DRDO, PSU and Private Defence Sector News

[Bhadra]

'DRDO took up Arjun before it learnt to make tanks'

 

[Bhadra]

'DRDO took up Arjun before it learnt to make tanks'
http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/mar/15drdo.htm
George Iype
Some 20 years ago, the defence ministry entrusted the DRDO with two projects: the development of a battle tank and a multi-barrel rocket launcher system.
The DRDO called the former, assigned to it in 1974, Arjun, and the latter Pinaka.
Two-plus decades later, the Arjun is considered a major failure. And so is the Pinaka. The Indian army found the latter passed only seven of its 29 requirements.
Defence experts allege that DRDO continues to work on Arjun and Pinaka just to keep its laboratories open.
"The Arjun main battle tank is not world class and has failed to meet the required levels of accuracy. But DRDO is keeping it alive because it does not want its factories to close down," says Major General (retd) Ashok Mehta.
Experts like Major General Mehta feel the Arjun could have been a tank with potential if DRDO had got its act together. But the premier defence research organisation continues to exert pressure on the army to accept a limited series of production for the Arjun.

Army officers say it is politics and not the tank's potential that is at work in the defence ministry, which last year placed orders with the Avadi Ordinance Factory to manufacture 124 Arjun tanks.
"I am happy to inform you that not only is the army satisfied with the Arjun tank's performance, but it has placed an order for 124 more such tanks," Defence Minister George Fernandes had told Parliament. "With this India has achieved the capability for indigenous manufacture of battle tanks."
Army officials, however, say no other defence agency in the world must have spent 25 years and Rs 3.5 billion on developing a tank that has failed to perform.
"We have wasted money and time in producing a tank that is just not a world class product these days," an army officer in Hyderabad says.
Insiders say the army was not "satisfied with the Arjun's performance" as Fernandes claimed, but was coerced to accept it by the DRDO.
N K Mohan Pillai, a retired army officer who witnessed the Arjun trials, says the tank lacked three vital strengths. First, its engine is weak. Second, its suspension needs permanent maintenance. Third, its gun control is not accurate enough to obtain first round kill probability.
"In fact, the main problem was that DRDO took up the Arjun project before learning how to make tanks," Pillai remarks.
In 1994 when DRDO announced that the Arjun tank was ready for production, then army chief General B C Joshi witnessed the trials. He sent a note to the DRDO and the defence minister saying the tank fails to meet standards and therefore was unacceptable. General Joshi then laid down a dozen imperatives that DRDO should take to improve upon the tank.
General Joshi's main concerns were that the tank that weighs 57 tonnes lacked armour protection and vital suspension for crew comfort and gunfire accuracy.
But DRDO, which has showcased the Arjun as its finest indigenous product, claims that the problem is not with the tank, but with the army.
"The army is used to handling only T-72 tanks. For the soldiers who have fired T-72 tanks, operating the Arjun is a gigantic task. So we have told the army to train their crew before accusing us of inferior production," a DRDO engineer says.
Despite DRDO's claims, many in the army believe that the 124 Arjun tanks will drain the exchequer just like the multi-barrel rocket launching system Pinaka did.
In 1999 the Comptroller and Auditor General severely indicted DRDO for its failure to develop critical components for Pinaka after spending Rs 424.5 million on the project.
The defence ministry had entrusted DRDO with the Pinaka project in 1980. The deadline given was 1994. Twenty years later DRDO is nowhere near finishing. The war heads and all the three vehicles necessary for launching the rockets are yet to be developed by DRDO. Against the requirement of eight types of warheads, only three have been developed. Of this, one is not acceptable to the army and the other is only a dummy.
"The delay in the development of the EWPinaka has compelled the army to depend on our existing 20 kilometre-range system even during Kargil conflict. The DRDO is entirely responsible for this," charges an army officer.
According to experts, the Pinaka system has met just seven of the 29 requirements of the army during trials. The indigenous rocket launcher lacks the promised range, fire power, loading time of the salvo and deployment time.

 

[SajeevJino]

@Bhadra sir It seems the shared article are from Early 2000, where the Arjuns and Pinaka in initial developments/procrument stages.

But it seems Pinaka is a Good system that they almost changed the Guidance rocket motor to achieve long range and good precision.

any idea how many Pinaka system in operational. from wiki

The first Pinaka regiment was raised on February 2000. Each regiment consists of three batteries of six Pinakas each, plus reserves.[11] On March 29, 2006, the Indian Army awarded Tata Power SED and Larsen & Toubro's Heavy Engineering Division a contract worth ₹ 200 crore (US $45 million), to produce 40 Pinaka MBRLs each. Tata Power SED declared that it would be delivering the first units within six months.[12] The Indian Army has placed an intent for Pinaka Weapon System worth ₹ 1300 crores

'

means two hundred crores for 80 pinaka

480 pinaka launchers it seems 68 regiments ( one regimet six Pinaka plus one reserve )

@Bhadra sir your inputs please

 

[pmaitra]

So, @Bhadra ji, any particular reason you have fished out a one and a half a decade old article that bashes DRDO?

