DRDO should focus on areas where it has capacity to deliver: PM

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,758
Country flag
Bhadra Ji, Was close to Insas project that is under DRDO ! ? no OFB.. .......... ...

No wait it was DODO.. ..

Not sure !

Kunal Ji,
you can not be personal even if you are God's left or right.
The user directorate is involved with both in insignificant way //
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Read carefully what I wrote and do no ascribe motves.

That is what I said . If INSAS is produced by OFB and user do not accept it due to poor quality, who are DRDO to come in between and startd defending it?
Read carefully.

This is what you said:

If the final product is as substandard as INSAS, why should Army accept it only because it has been designed by DRDO. You clearly have no case here.
Actually Bhadra, INSAS was designed by this bird (just kidding):
 

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,758
Country flag
Read carefully.

This is what you said:



Actually Bhadra, INSAS was designed by this bird (just kidding):


So what is wrong in it ? Just because INSAS was designed by DODOs it should be acceptable in any form. That is what the thrust of arguments is, at least in this forum from the moderators.

And that bird is much efficient in making its nest than many of the so called Scientists !
 

Rahul Singh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
3,652
Likes
5,790
Country flag
I know how govt organizations work in India and that is why I believe that DRDO should go public. We had it entirely in babu/neta control for long time and overall performance is not exactly impressive.

Time to introduce major change. Once the domestic private sector deepens it's legs in defense industry, drdo will find it pretty difficult to compete against rival's practically abundant resources. Not necessary that you should agree with me.
DRDO will never be competing against Private industry, if and when they arrive, DRDO will only be shedding additional burden which it is carrying because of absence of supportive industry"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦

Like to mention for reminder, DRDO was born in a practically socialist country but its role was always high tech R&D in the field of military science and it would have stuck to that role if additional burden would not have been put on it. And Contrary to popular belief, DRDO never really tried to encroach upon others work. In fact DRDO has strongly advocated for increased private sector participation especially after government setting 70:30 goal. Unfortunately profit oriented private sector never really came until thanks to 126 they realized how lucrative defence production can be? However short lived smile ends here, so far none of our private industry is involved in any meaningful R&D, nor they are partnering in R&D efforts or/and being carried out by DRDO and similar? Last i remember CSIR RTA-70 core group was calling doors of TATAs and Mahindras. Apparently Indian private sector doesn't want to venture into uncertain world of defense R&D, they just want profit assured production business.
.
Well, idea of floating commercial arm came from high quarters so owner i.e. GOI can move it with or without accepting DRDO's terms.
Well government can float commercial arm with or without liking of DRDO but it can't necessarily make it work ignoring experts opinion. DRDO asked for liberty in selecting production agency for a reason and it was all to do with bad taste it experienced while dealing with OFBs. IMO it is far more logical to let developer judge who is capable and suitable for production than some set of bureaucrat.

We determine DRDO's success in terms of user satisfaction i.e. how much it is useful to the armed forces.

You want to celebrate over every tiny hardware prototyped at DRDO, do it. I am worried about the 'end' and not the 'means'.
User is satisfied or dissatisfied depends on many factors not just on performance of hardware, especially in our case. While talking of user opinion we must also keep eye on user's mentality and intentions and must avoid blinded approach towards 'User Opinion' especially when user has shown signs of mental blockage (self accepted), corruption or practice of kickbacks.

Few examples

Intension: I find it extremely discomforting to find that IAF embedded its project coordinating team some 5 years after first flight and 17-18 years after project sanctioning of project LCA.

Mental blockage/ Bias: Same here, how can a professional fighting force actually use term like 'Mental Blockage' towards its home grown military hardware with which it was supposed to remain closely associated from beginning till end?

Corruption /Kickbacks: It is well known and even publically acknowledged by last CoAS that arm lobbyist (working for benefiting foreign vendors) among Army ranks is a reality.

In practical terms, that's all that matters.
Kaveri failed as per LCA requirements but it has been found suitable for AURA requirements, so why should not there be complements especially considering difficulties GTRE faced during development?

Like I said, start with human resource management.
Given the facility of negotiable salary system, attrition rate can be brought under comfortable limits, this is very well known. But then to what extent you can apply it? Do we really have funds; say to compete with western counterparts and even if we manage somehow can we really handle such system during say economic slowdown? Despite all tall claims, now it's projected that GDP will grow under 6 for sometime, can we sense future now?
 

Rahul Singh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
3,652
Likes
5,790
Country flag
The user do not differentiate between a Lab and a production factory. Tell me in which case user is supposed to compare between the Lab designs and the final factory product. If the final product is as substandard as INSAS, why should Army accept it only because it has been designed by DRDO. You clearly have no case here.

When the final product is bad, user has right to reject it. Why then DRDO starts howling and calls rejection by the user as "Generals desire for Foreign Mal", etc etc. DRDO has become a propagandist organisation, a lobbyist rather than a research organisation. And whatever little research is conducted has no bearing on the ground conditions where final product is used. That is why MoD proposal that all DRDO scientists should serve for at least five years in the Armed Forces is worth reconsideration.

DRDO needs serious introspection rather than encourage persecution complex.
If you read in provided context you will know what i have?
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Apart from the DRDO, maybe the PM should also understand that he should focus on areas where it has capacity to deliver.

He and his aunt Sonia has already landed up in a total mess, politically, socially, communally, economically, to include the communal cauldron they have lit across the country because of communal politics in the country and the blind eye towards the NE, leading to riots in Bodo areas and spreading across with Muslims targetting people of the NE.
 

Rahul Singh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
3,652
Likes
5,790
Country flag
To add bit clarity. INSAS has been designed by ARDE (DRDO) and is being manufactured by different OFBs.

In keeping with this trend ARDE had undertaken one of the most important programs in its history, drawing heavily on its past experience with 7.62mm SLR, namely the 5.56 mm Indian Small Arms System (INSAS). The infantry was earlier equipped with three types of small arms firing two types of ammunition, viz. 7.62 mm Ishapore SLR, LMG and 9 mm carbine. The INSAS family which is replacing all the three weapons consists of Assault Rifle : fixed & foldable butt version, LMG : fixed & foldable butt version having 70% commonality of parts and all firing the same ammunition. By 1999, both rifles & LMG have been introduced into service and weapons are in the hands of soldiers. RFI and SAF of OFB are the production agencies with AFK for Ammunition.

DRDO
I don't think Bhadra ji is wrong when says INSAS is DRDO's design.
 
Last edited:

nrj

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
9,658
Likes
3,911
Country flag
DRDO will never be competing against Private industry, if and when they arrive, DRDO will only be shedding additional burden which it is carrying because of absence of supportive industry"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦

Like to mention for reminder, DRDO was born in a practically socialist country but its role was always high tech R&D in the field of military science and it would have stuck to that role if additional burden would not have been put on it. And Contrary to popular belief, DRDO never really tried to encroach upon others work. In fact DRDO has strongly advocated for increased private sector participation especially after government setting 70:30 goal. Unfortunately profit oriented private sector never really came until thanks to 126 they realized how lucrative defence production can be? However short lived smile ends here, so far none of our private industry is involved in any meaningful R&D, nor they are partnering in R&D efforts or/and being carried out by DRDO and similar? Last i remember CSIR RTA-70 core group was calling doors of TATAs and Mahindras. Apparently Indian private sector doesn't want to venture into uncertain world of defense R&D, they just want profit assured production business.
It's just the beginning, private players along with growing streamlined industry will slowly but surely obsolete DRDO.

Well government can float commercial arm with or without liking of DRDO but it can't necessarily make it work ignoring experts opinion. DRDO asked for liberty in selecting production agency for a reason and it was all to do with bad taste it experienced while dealing with OFBs. IMO it is far more logical to let developer judge who is capable and suitable for production than some set of bureaucrat.
Drdo is not the 'only' expert.

User is satisfied or dissatisfied depends on many factors not just on performance of hardware, especially in our case. While talking of user opinion we must also keep eye on user's mentality and intentions and must avoid blinded approach towards 'User Opinion' especially when user has shown signs of mental blockage (self accepted), corruption or practice of kickbacks.

Few examples

Intension: I find it extremely discomforting to find that IAF embedded its project coordinating team some 5 years after first flight and 17-18 years after project sanctioning of project LCA.

Mental blockage/ Bias: Same here, how can a professional fighting force actually use term like 'Mental Blockage' towards its home grown military hardware with which it was supposed to remain closely associated from beginning till end?

Corruption /Kickbacks: It is well known and even publically acknowledged by last CoAS that arm lobbyist (working for benefiting foreign vendors) among Army ranks is a reality.
Means to ends.

It is very easy to blame everything on corruption these days, such a trendy word.

Question is if armed forces created drdo?



Given the facility of negotiable salary system, attrition rate can be brought under comfortable limits, this is very well known. But then to what extent you can apply it? Do we really have funds; say to compete with western counterparts and even if we manage somehow can we really handle such system during say economic slowdown? Despite all tall claims, now it's projected that GDP will grow under 6 for sometime, can we sense future now?
Low salary is not the only reason behind attrition. Try fixing issues like under-utilization of individual potential.
 

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,758
Country flag
User is satisfied or dissatisfied depends on many factors not just on performance of hardware, especially in our case. While talking of user opinion we must also keep eye on user's mentality and intentions and must avoid blinded approach towards 'User Opinion' especially when user has shown signs of mental blockage (self accepted), corruption or practice of kickbacks
Exactly that I am hinting at. "Nach Na jane Aangan Teda". DRDO is only a designing agency then why are they worried about the orders from Indian Army. They pass on their design to production agency. Talk about Arjun and then they talk about CVRD. But DRDO bosses goes on defending Arjun day in and out.

How do you know there are no kickbacks and corrupt practices when Indian Army takes Mal from PSUs. Particularly when the cost of foreign mal and that supplied by PSUs is almost the same with no comparison between the protect. The difference is that when PSU make mal DRDO also takes a cut.

in 1857 there was a mutiny on the issue of cartridges being supplied to Indian Army? who faced that mutiny ? The producers or the generals? You are too naive on military affairs. War is a collective national affair. But the victory or defeat belongs to the Generals and leadership, never the DODOs. DODOs have to function in commercial and competitive world. That is why I personally call you guys DODOs.

you all blame all your failures firstly on Army and may when cornered on PSUs. Unfortunately none of you take it as constructively and react like a Labour Union.
 
Last edited:

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
To add bit clarity. INSAS has been designed by ARDE (DRDO) and is being manufactured by different OFBs.

I don't think Bhadra ji is wrong when says INSAS is DRDO's design.
When you are saying ARDE and can assume must be with Barrel & gas system not the whole deign..
 

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,758
Country flag
Bhadra, you should write a paper on "DODO". People will be very much interested. I have heard it was testy and the sailors liked it very much.
I have written many which are beyond your preview. Of course I can see your preparation to defend it. So go ahead.
When they are openly abusive towards other organisation you keep quite but quick to respond to any criticism of DRDO.
 

Rahul Singh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
3,652
Likes
5,790
Country flag
It's just the beginning, private players along with growing streamlined industry will slowly but surely obsolete DRDO.
High end research leading to development of cutting edge technology was conceived as original role of DRDO and after shedding additional burden to private sector or whosoever competent, DRDO will be able to focus entirely on it. Needed to mention that high end research is a very very very risky world (commercially) and a profit oriented industry still trailing far behind western counterparts will take decades to even gather courage, let alone start venturing into it. Worthy of mentioning is fact that despite large scale privatization in US mil industry, bulk of high end research work is still being carried out by government owned laboratories and NASA is one such example.


Drdo is not the 'only' expert.
DRDO is the best expert when it comes to DRDO designed products and better positioned than anybody to judge which one is better suited for production.

Means to ends.

It is very easy to blame everything on corruption these days, such a trendy word.
I gave examples, so nothing in general terms, nothing as per trend.

Question is if armed forces created drdo?
Supposed to mean?

Low salary is not the only reason behind attrition. Try fixing issues like under-utilization of individual potential.
Let there be projects including challenging ones, a positive minded and proactive user and of course future looking leadership and you will not only be exploiting existing potential to its limit but also be employing additional to meet extra requirements.
 

Predator

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2012
Messages
542
Likes
261
The user do not differentiate between a Lab and a production factory. Tell me in which case user is supposed to compare between the Lab designs and the final factory product. If the final product is as substandard as INSAS, why should Army accept it only because it has been designed by DRDO. You clearly have no case here.
:rofl:

Army finds INSAS rifles reliable

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 6: Intensive tests on INSAS rifle, the Indian Army's mainstay, have confirmed its "robustness and reliability" even in "intense operational scenarios."

The result of the tests, conducted at Mhow between August 18 and 20, would be communicated to Kathmandu, which had complained about the rifle's "unreliability" and blamed it for the reverses it suffered against the Maoists.

The Army's Infantry School in Mhow tested 44 INSAS rifles of the Platoon Weapons Division, simulating an "intense operational scenario". The rifles were put through alternative tests of short-burst firing and single-shot firing.

The report of the tests says the rate of fire and performance during high cyclic load was "acceptable".

A total of 12,237 rounds were fired. The total number of "stoppages" where rounds get jammed during continuous use was under one per cent, a vindication of the Army's stand, since the international norm for small arms is two per cent.

The report says out of 44 rifles, only 15 faced stoppages, and only three more than eight stoppages. Barring the three, the average stoppage was only 0.66 per cent, the report adds.
 

