Tata Motors wants to build battle tanks

[AnantS]

Please look into your own example: DRDO is transferring the production tech not the designing know-how.
Did DRDO give out the knowledge of aerodynamic accumulated in past 3 decades? No!
Did DRDO give out the experience of structural designing in its previous projects? No!
.......
The list can go on and on. All these are the keys that your Tata need to start developing their own military equipment. All these know-how took DRDO decades to accumulate and cost billions dollars public money.

Without all these knowledge, the best Tata can do is working as production of DRDO.

Tata , L&T are not foreign companies. You need to understand.. DRDO is slowly moving towards DARPA model where it develops a tech and licenses the tech to Indian private manufacturer and hold hands of private industry via consulting. Regarding getting experience, all Tata & L&T have to do what Elon Musk did with ex Nasa scientists. Lakshya is just one example. The very first nuclear submarine INS Arihant had its hull made by L&T, who also supplied other critical subsystems. This is very good example of joint public private R&D effort.

True there will be resistance by PSU's who traditionally got DRDO's business of mass production. But DRDO will be too happy with this model as it can generate funds for itself via licensing/consulting fees. The only hiccups in private defence R&D are a) how much govt is going to allow private venture into R&D in practice, in what systems and how much monetary effort govt is going to put in to make their R&D viable. b) Will of Private Industry to commit in real R&D.

 

[bengalraider]

The Weakest link in our MIC today is manufacturing, we have had numerous instances where good products developed by DRDO have lost in the long run due to shoddy manufacturing practices by the OFB. The fact remains that the stranglehold that the PSU's have on defence manufacturing in India needs to be broken. i concur that TATA and the other players need to put in more time and energy before that can even hope to match the DRDO when it comes to research and development (we simply do not have a skunkworks analogue yet). However the easiest way to convince private enterprise to invest in research is the show them the profit in the same, we need to outsource manufacturing to private enterprise while concentrating public monies on research alone.
like AnantS says above me we need to turn DRDO into a DARPA our Skunkworks and phantom works analogues will come from private industry but they will take time to come.

 

[pmaitra]

The Weakest link in our MIC today is manufacturing, we have had numerous instances where good products developed by DRDO have lost in the long run due to shoddy manufacturing practices by the OFB. The fact remains that the stranglehold that the PSU's have on defence manufacturing in India needs to be broken. i concur that TATA and the other players need to put in more time and energy before that can even hope to match the DRDO when it comes to research and development (we simply do not have a skunkworks analogue yet). However the easiest way to convince private enterprise to invest in research is the show them the profit in the same, we need to outsource manufacturing to private enterprise while concentrating public monies on research alone.
like AnantS says above me we need to turn DRDO into a DARPA our Skunkworks and phantom works analogues will come from private industry but they will take time to come.

I have a few questions if you would please clarify.

In the INSAS thread, another member has posted some pictures of an INSAS rifle, and I have highlighted some manufacturing flaws in the rifle furniture [LINK]. Those components were not made by any Public Sector Unit, but by a Private Sector Unit. My question is, how can one ensure that there will be no shoddy manufacturing practices if, to use your terms, the PSUs' stranglehold on defence manufacturing is broken?

I understand TATA wants to build a tank. How are we going to ensure the integrity of the defence manufacturing once it is given to Private Sector Units?

Please refer to this excerpt [LINK]:

ULFA Connection: Assam Police arrested several executives of Tata Tea in 1997, accusing them of aiding and abetting the banned insurgent group United Liberation Front of Asom or ULFA. This followed the arrest of the wife of an underground ULFA leader at Santa Cruz airport in Mumbai, whose treatment Tata Tea was paying for. The Tatas denied the charge and claimed it was part of their health scheme for people in Assam. Ratan Tata had met Assam chief minister Prafulla Mahanta to dispel misgivings. However, taped conversations of Nusli Wadia asking the central government to intervene mysteriously found their way to the public domain. Neither the PM at the time, I.K. Gujral, nor Mahanta, lasted long in office.

While I welcome Private Sector Units' participation in large projects, I am strongly against moving small arms manufacturing outside the purview of the Public Sector Units.

 

[bengalraider]

@pmaitra-
Firstly I never meant to say that the private sector follows a gold standard on quality, my apologies if it read that way. However that said in all the nations which have private players manufacturing defence equipment the government still has the final say on quality control. Also unlike the case of a PSU manufactured product the govt in the case of a private player can warn,reprimand,cancel contracts,with old payments and in extreme cases move a case in the consumer court for demanding fines in lieu of shoddy manufacturing.

