Full Revamp Of DRDO-Commercial arm by year-end

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
730
The Tata group signed an agreement with US-based Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation to manufacture its S-92 helicopter cabins in India. The cabins for the four-bladed helicopter, meant for both military and civilian markets, are expected to roll out from a green-field facility in Hyderabad by late 2010.

On May 5, Larsen & Toubro (L&T) announced a joint venture with European defence electronics major EADS to manufacture high-end defence electronics products. The venture is expected to start by March next year and L&T is expecting to get Rs 2,500 crore worth of business within five years.



In a first for an Indian military aircraft programme, L&T, Godrej & Boyce and Tata Advanced Systems put in bids to develop and build an unmanned aerial vehicle, or drone, used in surveillance operations. The medium-altitude, long-endurance aircraft, named Rustom, will be designed to fly at least 250 km at a stretch.

A month before that, Mahindra & Mahindra inaugurated a state-of-the-art, six-acre plant in Faridabad to make specific military manufacturing applications, including armoured vehicles.

Sensing a booming opportunity, India Inc is making rapid strategic moves on the defence business. Rolta India chief Kamal K Singh said the defence business was growing at a stunning compounded annual rate of 40 to 50 per cent and most Indian companies were working on cutting-edge technology.



Rolta, which has been in the defence business for over two decades, renewed its agreement with IntergraphCorp in April this year for engineering and geospatially-enabled software. It also has a venture with the $30-billion Thales of France to build equipment for military intelligence.

One major reason why Indian companies have been in a hurry to step up their footprint in defence is the "offset clause", under which all foreign companies that get a defence contract of above Rs 300 crore from the Indian government will have to bring back 30 per cent of the contract value into the country, either by way of purchases or as investments in the sector. That means a huge opportunity just waiting to be tapped.

The Indian government was expected to issue over Rs 150,000 crore worth of defence orders in the next five years. At 30 per cent offset, that's a plough-back of over Rs 50,000 crore into the Indian defence industry. It's something India Inc can hardly ignore.



That explains the flurry of moves by companies like the Tata group, L&T, Godrej & Boyce, Mahindra & Mahindra, Walchandnagar Industries, Punj Lloyd and the like. The array of joint ventures signed is mind-boggling. Apart from Sikorsky, Tata Advanced Systems has also formed joint ventures with Israel Aerospace Industries for building unmanned aerial vehicles, missiles, radar systems. The group also builds components for Hindustan Aeronautics, DRDO and the Indian Space Research Organisation.

Mahindra Defence Systems has a joint venture with Lockheed Martin to jointly develop simulators for the Indian defence sector and with BAE Systems for building heavy artillery. Another major in the fray, Godrej & Boyce, supplies the Vikas engines for India's rockets.



L&T makes military vessels for the Navy and has built a radar system with Bharat Electronics for the Army in addition to being involved in other aerospace projects. The company's defence division already makes ancillary equipment for ships, such as propulsion steering gears and shafts and is now planning to build ships for the Indian Navy.

There's more. Infrastructure major Punj Lloyd has joined hands with Singapore Technologies Kinetics (STK) to manufacture land defence systems — essentially weapons, including howitzers, mortars and small arms — and has announced a greenfield project near Gwalior, with an initial investment of Rs 200 crore. The Hero Group has also announced a Rs 500 crore, 292-acre defence and aviation special economic zone (SEZ) in Madhya Pradesh.



One of the major benefits of the offset clause is that foreign companies have no option but to forge partnerships with Indian companies to make the country part of its global supply chain. Take US major Boeing. Last year, the company entered into an agreement with TAL Manufacturing Solutions, a wholly owned subsidiary of Tata Motors, to make structural components for the latter's 787 Dreamliner. Boeing has signed up with another 37 Indian companies too.

Lockheed Martin, one of the world's largest defence companies, is also aiming for deals with India worth $15 billion in the next five years and wants to develop defence technology with Indian companies.

Companies looking to be part of the Indian expansion include US aircraft parts maker Rockwell Collins Inc, which plans to quadruple its staff in India by 2012. Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems are also forming multiple partnerships in India.



That's threatening to become a chorus and India Inc cites the support provided by the US government that enabled Boeing and Lockheed Martin to compete for military plane projects. The F-16 is built by Lockheed, while Boeing builds the F-18.

Companies said the delay on the part of the government to allow greater entry of private companies in defence had already done enough damage. For example, L&T and Tata Power Strategic Electronics Division had partnered with Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to develop the prototype of a multi-barrel rocket launcher, Pinaka, for the Indian Army about 20 years ago. But business scope materialised only in 2002 when the government opened up defence equipment production to private sector companies. It took four more years for the two companies to get orders for Pinaka.

"The offset clause was working out well for Indian companies in acquiring orders or signing for technologies. But for more growth, research and development (R&D) and manufacturing should be outsourced to private players. And, in turn, the companies should acquire or develop proprietary technology."



To be fair, the government is taking some more initiatives as well to facilitate this. For example, it has revived the Raksha Udyog Ratna (RUR) scheme that was put in cold storage because of opposition from the Left. Tata Motors, L&T, Tata Power, M&M, Godrej, Bharat Forge, Infosys, Wipro and Tata Consultancy Services are among the 12 companies that have been cleared by a defence ministry committee.



Once awarded RUR status, these companies will be treated on a par with defence public sector enterprises. RUR-status companies will also be allowed to access foreign technologies and build main systems for the defence department, besides getting substantial government financial investment (up to 80 per cent) for design, development and manufacture of defence products, including fighter aircraft, tanks and warships.
http://weapons.technology.youngester.com/2009/06/indian-inc-moving-towards-defence.html
 

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
730
The Tata group signed an agreement with US-based Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation to manufacture its S-92 helicopter cabins in India. The cabins for the four-bladed helicopter, meant for both military and civilian markets, are expected to roll out from a green-field facility in Hyderabad by late 2010.

On May 5, Larsen & Toubro (L&T) announced a joint venture with European defence electronics major EADS to manufacture high-end defence electronics products. The venture is expected to start by March next year and L&T is expecting to get Rs 2,500 crore worth of business within five years.



In a first for an Indian military aircraft programme, L&T, Godrej & Boyce and Tata Advanced Systems put in bids to develop and build an unmanned aerial vehicle, or drone, used in surveillance operations. The medium-altitude, long-endurance aircraft, named Rustom, will be designed to fly at least 250 km at a stretch.

A month before that, Mahindra & Mahindra inaugurated a state-of-the-art, six-acre plant in Faridabad to make specific military manufacturing applications, including armoured vehicles.

Sensing a booming opportunity, India Inc is making rapid strategic moves on the defence business. Rolta India chief Kamal K Singh said the defence business was growing at a stunning compounded annual rate of 40 to 50 per cent and most Indian companies were working on cutting-edge technology.



Rolta, which has been in the defence business for over two decades, renewed its agreement with IntergraphCorp in April this year for engineering and geospatially-enabled software. It also has a venture with the $30-billion Thales of France to build equipment for military intelligence.

One major reason why Indian companies have been in a hurry to step up their footprint in defence is the "offset clause", under which all foreign companies that get a defence contract of above Rs 300 crore from the Indian government will have to bring back 30 per cent of the contract value into the country, either by way of purchases or as investments in the sector. That means a huge opportunity just waiting to be tapped.

The Indian government was expected to issue over Rs 150,000 crore worth of defence orders in the next five years. At 30 per cent offset, that's a plough-back of over Rs 50,000 crore into the Indian defence industry. It's something India Inc can hardly ignore.



That explains the flurry of moves by companies like the Tata group, L&T, Godrej & Boyce, Mahindra & Mahindra, Walchandnagar Industries, Punj Lloyd and the like. The array of joint ventures signed is mind-boggling. Apart from Sikorsky, Tata Advanced Systems has also formed joint ventures with Israel Aerospace Industries for building unmanned aerial vehicles, missiles, radar systems. The group also builds components for Hindustan Aeronautics, DRDO and the Indian Space Research Organisation.

Mahindra Defence Systems has a joint venture with Lockheed Martin to jointly develop simulators for the Indian defence sector and with BAE Systems for building heavy artillery. Another major in the fray, Godrej & Boyce, supplies the Vikas engines for India's rockets.



L&T makes military vessels for the Navy and has built a radar system with Bharat Electronics for the Army in addition to being involved in other aerospace projects. The company's defence division already makes ancillary equipment for ships, such as propulsion steering gears and shafts and is now planning to build ships for the Indian Navy.

There's more. Infrastructure major Punj Lloyd has joined hands with Singapore Technologies Kinetics (STK) to manufacture land defence systems — essentially weapons, including howitzers, mortars and small arms — and has announced a greenfield project near Gwalior, with an initial investment of Rs 200 crore. The Hero Group has also announced a Rs 500 crore, 292-acre defence and aviation special economic zone (SEZ) in Madhya Pradesh.



One of the major benefits of the offset clause is that foreign companies have no option but to forge partnerships with Indian companies to make the country part of its global supply chain. Take US major Boeing. Last year, the company entered into an agreement with TAL Manufacturing Solutions, a wholly owned subsidiary of Tata Motors, to make structural components for the latter's 787 Dreamliner. Boeing has signed up with another 37 Indian companies too.

Lockheed Martin, one of the world's largest defence companies, is also aiming for deals with India worth $15 billion in the next five years and wants to develop defence technology with Indian companies.

Companies looking to be part of the Indian expansion include US aircraft parts maker Rockwell Collins Inc, which plans to quadruple its staff in India by 2012. Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems are also forming multiple partnerships in India.



That's threatening to become a chorus and India Inc cites the support provided by the US government that enabled Boeing and Lockheed Martin to compete for military plane projects. The F-16 is built by Lockheed, while Boeing builds the F-18.

Companies said the delay on the part of the government to allow greater entry of private companies in defence had already done enough damage. For example, L&T and Tata Power Strategic Electronics Division had partnered with Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to develop the prototype of a multi-barrel rocket launcher, Pinaka, for the Indian Army about 20 years ago. But business scope materialised only in 2002 when the government opened up defence equipment production to private sector companies. It took four more years for the two companies to get orders for Pinaka.

"The offset clause was working out well for Indian companies in acquiring orders or signing for technologies. But for more growth, research and development (R&D) and manufacturing should be outsourced to private players. And, in turn, the companies should acquire or develop proprietary technology."



To be fair, the government is taking some more initiatives as well to facilitate this. For example, it has revived the Raksha Udyog Ratna (RUR) scheme that was put in cold storage because of opposition from the Left. Tata Motors, L&T, Tata Power, M&M, Godrej, Bharat Forge, Infosys, Wipro and Tata Consultancy Services are among the 12 companies that have been cleared by a defence ministry committee.



Once awarded RUR status, these companies will be treated on a par with defence public sector enterprises. RUR-status companies will also be allowed to access foreign technologies and build main systems for the defence department, besides getting substantial government financial investment (up to 80 per cent) for design, development and manufacture of defence products, including fighter aircraft, tanks and warships.
http://weapons.technology.youngester.com/2009/06/indian-inc-moving-towards-defence.html
 

pavanvenkatesh

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
175
Likes
9
Once awarded RUR status, these companies will be treated on a par with defence public sector enterprises. RUR-status companies will also be allowed to access foreign technologies and build main systems for the defence department, besides getting substantial government financial investment (up to 80 per cent) for design, development and manufacture of defence products, including fighter aircraft, tanks and warships.
The issue of RUR licenses was cancelled after just 3-5 days of announcing it
 

nitesh

Mob Control Manager
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
7,550
Likes
1,307
http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article431200.ece

A Defence Technology Commission will be set up on the lines of the Atomic Energy Commission to improve the functioning of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) laboratories in the country, V. K. Saraswat, Scientific Adviser to the Defence Minister, said here on Saturday.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
what exactly is a defense technology commission supposed to do
The commission will set the goals for technology DRDO will be working on. Instead of all these willy nilly projects that don't go anywhere, DRDO will have a focus to meet the needs of the Indian Armed forces.
 

pavanvenkatesh

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
175
Likes
9
The commission will set the goals for technology DRDO will be working on. Instead of all these willy nilly projects that don't go anywhere, DRDO will have a focus to meet the needs of the Indian Armed forces.
So is it strictly in developing R&D in India or does it have any say in future procurement
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
So is it strictly in developing R&D in India or does it have any say in future procurement
It will focus on core competencies it thinks India must have, ie critical technologies that it does not want to be dependent on imports. It will set the guidelines for what India SHOULD be able to do without imports. Whether DRDO meets those goals is the determining factor as to where and what gets procured.
 

nandu

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
1,913
Likes
163
Sorting out DRDO - Armed Forces mutual distrust should be a national priority

28 May 2010 8ak: The simmering differences between the Indian Armed Forces and India's premiere Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) have come out in open, with the chief of DRDO, Saraswat, accusing its main customer for opting for foreign equipment over homemade systems.

Domain-B reports V K Saraswat, speaking at the National Technology Day awards function, took on the armed forces for relying on imported weapons and advised them to try and curb their "temptation" to continually import latest weapon systems from abroad.

The statement has not gone down well with the military top brass which was represented by the three service chiefs during the awards function. A serving Lt Gen told 8ak, "There may be merit in what the DRDO chief is saying in terms of dependence on weapons imports, but then it is because of the incompetence of Indian Defence PSUs like DRDO, HAL etc that the armed forces are forced to import military hardware to keep its inventory in shape." Substantiating his statement further, the officer said, "Had we not taken three decades to develop the Arjuns (Main Battle Tank), there would have been no place for the Russian T-90s in the Army, as by now even the improved Mark-II version would have been developed. But for the DRDO to say that we should not import and wait for them to deliver is ridiculous because if the security of the nation is threatened, it's the security forces who will be answerable to the people."

Another senior IAF officer tore into the DRDO chief's statement. "The belief that armed forces import because of the kickbacks involved has tarnished the forces reputation among the public. As a matter of fact, we import only because DRDO takes unacceptable time to develop military hardware. Therefore, by the time equipment is inducted into the forces, the GSQRs on which the product is developed become irrelevant and the product obsolete as other nations develop more advanced technology. Adding further, the officer said, that the role of military in deciding the vendor to buy from is limited, hence, the services have no personal gains to make.

