DRDO, PSU and Private Defence Sector News

[Bhadra]

@ NO Pmaitra ... NO...

any weapon does not become tactical due to those parameters..

It is the use of the weapon for a purpose that decides its category...
Poison can be tactical or strategic -- depends on its use.
Prahaar will not be used for a tactical purpose by India as per current doctrine and hence it is not tactical missile ..

If it is not then it is not .. if we will not use it that way it is not .. it will continue to be used as part of BMD from where it was taken by DRDO to claim some browney points and force some thing unpalatable down the throat of the nation.

Period

 

[pmaitra]

@Bhadra ji, let me present you the way I see it.

This is not the best explanation, but an explanation that makes sense to me.

• Strategic is what helps win the war. Tactical is what helps win the battle.
• Strategic is macroscopic. Tactical is microscopic.
• Strategic is holistic. Tactical is atomic.

When I look at Prahaar, I clearly see it satisfying a tactical role. Hence, I disagree with your assertion that @Kunal Biswas was wrong in calling it a tactical missile.

 

[Khagesh]

This is surreal.
Stage 1 - DRDO is bad..... But then our import content is 60%. Obviously implies that 40% is completely based on Indian knowhow.
Stage 2 - Ashwani Chandra talked too much inducts DRDO goes beyond its mandate...... But the ranges and values involved with Pakistan are such that tactical-strategic divide is already meaningless. Pakis will be applying their brains because they actually do have one. Even the resident Pakis would find it a news that Ashwani Chandra said this and that.
Stage 3 - Ashwani Chandra and thus DRDO have damaged "Management of Nuclear Escalation"...... But ain't that too close to Graduated Response Theory :biggrin2:. Sirji then what the hell in Indian stand has anything to do with Graduated Response.
Stage 4 - Prahaar is Strategic..... Yes it can be. Depends. But then currently people are trying to figure out how to put a SBD atop a rocket. A Prahaar can easily help you do something likewise. Why would any Paki care for what Prahaar is capable of. They already know that India has multiple redundancies built into its response. And Indian establishment has not even shrugged its shoulders on NASR whatever.

 

[Bhadra]

@Bhadra ji, let me present you the way I see it.

This is not the best explanation, but an explanation that makes sense to me.

• Strategic is what helps win the war. Tactical is what helps win the battle.
• Strategic is macroscopic. Tactical is microscopic.
• Strategic is holistic. Tactical is atomic.

When I look at Prahaar, I clearly see it satisfying a tactical role. Hence, I disagree with your assertion that @Kunal Biswas was wrong in calling it a tactical missile.

OK I will take you around other corners ....

How will India or for that matter Pakistan will determine or come to know they are being attacked by nuclear weapons through ballistics missiles ?

What is time factor in view of determination, confirmation and response to take action against the missile?

what will be position of the missile at the time when decision to counter is taken?
At what stage and in what time frame the missile would be destroyed if BMD is successful?
On interception can it be determined if missile has nuclear warhead or conventional ?
Following that what will be time frame of response or retaliation?


Is there space in such a scenario to use conventional warhead missiles ?

Well answer these and some sense may prevail.

 

[Bhadra]

@Khagesh
Thereiis every thing surreal about life and nuclear weapons
Indian Nuclear Posture: Confusing Signals from DRDO

http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/IndianNuclearPostureConfusingSignalsfromDRDO_vnarang_260911

 

[LETHALFORCE]

.

also found in Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinaka_multi_barrel_rocket_launcher



Three regiments means (3x7= 21 pinaka Launchers and support systems)
Why such low numbers, since first regiment inducted in early feb 2000, only 14 more pinaka launchers inducted after 15 years ..?

another source http://www.jagranjosh.com/current-a...pees-proposal-for-pinaka-rockets-1364198034-1

dated 25-MAR-2013



confusing here .. Pinaka regiments or regiments have Pinaka Rocket Artillery's

I think pinaka numbers maybe low because a new longer range version was being worked on , similar to Israeli Lora ?

 

[Bhadra]

CABINET COMMITTEE ON SECURITY REVIEWS PROGRESS IN OPERATIONALIZING INDIA’S NUCLEAR DOCTRINE


The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) met today to review the progress in operationaizing of India’s nuclear doctrine. The Committee decided that the following information, regarding the nuclear doctrine and operational arrangements governing India’s nuclear assets, should be shared with the public.

