Template talk:Indian missiles

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Asian / Indian / South Asia This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force Asian military history task force Indian military history task force South Asian military history task force India This template is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles

I'm changing the template from Template:Navbox to Template:Military navigation for two reasons- one, there are too few missiles in each group to warrant a full width infobox. The military navbox half width box looks much better. Secondly, it is a proper MILHIST Template, which means it will have a few advantages over the Navbox. It may not look as good, but the smaller look, in my opinion, balances it out.

I'm attaching both versions below:

1. I have also restored the A2A missile group, since it is an important group, and is quite distinct from SAMs.
2. I have removed the missile types from the Agni missiles - a reader will get to know about the type when he gets to the page. Same for the Prithvi.
3. JV has been indicated with a superscripted "‡" symbol, with a legend at the bottom
4. Names for the 2nd and 3rd groups has been renamed from "Ballistic" and "Cruise" to "Ballistic missiles" and "Cruise missiles", since the name seems extremely abrupt and confusing for a reader.

Looking forward to your comments
Cheers,
Sniperz11_@^CS 23:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why isn't there a seperate article for the Trishul Missile? Has it been shelved or something?

• In the template, under Ballistic missiles first comes Prithvi (i, ii, iii), then Agni (i, ii, iii, iv), then SLBM (Sagarika). SLBM however is a class of missile and not the name (as how Prithvi and Agni are). If we wanna use the class, we should do: SRBM (Agni i, Prithvi i, ii, iii)), IRBM (Agni iii), MRBM (Agni ii), ICBM (Agni iv) etc.  S3000  ☎ 12:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trishul should be a separate page, but theres not enough info yet to split it from IGMDP page... anyway, it wouldn't be a bad idea to split it... I'll start working on it.

As for the SLBM thing, the other missiles also had classes, but it became cluttered. I'm also concerned with the Sagarika... I'm thinking what we can do about. Any suggestions??? Sniperz11_@^CS 21:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if the Trishul development has been shelved, there's no need for an article for it. The question is: Has it been shelved/suspeneded? BTW I was reading somewhere that Trishul was later modified to become the PAD/AAD. Not too sure of its factual accuracy.

After some thinking, how about something like Sagarika • K15 ? Do you think it's appropriate?  S3000  ☎ 14:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... sorry for late reply... didnt see this till now. The Trishul is very different from the PAD/AAD programme, and is a separate missile. Since its part of the IGMDP, it can be a section on that page... if theres some more info, we can create a new page for it...

As for the K-15, till now, the missile has been officially called only K-15, nothing else. The Sagarika, although most probably correct, is the unofficial designation (at least till the govt decides to call it so). The problem is that the missile page is named Sagarika (which is most likely its official name as well, just not released yet), and we know it only officially as K-15. We could do as you say and rename that from sagarika to K-15. Sniperz11_@^CS 12:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Ok I get it. Regarding Trishul what I mean to say is if the program is shelved, there's no need for a dedicated article for it. The question is whether it is shelved or not. The IGMDP article says the project has been shut down, and so did I read in some articles. The Equipment of the Indian Army article however says it's undergoing user trials. Do you have any idea of its status?

Regarding Sagarika, wow! so Sagarika is just speculation! That's new to me! I thought it's official! I guess then the best thing to do is to wait for some sort of official confirmation of its name. Till then we'll leave it as it is.  S3000  ☎ 17:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the govt, all major research and development work on the missiles in IGMDP is done, and only user testing remains. In the case of Trishul, the major development is done, but DRDO seems to be making some improvements (I think in collaboration with IAI) so that it will be acceptable to the users - if not the Indian Navy (which is happy with the Barak), then at least the IAF and Army (which are looking very seriously at the Israeli Spyder). The IGMDP has been shut down in the sense that all major objectives are complete. That doesn't mean that the work will stop (this was a major confusion in the press).

Coming to Trishul status, If reports are to be believed, the IAF has placed an order (or indent) for a few systems, to try out near their bases. However, till now, there have been no official reports for such, except to say that the Trishul missile is undergoing user testing.

As for the Sagarika, the name "Sagarika" is almost certainly correct, just that its not official *yet* (I have spoken to defence scientists who call it Sagarika, and not K-15, so I'm pretty sure that Sagarika is already being used internally). I think we'll also have to look at official releases to see if even the name K-15 has been mentioned anywhere. Sniperz11_@^CS 08:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MISSILES/Armoury.html Pl. make changes to the template new missiles have been developed and added some missiles are not even mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enthusiast10 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as per as reports, I think Shaurya is not a ballistic missile^[1]where it had been describe as a missile with non-ballistic trajectory hence I had edited the ballistic missile group to surface to surface missile group but you have undone it, more over SAM Trishul project had been shut down and had been designated as technology demonstrator.

Hi Payeng. Shaurya by all reports is a Quasiballistic missile, since it is capable of some manauvering (Till now, reports do not mention anything more than that, that can make us rethink). However, that still means that it comes under the Ballistic missile category. The Prithvi too, has some quasiballistic characteristics, as does the RSM-56 Bulava. Thus, that is one point we should note. The presence of maneuverability (and we are seeing increasingly maneuverable ballistic missiles today), does not make it different from a ballistic missile. As it is, quasiballistic missiles are too close to the ballistic missiles to call a separate class..... ballistic today refers more to the fact that they are not powered during their flight, and any maneuvering is achieved through other means, such as vanes, aerodynamic elements, etc, which do not supply power to thrust the missile. Cruise missiles, on teh other hand, are powered throughout their flight.

The second point is about Trishul.... note that this template is for Indian Missiles, including failed ones as well, which have had test flights, or are ongoing programs... this is mainly done to provide easy access to information. Thus, I had included the Trishul also. this is also the reason I have included missiles like Maitri and Barak-2 which are still on the drawing board.

Hope that cleared some of the doubts we had. Thanks. Sniperz11_@^CS 11:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Sniperz11, Thanks for clearing my doubts Sniperz11 but what about 'helina'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Payeng (talk • contribs) 15:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its the same case mate.... Helina is still an Anti-tank guided missile, and will come into that category, irrespective of the launch platform. This is similar to the hellfire also... Note that an Air to ground missiles are usually considered to be somewhat distinct from ATGMs. Hope that answered it. Cheers. Sniperz11_@^CS 09:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wont it be better to arrange the missiles according to class? like SLBM - Prithvi I,II,III, Agni 1, Shaurya .. MRBM: Agni II, Agni IIIA, IRBM Agni III, ICBM Agni V (something like that) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.71.248 (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GUYS, Swordfish isnt a missile. It's a RADAR. so why insert it in Temp: Indian missiles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.170.90.3 (talk) 02:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that in row: "Air-to-surface", we remove the following topics related to bombs: "Unguided/glide bomb", "Cluster bomb" and "Anti-runway", as these are simple drop bombs, having no ability to maneuver, and do not possess powered flight, hence are unsuited for the category "Missiles". Perhaps a new template can be created for them. Anir1uph (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]