As far as the episode with ULFA was concerned, it's an open truth that even today firms both government owned and private pay naxalite groups in order to be able to carry out commerce in the red zones unharmed."Rangdari" is the term I think.Such funds are given to ensure the safety of employees and assets in all such conflict zones where the government simply is unable to guarantee safety.The issue with Tata tea was one such case.
Small arms manufacture can be carried out by private firms with appropriate safeguards.We can look at best practices followed by arms majors globally and adapt our MIC accordingly .Maybe legislation can be created to ensure that the top five guys in all such industries are exe military. The security for such enterprises can be mandatorily be given to the CISF etc etc.

 

[bengalraider]

Please read with old as withhold. Typing from my phone autocorrect you know.

 

[pmaitra]

@bengalraider, you have raised some interesting points.

I agree with you that nations where there is large scale private sector involvement in defense are usually better off in defense manufacturing.

I think manufacturing units need to be hauled up in case of shoddy quality, whether it is a private or public sector unit.

I also agree that corporations paying ultras for the safety of their employees is a practical step, albeit illegal and immoral. It is an open secret where the Maoists get their explosives from. They get them from the various mining companies, who use explosives to blast rocks and extract minerals. A lot of these explosives are pilfered, and are eventually used to blow up our CRPF jawans.

We have to have safeguards to avoid pilferage. The chances of pilferage are almost non-existent if, say, L&T is fabricating the hull of a submarine, but very high if any private company is building assault rifles. We can discuss these issues in detail at an appropriate thread.

 

[bengalraider]

Agreed on all counts!
Glad to note we think alike my friend!

 

[no smoking]

Tata , L&T are not foreign companies. You need to understand.. DRDO is slowly moving towards DARPA model where it develops a tech and licenses the tech to Indian private manufacturer and hold hands of private industry via consulting. Regarding getting experience, all Tata & L&T have to do what Elon Musk did with ex Nasa scientists. Lakshya is just one example. The very first nuclear submarine INS Arihant had its hull made by L&T, who also supplied other critical subsystems. This is very good example of joint public private R&D effort.

So, the model you suggesting is DRDO design and TATA produce. That certainly help India military manufacturing but no the weapon development. Currently, the major problem with India weapon development is there is lack of competition against DRDO. The reason that DRDO can monopoly is that it is the only organization in India has the necessary infrastructure and knowledge. As long as it holds this unique position, there is no real competition.

This model is only making Tata produce DRDO's tank not their own tank.

True there will be resistance by PSU's who traditionally got DRDO's business of mass production. But DRDO will be too happy with this model as it can generate funds for itself via licensing/consulting fees. The only hiccups in private defence R&D are a) how much govt is going to allow private venture into R&D in practice, in what systems and how much monetary effort govt is going to put in to make their R&D viable. b) Will of Private Industry to commit in real R&D.

Money is always the No.1 question in R&D. In military field, R&D generally requires billions of dollars investment with no prospect of profit in near future. There is no private company is willing to do that without financial support from government. In the countries like India and China, they will need government to cover every cent in the big project like tank or fighter.

 

[AnantS]

So, the model you suggesting is DRDO design and TATA produce. That certainly help India military manufacturing but no the weapon development. Currently, the major problem with India weapon development is there is lack of competition against DRDO. The reason that DRDO can monopoly is that it is the only organization in India has the necessary infrastructure and knowledge. As long as it holds this unique position, there is no real competition.

This model is only making Tata produce DRDO's tank not their own tank.

The model does not stop a willing Tata from doing its own R&D in sanctioned fields. E.g Earlier tracked version of Kestrel APC was developed by Tata on its own. Wheeled Kestrel is derivative of the same. Another example: Kalyani, L&T & Tata mounted artillery are their own efforts, with DRDO coming in as consultant whenever asked for e.g. DRDO helped Kalyani in FCS for the artillery. Initial hand holding of the industry by DRDO or foreign consultants will be required as private industry has just started participating in defense production.

Money is always the No.1 question in R&D. In military field, R&D generally requires billions of dollars investment with no prospect of profit in near future. There is no private company is willing to do that without financial support from government. In the countries like India and China, they will need government to cover every cent in the big project like tank or fighter.