1. 
   2. India’s nuclear doctrine can be summarized as follows:
   
   1. Building and maintaining a credible minimum deterrent;
      
      • A posture of "No First Use" nuclear weapons will only be used in retaliation against a nuclear attack on Indian territory or on Indian forces anywhere;
      • Nuclear retaliation to a first strike will be massive and designed to inflict unacceptable damage.
      • Nuclear retaliatory attacks can only be authorised by the civilian political leadership through the Nuclear Command Authority.
   2. Non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states;
      
      • However, in the event of a major attack against India, or Indian forces anywhere, by biological or chemical weapons, India will retain the option of retaliating with nuclear weapons;
   3. A continuance of strict controls on export of nuclear and missile related materials and technologies, participation in the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty negotiations, and continued observance of the moratorium on nuclear tests.
      
   4. Continued commitment to the goal of a nuclear weapon free world, through global, verifiable and non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament.
   3. The Nuclear Command Authority comprises a Political Council and an Executive Council. The Political Council is chaired by the Prime Minister. It is the sole body which can authorize the use of nuclear weapons.
   
   4 The Executive Council is chaired by the National Security Advisor. It provides inputs for decision making by the Nuclear Command Authority and executes the directives given to it by the Political Council.
   
   5. The CCS reviewed the existing command and control structures, the state of readiness, the targetting strategy for a retaliatory attack, and operating procedures for various stages of alert and launch. The Committee expressed satisfaction with the overall preparedness. The CCS approved the appointment of a Commander-in-Chief, Strategic Forces Command, to manage and administer all Strategic Forces.
   
   6. The CCS also reviewed and approved the arrangements for alternate chains of command for retaliatory nuclear strikes in all eventualities.
   
   http://pib.nic.in/archieve/lreleng/lyr2003/rjan2003/04012003/r040120033.html

 

[Armand2REP]

This is surreal.
Stage 1 - DRDO is bad..... But then our import content is 60%. Obviously implies that 40% is completely based on Indian knowhow.

The import content is going to be over 80% once all the cleared deals are carried out.

 

[Bhadra]

This is surreal.
Stage 1 - DRDO is bad..... But then our import content is 60%. Obviously implies that 40% is completely based on Indian knowhow.

you are talking about over all imports.
What about this import (the figure on minus side as given by DRDO to the Parliamentary Committee).

 

[Bhadra]

Managing India’s Missile Aspirations

​

Frank O'Donnell
http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/ManagingIndiasMissileAspirations_fodonnell_100213.html
......................................
However, Prahaar could also serve toward a DRDO objective. The agency has long held an interest in tactical nuclear weapons, including the test of low-yield devices in the Pokhran-II series in 1998. If Prahaar is not presently nuclear-capable, it could at the least serve as a precursor to a tactical nuclear missile. DRDO is already miniaturising nuclear warheads for new projectiles such as the new MIRV warheads for the Agni-VI, and for the K-15 sea-launched ballistic missile. Without clear political direction from the Indian government against development of tactical nuclear warheads, there is little to stop DRDO announcing its commissioning of a tactical nuclear missile. This is an entirely avoidable development, which would have damaging consequences for Indo-Pakistani relations and fuel a needless nuclear arms race. Effective political control of Indian missile projects should, therefore, not overlook the strategic implications of short-range projectiles as well as the long-range marquee headline-grabbers such as the Agni-VI.

 

[Bhadra]

Can India afford to use Tactical Nuclear Missiles ?

 

[Ray]

I wish you all had seen last night's 'We, the People'.

Qualified people spoke to include Gen Malik, some politicians, quite a few bureaucrat and one Col who was with an Army Ordnance Depot and was familiar with the workings of the OFB.

All were clear that there was no accountability with the DRDO or OFB and that view was also accepted by the bureaucrats.

It was felt that there was no political will to integrate the decision making process with knowledgeable people and instead the bureaucrats called the tune without having a clue of the situation and urgency.

It was felt that unless there is cross posting i.e. 'integrating' the Defence Ministry with cross posting of military officers in the Defence Ministry and vice versa.

What was an eyeopener is what the Ordnance Officer had to say and which is universally known. The civilian workers tea and lunch breaks overshoots the official time by hours and by 3PM they are homeward bound and not wait for the official closing time.

Therefore, it is natural that there will be slippages and shortages in manufcture.

 

[Khagesh]

you are talking about over all imports.
What about this import (the figure on minus side as given by DRDO to the Parliamentary Committee).

Is it your claim that these breakups are over and above the 60% figure that was publicized earlier? Because if it is, I would like to contest it. Whenever the calculations about import content are made it does takes into account the itemwise breakups. Since UPA-2 itself, the import content at vendor level is also being taken into account.

