p2prada
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 10,234
- Likes
- 4,016
Sir, let's be realisitc. Most of the core technologies required by IA and IAF are much more complex than what IN requires.@p2prada, IN designs the ships on its own based on its requirents and gives the blueprints to shipyards to build them. IN also has its own officers posted in various DRDO organisations to support and supervise the development of advanced systems. IN also regularly interacts with IITs and other such reputed institutions for developing high tech sensors and sensor fusion. IN has the largest amount of domestically sourced weapons on its ships. Please remember that I have used the word,"Domestically sourced".
IN makes ships itself so we can never blame PSUs for failure but take the case of IA & IAF, they kill projects and than blame PSUs for the failure. They have never taken the blame themselves for the fiascos. We all know how complex it is to master rocket science & Digital FBW, if DRDO cud master that, it is impossible to believe that they can't make things as per the reqts of IA & IAF. Did it ever occur to you as to why do we have such a successful Missile program?
It is bcoz noone issued multiple PSQRs for them and DRDO worked alone in developing them without any interference from IA & IAF and also as no one wud share this tech with us so the buy option was not there.
Even though a nuke sub is complex, the design itself utilizes foreign help based on old technology. We can say Arihant is like the Mirage-2000 of the Navy while the IAF has the need to induct something that it is impossible for the Indian industry to deliver on their own, like a F-22.
Due to the scale of the deal and the complexity of the project, IAF and IA are always in the line of fire. Let's face it IAF needs complex weapons that DRDO cannot deliver. IA wants reliable weapons that we cannot yet manufacture. IN merely requires adequate products that DRDO can develop only to a certain extent.
IN came into the line of fire from the media mainly because of Gorky and Scorpene. Now these are big ticket projects. And you cannot doubt that the delays did create a furor in the civilian circle, no doubt in the military circle as well.
More importantly, IAF and IA have a higher responsibility to deliver. A sunk ship may not mean as much as an annihilated division or a lost squadron, which are bigger blows. They have a very very high threshold of deliverance as compared to IN, hence the compulsion to induct higher technology is greater.
I am not saying what the Navy is doing wrong. Its just that if the Navy suddenly decides they need a 100000 ton carrier, a 15000 ton Nuke sub, a 12000 ton cruiser, a 30000 ton assault ship and a 25000 ton tanker, they will end up looking at foreign shores too. The same as what the IAF and IA are doing for most of the stuff they need.
Whatever that can be made at home to specifications are indeed bought from home. Deepak, Dhruv, Kiran are pretty good examples for IAF. The AFNET program is indigenous too along with IACCS. IA was dependent on INSAS rifles for a pretty long time. They are buying BSRs from Indian sources as well. IAF jumped on Akash SAM, along with IA. It seems like our first reverse engineered Bofors will find its place in the IA soon. There are plenty of indigenous systems that IAF and IA had no issues in sourcing from within the country.
As for missile development, it followed an entirely different management structure along with an entirely different funding structure. Money was injected everywhere and still the industry took 40 years to develop, something that most other industries did not have a chance to develop at the same rate or scale. The problem is most of our industries have not fully matured yet and the forces are being thrust with the unfair obligation of supporting such an industry along with the compulsion to deliver at the front, which is practically impossible. Give it 10 or 15 years and even these lesser developed industries will eventually flourish like the missile development program did. As a matter of fact, the timeline actually matches.
There is no great achievement in developing a 4.5th gen aircraft in 2020 (that's when LCA will really be operational at that level) or getting a 3rd gen tank ready in 2010. Really no point. Other countries will merely pat our backs for participating like we do in sports while going about their business of winning the Gold (aka, making 5th and 6th gen aircraft and 4th gen tanks).
Last edited by a moderator: