Discussion in 'Defence & Strategic Issues' started by Ray, Dec 16, 2014.
A very unfortunate state of affairs.
A white elephant or is it an elephant in the room?
All those years in past, Government of past neglected any organization that is beneficial for India ..
DRDO for example is not given funds to make its research centers, They had to go outside for foreign assistance in other words in foreign mercy, Interestingly the partners chosen for DRDO`s collaboration are the one from who we buy in other words we pump their economy ..
DRDO even restricted from recruiting scientists, And over that they are forced to work on multiple projects under Gov ..
Kaveri project died because of lack of funds, HF-24 died because Indra thought buying MIG-21 is best for diplomacy ..
OFB on other hand producing state of art Rifles at 1800 to latest 60 era factory, Gov never did anything back then to improve ..
Our scientific community members are murdered in broad day light by foreign lobby assassins, And still their is no protection ..
Does all this goes so casually in Brazil, South Korea and China ?
Fighers/strike aircraft proposed after Hf-24 Marut
Ground Attack Fighter, GAF-1 to be powered by Rolls Royce-Snecma M45, comparable to F4 Phantom. Turned down my MoD. Subsequent GAF-2 proposal with improvements also turned down.
The HAL design team went back to an improved Hf-24 Marut to minimise design risk. Not cleared.
Advanced Strike Aircraft ASA proposal met IAF's requirement, not cleared for prototyping.
HSS-73/HF-73 Hindustan Supersonic Strike aircraft proposed by MBB and HAL using Rolls Royce RB-199 engine used in Tornado. Dropped due to non clearance of engine.
Air Superiority fighter ASF-300. Engine was supposed to be Indian GTX or from Snecma. Proposal did not meet air staff requirements.
Return to a modernised Marut concept.
Hf-23M53, would have been comparable to Jaguar in payload and range. Not cleared. (The image might be of the earlier marut proposal)
Further improvement to Marut.
Result, HF-25 with a new engine. Also not cleared.
Had even a single one of these proposals approved, the design capabilities would not have been lost.
Shared by @Twinblade at MP.net
Lets be clear, The board does not have guts to finger out real culprits but the once already being abused ..
Sad to read.
Let's just hope the new govt. and DM doesn't allow the sorry state of affairs continue
I know of instances when the Generals and the Babus instructed these agencies to downgrade their offer so that a foreign vendor could win. Lack of motivation and incentives is the reason behind the rot.
Please enumerate such shady actions of the Generals and Babus.
Would be obliged.
There was a "confidential" project which was compromised to let a Foreign supplier win the tender (related to Military Communication). DRDO had developed technology which was miles ahead of what was being offered by a foreign supplier. The budget was allocated and later the project was shown as failure.
I myself had worked on one such project after the Army had to deal with the overpriced third-rate foreign-supplied DUDs (related to Artillery).
HF 24 design was a pace setter in those times.
Done by the famous Kurt Tank, who build the Focke-Wulf aircraft built for Germany during WWII
But the engine?
The first prototype flew on June 17, 1961, with a total of 147 aircraft built, including 18 two-seat HF-24 Mk 1Ts. The fighter was eventually short-closed because of an under-powered engine and a lack of foresight. The Marut continued in service with the Indian Air Force until the aircraft was decommissioned in 1985.
Mention the details.
Sure interested in which technology the DRDO developed which was way ahead of all.
Artillery has USSR equipment.
105 IFG was India's own. The Autofrettage was poor since those were the days of load shedding and the Kanpur factory had deadlines to meet. Some guns failed and there were cases of barrels bursting and so it did not find its rightful place.
if you have worked on Projects of the DRDO, could you check as to why the BFSR for the Infantry or the Boreclap could not be reverse engineered/ designed and then when it was accepted, the records were fudged to show as if it was after the Kargil War, teh requirement of the BFSR was realised?
I am aware the the first BFSR was offered from trials in IIRC 1980 and it was not even soldier proof having failed the Drop Test or could not differentiate a tank from rustling leaves in the wind and could not be reversed engineered based on a 1950 vintage US BFSR.
Or even produce such a simple thing as a Kitchen Lorry?
Note I am not talking of any high tech stuff, but real mundane stuff that they could not produce even though they had no dearth of funds or foreign products to relolicate.
Like I said, DRDO was forced to wrap the project up and throw it into dustbin to make way for a foreign supplier. I won't say anything more on a public forum. Many of the shiny equipment have been found to be DUD on arrival and Army is forced to scavenge to keep things working.
OK which foreign eqpt was found to be DUDs.
That much you can always say.
I have heard II Corps and the XIV corps complaining about a few. Ask them.
Other officers I know had gripes about DRDO being unable to provide a decent waterproof rucksack because of which when it rained soldiers would have the additional burden of carrying wet bedding . If you listen to their stories of as you said how simple mundane stuff is designed or made so poorly , the reason for the armies reluctance to have anything to do with DRDO designed equipment becomes pretty obvious.
When it comes to domestic suppliers they want to pay 1 Rs for the stuff they would happily pay 100 Rs to a foreign supplier and then they cry about the low quality.
Then let domestic suppliers make things of good quality and charge 100 rupees then no one will cry . Until that happens no one can fault the military for sourcing adequate equipment from abroad .
Even in countries with state run defence industries the military usually can choose between competing design bureaus . Only the Indian military is stuck with DRDO ..
Which Coprs Cdrs? The present ones?
Just mention the equipment.
I have also experience with DRDO.
I have also experience with User Trials.
I am sure you would have heard that some people complain about even the INSAS.
Tested equipment vs DRDO hyped indigenous eqpt.
I, for one, would prefer maybe overpowered Jonga to the underpowered Gypsy especially in the mountains and high altitude. I have had rather sad experience with the Gypsies in the higher reaches of Sikkim.
But then the Jonga is a guzzler.
Mercedes Unimog was a failure for India, while our indigenous trucks are very reliable and likeable.
Navy should teach a lesson or two to Army and Airforce on how to sucessfully handle projects with DRDO. BTW,yesterday Arihant did its sucessfull surface sortie yesterfday. Congrats DRDO and L & T.
BTW Navy is handling Tejas Mk-II and has invested 900 crores in it.So Matheswaran and his co can be rest assured that LCA tejas will reach its destination.
UNPROFESSIONAL...FOR TRUE, but what is new in it.almost every public industry is unorganized and failure in terms of monetary gains..its because they employ those who donot belong to it (thanks god to quota system), then they work like any govt servant to ...come note the attendance...sit in office and go to home.
whatever the DRDo or hal have achieved are by virtue of just few hard working people....rest of them are there to take their salary and kick back.
there will be no improvement in the situation untill and unless the govt starts paying them for their work done........
IAF diluted al least 12 benchmarks for trainer aircraft
Retired Air Chief Marshal S P Tyagi, former Indian Air Force (IAF) head, faces a Central Bureau of Investigation chargesheet for allegedly diluting a single specification of the VVIP helicopter that India was buying.
In the Air Staff Qualitative Requirements (ASQR), the helicopterâ€™s service ceiling was lowered from 6,000 to 4,500 metres. This made the AW-101 helicopter eligible and its Anglo-Italian manufacturer, AgustaWestland, bagged the euro 556 million (Rs 4,377 crore) IAF contract for 12 helicopters.
That violation, now under investigation, is dwarfed in the IAFâ€™s purchase of the Pilatus PC-7 Mark II basic trainer aircraft (BTA), where at least 12 benchmarks were changed between March and October 2009, including some relating to pilot safety. These allowed the PC-7 Mark II, fielded by Swiss company Pilatus, to qualify and win an IAF order worth $640 million (Rs 3,780 crore) for 75 BTA.
Business Standard is in possession of the documents relating to this case. Asked for comments, the IAF has chosen not to respond.
The documents reveal that up to September 29, 2009, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) was indigenously developing 181 BTA for the IAF, dubbed the Hindustan Turbo Trainerâ€“40 (HTTâ€“40). On March 5, 2009, IAF laid down stringent performance benchmarks, dubbed Preliminary Air Staff Qualitative Requirements or PSQR.
These began getting diluted in September 2009, when the ministry of defence (MoD) permitted IAF to import 75 BTA through a global tender. Within days, the IAF issued a relaxed ASQR, in a document numbered ASQR 18/09. While the Pilatus PC-7 Mark II would not have met the earlier PSQR formulated for HAL, the new ASQR seem almost tailored for Pilatus.
