DRDO, PSU and Private Defence Sector News

[ersakthivel]

Should I make another big post sates 40g, 24 g and 9g



Exactly.. I'm talking about the No escaping zone, that's why the Half min Battle



Believe in the ECM and Spectra, if the Missile smart enough Missile wins



let me say the survivability rate Rafale 40 % and Tejas 5%



lol , everything ..




You think Rafale's ferry Range less than 1000 km, if you calculate the distance ..!!

you sure The Rafale's fly path similar to Ballistic or Straight trajectory,

I think Flights follow pre planned Around ways to reach their destination

http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Evading-Missiles.html

Pulling Gs above corner speed is the only known way to escape missile. tejas mk1 can pull 8 plus Gs, mk2 with twenty percent increase in power can easily pull 9 +_ 3Gs same as rafale or gripen or typhoon.

There are other things like MAWS that help fighters to avoid AAMs. these are not specific to rafale, common to all fighters.

just try to understand,

it is fashionable for rafale fans to say spectra to anything they can not answer!!!!

Spectra is just an DRFM based EW suite , nothing more. Just because a fighter was built by dassault it can not pull out marvel comics stuff to escape!!!!

As usual no rafale fan can never answer the official French press release regarding reunion island flight taking 6 fuel loads(two surface to air weapons and three very big external tanks only !!! ) for 10000 Kms , that too in cruising altitude (not deep penetration terrain napping mode!!!)in hot inidan ocean.

On what basis you gave rafale 40 percent chance and tejas 5 percent in evading the missile, may be by the factor of unit price of each fighter? cool logic!!!!

What the hell is ballistic flight path for a fighter?Are you crazy?

 

[ersakthivel]

Will try from a different browser, some firewall issue at my end it seems.

As per @sob saar HAL guys haven't been communicated that they are the anointed ones. I will let @sob saar judge how much more info to reveal publicly or not.

http://fossbytes.com/first-indigenously-built-tejas-light-combat-aircraft-handed-iaf/

HAL chairman R K Tyagi described the handover as one of the major milestones in the history of the Company.He said 60% indigenisation in this LCA project has been achieved so far. Outlining the production plan, he said HAL will produce six aircraft next year (2015-16) and subsequently scale it up to eight and 16 aircraft per year. It is estimated that 20 aircraft will be built by 2017-2018, to make the first squadron of the aircraft.

You are saying that HAL has not been informed about tejas production numbers by the GOI..

here HAL chairman himself has spoken about the production numbers in the above interview that too in his official capacity.

 

[Khagesh]

Arre bhai jaane bhi do.

Bhadra we get to say what we want to say because you are willing to be our sparing partner. No need to get too emotional.

But yes your data is outdated &/or it is un-correlated and worse of all it is an audit report. Audit is not the proper tool for understanding research and development. Had you used the audit report to critique the OFB a lot of people would have gotten some education. But audits are useless for research work.

I remember during the time IN wanted two fleet tankers there was another audit report which criticized the whole acquisition because they had not used the steel that was mentioned in the RFQ (‘DMR 249A or equivalent grade steel’ which is hull steel for IAC kind of ships). Despite the fact that the Technical Evaluation Committee had overturned the need for that steel for that type of ship and noted that the particular steel in India was difficult getting procured (probably because of supply being diverted towards INS Vikrant) and while everybody knew that the steel of like strength and foreign origin would cost 2/3 times as much. Ultimately the foreign supplier could deliver the ships at reasonable price but at lower grade steel and IN is happily using those tankers today. For last 4 years we have heard no complaints. Perhaps the only thing Anthony could manage to do.

There were whispers of corruption (Fincantieri) but even under the Modi sarkar there is no confirmation of it. So either we wait or if someone is too sanguine then he can lay it to rest. But the IN did get its ships.

The take away should have been the lack of domestic capacity for DMR 249 and ship building. Instead it was reported as non-compliance with RFQ.

