Indian Missiles News & Discussions - 17 Dec 2018

mody · Post by **mody** » 25 Oct 2020 21:54

There are reports of a new VLS SR-SAM based on the Astra missile. The IAF requirement quotes a range of 40 Kms for the Mk-1, SR-SAM and Mk-2 MR-SAM with range upto 80 Kms.
There will probably be a naval version as well.

Don't know anything about this new project and difference with the QRSAM program.

Also, don't know how this works with the current Barak-8 based MR-SAM project. Whether the Astra Mk-2 based MR-SAM will be a fully indigenous follow on to the Indo-Israeli joint project or the current MR-SAM project for the IAF will be shelved or curtailed.

https://www.defencenews.in/article/FUTU ... RDO-962321

John · Post by **John** » 26 Oct 2020 10:38

I will wait for other sources to confirm it. DRDO is working on SR SAM for navy only but I think IMO it is based on QR SAM. This article makes lot of assumptions:

Range: In the article Astra’s a2a range is not same as SAM range most missiles in astra class adapted for that role have a intercept range of around 15-20km without the use of boosters (Mica, Spyder etc). This raises the question why doesnt IAF just use Qr SAM.

pushkar.bhat · Post by **pushkar.bhat** » 26 Oct 2020 14:07

Self deleted

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 27 Oct 2020 00:06

John wrote: Range: In the article Astra’s a2a range is not same as SAM range most missiles in astra class adapted for that role have a intercept range of around 15-20km without the use of boosters (Mica, Spyder etc). This raises the question why doesnt IAF just use Qr SAM.

I have had that question in mind ever since I heard about the VL-Astra program. Why exactly is it needed when QRSAM exists? I haven't understood what capability it will provide that QRSAM cannot. Seems almost a complete overlap.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 27 Oct 2020 00:17

Vertical launched. As reserve missiles for air to air role just like Spyder sam.

John · Post by **John** » 27 Oct 2020 03:21

sankum wrote:Vertical launched. As reserve missiles for air to air role just like Spyder sam.

Spyder-SR is not vertically launched it is inclined launcher similar to QRSAM. Spyder-MR/ER is vertically launched 360 deg solution.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 27 Oct 2020 04:21

My bad, I only meant Spyder missiles are qualified for air to air role as well.

John · Post by **John** » 27 Oct 2020 04:55

sankum wrote:My bad, I only meant Spyder missiles are qualified for air to air role as well.

No worries. I have no problem with Astra based SAM system if QR SAM did not exist which I think should cheaper and superior for that role (not to mention Akash). Also Currently we don’t have Astra for existing fighters stretching it with SAM will only further delay its availability.

I would rather see some of this money spent on anti aircraft platform/counter artillery procurement which is stuck in limbo.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Oct 2020 15:54

QRSAM has limited altitude coverage. Its designed specifically for IA needs. An Astra based solution will likely be superior and is likely being designed for the IN. The IAF may use that too. Need of the hour is an Akash NG that supplants the largely imported Barak8 and an XRSAM which supplants the S400 but more important than both by far is a CIWS with a fast firing gun and fragmentation rounds.

srin · Post by **srin** » 27 Oct 2020 16:51

The real question to me is not why VL-Astra when QRSAM is being developed. It is the reverse for me - why QRSAM was developed as a separate project when VL-Astra was a viable option ?

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 27 Oct 2020 17:28

Karan M wrote:QRSAM has limited altitude coverage. Its designed specifically for IA needs. An Astra based solution will likely be superior and is likely being designed for the IN. The IAF may use that too. Need of the hour is an Akash NG that supplants the largely imported Barak8 and an XRSAM which supplants the S400 but more important than both by far is a CIWS with a fast firing gun and fragmentation rounds.

Per the recent article by Air Marshal Nambiar, the MRSAM for IAF (Barak 8 ) did not meet expectations (we found out the hard way post Uri attack) and inductions were stopped. Expected to resume in late 2020!

So much for the superior Israeli maal - over-priced, delayed and under-performing

The sooner we kick them out and build our own QRSAM, MRSAM and XRSAM, the better it will be for us.

