DRDO, PSU and Private Defence Sector News

[Ray]

My contention is not who is right or who is wrong.

It is just that deleting posts, which does not suit one's perspective is wrong or giving infractions. I am sure you are aware of what I am talking about.

What has got my goat is that contrarian views are whimsically deleted or the poster is giving infraction.

Also, while one must support the Govt, but the reality cannot be brushed under the carpet, that 'we have never had ammunition shortages'. I think that is a most bogus statement I have ever heard.

There is no end of stubborn people on the forum.

Now, if someone is talking without facts and insisting that he is right. the ideal way is to inform him that he is wrong and why so wrong and warm him openly that continuing with such shenanigans will invite adverse action. That way, all in the forum will not that the Mods are not being arbitrary.

I have done so many a time.

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

@[B][SIZE=6]Bhadra[/SIZE][/B]

Just lay off.

Read the links and the post and then post.

 

[pmaitra]

My contention is not who is right or who is wrong.

It is just that deleting posts, which does not suit one's perspective is wrong or giving infractions. I am sure you are aware of what I am talking about.

What has got my goat is that contrarian views are whimsically deleted or the poster is giving infraction.

Also, while one must support the Govt, but the reality cannot be brushed under the carpet, that 'we have never had ammunition shortages'. I think that is a most bogus statement I have ever heard.

Sir, I am not contending anything about heli-dropping or air-dropping. I am also not contending anything about ammo shortages. If I am not mistaken (correct me if I am wrong), we air-dropped ZU-23-2 Ack-Ack guns in Siachen.

My discussion in this thread has been on two specific points: Arjun, and whether the Prahaar can fit the role of a tactical weapon.

If you want to debate the other things, please do so with whoever is contending those points.

And Sir, I disagree with you that contrarian points are being deleted. That is a false allegation. It is repetitive posting of allegations that have been debated over and over again, several years ago, that are being deleted. @Bhadra is more than welcome to go to the Arjun threads, read the posts, and then counter the specific points.

 

[Khagesh]

Accountability is not mathematics and replying to auditors.

It is your head on the block if you do not shape up and deliver.

Are you aware that the Shipyards, inspite of having the same problems that DRDO has, is producing ships almost to the schedule? Why so? They are headed by Admirals. Same was the success story of HAL when it was headed by Air Marshalls. PC Lal comes to mind.

Ray Sir, agreed with you on putting the DRDO+DPSU on a tighter schedule with full accountability.

However, I am sorry but IAF honchos cannot ask for the equal equal treatment on terms extended to Indian Navy Brass. Different Karma different results. This cannot be allowed to become a matter of rank and turf.

IN, has an internal design team, with user-commanders and user-engineers part of that design teams. They design everything. On top of that IN has its own ex-guys managing/sourcing the sonar/sensors development even in the private sector. Their people are so involved that even foreigners trying to hack the teams are unable to. IN has full control over its sonar algorithms.

IAF OTOH till 2007 was incapable of even putting up a team to liaison with developers. That is an admission. Their ex-guys when appointed onto HAL are so susceptible to influence that even a whiskey session in Stratfor dekhos can get them to spout anything and everything. I would like to see just how much of a control / knowledgebase a ex-IAF honcho has about the sensors IAF operates. And the laughable point is that the moment Ex IAF advisor at HAL realized even his HAL bandobast is not exactly secure he immediately began to make noises about how HAL is indispensable for Indian aviation.

IA is not much of a trouble in this regard and they in any case do a lot more of the hard work then both the other branches. I was also unhappy with the IA's style of testing of Arjun but being a much much bigger organization it is understandable that the bad apples will be harder to trace and tackle. On top of that they do not operate the capital intensive hyper-scamable items unlike the IN and IAF.

Also in one of your earlier posts you have said that you wrote something about the artillery deployment from helos after confirmation with some working professionals. That would be a data point. Request you to point out the post number where you wrote the original data point. I tried to trace on this thread but could not. TIA.

 

[pmaitra]

@Khagesh, you have made a very important point. There are bad apples within the army. I have stated this earlier, that we have army people who praise the Arjun, and we have army people who bash the Arjun. Similarly, DRDO is not a single entity, but a collection of labs. There are bad apples in these labs too, but there are good apples as well. Generalization is something we see a lot, and it is counterproductive. It is, IMHO, more fruitful to talk about specific points.