Rahul Singh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
3,652
Likes
5,790
Country flag
Exactly that I am hinting at. "Nach Na jane Aangan Teda". DRDO is only a designing agency then why are they worried about the orders from Indian Army. They pass on their design to production agency. Talk about Arjun and then they talk about CVRD. But DRDO bosses goes on defending Arjun day in and out.
Arjun is a superior design and it is not being defended only by DRDO bosses but from army ranks too. Unfortunately serving ranks of army can't go public contradicting their superior's opinions say like ex DGMO Bhardwaj but when they retire they do speak their mind. And lately we all heard from three armored core officers what they had to tell public about their first hand experience with Arjun.
How do you know there are no kickbacks and corrupt practices when Indian Army takes Mal from PSUs. Particularly when the cost of foreign mal and that supplied by PSUs is almost the same with no comparison between the protect. The difference is that when PSU make mal DRDO also takes a cut.
Why would PSUs pay kickbacks to corrupt section of army, may be for not buying their products? Or you are actually referring to a particular incident where a PSU actually acted as an agent of foreign vendor and used a senior serving army officer as lobbyist in office no less than that of CoAS?
in 1857 there was a mutiny on the issue of cartridges being supplied to Indian Army? who faced that mutiny ? The producers or the generals?
And the point is? Wait, you already know, if Army goes to war with DRDO developed products, it will face negative consequences?

Regarding mutiny, well 1857 mutiny had much broader reasons than just a case of introduction of particular type of cartridge"¦"¦ Mutiny could escalate so fast so deep only because there were outstanding issues between Gora officers and tanned sepoys; issues that were related to inhumane and unequal treatment and that apart from many. Cartridge issue was only sudden blow to already smoking fire which would have got flames regardless.

And by the way that single charge-bullet cartridge was an excellent feat of military engineering and only god telling how much it helped Goras in suppressing 1857 mutiny and its consequent mass revolt.

You are too naive on military affairs. War is a collective national affair. But the victory or defeat belongs to the Generals and leadership, never the DODOs.
Victory or defeat in War brings glory and sorrow to entire nation no matter how differently. For example, German participation in WW1 and defeat brought Treaty of Versailles and greater economic crises as a consequence of it and made entire Germany pay. When France walked into SAARLAND (as a consequence of combined failure of German leadership and military), it was common Germans who suffered most, it was coal miners (to be particular) who apart from rest of local residents got French boots right to their asses, not just those who lead and commanded it to defeat in WW1. May be more Germans died because of consequences of defeat in WW1 than those during war.

Now I wonder to whom victory or defeat actually belongs in real and practical sense? And what is importance of symbolic notion in real world? May I reiterate the fact that military is very part of a nation and its actions affects rest of the nation as much as theirs affects it.

And thanks for calling me naïve. Even though I never forget, it refreshed very fact that person should never let hunger for more knowledge reduce till death comes. That's the only way which can save someone from slipping into delusion of being expert. That, as evident, failed in at least one case.

DODOs have to function in commercial and competitive world.
DRDO only needs to pass its additional weight to whosoever competent enough (PSU or/and private) and get to its originally conceived role which always was high end military specific R&D.

you all blame all your failures firstly on Army and may when cornered on PSUs. Unfortunately none of you take it as constructively and react like a Labour Union.
Nobody is putting blame on one or other as whole, we are only talking about individual contribution to overall problem. But of course we are opposing people who apparently see DRDO as sum of all evils and want to use it as a blame-bin.
That is why I personally call you guys DODOs.
I am thinking of 'Moti' as return favor, may be 'Sheru' is a better choice.
 

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,758
Country flag

Four DRDO projects, including LCA, behind schedule: Govt


Press Trust of India / New Delhi August 13, 2012, 17:35
[ The story of DRDO Mal]

Four major DRDO projects including Light Combat Aircraft, Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AEWC) and Kaveri engine are running behind schedule resulting in increase in their development cost, Lok Sabha was informed today.

"LCA Phase II, Naval LCA, AEW and C and Kaveri are the projects sanctioned by the Cabinet Committee on Security for which probable dates of completion (PDC) have been extended and costs have been enhanced," Defence Minister A K Antony said in written reply.

"The PDC and cost of these projects have been revised due to various reasons like change in scope, ab-initio development of technologies and denial of technologies by the advanced countries, extended trials and increase in cost of materials and manpower," he said.

The LCA project has been going on for the last over 25 years and the air rorce and the navy are waiting for their delivery.