Take the case of the Light Combat Aircraft Tejas. Though the project was sanctioned in 1982 (28 years ago) and the Kaveri engine project in 1989 (21 years ago), DRDO and its agencies are still years away from being able to deliver the plane and the Kaveri engine project is in shambles as finally a RFP has been issued to Eurojet and GE for an alternate engine. In the meantime, India's fighter inventory and consequently the IAF's strategy and its ability to defend the nation's interest is doubtful given the huge strides China is making in its aerospace (both civil and military) programs. In this case, can the DRDO blame the IAF for wanting to buy foreign aircraft? An ex-HAL person we spoke to goes further and says that during a meeting with the defence chief, HAL and DRDO/ADA, the scientists knew even then that their promised delivery of the program in 2010 was unachievable but they preferred to to lie to the forces to ensure that the program stayed alive and India did not buy foreign aircraft. It should be kept in mind that in most cases DRDO was not expected to deliver path-breaking technologies, rather just to replicate technologies existing with other nations, a far simpler task.

Most DRDO programs have faced similar fates and hence one can well imagine the complete distrust and lack of respect for DRDO and DPSU officers in the armed forces. Take the case of the INSAS carbine shoved down the throats of the armed forces. PTI states that after years of problems, the armed forces in their technology road-map have stated that they want the INSAS replaced. Saraswat's latest statement shows that DRDO's scientist have very little respect for the armed forces as well.

The armed forces have received support form unexpected quarters on the issue. During the same function attended by Prime Minister (PM) Manmohan Singh, the PM pulled up the DRDO for not delivering on time. Newsline365 quoted Prime Minister Singh saying, "In many areas, we have moved fast, but our competitors have often moved faster. It is a fact our current level of self-reliance in defence R&D (research and development) is less than our capabilities and it needs to be stepped up significantly. The Hindu reports that PM Manmohan Singh has asked the scientists to speed up their research and deliver critical technologies on time for the nation to achieve self-reliance.

The MoD claims that its "Headquartered Integrated Defence Staff (HQ IDS) has carried out an analysis of DRDO's 11th Plan and a sincere effort to synchronise it with the Services 11th Defence Plan has been made." However, with decades of mistrust between the forces and DPSUs and the inability of the MoD or the government to take steps to resolve this issue, it is expected that the unhealthy relation will continue with no end is sight. Result: more delayed projects, more wasteful expenditure, inability to provide the nation with a defence force we deserve in the face of increasing hostility from India's neighbours and the lessening tolerance for further humiliation.

With the recent fiasco of cancellation of EADS/Airbus' A-330 MRTT (mid air refueller) and many other similar deals, the MoD(/MoF) have clearly shown the armed forces that they have the final say in procurement deals. As power and thereby corruption must necessarily reside with the decision maker, corruption allegations must, at least in some part, be directed to the MoD. But it is unthinkable that DRDO will ever point a finger at the MoD, who is largely responsible for DRDO's continued survival without any serious change.

In India's national interest, there is an urgent need to cut the MoD's preference for DRDO and the DPSU's. An alternative to the DRDO must be encouraged by allowing private & other public sector companies to compete with it for R&D funds. Only then will the research establishment wake up to the needs of the Armed Forces and give them the respect they deserve. As they sit on their high chairs, they ignore the deaths of soldiers on the battlefront and the national humiliation India faces when it cannot defend India's interest in face of repeated border violations, ceasefire violations, terrorist training camps at our doorstep and terrorist attacks by militants supported by our neighbouring countries.
 

pavanvenkatesh

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
175
Likes
9
Sorting out DRDO - Armed Forces mutual distrust should be a national priority

28 May 2010 8ak: The simmering differences between the Indian Armed Forces and India's premiere Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) have come out in open, with the chief of DRDO, Saraswat, accusing its main customer for opting for foreign equipment over homemade systems.

Domain-B reports V K Saraswat, speaking at the National Technology Day awards function, took on the armed forces for relying on imported weapons and advised them to try and curb their "temptation" to continually import latest weapon systems from abroad.

The statement has not gone down well with the military top brass which was represented by the three service chiefs during the awards function. A serving Lt Gen told 8ak, "There may be merit in what the DRDO chief is saying in terms of dependence on weapons imports, but then it is because of the incompetence of Indian Defence PSUs like DRDO, HAL etc that the armed forces are forced to import military hardware to keep its inventory in shape." Substantiating his statement further, the officer said, "Had we not taken three decades to develop the Arjuns (Main Battle Tank), there would have been no place for the Russian T-90s in the Army, as by now even the improved Mark-II version would have been developed. But for the DRDO to say that we should not import and wait for them to deliver is ridiculous because if the security of the nation is threatened, it's the security forces who will be answerable to the people."

