Army pushes for fast-track purchases to counter China, Pakistan

[Ray]

China loves the DRDO!

 

[Mad Indian]

Cant the Army fast track the DRDO supplies by cracking a whip on it?

 

[Damian]

This is what happens when there is only one state owned company/organization responsibl for designing weapon systems.

So it seems that they not only designed a tank with armor full of oversized weak zones, ignored safe manouvering angles principle, and do not have safe ammunition storage (as photos prooves) contrary to their claims, but are also designing ammunition that kills or harms it's own crew? And when I tried to make constructive critics of one of their products, some users allmost eat me for breakfast.

The question is, why goverment when for example want a tank, do not ask Army what Army wants, and then spread these demands list through different companys in country and around the world, then these companys will do their best to show the best offer that can win such lucrative contract. Competition allways force competitors to walk in with better ideas and quality.

If only one company/organization work on weapon systems they really not care about quality of their product, they have "firends" in goverment, MoD and know that in the end their product will be fielded or if even not, they get their big, nice pile of money.

 

[plugwater]

The question is, why goverment when for example want a tank, do not ask Army what Army wants, and then spread these demands list through different companys in country and around the world, then these companys will do their best to show the best offer that can win such lucrative contract. Competition allways force competitors to walk in with better ideas and quality.

Damian, Government has already started to take this route, please read about FICV. In this def expo TATA and Mahindra showed their designs, few other companies are still working on their designs.

 

[Damian]

Good for India then. But foreing companys should also be in this deal, this will be another factor that will force Indian companys to to their best, and even if foreing compny win, then Indian companys will gather more experience for eventuall future competitions. They will learn on their mistakes, and improve... ahhh one of the most beautiful aspects of capitalism.

 

[arya]

they want to win the race with the horse

 

[arya]

everything is on paper look so good but on ground we know the reality.

we have to take step for ground forget 2020-2022 target we have to immediate action

we can order at least 50-60 su35 for our IAF( it will take less time to induct and fighter are world class ) if we want to increase our numbers and mmrca should be on fast mode

artillery order should be given without wasting any time .

govt has to tights the psu they must work or they have to go

 

[utubekhiladi]

but it blew up in the tanks.
DRDO made ammo wiped out a couple of crews from the army and drdo, till they realised that their Phds count for sh!t and they should import the ammo.

did you pull that off from your hat? or can you back-up your claim by a legit source or citation?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

why did not they import basic minimum ammunition along with the Gun?
Is the Gun more important or ammunition? Do not say both.

Both are important..

The main gun is imported.
DRDO did try to make the ammo, but it blew up in the tanks.

Sir, I remember that incident, the gun was old and DRDO ammo was new and create have much higher chamber pressure, that is why it blew up..

why did DODO made a tank if they can not make its ammunition?

Are you talking abt Arjun ?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

This is what happens when there is only one state owned company/organization responsibl for designing weapon systems.

So it seems that they not only designed a tank with armor full of oversized weak zones, ignored safe manouvering angles principle, and do not have safe ammunition storage (as photos prooves) contrary to their claims, but are also designing ammunition that kills or harms it's own crew? And when I tried to make constructive critics of one of their products, some users allmost eat me for breakfast.

Any defense related project is done under supervision of Army..

As per Army reqirment the weaponry are deign..



Can you give me a link abt that thread, i can give & see points there..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Acquisitions:

4th regiment of BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles for Rs 4,100 crore.

Two regiments of Pinaka multi-barrel rocket launchers for Rs 2,136 crore.

10,000 Konkurs-M anti-tank guided missiles for Rs 1,223 crore from Russia.

10,000 3UBK-Invar missiles for T-90S tanks for Rs 1,386 crore from Russia.

15,000 3UBK-Invar missiles for T-90S tanks for Rs 2,079 crore from Bharat Dynamics.

66,000 "armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot'' tank shells for Rs 1,386 crore.

Two troops of Heron UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) for Rs 1,200 crore from Israel.

145 M-777 ultra-light howitzers for $ 647 million from US.

The amount is too low...

 

[Archer]

The main gun is imported.

DRDO did try to make the ammo, but it blew up in the tanks.
DRDO made ammo wiped out a couple of crews from the army and drdo, till they realised that their Phds count for sh!t and they should import the ammo.

Thats just misinformation.

The MK1 round had issues because of the choice of propellant sourcing by the OFB and the lightweight packaging (which meant the Russian propellant leaked) and also the storage issues from the Army end. The round design was rectified, and several tens of thousands of non defective rounds were supplied to the Army and used. The Army then trialled the Israeli FSAPDS from IMI, saw it had marginally more performance & asked for it instead, so the functional FSAPDS line with the MK1, developed at great trouble and pain, was closed and "converted" to the IMI round. IMI of course, did not transfer the crucial penetrator tech., and FSAPDS rounds were assembled at OFB and supplied to the Army. Even this ran into problems, either due to OFB's QA issues or IMI challenges in transferring TOT or both.

The Army continued to import rounds from IMI instead, had some supplied by OFB/IMI "JV" and also continued to import rounds from Russia for the T-90, which again came with Russian BCs and would not accept the firing tables for the Israeli ammo.

Then the Govt decided enough evidence was there to suggest that IMI & OFB's ex head had a corruption taint and IMI has got blacklisted (which means no more IMI rounds).

In the meanwhile, DRDO kept with their FSAPDs program, despite no firm orders and they developed a MK2. That languished for several years because the Army in its wisdom decided it did not need the round. After the problems with the OFB-IMI ammo continued they relooked at it, and this round was then finally offered for revised trials. Just 30 odd rounds were available, tested, and finally a process was worked out wherein the round would be developed to a new set of GSQR & Army inputs (which was done) and a larger improved batch, developed to this new standard would be available for trials. 500 rounds were manufactured for these AUCRT cum user trials (to accelerate the process, rather than the usual one after the other process) late last year. Basically, the MK2 round is now an alternative to getting ripped off by the Russians.

They charged us 4X the typical cost for the "urgent operational necessity" order now to be placed by the Army for 66,000 rounds.
Worst part is the round is actually marginally lesser in performance than the earlier Israeli round, which the DRDO's MK2 aimed to match/surpass. What this means is we cannot count on this round for being viable through the next decade (typical round lasts for 10-15 years with proper storage; MK1 was 10 years, Army now usually asks for 15 years lifetime) if the Chinese or Pakistanis upgrade their tanks with more armour.

The weak point in the whole issue is the OFB. Ultimately, DRDO electronics products and missiles are in regular service with few gripes, because all said and done, despite monopoly behaviour from time to time, the manufacturers like BEL and BDL at least do a decent job in making these items, but OFB to say the least, has severe issues.

Its fairly obvious when seeing the quality of an OFB produced item, as compared to the LSP item from a DRDO lab or those made by ECIL, BEL etc. Its clear the latter have invested more consistently in better equipment, but also their manpower takes pride in their work & at least manufactures to an acceptable level.

This is clearly the reason why DRDO asked for selecting the producer of its designed items.
DRDO wants say in procurements

The MOD has shot it down. There are clearly two reasons there. One is the DPSUs - all of them - come under the MOD. The MOD really does not care for DRDO shortlisting both private and the better performing DPSUs and then selecting one of them. There is no guarantee that all DPSUs will be kept in business as is done currently.

Second is the political aspect. The DPSU's labor force is very politicized and a fairly large political block. INC has a presence as do the Left. Any such move, as suggested by DRDO will be firmly opposed by all these labor unions.

 

[rock127]

NEW DELHI: Having jolted the government over the critical operational gaps in its military capabilities, the Army is now pushing hard for fast-track policies and acquisitions to 'enhance its combat ratio versus China' as well as 'upgrade its combat edge' against Pakistan.

The defence ministry, too, is responding with alacrity for a change. Defence minister A K Antony has called another review meeting with General V K Singh and his brass later this month, after holding two such meetings on February 28 and April 2.

It was between the earlier two meetings that the Army chief's confidential letter to the PM, about the "hollowness'' in military preparedness, found its way into the public domain much to the government's consternation .

For starters, the cases for one more regiment of the 300km range BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles, two "troops'' of Israeli medium-altitude , long endurance Heron UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles ), and several types of ammunition ranging from Konkurs anti-tank guided missiles to Invar missiles for T-90 S main-battle tanks, will be finalized in this fiscal's first quarter, sources said.

The new BrahMos regiment will have the missile's Block-III version, which has 'steep dive capability' to take out targets hidden behind a mountain range. After the western front, the government has approved deployment of these missile systems in Arunachal Pradesh to counter China's huge buildup of military infrastructure all along the 4,057km Line of Actual Control ( LAC).

Other projects in the pipeline for Army, which has over 100 of them at different stages, include advanced assault rifles , close-quarter battle carbines , bullet-proof jackets, ballistic helmets and light vehicles for the infantry's 359 battalions.

The mechanized forces' list stretches from TIFCS night-vision devices for T-72 tanks, upgrade of BMP-2 infantry combat vehicles and AFV (armoured fighting vehicle) protection to missiles and ammunition for all.

Air Defence regiments, in turn, want procurement of three surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems - quick-reaction , medium range and manportable short-range - to replace obsolete Russian-origin Kvadrat, Strela and other systems . Self-propelled air defence gun and missile systems as well as an upgrade of L-70 guns is also on the cards, in addition to the two indigenous Akash SAM regiments already ordered for Rs 14,180 crore.

In terms of infrastructure, apart from a new mountain strike corps, the Army wants completion of the earmarked development in the eastern theatre at a cost of Rs 9,243 crore by 2016-17 as well as the Rs 26,155 crore 'capability development in the northern borders' by 2020-21
Army pushes for fast-track purchases to counter China, Pakistan - The Economic Times

So how fast is this "fast-track"??? Any time limit? defense deals are taking 1 or 2 decades and India needs it LOT right now.... we are running low on AF squadrons and still flying those notorious flying coffins.Even after purchasing Rafale is still not only finalized and delivery will take years.

Perhaps India is waiting some attack from enemies and only then they would do purchases.Same was done in kargil when army found it was lacking ammo in their howitzers

 

[Archer]

Bhadra,

The problem is that we are far behind in making weapons & ammo.

In actual R&D, the projectile is designed first as per the task it has to accomplish, thereafter the weapon is designed around it.

DRDO, does it the other way around - they first copy a gun system, then try to reverse engr a type of ammo. The concept is ok if the basics are correct, but an organisation that has not done R&D in basic rifle ballistics cannot be expected to make heavy calibre ammo.

In this case, the ammo & gun came together. The Indian 125mm FSAPDS was developed from the 105mm round developed for the Vijayanta. Besides which one has to start someplace. If you look at IMI, it started pretty much the same way, reverse engineering US/western/eastern bloc designs, buying out US tech and finally becoming a decent innovator itself. There is not a single company out there which has a flawless past.

DRDO has very little accountability and it is a simiple sarkari employment entity like BEML and survives on giving the armed forces substandard stuff.

First, if we look at it case to case, the problems with some products overshadow the success it has been able to achieve with others.
DRDO products in several cases are as good as or even better than imported items. It just depends on the generation of the product in service (whether it is the first of its type) and who made it - whether it was by BEL etc or TATA or somebody like OFB.

Logic suggests - and I know this for a fact having been aware of several technology attempts by leading technology vendors - that the first product - especially when developed to challenging specs, may not meet all the customer is looking for. But as long as the base design is ok, and a long term product roadmap is drawn - a MK2 or a MK3 or a MK4 can is often developed that ends up becoming the best in class or equivalent to the market leader. Its the way things are, iterative development usually outscores disruptive development. India;s problem is that it is starting from such a low industrial base, only changing in the past couple of decades, that most of its attempts are invariably disruptive. Products have to be at the MK3 level, without any MK1 having existed because no such program was launched earlier. That makes the job, much, much harder. Without getting into too many details, even the world's best companies launch products which even in their second, third iteration find the going tough. Look through the balance sheet and check out the percentage of R&D as a percentage of sales. The key is how many of those end up actually converting into winning products. New product introduction, especially when not built on a previous generation success, is inherently fraught with risks. A rough thumbrule was 70% fail. Product development costs in the meantime keep ballooning. Whether at the subsystem level or at the integrator level, ultimately the costs have to be passed on.

Second, coming to accountability, if you see the structure that exists, plus the scrutiny- DRDO is highly accountable, but clearly lacks something basic, which is authority. The Arjun is for example a "DRDO" tank, but a closer look reveals, the DRDO is only the owner till design and development, the producer is the OFB which is a parallel organization and directly reports to the RM. Basically, the DRDO has very limited say in the manufacture of its product and negotiating power as well. For instance, how large MNCs keep their system integrators/ contract manufacture on their toes is via competition. If an EMS/CM makes a mistake and continues to treat say the Japanese "brand owner" shabbily, the latter can walk to the other firm. Here clearly, that is not the case. For certain systems, the designated "partner" is predecided and the program owner (or the brand owner as in business) does not have power over the final deliverable beyond a point. This is a problematic state of affairs, whether it be with the Arjun/OFB or LCA/HAL etc. What this means is a potential conflict of interest can also occur. What does OFB care if the Arjun fails? One way or the other, they will manufacture a tank, like the T-90.

Similarly, in all the successful programs - like with the Navy /AF - a key success factor has been a partner who does its part of the job on time and with effort, like BEL with radars or so forth.

This is a structural problem which can only be solved by the MOD and one which is not going away. The project owners should have the power to decide on the partner upfront and also change them, if found unsuitable.

Third, and this is another severe issue, is the lack of structure within the Armed forces themselves - especially the AF and Army, to deal with complex system of systems projects, long gestation by their very nature. The Army and AF are staffed and enabled for procurement, not development. Currently, limited forecasting is done, trials are done, procurement suggested. However, what is required is an entire parallel weapons evaluation and development directorate, with services involvement (ideally, joint with all three) which handles programs end to end, and hence can also decide on proper GSQRs with its needs in mind (as versus looking at Janes, or cobbling together specs from responses to RFI/RFP as is still being done). Take a look at the two successful arms complexes in France and Israel. Latter is militarized state and we cannot adopt it. France follows the above approach. They have their own Army evaluation, PM and test group which acts across the entire development cycle for the product. What this also does is give the services ownership - which is a big deal for success. Across firms, most complex projects, bids etc invariably have an identified project sponsor. This is similar. The Navy for instance talks about its Delhi class not XYZ yards ship. This will require the creation of another career path in the services as well. Right now, service officers are deputed to DRDO/DPSUs etc - while they often do a yeoman job - they face lack of understanding from some peers who don't understand how tough it is to develop a product, even hostility etc if they push for the product (all this is solved if the product is "owned" by the services themselves - which means greater transparency and decision making powers on how it is to be developed). Furthermore, their career is in flux. They have to return to parent organization - to progress otherwise they risk stagnating. This is very bad for the program which needs leadership continuity. VKS mentioned this fact in a recent interview along with the GSQR issue, these are clear learnings from programs like the Arjun.

Basically, solve these three problems - open competition (open up the sector to private giants for each and every competition and they can bid for who is the partner for DRDO for the specified "make" project), restructuring/divestment of the most problematic DPSU (OFB comes to mind, its problems are legion), a weapons directorate (beyond the current acquisition house it is) - joint in nature and which works with R&D to "own" the projects and see them through end to end. Do these three things, and there will be a sea change in the program perceptions and customer confidence. Right now the Armed forces- industry interface works on an ad hoc, project to project, chief to chief basis - this has to change. Irrespective of who comes, who goes, programs have to succeed and give the armed forces what they need, when they need. Ultimately this can only be done locally, whether it be the yahoodis or the roos, everyone is out to use our money for their industry. Thats unsustainable.

 

[Archer]

China loves the DRDO!

I am sure they love the Agni, Brahmos etc pointed at them...

 

[Archer]

So how fast is this "fast-track"??? Any time limit? defense deals are taking 1 or 2 decades and India needs it LOT right now.... we are running low on AF squadrons and still flying those notorious flying coffins.Even after purchasing Rafale is still not only finalized and delivery will take years.

Perhaps India is waiting some attack from enemies and only then they would do purchases.Same was done in kargil when army found it was lacking ammo in their howitzers

Ammunition luckily can be made ready, if of an existing type within a year or two. Thats the usual lead time. Eg the FSAPDS initial orders with Russia were in 2010 and delivery started in 2011. If you talk about platforms or complex systems - it can take 3-4 years between the order and delivery start.

 

[lemontree]

Thats just misinformation.

We were the users, so please refrain from calling it misinformation.
Leave alone tank ammo, even basic small arms ammo is very substandard.

The MK1 round had issues because of the choice of propellant sourcing by the OFB and the lightweight packaging (which meant the Russian propellant leaked) and also the storage issues from the Army end.

Archer, OFBs mfg problems in poor procurement management or production quality control are exactly what cause problems. That is why I say their Phds count for sh!t..

OFBs union issues or what ever is not the armed forces problem. If good equipment cannot be supplied then OFBs are useless.

In this case, the ammo & gun came together. The Indian 125mm FSAPDS was developed from the 105mm round developed for the Vijayanta. Besides which one has to start someplace. If you look at IMI, it started pretty much the same way, reverse engineering US/western/eastern bloc designs, buying out US tech and finally becoming a decent innovator itself. There is not a single company out there which has a flawless past

I have stated that reverse engineering is OK, but the basics have to be right.
When we were already manufacturing 105 mm tank ammo, then we should have had some our sources of propellant suppliers that manufacture propellants to suit Indian conditions OR we should have been doing our own R&D in propellant design. The key word here is R&D.

Reverse engineering and R&D leads to innovation and upgrades the equipment. This is just lacking in the BRDO/ OFB sarkari babus.
If DRDO made a design, did they not recommend to the OFBs the specifications of the the ammo propellant? These are basics that are missing from the mindset of the DRDO/OFB dodos.

Take the case of the 30 mm AGL rounds (auto grenade launcher) - in a belt of 30 rounds, about 40% are misfires. This is from my experience in actual operations - infact we stopped using the OFB ammo and stuck to the Russian ammo with us.

Sniper ammo - our OFB chaps are clueless on the design and manufacture of match grade ammo.

INSAS - instead of running the marathon they should have tried to run the 10 km first. They tried to combine the barrel changing versatility of the Aug Styr and failed. Took a good 17 years to deliver the end product that looks like an FN FNC. The simple solution would have been to rechamber the barrel of the SLR for 5.56 mm, and continue with R&D to develop a new system. Something like the Chinese have done with the SKS, the T-81 is a fine rifle that arms the majority of the PLA, R&D gave them the QBZ 95. This is how reverse engineering works, and not like the hotchpotch that MoD, DRDO and OFB do.

The 9mm carbine can be made in a backyard garage and OFB and DRDO cannot make an improvement over a 1920s design???

HF-24 - was a very fine fighter-bomber designed by the great Tank Kurt. Instead on working on obtaining a better engine for the aircraft, we let the project die!!!...

Archer, with all due respect the DRDO and OFB lack a passion for their vocation. OFBs should be privatised to see any improvement in the weapons manufacturing industry.

 

[p2prada]

China loves the DRDO!

Russia and Israel love DRDO too.

 

[Neil]

if we are buying konkurs M from russia then why do we need javelin....??

 

[Damian]

Maybe because both are different kind of ATGM's. Konkurs-M is preatty cheap and simple system, while Javelin is highly advanced fire and forgot missile with passive (means undetectable by vehicles laser detection systems) thermal sighting system. This is means it is more complex and more expensive yet after firing it, operator might escape and hide while missile will find a way to target on it's own, while Konkurs and similiar SACLOS ATGM's need to be guided on to target untill they hit it, so operator might be detected and is in danger of being killed in the process of guiding ATGM on to target.