Not required.
One of the reason why we performed well is the stringent procurement standard of our forces. I do remember Akash missile tests since my childhood, but it was inducted in late 2000s, we all now know what Akash has done to PAK.
Project Kusha / Programme LRSAM / PGLRSAM
- Thread starter Fatalis
- Start date
One of the reason why we performed well is the stringent procurement standard of our forces. I do remember Akash missile tests since my childhood, but it was inducted in late 2000s, we all now know what Akash has done to PAK.
So little birdie says that the M3 interceptor is going to be a 400km kind of thing. 
BEL chimed in , actually much before the others. But did not have text so
Could share the Full conversation of it ?
So Kusha seems to be say -what kind of Missile class is the Interceptor? Is it like the Barak-8/MRSAM/Akash-NG class of around 300-400kg or SM-6 700kg equivalent? It seems for me that they are rather intending for 3 different variants, add on to already Akash-NG which will form the Integrated Air Defence we are looking at almost 4 Tiers which may be too much in my thinking.
Also this is merely a speculation- that they may be aiming for higher boost velocity, altitude and range impart by booster than relying on the actual interceptor. If you look at the SM-6, its booster rather has small size and the interceptor is almost double the weight of MRSAM class and somewhat chonky. SM-6 kind of missile with wider diameter allows for larger seeker unlike thin beanpole MR-SAM.
Can anyone tell me what's the thinking here? I think 150-Km range is for interceptor as alone which is M1, M2 is for smaller booster to 250km and M3 is for larger booster. Also what's the logic of 3 different classes? I think there should be one 150-km and another 400-km range one.
Also this is merely a speculation- that they may be aiming for higher boost velocity, altitude and range impart by booster than relying on the actual interceptor. If you look at the SM-6, its booster rather has small size and the interceptor is almost double the weight of MRSAM class and somewhat chonky. SM-6 kind of missile with wider diameter allows for larger seeker unlike thin beanpole MR-SAM.
Can anyone tell me what's the thinking here? I think 150-Km range is for interceptor as alone which is M1, M2 is for smaller booster to 250km and M3 is for larger booster. Also what's the logic of 3 different classes? I think there should be one 150-km and another 400-km range one.
We do not have enough information to comment on things like this with certainty now. It will take a few more years to get a clearer picture.
If there is a 400 km missile, it will be much larger and heavier than other M1 and M2 missiles. SM-6 is ~1.5 ton not 700kg.
M2 will be the most interesting because it could also be used to fulfill the long-range missile requirement for the navy. This means there will be size restrictions. Im hoping the spec will be very similar that of SM-6.
Imo we are taking an evolutionary approach with Kusha (modeled on IAIs strategy with the Barak-8 family). This should compress the dev timeline enough for it to fill the IAFs requirement for 8 more S-400 class systems in a reasonable timeframe. Also explains why they'd extend the M3's range to 400km.
The progs to watch imo are AD-1/2 which DRDO has explicitly stated as being in the SM-3/Aster-30 class.
The progs to watch imo are AD-1/2 which DRDO has explicitly stated as being in the SM-3/Aster-30 class.
Kusha is long range tactical use SAM system. The AD series is purely BMD nuke oriented. The short overlap in shooting down SRBM/MRBMs are just coincidence. S-400 and Kusha both have such a role to prevent against some tactical high end enemy weaponry. LRSAM will have 2 different warhead size options that if replicated for all 3 intercepters case, there would be like variant A or B with 30/60kg warhead role specific use.
BMD engagement will likely be slightly different than LRSAM engagement.
BMD engagement will likely be slightly different than LRSAM engagement.
This is what Kusha interceptors should look like.... with massive powerful booster interceptor will reach required hypersonic speeds much faster & to their target insanely Quicker.
People talk about S 400..... but no one talk about these beasts in Russian Air defense arsenal... Performance wise which are even better than 40N6 & other interceptors of S 400.
People talk about S 400..... but no one talk about these beasts in Russian Air defense arsenal... Performance wise which are even better than 40N6 & other interceptors of S 400.
Those are 9M82 and 9M83 missiles of SA-23 Gladiator.
These missiles have been designed ab initio for BMD while on the move.
Soviet Army wanted a mobile Sam system which can accompany its maneuver groups and provide protection against US Army Pershing 2 and other TBM, SRBM.
These can’t shoot down fighter jets and other acs.
S-400 is a multi purpose Sam system with secondary point BMD capabilities unlike V-2500. SA-23 is used by Ground forces. SA-21 is used by VKS.
Both have been designed to cater to different user requirements.
Wrong it can shoot down fight jet & has much higher kill probability........ S-400 was a cost saving measure for mass scale production.
Because it's faster reach its target quicker than any other interceptor out there.....has higher kill probability against both BM & maneuvering targets. When you are engaging target at very long ranges, Speed matters.Because you like how it looks?
All our IADS works in cohesion, i.e., from VSHORADS to short range like Akash to medium range like MRSAM to long-range like S-400 to even our BMD. So one system's weakness is covered by other's strong points. Rest assured that Kusha is going to be awesome. There are already reports of it being able to intercept Mach 7 missiles. Plus it would be supported by PDV/AAD/AD-1/AD-2/AD-AH/AD-AM in theatre denial secondary role(as area denial would be its primary one like S-400).
Our scientists and defence forces know what they're doing. Trust them.
It is impossible to have all these things true simultaneously. It must be heavier, bulkier, and more expensive to achieve true BM capability. It is just overkill to use as a regular LRSAM (read S400) replacement.
We need optimal cost to kill interceptor. A single missile is never the answer.
The long range 40N6E of S400 is 1893kg, while 9M82/9M83 missiles you compared are an absurd 3500kg to 4700kg !.
Childish comparison.
Any news on the IAC specific LR-SAM config? I suspect it will feature a drdo booster for a longer range of upto 150km.
These are for BMD, will be used in S-500.
Speed of course matters, but what matters more in a hit to kill role (or even in fragment disperse role) is the relative velocity with respect to the target. Usually against BM or high speed threat vector, this would be so much that precision would be lost altogether and such systems are built for very high degree of precision. We have to consider that once you launch an interceptor, the on board computer algorithm programs will take over after initial phase of guidance & bearing provided by ground control system. No matter how accurate your programs are, in ambient conditions there can be very small degree of error enough to create miss distance that will fail the mission. Hence the control system (RCS, fins, DACS etc as per exo/endo engagement) and accuracy is prioritised over speed.
BMD interceptors are of high speed by nature, but speed is never the only parameter given pinpoint accuracy in vast airspace/outer space is needed.