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

Rahul Singh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
3,652
Likes
5,790
Country flag
Armed forces should avoid wasteful expenditure: Antony

New Delhi: Defence Minister A K Antony on Saturday said the government will provide maximum possible support to the armed forces for modernisation but they should avoid "wasteful expenditure".

Addressing a navy function here, the minister said the defence budget is touching nearly Rs 2 lakh crore but even in the present security scenario around the country, "we will not be able to find resources as per the aspirations of the armed forces fully.

"We will support you to the maximum extent but at the same time there is a possibility from your side to avoid, I may say it is a little harsh word, wasteful expenditure and sometimes some expenditure that can be delayed a little time," he said.

The Defence Minister was speaking after inaugurating the navy Financial Information System (FIS), which he said "will enable more effective management of naval budget."

"I hope other two services and all the other departments of the Government of India will follow this timely and useful initiative of the Indian navy. I would like to congratulate the navy for taking this timely initiative," he said.

Antony said the FIS was a step in the series of measures to bring "more probity, accountability and transparency in our public dealings and financial transactions."

"There is also a need to overcome existing constraints and enhance integration of Central Defence Accounts (CDA) to ensure maximum utilisation of the FIS," he said.
Now, should i say Armed Forces are real cause of the problem? No absolutely not. As a matter of fact Did i ever said Armed are the only problem?....

Solution lies in (apart from other aspects) better knitting of user and developer not necessarily DRDO. DRDO must be relieved of burden of being product developer --it is the role which PSUs together with Private industries should handle -- and let it concentrate on high end research and development.
 

Sridhar

House keeper
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
3,474
Likes
1,061
Country flag
Teer of Key pub.

Today, virtually all of the IAF's ESM fit is localized - with all onboard RWR/ESM fits from DRDO. The jammer segment is going the same way. In radars, starting from scratch, the IAF now has local alternatives and has placed sufficient orders for 2D Gapfillers, 3D LLTRs, 3D LLLWRs and FCRs. The ongoing programmes for MPR, AESA LLTR & AEW&C round off that segment.

In the Navy, the IN has gone for an all Indian sonar fit with the HUMSA series which are the bread and butter sonars. The ESM sit is now completely indigenized with Ajanta, Ellora and advanced variants on all ships, supplanting even the interim Israeli fits. The advanced variants eg Varuna, capable of detecting and classifying exotic signals eg LPI are also ready and on order. Constant upgrades are done without fuss, eg radar fingerprinting for further fine grain analysis. In advanced systems, Nagin is now under final trials & due this year (despite assorted gasbag bloggers assuming it got cancelled due to lack of in your face publicity). For submarines, the Navy is now using USHUS variants & local ESM as well.

For the Army, the DRDO's 2D LLLWR & 3D TCR are both ready and on significant order. Both projects completed without fuss & without delay.
The futuristic radars developed for the IAF and in advanced prototyping today will clearly have IA applications as well, when suitably repackaged for higher mobility vehicles and smaller footprint even at marginal reduction in performance. The Army's first sector level EW system, the Samyukta has elicited very positive reviews and its classified follow on is well under development.

What you & most other chaps who don't dig beyond the simplistic media reports fail to understand is that product development always depends on having a basis of tried and tested tech., which you can then iteratively build on. As such first-in-class systems are always the tough ones and take time with attendant cost issues. In India, most of our initial programs were budgeted for without taking any sanctions or cartels into account. As such whenever products were developed, sanctions or deliberate delays were introduced to kill projects. The much ballyhooed WLR for the Army, held up as an example of incompetence and delay was one such. Its critical phase shifter was unavailable in India, and just like other radar manufacturers DRDO hoped to bid for series versions from the handful of manufacturers in the west. It was denied & the DRDO developed better versions working with CEL & IIT Delhi.

The point is this sort of deliberate targeting of Indian defence industry, has been all too common. While it has introduced time & cost delay into many projects, along with the technical challenges of even system level development, overall India is stronger for it.

The IA & IAF are often unenthusiastic about local efforts because they simply lack a product development culture. The average officer wants quick imports based on 5 year plans. In contrast, an average weapons program can run somewhere between 5-10 years, with complex ones hitting 15-20 plus. Let alone system of systems programs like combat aircraft etc. To achieve such programs, the perspective planning for such products has to be perfect or near so, with clear requirements, limited mission and requirements creep, and asking for achievable requirements based on industrial assessment. Lacking the ability to do this, IA & IAF staff requirements are often reactive and poorly made out and then develop further over time, which leads to developmental delay on top of technology issues. In contrast, Navy has multiple design houses- WEESE, Naval Architects/Designers each with specific ownership of specific programs. They ensure products are "owned" by the Navy from day 1 and ensure a proper developmental path is made available even with MK1 to MK2 to MK3 transitions. They have done this despite working with arguably the most trenchant of Indian DPSUs, the shipyards. They have gone so far as to identify and convince specific companies working in different fields to take up marine engineering and production projects. Naval project managers are part of a rigorous system, which rotates them to ensure honesty and minimize bias, and well aware of their roles and responsibilities to ensure product/program success. They also have a viable career path.

In contrast, IA and IAF orphan officers in defence R&D, and if the former take their job too passionately, then they are oft treated with disdain, and are said to have forgotten the olive green (an actual comment made by a general in the Army, which just shows how deep the attitude problem is). People like Rajkumar who headed the LCA team were deliberately passed over for promotion as the IAF regarded the LCA as an unwanted step child standing in the way of the easy imports.

This sort of disdain for the involved process of product development is the real problem. Way back in the 70's, the Naval Chief that time, decided with his staff that future sailors needed to be multifunctional, so specific trades were created to keep apace with technology, beyond just sailing the platform. In contrast, the IA & IAF have only moved to maintainance and support of the frontline units and have completely abdicated their responsibility to the industry.

What they don't understand is that winning products are developed on time and on budget when they follow concurrent engineering and compressed test and verification methods, without sacrificing quality. By not having a product development and test team that works with DRDO etc in the product development lifecyle, the results come in only when the final product is ready or a prototype is, is sent back for rectification and then is ready for tests only a year thence at the right weather, place etc where again staff have to be found to evaluate it. What makes the situation tragicomical, is that by then the original evaluators jump ship, moving to new positions of command or leave the service. The new evaluators come in and do an entirely new assessment.

Today, after realizing that they too have culpability, the IA/IAF depute senior staff with support staff to such roles. But again, there is no formal organization that these people are part of and their careers/roles are in flux. In many cases, they'll have to join DRDO itself. While this is good for DRDO, it totally takes out the project ownership angle. In business, for high value add programs, senior staff is deputed to not just monitor but also to aid the program through development, by supporting it as required. This is a fundamental concept called mentorship. This is still lacking in the services beyond an ad hoc arrangement, run program by program where say the VCAS monitors the LCA. Problem is by the time this has occurred, the delays were already baked in. Such as not telling the designers which advanced missile to put in - wing redesign, asking for newer avionics after the LSP started (and to their credit they managed the new systems)...

This ad hocism is a huge challenge.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/member.php?u=22286
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
In contrast, the IA & IAF have only moved to maintainance and support of the frontline units and have completely abdicated their responsibility to the industry.
I have not quite understood what exactly it is meant. It is meant that the Base repairs have been given to the industry?

If so it is step in the right direction.

This is to cut out wasteful expenditure by reduction of the 'tail' (administrative units and personnel) in the deep rear.

For instance, who is better for major repairs and overhaul? It is obviously the source and manufacturer of the product.

Now, if abdicating responsibility to the industry means that the IA and IAF should guide the industry at every step, well, that is not the task of the military, and if the industry cannot fathom what is required of them, then they should pack up and go.

What they don't understand is that winning products are developed on time and on budget when they follow concurrent engineering and compressed test and verification methods, without sacrificing quality. By not having a product development and test team that works with DRDO etc in the product development lifecyle, the results come in only when the final product is ready or a prototype is, is sent back for rectification and then is ready for tests only a year thence at the right weather, place etc where again staff have to be found to evaluate it. What makes the situation tragicomical, is that by then the original evaluators jump ship, moving to new positions of command or leave the service. The new evaluators come in and do an entirely new assessment.
Product development and test teams are not required because the QRs are given and the products has to be made by those who are designing and producing the same.

If a tank is being made, it is only specialists on the various aspects of tank technology, engineering, metallurgy and other qualified people who can design and produce. No one in uniform can be an expert in these fields since their job (for which they are trained and paid) is different. If such men in uniform were the experts then the scientists and engineers would not be required.

In so far as evaluation is concerned, the evaluation is done by serving personnel who have 'hands on' experience of battle or field conditions. Again, they don't jump ships as the article suggests. The teams is made up from the field formations and they are expert in their field of usage of the equipment designed. These teams cannot be a single one, since the equipment is tested in various terrain and climatic conditions. Not having a single team also helps getting an overall view and independent view.

To put it plainly, if one is going to buy a car, does it mean that he should have been associated with the designing and production of the car or would he base his purchase on what he expects from that car.

The Military QR is what the the military 'expects' from the product.
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Here is how an aircraft (HF 24) was produced by HAL.

The time of conceptualising and getting into service is what one must note.

*******************

In 1957, Prof Kurt Tank was invited by the Government of India to join Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) in Bangalore. Tank went to India with a smaller team than he worked with in Argentina, of eighteen German engineers and technicians, which number later dwindled to thirteen. The team initially consisted of 18 German engineers, three Indian senior design engineers and about 22 other Indian engineers with design experience. Given the small number of Germans in India, unlike the Argentinean experience, in India local engineers and technicians took responsibility for production engineering, tool design, and manufacturing activity leading to a successful international technology transfer.