Among the 12 dilutions Business Standard has identified, the most worrisome is doing away with the requirement for a â€˜zero-zero ejection seatâ€™. This allows pilots to eject even from a stationary aircraft on the ground (zero altitude, zero speed). The October 2009 ASQR does not require a zero-zero ejection seat. Since the PC-7 Mk II has â€˜zero-60â€™ ejection seats, i.e. the aircraft must be moving at 60 knots (110 kmph), dropping the earlier requirement made it eligible for the IAF contract.
The PSQR of March 2009 required the BTA to have a pressurised cockpit, letting the trainee fly at altitudes above 15-20,000 feet. But the ASQR of October 2009 dispensed with this. The PC-7 Mark II has an unpressurised cockpit.
Also diluted was the requirement for good external vision from the instructorâ€™s rear cockpit, a crucial attribute in a BTA. The PSQR of March 2009 mandated a field of view of â€˜minus eight degree visionâ€™ for the rear cockpit. The ASQR of October 2009 dispensed with it, specifying only, â€œthe rear cockpit should be sufficiently raised to allow safe flight instructionâ€. The PC-7 Mark II, which does not meet the eight-degree specification, became eligible.
â€˜Glide ratioâ€™ is another important attribute for a light, single-engine aircraft. The glide ratio of 12:1 specified in the March 2009 PSQR meant the trainer could glide, in the event of an engine failure or shutdown, a distance of 12 km for every one km of altitude that it lost. Which would enable a BTA flying at an altitude of five km to glide for 60 km, landing safely at any airport within that distance. But the October 2009 ASQR relaxed the glide-ratio requirement to 10:1. That is precisely the glide-ratio of the Pilatus PC-7 Mark II.
The ASQR of October 2009 also relaxed the requirement for â€˜in-flight simulationâ€™. This permits the instructor in the rear cockpit to electronically simulate instrument failures, training the rookie pilot to handle an emergency. The PSQR of March 2009 required this facility; the HTT-40 being developed by HAL also has these. The PC-7 Mark II does not and the relaxation of this condition made it eligible for the IAF tender.
Other relaxations that made the Pilatus trainer eligible include increasing the take-off distance from 700 to 1,000 metres and reducing maximum speed from 475 kmph to 400 kmph.
On Monday, this newspaper had reported (Indian Air Force at war with Hindustan Aeronautics; wants to import, not build, a trainer) about a personal letter earlier this month from Air Chief Marshal N A K Browne, the present IAF chief, to Defence Minister A K Antony, asking for HALâ€™s trainer project to be scrapped and another 106 PC-7 Mark II trainers be imported from Pilatus, a purchase that will benefit the Swiss company by an estimated $800 million (Rs 4,750 crore).
Browneâ€™s involvement with the basic trainer dates back several years. From March 2007 to May 2009, he was Deputy Chief of Air Staff (DCAS) at IAF headquarters, handling all acquisitions. Four months after he handed over to Air Marshal N V Tyagi (not to be confused with the former IAF chief, S P Tyagi), the IAF issued the ASQR, with the relaxations that benefited Pilatus.
Asked for comments, N V Tyagi told Business Standard the PSQR of March 2009 set unrealistically high standards for HAL to meet. These were lowered in the October 2009 ASQR because the IAF was going for global procurement. Lower standards would bring in more vendors and generate competition.
Says Tyagi, "The earlier PSQRs matched the performance of the Embraer Super Tucano, which many IAF officers considered a good trainer. But the IAF didn't believe that HAL could build such a trainer quickly. After a series of HPT-32 crashes (then the IAFâ€™s basic trainer), it was decided in September 2009 to buy 75 basic trainers from the global market. Fresh QRs were framed in order to bring as many vendors as possible into the tender."
The question remains â€” why were exacting standards set for a HAL-built trainer lowered when it came to an international purchase?
Arjun vs T-90 trails, The results and second treatment by Indian official to Indian origin equipment ..
Why IAF gave specs of Super Tucano to HAL?? What is the justification? Why a lower specs plane could not meet rooky pilot training requirement??
We need to put IAF chief into the box and ask this question?
The country needs rational and reasonable people at the top. Why this profligacy? India is not a rich country that it needs the costliest trainer that money can buy.
Separate names with a comma.