Coincidently the Russians were willing to do it with DMR level steel but they were also unable to convince themselves or Def Min about the possibility of changing the specs. As a result their quotes came out higher. In fact the drafting of RFQ itself may have been a corruption case where Russians may have been mislead deliberately. I don't think that possibility was even investigated into. So much for an Audit process.

 

[Singh]

http://fossbytes.com/first-indigenously-built-tejas-light-combat-aircraft-handed-iaf/

You are saying that HAL has not been informed about tejas production numbers by the GOI..

here HAL chairman himself has spoken about the production numbers in the above interview that too in his official capacity.

HAL chairman hasn't informed his vendors.

 

[ersakthivel]

IAF wants Jag, M2k, Mig29 to continue due to the dwindling numbers.

From what I see, IAF is leaning towards this :

L-MRCA - M2K, Tejas, Grippen?
M-MRCA - Mig 29, Rafale Future : AMCA
H-MRCA - Su30MKI Future : FGFA/Su-35MKI
CAS?/DPSA - Jaguar

No point wasting expensive airframes for the kind of job cheaper aircrafts can perform.



Are you that naive ?? Purely because of adverse PR. No why didn't Adani/Modi advertize his other trips ?

SBI already has a 20,000 crore exposure to Adani. Adani will easily raise money some other way, but right now he is facing trouble from oz, opposition, green groups and Virgin's Branson in oz and low prices. So he is not in a tearing hurry for the loan.


http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...l-secure-loan-likely/articleshow/47368137.cms

gripen and rafale dont solve the depleting squadron number of IAF. In fact by their very high unit price for the 4.5th gen tech they offer they only add to IAF's depleting sq strength.

haven't you read DM openly saying that GOI does not have the money to splurge billions for just six rafale sqdns? Same applies to gripen as well.

Only tejas can solve the depleting sqdn strength issue faced by IAF due to its economical price and 4.5th gen tech.

test pilot group captain IAF Suneeth Krishna who has flown both mirage-2000 and tejas extensively , asserts that tejas mk1 itself is atleast equal to 45 million dollar per plane upgraded mirage-2000.

 

[Singh]

gripen and rafale dont solve the depleting squadron number of IAF. In fact by their very high unit price for the 4.5th gen tech they offer they only add to IAF's depleting sq strength.

haven't you read DM openly saying that GOI does not have the money to splurge billions for just six rafale sqdns? Same applies to gripen as well.

Only tejas can solve the depleting sqdn strength issue faced by IAF due to its economical price and 4.5th gen tech.

test pilot group captain IAF Suneeth Krishna who has flown both mirage-2000 and tejas extensively , asserts that tejas mk1 itself is atleast equal to 45 million dollar per plane upgraded mirage-2000.

Your argument makes perfect sense if you believe

1. Quantity trumps Quality. Numbers of Planes is more important than the quality of plane for eg. a Squadron of Tejas is equivalent to a squadron of Rafale.
2. In Quality there is no differentiation. Tejas is equivalent to planes many times more modern and expensive than it such as Rafale etc.
3. Tejas can be mass produced
4. IAF doctrine favours Tejas like craft and Rafale like modern avionics offer no advantage because of the even more modern hardware fielded by PAF and PLAAF.

 

[ersakthivel]

Your argument makes perfect sense if you believe

1. Quantity trumps Quality. Numbers of Planes is more important than the quality of plane for eg. a Squadron of Tejas is equivalent to a squadron of Rafale.

Price tags alone don't guarantee quality. you should know till today rafale has no HMDS enabled high off bore ,close combat visually cued R-73 e missile type like tejas has today, which has no known counter measures.

Even Su-30 MKI and the coming FGFA will have the same r73 E for their close combat needs. SO what makes you think 4 tejas fighter equipped with such missile can easily be tackled by one rafale
(which has only Ir and radar guided missiles which can easily be countered with counter measures) in close combat , just because rafale is 4 times more costly?

. It is relying only on IR and radar enabled MICA for its missiles. It is in the process of integrating meteor only now. It is not for nothing that IAF has asked dassault to have the same capacity that tejas has in IAf rafales.Most people explain it away by saying that since IAF has R73 E stocks it is asking Dassault to integrate it!!!

2. In Quality there is no differentiation. Tejas is equivalent to planes many times more modern and expensive than it such as Rafale etc.

What ever price tag a fighter can demand , it can not be at more than one place at one point of time, which is an old adage in air warfare. rafale has a smaller physical dimension for its ASEA radar than even tejas through out its 40 year lifetime.Even though tejas ASEA effort is preliminary right now, If TR module counts above 1200 are reached in future tejas ASEA radar will be more powerful than the one that is on rafale in future. It is not for nothing that IAF pilots like Suneeth Krishna are saying that tejas is made as per IAf pilot wish list and can easily be upgraded in modular fashion.

3. Tejas can be mass produced.

HAL produces more su-30 MKis than the rafales produced by Dassault is something you want us to ignore!!!

if 200 plus order is given for HAL by IAF(like they did for SU-30 MKIs) as DM has specified HAL wont hesitate to fund 16 a year production line.

Then only vendors of HAL too will invest in extra capacity. IAF game plan is to forever play around tejas program by rationing orders in 40 number lots, knowing fully well that it will stall faster production!!!

Thats why DM is now conclusively making it clear to IAf and all Adani - Ambani conspiracy rumour mongers that there wont be any more rafales above 36 and the savings will be invested in 10-12 sqdns worth of tejas .

4. IAF doctrine favours Tejas like craft and Rafale like modern avionics offer no advantage because of the even more modern hardware fielded by PAF and PLAAF.

What do you know about the advanced avionics?

No one bars IAF from asking DM to buy any foreign advance avionics like ASEA radar or IRST from global market and integrate it with tejas to make it as advanced as any other fighter , like gripen is doing for its own NG version, if it is not satisfied with avionics or missiles offered by HAL -ADA, exactly in the same way they are asking Dassault to integrate R73 E with rafale.

What is mysterious is till today IAf has not even asked ADA to integrate IRST with tejas!!! Why?Till the rafale deal goes through IAF wont show even the remotest interest on tejas is a well known fact. may be DM's 36 rafale only statement is a reminder to IAF for getting its act together on specifying avionics package on tejas mk2 as soon as possible.

http://www.janes.com/article/51616/indian-defence-minister-draws-line-at-36-rafales

India will neither licence-build additional Dassault Rafale fighters nor acquire more than the 36 it recently agreed to buy in flyaway condition, the country's Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said on 21 May.

In multiple interviews to TV channels to mark the completion of the government's first year in office, Parrikar said the money India had saved by acquiring 90 fewer Rafales would be diverted to buying 200-odd indigenous Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA).

"By buying 36 Rafales instead of 126, I have saved the cost of 90 Rafales," Parrikar said, adding that this amount was around INR900 billion (USD15.51 billion). "We will use this money to buy Tejas LCA priced at around INR1.5 billion each," he added.


The LCA will replace 10 to 12 MiG-21 and MiG-27 squadrons to be retired from 2022 onwards, he said.

Parrikar declined to reveal the cost of the 36 Rafales, whose purchase Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced in Paris on 10 April and which are presently the subject of negotiations. He did, however, confirm that the contract includes a 50% offset obligation.

SO Manohar Parrikar conclusively saying that LCA will replace 10-12 mig-21s and 27s from 2022 onwards.

Sure Manohar parrikar knows lot more quality and quantity after sifting through all the documents on which he could lay his hands on.

 

[Singh]

SO Manohar Parrikar conclusively saying that LCA will replace 10-12 mig-21s and 27s from 2022 onwards.

Sure Manohar parrikar knows lot more quality and quantity after sifting through all the documents on which he could lay his hands on.

Parrikar not only manages Defence but also proxy rules Goa.
Looking at his work in Goa, I can say the man is well meaning but that's about it.

MoD is a different ballgame. Surprising you seem to think otherwise.

