This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India High‑importance This article 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was last assessed in January 2013. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Asian / South Asia Start‑class This article 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force Asian military history task force South Asian military history task force

I verified the range data from a few different sources including the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the Center for Non-Proliferation Studies and the New York Times. CIskowitz 04:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The source suggesting this is a Ballistic weapon is very speculative and tbh doesn't appear reliable enough to state the two version argument. Given that CM and BM use whooly different propulsion, naviation, payload delivery and launch mechanisms and require a different force protection regime and supporting infrastructure I don't see them as being versions of the same weapon. Is there something more authoritative, an official press release or something?

ALR 07:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

no reliable source is there claiming Sagarika is cruise or ballistic. Due to some reason Sagarika is a mystery analogous to ATV. Some sources claim ATV is third leg of nuclear detterant, SLBMs are obviously better in carrying a nuclear warhead than a SLCM, So if ATV will carry Sagarika, It could be SLCM.

Some Sources indicate Sagarika might the same name for a different Cruise Missile & a Ballistic Missile.-- Ajay ijn 14:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Could somebody with knowledge of Sanskrit please insert the script for the term 'Sagarika' (Oceanic). Here's an example. Thanks.  S3000   ☎ 17:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Done. Thanks for pointing that out. Check if its fine. Sniperz 11 _{@ ^C S} 21:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I hope it is as I don't understand the language.  S3000   ☎ 17:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't thing so. I read there "Sāgaraki|" (the bow should be over the ra, not the ka). I'll check if I'm able to correct it. -- 89.49.166.53 ( talk) 11:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi... the bow problem is due to your system mate.... I think you'll need to enable indic language on it. Used to happen to me too, and I also made many of these edits till I realized my mistake. Cheers. Sniperz 11 _{@ ^C S} 15:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply

==

Formatting or something has gone horribly wrong. Chocolate Horlicks ( talk) 03:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sagarika (missile). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100927101412/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5gQTgW2zpizQZH7DpSLy50BMsNbdQD94D84300 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gQTgW2zpizQZH7DpSLy50BMsNbdQD94D84300

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply