DRDO Should Learn from United States’ DARPA So We Don’t Fight Tomorrow’s War With Yesterday’s Weapon

ironman

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
92
Likes
35
Country flag
https://www.news18.com/news/opinion...rows-war-with-yesterdays-weapons-2398997.html
OPINION | DRDO Should Learn from United States’ DARPA So We Don’t Fight Tomorrow’s War With Yesterday’s Weapons
The annual DARPA budget is a little over $3 billion, while the DRDO budget is approximately $2.5 billion. With not much difference in budget, why does DARPA accomplish so much more than the DRDO?

The October 4, 1957 announcement by Tass, the Soviet Union news agency, of the successful launch of the first artificial satellite Sputnik 1 had caused a great deal of shock to the American people. Proud of their technological prowess, the news had a ‘Pearl Harbor’ effect on public sentiment. However, notwithstanding all the criticism of the Eisenhower administration, there was also a long-term positive impact. The Sputnik launch spurred a determination in the American leadership to become a world leader in military technology.

One of the first steps undertaken by the US government was the establishment of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in February 1958. According to its website, DARPA works on the principle that the US should be "the initiator and not the victim of strategic technological surprises”, and it “explicitly reaches for transformational change instead of incremental advances”.



DARPA's achievements have been extremely significant. They include the ARPANET that led to the Internet, stealth technology, microelectronics, sensors for surveillance and reconnaissance, unmanned aerial vehicles, and infrared night vision systems. All these have revolutionised warfighting techniques.

One of the reasons for DARPA's success has been its focus on creating breakthrough technologies and capabilities rather than incremental or evolutionary advances in existing systems. It would, therefore, be instructive to see how DARPA looks at future warfare.




Five months ago, the Tactical Technology Office (TTO) of DARPA asked for proposals for grant of funds for “applied research, advanced technology development, platform demonstrations, or systems studies that aim to enable new warfighting constructs”. The TTO note states that the “US military must expand from their historic emphasis on dominance to one of disruptive performance – enabling enhanced capability where needed, applied by a more agile and resilient force.”

The note outlines the future capabilities that it foresees in air, ground, maritime, and space systems. While many capabilities are listed out, one area stands out — reducing reliance on monolithic and high-value systems like aircraft, ships, submarines, and space assets. TTO also suggests that “evolutionary advances in traditional stealth technology” in air systems may not be the way forward.

The TTO’s vision envisages low-cost, disaggregated, networked systems as a key to disruptive capabilities for future warfare. Let me directly quote from the DARPA document. Under ‘Air Systems’ it calls for “lethality through a combination of overwhelming performance (e.g. hypersonics) and overwhelming numbers (e.g. swarming low-cost weapons)”.

For 'Naval Systems' the capability requirement is for the "proliferation and disaggregation of maritime assets using small, inexpensive, massively-networked vessels derived from commercial designs”.

‘Space Systems’ should be based on “proliferating and disaggregating space assets at LEO (low earth orbit), to reduce reliance on GEO (geosynchronous earth orbit) assets — creating smaller, simpler satellites derived from commercial designs, and that leverage the emerging commercial private sector development of network and user segments. Even in ‘Ground Systems’, the focus is on “innovation in mobility and lethality for small units, or even individual warfighters, to enable local dominance”.

It is quite apparent that DARPA's vision for future warfighting focuses on smaller, networked systems rather than the expensive aerial and naval platforms that dominate the battle space today. There is no doubt that the aircraft, the naval destroyer, and the submarine will not lose their relevance in the immediate future, but their importance as a war-winning factor could increasingly come into question.

Saudi Arabia has an extremely advanced air defence system, but it failed to prevent an attack by cheap, low-flying drones and cruise missiles on the Aramco oil processing facility that temporarily cut the country’s oil production by half.

In India, despite being the 5th largest defence spender in the world, there is little focus on advanced technologies. Our military technology achievements are the production of mostly outdated tanks, helicopters, and missiles, or the establishment of factories producing foreign weapons after technology transfer.

The army, navy and air force are reluctant to reduce their numbers and are, therefore, procuring platforms or weapon systems that permit them to retain the existing organisational structure. The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) also focuses on meeting the existing shortfalls of the services rather than future technologies.

The annual DARPA budget is a little over $3 billion, while the DRDO budget is approximately $2.5 billion. With not much difference in budget, why does DARPA accomplish so much more than the DRDO? The answer to this lies in the different cultures of the two organisations. DARPA is a funding agency and has no laboratories or research staff. It has an establishment of about 200 persons, of whom half are hired for a three to five-year period. All research is conducted through contracts with universities, industry and government R&D institutions.

The DRDO, on the other hand, has an employee strength of about 30,000 and a network of more than 50 labs. With the running cost of this kind of establishment, it is apparent that only limited amounts would be available for research.

There is no doubt that the DRDO has some impressive accomplishments in developing our nuclear triad at a time when international sanctions were imposed on us. The DRDO also cannot ignore the current equipment requirements of the three services that are saddled with mostly vintage equipment, and the fact that the ‘Make in India’ programme has met with only limited success.

It could also be argued that India’s strategic environment and requirements are not comparable to that of the US and that DARPA and DRDO have very different functions. All these are valid arguments but do not take away from the need to focus on future force structures and technologies that will shape the character of wars to come. The military and DRDO must work together with the universities and private industry in a comprehensive effort to research and develop future warfighting technologies so that we don’t end up fighting tomorrow’s war with yesterday’s doctrine and weapon systems.

(The author is former Northern Commander, Indian Army, under whose leadership India carried out surgical strikes against Pakistan in 2016. Views are personal.)
 

Chinmoy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
5,184
Likes
8,041
Country flag
Spot on... India needs an agency like DARPA with atleast 1 billion usd budget to pump fund to advanced key technologies to Universities and DRDO..
Instead of setting up DARPA like agency, focus should be on institutions to take up research works.

Leave alone DRDO to focus on technological aspects of defence rather then thinking about high altitude farming, bio degradable toilet, comfortable back pack, small arm designing et.al.
 

south block

up your a**
Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Messages
997
Likes
1,445
Country flag
Spot on... India needs an agency like DARPA with atleast 1 billion usd budget to pump fund to advanced key technologies to Universities and DRDO..
DARPA is completely different agencies as stated in article with different function...while DRDO is a govt agencies committed towards its people.
Some looser's in Pvt sector with IQ of donkey want it to privatised as they themselves can't build anything other than chetoos.
 

south block

up your a**
Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Messages
997
Likes
1,445
Country flag
Instead of setting up DARPA like agency, focus should be on institutions to take up research works.

Leave alone DRDO to focus on technological aspects of defence rather then thinking about high altitude farming, bio degradable toilet, comfortable back pack, small arm designing et.al.
You are not going to decide DRDO mandate & institute already do research in India.
 

south block

up your a**
Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Messages
997
Likes
1,445
Country flag
IMO copying USA is not the answer. USA has setup a military industrial infrastructure for
decades. India should be able to do even more than USA considering the manpower and
the lower costs. There has to be a culture that encourages innovation and development.
Most intelligent Indians are greedy who are more interested in roast beef than nation building. that's why they run out of country on first sight of chance to clean there white master a**.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
4,135
Likes
839
Country flag
India should be able to do even more than USA considering the manpower and the lower costs.
That is one of the myths that people like to repeat.
Yes, India is producing lot more engineers than US every year. But in the high end R&D, especially military related fields, the number of Indian engineer is still far less than Americans. Not to mention the knowledge and skills that these engineers can learn from their older.
Generally, developing countries have advantage in lower labor cost comparing to developed worlds. However, that is only true in low end industries. In high-end industries, however, 1. The labor cost advantage is not big, or even opposite; 2. This advantage is often offset by the cost of imported machines and equipment.
 

Shaitan

Zandu Balm all day
Mod
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
4,420
Likes
7,156
Country flag
DRDO has to produce mostly on user requirements, which are modern, near future systems, materials, etc.. It cant be a DARPA, it cant take those risks, not yet at least. Way I see it down the line, the private sector will take over none strategic programs, DRDO will take on more risker, strategic in nature programs.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,813
Likes
6,563
Country flag
DRDO needs to focus on education by creating programmes at uni and funding research at those facilities. It will have a trickle down effect to the entire economy having an educated pool of talent.
 

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
10,438
Likes
5,379
Country flag
DRDO needs to focus on education by creating programmes at uni and funding research at those facilities. It will have a trickle down effect to the entire economy having an educated pool of talent.
I think India by and large has a good pool of engineers and Indian universities have good foundational values for the trsining meeded in high tech sector. That's why you see all these Indiams succeed in the high tech srctor in the US. I think what is lacking in India like the Philippines is entrepreneurial and can-do spirit. These skills or characters have to be taught not in universities but in preschools and elementary schools.
 

Craigs

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2016
Messages
933
Likes
2,101
Country flag
Most intelligent Indians are greedy who are more interested in roast beef than nation building. that's why they run out of country on first sight of chance to clean there white master a**.
White master pays better than dynastic nepotistic brown coconut masters. At least until a few year back.
 

Chinmoy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
5,184
Likes
8,041
Country flag
You are not going to decide DRDO mandate & institute already do research in India.
No I am not. Nor anyone else from North,South, East or West do have to do that.

I was talking on perspective of the report where budget of DRDO and DARPA is getting compared against the work volume.
 

Chinmoy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
5,184
Likes
8,041
Country flag
You are not going to decide DRDO mandate & institute already do research in India.
No I am not. Nor anyone else from North,South, East or West do have to do that.

I was talking on perspective of the report where budget of DRDO and DARPA is getting compared against the work volume.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
4,135
Likes
839
Country flag
DRDO has to produce mostly on user requirements, which are modern, near future systems, materials, etc.. It cant be a DARPA, it cant take those risks, not yet at least.
You get the whole role of DARPA wrong. DARPA is not a typical R&D organisation. It is more like a scientific and technical development planner and organizer. Its job is not to work on detailed R&D (strategic or not) but find the future scientific opportunities, find the best candidates for the developing work and allocate the gov fund. Then monitor and supervise the progress.

Way I see it down the line, the private sector will take over none strategic programs, DRDO will take on more risker, strategic in nature programs.
That is big problem for private sector in ALL DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. Generally, these private companies do not involve in the cutting-edge tech R&D as this sector means huge risk in both science and finance. They lack the accumulated know-how and financial capacity to support this kind activities.
 

Shaitan

Zandu Balm all day
Mod
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
4,420
Likes
7,156
Country flag
That is big problem for private sector in ALL DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. Generally, these private companies do not involve in the cutting-edge tech R&D as this sector means huge risk in both science and finance. They lack the accumulated know-how and financial capacity to support this kind activities.
Not yet, but they are building infrastructure to assemble and test small arms, armor, uavs, jets, etc. which was controlled by a single company per domain. They are doing this in a short period of time with the aid of government polices. After getting lucrative contracts I do believe they can get into creating their own IPs, with the help of gov, or by themselves. Indian automotive sector went along a similar path.
 

charlie

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
1,051
Likes
845
Country flag
That is one of the myths that people like to repeat.
Yes, India is producing lot more engineers than US every year. But in the high end R&D, especially military related fields, the number of Indian engineer is still far less than Americans. Not to mention the knowledge and skills that these engineers can learn from their older.
Generally, developing countries have advantage in lower labor cost comparing to developed worlds. However, that is only true in low end industries. In high-end industries, however, 1. The labor cost advantage is not big, or even opposite; 2. This advantage is often offset by the cost of imported machines and equipment.
Well there are not many my well paid jobs in India Pvt sector. It’s not like they don’t produce enough engineers, take a look at US defence contractors you will find lot of Indians with Indian degrees.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
4,135
Likes
839
Country flag
It’s not like they don’t produce enough engineers, take a look at US defence contractors you will find lot of Indians with Indian degrees.
If you really look into those high sensitive R&D fields, you will find most of these foreign background (including India) scientists only perform basic assistance role. Some Asian talents may reach the level of head of R&D team of non-critical sub-system. Westerners have very good policy of managing these foreign scientists - making sure they can't get experiences of complete system.
 

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
10,438
Likes
5,379
Country flag
If you really look into those high sensitive R&D fields, you will find most of these foreign background (including India) scientists only perform basic assistance role. Some Asian talents may reach the level of head of R&D team of non-critical sub-system. Westerners have very good policy of managing these foreign scientists - making sure they can't get experiences of complete system.

You mean like the CEO of Microsoft? This never ending victimhood narrative is so boring already. But I know as a Chinese it's your patriotic duty to villify America and the West.

Btw, Microsoft just won the contract to provide cloud services for the US military no?
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top