QRSAM ( Quick Reaction SAM ) of IA

[jai jaganath]

Don't know of this guy's credibility

Yes he is

 

[johnj]

So no weight issues. No mobility issues. No "radar unable to detect helicopter at minimum range". Sounds like there were some issues highlighted, some feedback from Army and these dalals want to make a mountain out of that molehill and derail the program.

radar unable to detect helicopter at minimum range - what minimum range ?
May be C2 issue, not radar, which is easily fixed.
mobility issues - IA always having mobility issues.

 

[thebakofbakchod]

And it took 6 trials to figure this issue out? At this point may as well let chinks do whatever they want at the border. Traitor dalals will never end this game

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Akash having two versions, both mobile and stationary, mobile version can fire missile with a halt[standing still for a short time for firing the missile]

Production versions using tatra truck. Also IA asked for b30/Pantsir like system.
---
SPAAG with missiles. eo/rf sensors,eccm etc. Not only in the frontline, but during a assault, inside hostile territory, with out any air support.
---
Qrsam is not important for IA now, when you consider SPAAG, or manpads, assault rifles, drones etc, its not about qrsam but user, ie IA.

Wrong again. Army itself rejected Akash and gave the GSQR on which QRSAM is built. Army demanded QRSAM, its not as if DRDO woke up one day and decided to make a system the Forces never asked for. So your argument that "its about user not QRSAM" or "QRSAM is not important" can be binned with just that fact alone. But let me go further: Can Rajendra or 3D-CAR track targets when the truck that is carrying it is moving? NO! QRSAM can do that. Other than that, QRSAM has a shorter reaction time than Akash (not sure how short but QRSAM was designed for that purpose after Akash was rejected for the role because of that same reason).

Now coming to your misunderstanding on how SPAAG can somehow supplant QRSAM, take the example of our enemy to the North:-

At the tactical level, a single PLA Ground Force Combined Arms Brigade has one AD Battalion consisting of:-

• 3 Batteries of SPAAG (6 SPAAG each for a total of 18)
• 1 Battery of HQ-7 (8 systems and 2 radars)

At the Operational level, a Group Army has one AD Brigade which has:-

• 1 Battalion of HQ-16
• 3 Battalions of HQ-7

Now rough equivalents would be:-

Indian Army	PLA Ground Force
MANPAD (Igla to be replaced by Igla S and DRDO MPDMS)	MANPAD (QW-1)
SPAAG (Shilka and Tunguska, to be replaced but Biho doesn't meet all requirements)	SPAAG (two types: Heavy Type-09 and Light Type-95)
Osa and Strela-10 to be replaced by DRDO QRSAM	HQ-7
SA-6 (Gainful) replaced by Akash Mk1, Mk1S and Prime	HQ-16A
Akash NG, MRSAM (Barak-8)	HQ-16B

Now do you understand? QRSAM is very much necessary for IA. It is to India what HQ-7 is to China. And we need to replace the obsolete Osa and Strela-10. Army wants this, not DRDO.

 

[Aniruddha Mulay]

The development of QRSAM can trace its roots back to 2007 when the Indian Army decided to replace OSA-AK and 2K12 Kub with a modern quick reaction system.
Not a single foreign system fit into the requirements set out by the Indian Army.
This circus drama persisted for another 7 years when in 2014, DRDO was sanctioned funds to develop QRSAM for the Army.
If the system was developed as per the strict requirements of the IA and that it went into development and user trials in 2017 itself, these issues which are major issues would have been highlighted back then itself.
It would not take DRDO or IA 5 long years to say the radar does not detect low flying helos, its bulky, etc, etc.
This reeks of a hitjob to me

 

[johnj]

Wrong again. Army itself rejected Akash and gave the GSQR on which QRSAM is built. Army demanded QRSAM, its not as if DRDO woke up one day and decided to make a system the Forces never asked for. So your argument that "its about user not QRSAM" or "QRSAM is not important" can be binned with just that fact alone. But let me go further: Can Rajendra or 3D-CAR track targets when the truck that is carrying it is moving? NO! QRSAM can do that. Other than that, QRSAM has a shorter reaction time than Akash (not sure how short but QRSAM was designed for that purpose after Akash was rejected for the role because of that same reason).

Now coming to your misunderstanding on how SPAAG can somehow supplant QRSAM, take the example of our enemy to the North:-

At the tactical level, a single PLA Ground Force Combined Arms Brigade has one AD Battalion consisting of:-

• 3 Batteries of SPAAG (6 SPAAG each for a total of 18)
• 1 Battery of HQ-7 (8 systems and 2 radars)

At the Operational level, a Group Army has one AD Brigade which has:-

• 1 Battalion of HQ-16
• 3 Battalions of HQ-7

Now rough equivalents would be:-

Indian Army	PLA Ground Force
MANPAD (Igla to be replaced by Igla S and DRDO MPDMS)	MANPAD (QW-1)
SPAAG (Shilka and Tunguska, to be replaced but Biho doesn't meet all requirements)	SPAAG (two types: Heavy Type-09 and Light Type-95)
Osa and Strela-10 to be replaced by DRDO QRSAM	HQ-7
SA-6 (Gainful) replaced by Akash Mk1, Mk1S and Prime	HQ-16A
Akash NG, MRSAM (Barak-8)	HQ-16B

Now do you understand? QRSAM is very much necessary for IA. It is to India what HQ-7 is to China. And we need to replace the obsolete Osa and Strela-10. Army wants this, not DRDO.

No, now I'm getting nothing. Army itself rejected Akash and gave the GSQR on which QRSAM build - got it.
Then how a inferior akash can match HQ-16A, by your theory, QRSAM equivalents HQ-16A, right ?
HQ-16B - how many barak 8 units ordered by IA so far, DRDO developed akash based on IA requirements ?
Most confusing part , HQ-7 min range .7km, HQ-16A less than 3km, and qrsam 3km.
Let assume ''Army itself rejected Akash and gave the GSQR on which QRSAM build'' then its come under same category akash, mr-sam, not sr-sam like hq-7, and you are right 'Army itself rejected Akash and gave the GSQR on which QRSAM build'' means its equivalent to HQ-16A.
''Neither does Akash have the requisite 360 degree coverage, nor the 3-4 second reaction time the Army wants. Moreover, Akash has a large radar ground signature with several vehicles required for its missile launchers, multi-function radars and the like," said a source.
IA currently having no new equipment to replace Shilka, Tunguska and Strela-10, Osa may be with a astra vl.
What is the reaction time of hq16 ?
thanks for info.

 

[anirban8]

radar unable to detect helicopter at minimum range - what minimum range ?
May be C2 issue, not radar, which is easily fixed.
mobility issues - IA always having mobility issues.

Helicopter on top of the radar I guess. I really feel like this is a hit job let's wait and see if we get some details about the last test

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

No, now I'm getting nothing. Army itself rejected Akash and gave the GSQR on which QRSAM build - got it.
Then how a inferior akash can match HQ-16A, by your theory, QRSAM equivalents HQ-16A, right ?
HQ-16B - how many barak 8 units ordered by IA so far, DRDO developed akash based on IA requirements ?
Most confusing part , HQ-7 min range .7km, HQ-16A less than 3km, and qrsam 3km.
Let assume ''Army itself rejected Akash and gave the GSQR on which QRSAM build'' then its come under same category akash, mr-sam, not sr-sam like hq-7, and you are right 'Army itself rejected Akash and gave the GSQR on which QRSAM build'' means its equivalent to HQ-16A.
''Neither does Akash have the requisite 360 degree coverage, nor the 3-4 second reaction time the Army wants. Moreover, Akash has a large radar ground signature with several vehicles required for its missile launchers, multi-function radars and the like," said a source.
IA currently having no new equipment to replace Shilka, Tunguska and Strela-10, Osa may be with a astra vl.
What is the reaction time of hq16 ?
thanks for info.

Dude, don't just look at range. There are a lot of factors involved, including technology creep. Refer to the table above: QRSAM is not meant to perform same role as HQ-16. Its meant to perform same role as HQ-7. Now you will say HQ-7 has much shorter range. But that is not a determining factor for the role. HQ-7 has less range simply because its old. This technology creep is occuring even in Akash SAM with the Mk1, Mk1S and Prime Akash being older generation than QRSAM and Akash NG.

Astra VL.....you mean VL-SRSAM. That is a bad choice for this role because its vertically launched. That makes it less suitable for taking on targets like enemy heptrs at close ranges that use extensive terrain masking and pop up for only a short duration. Its better to have a missile that is launched directly at the target from a slewable launcher. This too was Indian Army's requirement.

As for Akash being "inferior", that is not the case. Akash can take out targets flying at upto around 60,000 feet in altitude. While QRSAM is meant to fulfill the Low-Level Quick Reaction SAM requirement and is thus designed only to engage targets flying at heights of around 30,000 feet or less.

No idea about reaction time of HQ-16 but its not short enough to act as quick-reaction SAM which is why they still use HQ-7.

 

[johnj]

Dude, don't just look at range. There are a lot of factors involved, including technology creep. Refer to the table above: QRSAM is not meant to perform same role as HQ-16. Its meant to perform same role as HQ-7. Now you will say HQ-7 has much shorter range. But that is not a determining factor for the role. HQ-7 has less range simply because its old. This technology creep is occuring even in Akash SAM with the Mk1, Mk1S and Prime Akash being older generation than QRSAM and Akash NG.

Astra VL.....you mean VL-SRSAM. That is a bad choice for this role because its vertically launched. That makes it less suitable for taking on targets like enemy heptrs at close ranges that use extensive terrain masking and pop up for only a short duration. Its better to have a missile that is launched directly at the target from a slewable launcher. This too was Indian Army's requirement.

As for Akash being "inferior", that is not the case. Akash can take out targets flying at upto around 60,000 feet in altitude. While QRSAM is meant to fulfill the Low-Level Quick Reaction SAM requirement and is thus designed only to engage targets flying at heights of around 30,000 feet or less.

No idea about reaction time of HQ-16 but its not short enough to act as quick-reaction SAM which is why they still use HQ-7.

Its not about the range, but a question [why not 1.5km for qrsam ? just a question/irrelevant]
hq 7 vs hq 16 based on ''Army itself rejected Akash and gave the GSQR on which QRSAM build''
if astra meant to perform same role as HQ-16 and Army itself rejected Akash and gave the GSQR on which QRSAM build, then QRSAM meant to perform same role as HQ-16, right ?
Now, lets consider Akash issue fixed[s/prime], then no need QRSAM right ?
In other words, if akash s/m can match HQ-16 and qrsam better than akash then qrsam also better than HQ-16 and can replace HQ-16, & why compare it with hq 7. May be both are different class missile, & IA considering import AD s/m similar to akash s/m. ''Army itself rejected Akash, QRSAM build based on GSQR by IA, Spyder comes in the place of Akash.''- what you think ?

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Its not about the range, but a question [why not 1.5km for qrsam ? just a question/irrelevant]
hq 7 vs hq 16 based on ''Army itself rejected Akash and gave the GSQR on which QRSAM build''
if astra meant to perform same role as HQ-16 and Army itself rejected Akash and gave the GSQR on which QRSAM build, then QRSAM meant to perform same role as HQ-16, right ?
Now, lets consider Akash issue fixed[s/prime], then no need QRSAM right ?

Dude, HQ-16 is the short range SAM of PLA.
QRSAM is the low-level quick reaction SAM of IA.
They are not the same. HQ-16 is vertical and cold-launched. Its not a quick-reaction system at all.

Army rejected Akash for QRSAM role but not for SRSAM role for which they do use Akash.
Akash issue of it not being able to track targets on the move is not fixed. And its considered too bulky a missile due to it being older generation missile. These issues are not fixed, and basically, they can't be fixed. Which is why it can't replace QRSAM.

I don't understand what you mean by "why not 1.5km for qrsam".

 

[johnj]

Dude, HQ-16 is the short range SAM of PLA.
QRSAM is the low-level quick reaction SAM of IA.
They are not the same. HQ-16 is vertical and cold-launched. Its not a quick-reaction system at all.

Army rejected Akash for QRSAM role but not for SRSAM role for which they do use Akash.
Akash issue of it not being able to track targets on the move is not fixed. And its considered too bulky a missile due to it being older generation missile. These issues are not fixed, and basically, they can't be fixed. Which is why it can't replace QRSAM.

I don't understand what you mean by "why not 1.5km for qrsam".

You missing you own point, ''Army itself rejected Akash and gave the GSQR on which QRSAM build ''- just explain this.
Army rejected akash due to multiple factors, not just reaction time.
''bulky a missile due to it being older generation missile'' - old & bulky missile same like chinese new ones ?
In other words, IA don't having a plan to acquire similar sams like chinese having.
QRSAM is the low-level quick reaction SAM of IA. -and chinese don't having similar one.
HQ-16 is the short range SAM of PLA - and akash mr-sam, not same.
HQ 16 new & better sam than hq 7b, and qr sam better than hq 7.
When I hear about qrsam first, I thought its minimum range is .5 km becz most of qr sam build around point/close range.
India build sam s/m considering IA req, & Chinese by pla req. and pla buys and modify further & IA rejects.
why drdo spend more than a decade to old & bulky sam ? becz its uses ramjet and ramjet better than rocket motor at that time.

 

[Rex72920]

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

You missing you own point, ''Army itself rejected Akash and gave the GSQR on which QRSAM build ''- just explain this.
Army rejected akash due to multiple factors, not just reaction time.
''bulky a missile due to it being older generation missile''

When I say Army rejected Akash, I mean they rejected Akash for QRSAM role. This is also written in this article: https://www.defensenews.com/home/20...rce-of-surface-to-air-missile-defense-system/
But this was bound to happen because Akash was not developed for QRSAM role from the starting, as I have explained below.

In other words, IA don't having a plan to acquire similar sams like chinese having.
QRSAM is the low-level quick reaction SAM of IA. -and chinese don't having similar one.
HQ-16 is the short range SAM of PLA - and akash mr-sam, not same.
HQ 16 new & better sam than hq 7b, and qr sam better than hq 7.
When I hear about qrsam first, I thought its minimum range is .5 km becz most of qr sam build around point/close range.
India build sam s/m considering IA req, & Chinese by pla req. and pla buys and modify further & IA rejects.
why drdo spend more than a decade to old & bulky sam ? becz its uses ramjet and ramjet better than rocket motor at that time.

First thing you need to understand is that systems come and go, but the role remains the same/similar. Meaning even if Chinese Army and Indian Army have completely different systems, the role they serve in terms of doctrine and tactical employment is similar enough. That table I wrote was according to role. So stop confusing SAM meant for different roles with each other. You keep comparing HQ-7 with HQ-16 when both are meant for different roles. Same with QRSAM and Akash, both are meant for different roles.

Lets start from the beginning:

• Initially, the first (partially) successful missile program of India: IGMDP had planned to create various missiles including two different Surface to Air Missiles for two different roles: Akash and Trishul.
• Akash was supposed to replace SA-6 Gainful missile in service with Army and Pechora SAM in service with Air Force.
• Trishul was a quick-reaction missile meant to replace Osa in service with Air Force and Army and also stop Navy from importing Barak-1.
• Akash was successful and Trishul failed.
• So Akash replaced SA-6 in Army and Pechora in Air Force as was planned.
• But Osa was not replaced in Army and Air Force. So to make a replacement missile DRDO tried to co-develop Maitri missile with France to fulfill Trishul's role, but that also failed.
• By then, IAF had imported Spyder and Navy had imported Barak-1.
• But Army was still stuck with old Osa and Strela-10. When they tried to import a system, DRDO offered Akash to replace Osa. Which Army obviously rejected because Akash is meant to serve different role (Akash meant to replace SA-6 not meant to replace Osa).
• Meanwhile, Navy felt that Barak-1 system needed replacement as it was getting too old.
• So now, two new projects were started:-
  • QRSAM (to fulfill the Trishul promise of replacing Osa for Army, Air Force opted out because they already had replaced Osa with Spyder). This was built strictly to Army's new GSQR.
  • VL-SRSAM (to fulfill the Trishul promise to Navy and replace their Barak-1). This was built strictly to Navy's new NSQR.

Now do you understand why Akash is Akash, QRSAM is QRSAM and VL-SRSAM is VL-SRSAM and why every single one of these systems have a different role to serve and hence all are important?

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

SPYDER Missile of IAF doesn't seem to be having this problem of detecting a helicopter. It's only the QRSAM with its pulse dopler radar. Should we replace it with an AESA Radar I think it would be better.

QRSAM has a GaN AESA radar. Pulse doppler my a$$.

 

[Rex72920]

QRSAM has a GaN AESA radar. Pules doppler my a$$.

Thanks for the clarification. Not an expert, just a learner.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Thanks for the clarification. Not an expert, just a learner.

No problems. But its funny to see how one hit-job has shook us DFI folk so much that we can't even imagine QRSAM having an AESA lol.

 

[jai jaganath]

It doesn't have pulse doppler radar

 

[vampyrbladez]

Manu Pubby has been named by ED as someone who is a potential lobbyist.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...tland-ed-chargesheet-shekhar-gupta-manu-pubby

Must be some feedback that is being blown out of proportion by dalals. This is what developmental tests are for.

 

[rohit b3]

Manu Pubby has been named by ED as someone who is a potential lobbyist.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...tland-ed-chargesheet-shekhar-gupta-manu-pubby

Must be some feedback that is being blown out of proportion by dalals. This is what developmental tests are for.

Potential? This "Manu Pubby" is a known lobbyist. After reading some of his so called "Articles" on Tejas i had to google that name to see what that A**wipe looked like.

 

[rohit b3]

Wait a sec...that QRSAM article is by Manu Pubby? Hahahaha.
Trust me guys, big order coming for QRSAM within a year.