Simple answer is technical bottle neck. We yet to master cruise missile technology & propulsion.
Israel, US Strike Iran After Weeks Of Warning, Explosions Heard In Tehran
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
Footage of Iranian missile strikes on Tel Aviv. Iran also used the new Khorramshahr-4 ballistic missiles; technical information about them is provided in the link to the video in the comments. A video filmed by Tel Aviv residents appears to show the release of cluster munitions from an Iranian missile. For an as-yet-unknown reason, Israeli Iron Dome air defense systems are not firing. The video has been shortened to show only the Iranian missile strikes on Tel Aviv. An Iranian missile strike on Israel's Haifa seaport is also added at the end.
It's okay to lie/obfuscate the truth somewhat in order to pump up morale & downplay own losses during an active conflict, everyone does it. But you gotta be careful that the story you're putting out can't be easily taken apart by verifiable evidence in the age of 24x7 satellite coverage.
If you aren't careful, then the lie ends up doing the opposite - it casts doubt over all of your other claims.
Yea difference in range is massive, even more so when we compare our SLCM (500 km only!) to Tomahawk. Maturity of the turbofan engine, lower efficiency of the engine etc may cause our cruise missiles to have lower range. The wings im not too sure but I'd reckon they are for maneuvering and controlling the attitude of the missile much like the aelorons on planes. Nirbhay does have such wings albeit smaller ones.
Remember Tomahawk AFAIK has been used from 1990 almost 40 years ago and US is far more advanced in turbofan engines than us, so its range being substantially higher is perhaps expected. Same thing with Russia, infact before using Manik we were using Russian turbofan engine for Nirbhay. @randomradio @Rajput Lion @babablacksheep @marich01 Can give more insights as to why LRLACM's range is much lower.
Israel always kills terrorists, that's not new.
Implying?
Russia absolutely is influential as far as Iran is concerned. How many drones and missiles did Iran send Russia? Iran let Russia use its air space during Syria involvement.
ISAF? Russia certainly new in advance and influence the timing. As regards Ukraine, they put themselves there, that's entirely on them, they're 100% in the wrong.
Even then, Americans can likely launch huge volleys of them from max range and they are devastating. 150-200 Tomahawks is something which even China will struggle to stop and we have even factored in JASSMs and US hypersonic weapons yet. All of these very close to China whereas US is an entire oceans away.
Using UAVs (MQ-9s) a lot now that the area is well SEADed, but also other aircraft (F-35s, F-18s/F-18SHs, F-15E/EXs).
It's 2800km with a nuke (that was way back in the days of the Gryphon GLCM and SLCM versions), but only ~1,700km with a conventional warhead. Maybe a little more now.
Crawl. Walk. Run. It's that simple. Flying "nap of the earth" i.e., nearly 1000kmph at 100 feet or so means you need to have excellent "terrain hugging" software and very advance "radar altimeter". It's not that we can't design a cruise missile with 2500kms range, but providing it guidance over that distance and requisite sensors that it can remain effective maintaining pin-point accuracy at that distance is not very easy. Eventually, we'll get there sooner rather than later.
Anyways, from Nirbhay's 1000km range to LRLACM 1500kms range extension isnt't very petty and surely once we start to induct it in numbers, we will increase its range to match that of the Tomahawks, IMO.
LRLACM
Official designated range is 1000km.
( some sources say range can be extended to ~1500km)
Weight(without additional booster) is 1ton/1000kg.
Warhead weight is typically 450kg( SLCM version carries lighter Warhead.)
Tomahawk.
Weight(without booster) is 1300+kg.
(300kg extra weight compared to LRLACM mostly extra fuel)
Warhead weight is 450kg.
Tomahawk variants
====
Nuclear.
Block II TLAM-N (Nuclear): ~2,500 km (1,550 miles)
Now decommissioned.
====
Land attack.
Older Block III TLAM-C/D (Conventional): >1600km
Block IV TLAM-E (Tactical): >1600km km.
====
Land attack + anti ship
Block V/Va/Vb (Modernized): >1,600km , with upgraded anti-ship and land-attack capabilities
====
Submarine launched
TASM (Anti-Ship, RGM/UGM-109B, torpedo tube launched): ~460 km (250 miles)
( our equivalent is SLCM with 500km+ range)
h
huh? wasnt the LRLACM 1500kms? maybe it is 1k and i misread but yea, weve caught up significantly but again theyve been at this for decades and obviously the tomahawk is a lot more stealthy and what not.
The USA aint winning any war in South China sea, intercepting High hand ballistic missiles is a difficult task, even the current inventory Will over saturate the American fleet & it's allies, also the J-20, J-35A, J16, Will put salt in the wound,
USA wouldn't be able replenish the missile stockpiles,
I don't see any scenario taiwan is getting protected,
It's a lost cause unless they develop WMD,
China has overwhelming home advantage
The Nirbhay featured a Russian sourced turbojet which are inefficient compared to turbofans and hence the range penalty.
The LR-LACM/ITCM which succedded the Nirbhay program which was a TD has a range of 1500km thanks to the Manik STFE engine.
AoN for LR-LACM was accorded sometime in 2023 and user trials were underway in 2025.
This is a tri-service procurement.
Once the baseline version is inducted, DRDO can continue working on a range extension program but for actual user feedback the missile needs to be inducted by the forces first.
US can still increase the cost of winning for china, by blocking chinese trade and raw materials, blowing up pipilines , as china doesn't have the capability yet to take on U.S navy in open oceans beyond 2nd island chain.
Additionally will also result in US also paying immense economic, sociatal, resource cost of its own
But if war ever comes this far, both US, china and world economy will be *censored*ed beforehand.
This fact put Additional pressure on china, that is, if this price is worth it for Taiwan, or if U.S will go this far and also ruin itself to stop china, rationality says no, but again its war things can escalate in a way it doesn't make sense, that's how ww1 was started.
The SLCM that has been developed to be fired from torpedo tubes is about 2 feet shorter than the Tomahawk and weighs less than a tonne.
This is obviously going to have an effect on the range.
For a submarine which could be hidden anywhere, 500km range is adequate.
Propulsion is the only issue really. Even that is not a big problem. We have both guidance and propulsion. Nobody is really serious in producing it because brahmos is just a superior option. Plus the present government isn't really serious about having influence beyond the immediate subcontinent.
We could mass produce it.
I don't think that's the case.
LR-LACM is going to be an integral part of the Rocket Force and user trials for the missile are well underway.
AoN was accorded for procurement by IAF in 2023.
Just recently, the Navy issues an RFI for LACMs.
No
Nirbhay had a Russian turbofan, quite efficient one. Nirbhay tested around 2020 flew with a Turbojet. ADE then again switched to an indigenous turbofan with ITCM and LRLACM.
So what I understand is that we earlier that since turbojet engines(older nirbay missile) accelerate all air through the core core, it has better exhaust velocity and better thrust at higher mach numbers like fighter jets but compromise on range, while turbofans(newer nirbhay) shine on subsonic speed where bypass fan moves large amount of air which leads to much better propulsion and lower fuel burn like aeroplanes. Since the older turbojet engine already gave it 800-1000km of range, its fair to expect that with the new manik engine, we can at least expect 1500km of range.
The primary goal of nirbhay was probably to make an indigenous propulsion system rather than max possible range, so if we can validate the engine, reliability and integration over these conditions, then we can probably target the 2500km mark by refining the engine, increasing fuel capacity and maybe even making aerodynamic optimizations.