Why would the IAC need LRSAM? She already has the MRSAM.
Project Kusha / Programme LRSAM / PGLRSAM
- Thread starter Fatalis
- Start date
Part of this program is IAC specific. As was also evident previously. Like any multi user program (helina, akash etc) there are separate work for each user preference basis. In this case, one LRSAM will be tailored for the IAC specifically. DRDL got separate workforce dedicated in it as well.
old LRSAM they renamed it as MRSAM yes. I would guess there are user specific alterations in it , hence 2 different lead integrator doing the work for different user.
Well given its a very high value asset , that houses another set of high value asset makes it more likely once Kusha program is ready. As I have shown before, way before when there was news of xrsam/ersam , the program directors part read as LRSAM (IAC) and Kusha (XRSAM). So an IAC specific version was in the works for some time. It could be that its 100km extended barak 8 from 70km original range. Then post 2022 navy changed specification due to real life threat perception & now its under XRSAM kusha.
XRSAM/Kusha may also have limited BMD ability so it would make sense to put it on our IACs.
For ref , IAC specific LRSAM was sanctioned in 2017 as per standing committee reports , and it made sense for Kusha project director to handle that. Now there may have been change of spec/user request, who knows maybe the original plan was for 100km range maybe it is improved now so in case of actual use, threats can be engaged further and earlier.
http://164.100.60.131/lsscommittee/Defence/16_Defence_43.pdf
http://164.100.60.131/lsscommittee/Defence/16_Defence_43.pdf
There is no space for Program Kusha on the IAC. Two missile spots are being used by MRSAM.
The MRSAM that is being used would be tailored for platform specific application. Missile variants are not known outside. Besides this project is for IAC specific, can be for futuristic carriers given there are long term plans.
No aircraft carrier sails with long-range SAMs unless it is Soviet. Carriers typically rely on air defense escort ships for protection and have limited air defense capabilities themselves.
If VLSRSAM were available, they would not have opted for the expensive MRSAM.
Now a counterargument.
Tell me why they asked for 8 Anti ship missiles on the same ship.
My understanding is unlike what the role of a carrier group is as an offensive force, we will never use our carriers in such way unless really cornered to do so (read against the chinese). That is we will not project force in a way that usa does with theirs, our IACs will be limited to force projection within IOR and make friendly port calls mostly. That means any threat coming to any IAC, whatever threat it would face that threat will be coming from outside and not the IAC going to the threat itself and inviting one. Add with that Navy's missile phobia , they know what they will be facing in outside world. So it is very likely they wanted a better solution than LRSAM/MRSAM hence the IAC specific project was sanctioned. IAC itself is 2 assets bound in 1 , both costs are huge. It is imperative to have better protection on it then add further layer of protection around via escorts.
Unless VLSRSAM is 80km as was claimed in MoD/Parliament doc, unlikely the IAC would house it imo.
The Indian carrier's role is fleet defense. There is nothing special about the geography or the enemy to warrant a dramatically different doctrine.
Adding VLRSAM implies that the carrier will have to go alone without an escort, which doesn't make any sense. It is always the Air Defense destroyer/cruiser protecting the fleet, and carriers and other vessels will have limited self-defense.
VLSRSAM is not ready , neither LSP ready nor even in final dev stages much like kusha itself, they are still doing revisions and things. So there is no scope of it being considered as part of systems for any existing or near future project ships. It is the same reason navy gives for opting for MRSAM that is imported mainly, that the existing under construction ships will have the proven existing barak mrsam installed rather than domestic produced MRSAM, which will go into next class of future ships. Either way, protection of asset plays large in navy's mind, esp for the first IAC. Until we are privy to absolute knowledge forwhich system offer what, and what role each ship plays, it is unlikely we can predict what SAM system would go on what ship.
I think it is likely that when a new class of ship will be designed, the designers would consider kusha or VL-SRSAM for frozen design config only if the said systems are fully ready & in place.
You missread, im talking about adding Very Long Range SAM (VLRSAM) not VLSRSAM.
We absolutely know the role of a carrier and its doctrine. Taking up valuable deck space for packs of gigantic 1-2 ton missiles is a bonkers idea. Only, Soviets think like that not us.
lets see what Kusha weigh first, my guess is there will be variety carried by any IAC, some long range , some mrsam and some other maybe. Kusha IAC variant won't be too heavy imo compared to the other stuff in same project. We are just set on ERSAM/XRSAM spec rivalling S400 in mind hence.
Btw, in Dr Reddy Garus cv there was mention of this project , at that time LRSAM and MRSAM nomenclature existed side by side. You can see it was under development as new weapon system. Technical review committee back in early 2022 also had separate scientist member besides the usual In & IAF Kusha. So who knows maybe the 3 missiles in this project are actually 3 separate versions of what was initial concept of ERSAM/XRSAM. You can do a lot of things actually, use dual pulse motors with varied burns rates, propellant, targeting algo, booster combo, different seekers and each would give a new config.
pics were from past links given by neutronx
pics were from past links given by neutronx