VL-SRSAM
- Thread starter Amarante
- Start date
Looks like another prediction of yours truly is about to come true
. Maybe other 'doom and gloom' guys need to buy some optimism in their lives, lol.Just look at the mid-portion of the 1st & 3rd missile(width
)Wiki shows a top speed of M2.1 for B1 while VL-SRSAM, being derived from Astra does at least M4, if not more.
VL-SRSAM has TVC and *possibly* dual thrust rocket motor which make it more lethal against sea skimmers.
Instead of radar illuminators like Elta STGR, VL-SRSAM is backed by a four-panel AESA so spoofing it should be harder.
Also, it has a Ku-band seeker for better clutter resistance.
It provides 70-80% of the capability of a Barak-8, with a lower minimum engagement distance. Good weapon in my book
Do you have a source for B-1 making 80g turns?
Last edited:
Indian fanboys need routine cycle orgasms and despairs.
Press release mentions "improved seeker" then they jumps to the conclusion that's its AESA.
Imagine putting it in a small SRSAM. It will make it excessively expensive.
Looks like another prediction of yours truly is about to come true
Just look at the mid-portion of the 1st & 3rd missile(width
As i was saying !.
Extremely naive. BVR missiles gain speed from the launching platform and gravity, not solely from their motor. A SAM is going against gravity. There is no relation whatsoever between their roles.
Which is the basic requirement for a point defence.
Barak-8 has a similar lower engagement range. The difference is the lower cost.
VL-SRSAM is no point defence missile. It's in the class of ESSM, Sea Ceptor. 50km+ range. This missile should easily replace both B1 and Shtil.
I was speculating about the max speed since that info is not public. My point is the combo of TVC and dual thrust motor should give VLSRSAM enough agility right until target impact.
It is developed as a point defense missile in the Indian Navy to replace Barak 1 in that role. ESSM and Sea Ceptor are point defence missiles.
Better propulsion technology doesn't necessarily mean that its way of usage ie role changes.
But you gave wrong reasoning for max speed.
Dual pulse does not give this missile agility. It give the missile extra speed during the endgame and TVC is used here for the initial turn radius just like barak 1.
VL-SRSAM is not having dual pulse. What is the point of having two missiles with same footprint? The cost will also be very similar.
IN had an initial requirement of 14 systems. Although, it is very tough to determine which old platforms will get this system but IMO:
4 Kamorta class
3 Brahmputra class
3 Delhi class
4 Kora class
The new platforms will be:
6 NGMV
2 + 2 LHD
Though I would love to see Navy putting VL-SRSAM together with MRSAM for double layer protection on the current PSC but I doubt this is going to be the case. MRSAM will most probably be paired with PGLRSAM.
IN had an initial requirement of 14 systems. Although, it is very tough to determine which old platforms will get this system but IMO:
4 Kamorta class
3 Brahmputra class
3 Delhi class
4 Kora class
The new platforms will be:
6 NGMV
2 + 2 LHD
Though I would love to see Navy putting VL-SRSAM together with MRSAM for double layer protection on the current PSC but I doubt this is going to be the case. MRSAM will most probably be paired with PGLRSAM.
Correct, I really hope they don't put in too many fancy features and make it unaffordable.
There is a good market for short-range naval SAMs. MICA VL and CAMM are definitely expensive. We can be the cheaper and efficient option.
To my mind, anything over 15 km is no longer point defence. MICA-VL could be classified as point defence but Sea Ceptor is definitely local area defence. Because one can't cover other ships in the battle group while the latter can.
All I can say is the roles of point defence and local air defence are getting blurred as new-gen missiles enter service. We won't need the Shtil once the VLSRSAM is onboard, imo. I would be glad to see that relic go.
Agreed
Last edited:
Imo, the prime candidate for VLSRSAM is P28. The Delhi class have just been through an MLU and they retained Shitl and B1 so don't expect to see changes anytime soon.
In the last three or so decades, the IN has gone from putting 48 Shtil on Delhi to 32 B8 on similar sized P-15A+B.
Given that rag-tag militia like the Houthis now have ASBMs and CMs, I doubt the IN would be comfortable having 32 B8s on PSC. I too am hoping for double SAM cover+ DRDO VSHORADS in a Mistral style remote-controlled deck-based launcher. Let's see.
As I said, I'm only speculating. I remember reading that the VLSRSAM is noticeably fatter/longer than the Astra-Mk1.
It's probably the Astra Mk2 in surface launched config. We'll know for sure when the specs of the Mk2 are out.
Nope. Missile body length is exactly as Astra but with TVC vanes add-on which makes it slightly longer. Its diameter is also 178mm, exactly that of Astra. Now the catch is that Astra 2 also has 178 mm diameter with a thicker mid-section(rocket motor part) which is around 190mm in the mid-portion.
I debated about this with @Gautam sometime back. Now with VL-SRASAM tested against a NOTAM of 75kms; kind of confirms its Astra 2 origins. And thanks to this pic posted by dear @marich01, we can see that one missile out of two tested had indeed thicker mid-diameter. Also Astra 2 also has an AESA seeker. Looks like the same was tested too:
^^ The thicker mid-portion is very apparent here. Of course, the obvious "doom & gloom" guys will continue to blatantly ignore the 75kms NOTAM for the above test(s) and this pictorial proof as well.
As I was sayin
If the quoted range of 80km is indeed true then most probably it is based on Astra MK-2. But then the range of Akash-NG is also supposed to be 30 km even when it is indeed a dual-pulse missile.
I think it is better to leave this topic "Range of VL-SRSAM and Akash-NG" from discussion. Ignorance is indeed a bliss in such case.
I think it is better to leave this topic "Range of VL-SRSAM and Akash-NG" from discussion. Ignorance is indeed a bliss in such case.
You are confusing short-range and point defense. Point defense is a role in a force structure.
Poster boy of fanboys think NOTAM is the range.Nope. Missile body length is exactly as Astra but with TVC vanes add-on which makes it slightly longer. Its diameter is also 178mm, exactly that of Astra. Now the catch is that Astra 2 also has 178 mm diameter with a thicker mid-section(rocket motor part) which is around 190mm in the mid-portion.
I debated about this with @Gautam sometime back. Now with VL-SRASAM tested against a NOTAM of 75kms; kind of confirms its Astra 2 origins. And thanks to this pic posted by dear @marich01, we can see that one missile out of two tested had indeed thicker mid-diameter. Also Astra 2 also has an AESA seeker. Looks like the same was tested too:
View attachment 36237
^^ The thicker mid-portion is very apparent here. Of course, the obvious "doom & gloom" guys will continue to blatantly ignore the 75kms NOTAM for the above test(s) and this pictorial proof as well.
As I was sayin
Its almost always 50% or double of range for safety.AESA seeker
Astra mk2 dia is 190mm, anyway if they even turn both astras into srsam role specific, they will almost certainly change the motor characteristics ie burn rate and possibly the burn time with a slightly longer motor. But visibly we will not be able to distinguish from afar. The 80 km claim came from DRDO/MoD sources, contrary to us finding it out from usual less stated range so lets see. Most likely given the outrage DRDO will fall back to old 30km figure.
My reasoning was that the engagement pattern for astra as A2A missile in bvr role, and SRSAM engaging a sea skimming target , these 2 are 2 different cases dealing with different boundary conditions for the action envelope and a missile built for one threat envelope can not suddenly fit into another AD role without certain changes in its working pattern. Astra as bvr will deal with a supersonic jet & hence needed high G maneuvers of 40G at rails. The sea skimming target at low altitude will not pull same high G nos. So the SRSAM would need some alteration to fit properly.
My reasoning was that the engagement pattern for astra as A2A missile in bvr role, and SRSAM engaging a sea skimming target , these 2 are 2 different cases dealing with different boundary conditions for the action envelope and a missile built for one threat envelope can not suddenly fit into another AD role without certain changes in its working pattern. Astra as bvr will deal with a supersonic jet & hence needed high G maneuvers of 40G at rails. The sea skimming target at low altitude will not pull same high G nos. So the SRSAM would need some alteration to fit properly.
RCI developed Ku-AESA-164 (the seeker) for project VLSRSAM missions and now the tests are being done to validate the new elements.
Indian fanboys need routine cycle orgasms and despairs.
Press release mentions "improved seeker" then they jumps to the conclusion that's its AESA.
Imagine putting it in a small SRSAM. It will make it excessively expensive.
As i was saying !.
Last edited by a moderator:
Those TVC vanes VL-SRSAM has got, may allow it to turn harder than Astra series missiles as long as motor is working. That's is why, it being based on Astra MK2 makes more sense as Astra MK2's dual-pulse rocket motor would kick in the endgame and allow those TVC vanes to operate even in those conditions which may increase the 40G turn limit even further.
While I'm completely against making personal attacks but in this case all I'll say is : Absolutely.
The Twitter fanboy could have presented sources for the claims before resorting to name-calling. But what can we expect?
Dont be a weasel boy.
Yawn! Ku-Band AESA seeker for Astra variants is now an old info and here you're still doubting it? Dubbing everyone a fanboy won't make you correct everytime.
Yeah, a "wild weasel"! Anyways, give others respect to have it. Simple.
