BREAKING: DRDO test fires cruise missile Nirbhay from a defence range off Odisha coast.

[cerberus]

Yeah developed by DRDO...no doubt.

Its Systems are developed by various private Firms

 

[ThinkLogically]

One more article without the key word = successful.

India test fires subsonic cruise missile 'Nirbhay' - PRAGATIVADI ...

Nirbhay missile test-fired off Odisha coast | Hamara Photos News

Seems like a partial success.

Nirbhay: India test fires subsonic cruise missile 'Nirbhay'

Something is fishy or else its a partial success. Period.

The way I know Modi media, they tom-tom such tests if 100% successful. But this time this vanilla flavor is missing.

As of now we only know that the missile traversed all the way points and hit the target. This is more than enough to call it successful.

Your country (original) call a test as successful even if the missile just takes off.

 

[ashok321]

Nuclear deterrent. Because Brahmos cannot carry Nuclear weapons.

This big B of Indian forces can be equipped with smaller nukes.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Nuclear deterrent. Because Brahmos cannot carry Nuclear weapons.

Hmm. Yes, it could be. Let me read up on it.

Good point. Although, frankly, I hope you are wrong; we can do without competitive nuclearisation.

I believe that Brahmos CAN carry nuclear weapons, although I can't tell you offhand where I saw that. I could be wrong. It seemed that the difficulty with Brahmos was its short range, stemming from its original positioning as an anti-ship missile with a very high velocity, to be fired from relatively short ranges (350 kms is not that short!).

Expressing my doubts = Generalizing?

I see nothing wrong with expressing scepticism. You're quite right.

This big B of Indian forces can be equipped with smaller nukes.

What do you mean? Could you clarify? Do you mean the Brahmos can carry smaller nukes? That is my impression, but some miniaturisation has to take place.

Please comment.

 

[ashok321]

Waiting for full blown analysis on this. Period.

 

[jaiind]

https://twitter.com/x/status/927817109152788481

 

[Safriz]

Hmm. Yes, it could be. Let me read up on it.

Good point. Although, frankly, I hope you are wrong; we can do without competitive nuclearisation.

I believe that Brahmos CAN carry nuclear weapons, although I can't tell you offhand where I saw that. I could be wrong. It seemed that the difficulty with Brahmos was its short range, stemming from its original positioning as an anti-ship missile with a very high velocity, to be fired from relatively short ranges (350 kms is not that short!).



I see nothing wrong with expressing scepticism. You're quite right.



What do you mean? Could you clarify? Do you mean the Brahmos can carry smaller nukes? That is my impression, but some miniaturisation has to take place.

Please comment.

Brahmos cannot carry Nuks for more than one reason.
For a start, the misisle only carries 250Kg or less warhead and in a very narrow configuration.
India does not have a nuclear warhead that light and that narrow.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Brahmos cannot carry Nuks for more than one reason.
For a start, the misisle only carries 250Kg or less warhead and in a very narrow configuration.
India does not have a nuclear warhead that light and that narrow.

I know.

If Nirbhay is meant for that, a lot of work has to go into miniaturisation. Surely they can design a cruise missile with a greater payload.

 

[Arsalan]

But what I do feel good about is that instead of some here who brag on the foundation of absolute graveyard secrecy and refuse to admit the horrible mistakes that they've made and continue to make, we are transparent about it, including the worst of the infighting and the technical debacles. Where there's truth, there's life. These can be corrected, and I notice that these are increasingly being developed with reasonable competency.

May be those some here did got it right!!
Just a possibility,, right?

I am sure you wont say that since Nirbhay failed countless time, EVERY other cruise missile project should have failed multiple times or else it is all a sham.

 

[AyanRay]

May be those some here did got it right!!
Just a possibility,, right?

I am sure you wont say that since Nirbhay failed countless time, EVERY other cruise missile project should have failed multiple times or else it is all a sham.

Countless? 3 failures 2 success is not that bad. If I am not wrong Babur was inducted even before it was test fired, so the question of having multiple failures or successes does not arise in your case.

 

[Arsalan]

Countless? 3 failures 2 success is not that bad. If I am not wrong Babur was inducted even before it was test fired, so the question of having multiple failures or successes does not arise in your case.

Well i was not keeping the count so i used "countless". It is not to insult you or anyone. If you felt that way, i am sorry and i take it back.
And sorry, but you ARE WRONG about Babur being inducted before it was test fired so that is that!

 

[Spy Master]

Countless? 3 failures 2 success is not that bad. If I am not wrong Babur was inducted even before it was test fired, so the question of having multiple failures or successes does not arise in your case.

Give us a link of your claim....that it was inducted before it was test fired...Lol man! You are so funny!

 

[bloo]

May be those some here did got it right!!
Just a possibility,, right?

I am sure you wont say that since Nirbhay failed countless time, EVERY other cruise missile project should have failed multiple times or else it is all a sham.

Why don't you decide that for yourself.
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your...-tomahawk-missile-crashes-during-flight-test/

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/01/03/u...-stride-in-florida-area-tied-to-military.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1978/1978 - 1980.PDF

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2000-939#/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2000-939

Tomahawk has had a string of failed tests, including its very first test and crashes once in a while even today.
And they got to improve on it because of those failures which is why it is probably the best cruise missile platform in the world today.

But definitely, you have all the right to believe that the pioneers of cruise missiles(systems so complicated that they are basically planes) and the billions they spent, the decades they wasted cannot compare to "some who got it right", on the first try, without a proper industrial base, or the mountainous budget and without a single failure.

Hmm.

 

[Arsalan]

Why don't you decide that for yourself.
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your...-tomahawk-missile-crashes-during-flight-test/

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/01/03/u...-stride-in-florida-area-tied-to-military.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1978/1978 - 1980.PDF

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2000-939#/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2000-939

Tomahawk has had a string of failed tests, including its very first test and crashes once in a while even today.
And they got to improve on it because of those failures which is why it is probably the best cruise missile platform in the world today.

But definitely, you have all the right to believe that the pioneers of cruise missiles(systems so complicated that they are basically planes) and the billions they spent, the decades they wasted cannot compare to "some who got it right", on the first try, without a proper industrial base, or the mountainous budget and without a single failure.

Hmm.

So you mean that it is a certainty that the missiles MUST fail as DRDO ones did and anything that have not failed is a sham!

Perfect logic kid!
God bless you.

 

[bloo]

So you mean that it is a certainty that the missiles MUST fail as DRDO ones did and anything that have not failed is a sham!

Perfect logic kid!
God bless you.

Lol, I did not even mention DRDO.

You missed out on the most crucial part of my riposte didn't you?
Strawman much....

Americans have failed, the frontiersmen of cruise missiles.
CRUISE MISSILES which are in a sense more complicated to R&D than BMs.
Food for thought.

Forget cruise missiles any missile would need a bevy of tests before induction but sure, it is much more "logical" to believe that 1 test is enough or no failures have occurred.

No sirji, God bless you.