Of course, you have every right to post it.

 

[SajeevJino]

.

also found in Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinaka_multi_barrel_rocket_launcher

Presently, three regiments of Pinaka have now been inducted by the Army. The Indian Army will induct an additional number of regiments of the Pinaka during its next planning period (2012–2017) as the older Grad MLRS regiments are retired.

Three regiments means (3x7= 21 pinaka Launchers and support systems)
Why such low numbers, since first regiment inducted in early feb 2000, only 14 more pinaka launchers inducted after 15 years ..?

another source http://www.jagranjosh.com/current-a...pees-proposal-for-pinaka-rockets-1364198034-1

dated 25-MAR-2013

The Indian Army requires more than 2000 of these rockets to equip its 10-12 regiments comprising the Pinaka launchers.

confusing here .. Pinaka regiments or regiments have Pinaka Rocket Artillery's

 

[Bhadra]

So, @Bhadra ji, any particular reason you have fished out a one and a half a decade old article that bashes DRDO?

Of course, you have every right to post it.

Those articles give you a backgrounder .. the facts mentioned there in are relevant.. Arjun still is limbering.. Tejas still is mot flying in squadrons ... Pinaka still is under rectifications... we are yet to achieve capabilities of firing nuclear missiles from sea...

Tell me like 1971, if USA decide to bomb us with their cruise missiles from 400 miles away what can we do ? Run to Russia again ?

Vintage of the article is irrelevant. DRDO exists from that time and nothing much has changed.

 

[Hari Sud]

Everybody hates DRDO, me included

What if the LCA 1 & 2 succeed. What it Arjun tank after its technical hiccups, which are not local in nature but foreign hardware in nature, succeeds.

Are we all going to eat an humble pie?

Think of failure in last fifteen years abroad. F 35 is ten years behind schedule, fast and furious SR 71 Blackbird never flew closer to the Soviet territory, although it was designed for it, because MIG -25 could shoot it down. Hence the project SR-71 was a failure. American could never build from 1948 till 2005 any rifle matching AK -47. The F 16 rifle is a close match but spent first fifteen years from 1957 till 1972 in the maintenance workshop, because it jammed. Only later that it was modified to work alright, still did not have the punch of a battle rifle. How many more failures I should count abroad. Our guys are expecting everything right the first day from DRDO. Our spoiled military, spoiled by blue glossy brochures believes in foreign hardware, although all the rifles tested in India under various conditions failed. Still, they wish to import and reject the local hardware. They even refuse to work with local manufacturers to improve the quality. Ours is a military of spoiled bunch.

 

[SajeevJino]

Those articles give you a backgrounder .. the facts mentioned there in are relevant..

Nothing new Sir.. here most of them knows the capability of DRDO and its so called scientists

Arjun still is limbering.. Tejas still is mot flying in squadrons ... Pinaka still is under rectifications...

we still have no confirmation about Arjuns last heard 75% serviceability issue, Still need an good source to know about the Pinka systems,

I agree if you change the words into INSAS and Tejas. but sure INSAS atleast bit upgraded from 2000, those INSAS 1B1 blah blah, but I think still our soldier using older INSAS, upgraded version somewhere in exhibitions or OFB's showcase center..!! otherwise few numbers in Soldiers hand

we are yet to achieve capabilities of firing nuclear missiles from sea...

Tell me like 1971, if USA decide to bomb us with their cruise missiles from 400 miles away what can we do ? Run to Russia again ?

lol even if China bombed Arunachal we may beg to Israel and Russia for Ammunitions, nothing changed even decades,

Vintage of the article is irrelevant. DRDO exists from that time and nothing much has changed.

0.001 % changed since 2000.

 

[Bhadra]

@Bhadra sir It seems the shared article are from Early 2000, where the Arjuns and Pinaka in initial developments/procrument stages.

But it seems Pinaka is a Good system that they almost changed the Guidance rocket motor to achieve long range and good precision.

any idea how many Pinaka system in operational. from wiki

'

means two hundred crores for 80 pinaka

480 pinaka launchers it seems 68 regiments ( one regimet six Pinaka plus one reserve )

@Bhadra sir your inputs please

It is six launchers per battery plus one reserve and three batteries in a regiment (21 launcher per Regiment).

Rockets have specific purpose and applications and can not replace what is called Field Artillery. In the military terminology they take on Area Targets as against point targets.

Suffice to say One battery can take out Pakistani Nasar missile launcher / base or one artillery battery deployed as and when accurately located / detected.

 

[pmaitra]

Those articles give you a backgrounder .. the facts mentioned there in are relevant.. Arjun still is limbering.. Tejas still is mot flying in squadrons ... Pinaka still is under rectifications... we are yet to achieve capabilities of firing nuclear missiles from sea...

Tell me like 1971, if USA decide to bomb us with their cruise missiles from 400 miles away what can we do ? Run to Russia again ?

Vintage of the article is irrelevant. DRDO exists from that time and nothing much has changed.

@Bhadra, you really have no idea how R&D is done. Most of the time we hear success stories, but not the numerous failures.

What has DRDO delivered and from what investment? Compare that with the rest of the world.

I have a better idea. Why don't these self styled experts, like Bharat Verma, actually get back to school, get a degree, and build an innovation of his own? Or for that matter those army "experts," who wanted a 45 ton tank with 4 crew members build a tank instead of asking DRDO to do it? Can these big mouths lead by example? No, they can't.

 

[pmaitra]

0.001 % changed since 2000.

I am interested to know how you arrived at this precise statistical conclusion.

 

[Bhadra]

Everybody hates DRDO, me included

What if the LCA 1 & 2 succeed. What it Arjun tank after its technical hiccups, which are not local in nature but foreign hardware in nature, succeeds.

Are we all going to eat an humble pie?

Think of failure in last fifteen years abroad. F 35 is ten years behind schedule, fast and furious SR 71 Blackbird never flew closer to the Soviet territory, although it was designed for it, because MIG -25 could shoot it down. Hence the project SR-71 was a failure. American could never build from 1948 till 2005 any rifle matching AK -47. The F 16 rifle is a close match but spent first fifteen years from 1957 till 1972 in the maintenance workshop, because it jammed. Only later that it was modified to work alright, still did not have the punch of a battle rifle. How many more failures I should count abroad. Our guys are expecting everything right the first day from DRDO. Our spoiled military, spoiled by blue glossy brochures believes in foreign hardware, although all the rifles tested in India under various conditions failed. Still, they wish to import and reject the local hardware. They even refuse to work with local manufacturers to improve the quality. Ours is a military of spoiled bunch.

The ultimate question is defence preparedness of the country at any point of time ? India is supposed to be prepared to meet defence challenges all the time and not in 2020.

If Army gives a project for a tank in 1974 with a target date of say 2000, the specifications given are for a visualised battle in 2000, as to what might be the battle scenario that would have emerged in 2000, say how much technical up gradation would have taken place in that technology and how much of that technology our adversaries would have acquired. What would be the technology required at that time.

Now, Army is waiting in 2000 for that banana to fall but DRDO says it has not even flowered. Then there is a war in 2000 - now tell me what does the Army do ?

Have not we faced that situation in Kargil in 1999? you mean to say that no one in Army / Air force or DRDO ever visualised in 1980s that they would require laser homing devices in near future. Was not DRDO given such a project ?

Redundancy in military technology is the fastest particularly in electronics and aviation. Tell me what is the use of Arjun tank meant to fight a battle against T-59 in 2000 being delivered in 2020 when Pakistanis would have inducted say Armata or equivalent technology by 2020.

Now tell me who compromises the National Security ?

 

[Ancient Indian]

People are bitc*ing about no military tech is given to India.

I wonder how US and Russsian got their military tech.

Come on guys, even novice like me can write the failures of DRDO just by watching few videos and images posted by DRDO.

I am embarrassed by just watching pinaka arrows. They are like cheap imitation of soviet tech.

We lack creativity.

 

[pmaitra]

The ultimate question is defence preparedness of the country at any point of time ? India is supposed to be prepared to meet defence challenges all the time and not in 2020.

India will never have complete preparedness if it continues to import weapons. Have you missed the part where the Swiss told us not to use the Pilatus for war? Why do they sell military hardware if they are prohibited from being used in war? We don't spend our money to raise daisies. As long as we have the current bunch embedded within the army, India will never be able to come out of this obsession with imports.

If Army gives a project for a tank in 1974 with a target date of say 2000, the specifications given are for a visualised battle in 2000, as to what might be the battle scenario that would have emerged in 2000, say how much technical up gradation would have taken place in that technology and how much of that technology our adversaries would have acquired. What would be the technology required at that time.

How about you refrain from writing codswallop, like you have been doing over the years, and actually present some verifiable data?

Here, read this and understand the chronology: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...-for-indian-weapons.67114/page-2#post-1018307

The army gave the project in 1985 and it was delivered in 2010. So, take your 1974-2020 date range (2020 - as you claimed later in your post) and toss it out of the window. The real date range is 1985-2010 (2010 refers to the comparative trials). Quit misleading people with falsified data.

The army wanted one tank in 1972, and a very different tank in 1985. Does that register?

Now, Army is waiting in 2000 for that banana to fall but DRDO says it has not even flowered. Then there is a war in 2000 - now tell me what does the Army do ?

No, Army is not waiting. The Army has been constantly changing its requirements since 1972. Every time DRDO met its milestone, the Army threw in a new tantrum. They had their way with the T-90, and then again they ran to DRDO to fix overheating problems. Instead of fixing the T-90, DRDO should have handed one banana to each of those army "experts" who sought T-90 in the first place. That would have been appropriate.

Have not we faced that situation in Kargil in 1999? you mean to say that no one in Army / Air force or DRDO ever visualised in 1980s that they would require laser homing devices in near future. Was not DRDO given such a project ?

No, I don't mean to say anything about laser guided bombs. I said a lot of things about Arjun's development timeline. Shrewd and disingenuous attempt at deflecting, but won't work with me, but don't give up trying.

Redundancy in military technology is the fastest particularly in electronics and aviation. Tell me what is the use of Arjun tank meant to fight a battle against T-59 in 2000 being delivered in 2020 when Pakistanis would have inducted say Armata or equivalent technology by 2020.

What is the use of Arjun against al-Khalid you mean? It won't do any worse than the T-90.

As far as T-59 is concerned, even our T-72s can take care of them. It is a 1950s vintage.

Now tell me who compromises the National Security ?

Anybody who attempts to keep India bottled up and dependent on imports compromises National Security.

 

[Bhadra]

@pmaitra

1974 -2000 was just an example given ... so picking that to argue and falsify is not correct ..

So far import is concerned it is better to have something in hand rather than wait under research and development banana tree for the banana to fall which when it falls would be rotten.

 

[pmaitra]

@pmaitra

1974 -2000 was just an example given ... so picking that to argue and falsify is not correct ..

So far import is concerned it is better to have something in hand rather than wait under research and development banana tree for the banana to fall which when it falls would be rotten.

Oh yeah, I see. It was just an example.

I request your stubborness to begin with 1947. Why let objectivity and facts come in the way?

 

[Bhadra]

soldiering is doing things on the battlefield - it is not for the soldier to think that the weapon in his hands is country made or imported as long as that kills the enemy -

now it is upto the generals to ensure that the weapons given to his soldiers kills the enmy .. it is for the DRDO to ensure that they make a weapon that workds and kills the enemy ...

It is not the responsibility of the soldier to ensure that the weapon is designed by DRDO and made by OFV.

Your forcing that morality on him to keep your job, commissions and profit.

 

[pmaitra]

soldiering is doing things on the battlefield - it is not for the soldier to think that the weapon in his hands is country made or imported as long as that kills the enemy -

now it is upto the generals to ensure that the weapons given to his soldiers kills the enmy .. it is for the DRDO to ensure that they make a weapon that workds and kills the enemy ...

It is not the responsibility of the soldier to ensure that the weapon is designed by DRDO and made by OFV.

Your forcing that morality on him to keep your job, commissions and profit.

Yes, soldiering should be left to soldiers, and science should be left to scientists. Everyone has his own area of expertise which he reaches after years of hard work. One should think twice before belittling that, which ever direction it goes to.

As far a morality and commissions are concerned, I have more faith in the DRDO scientists than those army generals who begin to flutter at the sight of imported weapons. DRDO scientists could make a lot more money in the west. They are far more morally upright and committed to the nation than you would want to believe.

 

[Bhadra]

Yes, soldiering should be left to soldiers, and science should be left to scientists. Everyone has his own area of expertise which he reaches after years of hard work. One should think twice belittling that, which ever direction it goes to.

Genuine criticism is a must and should be accepted whether it is a soldiers inefficiency or a scientist incompetency. Our scientist are the importers and assemblers. Generals only recommend import of weapons but our Scientists say it is their prerogative to import. That is how so called scientists are the biggest importers and assemblers which then they pass the malfunctioning system as indigenous. That is what the hard reality is and not me but everyone says that.

DRDO scientists could make a lot more money in the west. They are far more morally upright and committed to the nation than you would want to believe.

What is the attrition rate amongst the scientist and where do they go?
Comparatively, benefits of remaining with DRDO are also there. One reaches Scientist F, G H without doing any thing ! Who will accept that outside.
All of them would have gone abroad if they were capable of? let us not lie to ourselves.

Where the credit lies is that the third class talent sometimes hit on a first class product. That is it ..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Scientist work as per requirement given by Armed forces ..

They do not work all by themselves, Any person don`t know how things work should look outside to learn if not by themselves ..