DRDO, PSU and Private Defence Sector News

[Ray]

@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.

I would say you have no idea of DRDO and what they claim as R&D.

You tell us what was the investment and what was it delivery in terms of Bang for the Bucks.

I am sure if it was the task of the IA to build its own tanks, it sure would do a better job than the DRDO.

CAG has also pulled up DRDO, so has Modi and Parrikar. All big mouths?

Tell me who you would consider as not a Big Mouth and is competent to comment?

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 ..

There you go wrong again.

Armed Forces may ask for the Moon, but the scientists are the ones who should confirm if the Moon can be given. They confirm that the Moon can be given. And then it becomes as true as the idea it is the Man in the Moon!

I have worked in the AHQ and have a fair amount of idea as to how it is done.

While it is good to be a proud Indian, but one has to also not pull wool in that pursuit.

सत्यमेव जयते s a mantra from the ancient Indian scripture Mundaka Upanishad. Upon independence of India, it was adopted as the nationalmotto of India.

I wish to follow it as much as I can.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Sir, CAG pulled both Army and DRDO ..

Besides DRDO is research institute and they research, Making the full product is upto the Government that who and how one manufacture it ..

CAG has also pulled up DRDO, so has Modi and Parrikar. All big mouths?

Tell me who you would consider as not a Big Mouth and is competent to comment?

 

[Ray]

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 ..

Sir, CAG pulled both Army and DRDO, Imho the fault lies in both due to Political influence which lead to what is now ..

We are discussion DRDO now.

Have you worked with the DRDO?

I have.

The could not even produce a Kitchen Lorry or reverse engineer Bore Clap or the 1950s US BFSR for the Infantry.

 

[Bhadra]

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 ..

Unfortunately most of the time it the other way round..
They make INSAS and want forces to declare it fit for CI operations..
They make make Prahar and force that on IA who do not want them..
They are told to make a 45 ton tank and land up at 58 ton and want that to be MBT..
They are told to make one BLT which collapse under a tank..
They want Generals to fight a war as per systems developed by them rather them developing systems to fit the accepted doctrine..
They make a guns which has no ammunition but still insist that the guns be bought..
They are told to make man portable Nag and they land up making 55 kg Nag and then keel looking for a platform to mount it.
They develop a night sight over sixty years which has become redundant by ten years in technology.
They can not even make batteries and battery chargers for equipment they have imported.
The biggest problems with DRDO products is that by the time it comes into service everything related to that equipment - technical parameters, technology, tactical employment, doctrine etc gets changed due to new circumstances, requirements, technology and needs.

So on on and on..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Sir, I have edited my post, I never worked with DRDO but the basic requirement of this country to be on its own legs, If they have issues then its need to be corrected this goes for every other institutes, We with our profession are not capable to understanding deep technicality of making or reverse engg things ..

Have you worked with the DRDO?, The could not even produce a Kitchen Lorry or reverse engineer Bore Clap or the 1950s US BFSR for the Infantry.

==================



I will just point out a basic here, INSAS 1B1 is a rifle not carbine for close quarters engagement in CT, As 9mm carbine is not suitable for operation in CT areas the AK is chosen instead and now locally produced, AK is a good weapon for spray and pray tactics where 1B1 for accurate engagement over 300ms, IA use both firearms for better results ..

Learn to provide updated links for your claims, The rest of you claims are baseless and meaningless , And more sound as a rant over the rest of the thread..

Unfortunately most of the time it the other way round..
They make INSAS and want forces to declare it fit for CI operations..
They make make Prahar and force that on IA who do not want them..
They are told to make a 45 ton tank and land up at 58 ton and want that to be MBT..
They are told to make one BLT which collapse under a tank..
They want Generals to fight a war as per systems developed by them rather them developing systems to fit the accepted doctrine..
They make a guns which has no ammunition but still insist that the guns be bought..
They are told to make man portable Nag and they land up making 55 kg Nag and then keel looking for a platform to mount it.
They develop a night sight over sixty years which has become redundant by ten years in technology.
They can not even make batteries and battery chargers for equipment they have imported.
The biggest problems with DRDO products is that by the time it comes into service everything related to that equipment - technical parameters, technology, tactical employment, doctrine etc gets changed due to new circumstances, requirements, technology and needs.

So on on and on..

 

[Bhadra]

The rest of you claims are baseless and meaningless , And more sound as a rant over the rest of the thread..

Provide arguments rather than.........................

 

[Ancient Indian]

The biggest failure of DRDO is not due to the money or lack of tech transfer.

A firm runs on very important resource which is called human resource. Of course, if the admin at DRDO are profit driven or pride driven, they would have done it in similar manner a ceo runs his company. But they recruit people who had well connection in their circle.
Guess what happens next ?
Those losers are eating money which goes into their account irrespective to his performance over the month.

Now tell me where the heck innovation comes in?

@pmaitra says that failures are common. It happens in US. So it can happen India too.

Come on sir, The R&D in US works on tons of tech related projects. failures in some are common.

But when it come to DRDO. how many projects are they taking?

I can list all of them in few minutes if I search through the google. They are very few. For a country which has population over 1 billion, our performance is below zero.

If not for ISRO diwali cracker tech, the DRDO will be the biggest shame of the country.

We should not include their influence on Indian People. I doubt half of the country doesn't even know the DRDO meaning.

Waste of time discussing DRDO innovation. They lack drive.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Drdo is at the mercy of budgets and political whims. Blaming drdo for
Six decades of corruption and stagnation seems to be politicians pointing
Fingers at everyone else except themselves.

 

[Bhadra]

 

[Bhadra]

This is how DRDO muddles with roles and functions not in their domain :

Post Prahar launch :

"Certainly, the engineers at DRDO who have developed these capabilities should be proud of their contribution to India’s strategic capabilities, but their post-test commentary risks adjusting or crafting Indian nuclear doctrine on the fly and in ad hoc ways—carrying the danger of dragging the cat by its own tail. Leaving aside the larger direction and drivers of DRDO’s strategic missile developments, these seemingly public relations details can have tremendous implications for future crisis stability on the Subcontinent. The DRDO commentary presumes that political and strategic decisions about future missile role-assignment have been made. But, if the NCA and SFC decide, for example, that the naval variant of the Shourya will have a nuclear role but the land-based cousin will not, those subtleties may be lost on adversaries because of these DRDO statements, possibly generating misperceptions and miscalculations about India’s movements during a crisis. Of course, the press releases and post-test commentary may be technically accurate—all of these missiles are certainly capable of carrying nuclear warheads given the payloads these missiles can throw—but these public statements undermine regional security if they are not intended to have nuclear roles."

http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/IndianNuclearPostureConfusingSignalsfromDRDO_vnarang_260911.html

 

[Bhadra]

If SFC is indeed trying to move toward greater transparency about vector role-assignment, DRDO’s press releases and post-test comments unnecessarily—and dangerously—confuse India’s nuclear posture, possibly undermining other organizations’ efforts to implement stabilizing policies. If, however, India’s security managers are uncertain about the roles these capabilities might serve in India’s future nuclear posture, a single authority should be charged with disciplined messaging—preferably the PMO/NCA or SFC—to eliminate the multiplicity of signals emanating from various organizations, which is ipso facto destabilizing. In either case, India’s interests are probably best served if DRDO strictly releases details, parameters, and performance of a particular flight test without speculating about how the ultimate capability might be employed by the state.

http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/IndianNuclearPostureConfusingSignalsfromDRDO_vnarang_260911.html

This is what happens when Scientists assume roles of the PMO or politicians.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Outdated articles from 2011 ?, All your articles posted here like more than 5-10 years old specifically which suits your versions ..

 

[sayareakd]

i know somebody who was working on arjun tank in DRDO. arjun to nahi bana but he made big bungalow in NCR and send his son to prestigious college in UK and send money to buy apartment in UK. jai ho




sad but true

sure he must have, but arms dealers made bigger and better properties. As commission is huge for imported maal. One of them purchase hotel in heart of Delhi.

 

[Bhadra]

Outdated articles from 2011 ?, All your articles posted here like more than 5-10 years old specifically which suits your versions ..

What is your point ?

The subject remains relevant. The artcle is relevant to the subject but you have objections ? You mean DRDO was established today ?

 

[Khagesh]

This radar and 3D CAR of Akash and the erstwhile Trishul missile faced very similar problems. Today you really can make your own Trishul that will work in almost all regimes.