 

[Khagesh]

@pmaitra,
I am afraid I also belong to the Generalization crowd. . I don't like theory driven inductive reasoning. Its fallible. Obviously I don't like falling.

Deductive general reasoning carries with it the benefit of past knowledge and data points and is to that extent very sturdily built logic. Also easier to test it.

 

[Khagesh]

@Khagesh, you have made a very important point. There are bad apples within the army. I have stated this earlier, that we have army people who praise the Arjun, and we have army people who bash the Arjun. Similarly, DRDO is not a single entity, but a collection of labs. There are bad apples in these labs too, but there are good apples as well. Generalization is something we see a lot, and it is counterproductive. It is, IMHO, more fruitful to talk about specific points.

Army and Navy, worldwide have a long long history. These organizations are usually very mature in their systems. Air forces came about less than a century back and display that kind of childish behaviour. Its the same worldwide.

 

[pmaitra]

@Khagesh, I agree that theory driven inductive reasoning is fallible. Theory is important, and the validity of a theory is in its implementation. Generalization, I am afraid, is not entirely avoidable.

 

[Bhadra]

@Bhadra
Just lay off.

Read the links and the post and then post.

Sir understood. However, all allegations are wrong and baseless.
if a moderator gets into a discussion, keeps his abusive post but promptly deletes an answer to that, what kind of a man he is ?

I am aonly giving a point of view which exist in the environment with proper links etc. Even I cook up a point of view , I may be wrong . That does not mean a moderator uses foul language, calls others demanted and shows his authority as moderator. If you look into history, it is happening since 2011.

I I thus laid off.

 

[bose]

I wish you all had seen last night's 'We, the People'.

Qualified people spoke to include Gen Malik, some politicians, quite a few bureaucrat and one Col who was with an Army Ordnance Depot and was familiar with the workings of the OFB.

All were clear that there was no accountability with the DRDO or OFB and that view was also accepted by the bureaucrats.

It was felt that there was no political will to integrate the decision making process with knowledgeable people and instead the bureaucrats called the tune without having a clue of the situation and urgency.

It was felt that unless there is cross posting i.e. 'integrating' the Defence Ministry with cross posting of military officers in the Defence Ministry and vice versa.

What was an eyeopener is what the Ordnance Officer had to say and which is universally known. The civilian workers tea and lunch breaks overshoots the official time by hours and by 3PM they are homeward bound and not wait for the official closing time.

Therefore, it is natural that there will be slippages and shortages in manufcture.

I have seen the discussion program last night...

As a civilian with no military back ground, I believe that the cause is due to lack of political will from the ruling class to set it right the rot that has set into the system...

The most startling fact is the use of world war era binoculars and compass of world war era... that was really shocking to me... 97% of air defence equipment’s are obsolete.

One silver lining is present government acceptance of one – rank – one pension scheme… that will be formalized once Modi is back in next 2 weeks’ time…

Current government’s willingness to take quick and timely decision is the only hope I have…

 

[Ray]

Ray Sir, agreed with you on putting the DRDO+DPSU on a tighter schedule with full accountability.

However, I am sorry but IAF honchos cannot ask for the equal equal treatment on terms extended to Indian Navy Brass. Different Karma different results. This cannot be allowed to become a matter of rank and turf.

IN, has an internal design team, with user-commanders and user-engineers part of that design teams. They design everything. On top of that IN has its own ex-guys managing/sourcing the sonar/sensors development even in the private sector. Their people are so involved that even foreigners trying to hack the teams are unable to. IN has full control over its sonar algorithms.

IAF OTOH till 2007 was incapable of even putting up a team to liaison with developers. That is an admission. Their ex-guys when appointed onto HAL are so susceptible to influence that even a whiskey session in Stratfor dekhos can get them to spout anything and everything. I would like to see just how much of a control / knowledgebase a ex-IAF honcho has about the sensors IAF operates. And the laughable point is that the moment Ex IAF advisor at HAL realized even his HAL bandobast is not exactly secure he immediately began to make noises about how HAL is indispensable for Indian aviation.

IA is not much of a trouble in this regard and they in any case do a lot more of the hard work then both the other branches. I was also unhappy with the IA's style of testing of Arjun but being a much much bigger organization it is understandable that the bad apples will be harder to trace and tackle. On top of that they do not operate the capital intensive hyper-scamable items unlike the IN and IAF.

Also in one of your earlier posts you have said that you wrote something about the artillery deployment from helos after confirmation with some working professionals. That would be a data point. Request you to point out the post number where you wrote the original data point. I tried to trace on this thread but could not. TIA.

You underestimate military work ethos.

Heard of Lt Gen PS Bhagat? He was a Military engineer. Where all 'brilliant' civilians tried, the turned around a loss making and moribund DVC into a profit making efficient organisation.

In July 1974, Prem accepted the appointment of Chairman, Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC). True to his word, he did not resign, and proceeded on his new assignment as a serving officer. With his characteristic vigour and no nonsense approach, he got the sluggish behemoth moving, and soon, the results were there for all to see. From 45 Megawatts in August 1974, the production rose to 700 Megawatts in October 1974, an increase of more than fifteen times, in just two months. During the ten months he was at the DVC, production increased twenty fold, and he had become the toast not only of Calcutta, but the whole of West Bengal. The bureaucrats in the DVC were skeptical that an Army officer, with no previous experience, could manage such a large organisation, but Prem Bhagat's achievements soon turned them all into his most ardent admirers.]
http://veekay-militaryhistory.blogspot.in/2012/10/biography-lieut-general-ps-bhagat-pvsm.html

Check the history of HAL under the various Air Marshals who were not of the retired variety.

At the end of the tenure with the Air HQ, he was deputed to the fledgling Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, the flag bearer of the Indian Aeronautics Industry.

Engineer was the Managing Director of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited from 1958 to 1960. During this assignment, HAL did pioneering ground work in the development of an indigenous jet trainer and also the designing of the jet fighter. The Marut, as it came to be known finally flew its first sortie during Engineers' tenure.
http://indianairforce.nic.in/show_exchief.php?pg_id=19&ch=17

His (Air Marshal Lal) contribution to India's aviation industry via tenures with the Indian Airlines Corporation and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. bear testament to his professional abilities. He was just the sort of chap who could, and did, mould a large and rapidly expanding air force into an efficient fighting force.

. At the end of the war he was appointed to head Training Command with the rank of Air Marshal. This was to be a short stint, and in late 1966, he was deputed to head Hindustan Aeronautical Ltd. as Managing Director. During his three years at HAL, P.C. Lal was instrumental in overseeing the establishment of the production lines for HAL's new MiG-21 and Gnat fighters, and the Hs.748 freighters (the very aircraft he had crossed swords with Krishna Menon over!).
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Personnel/Chiefs/257-PC-Lal.html

so, study before you write and don't go ballistic without facts.

I regret that I have not followed your generalised ramble about whisky swizzling, statfor etc.

If you give some detailed points maybe I will be able to address the same.

 

[Ray]

Is it your claim that these breakups are over and above the 60% figure that was publicized earlier? Because if it is, I would like to contest it. Whenever the calculations about import content are made it does takes into account the itemwise breakups. Since UPA-2 itself, the import content at vendor level is also being taken into account.

I admit after this the 40% Indic mark, too would not remain at that level but that is hardly an argument since:
1) even the much bandied 30% mark was extracted in the face of stiff resistance from that armed forces (except IN). In fact in time these import lobbies will be appropriately dealt with and you will see even the off-sets clauses go up to 40% or even more in tow. So it is kind of 'ulta chor' to see DRDO and Indian research and development getting the rod because of foreign pasand lifestyles of somebody else.
2) the non component level would be much higher level perhaps >60% in the case of Indian Navy. And this non itemized, pure financial outlay ratio is also very important to show at how many places India is in the driving seat.
3) exceedingly stunted investments in the Indian research. You can dig out yourself the level to which even the planned outlays were not disbursed.
4) exceedingly stunted hiring. During ABV days we had about 6000 people counted as weapons designers and today we have 7500. Meantime the defence budgets have grown nearly 4 fold. Shows who is driving the agenda to keep Indian research down.



If this is the extent of knowledge of people at IDSA, what can I say.

