DRDO QRSAM and SPYDER Air Defence Systems

hellbent said:
By the above I meant that I had deleted my post quickly but obviously not before you saw it, just clarifying.

Anyways another thing is I know very little on how operationally AD is handled bet the forces ,

But I doubt altitude is a delimiting factor among other factors

Bec think it this way , as a example if a target flies blow 6 km altitude and army AD is unable to attain a fire solution, iaf might attain a fire solution to the very same target below 6 km even a high altitude higher range system, so IMO whoever obtains the optimal fire solution will take the shot

But that's my opinion, it could very well be wrong too
Click to expand...
Everything depends upon resources available to that particular formation, but a layered air defence (weather IA or IAF) is desired.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hellbent
hellbent said:
By the above I meant that I had deleted my post quickly but obviously not before you saw it, just clarifying.

Anyways another thing is I know very little on how operationally AD is handled bet the forces ,

But I doubt altitude is a delimiting factor among other factors

Bec think it this way , as a example if a target flies blow 6 km altitude and army AD is unable to attain a fire solution, iaf might attain a fire solution to the very same target below 6 km with a higher altitude higher range system, so IMO whoever obtains the optimal fire solution will take the shot

But that's my opinion, it could very well be wrong too, take it with a pinch of salt
Click to expand...
Afaik army ADC&RS is connected to IAF IACCS so both both can pass target information to each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marich01
hellbent said:
Bro what you wrote how does it have any bearing vis a vis the info on the poster/brochure

Poster is on specs of the missile , that's what I am trying to point out

IMO you are trying to use the altitude data of the missile as that of a radars altitude range, instrumented or not , thats what I was trying to point out as wrong / faulty approach when I replied before I deleted it

I am surprised that you managed to see it hehe
Click to expand...

Yep, it's just the probable tech limits of the missile.
 
Ankit Kumar said:
Army has Akash SAMs too. They have very high altitude targetting capabilities too. So no need to worry 🤠, as far as taking permission from IAF is the question.
Click to expand...

Akash and MRSAMs are meant for static targets, it will be used under operational directions of the air force. QRSAM is meant for use by mobile units, so the army has some leeway in using it against targets below the altitude of 6Km. Of course, it's the same with Akash and MRSAM, ie, below 6Km. Or you will see the IA shooting down IAF's air assets and missiles too.
 
Ankit Kumar said:
QR SAM with its 30km range can easily protect the artillery moving along with it and the armour formation moving 15-20km ahead.
Click to expand...

QRSAM can't protect anything from that far back. It has to remain within visual LoS of the offensive units, that's less than 8Km from a height of 4 meters.

Assuming a QRSAM units stays 6Km away, and enemy contact is at 2Km from the forward edge, then the total distance between the enemy and the QRSAM unit is 8Km, ie, hidden behind the Earth's curvature, so it remains safe from ground fire. And from that distance it can see an enemy helicopter that's hovering 10m from the ground from 13km away, or 5m from 9Km away, enough range to kill it.
 
hellbent said:
Bec think it this way , as a example if a target flies blow 6 km altitude and army AD is unable to attain a fire solution, iaf might attain a fire solution to the very same target below 6 km with a higher altitude higher range system, so IMO whoever obtains the optimal fire solution will take the shot

But that's my opinion, it could very well be wrong too, take it with a pinch of salt
Click to expand...

IAF naturally does not have any surveillance assets at such low altitude in forward areas. Even if they did, they don't any way to kill it. The IA has to protect itself. And they probably believe that threats against forward ground units primarily operate below 6Km altitude, like attack helicopters and CAS jets.
 
They posted that QRSAM satcom hub lab setup again, does it look like army wanted 5G network?
Seems one particular router was wanted

1680170524461.png


SKYWAN Satellite Router - SKYWAN 5G

ND SATCOM provides a wide range of products in the field of satellite communication
www.ndsatcom.com www.ndsatcom.com

 
  • Like
Reactions: marich01
Fatalis said:
Which other missiles provide similiar performance and fulfil the same role as QRSAM?
Click to expand...

Rhetorical or not? 'Cause QRSAM doesn't have a direct competitor with its capabilities and technologies yet.

Some global equivalents are SPYDER, NASAMS III, Sky Sabre and SAMP/T. These have short range missiles with a radar seeker; Derby, AMRAAM, Land Ceptor and Aster 15 respectively. There are a bunch of others, but mostly command guidance, semi-active or IR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom