oKusha's main Long-Range Battle Management Radar (LRBMR): Operates in the S-band.
oKusha's main Long-Range Battle Management Radar (LRBMR): Operates in the S-band.
Welcome back. Been gone for too long I guess.
Our long-range ADS demand has risen to 20 squadrons. 10 of them are going to be S-400s and another 10 is going to be Kusha LRADS.
To defend a coastline of more than 11k kms, even 20 is not good enough, so this move to procure more S-400s and Kusha, is always welcome.
I wonder...
We have point defence system like QRSAM. All it is missing is a gun like AK-630M or AK-630M1-2. China has a similar system. HQ-11.
Why do we need Pantsir?
We evaluated it, IA. It lost to Biho. Thats all, Pantsir is a mediocre to Biho.
Those who doubting the IA evaluation, same IA dtched Russian howitzer for superior K9.
DRDO QRSAM can replace.
I dont know howmany systems we need, but one specific system is required for A&N islands. Along with a dedicated airforce /naval station comprising Rafale& MKI along with proper AWACS(360 deg) fleet and permanent P-8I flet of six to nine aircraft.
We don't need, QRSAM is sufficient. Purchase German Sky ranger, this combo can tackle anything in close range.
It is part of a much larger play, imo. Both Russia and Israel want a piece of Sudarshan Chakra. Russia is offering everything from Voronezh, S400, S500, S350 to Pantsir. Otoh, the Israelis are pitching Iron Dome, David's Sling, Arrow et al.
If Pantsir failed IA trials, the ID too has been deemed unsuitable for our needs in the past. And yet, these systems are being pushed regardless.
We do need effective solutions for short range C-RAM and S-400 class LRAD but there is a geopolitical dimension of these deals.
If Pantsir failed IA trials, the ID too has been deemed unsuitable for our needs in the past. And yet, these systems are being pushed regardless.
We do need effective solutions for short range C-RAM and S-400 class LRAD but there is a geopolitical dimension of these deals.
Chatter on X is it's easier to integrate Pantsir to the S-400 ADS & that getting to integrate systems like QRSAM to the S-400 is a hassle plus the Russians would play hard to get .
Wonder if the S-400 has been integrated to the IACCS. In any case the QRSAM & other components put together to get an analogue to the Pantsir would be problematic as apart from being time consuming these aren't proven systems.
Unfortunately when you're about to go up in a confrontation with both of your neighbours at any given point in time , these are the compromises you make.
Please check on the number of high profile systems we plan on importing / have signed up for imports in the past 3-4 years exactly the same time as the GoI / MoD is running their Atma Nirbharta / MII campaign.
Right now the best we can hope for are some imports to tide over the immediate crises while furiously developing local analogues in substantial numbers for the future.
In the case of LRAD we're certainly doing so . Unfortunately these aren't going to come in time for our tryst with China.
Is making a CIWS like AK630M so hard? It is a stupid gattling cannon. I am sure baba kalyani can do something about it.... And if we are making radars like Uttam, is making a FCR for a CIWS so hard?
A truck mounted AK630 CIWS does exist.
Although it might not look the part, as long as it gets the job done then that should be fine.
I recall some 6 of these are on order.
The latest version of Pantsir is modular with detachable gun/CUAS/SHORAD missile modules while the acquisition + FCR module is common to all. This is exactly what the DRDO set out to do with Raksha Kavach, etc. A modular system of systems approach.
The IACCS is an open architecture system designed to integrate Israeli, Russian and French (GM400, THD-1955) radars and GBAD missile systems.
Most modern battery level command posts/battle management centres can be slaved to higher level C4I systems.
In the case of Akash, targets can be directly assigned (and prosecuted) by IACCS to individual launch units bypassing its own BCP.
I'd be surprised if S-400 is any different.
I suspect GoI is going down the same path with Pantsir as with LMM just recently and nearly so with US NASAMS-2 some years ago.
Last edited:
Perhaps this can be made to work with a turreted belt feed mechanism and the magazine decoupled from it. Sorta like the Goalkeeper.
Last edited:
We will continue to import and co-develop cutting edge weapons with Russia, Israel & France along with inducting all our indigenous weapons. No need to overly fret over Pantsir or Shtil-1.
Shitl-1 is an in-service system that's probably too costly to replace on Russian origin/input ships. The reaction time was its only drawback in the older version which is finally being fixed.
It'd be great if the Delhi class could be fitted with them too.
Otoh, Pantsir is getting backdoor entry after having failed IA trials and after a not too stellar performance against a class of threats it clearly wasn't designed for.
Besides, it's performance envelope overlaps QRSAM and to a large extent even the Akash-NG. So questions are bound to arise.
Maybe, IAF realized post our Ops that Pantsir is important for protection of S-400 batteries. Finally, we may question or discuss but our services know what they want. Rest is just cheap talk, IMO.
Pantsir is the successor to the Tunguska and Shilka. We have been operating all 3 systems which are the products of the same company, KBP Tula.
I'd say the armed forces over multiple generations have been deeply ingrained with Russian SPAAG design philosophy. Same with MBTs and IFVs.
Whether Pantsir is good or bad, only time will tell.
Pantsir is fully integrated with the S-400's C2. If we buy something else, we are gonna have to deal with the integration ourselves. Plus foreign sources will not agree to work with Russian tech, so there's not much choice here.
Pantsir is also highly mobile as is the S-400, and we don't yet have an indigenous equivalent. We have only static stuff.
It's cheap too.
Pantsir's flaws have been fixed since then.
QRSAM is not a gun-missile system. QRSAM complements it.