squadron, so they don't need a few dedicated ATGM platforms accompanying the formation.
 
Bleh said:
We are, they're not.

Now they can have dozens of those IFV turrets with 4-ATGMs each on every FICV in the squadron, so they don't need a few dedicated ATGM platforms accompanying the formation.
Click to expand...

NAMICA MkII, enough said.
 
Blood+ said:
NAMICA MkII, enough said.
Click to expand...

As of now that's only a turret, the platform is immaterial. It's clearly not a "dedicated ATGM carrier" anymore, the NAMICA turret will probably be standard for FICV.
 
Bleh said:
It's clearly not a "dedicated ATGM carrier" anymore, the NAMICA turret will probably be standard for FICV.
Click to expand...
Okay...so you're saying that there won't be any CA in NAMICA; just NAMI

But Nag is huge Hellfire class missile designed to be an anti-everything weapon for helicopters. It was adopted as ground launched variant because we had nothing at that time, otherwise you'd rarely find Hellfire class ATGMs bolted on side of a turret (Russian BMPT is weird).

But interestingly now we have a thing called MPATGM...almost third the weight (15kg vs 50kg), pretty much same range and optimised anti-armour effect despite smaller warhead because of top attack profile. Everyone uses similar missiles; TOW on Bradley, Javelin on CROWS-J, Kornet on BMP-2.

Also the launchers shown on FICV concept seems bit smaller
20240910_140442.webp
So again a Ship of Theseus question for you. If I remove the remaining NAMI from your NAMI...is it still a NAMICA?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Replies

Featured Content

Trending Threads

Share this Site

VPN-HSL-250-X250
Back
Top