A Deshmukh · Post by **A Deshmukh** » 27 Oct 2020 17:31

what do we have against a swarm of small UAVs and loitering UAVs?

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 27 Oct 2020 18:27

Currently, not much beyond the DRDO developed anti-drone system. We need an array of soft & hard kill systems: jammers, systems that will fry a drone's electronics, hacking solutions that will enable us to take control of an enemy drone etc etc.

We need a layered strategy against a variety of drones: from short range, man portable ones with COTS parts, to loitering munitions to HALE/MALE weapons-carrying UAVs

Its a rapidly evolving field and we are behind by at least 5 - 10 years.

RajaRudra · Post by **RajaRudra** » 27 Oct 2020 19:30

Prem Kumar wrote:Currently, not much beyond the DRDO developed anti-drone system. We need an array of soft & hard kill systems: jammers, systems that will fry a drone's electronics, hacking solutions that will enable us to take control of an enemy drone etc etc.

We need a layered strategy against a variety of drones: from short range, man portable ones with COTS parts, to loitering munitions to HALE/MALE weapons-carrying UAVs

Its a rapidly evolving field and we are behind by at least 5 - 10 years.

Taking control - Will require the architecture and at least protocol level APIs to try and trick. That too, we should have some grown micro/small drone technology to sharpen the skills.

I think, for immediate need, DRDO should primarily concentrate on identifying the intruders and directing hard kill/jammer options. The jammers should be able to identify the friend and foe.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 27 Oct 2020 21:56

VL-SRSAM is Astra Mk1 with a very short booster. The booster burn ejects the missile out of the canister and uses jet vane controls to orient the missile in the direction of the missile. Expect range in the 15-20 km range. Currently, INS Rajput is being modified to carry 16 VL-SRSAMs. There may be truck based solutions later with 8 missiles.

QRSAM is larger and is expected to have larger range (around 25-30 km). It is not vertically launched but is slewed in the direction of the target by a ground based launcher. The latter is not a viable solution on ships for 360 degree coverage.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 27 Oct 2020 21:57

On Nirbhay, please understand that the turbofan cannot work if booster separation doesn't happen! There is no place for the exhaust to go!

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 27 Oct 2020 22:11

Indranil wrote:VL-SRSAM is Astra Mk1 with a very short booster. The booster burn ejects the missile out of the canister and uses jet vane controls to orient the missile in the direction of the missile. Expect range in the 15-20 km range. Currently, INS Rajput is being modified to carry 16 VL-SRSAMs. There may be truck based solutions later with 8 missiles.

QRSAM is larger and is expected to have larger range (around 25-30 km). It is not vertically launched but is slewed in the direction of the target by a ground based launcher. The latter is not a viable solution on ships for 360 degree coverage.

The QRSAM, once matured, should complement, if not outright replace, similar range Akash in the long term product roadmap.

A 700kg missile can not be cheaper, operationally; particularly if carries seeker.

Plus the ramjet would have constraints on maneuverability.

However, I would still prefer "some" percentage of Akash as it would complicate the counter measures for enemy aircraft by being very different in terms of guidance and flight profile than QRSAM.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Oct 2020 22:33

Prem Kumar wrote:
Karan M wrote:QRSAM has limited altitude coverage. Its designed specifically for IA needs. An Astra based solution will likely be superior and is likely being designed for the IN. The IAF may use that too. Need of the hour is an Akash NG that supplants the largely imported Barak8 and an XRSAM which supplants the S400 but more important than both by far is a CIWS with a fast firing gun and fragmentation rounds.
Per the recent article by Air Marshal Nambiar, the MRSAM for IAF (Barak 8 ) did not meet expectations (we found out the hard way post Uri attack) and inductions were stopped. Expected to resume in late 2020!

So much for the superior Israeli maal - over-priced, delayed and under-performing

The sooner we kick them out and build our own QRSAM, MRSAM and XRSAM, the better it will be for us.

Not sure this is relevant anymore. MRSAM deliveries to IAF began in August 2019 and IAI has placed orders for a 1000 MRSAM assemblies on KRAS its Indian partner.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Oct 2020 22:36

Picklu wrote:
Indranil wrote:VL-SRSAM is Astra Mk1 with a very short booster. The booster burn ejects the missile out of the canister and uses jet vane controls to orient the missile in the direction of the missile. Expect range in the 15-20 km range. Currently, INS Rajput is being modified to carry 16 VL-SRSAMs. There may be truck based solutions later with 8 missiles.

QRSAM is larger and is expected to have larger range (around 25-30 km). It is not vertically launched but is slewed in the direction of the target by a ground based launcher. The latter is not a viable solution on ships for 360 degree coverage.
The QRSAM, once matured, should complement, if not outright replace, similar range Akash in the long term product roadmap.

A 700kg missile can not be cheaper, operationally; particularly if carries seeker.

Plus the ramjet would have constraints on maneuverability.

However, I would still prefer "some" percentage of Akash as it would complicate the counter measures for enemy aircraft by being very different in terms of guidance and flight profile than QRSAM.

Please read what was posted before. QRSAM is developed specifically for IA. It has altitude limitations. IAF needs a bigger bubble.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Oct 2020 22:38

srin wrote:The real question to me is not why VL-Astra when QRSAM is being developed. It is the reverse for me - why QRSAM was developed as a separate project when VL-Astra was a viable option ?

The QRSAM is designed from the ground up for its intended role. QR, designed for low alt targets. A modified AAM is not equivalent.

John · Post by **John** » 27 Oct 2020 22:52

Karan M wrote:
srin wrote:The real question to me is not why VL-Astra when QRSAM is being developed. It is the reverse for me - why QRSAM was developed as a separate project when VL-Astra was a viable option ?
The QRSAM is designed from the ground up for its intended role. QR, designed for low alt targets. A modified AAM is not equivalent.

AAM adapted for surface to air role will have limited range due to lack of datalink and it won’t fly a highly optimized flight path than missiles like Barak-8 or Aster fly to greatly increase their range. Also without a booster it cannot be launched vertically (MICA might be an exception).
For navy I would think QRSAM that is adapted for vertical launch would be ideal as they have similar requirement.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 27 Oct 2020 22:56

Ask any pilot in the world what they would prefer to be chased by: a Akash 1S or QRSAM/VL SRSAM and you will get the answer. It is a huge missile with large warhead and lots of fuel. Not just lots of fuel but fuel with an ISP of 1000-1200.

Yes, Akash is more expensive than QRSAM/VL SRSAM and unviable on ships.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 27 Oct 2020 23:00

John wrote:
Karan M wrote:
The QRSAM is designed from the ground up for its intended role. QR, designed for low alt targets. A modified AAM is not equivalent.
AAM adapted for surface to air role will have limited range due to lack of datalink and it won’t fly a highly optimized flight path than missiles like Barak-8 or Aster fly to greatly increase their range. Also without a booster it cannot be launched vertically (MICA might be an exception).
For navy I would think QRSAM that is adapted for vertical launch would be ideal as they have similar requirement.

They can surely be launched vertically because the TWR of all AAMs is greater than 1. Boosters increase range. But more importantly in VLRSAMs built of BVRAAMs, they are used to add TVC. This allows them to turn instantaneously in any direction immediately after vertical launch.

kit · Post by **kit** » 27 Oct 2020 23:07

Indranil wrote:Ask any pilot in the world what they would prefer to be chased by: a Akash 1S or QRSAM/VL SRSAM and you will get the answer. It is a huge missile with large warhead and lots of fuel. Not just lots of fuel but fuel with an ISP of 1000-1200.

Yes, Akash is more expensive than QRSAM/VL SRSAM and unviable on ships.

i guess no pilot would want to be chased by anything shaped like a mijjile

John · Post by **John** » 27 Oct 2020 23:17

Indranil wrote:
John wrote: AAM adapted for surface to air role will have limited range due to lack of datalink and it won’t fly a highly optimized flight path than missiles like Barak-8 or Aster fly to greatly increase their range. Also without a booster it cannot be launched vertically (MICA might be an exception).
For navy I would think QRSAM that is adapted for vertical launch would be ideal as they have similar requirement.
They can surely be launched vertically because the TWR of all AAMs is greater than 1. Boosters increase range. But more importantly in VLRSAMs built of BVRAAMs, they are used to add TVC. This allows them to turn instantaneously in any direction immediately after vertical launch.

Yes they can be fired vertically see MICA but from what I understand vertical launch seems to greatly reduce the range ( VL Mica has very poor range compared to CAAM). Hence for SPYDER-SR inclined launch is utilized and only the Booster variant is vertically launched. I believe SLAMRAAM is similar.

I am not propulsion expert by any means so cannot comment on how Booster can be better optimized to give higher thrust needed for vertical launch.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 27 Oct 2020 23:22

If you vertically launch and then maneuver hard to orient towards the optimal flight trajectory then naturally that will impact range (unless the target is 90 degree above the launcher and holding still) compared to if you are being (optimally) slewed (though for some of the faster threats you will always need to maneuver to get on your optimal trajectory no matter how fast your launcher can slew). That is just the price you pay with the benefit being that you don't have to orient launchers for the various threats and can vertically launch for an, on average, optimal launch profile. I don't think there is a VL launched AMRAAM or SLAMRAAM variant primarily because there was never a requirement for such (no VL launcher in any of the operating militaries or no need to make a naval SAM out of it). For the HAWK-replacement SLAMRAAM variant they just created a new variant with a larger diameter rocket motor that could meet those altitude and range requirements which was not possible with a re-purposed AIM-120C. A booster capability isn't always free. While it gets you more on one end of the spectrum (medium to longer ranges for the design profile) it also makes meeting the shorter/min range intercept mission more challenging.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 27 Oct 2020 23:45

Indranil wrote:Ask any pilot in the world what they would prefer to be chased by: a Akash 1S or QRSAM/VL SRSAM and you will get the answer. It is a huge missile with large warhead and lots of fuel. Not just lots of fuel but fuel with an ISP of 1000-1200.

Yes, Akash is more expensive than QRSAM/VL SRSAM and unviable on ships.

No argument here on the amount and quality of fuel and warhead of Akash.

However, the war and defense preparedness are functions of the most optimal deployment of capex and opex. A large percentage of QRSAM + "some" Akash would cover more, compared to a force comprised of only Akash, for the same amount of budget.

Also the benefit of additional fuel and higher ISP are somewhat mitigated by the constraints imposed by ramjet.

For the intended role, from similar launcher, what would be better - a 700 kg missile with dual pulse motor or Akash?

IMVHO, the earlier we replace the Akash missile with a similar 700 Kg dual pulse motor based missile, we get better bang for the same buck, with rest of the "system" remaining same. Given our expertise in solid fuel motor, I would assume that to be a low hanging fruit, again IMVHO.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 27 Oct 2020 23:59

Barak 8 is 275kg dual pulse sam with 90 km range.
How it compares with 700 kg ramjet Akash.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 28 Oct 2020 00:56

Akash-NG is supposed to replace the second stage ramjet with a lighter dual pulse solid motor with more range.
Allowing a bigger bubble (IIRC 50+ km) and also, possibly, more missile (IIRC 6) per launcher.

The only advantage of the ramjet was supposed to be a longer powered flight (IIRC 21 second instead of 7 second for a solid fuel single pulse motor) with respect to flight time (IIRC ~40 second).

While the ratio is bigger, the second half of the flight is still unpowered with a heavier and draggier airframe due to ramjet inlets and hence restricted maneuverability. Plus the powered flight also has limited maneuverability since "bank to turn" is the only option, "skid to turn" chokes the ramjet of airflow (France covered the maneuverability restrictions using pif-paf motors, no such motor available for Akash per public domain, we would definitely need a solution for our SFDR when it comes)

Note: The numbers mentioned above are from memory, I am not finding those numbers online anymore.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Oct 2020 01:26

Akash is powered throughout its stated flight envelope. Its Pk is hence high throughout its range envelope. There is no second phase. Dual pulse motors are not equivalent either. They trade weight for a 2nd motor to impart terminal performance but can still be outmatched energy wise. The Akash SSPk is 88% which is fairly high given dual missile salvos can be launched, ergo all the stuff about maneuvering is besides the point. Akash can also be upgraded with newer propellant for its ramjet which is likely going to be the case for future upgrades.

Akash is a replacement for the SA-3 GOA and IA's SA-6. The QRSAM for the OSA-AK. Comparing the two is apples to oranges. One can't replace the other. The IAF has already replaced 17 of its erstwhile 30 SA-3 GOA squadrons with the Akash. That leaves 13 squadrons of which 8 will be upgraded. The IAF is also inducting 9 MRSAM and 5 S400 squadrons. In short the IAF is enhancing the number of SAM squadrons by 9, plus new equipment requires less staffing levels easing the process.

It has 8 OSA- AK squadrons. It has inducted 3 SpyDer squadrons. There are 5 to be replaced. These can presumably be QRSAM but again IAFs needs can differ from those of the Army and as mentioned above they have a ton of new SAMs and some SA-8s may well be retained, as the Pechoras were.

Their immediate need are CIWS of which they have tendered for over 60 odd flights. This is a $1.5Bn program and far more critical for the IAF than SAMs alone given the drone plus PGM threat which are cost inefficient for SAMs to engage and can be used to attrition missile stocks. This is where the IAF is focused at and should be as well. It also has around 10+ Igla flights. It needs far more given its enhanced base coverage. Again, a pressing need given Iglas are all but used up in terms of round life. This is another expensive deal.

As budgets ease up, those older SA-3s and SA-8s will be replaced by newer SAMs.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 28 Oct 2020 01:34

brar_w wrote:If you vertically launch and then maneuver hard to orient towards the optimal flight trajectory then naturally that will impact range (unless the target is 90 degree above the launcher and holding still) compared to if you are being (optimally) slewed (though for some of the faster threats you will always need to maneuver to get on your optimal trajectory no matter how fast your launcher can slew). That is just the price you pay with the benefit being that you don't have to orient launchers for the various threats and can vertically launch for an, on average, optimal launch profile. I don't think there is a VL launched AMRAAM or SLAMRAAM variant primarily because there was never a requirement for such (no VL launcher in any of the operating militaries or no need to make a naval SAM out of it). For the HAWK-replacement SLAMRAAM variant they just created a new variant with a larger diameter rocket motor that could meet those altitude and range requirements which was not possible with a re-purposed AIM-120C. A booster capability isn't always free. While it gets you more on one end of the spectrum (medium to longer ranges for the design profile) it also makes meeting the shorter/min range intercept mission more challenging.

Nice post as always.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 28 Oct 2020 12:00

Indranil wrote:QRSAM is larger and is expected to have larger range (around 25-30 km). It is not vertically launched but is slewed in the direction of the target by a ground based launcher. The latter is not a viable solution on ships for 360 degree coverage.

Indranil: if QRSAM is a grounds-up design, what's the rationale in going for a non-VLS system?

Also, will it be canisterized?

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 28 Oct 2020 15:24

Karan M wrote:Akash is powered throughout its stated flight envelope. Its Pk is hence high throughout its range envelope. There is no second phase. Dual pulse motors are not equivalent either. They trade weight for a 2nd motor to impart terminal performance but can still be outmatched energy wise. The Akash SSPk is 88% which is fairly high given dual missile salvos can be launched, ergo all the stuff about maneuvering is besides the point. Akash can also be upgraded with newer propellant for its ramjet which is likely going to be the case for future upgrades.

Akash is a replacement for the SA-3 GOA and IA's SA-6. The QRSAM for the OSA-AK. Comparing the two is apples to oranges. One can't replace the other. The IAF has already replaced 17 of its erstwhile 30 SA-3 GOA squadrons with the Akash. That leaves 13 squadrons of which 8 will be upgraded. The IAF is also inducting 9 MRSAM and 5 S400 squadrons. In short the IAF is enhancing the number of SAM squadrons by 9, plus new equipment requires less staffing levels easing the process.

