DRDO, PSU and Private Defence Sector News

[Aditya Ballal]

>Sadly, no quantity is stated in the contract award notices, however, both are valued at $88,607,109. With a roughly estimated per carbine cost of $600, that would suggest orders for just short of 300,000 M4s

Even if we ignore that they have a pretty mature MIC. Considering how we are ordering around 700k of Ak203, it sounds like a scam with such price point even when you consider its watered down.

You haven’t considered initial starting costs like setting up of the new factory, new machinery, possibly re training of labour, ToT fees and other costs and other inefficiencies of OFB. Also the fact that FN and Colt would have had to price their products competitively to get the contract considering there are many companies in the US who can make M4 pattern rifles. Here we just have one who was nominated.

 

[Tactical Doge]

You haven’t considered initial starting costs like setting up of the new factory, new machinery, possibly re training of labour, ToT fees and other costs and other inefficiencies of OFB.

By that you mean (((((((under the table))))))) deals?

 

[Covfefe]

By that you mean (((((((under the table))))))) deals?

Nahi, cost inflation due to their incompetence- poor efficiency, shit load of chai breaks, sahebs sleeping, lack of automation yadda yadda

 

[SavageKing456]

Pardon for the last post,HGV like DF17 or avanguard was not talked about in it,it was scramjet powered decent basically for ground launch HCV
In the cruise phase, the vehicle will be propelled by long duration hydrocarbon fuelled scramjet engine to the destination. In the descent phase, the scramjet will be switched off and the vehicle will be decelerated to Mach 2 which result in a high energy impact. Waverider concept is utilized.
Dual combustion ramjet would used for air launched HCM

And
Fairing Separation studies of HSTDV Launch Vehicle
A large number of aerodynamic data has been generated for the HSTDV launch vehicle during opening and separation of nose and cylindrical panels in an efficient manner. More than 300 CFD simulations are carried out with different orientations of panels. The aerodynamic data base has been used to arrive at the scheme of panel separation and time sequence of separations of various panels and cruise vehicle. Further, pressure and force distributions are provided for structural design. CFD simulations were also carried out for the ground test conditions of RTTS, TBRL at Mach 0.6 (simulating flight dynamic pressure). Very good match of computational surface pressures and panel trajectories with the test results give confidence to the designer to use CFD data for flight tests.

 

[FalconSlayers]

Not defending whatever our armed forces are doing, i don't know much about guns either way. Do you have source for US army paying just 700 for m4a1?

Bruh a vanilla M4A1 costs $700 in their civie market, at what cost will their army buy then? It’s just a meme fed to us that M4A1 = American = Expensive = Luxury = Special.

I would still want an AK Platform for the military, like the Bulgarian Arsenal AR-M5T instead of that abomination AK-103M aka “AK-203”.

 

[FalconSlayers]

Weaponised variant of the HTT-40 under works

https://hal-india.co.in/Common/Uploads/ContentTemplate/301_Download_HTT-40%20Brochure.pdf

 

[Love Charger]

Weaponised variant of the HTT-40 under works

https://hal-india.co.in/Common/Uploads/ContentTemplate/301_Download_HTT-40%20Brochure.pdf

View attachment 121418View attachment 121419

Army should buy it in good numbers to support armoured formations .
Can't rely on IAF for air support as they must focus on air superiority missions due to their dwindling squadron numbers.

 

[Aditya Ballal]

Bruh a vanilla M4A1 costs $700 in their civie market, at what cost will their army buy then? It’s just a meme fed to us that M4A1 = American = Expensive = Luxury = Special.

I would still want an AK Platform for the military, like the Bulgarian Arsenal AR-M5T instead of that abomination AK-103M aka “AK-203”.
View attachment 121416

Good AR-15 patterned rifles from reputable companies cost $1200-1700 new depending on the company in the US civilian market. They can be bought second hand for lower. Anything under $1000 new is usually not from well reputed firms although there are limited exceptions. Military prices are usually $200-300 less than civil prices.
Ex: The Sig 716i costs MSRP $ 1400-1500 in the civilian market and military prices are usually $1100-1200, Sig quoted a very competitive $990 for the first batch for the IA to beat the competition in hope of a future order where they can quote a slightly higher price.

