The secret world of DRDO

[JBH22]

First the DRDO should develop the tech and license it to the private players .that is the only possible way for starters like us.

DRDO has had a FEW successes and also share of failed projects weare adopting a heuristic approach for decades and its seems that it is not working.

Without guarenteed orders and time frame no private co will invest in defense R&D like GOI does,

Guaranteed orders from armed forces will come if you have a good product.
Just the projections of the modernisation are inducing private players to set up units atleast let more FDI in this sector why cap it?

And if piece meal orders like 100 for lca and 124 for arjun were given they will grow broke within a decade.

again why limited orders?

Because products are not deem "good" by its users now we can develop conspiracy theories of bribes etc but fact remain that neither IAF or IA want these hardware in massive numbers in their present configuration

If you buy 50 jets from a foreign coutry they wont even transfer tech.

Wrong check France offer to Brazil for the Rafale

Another thing is if you change the specs every few years when new stuff is developed in foreign countries product will always finish it's life cycle in the lab.

Partially agree but then tech is very dynamic you cannot lag hence ever changing specs for that you need a product that has a growth potential.

See the F-16 or SUkhoi its has constantly evolved.

So best or worst there is no other go than DRDO for now,If a couple of successful products roll out private sector will come in.
Already DRDO is developing a vendor base for asea radar program, missile program,lca program among indian private sector.

Spin off from these programs are good no criticism at all but then LCA ,Arjun they are not there.

Hence encouraging a private sector creates an alternative we need our own flagship in this industry hell even Singapore has ST kinetics

But an indian private sector company to become a systems integerator is still a long time away.

Joint ventures

Reliance signed MOU with dassault not with ADA why? Because dassault has finished product accepted with concrete number by IAF while tejas is not.

Obviously

 

[Sam2012]

DRDO has done really well in missile development Agni, Prithvi,Akash, shourya , K Series missile etc , only Trishul failed rest all projects have been sucess or in the process of being sucess

Problem is with projects like LCA, Arjun . For which guilty party is HAL & CVRDE more than DRDO because they both are lethargic & have history of producing sub-standard equipment

DRDO should provide chance for more and more privatization in the field of defence to fruitify their future projects for which govt should ease norms on private defence firm & arrange fair bidding process

If India still persists with Public firm like HAL, OFB ,BEL etc then god only can save India soon the 70:30 ratio of import & local defence equipment will become 90:10

 

[t_co]

The major problem India has access to foreign military equipment, while China doesn't.

Hence it is forced to come up with it's own Military Industrial complex.

Such a situation would (military embargo) would bring the best of India out.

Other than that it is very conman to see foreign lobbying in India.

Well, that too.

Quick question--beyond DRDO, what other organizations in India are in charge of the defense industry as a whole? Is there an oversight committee?

 

[SPIEZ]

Well, that too.

Quick question--beyond DRDO, what other organizations in India are in charge of the defense industry as a whole? Is there an oversight committee?

No other organisation.

Private players aren't encouraged.

DRDO is the Public Sector unit, that is DRDO is controlled by Government of India.

DRDO has certainly been successful in many areas, especially where there are foreign sanctions. Take for example the Agni series of missiles.

For the rest I believe it has bitten more than it can chew. Also the user end support has been very minimal. Check about more about Arjun, and you ll know.
For certain sectors it can very well take help from foreign hand. However that is strictly my view.

 

[t_co]

No other organisation.

Private players aren't encouraged.

DRDO is the Public Sector unit, that is DRDO is controlled by Government of India.

DRDO has certainly been successful in many areas, especially where there are foreign sanctions. Take for example the Agni series of missiles.

For the rest I believe it has bitten more than it can chew. Also the user end support has been very minimal. Check about more about Arjun, and you ll know.
For certain sectors it can very well take help from foreign hand. However that is strictly my view.

Maybe the solution is for India to have multiple public-sector players with mutual competition? China, for example, has multiple design bureaus, each with small-scale prototype batch production capacity and informal connections with the large aircraft manufacturers. It's not a perfect system, but it does keep the pigs feeding at the defense trough at a reasonable level of competition.

 

[t_co]

The big problem I see with DRDO is a lack of research focus; it has a case of R&D schizophrenia. Food supplements and tank and missile design, all under the same roof? Why not break it into bureaus that specialize in certain fields, such as creating a few dedicated aircraft, missile, armor, infantry weapon design bureaus, while making DRDO a purely management and oversight organization.

 

[t_co]

The four most important factors in effective R&D are (in decreasing order of importance):

1) Concentration of relevant talent
2) Sane and logical project management with clearly defined goals and intermediate steps
3) Size of the absolute budget/focus of financial resources on relevant areas/financial discipline
4) Access to relevant technology that others have already developed, and a willingness to copy if necessary

I'm not sure DRDO can score well on any of these aspects. Its research project list is too unfocused to let it achieve #1 and #3, because it has no independent oversight it can't achieve #2, and because of the India's desire to keep a close relationship with Russian defense contractors, it can't achieve #4.

 

[t_co]

Also, end-user support can be solved by breaking up DRDO into mutually competitive institutions under the oversight of the end-user.

 

[SPIEZ]

The big problem I see with DRDO is a lack of research focus; it has a case of R&D schizophrenia. Food supplements and tank and missile design, all under the same roof? Why not break it into bureaus that specialize in certain fields, such as creating a few dedicated aircraft, missile, armor, infantry weapon design bureaus, while making DRDO a purely management and oversight organization.

You should probably know DRDO has 52 different divisions or labs.