Agreed. Private firms would like to recoup the R&D cost incase the requirement gets scrapped. The same is case in US e.g. for domestic fighter competition, the US Govt pays all the participating competitor companies for prototype development.
India is making changes to DPP (Defence Procurement Policy) accordingly. What those changes are? They will get revealed in coming months.

 

[no smoking]

The model does not stop a willing Tata from doing its own R&D in sanctioned fields. E.g Earlier tracked version of Kestrel APC was developed by Tata on its own. Wheeled Kestrel is derivative of the same. Another example: Kalyani, L&T & Tata mounted artillery are their own efforts, with DRDO coming in as consultant whenever asked for e.g. DRDO helped Kalyani in FCS for the artillery. Initial hand holding of the industry by DRDO or foreign consultants will be required as private industry has just started participating in defense production.

You kidding me? Look at the 2 examples, you provide, I found DRDO in both cases. Furthermore, full of foreign sub-systems. What did the private companies do in these 2 projects? Drawing a picture of outfit?

Agreed. Private firms would like to recoup the R&D cost incase the requirement gets scrapped. The same is case in US e.g. for domestic fighter competition, the US Govt pays all the participating competitor companies for prototype development.
India is making changes to DPP (Defence Procurement Policy) accordingly. What those changes are? They will get revealed in coming months.

Wrong, US government only finance the R&D expenses related to the specific projects while Indian government need to pay R&D infrastructure, Technician&workers training, and decades basic research.
We can put this way: US is hiring an IT engineer with 10 years hands-on experience to build up a software on his own world-class equipment; on the other side, India is recruiting a 10 years old boy to do the job, the best IT experience he has is computer game, the worst of worse is he doesn't have appropriate equipment.

 

[charlie]

Wrong, US government only finance the R&D expenses related to the specific projects while Indian government need to pay R&D infrastructure, Technician&workers training, and decades basic research.
We can put this way: US is hiring an IT engineer with 10 years hands-on experience to build up a software on his own world-class equipment; on the other side, India is recruiting a 10 years old boy to do the job, the best IT experience he has is computer game, the worst of worse is he doesn't have appropriate equipment.

US already has a foundation and a lot of research has already been done, India lack funds as well the facility that US has.

So it's not like India recruiting a 10 years old boy actually they are as good as their american counterpart if not better,

 

[AnantS]

You kidding me? Look at the 2 examples, you provide, I found DRDO in both cases. Furthermore, full of foreign sub-systems. What did the private companies do in these 2 projects? Drawing a picture of outfit?

What part of the line "Initial hand holding of the industry by DRDO or foreign consultants will be required as private industry has just started participating in defense production" did not penetrate your skull?

Wrong, US government only finance the R&D expenses related to the specific projects while Indian government need to pay R&D infrastructure, Technician&workers training, and decades basic research.
We can put this way: US is hiring an IT engineer with 10 years hands-on experience to build up a software on his own world-class equipment; on the other side, India is recruiting a 10 years old boy to do the job, the best IT experience he has is computer game, the worst of worse is he doesn't have appropriate equipment.

Are you really so dense or like acting like one? By any chance are you accustomed to wearing a dunce cap? Did you comprehend a specific US example I gave and what I wrote? Where did I write US funds all R&D expenses for all projects? Just re-read what I read slowly and repeat. Don't be desperate for your 10 cent alms, that you don't even to bother to read before reply.

The Indian Govt will need to create a law to commensurate the companies who takes risk for doing R&D for big tickets items at Govt's requirement request. Govt has not paid any Indian company till now for any manpower or infrastructure setup required for defence R&D. They only need Indian Govt's permission for using Govt's land for weapon testing/trials, because for now Indian Law does not permit private companies own lethal weapon testing ranges and conduct live lethal weapon trials without Govt supervision. There are lot of policies/laws reforms will take place in future to facilitate Indian private defense industry as it becomes mature over period of time.

PS: @Moderators: "Why I am being asked to enter thirty characters, even after such a long reply? Seems like a bug.

 

[Shaitan]

You kidding me? Look at the 2 examples, you provide, I found DRDO in both cases. Furthermore, full of foreign sub-systems. What did the private companies do in these 2 projects? Drawing a picture of outfit?

TATA Kestral is based on TATA's own wheeled FICV program. DRDO/VRDE sent out an RFI for the army's WhAP program for the hull, suspension system, drive line, powerback, and integration. TATA won this with the FICV platform.