 

[FalconSlayers]

Good AR-15 patterned rifles from reputable companies cost $1200-1700 new depending on the company in the US civilian market. They can be bought second hand for lower. Anything under $1000 new is usually not from well reputed firms although there are limited exceptions. Military prices are usually $200-300 less than civil prices

I heard colt M4A1s used to cost $700 when it became a standard issue.

Army should buy it in good numbers to support armoured formations .
Can't rely on IAF for air support as they must focus on air superiority missions due to their dwindling squadron numbers.

Lice our own Super Tucano

 

[Aditya Ballal]

I heard colt M4A1s used to cost $700 when it became a standard issue.

Not to the civilians, but the US military and LE depending on order size. US firearms companies make more money per gun from the civil market than the domestic military one.

 

[Chinmoy]

Avatar was just a feasibility study by a group of DRDO scientists. ISRO was not involved in that. There is no fund allocated for the project either. It is completely non existent. For the project to be successful you need to develop the critical subcomponents first. Nothing has been done till now. Whereas china has already tested a downscaled engine in a ground based testbed. To think that china won't achieve this or won't militarize this technology is utter foolishness. The US startup HERMEUS has recently unveiled their unmanned mach 6 flight capable aircraft, a downscaled model of the actual intended HERMEUS One.

Now see, this happens when you don't compile information correctly.

When you said that ISRO has nothing to do with AVATAR programme, you are just towing the govt line here. In Parliament Q&A session of 2012, it has been said that Aerobic Vehicle for Hypersonic Aerospace Transportation (AVATAR) is a project for which feasibility study has been carried out by a group of DRDO scientist and not by ISRO. Now just tell me the logic of why DRDO would carry out study of Aerospace Transportation?

Now lets see another report from former DG of Information system of IA. If I have to quote him...

But this is about ISRO which is all set to make India proud again by launching its AVATAR – Aerobic Vehicle for Trans-atmospheric Hypersonic Aerospace Transportable Reusable Launch Vehicle. Also being termed AVATAR RLV by some, AVATAR is an experimental unmanned advanced hypersonic space shuttle.

https://www.spsmai.com/experts-speak/?id=111&q=ISROs-AVATAR-making-India-proud-again

Now why would govt term AVATAR as an DRDO project instead of ISRO?

Answer is, ISRO is a civilian agency and comes under civilian audit. Any project carried out by them would come under civil scrutiny. DRDO being under MoD has no such compulsion of divulging their project details to any civil authority except PM or President apart from DM. So by terming AVATAR as a DRDO project, govt has effectively curtailed any information coming out about it.

 

[THESIS THORON]

Weaponised variant of the HTT-40 under works

https://hal-india.co.in/Common/Uploads/ContentTemplate/301_Download_HTT-40%20Brochure.pdf

View attachment 121418View attachment 121419

Army should buy it in good numbers to support armoured formations .
Can't rely on IAF for air support as they must focus on air superiority missions due to their dwindling squadron numbers.

if army procures it then there will be headache of pilot training and all other stuff, best option is drdo should work on unmanned varient of htt40 for ground support and other ops as well.

 

[Love Charger]

I heard colt M4A1s used to cost $700 when it became a standard issue.

Lice our own Super Tucano

Yea , super tucano was successful in afganistan .
It's a different story that it didn't matter in the end though

 

[flanker99]

Army should buy it in good numbers to support armoured formations .
Can't rely on IAF for air support as they must focus on air superiority missions due to their dwindling squadron numbers.

In a peer conflict they will be easily shot down losing valuable pilots...drones should be considered for these types of support roles in contested airspace...perhaps an unmanned HTT40

 

[BrigadierRPS]

This is all your assumption. See every high end project that DRDO and ISRO carries out, they don't do it alone. They tie up with some of the leading educational institutions. And when it comes to hypersonic, only IIT Bombay, Madras, IIT Kanpur and IISc Bangalore are to be trusted. If you take the case of HSTDV, IIT Bombay and IIT Kanpur is involved. AVATAR is such a project that it's developments cannot be hidden completely. Even if they become successful in hiding that from public eye, no way they can hide it from the educational community. The truth is, IIT Kanpur carried out a different feasibility study (simulations basically) and submitted the report, and since then it is buried under the carpet. ISRO has plans for TSTO vehicles but that timeline is yet to come. These facts were reiterated in the VAIBHAV summit which was held virtually last year and I was present there...October 2020.