DRDO has a network of 52 laboratories which are deeply engaged in developing defence technologies covering various fields, like aeronautics, armaments, electronic and computer sciences, human resource development, life sciences, materials, missiles, combat vehicles development and naval research and development. The organization includes more than 5,000 scientists and about 25,000 other scientific, technical and supporting personnel.

For example HVRDE takes care of heavy vehicles and tanks building.

ARDE takes care of development of airplane.

Similar different labs for development of aircraft engine, food so on and so forth.

Aeronautics
ADE ADRDE CABS CEMILAC DARE GTRE
Armaments
ARDE CFEES HEMRL PXE TBRL
Combat vehicles
and engineering
CVRDE IRDE R&DE SASE VRDE
Electronics
and computing
DESIDOC ANURAG CAIR DEAL DLRL DTRL LASTEC LRDE MTRDC SAG SSPL
Life sciences
DARL DEBEL DFRL DIPR DIPAS DRDE DRL FRL INMAS
Materials R&D
DLJ DMRL DMSRDE
Missiles
DRDL ISSA ITR RCI
Naval R&D
NPOL NSTL NMRL
Micro electronics
and devices[MED]
DESIDOC ANURAG MTRDC SSPL
Others
DIAT ITM

 

[SPIEZ]

The four most important factors in effective R&D are (in decreasing order of importance):

1) Concentration of relevant talent
2) Sane and logical project management with clearly defined goals and intermediate steps
3) Size of the absolute budget/focus of financial resources on relevant areas/financial discipline
4) Access to relevant technology that others have already developed, and a willingness to copy if necessary

I'm not sure DRDO can score well on any of these aspects. Its research project list is too unfocused to let it achieve #1 and #3, because it has no independent oversight it can't achieve #2, and because of the India's desire to keep a close relationship with Russian defense contractors, it can't achieve #4.

As you said 1 and 3 are clearly achievable.

That's why India is among st the very few nation to have tested their own Anti Ballistic Missile.

Source : AFP: India tests interceptor missile

 

[SPIEZ]

Maybe the solution is for India to have multiple public-sector players with mutual competition? China, for example, has multiple design bureaus, each with small-scale prototype batch production capacity and informal connections with the large aircraft manufacturers. It's not a perfect system, but it does keep the pigs feeding at the defense trough at a reasonable level of competition.

Also, end-user support can be solved by breaking up DRDO into mutually competitive institutions under the oversight of the end-user.

That is a good idea.

However, when people secure a risk less position (read Government job) where you're unlikely to be fired, there cannot be much expected in terms of productivity.

Also they have done reasonably well, given their resources, lack of external support and other factors to compete with international arms dealers (and also their lobbying)

 

[t_co]

As you said 1 and 3 are clearly achievable.

That's why India is among st the very few nation to have tested their own Anti Ballistic Missile.

Source : AFP: India tests interceptor missile

Right--not saying DRDO can't achieve it, but that it can't consistently deliver.

 

[no smoking]

That is a good idea.

However, when people secure a risk less position (read Government job) where you're unlikely to be fired, there cannot be much expected in terms of productivity.

Then link their position to their performance. You know, when China was developing its first nulcear bomb, people would get shoot for their neglection in the work. Although they don't face death penalty today, someone would have lost his or her position for the failure.

Also they have done reasonably well, given their resources, lack of external support and other factors to compete with international arms dealers (and also their lobbying)

I won't say that! Evaluating the expected resources and possible external support are part of project management. It only reflects that they either overestimnate their ability or they don't have sound experience of the weapon they are going to develop at all.

By the way, I really don't see international arm dealers have anything to do with these problems here. After the indian army is the one beting their lives on these weapons, not the people sitting in the office.

 

[t_co]

Then link their position to their performance. You know, when China was developing its first nulcear bomb, people would get shoot for their neglection in the work. Although they don't face death penalty today, someone would have lost his or her position for the failure.

Yeah, some degree of accountability is necessary in the DRDO. Either set up the independent oversight committee inside DRDO, like SASTIND, or break DRDO up into many pieces that all compete for chunks of a yearly budget.

I won't say that! Evaluating the expected resources and possible external support are part of project management. It only reflects that they either overestimnate their ability or they don't have sound experience of the weapon they are going to develop at all.

By the way, I really don't see international arm dealers have anything to do with these problems here. After the indian army is the one beting their lives on these weapons, not the people sitting in the office.

Nah, it's not a lack of ability or overestimation. DRDO does not lack raw brainpower (or even money); what it lacks is a cohesive system of project management that accurately translates what the IA/IAF/IN want into technological breakthroughs.

The IAF, for example, needs to maintain air dominance over Pakistan in the face of a possible numerical disadvantage if it wants to maintain a deterrent posture over China during an Indo-Pak conflict while increasing the cost-effectiveness of the IAF versus a possibly more powerful opponent (the Chinese Air Force) under a state of possible international isolation. But is DRDO building the systems (advanced AWACS, airborne C4ISTAR, advanced air-to-air missiles, indigenous systems) that such a task would entail? No. Instead, they're trying to build the Tejas, which is a lightweight multirole fighter that would get shredded vs 4.75 gen and 5th gen fighters; and their premiere fighter--the PAK FA--is a large, heavyweight Su-35 derivative that will be expensive and rely on Russian missiles.

The bottom line: for all the money India has spent, it deserves better military equipment.

 

[bose]

DRDO have to improve its project management skills and the art of under promise and over deliver.

DRDO is learning and getting its acts together with time. GOI have to bring in the accountability with well defined responsibility & roles assignments.