Indian Missile Technology Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Post Reply
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by Austin »

Arun_S wrote: A compliment of 3 - 4 satellites in geo-synchronous orbits and 4 - 5 more satellite in medium earth orbit can reliably locate missile launch from land or sea that can also feed Indian ABM sensor network.
Will these number provide Global Coverage or its foot print will be limited to IOR/PakChina ?
Submarine launched missiles also leave a tell tale acoustic signature during launch, and a global array of hydrophones will increase reliability in determining the source of nuclear attack
.

A global array of hydrophones ? I dont think even US has such capability
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17167
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by Rahul M »

Yusuf wrote: Milan is not an equivalent of Javelin. Milan is a wire guided missile, the Javelin is fire and forget. Nag is touted as a third gen missile.
I dont know why the IA went for the Milan again. Would have been great to get the Javelins. I saw it on probably Discovery Channel, amazing weapon system. Besides our neighbor has it as well.
dear yusuf, I'm aware of those technicalities. :lol:

I meant equivalent in terms of niches. hope that clears any confusion.

milan and nag would perform different roles and order for one is not an indictment of the other.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by kit »

Austin wrote:
Arun_S wrote: A compliment of 3 - 4 satellites in geo-synchronous orbits and 4 - 5 more satellite in medium earth orbit can reliably locate missile launch from land or sea that can also feed Indian ABM sensor network.
Will these number provide Global Coverage or its foot print will be limited to IOR/PakChina ?
Submarine launched missiles also leave a tell tale acoustic signature during launch, and a global array of hydrophones will increase reliability in determining the source of nuclear attack
.

A global array of hydrophones ? I dont think even US has such capability
The US does .. IN can do with a similar one in the IO region and the littoral areas .Cant give you a source for the previous comment.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by SaiK »

narayana wrote:Did the russians test brahmos on their soil? they already have subs which can fire missiles,they can do a bit of modification to their subs and test it.

i dont understand why its always our effort and headache to test even after this being a joint venture,either testing in air to air mode or vertical launch testing,we are taking the extra step by sending MKIs to them to modify it for Air to Air Mode etc etc,as a JV its their responsibility also.
imho, per the agreement and russian mil requirements has not included brahmos into their own mil use. this was one of India's request to add brahmos into russian mil hardware... so far, we have not heard an yes from them. they have remained silent.

and i am not sure if the agreement has any commitments on their part to test.. hence..
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by SaiK »

ajay_ijn wrote:wonder why would army order 15000 Konkurs, when there are lotof new ones on offer from Russia like Kornet and Metis.
to create same story line as we did post kargil purchases? there are big kahunas who would never miss such requirements to make the deal, be it any political party governing. of course, this assumption get subclassed into the requirements and its a CAG head ache. why bother?
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by Austin »

SaiK wrote:imho, per the agreement and russian mil requirements has not included brahmos into their own mil use. this was one of India's request to add brahmos into russian mil hardware... so far, we have not heard an yes from them. they have remained silent.

and i am not sure if the agreement has any commitments on their part to test.. hence..
Well the good news is the Russian have decided to adopt Brahmos in their inventory and the first ship that will arm this missile is their new Groshkov class frigate .
Yusuf
BRFite
Posts: 164
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 10:03

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by Yusuf »

Rahul M wrote: dear yusuf, I'm aware of those technicalities. :lol:

I meant equivalent in terms of niches. hope that clears any confusion.

milan and nag would perform different roles and order for one is not an indictment of the other.
Sorry Mr Moderator :mrgreen:

Yeah going for one is not an indictment for the other. I was wondering that since we already have produced/stockpiled 30,000 of those already, what was the urgent need to purchase that? Im sure after all the training and war games we should be having quite a few left over including war reserves.

The Javelins are very potent and could have given IA a good anti tank, anti armor and even anti buildings capability.
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by Vipul »

Last edited by Gerard on 28 Jan 2009 02:39, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: edited - copyright
Rishirishi
BRFite
Posts: 1409
Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by Rishirishi »

Yusuf wrote:
Rahul M wrote:
saik, different system, different requirements. it's DDM confusing issues as usual.

milan is javelin equivalent, nag is hellfire equivalent. remember unkil forces have
Milan is not an equivalent of Javelin. Milan is a wire guided missile, the Javelin is fire and forget. Nag is touted as a third gen missile.
I dont know why the IA went for the Milan again. Would have been great to get the Javelins. I saw it on probably Discovery Channel, amazing weapon system. Besides our neighbor has it as well.
I think the Javelins has had some problems with firing in heat tempratures.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60287
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by ramana »

India should go for things that can be procured. Hoping for javelins and Arrows will be just hope and if one overffeds on it they die of starvation.

The Milans and Konkurs are available. They should have ordered them long ago this flurry of orders means some one was sitting on files. Also if thse really materialize to provide fire support for the infantry then some of those tanks can be grouped into armoured formations within the division and corps.
Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1655
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by Sid »

ramana wrote:India should go for things that can be procured. Hoping for javelins and Arrows will be just hope and if one overffeds on it they die of starvation.

The Milans and Konkurs are available. They should have ordered them long ago this flurry of orders means some one was sitting on files. Also if thse really materialize to provide fire support for the infantry then some of those tanks can be grouped into armoured formations within the division and corps.
As per the same link from TOI, IA already ordered eye-watering 15,000 Konkurs-M (worth Rs 1,380-crore) few months back as well as 13 Namicas + 443 Nag missiles :shock: :-? :shock: :-? :shock:

If we already ordered them then whats the urgent need? Are there any delivery slippages from our Russian friends as always?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60287
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by ramana »


this article fills in the gaps in "Weapons of Peace" by Raj Chengappa and updates some of the areas.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by Arun_S »

Avinash R wrote:
m mittal wrote:Any info about the hush hush Surya ICBMs...........???
Richard Speier parked the surya in drdo's backyard but then forgot to test-launch them.
:rotfl: :rotfl:
Add insult to injury Richard Speier and his NPA cabal has nothing left in stock to survive retirement :twisted:
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by Arun_S »

Austin wrote:
Arun_S wrote: A compliment of 3 - 4 satellites in geo-synchronous orbits and 4 - 5 more satellite in medium earth orbit can reliably locate missile launch from land or sea that can also feed Indian ABM sensor network.
Will these number provide Global Coverage or its foot print will be limited to IOR/PakChina ?
Global except extreme polar latitude. To make it completely global add 2 more satellites.
Submarine launched missiles also leave a tell tale acoustic signature during launch, and a global array of hydrophones will increase reliability in determining the source of nuclear attack
.

A global array of hydrophones ? I dont think even US has such capability
Apart from hydrophone arrays in leased facilities (listening stations, bases, sensors) in almost all corners of global shoreline, the US does have large sprinkling of hydrophone in high sea with secured RF connectivity via relay sats in space. The high sea is fee use by all nations of word. One may catch the hydrophone fish here and there but one cant break or spoof it and of course more hydrophone fishes spawn up mysteriously.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by Austin »

Arun_S wrote: Apart from hydrophone arrays in leased facilities (listening stations, bases, sensors) in almost all corners of global shoreline, the US does have large sprinkling of hydrophone in high sea with secured RF connectivity via relay sats in space. The high sea is fee use by all nations of word. One may catch the hydrophone fish here and there but one cant break or spoof it and of course more hydrophone fishes spawn up mysteriously.
Arun , past experience has shown that even a high concentration of such hydrophone in a selected area like GUIK with all the ground facility to back it up needs a proper co-ordination from other ASW assets in these area to make it effective , even then there were many a slip inspite of all the above.

The effectiveness of such systems are only in choke point areas , which needs to be backed up by subsurface , surface and air ASW assets , in high open seas the effectiveness of such hydrophone are negligible , more over in open seas these things are open to sabotage and special operation people would just come and take it away for further studies.

IMHO there is no point in mining the sea bed with such system , except in ones own bases and specific areas which needs to be protected .

As an American Admiral stated , inspite of all our advancement in ASW , the Oceans are not Transparent to us.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by Arun_S »

Austin: I hear you. But lets put the question in perspective, detecting location of under sea BM firing for the purpose of launch signature and rough location of launch to determine the nationality of countries vessel (and not killing the launch vessel). For that purpose the ocean fairing hydrophone that can self sustain for a very long time and resistant (nay fool proof) to spoofing is definitely happening. As I said before some of the fish will be harvested by red force for disabling, reverse engineering and spoofing, but that node simply is taken off the network and new nodes(fish) are replenished. The reason I say that is because I know it is happening, and they need no ground support segment in littoral land. To know how, contact me on my private channel.
vasu_ray
BRFite
Posts: 550
Joined: 30 Nov 2008 01:06

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by vasu_ray »

bomb release at supersonic speeds,

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123094065
VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1887
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by VikramS »

vasu_ray wrote:bomb release at supersonic speeds,

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123094065
It seems most of the researchers involved are Indic :).
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by Arun_S »

ramana wrote:

this article fills in the gaps in "Weapons of Peace" by Raj Chengappa and updates some of the areas.
Exactly. A must read for those who have read WOP and see the gaps bridged.
The phase shifters, a critical element for radars for Akash, was jointly developed by the Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, the Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani and the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) laboratories The resins and carbon fibres used in the re-entry systems of Agni, which were denied to DRDO, were developed in India. The winding machines, also denied, were fabricated.

Saraswat said: “While this was a painful process, it laid a strong foundation for research and it stood the country in good stead because today there is a flair for doing this kind of work in industry, academic institutions and laboratories.”
I had the privilege to make a small but direct contribution to Indian missiles program in one of above indiginization program, apart from another related to military avionics. :wink:
jayesh.nandanan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 1
Joined: 27 Jan 2009 14:38

Why Milan anti Tank Missile ?

Post by jayesh.nandanan »

Dear All...

Myself Jayesh, this is my first post.

Would like to know from all you experts out thr.

Why Indian Army is going for Milan 2T anti Tank Missile and not for AT4-CS or Javelin.

Milan is a wire based guided anti tank missile. and it has got back blast which could severly injure the gunner if used from a inclosed position

Video links about AT4-CS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16_ln66gUUI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lpg3F5GNZ1c


Why the Army didnt went for a Javelin Anti Tank Missile, a missile which could also be used to target buildings in urban warfare as it is not a Guided missile by a WIRE or Laser.
Video Linkabout Javelin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg3UXzseLTI&NR=1
parshuram
BRFite
Posts: 338
Joined: 28 Feb 2006 09:52

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by parshuram »

If i am not wrong Arun Saar were supposed to post article about shaurya on 26th Jan .. iam waiting saar ..
krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by krishnan »

26th Jan of which year?
dinakar
BRFite
Posts: 153
Joined: 03 Jul 2008 17:17

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by dinakar »

Arun_S wrote: My apologies to keep you waiting. The Shourya article is being printed in the 'India Defense Review' magazine and the editor advise me to not publish that on the web before IDR does its major publicity campaign during Aero-India in Feb. So it has to wait till 15 Feb before I can put it on BR.
parshuram
BRFite
Posts: 338
Joined: 28 Feb 2006 09:52

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by parshuram »

rshyam wrote:
Arun_S wrote: My apologies to keep you waiting. The Shourya article is being printed in the 'India Defense Review' magazine and the editor advise me to not publish that on the web before IDR does its major publicity campaign during Aero-India in Feb. So it has to wait till 15 Feb before I can put it on BR.
thanks
Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1118
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by Kailash »

U.S.–India Strategic Partnership on Laser-Based Missile Defense
This sounds more like author's opinion than fact, IMHO.
p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1055
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by p_saggu »

U.S.–India Strategic Partnership on Laser-Based Missile Defense
My spider sense tells me that if those Chinese missiles based in Tibet have to be intercepted in Boost phase, the source of the BMD will have to be India.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by Arun_S »

In 1980's a US RAND or military study US identified Indore as an ideal BMD site against Russia.

Consider this:
  • 1, Russian attack from north pole is covered by ABM assets based in Canada,
    2, Now Poland added to missile defense (ostensibly from evil and all powerful Eyiran)
    3, North Pacific has established ship based and Anchorage based missile shield (ostensibly from evil and all powerful n.Korea)
    4, Now a joint India-US ABM in India (ostensibly from evil and all powerful China)
Oh.... yessss.... I know who is being neutered, and whose enemy Russia is !
North, West, East and now South, what next ? Checkmate Ivan dude!

I onlee have my rustic "dhehaati" sense smelling the fragrance of earth after first rain shower to know what is coming! :twisted:

Yindu made "Bhuddhi Chuytya"{Sanskrit for: devoid of intelligence} by wise white man from the west. :rotfl:
p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1055
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by p_saggu »

But who would Ivan want to attack from the south? And would India allow itself to be used against Ivan?
Unlikely on both counts.
If Ivan wants to attack Mainland US it has systems such as the Bulava on the new Borei class to defeat encirclement of the Russian Landmass.