Another senior IAF officer tore into the DRDO chief's statement. "The belief that armed forces import because of the kickbacks involved has tarnished the forces reputation among the public. As a matter of fact, we import only because DRDO takes unacceptable time to develop military hardware. Therefore, by the time equipment is inducted into the forces, the GSQRs on which the product is developed become irrelevant and the product obsolete as other nations develop more advanced technology. Adding further, the officer said, that the role of military in deciding the vendor to buy from is limited, hence, the services have no personal gains to make.

Take the case of the Light Combat Aircraft Tejas. Though the project was sanctioned in 1982 (28 years ago) and the Kaveri engine project in 1989 (21 years ago), DRDO and its agencies are still years away from being able to deliver the plane and the Kaveri engine project is in shambles as finally a RFP has been issued to Eurojet and GE for an alternate engine. In the meantime, India's fighter inventory and consequently the IAF's strategy and its ability to defend the nation's interest is doubtful given the huge strides China is making in its aerospace (both civil and military) programs. In this case, can the DRDO blame the IAF for wanting to buy foreign aircraft? An ex-HAL person we spoke to goes further and says that during a meeting with the defence chief, HAL and DRDO/ADA, the scientists knew even then that their promised delivery of the program in 2010 was unachievable but they preferred to to lie to the forces to ensure that the program stayed alive and India did not buy foreign aircraft. It should be kept in mind that in most cases DRDO was not expected to deliver path-breaking technologies, rather just to replicate technologies existing with other nations, a far simpler task.

Most DRDO programs have faced similar fates and hence one can well imagine the complete distrust and lack of respect for DRDO and DPSU officers in the armed forces. Take the case of the INSAS carbine shoved down the throats of the armed forces. PTI states that after years of problems, the armed forces in their technology road-map have stated that they want the INSAS replaced. Saraswat's latest statement shows that DRDO's scientist have very little respect for the armed forces as well.

The armed forces have received support form unexpected quarters on the issue. During the same function attended by Prime Minister (PM) Manmohan Singh, the PM pulled up the DRDO for not delivering on time. Newsline365 quoted Prime Minister Singh saying, "In many areas, we have moved fast, but our competitors have often moved faster. It is a fact our current level of self-reliance in defence R&D (research and development) is less than our capabilities and it needs to be stepped up significantly. The Hindu reports that PM Manmohan Singh has asked the scientists to speed up their research and deliver critical technologies on time for the nation to achieve self-reliance.

The MoD claims that its "Headquartered Integrated Defence Staff (HQ IDS) has carried out an analysis of DRDO's 11th Plan and a sincere effort to synchronise it with the Services 11th Defence Plan has been made." However, with decades of mistrust between the forces and DPSUs and the inability of the MoD or the government to take steps to resolve this issue, it is expected that the unhealthy relation will continue with no end is sight. Result: more delayed projects, more wasteful expenditure, inability to provide the nation with a defence force we deserve in the face of increasing hostility from India's neighbours and the lessening tolerance for further humiliation.

With the recent fiasco of cancellation of EADS/Airbus' A-330 MRTT (mid air refueller) and many other similar deals, the MoD(/MoF) have clearly shown the armed forces that they have the final say in procurement deals. As power and thereby corruption must necessarily reside with the decision maker, corruption allegations must, at least in some part, be directed to the MoD. But it is unthinkable that DRDO will ever point a finger at the MoD, who is largely responsible for DRDO's continued survival without any serious change.

In India's national interest, there is an urgent need to cut the MoD's preference for DRDO and the DPSU's. An alternative to the DRDO must be encouraged by allowing private & other public sector companies to compete with it for R&D funds. Only then will the research establishment wake up to the needs of the Armed Forces and give them the respect they deserve. As they sit on their high chairs, they ignore the deaths of soldiers on the battlefront and the national humiliation India faces when it cannot defend India's interest in face of repeated border violations, ceasefire violations, terrorist training camps at our doorstep and terrorist attacks by militants supported by our neighbouring countries.
This is a good article and it clearly exposes the failures of DRDO in many regions and how they failed the armed forces
 

pavanvenkatesh

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
175
Likes
9
Sorting out DRDO - Armed Forces mutual distrust should be a national priority

28 May 2010 8ak: The simmering differences between the Indian Armed Forces and India's premiere Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) have come out in open, with the chief of DRDO, Saraswat, accusing its main customer for opting for foreign equipment over homemade systems.

Domain-B reports V K Saraswat, speaking at the National Technology Day awards function, took on the armed forces for relying on imported weapons and advised them to try and curb their "temptation" to continually import latest weapon systems from abroad.

The statement has not gone down well with the military top brass which was represented by the three service chiefs during the awards function. A serving Lt Gen told 8ak, "There may be merit in what the DRDO chief is saying in terms of dependence on weapons imports, but then it is because of the incompetence of Indian Defence PSUs like DRDO, HAL etc that the armed forces are forced to import military hardware to keep its inventory in shape." Substantiating his statement further, the officer said, "Had we not taken three decades to develop the Arjuns (Main Battle Tank), there would have been no place for the Russian T-90s in the Army, as by now even the improved Mark-II version would have been developed. But for the DRDO to say that we should not import and wait for them to deliver is ridiculous because if the security of the nation is threatened, it's the security forces who will be answerable to the people."

Another senior IAF officer tore into the DRDO chief's statement. "The belief that armed forces import because of the kickbacks involved has tarnished the forces reputation among the public. As a matter of fact, we import only because DRDO takes unacceptable time to develop military hardware. Therefore, by the time equipment is inducted into the forces, the GSQRs on which the product is developed become irrelevant and the product obsolete as other nations develop more advanced technology. Adding further, the officer said, that the role of military in deciding the vendor to buy from is limited, hence, the services have no personal gains to make.

Take the case of the Light Combat Aircraft Tejas. Though the project was sanctioned in 1982 (28 years ago) and the Kaveri engine project in 1989 (21 years ago), DRDO and its agencies are still years away from being able to deliver the plane and the Kaveri engine project is in shambles as finally a RFP has been issued to Eurojet and GE for an alternate engine. In the meantime, India's fighter inventory and consequently the IAF's strategy and its ability to defend the nation's interest is doubtful given the huge strides China is making in its aerospace (both civil and military) programs. In this case, can the DRDO blame the IAF for wanting to buy foreign aircraft? An ex-HAL person we spoke to goes further and says that during a meeting with the defence chief, HAL and DRDO/ADA, the scientists knew even then that their promised delivery of the program in 2010 was unachievable but they preferred to to lie to the forces to ensure that the program stayed alive and India did not buy foreign aircraft. It should be kept in mind that in most cases DRDO was not expected to deliver path-breaking technologies, rather just to replicate technologies existing with other nations, a far simpler task.

Most DRDO programs have faced similar fates and hence one can well imagine the complete distrust and lack of respect for DRDO and DPSU officers in the armed forces. Take the case of the INSAS carbine shoved down the throats of the armed forces. PTI states that after years of problems, the armed forces in their technology road-map have stated that they want the INSAS replaced. Saraswat's latest statement shows that DRDO's scientist have very little respect for the armed forces as well.

The armed forces have received support form unexpected quarters on the issue. During the same function attended by Prime Minister (PM) Manmohan Singh, the PM pulled up the DRDO for not delivering on time. Newsline365 quoted Prime Minister Singh saying, "In many areas, we have moved fast, but our competitors have often moved faster. It is a fact our current level of self-reliance in defence R&D (research and development) is less than our capabilities and it needs to be stepped up significantly. The Hindu reports that PM Manmohan Singh has asked the scientists to speed up their research and deliver critical technologies on time for the nation to achieve self-reliance.

The MoD claims that its "Headquartered Integrated Defence Staff (HQ IDS) has carried out an analysis of DRDO's 11th Plan and a sincere effort to synchronise it with the Services 11th Defence Plan has been made." However, with decades of mistrust between the forces and DPSUs and the inability of the MoD or the government to take steps to resolve this issue, it is expected that the unhealthy relation will continue with no end is sight. Result: more delayed projects, more wasteful expenditure, inability to provide the nation with a defence force we deserve in the face of increasing hostility from India's neighbours and the lessening tolerance for further humiliation.

With the recent fiasco of cancellation of EADS/Airbus' A-330 MRTT (mid air refueller) and many other similar deals, the MoD(/MoF) have clearly shown the armed forces that they have the final say in procurement deals. As power and thereby corruption must necessarily reside with the decision maker, corruption allegations must, at least in some part, be directed to the MoD. But it is unthinkable that DRDO will ever point a finger at the MoD, who is largely responsible for DRDO's continued survival without any serious change.