Within 22 months glider trials were started to test in free flight the full-scale wings and fuselage which had already been model-tested in wind tunnels. Low-speed behaviour was explored in the tunnel of the Indian Institute of Science at Bangalore. The staff had further been increased by this time, the design team having grown to 80 Indians with the same complement of Germans. Assembly of the first prototype was started in April 1960, and it was finished in 11 months - an excellent period considering that HAL were dealing with an aircraft of such advanced design for the first time. In the words of the Indian Government, "It speaks volumes for the enthusiasm and zeal of the production engineers and the workmen."

In March 1961 the prototype, serial number BR462, was completed and ground trials were started. These trials are necessary to determine the ground handling qualities of a newly designed aircraft, and to check the functioning of various systems before undertaking the maiden flight. The latter came on June 24, 1961.

The HF 24 Marut, was a twin engine fighter-bomber designed to reach supersonic speeds. A photograph of a wind tunnel model of IAe.43 Pulqui III makes it very clear that the Marut was based very closely upon that design. The Marut Mk1 Fighter of 1964 was a single seat ground attack fighter with 4X30 mm guns, internal rocket launchers 4 underwing hard points for drop tanks/bombs/rockets. The HF-24 had highly swept wings, a needle nose and a graceful, area-ruled fuselage. It incorporates many advanced aerodynamic concepts which make its flying safe and easy at low speeds as well as at supersonic speeds.

HF-24 Marut

The Marut finally entered service in April 1967 and was the first supersonic fighter built by a non-superpower.

http://www.kamov.net/aircraft-world/hindustan-hf-24-marut/
 
Last edited:

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
That aircraft received no mordanisation and we no one took this skilled work force ahead..

Resulted in total lose of Knowledge in making state of the art fighters, Then had LCA program effected by Sanctions lack of labs, Lack of improvised ideas..




We will never able to stand against new foes, If we dont understand the value of Indigenous production...
 

Rahul Singh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
3,652
Likes
5,790
Country flag
Defence Minister Antony's top 5 issues concerning the Indian military. What would be yours?

Going by the sequence in which Defence Minister AK Antony raised issues in his Independence Day address to the armed forces today, corruption within the military is its biggest threat"¦ followed by the need to protect human rights during counter-terrorism operations. Equipment modernization came in fifth place.

Here is the order in which Antony raised issues in his speech:

No.1 : Corruption

No.2 : Protecting human rights during counter-terrorism ops

No.3 : Border and coastal security

No.4 : Welfare of serving and retired soldiers

No.5 : Equipment modernization

For those who are interested in his exact words, here they are:

No.1 : Corruption

Corruption is today a serious challenge facing our nation - and our Armed Forces are no exception to the rule. Corruption not only badly affects the morale of the personnel, but also has many other implications. I appeal to each one of you to renew the pledge to work with all the honesty, fairness and transparency at your command in your day-to-day work. Our Armed Forces have been renowned for their hard work, determination, efficiency and discipline. It is our individual duty and collective responsibility to ensure that the excellent work done by our Armed Forces in general, is not undone at any cost.

*
*
*
No.5 : Equipment modernization

Modernisation and indigenisation remain at the centre of all our efforts to help our Armed Forces. The recent, successful test of Agni-V is an achievement for our scientific community and it has proved that when it comes to indigenisation, it is only a question of willpower. The commissioning of INS Baaz, the Naval Air Station at Campbell Bay, will not only help maritime domain awareness, but will also impart blue water capability to our Navy. Similarly, the commissioning of INS Chakra and indigenously developed stealth frigate INS Sahyadri and naval version of indigenously built Light Combat Aircraft will definitely sharpen our attack capabilities.
 
Last edited:

Rahul Singh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
3,652
Likes
5,790
Country flag
Here is how an aircraft (HF 24) was produced by HAL.

The time of conceptualising and getting into service is what one must note.
But designed by Kurt Tank and team.....A person who was no less than pole star in the world of aircraft designing at that time. Needless to mention that his experience played great role in keeping timeline smaller.
 

san

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2009
Messages
224
Likes
128
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.
Then pls share. I am assuming you are an expert on "DODO". Your ignorance in engineering R&D is beyond my doubt. Somebody abusive doesnot make that you shall make fun of them. If DRDO is DODO why you donot make a company and start producing defense equipment. There are lot of young engineers in your DODO who used to work really hard. There are fault in every govt organization or even private . Is doesnot make you mock them. DRDO has problem with project management, ego and mentality of senior officials/scientist that they know all. Also iteration is high on govt organization before 6th pay commission. But they able to deliver some missiles that nobody will provide. Do you really believe that an organization that design a 5000 KM missile will not be able to design a rifle if every thing right. It depends on priority.
 
Last edited:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top