DRDO has nothing to do with miniaturising nukes. Thats the job of BARC - SOLELY. And for justifiable reasons. In fact BARC man was speculated to be taking charge of DRDO after Avinash Chandra. Even speculations shows something and constitute a data point.

If you had seen last night We, the People, you could have heard Gen Malik give the extent of imported items used by the DRDO for their indigenously developed equipment.

I find nothing wrong in that, except when the foreign sources gets persnickety and closes into a hatch down position.

 

[Armand2REP]

If you may have noticed all the deals are getting truncated. So after that if we import more tech per unit item (plane/tank/whatever). I don't mind it.

And in all cases India must be in the driving seat. Which it is getting to.

And in all cases the Indic content cannot be compromised with. Tech imports cannot be allowed to pull Indic efforts down. You will see the off-set clauses also get hiked to >30% in time.

Its another round of stopgaps I will agree. So after that DRDO must deliver, but this story has been going on for decades.

India is in the drivers seat for certain, they will surpass Saudi Arabia as the world's largest arms importer.

So what Indian content is going on Rafale? Or Airbus C295? Or BAE M777?

 

[The enlightened]

Its another round of stopgaps I will agree. So after that DRDO must deliver, but this story has been going on for decades.

India is in the drivers seat for certain, they will surpass Saudi Arabia as the world's largest arms importer.

So what Indian content is going on Rafale? Or Airbus C295? Or BAE M777?

Well, we had Indian content on P-8I, Su 30MKI, Il78MKI. Although to be fair, P-8I was only because we aren't signatories to CISMOA and they replaced all ally-grade items with open-sourced stuff.

 

[Khagesh]

@Ray, that is the whole point about this conflation of work ethics. IAF has virtually nil. You are supplying IA examples. I have some like these from the IA relatives also. Good for them but these relatives too, despite their IA professionalism, are western oriented and exactly for that reason, kind of crazy.

But that cannot be transferred onto IAF. You mention one or two solitary examples from the IAF website. That too of periods and tenures when we were being refused weapon systems by the west and only the Russians were will to supply us cutting edge weapons. For example Kiran Mk-1 was first supplied in 1968. So you can easily guess what the design input was that was made by IAF guys in 58-60 period. Sames for Marut - designed by a german, already designing similar aircrafts for others. He would not take interference from anybody much less the IAF guys. What inputs were given and taken in 58-60 period for Marut should be revealed by IAF on its site.

Even ACM Idrees Latif gets mentioned for early pushing of the LCA idea. But firstly that was during the time the political leadership was favourable. Moreover what stopped the funding for LCA for 10 years and then the later shenanigans with LCA specs - who is responsible for that. Even in this day and age we have ACMs asking if their repair depots can make aircrafts also. If the IAF has that much confidence then let them first design and build something like a Pilatus in their repair depots - after all their chief thinks they can.

IA and IN work cannot be supplied to glorify/absolve IAF.

And there is enough in the open source to show how IN is way more visionary than both IA and IAF. And as I said IA can still manage without any oversight. They have karma on their side. But IAF behaves like a foreign ambassador and needs eagle eyes on its doings. Do you recall ACM trying to make efforts for securing the medals of one of their oldies. That shows their priorities. Have you comparatively ever heard of an IN guy in similar circumstances. IN people do not even reveal their good work and only recently have they begun coming out.

 

[Bhadra]

It is simply Dangerous

Use of tactical nuclear weapons against similarly-armed opponents carries a significant danger of quickly escalating the conflict beyond anticipated boundaries, from the tactical to the strategic.[4][5][6][7][8][9] The existence and deployment of small, low-yield tactical nuclear warheads could be a dangerous encouragement to forward-basing and pre-emptive nuclear warfare,[10][11] as nuclear weapons with destructive yields of 10 tons of TNT (e.g., the W54 warhead design) might be used less reluctantly at times of crisis than warheads with yields of 100 kilotons.
, firing a low-yield nuclear artillery shell similar to the W48 (with a yield equivalent to 72 tons of TNT) at the enemy invites retaliation. It may provoke the enemy into responding with several nuclear artillery shells similar to the W79, which had a 1 kiloton yield. The response to these 1 kiloton nuclear artillery shells may be to retaliate by firing a tactical nuclear missile similar to a FrenchPluton (15 kiloton yield), Russian OTR-21 Tochka (100 kiloton yield) or the American MGM-52 Lance, fitted with a W70variable yieldwarhead ranging between 1 and 100 kilotons. By using tactical nuclear weapons there is a high risk of escalating the conflict until it reaches a tipping point which provokes the use of strategic nuclear weapons such as ICBMs. Additionally, the tactical nuclear weapons most likely to be used first (i.e., the smallest, low-yield weapons such as nuclear artillerydating from the 1960s) have usually been under less stringent political control at times of military combat crises than strategic weapons.[12] Early Permissive Action Links could be as simple as a mechanical combination lock.[13] If a relatively junior officer in control of a small tactical nuclear weapon (e.g., the M29 Davy Crockett) were in imminent danger of being overwhelmed by enemy forces, he could request permission to fire it and due to decentralised control of warhead authorization, his request might quickly be granted during a crisis.