Me thinks, that an Indo-US BMD programme (Missile / Airborne Laser) system is omnidirecctional:

North : China and its Tibet Missile sites
West : Middle east and its proliferating missile and Nuclear powers who will sooner or later have the ability to reach Europe or the Major Indian ocean US bases.

India is I think too far south to be able to intercept Ivan's missile launches.
Shivani
BRFite
Posts: 207
Joined: 07 Nov 2007 13:00
Location: भारत
Contact:

Post by Shivani »

Beyond the BrahMos failure
Business Standard wrote: New Delhi January 30, 2009

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has done itself little good by claiming success in its test-firing of the BrahMos missile, till the media exposed the bogus nature of the claim.

Even if the DRDO’s position is accepted that the performance of the missile was normal till the last phase, when it began malfunctioning, the fact that a weapon meant to hit a precisely identified target missed the target completely leaves little room for quibbling on the middle ground between between success and failure. Admittedly, such fiascos are not uncommon when it comes to sophisticated technological systems. But when such failures become frequent, as is the case with the DRDO, a proper investigation into the causes is called for, especially when the organisation’s claims about successes betray an unwillingness to look the facts in the eye.


It is worth noting that the Indian Space Research Organisation (Isro), a similar publicly-funded research and development body, carried out recently the relatively more sophisticated Chandrayaan-1 moon mission with copybook precision in its maiden flight. Isro and the DRDO, therefore, represent studies in contrast. While Isro too has suffered failures, it has not tried to hide them. The best case in point would be the coincidental back-to-back mishaps of the Agni-III missile of the DRDO and the GSLV-FO2 satellite vehicle of Isro, both of which drowned in the sea on successive days in July 2006. Isro was forthright in admitting the failure and setting up a high-level probe, whereas DRDO even then maintained that the take-off was successful and the problem arose only subsequently.

The scientific temper, as reflected in intellectual honesty, openness and dedication to work, that one finds in Isro seems missing in DRDO. Good project management, one of the significant factors in the Chandrayaan’s success, also seems to be wanting in DRDO, where projects routinely face cost and time over-runs, and even then failure to deliver the promised weapon systems. It is no wonder then that while DRDO fiddles with its projects, the defence services have to fall back on expensive imports.

Perhaps the comparisons are unfair to DRDO, which has to deal with a much wider array of technologies and more complex issues than Isro, which has a single-point objective and is mostly its own client (unlike DRDO, which is supposed to serve a largely sceptical defence establishment). But even when it comes to just missiles, there are instances of the DRDO giving up projects after working on them for years, and spending crores of rupees. The aborted bid to develop the surface-to-air Trishul missile was one such case. Not very different was the case of two other missile systems, Akash and Nag.

Of the five missile systems that DRDO was to deliver, it can claim some success only with the long-range Agni and short-range Prithvi, though even these have had their problems—one result being that Pakistan has clear advantages when it comes to missile defence. In sharp contrast, Isro has delivered on the Chandrayaan mission at a low cost of under Rs 400 crore, the cheapest moon mission in the world, and now nurtures the ambition of putting a man in space and subsequently on the moon. The starting point of change has to be the recognition of one’s own shortcomings. That become difficult when DRDO wants to claim that failures are successes.
babbupandey
BRFite
Posts: 180
Joined: 15 Jan 2008 16:53

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by babbupandey »

The first Prithvi test-firing took place in 1988 and the Agni Technology Demonstrator’s flight-test took place the following year. After the launch of Agni in 1989, the U.S. declined to give India the phase shifters for the phased array radars for Akash. Germany refused to give India the magnesium alloy used in Prithvi’s wings. Servo-valves needed for the electro-hydraulic control systems of Agni and Prithvi were embargoed. France, which used to give gyroscopes and accelerators to India, said its exports were taboo. Intel said it would not give India chips for the computers used in Prithvi and Agni. “This is a very short list. The list runs into hundreds of components and materials,” said a top DRDO scientist. After 1989, DRDO evolved strategies to counter the MTCR.

The missile men duly began programmes for the development of phase shifters, magnesium alloy, servo-valves, and so on. Kalam and his team formed a consortium of DRDO laboratories such as the Solid State Physics Laboratory and the Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory (DMRL), the Defence Research and Development Establishment, industries and academic institutions to build these sub-systems, components and materials. It was an exacting path, but it yielded positive results. The public sector undertaking Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited (MIDHANI), DMRL and private industries developed the magnesium alloy in two years. When the first plate of magnesium alloy rolled out of MIDHANI, Germany proferred India any amount of magnesium alloy. DRDO wrote back saying it was prepared to export the alloy to Germany.

The phase shifters, a critical element for radars for Akash, was jointly developed by the Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, the Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani and the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) laboratories The resins and carbon fibres used in the re-entry systems of Agni, which were denied to DRDO, were developed in India. The winding machines, also denied, were fabricated.

Saraswat said: “While this was a painful process, it laid a strong foundation for research and it stood the country in good stead because today there is a flair for doing this kind of work in industry, academic institutions and laboratories.”
I have heard a lot of criticism about IGMDP program and ddm talking about why it took 26 years to develop a missile and so on. Ask the ddm if they were denied printing press, ink and typesetting machines how long will it take for them to print the worthless news?
I just hope this missile shield program does not go the Arjun way, with the end-users insisting on phoren technology. Already there are some news of US offering the PAC missile shield to India.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17167
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by Rahul M »

scientific temper or an ability to judge a cutting edge project is what is sorely lacking in business standard's editor's board.

this opinion piece is right up there with the news of "LCA test-fired !" :roll:
p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1055
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by p_saggu »

Idiotic Article.
This idiot says that pakistan has an edge in missile defence among the numerous sorry bloopers in this article.
OK BRFites must reply enmass to editors and destroy the article to shreads in order to ensure that fools like these are kept away from defence reporting.

This article is going to be Anal-ysed to death on Deaf 'n Dumb.
p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1055
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by p_saggu »

PAC-3 is currently inferior to DRDO's AAD and PAD systems in terms of range.
What is interesting is that the Frontline article talks of the AAD utilizing "Hit-to-Kill" as opposed to the proximity warhead triggering. If this is true then we have arrived as far as BMD is concerned.

The speculation has been that the US assistance in the HTK aspect was being sought and that AAD / PAD were proximity detonation systems.

Are there any open source info on India using innovative tech, such as the Soft kill mil hardware being used and developed by the US?
Things such as Graphite powder bomblets to disable electrical installations, EMP weapons to disable enemy electronics and communications, Airborne Lasers - this recent statement is the only revelation.
Whatever happened to the KALI?
There was talk of a Pune lab having developed an earth penetrating warhead which would destroy deep buried underground installation by generating vibrations that would cause minor earthquakes - causing the walls of such underground structures to collapse.

Whatever happened to all these programmes?
How protected are our own systems C4I, Electronics, Missiles, Nuclear weapons from EMP and other such electronic interference systems?
andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1678
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by andy B »

^^^ The PAD and AAD seem more comparable to the SM-3 and THAAD combo IMHO.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by Austin »

The SM-3 and Thaad are in a class of its own .... the PAD and AAD are designed to meet Indian needs , so comparision is futile.
kidoman
BRFite
Posts: 108
Joined: 07 May 2008 09:55
Location: Temple City,Kalinga
Contact:

Re:

Post by kidoman »

Shivani wrote:Beyond the BrahMos failure
New Delhi January 30, 2009

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has done itself little good by claiming success in its test-firing of the BrahMos missile, till the media exposed the bogus nature of the claim.
I just hate it.Why claim something which has not happened?
Whom r u trying to fool..Ur own people?
Seems the guys at DRDO have forgot to speak truth also.
Even if a failure happens after 20 odd successes, why hide it?
What a pity.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14789
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Missile Technology Discussion

Post by Aditya_V »

May be my post is more relevant in the Psy-ops threat but there seems to be major attempt by DDm to

1) Dismantle DRDO and lots of similair ventures
2) The BJP

Whys is this? Is this because somehow if somthing does not fit in the US/UK worlview has to be removed?
krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Re:

Post by krishnan »

kidoman wrote:
Shivani wrote:Beyond the BrahMos failure
New Delhi January 30, 2009

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has done itself little good by claiming success in its test-firing of the BrahMos missile, till the media exposed the bogus nature of the claim.
I just hate it.Why claim something which has not happened?
Whom r u trying to fool..Ur own people?
Seems the guys at DRDO have forgot to speak truth also.
Even if a failure happens after 20 odd successes, why hide it?
What a pity.
Did they hide it? If they did , you would have never known that the test failed. As someone commented in that page "BS is creating new bs (bullshit) everyday in defence reporting". The test wasnt all that a failure.
Post Reply