 

[pmaitra]

I would say you have no idea of DRDO and what they claim as R&D.

You tell us what was the investment and what was it delivery in terms of Bang for the Bucks.

I am sure if it was the task of the IA to build its own tanks, it sure would do a better job than the DRDO.

CAG has also pulled up DRDO, so has Modi and Parrikar. All big mouths?

Tell me who you would consider as not a Big Mouth and is competent to comment?

On what basis are you saying the army would do a better job than DRDO? I seriously doubt the Army would be able to come remotely close to building a tank with 4 crew members under 45 tons and with a 120 mm gun.

They are told to make a 45 ton tank and land up at 58 ton and want that to be MBT..

Yes, let the army build one 45 ton tank with 4 crew members and a 120 mm gun. Let's see those big mouths bring their fantasies into reality.

 

[Bhadra]

@pmaitra
Bhadra's five posts have been deleted by the moderate Kunal.. so what is the point of discussion..

so leave it ... the Indian way..

 

[pmaitra]

@pmaitra
Bhadra's five posts have been deleted by the moderate Kunal.. so what is the point of discussion..

so leave it ... the Indian way..

What is the point of discussion when you continue to provide fallacious numbers as facts, refuse to read the counter points, and continue to rant on? Have you bothered to read the thread whose link I have provided?

Make your point, but don't keep repeating your generic comments again and again. This adds no value, but noise, and it drowns the few posts that have some objectivity in it.

Read the Arjun threads and the Arjun vs T-90 thread. There is a lot of technical discussion there. What is stopping you from countering those? There is no way anyone can build a 45 ton tank and satisfy the requirements (4 crew members, 120 mm gun) asked by the Army. I am saying this again and again, because you refuse to read the existing threads. Even the Army cannot do it. Coming to a forum and whining is one thing, and building something is a very different thing.

 

[Hari Sud]

Bhadra is a devil's advocate, his presence in this forum is required. Delete anything objectionable he posts, so that he gets a lesson in interpreting news and newspaper articles with proper perspective.

I also noticed that he quotes outdated sources, insists that he is right.

A deleted post seen by other readers as deleted is a punishment enough. That is a lesson for others.

 

[Khagesh]

If SFC is indeed trying to move toward greater transparency about vector role-assignment, DRDO’s press releases and post-test comments unnecessarily—and dangerously—confuse India’s nuclear posture
http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/IndianNuclearPostureConfusingSignalsfromDRDO_vnarang_260911.html

This is what happens when Scientists assume roles of the PMO or politicians.

You are confusing the role of DRDO vis a vis SFC. DRDO is merely claiming what is possible, for the benefit of the Aam janata of India. The other players in the system decide what will ultimately happen. Merely the fact that DRDO claims possibilities will not influence the policies of other nations. Most other nations, including Pakis are perfectly capable of deducing that on their own.

This whole business of criticizing DRDO is ultimately a futile exercise. A knowledge worker never works under other man's pressure even if that man happens to be Modi. And just like the armed forces the research establishments have been mismanaged by the political leadership.

For example, people did went to other countries for LRSAM kind of stuff but they did not get any good response and hence the bated breath for LRSAM, today. Had these people been made to realize (by the political leadership) that such stuff is not available for the asking we would have started earlier and ended earlier by inducting it by now. Same is for the UAVs and UCAV. You can get a perfectly good UCAV for CAS duty today with today's tech base. But some days back US has done air to air refueling for their UAV. Now just wait and see in what manner the purported user will ask for this capability on Indian design, even though the Indian user will never be an expeditionary force.

Same goes for Prahaar. Prahaar is perfectly capable of doing on the western front what Prithvi 150 km was capable of doing and at much less costs and in much better manner. These Prithivis had some confusion w.r.t their tactical vs. strategic use and you could never use Prithvi in a Cold Start operation. Prahaar suffers from no such confusion. The northern front will never have any confusion as to a Prithvi. You can take all your older Prithivis to the China border where in the mountains you will need a bigger warhead for proper effects. Besides Prahaar will be because of a ballistic trajectory be able to act as a steep dive weapon and you don't have to waste a Brahmos at several times the cost. But no sir the user will have none of it. Why? Because nobody ever questioned them as to what they want to achieve and in what manner.