For these reasons, stockpiles of tactical nuclear warheads in most countries' arsenals have been dramatically reduced c. 2010, and the smallest types have been completely eliminated.[14] Additionally, the increased sophistication of "Category F" PAL mechanisms and their associated communications infrastructure mean that centralised control of tactical nuclear warheads (by the country's most senior political leaders) can now be retained, even during combat.

Some variable yield nuclear warheads such as the B61 nuclear bomb have been produced in both tactical and strategic versions. Whereas the lowest selectable yield of a tactical B61 (Mod 3 and Mod 4) is 0.3 kilotons (300 tons),[15] modern PAL mechanisms ensure that centralised political control is maintained over each weapon, including their destructive yields.

With the introduction of the B61 Mod 12, the United States will have four hundred identical nuclear bombs whose strategic or tactical nature will be set purely by the type of aircraft on which they are carried.[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon

 

[Khagesh]

If you had seen last night We, the People, you could have heard Gen Malik give the extent of imported items used by the DRDO for their indigenously developed equipment.

I find nothing wrong in that, except when the foreign sources gets persnickety and closes into a hatch down position.

I admit I don't watch NDTV. Not even Vishnu Som from that channel.

Foreign sources freezing up when most needed,is the reason why we need our people at all places where the control issues are likely to crop up. So we know, when the real need arises, the options/replacement/alternatives, we can exercise with any given equipment. Even if the components are imported we still need people who integrate these components and develop the final systems.

Also the counting of import content on component basis was resorted to during the UPA-2 years itself probably on account of the fact that the UPA always wanted to push imports & westernization and starve local production and research. Component level accounting was the only way the offsets could have been marked at 30% level. On a strict financial outlay basis - which carries with itself the real control - was much heavily in favour of Indian DPSUs. Precisely because the DPSUs have been tasked to do the low value high volumes low margins business - aka the grunt work.

People who cared for Indian backbone in MIC have even during the UPA rule, sacrificed careers and reputations and done much more than is visible or admitted on TV channels. People can build a list themselves.

UPA gave us the offsets idea ostensibly to properly arm the armed forces - that is a 'reality' for some. Does not bother me too much.

I would rather believe that the Nuke123, Offsets and Higher Weapons Imports Bill, are all linked. All three show the extent to which UPA was compromised. I make that decision based on past record of UPA and cohorts. My take is a criticism based on 'generalization'.

My take is certainly at 180 degree variance with what NDTV is gonna say. Let us see who comes out right eventually. Obviously both cannot be true.

If the NDTV is right then the 30% mark too should get diluted towards 20% mark. If OTOH I am right then the 30% offsets mark should also get hiked and even before that the imports should get curtailed.

I am willing to wait. Got a lot of patience.

This however does not mean that DRDO and OFBs should not be tightened. They too have much to answer on. But first give them money. Get their products inducted if they meet the stated requirements and if these requirements turn out to be brochure diving then take the relevant people to task.

 

[Khagesh]

Accha how is it that the armed forces cannot import an Agni BM or a Nuke sub or an SLBM, so these items are never criticised.

In the current they could not get the medium ranged SAM and an assortment of radars, at the low prices their budgets could pay for, after the import binge and today they happily put in orders for Akash etc.