 

[ersakthivel]

Parrikar not only manages Defence but also proxy rules Goa.
Looking at his work in Goa, I can say the man is well meaning but that's about it.

MoD is a different ballgame. Surprising you seem to think otherwise.

No surprises. Right from Antony days the clear indication from defence ministry is that tejas will replace 10 to 14 squadron strength of mig-21s,23s .

Who proxy rules Goa or With whom Adani ties up has nothing to do with it.

It is a twenty year old plan being worked upon after spending so much of money and effort. Somebody sprouting some rumour somewhere is not going to change it by wee bit.

After all the tall talks Modi govt has increased defence spending from 12.4 percent to 13.8 percent!!1
So dreaming 6 squadrons of rafales and gripens along side the soon to arrive FGFA when tejas mk1 and mk2 can more than fill the mig-21 void is not realistic.

So day dreaming is over. Just a while ago NDA cut china specific mountain corps by half citing financial resources(please dont blame Adani for that also!!!).

So UPA's all announcement and no budget allocation day dreaming of 124 plus 64 rafales and 60000 strong mountain strike corps along with fradulant promise of implementing one rank one pension schemes are over by now.

this govt will put money where its mouth in defence matters with no nonsense DM, who can tear into pieces any bogeys raised by opposition parties and rumour mongers with ease considering his technical back ground.

It is not for nothing that he flatly told off "no plan B for rafale " ranters with a precise observation that Su-30 MKI with super sukhoi upgrade is the plan B. And his no more rafales after 36 confirms the niche role to be played by rafale in IAf opposed to the wide ranging role envisaged for rafale in IAF by MMRCA backers.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Post which do not meet certain backups with sources with respect to the claims will be pointed out and if failed to back them up will be deleted ..

As long as you don`t troll and get personal, Everything is good ..

I have given references to each of my posts keeping you in mind....
Even then if you feel I should leave this forum for your pleasure I shall happily do that like I did for last four years.. if the forum has to run for your pleasure
I am not unemployed or hardly employed..

Rebut the posts and facts rather than cry every now and then.. then delete my posts for which I work very hard

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I will just point out this forth point, MK2 has all the sensor and avonics like in Rafale, This includes AESA and Internal counter measure suit ..

And if i am not wrong, The avionics under test on Tejas MK1 airframe before it goes to MK2 airframe ..

4. IAF doctrine favours Tejas like craft and Rafale like modern avionics offer no advantage because of the even more modern hardware fielded by PAF and PLAAF.

 

[Singh]

I will just point out this forth point, MK2 has all the sensor and avonics like in Rafale, This includes AESA and Internal counter measure suit ..

And if i am not wrong, The avionics under test on Tejas MK1 airframe before it goes to MK2 airframe ..

It would be interesting if we can compare the avionics suite of both Rafale and Tejas mk1 and mk2 individually and the level of integration.

 

[Bhadra]

Post which do not meet certain backups with sources with respect to the claims will be pointed out and if failed to back them up will be deleted ..

As long as you don`t troll and get personal, Everything is good ..

Look at that .....

I am not paid for doing what I do on DFI like I have a feeling some others do but in prejudicial manner. I do it objectively and as per rules .. some are welcome to dislike it but the dislike should be within rules and not personal whims and personal logic

 

[pmaitra]

I have given references to each of my posts keeping you in mind....
Even then if you feel I should leave this forum for your pleasure I shall happily do that like I did for last four years.. if the forum has to run for your pleasure
I am not unemployed or hardly employed..

Rebut the posts and facts rather than cry every now and then.. then delete my posts for which I work very hard

I think @Kunal Biswas was saying that you post outdated information, which I think is true in some cases. I also agree that you are indeed working hard to make your point.

I wish to tell the members that Carl Gustav is 1942 technology.
120mm Mortars are one of the largest used calibre mortar in the world that is a WW-I technology exsting in earlier version as 3 in Mortar. A lot of technological innovation has taken place in this system specially in its ammunition but remains the same old system in IA.

Regarding Carl-Gustav, it was designed in 1945. India also makes the Mark III variant of Carl-Gustav, which is based on technology from 1991. Therefore, your statement highlighted in red above is false.

India makes 4 different varieties of 84mm Carl-Gustav rounds, as presented below.
http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/ammunition/lc/1.htm
http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/ammunition/lc/2.htm
http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/ammunition/lc/3.htm
http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/ammunition/lc/4.htm

Please recommend what India should produce apart from these 4, and why.

 

[SajeevJino]

http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Evading-Missiles.html

Pulling Gs above corner speed is the only known way to escape missile. tejas mk1 can pull 8 plus Gs, mk2 with twenty percent increase in power can easily pull 9 +_ 3Gs same as rafale or gripen or typhoon.

I don't think pushing the plane to high maneuver allows them to escape from modern AA missiles..

Also Rafale Pulled 10.5 g in solo display, MK 2 still in papers don't bring it here when we discuss about Flying wings

There are other things like MAWS that help fighters to avoid AAMs. these are not specific to rafale, common to all fighters.

MAWS alert you about the Incoming missile will not help you to evade from the missile

just try to understand,

it is fashionable for rafale fans to say spectra to anything they can not answer!!!!

Spectra is just an DRFM based EW suite , nothing more. Just because a fighter was built by dassault it can not pull out marvel comics stuff to escape!!!!

Because he did it in Libya ..!!

As usual no rafale fan can never answer the official French press release regarding reunion island flight taking 6 fuel loads(two surface to air weapons and three very big external tanks only !!! ) for 10000 Kms , that too in cruising altitude (not deep penetration terrain napping mode!!!)in hot inidan ocean.


What the hell is ballistic flight path for a fighter?Are you crazy?

How did you come with the 10,000KM distance from Paris to Reunion

see this ..looks like a straight flight path..I don't know Rafale flew like this direction

On what basis you gave rafale 40 percent chance and tejas 5 percent in evading the missile, may be by the factor of unit price of each fighter? cool logic!!!!

with it's ability design and defensive suites.

 

[SajeevJino]

test pilot group captain IAF Suneeth Krishna who has flown both mirage-2000 and tejas extensively , asserts that tejas mk1 itself is atleast equal to 45 million dollar per plane upgraded mirage-2000.

I sure some one aleardy put words on his mouth ..

How Tejas can be equal to Mirage 2000, I mean the older version.. don't tell me Tejas is equal to Mirage 2000 TI

 

[Bhadra]

Low Frequency Dunking Sonar (LFDS)​

( Dunking Sonars are a rudimentary technology for any Naval buff but not for our DRDO. One feels very uncomfortable reading this repoart of CAG and dimayed at the state of affaiars of our priviledged scientists who since 2003 till day have not been able to make Dunking Sonars for our Navy. They are still dunking deep in their profitable and comfortable Empire and five star guest houses in Kochi and other places on the southern Coast.

*****************************************
https://www.google.co.in/search?sou...0.0.0.3320...........0.8FCb9S2cRqo&gws_rd=ssl

Low Frequency Dunking Sonar (LFDS) is a sensor for detection of submarines and is used for Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW) operation.

In January 2003 Indian Navy projected the requirement of LFDS with an assured detection range of 15 Km. Accordingly, DRDO proposed(January 2003) to design and develop dunking sonar with better range and detection capabilities. Govt of India, Ministry of Defence sanctioned the Mission Mode project LFDS in March 2003 without an NSQR, to be carried out by NPOL at an estimated cost of `11.71 crore with the PDC as March 2005. The sanction of an MM project without a QR rendered the DRDO unclear about the actual requirement of Navy. The objective of the project was to design and develop a LFDS optimized with long range detection capability to be fitted on helicopters (in service/due for induction) like Advanced Lightweight Helicopter (ALH). As NPOL had earlier completed a dunking sonar, the DRDO claimed that part of the technology of MIHIR and another Sonar project NAGAN could effectively be used in this project. Preliminary NSQR with necessity as “OPERATIONAL IMMEDIATE” was sent to NPOL for compliance by Navy in January 2004. However PDC for the project was extended six times till June 2012. The major reason attributed by DRDO (September 2011) for the extension of PDC was the revision of technical issues including use of state of the art technology instead of the available technology, requirement of additional funds for procurement of additional electronics hardware, installation activities of the LFDS on the nominated platform, issues relating to airworthiness of platform, nonavailability of the nominated aircraft ALH and the conduct of Phase-3, Phase-4, Phase-5 flight trials.