It has 8 OSA- AK squadrons. It has inducted 3 SpyDer squadrons. There are 5 to be replaced. These can presumably be QRSAM but again IAFs needs can differ from those of the Army and as mentioned above they have a ton of new SAMs and some SA-8s may well be retained, as the Pechoras were.

Their immediate need are CIWS of which they have tendered for over 60 odd flights. This is a $1.5Bn program and far more critical for the IAF than SAMs alone given the drone plus PGM threat which are cost inefficient for SAMs to engage and can be used to attrition missile stocks. This is where the IAF is focused at and should be as well. It also has around 10+ Igla flights. It needs far more given its enhanced base coverage. Again, a pressing need given Iglas are all but used up in terms of round life. This is another expensive deal.

As budgets ease up, those older SA-3s and SA-8s will be replaced by newer SAMs.

No argument that CIWS is higher priority.

For Akash, the SSPK of 88% (goes above 94% when two rounds are fired at the same target) is achieved by having (relatively) more fuel and heavier warheads per missile and consequently paying the additional operational cost for the same. Just like the pk of a carl gustav in its range would be higher than a ak-47 bullet but the carl gustav would cost way more operationally.

I understand the phrase "powered throughout its stated flight envelope" has been used many times and I am not able to find those burn time and flight time numbers online any more. So won't argue.

Btw, are you suggesting Akash-NG would continue to be a ramjet?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 28 Oct 2020 15:47

Though QRSAM was designed specifically for IA, its specs exceeds the requirement set by IA. (IA was Ok with the increased spec).
This exceeding capability of QRSAM was done in case to meet the requirement of IN if the need arises, if the IN opts for QRSAM for their SRSAM. Even then it has to be customized heavily to IN needs. QRSAM cannot be simply accommodated without the heavy modification needed for IN.

In this scenario, rather than doing all this, what media reported was IN wanted even lesser footprint for its SAM.

In essence what IN asking for is its own version of MBDA Sea Ceptor. This is the short answer.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 28 Oct 2020 16:05

Prem Kumar wrote:
Indranil wrote:QRSAM is larger and is expected to have larger range (around 25-30 km). It is not vertically launched but is slewed in the direction of the target by a ground based launcher. The latter is not a viable solution on ships for 360 degree coverage.
Indranil: if QRSAM is a grounds-up design, what's the rationale in going for a non-VLS system?

Also, will it be canisterized?

Though not addressed to me, QRSAM is a quick reaction sam, similar to spyder-sr sam which is in IA inventory.
Rationale for chosing non-vls system is quick reaction. This is to reduce time, the sam is already positioned in the direction of threat axis.
Vls can give 360 coverage. But to make it further quick, missile on turn table as in Spyder-SR SAM, are oirented in the direction of threat. This is considered to reduce time.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 28 Oct 2020 17:23

A Deshmukh wrote:what do we have against a swarm of small UAVs and loitering UAVs?

To be honest till now no swarm has been deployed by any military from what I know. Only when it is actually deployed we will know of "somewhat effective" counter swarm technologies and tactics. Although certain countries including US would definitely be working on such technologies. I use the word somewhat effective, because I believe it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to develop a foolproof defence against the swarm. At the most you can degrade the swarm to a certain extent. And if you are able to substantially degrade the swarm, I would call it a success.

Loitering munitions have been deployed in various battlefields and have been very effective in neutralizing the targets assigned. Yes these individual loitering munitions in theory can be brought down by variety of methods such as anti aircraft guns, manpads etc. However in practice it is extremely difficult to do so as detecting them itself is very difficult. Most of the times you will come to know of the loitering munition only when it explodes on top of you. Most of these LMs are very small in size compared to fighters, other aircraft and even the regular cruise missiles. Hence they have a very low RCS by default even if they do not incorporate any stealthy design. If you are unable to detect them in first place how will you engage them?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 28 Oct 2020 18:35

LM due to their slow speed and lesser altitude can be brought with small arms, fire AAA or costly SAM use or even by comms Jamming or Lasers. But as you said they key detecting them- they have a lot plastic/ composite bits small engines, plus I think they are not noiseless, you can hear them in the night sky. Key is having Radar/ IIR guided AAA. Armenia in Nagrano karabach does not have any of this- the SAM sites destroyed were at least 20-30 years old vintage- they software, hardware would not have any ability to deal with Drones. The Turks did try and have a go at Russian base in Armenia proper -Gumri and 9 of their Bayraktar Drones came crashing.