For tomorrow it is already known that nobody is going to export jet engines for UCAVs and UAVs. Because that would violate MTCR. And I bet you will never hear any sort of criticism when eventually the ADA puts in the current Kaveri on these UCAVs. They have already reached 78 KN mark (target was 81 KN) and from hereon the focus will essentially towards lifecycle issues. This implies that there will be lifecycle cost issues with indigenous UCAVs in the early stages. You can keep track of this when in future our own HALE UAVs & UCAVs come online.

 

[Khagesh]

Here for your kind consumption. Shows the extent to which Kaveri has come along. Remember this is in the same class as the engines in service around us on Paki aircrafts and quite a few chinese aircrafts have the engines of this type.

Saurav Jha @SJha1618 · Jan 25

The Kaveri engine performed for 57 hours continuously during tests in Russia, whereas the Chinese WS-10 could not.

BTW Saurav Jha also claims that the funding had dried up as soon as these successes were hit. I will try to post that tweet too later in the day.

 

[ersakthivel]

If someone is factually wrong, then one should point out. Agreed. And so it has been done. Many times. However, his stubbornness desires to continue to spout the same old narrative again and again. I cannot continue to counter him every time.

Let each person make his point, and then counter the points and move forward.

Or, I can copy paste this post of mine and spam the forum by re-posting it another 5000 times. Does that sound like a swell idea?

Do we want to have a quality discussion and let the discussion move forward, or do we start calling each other demented?

Sir, I am not the first person who gave the timelines of the various iterations of Arjun's development. @ersakthivel has done that at least a few years before. However, @Bhadra has consistently refused to participate in those discussions and shied away from countering specific points. He only likes to make generic comments and tries to create an impression as if the army gave its requirements and waited from 1974 to 2020 for a tank. What kind impudent dishonesty is that?

Comparing a 1972's requirement with a 1985's requirement? What next? The German Panther tank is then the same thing as the Tiger tank?

Sir, I recommend you talk to @Bhadra instead of quoting me.

There are times when I can either be polite or honest, but not both.

A couple of my post in in response to being called an "idiot" has been deleted!!!What is amusing is I haven't used any foul language in those posts!!!

but the posts calling me idiot still stands!!!!

Is this the new rule on new look DFI?

 

[ersakthivel]

If you had seen last night We, the People, you could have heard Gen Malik give the extent of imported items used by the DRDO for their indigenously developed equipment.

I find nothing wrong in that, except when the foreign sources gets persnickety and closes into a hatch down position.

Sir,

unless the Arjun is not ordered in thousands its engine can not be locally developed in a economically viable proposition.

Already MRF has closed down the track making factory they set up for Arjun for economically unviable orders.
Please give one example of any defence project where 100 percent indigenous content is achieved for an order quantity of 124 or 40 (for arjun and tejas!!!)

Recent CAG report faults tejas for not having pilot protection from 7.62 meter bullets.None of the multi billion dollar MMRCA birds and even Su-30 MKI have it!!!

Also CAG report talks about a failed ADA effort of not fitting internal EW suit into tejas Mk1. But almost every one of the big IAF fighters also have externally mounted suit. Then why did IAF ask for a totally internal EW suit in the smallest fighter.

It is not for nothing Dm Manohar parrikar chided defence forces for aping marvel comics when citing specs!!!

In such a situation it is not possible to develop everything in house.


Also importing widely available off the shelf content which are required only in small quantities actually reduces cost.

For example if we set up composite manufacturing facility for just 12 LSP and PV of tejas we would have lost many crores because of the economic unviablity.so import is the only possible option.

Also think about the insanity of setting up actuator making units dedicated to just a dozen or two tejas LSPs and PVs!!!

Now with tejas orders getting into hundreds it makes sense to set up such facility.

These are the things that must be taken into perspective by people before listing out import contents of DRDO equipment and try to pass themselves as technical wizards!!!

Even the twelve weapon locating radars we imported from US are languishing for want of spares. the mig-23 engines were declared unserviceable with technical design faults and a fleet of hundred aircrafts grounded permanently after a group captain died in a crash.

most of the trials including russian anti aircraft missiles in service fail.

Also in the recent evaluation none of the anti tank missiles shortlisted can hit the target from a distance of more than 2 Kms in hot desert conditions. But IA wants nag to hit targets beyond 4 Km in the same desert hot conditions.