Similarly, the Kaveri engine project for LCA is still in trial phases and DRDO has been importing US-made engines for the aircraft's trials.

To another query, Antony said, "In view of the sensitive defence installations in south Mumbai and associated security concerns, a Maharashtra government proposal for setting up a helipad at Nariman Point has been agreed to."

He also said as per unauthenticated data, Pakistan and China spent around 3.1 and 1.4 per cent of their GDP respectively in 2010 in the defence sector.

The Minister said though the government keeps an eye on the developments in neighbouring countries which may have impact on national security, it is difficult to compare defence spending due to lack of non-availability of accurate and latest-published data.

On clearances for oil and gas blocks, Antony said, "46 blocks--38 on eastern and eight on western sea board-- have not been cleared from defence security angle on account of overlapping with DRDO missile ranges in Andhra Pradesh and Odisha, air force firing range and naval exercise area."


@Rahul Singh - the reporter is also Moti or sheru ... Ha Ha ha.... Only DODOs can use such epithets....
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Internal audit raises questions on DRDO functioning

Questions have been raised on the functioning of the DRDO by an internal audit ordered by the Defence Ministry to look into the operations of all the departments under it.


Questions have been raised on the functioning of the DRDO by an internal audit ordered by the Defence Ministry to look into the operations of all the departments under it.

The report prepared by the Finance wing of the Defence Ministry has raised several issues in its review including sanctioning of Rs 2.8 crore by DRDO chief V K Saraswat to a mathematical society headed by him and the transparency of the research agency with a budget of over Rs 5,000 crore, defence sources said here.

The report has also pointed out that to avoid seeking approvals from the competent financial authorities, the DRDO was splitting the sanctions for its projects, they said. It has also cited shortcomings in the products developed by the DRDO such as the Arjun tank, which has been found to be overweight by the Army for operations in certain areas along the border.

However, the DRDO said the issues raised in the report "are essentially in the nature of preliminary observations" and it was "vitiated by a faulty audit process". "Such preliminary observations are required to be formally issued and replies to the same should be sought prior to compilation of any report. Only if the replies are not satisfactory is the next step of making a preliminary report taken.

"In the extant case, the laid down procedure was not followed and to that extent, the process of audit stands vitiated. Thus, even before seeking replies of DRDO, presumption and baseless conclusions appear to have been arrived at," DRDO spokesperson Ravi Gupta said.
http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/bu...-raises-questionsdrdo-functioning_744592.html
This is a tip of the iceberg.

DRDO is run like an unaccountable personal fief of the Directors.

They squander money and give it to themselves and hand over largesse to their favourite organisation and so they have nothing worthwhile to offer to the ones who are to benefit from their expertise.
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Defence ministry audit questions DRDO functioning
Aug 13, 2012


New Delhi: An internal audit report ordered by the defence ministry raised questions over the functioning of the DRDO and the grant of Rs 2.8 crore by its chief VK Saraswat to a society under him.

The report prepared by the finance wing of the defence ministry raised several issues in its review and the transparency of the research agency with a budget of over Rs 5,000 crore, defence sources said in New Delhi.

The report has questioned the grant of Rs 2.8 crore by Saraswat to a mathematical society.

The report has also pointed out that to avoid seeking approvals from the competent financial authorities, the DRDO was splitting the sanctions for its projects, they said.


It has also cited shortcomings in the products developed by the DRDO such as the Arjun tank, which has been found to be overweight by the Army for operations in certain areas along the border.

However, the DRDO said the issues raised in the report "are essentially in the nature of preliminary observations" and it was "vitiated by a faulty audit process".

"Such preliminary observations are required to be formally issued and replies to the same should be sought prior to compilation of any report. Only if the replies are not satisfactory is the next step of making a preliminary report taken.

"In the extant case, the laid down procedure was not followed and to that extent, the process of audit stands vitiated. Thus, even before seeking replies of DRDO, presumption and baseless conclusions appear to have been arrived at," DRDO spokesperson Ravi Gupta said.

http://www.firstpost.com/india/defence-ministry-audit-questions-drdo-functioning-416840.html
A more detailed report.
 

Rahul Singh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
3,652
Likes
5,790
Country flag

Four DRDO projects, including LCA, behind schedule: Govt

...
The PDC and cost of these projects have been revised due to various reasons like change in scope, ab-initio development of technologies and denial of technologies by the advanced countries, extended trials and increase in cost of materials and manpower
...
@Rahul Singh - the reporter is also Moti or sheru ... Ha Ha ha.... Only DODOs can use such epithets....
HAHAHA! Typical of Sheru to overlook this part....................... .
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top