My guess these are like Ju-87 stuka, Terror weapons with initial success Terror weapons, but if you are prepared thier effectiveness will be heavily degraded.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Oct 2020 19:13

Against a swarm, no matter what solution you employ, almost has to have a HPM backup. Lasers, with their dwell times and magazine aren't going to be effective against them by themselves, and traditional EW/jamming can be countered to some extent by having anti-jamming and HOJ sprinkled in b/w the swarm. With AI, and with IIR sensors getting where they are in terms of SWaP-C, it wouldn't be very hard to completely do-away with the need for either a swarm, or a loitering munition to communicate with a third party like a ground station etc. Intra-swarm communication links on the other hand will be much harder to disrupt just given how those sensors will be oriented. Those links are coming to your run of the mill unpowered munitions as well so this threat of weapons communicating with each other, and doing route planning, re-routing, threat prioritization and even higher level tasks isn't going to be restricted to just specialized loitering munitions. The threat from a bunch of smart, networked, and "Collaborative Teams" of SDB's and MALD-J's is going to take it to a completely another level and like all tech will eventually proliferate. The real challenge will be to effectively field systems that can deal with them at the tactical edge. Not everyone deployed is going to have the luxury of a multi pronged layered air defense strategy and you can't or won't effectively be able to do area defense against these threats.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Oct 2020 19:18

Picklu wrote:
No argument that CIWS is higher priority.

For Akash, the SSPK of 88% (goes above 94% when two rounds are fired at the same target) is achieved by having (relatively) more fuel and heavier warheads per missile and consequently paying the additional operational cost for the same. Just like the pk of a carl gustav in its range would be higher than a ak-47 bullet but the carl gustav would cost way more operationally.

Cost needs to be kept in context. What's the cost of a successful strike against an air base or a vital point for instance. Also the high run rate of the missile makes it cheap as does the fact its a relatively straightforward design. QRSAM is not going to be necessarily cheaper as you are assuming. The Akash for the IAF is a straightforward trailer borne system. QRSAM is integrated into compact vehicles with newer tech.

I understand the phrase "powered throughout its stated flight envelope" has been used many times and I am not able to find those burn time and flight time numbers online any more. So won't argue.

The exact specifics burn time etc are not germane to the overall point - in simple terms it means the stated range figures of the Akash are for when its motor is on. Thats a much more honest figure than what many missile mfrs reveal.

Btw, are you suggesting Akash-NG would continue to be a ramjet?

No, that Mk1 itself can likely be upgraded with newer fuel mixes if the situation demands.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 28 Oct 2020 19:22

Aditya_V wrote:LM due to their slow speed and lesser altitude can be brought with small arms, fire AAA or costly SAM use or even by comms Jamming or Lasers. But as you said they key detecting them- they have a lot plastic/ composite bits small engines, plus I think they are not noiseless, you can hear them in the night sky. Key is having Radar/ IIR guided AAA. Armenia in Nagrano karabach does not have any of this- the SAM sites destroyed were at least 20-30 years old vintage- they software, hardware would not have any ability to deal with Drones. The Turks did try and have a go at Russian base in Armenia proper -Gumri and 9 of their Bayraktar Drones came crashing.

My guess these are like Ju-87 stuka, Terror weapons with initial success Terror weapons, but if you are prepared thier effectiveness will be heavily degraded.

I don't think it is that simple. But even if I agree with you on the capability of current loitering munitions, the point is that it is just the start of a new era. The future belongs to swarm and it will be far more scary plus the swarm will be a great leveller in its own way.