We observed (September 2012) that the main reason for the time overruns was attributable to the DRDO, in meeting the revised technical requirements as envisaged by the Navy. In all, five phases of trials were concluded and in the Phase-5 trial conducted (April-May 2012), deficiencies in design were noticed by Navy. However, according to the Navy, the Phase-5 trial conducted (April-May 2012) to assess the maximum ranges attainable with LFDS and prove the performance of the system, revealed deficiencies.

In addition to the revision in PDC till June 2012, the cost of the project was also revised thrice (first revision to `14 crore, second revision to `20.337 crore and lastly to `24.65 crore) against the original sanctioned cost of `11.71 crore. The increase in cost was mainly due to requirement of additional funds in the conduct of Phase-3, Phase-4 & Phase-5 trials and for procurement of additional new electronics hardware. Since there were no definite guidelines/inputs from the Navy, the project was considered (December 2012) for closure by the DRDO who also proposed (December 2012) for productionisation of the system for eventual fitment on an operational platform.

However Navy opined (December 2012) that prolonged development timelines and NSQR non compliance had resulted in ‘obsolescence’ in the LFDS system and approximately 30 per cent of the verifiable technical characteristics could not be complied. Navy further stated that the QRs of LFDS were diluted to enable fitment on ALH helicopter for conducting trials. However, LFDS in its present form was not suitable for fitment on any ASW helicopter. Navy further added that prolonged development time lines had led to purchase of foreign sonar systems. In reply (September 2013) to the Draft Audit Paragraph, Ministry of Defence (DRDO) admitted that the deficiencies noticed during Phase-5 trials could be made good only in Phase-6 trials. They further added that LFDS does not face any component obsolescence and that certain features (Active Buoy and Bathy Buoy) could not be demonstrated due to the Navy not having these items in their inventory. The Ministry of Defence (DRDO) attributed the change in QRs to Navy’s choice of ALH for trials which was not an ASW platform.

It was also stated that the airworthiness for the LFDS was granted in 2008-09 and hoped that the Navy would give a go ahead for exploitation of LFDS on an operational platform. Thus, besides time and cost overrun, the development of the system remained unfruitful.

 

[Bhadra]

Sea Bed Arrays
​

Long long ago one would have read fantastic war games written by Tom Clancy, many of those based on Naval operations. one such thick book was " Red Storm Rising". It demonstrated how neavl surveillance systems were employed and used - including dunking sonars, towed arrays and sea bed arrays.

Sea bed arrays were developed by USA in 1949 and successfully employed by 1961 by which time they could monitor movements of USSR submarines. USA developed their famous system SOSUS which became a formidable surveillance platform.

Read more here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOSUS

Our Visionary Navy in the year 2003 thought of deploying the sea bed array near the Indian cost lines and promptly put the proposal to our distinguished defence scientist community called DRDO. What happened after that is fascinating story everyone will be proud of !!
*******************************************************************

 

[Bhadra]

Sea Bed Arrays (SBA)​

http://www.saiindia.gov.in/english/...n_compliance/2014/Defence/Report_4/Chap_6.pdf

Sea Bed Arrays (SBA) technology consists of passive acoustic hydrophones, connected through cables, placed on the seabed to continuously monitor the movement of submarines and surface ships by way of detection, localisation, classification and tracking. Navy forwarded draft staff requirements for the project to NPOL in August 2001.

Indian Navy planned to use the seabed array technology to monitor the strategic locations at sea on continuous basis. Ministry of Defence sanctioned the project as a Technology Demonstration (TD) project in March 2003 at an estimated cost of `13.17 crore with the PDC of 24 months (i.e. March 2005). PDC for the project was revised twice i.e. in March 2007 and June 2008 to cater for design changes suggested by the Critical Design Review (CDR) Committee constituted by the Director NPOL in December 2006, in areas of data acquisition, telemetry, ocean deployment and retrieval technologies and also to accommodate delays on the development and evaluation of RF telemetry systems and its trials. Thereafter the non-availability of the trial platform INS Nireekshak further delayed the project which was finally closed in March 2009 after incurring an expenditure of `9.98 crore.

Subsequently, Navy was asked (August 2010) to examine the conceptual requirement of the SBA based on a decision7 taken in the 32nd Steering Committee on Underwater Sensors (SCUWS) (January 2010), i.e. nine months after completion of the project. In the meantime, Directorate of Staff Requirements of IHQ MoD (Navy) and NPOL decided (February 2012) to identify areas of its usage and sought comments from all Commands and the Directorate of Naval Operations (DNO). In April 2012, all but Command Headquarters (SNC, Kochi) and the DNO of IHQ MoD (Navy) opined that the system could not be accepted for operational deployment.

In reply to the Draft Audit Paragraph, Ministry of Defence (DRDO) stated (September 2013) that the SBA project was completed successfully in the presence of naval representatives at Karwar in May 2009. DRDO HQrs also stated that in January 2013, the Navy had shown keen interest in the project which highlighted the need for the project.

However, the fact remains that the Navy did not accept the system for operational deployment. Further, documentary evidence in support of Navy’s continued interest in the system was not provided to Audit (December 2013). Thus the project was to be undertaken by the DRDO at the instance of Navy even though the latter was unclear about the project’s functional utility. Eventually, the Navy found that the system could not be deployed, after incurring an expenditure of `9.98 crore by DRDO.

********************
7 The decision taken was to examine the conceptual requirement of Sea Bed Array system
by 30th September 2010.

 

[Bhadra]

I think @Kunal Biswas was saying that you post outdated information, which I think is true in some cases. I also agree that you are indeed working hard to make your point.

Ah! So you have started thinking for Kunal ! That is good.

Regarding Carl-Gustav, it was designed in 1945. India also makes the Mark III variant of Carl-Gustav, which is based on technology from 1991. Therefore, your statement highlighted in red above is false.

India makes 4 different varieties of 84mm Carl-Gustav rounds, as presented below.
http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/ammunition/lc/1.htm
http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/ammunition/lc/2.htm
http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/ammunition/lc/3.htm
http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/ammunition/lc/4.htm

Please recommend what India should produce apart from these 4, and why.

post # 181
Read that again
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/how-drdo-failed-indias-military.67942/page-10

Mark III was imported due to failure of DRDO to develop that. .. imported from " M/s FFV, AB Sweden at a total cost of SEK 859.90 Million. Further OFB also entered into a contract in February 2005 with M/s FFV, AB Sweden for TOT for 84 mm RL MK-III Weapon and HEAT 551 ammunition at a cost of SEK 17 Million for which they received technology for all parts of the weapon except for Carbon Filament Winding (CFW) of the barrel. In the meantime Ordnance Factory Board received TOT of ammunition in 2005 consequent to which the project was foreclosed."

So what OFB is making is on a TOT given by OEM and not DRDO. I do not know what you and Kunal are contesting ? I have only quoted CAG audit report which says that DRDO failed to develop Mark III and its ammunition. Are you claiming they did it ??

You do not read the posts and suddenly spring up to nit pick deliberately and accusingly which is not good for moderator. Because things coming from a moderator and member are taken differently.

Do I take that justified criticism of DRDO and OFB and DGQA in the forum is bad as a matter of policy because may be this community is largest in the forum as is evident from many responses??

And unsupported, off the cuff, and habitual "General" bashing is the best policy no one will mind and it suits the general liking of DRDO, OFB , DGQA and many disgruntled service members??

IF so please let me know.