In India's national interest, there is an urgent need to cut the MoD's preference for DRDO and the DPSU's. An alternative to the DRDO must be encouraged by allowing private & other public sector companies to compete with it for R&D funds. Only then will the research establishment wake up to the needs of the Armed Forces and give them the respect they deserve. As they sit on their high chairs, they ignore the deaths of soldiers on the battlefront and the national humiliation India faces when it cannot defend India's interest in face of repeated border violations, ceasefire violations, terrorist training camps at our doorstep and terrorist attacks by militants supported by our neighbouring countries.
This is a good article and it clearly exposes the failures of DRDO in many regions and how they failed the armed forces china already has a J-10,J-11 & JF-17 and other types of fighter aircrafts which are being developed and also they have the type - 99 tanks and attack helis irrespective of there capabilites compared to other platforms this clearly shows they are way ahed of us in weapons development and i don't even have to point out there missle and submarine tech and here we are still struggling for the last 30 years to develop a decent (Just a basic ) comabt a/c and finally a tank which the army wanted 20 years ago is being shoved down there throats now not to mention the crappy and substandared INSAS clearly our defense minister and his unfair preference for DRDO and DPSU's has caused tremendous damage to our armed forces the MMRCA competetion should have happened 10-12 years ago when we could have saved billions but the false assurances of these organisations resulted in the mess our armed forces are today the same can be said for our artillery projects utility helis DRDO has itself to blame for its reputation and the present mess unless it gets its act together it will be a thing of the past
 

prabhudoon

New Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
3
Likes
0
Definitely it is a good news but the DRDO's bluff-masters gang already succeeded in diluting the action.
 

nitesh

Mob Control Manager
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
7,550
Likes
1,307
This is a good article and it clearly exposes the failures of DRDO in many regions and how they failed the armed forces china already has a J-10,J-11 & JF-17 and other types of fighter aircrafts which are being developed and also they have the type - 99 tanks and attack helis irrespective of there capabilites compared to other platforms this clearly shows they are way ahed of us in weapons development and i don't even have to point out there missle and submarine tech and here we are still struggling for the last 30 years to develop a decent (Just a basic ) comabt a/c and finally a tank which the army wanted 20 years ago is being shoved down there throats now not to mention the crappy and substandared INSAS clearly our defense minister and his unfair preference for DRDO and DPSU's has caused tremendous damage to our armed forces the MMRCA competetion should have happened 10-12 years ago when we could have saved billions but the false assurances of these organisations resulted in the mess our armed forces are today the same can be said for our artillery projects utility helis DRDO has itself to blame for its reputation and the present mess unless it gets its act together it will be a thing of the past
Now what is this? So you declare each and everything developed in house as crappy you have to back up your statements with proofs and please use respective threads for that.
 

nitesh

Mob Control Manager
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
7,550
Likes
1,307
Definitely it is a good news but the DRDO's bluff-masters gang already succeeded in diluting the action.
Oh my lord so what's your wish? What is supposed to be done then?
 

pavanvenkatesh

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
175
Likes
9
Now what is this? So you declare each and everything developed in house as crappy you have to back up your statements with proofs and please use respective threads for that.
I have not made any statements saying that any product that comes out of DRDO is crappy have I? i don't think so, they have had considerable success in the field of radars and missle developments like the Rohini radars,3D CAR radars,2D man portable radars, rajendra radars,Medium range 3D & 2D radar,the WLR which is under testing they have succesfully developed the NAG,Pritvi and agni and brahmos missles, also the ALH and all these products have been purchased in large no's by our armed forces right? All i am saying is that if they deliver quality products they will always have customers and support and backing of our armed forces (VIZ LCH & Naval LCA) they cannot expect the armed forces to purchase whatever they make whenever they want they have to they should first assess there capabilities whether they can deliver on time with required specs before making commitments to anybody they have to change according to the recommendations of the committee or else they will have problems
 

ppgj

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,029
Likes
168
I have not made any statements saying that any product that comes out of DRDO is crappy have I?
failures as opposed to crappy?? my dear friend, you have been repeating it consistently without taking into account the circumstances, role of armed forces in this.

All i am saying is that if they deliver quality products they will always have customers and support and backing of our armed forces (VIZ LCH & Naval LCA)
are you saying DRDO is manufacturing sub standard or below par products and forcing them on the armed forces??

you talk of "quality products".. what happened to Arjun? is it not superior to the existing MBT?? why IA dilly dallies? before that they consistently ran away from comparative trials!!

why is only DRDO responsible?? are the armed forces beyond responsibilty?? how do you explain israel, french, russian and US armed forces??

it is common sense, wherever we have capabilities - we need to rely on ourselves because that would allow us a free hand in future upgrades and no dependance during wartime for ammo etc (this is a serious issue) besides helping build self reliance without foreign OEM arm twisting (remember T-90 TOT).

irrespective of the product being indian or foreign, they go thro' field trials. only when they satisfy the end user requirements, they are inducted. this is true for akash, arjun, lca etc... or the foreign stuff.

they cannot expect the armed forces to purchase whatever they make whenever they want
leave DRDO. no body expects the armed forces to buy whatever DRDO makes.

the problem here in india is more to do with end users who have consistently shown their bias for the foreign products while not involving themselves in the development process actively.

they have to they should first assess there capabilities whether they can deliver on time with required specs before making commitments to anybody they have to change according to the recommendations of the committee or else they will have problems
no body jumps in without doing that. DRDO scientists are not fools to jump in and claim what they can't.

