Rs 21700 crore weapon: India to get much stronger as this project..., bad news for Pakistan, China due to...
A leading Indian defence company — Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), known for making Akashteer — is once again making headlines by playing a crucial role in Project Kusha – an initiative to develop a powerful air defence system like the Russian-made S-400. The ambitious project aims to neutralise aerial threats like missiles, suicide drones, and aircraft attacks. Notably, Project Kusha is led by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).
As a development partner, BEL is working closely with the DRDO and sharing its insights to the design and production of crucial subsystems like – radars and control systems. BEL Chairman and Managing Director Manoj Jain, during the company's March quarter earnings call, confirmed that BEL is jointly developing several components of Project Kusha. 'We are jointly developing many components of Project Kusha,' he said. Project Kusha: Prototype Phase To Begin Soon
As per reports, the prototype phase of Project Kusha is likely to begin in the coming months with BEL is working to build the first working model within 12-18 months. Once developed, the system will undergo severe trials and testing which will take 1-3 years.
A decision on the system integrator(s) is yet to be made. BEL expressed confidence in their selection, should the authorities opt for two integrators.
Project Kusha is designed to fill the gap between India's MR-SAM (Medium-Range Surface-to-Air Missile), and Russian-made S-400. MR-SAM has a range of 80 km, whereas S-400 covers up to 400 km. Project Kusha: Three Types Of Interceptor Missiles
India plans to deploy a three-tiered missile defence system by 2028-2029. This system will comprise interceptor missiles with ranges of 150km, 250km, and 350km, intended for use by both the Indian Air Force and Navy. Project Kusha: Standout Feature
Kusha's major feature includes its ability to intercept high-speed anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs) which can travel at speeds of Mach 7, as per a report by IDRW.org. Project Kusha: High-Speed Naval Defence
Project Kusha's key feature is a naval adaptation of the M2 missile, capable of intercepting anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs) travelling at speeds up to Mach 7 (approximately 8,645 km/h). This capability provides crucial protection for naval vessels against high-speed, sea-based missile attacks. Project Kusha: Strengthening India's Air Defence
Another key feature of the project includes its ability to work smoothly with existing systems such as IAF's Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) and Russian made S-400 missile system.
Project Kusha can achieve an 80 percent single-missile kill rate. It can exceed 90 percent when using multiple missiles simultaneously.
Once inducted, the system will enhance India's layered air defences against any aerial threat. Project Kusha: Budget-Backed and Battle-Ready
It is worth mentioning that the project was approved by the Cabinet Committee on Security in 2022. The budget of the project was Rs 21,700 crore. The budget was sanctioned to build five squadrons for the IAF.
Another major feature of the project is its naval version, which is capable of destroying anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs). With this the Indian Navy will have a powerful tool to protect its frontline warships. This new system will enhance the navy's defences by complementing existing systems like Barak-8 and the Naval Ballistic Missile Defence System, creating a more robust overall defence.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
28 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Trump-Putin summit: Land-for-ceasefire deal will be terrible for everyone
Hours before meeting Russia's leader Vladimir Putin in Alaska, Donald Trump said he wanted to see a ceasefire in Ukraine and was 'not going to be happy' if it wasn't agreed today. The US president appears to have left Alaska with no such agreement in place. 'We didn't get there', Trump told reporters, before later vaguely asserting that he and Putin had 'made great progress'. Trump is likely to return to the idea of engaging Putin in the coming weeks and months, with the Russian leader jokingly suggesting their next meeting could be held in Moscow. A land-for-ceasefire arrangement, an idea Trump has repeatedly raised as an almost inevitable part of a peace settlement between Russia and Ukraine, could still reemerge as a possible outcome. In fact, in an interview with Fox News after the summit where Trump was asked how the war in Ukraine might end and if there will be a land swap, Trump said: 'those are points that we largely agreed on'. Securing territorial concessions from Ukraine has long been one of Moscow's preconditions for any negotiations on a peace deal. Putin is likely betting that insisting on these concessions, while keeping Ukraine under sustained military pressure, plays to his advantage. Public fatigue over the war is growing in Ukraine, and Putin will be hoping that a weary population may eventually see such a deal as acceptable and even attractive. Russia launched a barrage of fresh attacks against Ukrainian cities overnight, involving more than 300 drones and 30 missiles. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, who was excluded from the Alaska summit, has maintained that Kyiv will not agree to territorial concessions. Such a move would be illegal under Ukraine's constitution, which requires a nationwide referendum to approve changes to the country's territorial borders. The assumption behind a land-for-ceasefire deal is that it would enhance Ukrainian and European security. Trump sees it as the first step in bringing Putin to the negotiation table for a broader peace deal, as well as unlocking opportunities for reconstruction. In reality, such a deal would do little to diminish the longer-term Russian threat. Moscow's efforts to shore up and modernise its defence capabilities and neo-imperial ambitions would remain intact. Its hybrid attacks on Europe would also continue, and Ukraine's capacity to secure meaningful reconstruction would be weakened. Whether or not Russia ever opts for a direct military strike on a European Nato member state, it has no need to do so to weaken the continent. Its hybrid operations, which extend well beyond the battlefield, are more than sufficient to erode European resilience over time. Russia's disinformation campaigns and sabotage of infrastructure, including railways in Poland and Germany and undersea cables in the Gulf of Finland and Baltic Sea, are well documented. Its strategic objectives have focused on deterring action on Ukraine and sowing disagreement between its allies, as well as attempting to undermine democratic values in the west. Europe is under pressure on multiple fronts: meeting new defence spending targets of 5% of GDP while economic growth is slowing, reducing the dependence of its supply chains on China and