RudraM Series Air-launched Missiles : Updates & Discussions

Hope they find way to use foldable fins in the next iteration, Those really stick out big. This fixed set + actuated set of fins offer great control ability on the vehicle, but suited for mach no 2.0 - 5.5 regime, this is possible with the Indhan propellant mix they are using in every tactical system LRSAM to this. But with better propellant mix available, maybe use a more high powered single stage with aerodynamic config a bit similar to the LRAShM class , slimmer shorter lift generating surface with single set control fin.
Kinzhals utility is there , high thrust giving enough kinetic impulse to overcome energy loss due to maneuvering. We do slightly different by making the vehicle incredibly maneuverable with separate lift generating fixed set fins & then moving fins giving quick G turn to defeat any kind of AD system which of course need to compensate for high loss of kinetic impulse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ShiroBarks, RationalGuy, Crimson Fox and 1 other person
More Rudram 3 Media (From MoD 2023-24 Annual Report, Released in October 2025)

1760556107987.jpeg

Latest Update Regarding Rudram 3 from the same Report
1760556166077.png

RudraM-lll, is an indigenous long range air launched anti-radiation missile from Su-30 MKI.
The missile is capable of carrying different type of warheads for different type of ground targets.
During 2023, several sub-systems were realised.
Electrical & mechanical adaptation trials with aircraft were completed.
DcPP have been identified.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Parthu, Gautam, Chain Smoker and 4 others
Interesting lack of information about integration of this series weapons in to LCA and other indi fighter batches indicate

1. None of the 3 systems are yet in readiness for LSP
2. Even if NGARM or R2 are ready, it will be for Su30 only so far and in very limited nos. Obviously the seeker electronics is crucial that changes bill of material often.
3. Since the LCA workscope is for almost 3 years duration after awarding of contract, it is not that vital for the upcoming fighter batches to have indigenous standoff weaponry.
4. It might also explain why IAF is procuring similar standoff weapons from Israel and integrating with the existing inventory jets.

So basically neither the indigenous jets in high numbers nor the indigenous standoff weapon systems on those are to be a reality in a medium term period like 5-10 years. Of course things can change but that would be a forced change due to various ongoing factors and not a natural development curve.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: ShiroBarks, Aniruddha, spice and 7 others
marich01 said:
Interesting lack of information about integration of this series weapons in to LCA and other indi fighter batches indicate

1. None of the 3 systems are yet in readiness for LSP
2. Even if NGARM or R2 are ready, it will be for Su30 only so far and in very limited nos. Obviously the seeker electronics is crucial that changes bill of material often.
3. Since the LCA workscope is for almost 3 years duration after awarding of contract, it is not that vital for the upcoming fighter batches to have indigenous standoff weaponry.
4. It might also explain why IAF is procuring similar standoff weapons from Israel and integrating with the existing inventory jets.

So basically neither the indigenous jets in high numbers nor the indigenous standoff weapon systems on those are to be a reality in a medium term period like 5-10 years. Of course things can change but that would be a forced change due to various ongoing factors and not a natural development curve.
Click to expand...
By when do tou think we can expect Rudrams on Sukhois at least then? Will Mk2 achieve LSP in 2 years at least?
 
RationalGuy said:
By when do tou think we can expect Rudrams on Sukhois at least then? Will Mk2 achieve LSP in 2 years at least?
Click to expand...
The missiles are all tested based on Su30 so its a matter of missile being ready along with the entire process ie different captive, release , live trials as mandated in IMTAR 2.0 , plus associated systems like software, launcher, checkout systems, ground handling systems etc. A certain level of readiness is there with NGARM , but we do not know status of R2 or R3 except one has been fired multiple times and the other did release trials. So it is hard to tell when the development process end and user rial phase begins. Normally there is set PDC in each project but by habit they miss that timeline very often. R-3 pdc is likely in 2028 or 2027 can not remember exactly, to complete all development flight trials. Then live user trial happens for another 12-18 months, sometimes more. Then clearance comes for LSP production. Now depending on priority sometimes some projects are expedited if needed.