Now see, this happens when you don't compile information correctly.

When you said that ISRO has nothing to do with AVATAR programme, you are just towing the govt line here. In Parliament Q&A session of 2012, it has been said that Aerobic Vehicle for Hypersonic Aerospace Transportation (AVATAR) is a project for which feasibility study has been carried out by a group of DRDO scientist and not by ISRO. Now just tell me the logic of why DRDO would carry out study of Aerospace Transportation?

Now lets see another report from former DG of Information system of IA. If I have to quote him...



https://www.spsmai.com/experts-speak/?id=111&q=ISROs-AVATAR-making-India-proud-again

Now why would govt term AVATAR as an DRDO project instead of ISRO?

Answer is, ISRO is a civilian agency and comes under civilian audit. Any project carried out by them would come under civil scrutiny. DRDO being under MoD has no such compulsion of divulging their project details to any civil authority except PM or President apart from DM. So by terming AVATAR as a DRDO project, govt has effectively curtailed any information coming out about it.

 

[Sir pe tapla]

The Aks we are getting are expensive, but doesn't that include cost of ToT and is it not a fact that half of the money that we pay for each gun is going to go directly to OFB since they own 50% stake in the joint venture?

Sure , the gun is expensive but half of the money from this gun will go into pockets of OFB , which is taxed. So a lot of money from these guns is ending up in our own pockets.

So after all these considerations, can we really say the price is too high??

We would have paid full price to a Foriegn entity if we bought an m4 or AR platform.

 

[Tactical Doge]

The Aks we are getting are expensive, but doesn't that include cost of ToT and is it not a fact that half of the money that we pay for each gun is going to go directly to OFB since they own 50% stake in the joint venture?

Sure , the gun is expensive but half of the money from this gun will go into pockets of OFB , which is taxed. So a lot of money from these guns is ending up in our own pockets.

So after all these considerations, can we really say the price is too high??

We would have paid full price to a Foriegn entity if we bought an m4 or AR platform.

In the words of @FalconZero
I had to re-read that twice

 

[Sir pe tapla]

In the words of @FalconZero
I had to re-read that twice

Please correct me where I am wrong. (No seriously, I have only glanced over the joint venture and developed this theory so I might be wrong.)

 

[FalconSlayers]

The Aks we are getting are expensive, but doesn't that include cost of ToT and is it not a fact that half of the money that we pay for each gun is going to go directly to OFB since they own 50% stake in the joint venture?

Sure , the gun is expensive but half of the money from this gun will go into pockets of OFB , which is taxed. So a lot of money from these guns is ending up in our own pockets.

So after all these considerations, can we really say the price is too high??

We would have paid full price to a Foriegn entity if we bought an m4 or AR platform.

And what exactky is ToT? Does it include metallurgical technology being transfered? Don’t we already have the design in the form of TAR? It would’ve had been better if we had went ahead with TAR with 3rd party upgrade kits purchased in bulk as a JV, OFB will just provide the working portion of the rifles and the furniture and accessories would’ve been from the 3rd party. Could have saved costs there.

 

[Sir pe tapla]

And what exactky is ToT? Does it include metallurgical technology being transfered? Don’t we already have the design in the form of TAR? It would’ve had been better if we had went ahead with TAR with 3rd party upgrade kits purchased in bulk as a JV, OFB will just provide the working portion of the rifles and the furniture and accessories would’ve been from the 3rd party. Could have saved costs there.

View attachment 121491

Okay good point, but even if we disregard tot for a second, what is wrong with the theory that part of this money is going to go into a government owned company?

If we had brought m4s, we would be paying all 700 dollars for a single gun to a Foriegn company, while buying a single ak, Ofb has 50 percent stake, cost of one gun is 1100$ , so they get 550 dollars. All that money is going to a government entity instead of a Foriegn firm.

Sure, modifying TAR would have been much much better, but I don't thinking people saying that buying an m4 instead of an AK are realising the full cost behind this.

Do you really think that if we had asked , for example, remington to provide m4s Plus a 50% stake in the joint venture, that they would have sold their m4s to us for 700 dollars??