managing demographic challenges. These vulnerabilities make it susceptible to disinformation and have deepened divisions along political and socioeconomic fault lines – all of which Moscow has repeatedly exploited. A land-for-ceasefire deal would not address these threats. For Ukraine, the danger of such a deal is clear. Russia might pause large-scale physical warfare in Ukraine under a deal, but it would almost certainly continue destabilising the country from within. Having never been punished for violating past agreements to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity, such as when it annexed Crimea in 2014, Moscow would have little incentive to honour new ones. The government in Kyiv, and Ukrainian society more broadly, would see any accompanying security guarantees as fragile at best and temporary at worst. The result would probably be a deepening of Ukraine's vulnerabilities. Some Ukrainians might support doubling down on militarisation and investment in defence technologies. Others, losing faith in national security and reconstruction, could disengage or leave the country. Either way, in the absence of national unity, reconstruction would become far more difficult. Making reconstruction harder Ukraine's reconstruction will be costly, to the tune of US$524 billion (£387 billion) according to the World Bank. It will also require managing a web of interconnected security, financial, social and political risks. These include displacement and economic challenges brought on by the war, as well as the need to secure capital flows across different regions. It will also need to continue addressing governance and corruption challenges. A permanent territorial concession would make addressing these risks even more difficult. Such a deal is likely to split public opinion in Ukraine, with those heavily involved in the war effort asking: 'What exactly have we been fighting for?' Recriminations would almost certainly follow during the next presidential and parliamentary elections, deepening divisions and undermining Ukraine's ability to pursue the systemic approach needed for reconstruction. Ongoing security concerns in border regions, particularly near Russia, would be likely to prompt further population flight. And how many of the over 5 million Ukrainians currently living abroad would return to help reconstruct the country under these conditions is far from certain. Financing reconstruction would also be more challenging. Public funds from donors and international institutions have helped sustain emergency energy and transport infrastructure repairs in the short term and will continue to play a role. But private investment will be critical moving forward. Investors will be looking not only at Ukraine's geopolitical risk profile, but also its political stability and social cohesion. Few investors would be willing to commit capital in a country that cannot guarantee a stable security and political environment. Taken together, these factors would make large-scale reconstruction in Ukraine nearly impossible. Beyond fundamental issues of accountability and just peace, a land-for-ceasefire deal would be simply a bad bargain. It will almost certainly sow deeper, more intractable problems for Ukraine, Europe and the west. It would undermine security, stall reconstruction and hand Moscow both time and a strategic advantage to come back stronger against a Ukraine that may be ill-prepared to respond. Trump would do well to avoid committing Ukraine to such an arrangement in further talks with Putin over the coming months.
Indian Express
28 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Disproportionate Assets: CBI books NBRC engineer over 97% surge in his assets
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has registered a First Information Report (FIR) against an assistant engineer at the National Brain Research Centre (NBRC) in Gurgaon's Manesar, based on a preliminary inquiry in July, suggesting 'a more than 97 per cent increase in his assets in two years'. The preliminary inquiry into the alleged possession of disproportionate assets by assistant engineer Sanjeev Kumar Choudhary was initiated in January, following a written complaint filed by then NBRC Director Professor Krishanu Ray in September 2024, according to the CBI's FIR. The CBI booked Choudhary, who has been serving at the NBRC since March 2009, under Section 13(2), read with Section 13(1), of the Prevention of Corruption Act. During the investigation, the CBI assessed Choudhary's financial records for 2019 and 2020, suggesting: on January 1, 2019, he had Rs 2.34 lakh in his three bank accounts, which increased to over Rs 4 lakh by December 31, 2020, along with a surge in his total assets worth Rs 62.60 lakh, including the purchase of a house valued at Rs 50 lakh, a Maruti Suzuki Brezza priced at Rs 8.47 lakh, according to the FIR. The CBI calculated his total income during the given two-year period at Rs 38.85 lakh — Rs 24 lakh in salary and Rs 6.45 lakh family income from other sources — and pegged his expenditure for the same period at Rs 16.52 lakh, including Rs 8.67 lakh kitchen expenses; after deducting his expenditure, the available fund stood at Rs 22.33 lakh, the FIR reads. According to the CBI's FIR, the agency determined that Choudhary's disproportionate assets amounted to Rs 37.92 lakh, after subtracting available funds and the opening bank balance from his total assets as of December 31, 2020, reflecting a 97.59 per cent increase in assets in the given two years. In a report submitted on July 21, CBI Sub-Inspector Meenakshi Yadav recommended an FIR against Choudhary for 'accumulating huge assets to the tune of Rs 37.92 lakh, disproportionate to his known sources of income, and intentionally enriching himself illicitly, constituting an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act'. The NBRC is dedicated to advancing research on brain function in both health and disease, as well as cultivating skilled professionals capable of conducting interdisciplinary studies in neuroscience.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
28 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Alaskan encounter: Only Russian President Putin gained from the meeting
At most, it offers more compelling evidence of the US's abdication of its role as a principled interlocutor in global conflicts Business Standard Editorial Comment Listen to This Article Hopes for an early end to the three-year war between Russia and Ukraine were comprehensively dashed following United States (US) President Donald Trump's much-anticipated meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Even given the low expectations from this meeting, the result could not have been worse for embattled Ukraine, for the signals it sends to countries with irredentist ambitions, notably China (Taiwan) and the US (Greenland). At most, it offers more compelling evidence of the US's abdication of its role as a principled interlocutor in global conflicts. After affording Mr Putin a lavish welcome, including a red
