DRDO QRSAM and SPYDER Air Defence Systems

Ankit Kumar said:
Yes seems so. I quoted the whole article too in #161.

Yes that's why I think that it's a mistake on Jane's part. No official word yet. I searched but nothing apart from the Jane's article.
Click to expand...

Should be the radar's instrumented altitude as 14Km and the missile's engagement altitude at 6Km. That's the IA's area of responsibility for quick reaction systems.
Ankit Kumar said:
But then Jane's has a very decent history, much higer than likes of SIPRI even. Let's see.
Click to expand...

Absolutely horrendous source for anything non-Western. It's more about propaganda when it comes to Russian and Chinese systems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SammyBoi and marich01
marich01 said:
No I am asking, see the bottom part of the pic, ROTM with red lines max 8km with LOS part. Want to know if that spec is what army would look to improve.
Click to expand...

8Km is the LoS allowed by the Earth's curvature. It doesn't mean the max distance. A regiment has to operate at much higher distances than that. A battery has to operate within LoS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marich01
hellbent said:
I highly doubt that

Either its a error
Or
It's the actual engagement altitude at 14 km

There is no such thing as instrumented altitude for missiles that too double that of actual range, it's impossible and impractical to have double the so called actual altitude

Radars have instrumented range which is AFAIK 20% +- 10% depending on system to system , definitely not double the operational range

In this case specs are of missile , so see no reason to think 14 km is radars range instrumented or otherwise
Click to expand...

Instrumented range/altitude is not for the missile, it's for the radar. Meaning the radar will pick up and track objects up to an altitude of 14Km, and if the object comes to below 6Km, ie, threatens ground units, then the QRSAM will engage it. Above 6Km, the IAF will go check it out, 'cause that's their area of responsibility.

Instrumented range/altitude just depends on what they think is tactically sufficient. Basically, it just filters out tracks outside that range. For example, the Bars radar has an instrumented range of 400Km. So, even if it picks up targets beyond that range, the radar will simply not show the target to the pilot, 'cause it's unnecessary information and there's nothing he can do about it anyway. That's all there is to it.

Of course, it's also possible that QRSAM can achieve targets beyond 6Km, all the way to 14Km. Even that makes sense, actually makes more sense. But 6Km is the IA's area of responsibility, so that's the altitude that was published for it. Meaning, QRSAM can achieve an altitude of 14Km, but the IA will never fire at a target at that altitude due to jurisdiction. Or it's possible they will fire at targets above 6Km only if the IAF gives the firing unit permission. So I think this is the more likely reason than the instrumented altitude.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crimson Fox
randomradio said:
Instrumented range/altitude is not for the missile, it's for the radar. Meaning the radar will pick up and track objects up to an altitude of 14Km, and if the object comes to below 6Km, ie, threatens ground units, then the QRSAM will engage it. Above 6Km, the IAF will go check it out, 'cause that's their area of responsibility.

Instrumented range/altitude just depends on what they think is tactically sufficient. Basically, it just filters out tracks outside that range. For example, the Bars radar has an instrumented range of 400Km. So, even if it picks up targets beyond that range, the radar will simply not show the target to the pilot, 'cause it's unnecessary information and there's nothing he can do about it anyway. That's all there is to it.

Of course, it's also possible that QRSAM can achieve targets beyond 6Km, all the way to 14Km. Even that makes sense, actually makes more sense. But 6Km is the IA's area of responsibility, so that's the altitude that was published for it. Meaning, QRSAM can achieve an altitude of 14Km, but the IA will never fire at a target at that altitude due to jurisdiction. Or it's possible they will fire at targets above 6Km only if the IAF gives the firing unit permission. So I think this is the more likely reason than the instrumented altitude.
Click to expand...

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
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chain Smoker, marich01, Rajput Lion and 1 other person
So we're expected to believe that QRSAMs which were developed in the first place to offer protection to components of the IA assets on the move that too rapidly , in their invasion of enemy territory , say some 400-500 kms deep in to Tibet will first seek firing permission from the IAF due to jurisdictional issues if the target is above 6 kms , in the midst of a war .

You know what , the IA is actually capable of doing something like this .

I think I'd just gouge my eyes out at reading something I oughtn't to have read in the first place .
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Crimson Fox, vikata and Rajput Lion
_Anonymous_ said:
So we're expected to believe that QRSAMs which were developed in the first place to offer protection to components of the IA assets on the move that too rapidly , in their invasion of enemy territory , say some 400-500 kms deep in to Tibet will first seek firing permission from the IAF due to jurisdictional issues if the target is above 6 kms , in the midst of a war .

You know what , the IA is actually capable of doing something like this .

I think I'd just gouge my eyes out at reading something I oughtn't to have read in the first place .
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
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...

Are Akash SAMs going to accompany IBGs in their forward thrusts across the LoC or LAC leave alone deep thrusts into enemy territory ? If yes why did we develop the QRSAMs ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
_Anonymous_ said:
Are Akash SAMS going to accompany IBGs in their forward thrusts across the LoC or LAC ? If yes why did we develop the QRSAMs .
Click to expand...
As of now only Strela 10 will be accompanying the formations. QR SAM will be slightly behind.

Additional Akash Systems if available can also be carried towards the front for layered air defence.

Hopefully we will get a BMP chassis with a radar and EO/IR system, 4/6 VSHORADS launchers and a couple of 30mm gasha canons. 🤠
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
_Anonymous_ said:
Won't the QRSAMs go too ?
Click to expand...
Imagine 14 Arjun MBTs along with 20 BMP2s, 2-3 NAMICA backed by 130mm Arjun Catapults and LCH support from rear.

Now which fits better a tracked Shilka/Tunguska/Strela10 or a battery of QR SAM moving with them.

QR SAM will be used to defend the rear of the thrust where the artillery lies along with attack helicopters and any other communication/command/control center, or supply line.

QR SAM with its 30km range can easily protect the artillery moving along with it and the armour formation moving 15-20km ahead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chain Smoker, Rajput Lion, Ashwin and 1 other person
Ankit Kumar said:
Imagine 14 Arjun MBTs along with 20 BMP2s, 2-3 NAMICA backed by 130mm Arjun Catapults and LCH support from rear.

Now which fits better a tracked Shilka/Tunguska/Strela10 or a battery of QR SAM moving with them.

QR SAM will be used to defend the rear of the thrust where the artillery lies along with attack helicopters and any other communication/command/control center, or supply line.

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...
Thanks for the elaborate explanation . I was partly aware of the order of battle which is why I repeatedly asked if QRSAMs will be part of the thrusts or not . They are whereas the Akash SAMs aren't . That's all I wanted confirmation of .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion and Ankit Kumar
randomradio said:
Instrumented range/altitude is not for the missile, it's for the radar. Meaning the radar will pick up and track objects up to an altitude of 14Km, and if the object comes to below 6Km, ie, threatens ground units, then the QRSAM will engage it. Above 6Km, the IAF will go check it out, 'cause that's their area of responsibility.

Instrumented range/altitude just depends on what they think is tactically sufficient. Basically, it just filters out tracks outside that range. For example, the Bars radar has an instrumented range of 400Km. So, even if it picks up targets beyond that range, the radar will simply not show the target to the pilot, 'cause it's unnecessary information and there's nothing he can do about it anyway. That's all there is to it.

Of course, it's also possible that QRSAM can achieve targets beyond 6Km, all the way to 14Km. Even that makes sense, actually makes more sense. But 6Km is the IA's area of responsibility, so that's the altitude that was published for it. Meaning, QRSAM can achieve an altitude of 14Km, but the IA will never fire at a target at that altitude due to jurisdiction. Or it's possible they will fire at targets above 6Km only if the IAF gives the firing unit permission. So I think this is the more likely reason than the instrumented altitude.
Click to expand...


hellbent said:
...approach when I replied before I deleted it

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

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
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ankit Kumar
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom