How do you know that its a hit job by ET? You working in ET or do you have any sort of association with IA when comes to weapon evaluation.Hitjob article, target hit on a low rcs drone even at long distance but there are problems in every part of the system revealed by a complete unknown source
That person with nickname manu pubby who did the report previously also came with the hitjob on Astra few months ago.
But, its not fair to call everything a 'hit job' right?. The issue is with the opacity of the defense procurement and the culture of "source" based news. If we had proper accountability and transparency from DRDO this won't be happening. Just follow any pentagon program. Progress is updated to congress every quarter. Even for classified programs redacted reports are available. And in this country, CAG report on Defence is no longer published to the public because some new CAG chief thought its too 'sensitive'.
Things like servicing, or say unable to target a low flying helicopter. These things just don't add up. If the LRU, maintenance and servicing issues were sorted, it would already be in production.
Et reports about Nirbhay missile failure turned out to be true, so you cannot undermine them at all.
A single point will be likely correct, the other two are just masala.
Et reports about Nirbhay missile failure turned out to be true, so you cannot undermine them at all
Akash took around 20 years of development, so we can assume that DRDO had sorted out all the flaws of that missile to some extant.
Its not entirely the journo's fault, rather its the source who is feeding him the info. We do not know the context, it can be genuine, can even be a hitjob type situation, can even be someone doing mischief to see if the reporter is putting everything he hears into a report without cross verifying. For instance if I were his source in army, and I wanted to see if the reporter would write anything I tell him blindly, I would mix between genuine info and something fabricated to see if he really publishes everything. Later in the army camp me & my company can laugh as much as we could.
Nirbhay was a tech demo sort of project, to establish the baseline technology for cruise missile program. This is something I noticed now, like with uttam radar, HSTDV , all these are sanctioned tech demo project where you establish a baseline working tech, validate every parameter, control logic etc. Basically application of a theory. Turning that application into a product is the next stage, like now uttam radar is being created separate for separate jets, or Nirbhay was the precursor, now multiple cruise missile program underway based on it. This is why DRDO do the tech transfer. A minimum number is sometimes made project specific, to show the sanctioned money had some end product, like limited series production to justify to cag report type committees. HSTDV similarly will be closed once tech is validated, then multiple programs will sprawl from it.
Military is procuring weapons based on their requirment & what it delivers. They dont follow press reports to change their decision. If they are not inducting, means it has some serious problems.
Go and reserch the old posts, about 2 years old here itself. Once members were dying to prove that nirbhay started induction, it was same in other mainstream media too. Few press reporters were saying otherwise, so there is a possibilities of ET might right in QRSAM too., may be they not. So keep away your filthy conclusion on ET reports till you comes to know about the authenticity of that report.
You forget one thing, it was an army evaluation. AFAIK only final product will be send to the user for evaluation.
It was never an army evaluation. Infact drdo back in 2020 clearly said atleast 20 more tests will be conducted before reaching induction phase.
Not on Igla but the general requirements which were given to French, Russians and Swedes during the competition. Both Mistral and Igla were fullfilling the requirements, Igla was cheaper.