I admit after this the 40% Indic mark, too would not remain at that level but that is hardly an argument since:
1) even the much bandied 30% mark was extracted in the face of stiff resistance from that armed forces (except IN). In fact in time these import lobbies will be appropriately dealt with and you will see even the off-sets clauses go up to 40% or even more in tow. So it is kind of 'ulta chor' to see DRDO and Indian research and development getting the rod because of foreign pasand lifestyles of somebody else.
2) the non component level would be much higher level perhaps >60% in the case of Indian Navy. And this non itemized, pure financial outlay ratio is also very important to show at how many places India is in the driving seat.
3) exceedingly stunted investments in the Indian research. You can dig out yourself the level to which even the planned outlays were not disbursed.
4) exceedingly stunted hiring. During ABV days we had about 6000 people counted as weapons designers and today we have 7500. Meantime the defence budgets have grown nearly 4 fold. Shows who is driving the agenda to keep Indian research down.

Managing India’s Missile Aspirations

​

Frank O'Donnell
http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/ManagingIndiasMissileAspirations_fodonnell_100213.html
......................................
However, Prahaar could also serve toward a DRDO objective. The agency has long held an interest in tactical nuclear weapons, including the test of low-yield devices in the Pokhran-II series in 1998. If Prahaar is not presently nuclear-capable, it could at the least serve as a precursor to a tactical nuclear missile. DRDO is already miniaturising nuclear warheads for new projectiles such as the new MIRV warheads for the Agni-VI, and for the K-15 sea-launched ballistic missile. Without clear political direction from the Indian government against development of tactical nuclear warheads, there is little to stop DRDO announcing its commissioning of a tactical nuclear missile. This is an entirely avoidable development, which would have damaging consequences for Indo-Pakistani relations and fuel a needless nuclear arms race. Effective political control of Indian missile projects should, therefore, not overlook the strategic implications of short-range projectiles as well as the long-range marquee headline-grabbers such as the Agni-VI.

If this is the extent of knowledge of people at IDSA, what can I say.

DRDO has nothing to do with miniaturising nukes. Thats the job of BARC - SOLELY. And for justifiable reasons. In fact BARC man was speculated to be taking charge of DRDO after Avinash Chandra. Even speculations shows something and constitute a data point.

 

[Khagesh]

Can India afford to use Tactical Nuclear Missiles ?

Sir sirf fall out dikhane se kaam nahi chalega. You have to also tell us the significance of the 3 different shades of browns stretching into the wind and the populations getting affected.

Tactical nukes are very much usable for India also, should it be felt to be a need.

 

[Khagesh]

I wish you all had seen last night's 'We, the People'.

Qualified people spoke to include Gen Malik, some politicians, quite a few bureaucrat and one Col who was with an Army Ordnance Depot and was familiar with the workings of the OFB.

All were clear that there was no accountability with the DRDO or OFB and that view was also accepted by the bureaucrats.

It was felt that there was no political will to integrate the decision making process with knowledgeable people and instead the bureaucrats called the tune without having a clue of the situation and urgency.

It was felt that unless there is cross posting i.e. 'integrating' the Defence Ministry with cross posting of military officers in the Defence Ministry and vice versa.

What was an eyeopener is what the Ordnance Officer had to say and which is universally known. The civilian workers tea and lunch breaks overshoots the official time by hours and by 3PM they are homeward bound and not wait for the official closing time.

Therefore, it is natural that there will be slippages and shortages in manufcture.

That I can support. No harm in having these people challenged on their produce.

However could you tell us if a Navy, SFC or a DRDO guy was there. It becomes bit of a one sided shout box without these people.

Anyhow the accountability part is a bit of a non argument. Because there has to be an auditor/accountant to report to. There was none. And in the absence of a queriest who can anybody answer to.

Current GoI administration has given a bigger budget and they I am sure will be taking people to task for delays. But no thanks to the armed forces, primarily IAF.

 

[pmaitra]

OK I will take you around other corners ....

How will India or for that matter Pakistan will determine or come to know they are being attacked by nuclear weapons through ballistics missiles ?

What is time factor in view of determination, confirmation and response to take action against the missile?

what will be position of the missile at the time when decision to counter is taken?
At what stage and in what time frame the missile would be destroyed if BMD is successful?
On interception can it be determined if missile has nuclear warhead or conventional ?
Following that what will be time frame of response or retaliation?


Is there space in such a scenario to use conventional warhead missiles ?

Well answer these and some sense may prevail.

How will India or Pakistan determine that an attack is nuclear or otherwise? I don't know. I am not an astrologer.

I am not going to get lost in another maze of talking points that I am not contending. All I am saying is that the Prahaar is a tactical missile, and I have explained why.

You are free to believe whatever you want. There are folks who believe the Agni V is an ICBM. I couldn't be bothered with what people want to believe beyond a certain point.

Good luck with your beliefs.

 

[Khagesh]

The import content is going to be over 80% once all the cleared deals are carried out.

If you may have noticed all the deals are getting truncated. So after that if we import more tech per unit item (plane/tank/whatever). I don't mind it.

And in all cases India must be in the driving seat. Which it is getting to.

And in all cases the Indic content cannot be compromised with. Tech imports cannot be allowed to pull Indic efforts down. You will see the off-set clauses also get hiked to >30% in time.

 

[Ray]

What is the point of discussion when you continue to provide fallacious numbers as facts, refuse to read the counter points, and continue to rant on? Have you bothered to read the thread whose link I have provided?

Make your point, but don't keep repeating your generic comments again and again. This adds no value, but noise, and it drowns the few posts that have some objectivity in it.

Read the Arjun threads and the Arjun vs T-90 thread. There is a lot of technical discussion there. What is stopping you from countering those? There is no way anyone can build a 45 ton tank and satisfy the requirements (4 crew members, 120 mm gun) asked by the Army. I am saying this again and again, because you refuse to read the existing threads. Even the Army cannot do it. Coming to a forum and whining is one thing, and building something is a very different thing.

I fail to understand if anyone's post must be deleted just because one feels that the contents are not correct as per someone else opinion.

If someone is factually wrong, instead of deleting, one should point one to the right direction with links and not gut feeling.

No one is an expert, not even a Admin or a Moderator, including me.

For instance, on arty guns of the Para Bde, I was doubtful, though I have seen a BMP helidropped and so obviously a gun could be similarly dropped.

But before I comment, I trunk called a Maj Gen of the Paras to ascertain the same and then, and then alone, I gave my comments.

 

[Ray]

That I can support. No harm in having these people challenged on their produce.

However could you tell us if a Navy, SFC or a DRDO guy was there. It becomes bit of a one sided shout box without these people.

Anyhow the accountability part is a bit of a non argument. Because there has to be an auditor/accountant to report to. There was none. And in the absence of a queriest who can anybody answer to.

Current GoI administration has given a bigger budget and they I am sure will be taking people to task for delays. But no thanks to the armed forces, primarily IAF.

Accountability is not mathematics and replying to auditors.

It is your head on the block if you do not shape up and deliver.

Are you aware that the Shipyards, inspite of having the same problems that DRDO has, is producing ships almost to the schedule? Why so? They are headed by Admirals. Same was the success story of HAL when it was headed by Air Marshalls. PC Lal comes to mind.

 

[pmaitra]

I fail to understand if anyone's post must be deleted just because one feels that the contents are not correct as per someone else opinion.

If someone is factually wrong, instead of deleting, one should point one to the right direction with links and not gut feeling.

No one is an expert, not even a Admin or a Moderator, including me.

For instance, on arty guns of the Para Bde, I was doubtful, though I have seen a BMP helidropped and so obviously a gun could be similarly dropped.

But before I comment, I trunk called a Maj Gen of the Paras to ascertain the same and then, and then alone, I gave my comments.

If someone is factually wrong, then one should point out. Agreed. And so it has been done. Many times. However, his stubbornness desires to continue to spout the same old narrative again and again. I cannot continue to counter him every time.

Let each person make his point, and then counter the points and move forward.

Or, I can copy paste this post of mine and spam the forum by re-posting it another 5000 times. Does that sound like a swell idea?

Do we want to have a quality discussion and let the discussion move forward, or do we start calling each other demented?

Sir, I am not the first person who gave the timelines of the various iterations of Arjun's development. @ersakthivel has done that at least a few years before. However, @Bhadra has consistently refused to participate in those discussions and shied away from countering specific points. He only likes to make generic comments and tries to create an impression as if the army gave its requirements and waited from 1974 to 2020 for a tank. What kind impudent dishonesty is that?

Comparing a 1972's requirement with a 1985's requirement? What next? The German Panther tank is then the same thing as the Tiger tank?

Sir, I recommend you talk to @Bhadra instead of quoting me.

There are times when I can either be polite or honest, but not both.