Such volatility in the entire process is why neither IAF, nor the industry nor the DRDO can give an accurate timeline except for mandated PDC timeline which by habit is often missed. This lack of credibility wrt timeline adherence is why everyone hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

Now the above Rudrams trial process is entirely built around Su30 so everything will be available for Su30 from the start. But when integration on other jets work begins, that will become a long drawn process. LCA mk1 and Mk1a have 2 different radars, Mig29 jaguars are also different, then not sure if Mirages follow suit or not. So you can imagine the huge task making compatible codes for each just because IAF want to integrate these weapons into every jet they use. Its somewhat crazy decision from IAF front imo mainly focusing on use aspect rather than the technical challenge it comes with. But they only release tender for this job and they do not do it themselves so this does not matter to them.

Normally such variety of jets is used by superpowers who build their own jets so a common technical base is available , all type of jets use common source code etc. Like Rus with their standard and USA with theirs, and Europe with theirs but less variety. IAF is one nutcase that want as many type of jets and as many type of weapons possible fired by all type of jet in the inventory. This is due to very low level technical expertise and understanding present within the rank.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YoungWolf, Aniruddha, Shan and 1 other person
marich01 said:
The missiles are all tested based on Su30 so its a matter of missile being ready along with the entire process ie different captive, release , live trials as mandated in IMTAR 2.0 , plus associated systems like software, launcher, checkout systems, ground handling systems etc. A certain level of readiness is there with NGARM , but we do not know status of R2 or R3 except one has been fired multiple times and the other did release trials. So it is hard to tell when the development process end and user rial phase begins. Normally there is set PDC in each project but by habit they miss that timeline very often. R-3 pdc is likely in 2028 or 2027 can not remember exactly, to complete all development flight trials. Then live user trial happens for another 12-18 months, sometimes more. Then clearance comes for LSP production. Now depending on priority sometimes some projects are expedited if needed.

Such volatility in the entire process is why neither IAF, nor the industry nor the DRDO can give an accurate timeline except for mandated PDC timeline which by habit is often missed. This lack of credibility wrt timeline adherence is why everyone hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

Now the above Rudrams trial process is entirely built around Su30 so everything will be available for Su30 from the start. But when integration on other jets work begins, that will become a long drawn process. LCA mk1 and Mk1a have 2 different radars, Mig29 jaguars are also different, then not sure if Mirages follow suit or not. So you can imagine the huge task making compatible codes for each just because IAF want to integrate these weapons into every jet they use. Its somewhat crazy decision from IAF front imo mainly focusing on use aspect rather than the technical challenge it comes with. But they only release tender for this job and they do not do it themselves so this does not matter to them.

Normally such variety of jets is used by superpowers who build their own jets so a common technical base is available , all type of jets use common source code etc. Like Rus with their standard and USA with theirs, and Europe with theirs but less variety. IAF is one nutcase that want as many type of jets and as many type of weapons possible fired by all type of jet in the inventory. This is due to very low level technical expertise and understanding present within the rank.
Click to expand...
You're basically telling me our SEAD capability is clipped because the IAF is behaving like a bunch of village clowns.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: YoungWolf, Aniruddha, Subgradewalker and 1 other person
marich01 said:
Now the above Rudrams trial process is entirely built around Su30 so everything will be available for Su30 from the start. But when integration on other jets work begins, that will become a long drawn process. LCA mk1 and Mk1a have 2 different radars, Mig29 jaguars are also different, then not sure if Mirages follow suit or not. So you can imagine the huge task making compatible codes for each just because IAF want to integrate these weapons into every jet they use. Its somewhat crazy decision from IAF front imo mainly focusing on use aspect rather than the technical challenge it comes with. But they only release tender for this job and they do not do it themselves so this does not matter to them.
Click to expand...
Weapons integration in the IAF is the job of SDI while the IN counterpart is WESEE. SDI has been doing it internally since Kargil when Israeli experts had to be flown in to integrate Litening-2 + Paveway LGB on M2000s on an emergency basis.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: redpanda, YoungWolf and Subgradewalker
Speedster1 said:
Weapons integration in the IAF is the job of SDI while the IN counterpart is WESEE. SDI has been doing it internally since Kargil when Israeli experts had to be flown in to integrate Litening-2 + Paveway LGB on M2000s on an emergency basis.
Click to expand...
Those are for weapons imported, that is why BEL being local prod for hammer and other systems. IAF will ration between the 2 psu for Israeli & French gears. Both get stuff from respective oems country via shipping or air route while technical lead comes in from OEM to oversee the process. So basically compared to 1999 when there was little trained manpower to do the servicing job now there is little more available but OEM still controls how much. They would not want to lose full control hence kit tightening habit will continue.

For the indigenous weapons BEL BDL both still need subsystems from Israel French Swede Swiss etc but final integration software check, various technical parameter test now BEL BDL got manpower to handle themselves. So a certain maturity has come in finally. You still need to call occasional subject expert consultant and approve it with DRDO if the case is too critical but overall we can see IAF now can rely a bit more. Downside is given the vast volume not enough trained people are in there as manpower retention is very bad in psu, many would switch job after gaining few years experience naturally now demand is more.

IAF got a decent capacity themselves but just about as high tech they can get, bomb kits etc. Truly good air launched standoff autonomous weapons need high end trained technical manpower base both at seller level and in house. Depending on project it is mentioned how many people to be trained for how many days. For instance Akash , BDL train the user group for 2 weeks with the technical manual, repair manual.

1762071312581.png
1762071333361.png
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: redpanda, YoungWolf, Aniruddha and 7 others
marich01 said:
Those are for weapons imported, that is why BEL being local prod for hammer and other systems. IAF will ration between the 2 psu for Israeli & French gears. Both get stuff from respective oems country via shipping or air route while technical lead comes in from OEM to oversee the process. So basically compared to 1999 when there was little trained manpower to do the servicing job now there is little more available but OEM still controls how much. They would not want to lose full control hence kit tightening habit will continue.

For the indigenous weapons BEL BDL both still need subsystems from Israel French Swede Swiss etc but final integration software check, various technical parameter test now BEL BDL got manpower to handle themselves. So a certain maturity has come in finally. You still need to call occasional subject expert consultant and approve it with DRDO if the case is too critical but overall we can see IAF now can rely a bit more. Downside is given the vast volume not enough trained people are in there as manpower retention is very bad in psu, many would switch job after gaining few years experience naturally now demand is more.

IAF got a decent capacity themselves but just about as high tech they can get, bomb kits etc. Truly good air launched standoff autonomous weapons need high end trained technical manpower base both at seller level and in house. Depending on project it is mentioned how many people to be trained for how many days. For instance Akash , BDL train the user group for 2 weeks with the technical manual, repair manual.

View attachment 47470
View attachment 47471
Click to expand...
The IAF prefers to do the weapons integration in-house as much as possible, even for indigineous weapons. If you recall they signed an MoU with ADA recently for Tejas Mk1a software transfer for this exact reason. For foreign weapons like Harpoon AGM, WCMD etc, SDI works with both ac mfgr and weapon supplier to develop the interface code (unless ofc the mission computer is indigenous as on M2000 upg, Jag and MKI.) This is necessary for opsec reasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redpanda, Rajput Lion, YoungWolf and 4 others
Speedster1 said:
The IAF prefers to do the weapons integration in-house as much as possible, even for indigineous weapons. If you recall they signed an MoU with ADA recently for Tejas Mk1a software transfer for this exact reason. For foreign weapons like Harpoon AGM, WCMD etc, SDI works with both ac mfgr and weapon supplier to develop the interface code (unless ofc the mission computer is indigenous as on M2000 upg, Jag and MKI.) This is necessary for opsec reasons.
Click to expand...
This is why 9-BRD exists;)
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Speedster1
Rajput Lion said:
As I speculated earlier and even debated with @marich01 earlier in this thread, we're not going to forlorn NGARM and directly go for Rudram2 or 3. In fact, we're about to order a limited number of NGARMs before we transition to bigger and better versions.
Click to expand...
I'd say NGARM is the perfect candidate to replace Kh-31P unless the IAF has specified a similar LFRJ-powered weapon for the role. A dedicated STAR version should be doable in the short to medium term.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Rajput Lion, YoungWolf, RationalGuy and 1 other person
Speedster1 said:
I'd say NGARM is the perfect candidate to replace Kh-31P unless the IAF has specified a similar LFRJ-powered weapon for the role. A dedicated STAR version should be doable in the short to medium term.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree👍. That's why I said that converting NGARM to just a Tech Demonstrator was a stupid move. In fact, we need thousands of this missile to saturate eneny air-defence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhotonVish, YoungWolf, babablacksheep and 1 other person
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom