here is something from my previous post
defence ministry to task for a three-year delay in fulfilling army plans to re-equip all its formations with indigenously developed 5.56 mm small arm system. "the army's plan was to equip all its forces with these light arms by 1998 and ordinance factories supplied only 2.75 lakh rifles and light machine guns as on march 2000," cag said in its latest report tabled in parliament. army officials said the light machine gun from the insas series had been put through user trials from november 1987 to april 1992 and cleared for troop trials which also were completed by 1995. army served a bulk order production in 1997 subject to carrying out modification in carrying handle,mount for optical sight, pistol grip and locking pin.
Is that not active Participation ?
This is the story of before induction of the rifle, and even after induction when it faced problems due to quality control army got it fixed that is also active participation.What else do you want for active participation ??
Leave rest aside. Please read and re-read one that is in red. Carrying handle. Mate, tell me, is this a piece of cutting edge technology that will need a user trial to be called ok? Do selecting a proper carrying handle needs a survey and even if it does, then why didn't army carried out one in time? My conclusion. Had army been so actively involved in INSAS program then they would have made ARDE select a proper handle, right on day one. Do i need to say more on army's active participation in INSAS program.
WHO is saying that army will not induct the new rifle made by ARDE? do give me the answer to this one. because as i have posted earlier army will be inducting 2,18,320 advanced carbines developed by ARDE indigenously.
MoD have floated a global tender for buying IAR for army. MoD have floated a global tender for buying CQBR for army. MoD will be floating or have already floated a global tender for small arms. Tell me where is the space? And which carbines you are talking about?
And about financial support. DRDO is a govenrment company it has 100 Percent financial support , which is not so for companies even in the west.
Navy upon seeing delay in money flow from government provided money from their budget for starting N-LCA project. Doesn't this example speaks anything? However, my words were to mean sharing financial burden to bring accountability on both, user and developer. Even MoD have plans for imposing 'burden sharing' clause, but for some reason army have already said no.
Corruption is everywhere , why don't you talk about the corrupt OFB chief who screwed the army backwards , and robbed them of their SAR-21?
Did i said that they are not? Again, if army has been actively involved then there is less chances that someone can do this and go unnoticed. Its user's duty to employ watch dogs but they stayed away for simple reason that they too receive heavy chunk from that pie, although through different media.
I would like to hear how equally comfortable an INSAS is to a XM8 or bushmaster ACR , Last i heard it was about a kg heavier , jammed more often and did not have changeable caliber and barrel lengths .
Tell me how comfortable Galil IAR is to XM8? No offence mate, but you are comparing 'Toyota Corolla' to "Toyota Corolla Atlis"...... Yes its not and needed to developed further to stay contemporary till multi calibre gun is developed which is proposed to be part of F-INSAS.
The point is INSAS was an ok rifle when it entered service but is old now and needs changing . every country is moving on to new guns and we need to do the same. we cannot stall our procurement process due to delays by DRDO, when they come up with good guns we will induct them.
Like i said a follow-on program is needed to keep INSAS contemporary by time multi calibre gun become available. Re-equipping is not stalled because of DRDO only, they have tried their best to give advanced derivative of INSAS. They failed, unfortunately they were working for army.
Again only about 1.5 lakh foreign guns are being bought , to provide insight into technology and production methods the rest are supposed to be indigenous, if drdo cannot absorb technology and screws up again , it will not be armie's fault.
ToT doesn't means indigenous. You can call one gun 'ISHAPORE SLR' but it doesn't changes the fact that it is a FN FAL, as it was.
Exactly this is what i am saying. The point is as of now India is behind the world in rifle design and production , but that doesn't necessitate that we should be behind the world in procurement too and that is what army is doing.
I will say, this doesn't mean, we should not work to catch that distance.
let me ask if army had not bought anything from foreign vendors then how many wars would we have won and more importantly would DRDO have had as much technology as they have today.i also support indigenous but only when it is upto world standards
None. Nobody is asking army to stay bare handed for the sake of DRDO products. All i am saying that if some piece of technology is available within the country then army should give first preference to it. Hell, i have read an article by a (retd) senior officer(IA) who says " Hard to understand why army opted to wait so long instead of launching an indigenous program to develop a 155 MM/52 calibre SPH with DRDO who have delivered them 105 MM Indian field gun as well as developed extremely accurate gun for Arjun.
Hell i am dying to see Tejas inducted because i believe it is upto the standards and maybe even better
As long as PAF inducts and support JF-17, we need not to think about LCA's lethality and use, not for a single second i believe.
----------------------------------
This is another misconception, INSAS-Mk 1 is being retired for F-INSAS
INSAS-MK-1 is not being retired for F-INSAS in fact it is being retired for IAR like Galil, G-36 and AK-103. And that video is probably from DEFXPO-08 and much have changed in last two years.