they promise only when they they feel they can deliver based on their capabilities. however circumstances and technology changes on a daily basis and when the armed forces change their requirements accordingly, the time commitments also change. why only the developer is responsible for this??

you talk about required specs. what do you say about the specs being changed midway? in Arjun's case it was changed 3 times!! don't you think that puts off the development time by years?? even LCA specs have been changed too!!

a tank or an aircraft - from design to development stage takes 15+ years, that too with active involvement of the armed forces for continuous fine tuning by way of field trials and iterative development. do you think indian armed forces are doing it?? going by the above 2 examples.

timely delivery happens when the above point is taken care.

what do you say when russia is not able to deliver on time inspite of commitments?? there is a whole list i can quote. mig 29 upg late, gorshkov late, frigates late, TOT for T-90 was delayed to as late as 2006/7..

israel delayed AWACS by atleast 2 years...

french scorpene delayed already...

why nobody talks against them??? when it is DRDO delay, that too due to armed forces whims, all pounce on it!!

great. isn't it??
 

nitesh

Mob Control Manager
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
7,550
Likes
1,307
I have not made any statements saying that any product that comes out of DRDO is crappy have I? i don't think so, they have had considerable success in the field of radars and missle developments like the Rohini radars,3D CAR radars,2D man portable radars, rajendra radars,Medium range 3D & 2D radar,the WLR which is under testing they have succesfully developed the NAG,Pritvi and agni and brahmos missles, also the ALH and all these products have been purchased in large no's by our armed forces right? All i am saying is that if they deliver quality products they will always have customers and support and backing of our armed forces (VIZ LCH & Naval LCA) they cannot expect the armed forces to purchase whatever they make whenever they want they have to they should first assess there capabilities whether they can deliver on time with required specs before making commitments to anybody they have to change according to the recommendations of the committee or else they will have problems
Boss as i requested previously go to respective threads and prove your statements please
 

pavanvenkatesh

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
175
Likes
9
failures as opposed to crappy?? my dear friend, you have been repeating it consistently without taking into account the circumstances, role of armed forces in this.
what about the circumstances of our armed forces
are you saying DRDO is manufacturing sub standard or below par products and forcing them on the armed forces??
NO, I have also mentioned a host of products which were developed by DRDO which are world class and also appretiated by the armed forces so i am not critisizing the DRDO for any thing if it sounded that way then i apologise

you talk of "quality products".. what happened to Arjun? is it not superior to the existing MBT?? why IA dilly dallies? before that they consistently ran away from comparative trials!!
I am not discussing arjun here as this is not the thread they wanted a arjun 10 years back now with a changed doctraine with it there requirement will also change if the army does'nt want it they will not have it it is that simple we cannot force them on it

why is only DRDO responsible?? are the armed forces beyond responsibilty?? how do you explain israel, french, russian and US armed forces??
The armed forces are as involved as an of the countries you mentioned perhaps even more , be it the LCA,the LCH, and don't forget the missle development when they inducted most of the missle systems when they were still in developmental stage,they have been supporting its development irrespective of whether they failed or succeded not to mention our shipbuilding efforts INS shivalik,IAC,INS Talwar,would never have happened if it was'nt for the support of the Navy and did you forget the NAval LCA where the navy has already confirmed orders when it is still in testing is'nt the IAF buying 40 LCA even when it is underpowered show me an AF which does that even after 30 years show me an example of one armed forces in the world which actually buys tanks 20 years later WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT??


you talk about required specs. what do you say about the specs being changed midway? in Arjun's case it was changed 3 times!! don't you think that puts off the development time by years?? even LCA specs have been changed too!!
So what are you saying it is the army's fault they chose to change according to the changing times and changing technology so you are saying the the IAF should buy an a/c with an out dated spec instead of asking for upgrading it to 4th gen so they can stand toe to toe with the enemy so you are saying the armed forces is wrong when they want to field a state of the art weapon systems instead of old soviet junk they are using boss if it was'nt for the army changing there GQSR the arjun would'nt be so formidable with its state of the art pneumatic systems or its FCS or its BFMS or its engine and impressive as it is now the same goes for the LCA imagine Arjun and the LCA with the same specs first given by the armed forces and compare the present product and you will know


a tank or an aircraft - from design to development stage takes 15+ years, that too with active involvement of the armed forces for continuous fine tuning by way of field trials and iterative development. do you think indian armed forces are doing it?? going by the above 2 examples.
WHAT DO you think they are doing now ? with the LCA are they not involved with it from the biginning what about our INS SHIVALIK or INS TALVAR OR IAC are not the navy involved what about the NAG,Shourya,NAMica,3DCAR Radar, WLR Radar, Akash SAM's,BFSR Radar,Rajendra radar, are the army not involved? Naval LCA who do think helped in conducting Initial trials for these products??
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top