Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 04 Jul 2015 23:34

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 151 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2015 09:27 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 25161
Location: In all wars: Pakistan ki gone-for-tea
The army has always taken the lions share of our budget, the air force next, and the navy last. This is due to historic reasons. India inherited a large army, a small air force and a miniscule navy

In WW1 and WW2 it was Indian army units that fought mostly. Yes there was some IAF action.

In 1962 - it was all army. In 1965 it was mostly army and the IAF almost did not get in. But get in it did and its record was OK. The navy had the smallest role. It was in 1971 that all the three services came into their own, but we are still stuck with a legacy of geography and history.

The navy, the "Cinderella" arm of the forces compensated by taking an active role in R&D and manufacture. the placed their boys in the Naval Architecture depts of the IITs and other colleges. they jumped in and worked with the Khadi Gramodyog technology of Indian industry and the fruits of that are visible today

The Air Force on the other hand has had to play a constant "catch up" game in which, for various reasons, their requirements were met by imports and they did not take an active interest in embedding their boys in industry and taking charge of R&D. Over the years I have seen an active contempt of people in the IAF for Indian workmanship and industry. It was not regret or concern but contempt. The word "Khadi Gramodyog" that I used above was the expression used by a senior IAF officer regarding the LCA in 2000. As regards HAL their irritation with the IAF was more recessed. They expressed their feelings as regret.

I will not go into further detail about why each side felt the way they did. I suppose each side has its justification and every story has two sides.

But this situation is simply ridiculous.

We have an Air Force that is over 75 years old and an aircraft manufacturing industry that is of similar vintage and there is NO Air Force involvement in planning, R&D and quality control. What is going on in my country?

What is the matter with our people that they simply hate and detest other Indians but blindly admire anything that is given to them imported? I know many examples of why the IAF is justified in cursing HAL (given to me by IAF people) and many examples of how the IAF simply accepted stuff that was imported but below par (open source). There are example of perfectly good Indian stuff that was willy nilly rejected. So what is wrong?

To a small extent my post is an anguished rant and I will understand other similar anguished rants. But in the long term I want this thread to serve as a "calling to attention" point that illustrates the deep malaise in our country represented by relations between our industry and our armed forces, especially air force and army.

The forces are the biggest users and the biggest critics of Indian industry. That is perfectly logical and reasonable. if they are forced to accept rubbish they must complain. But how many decades can the forces complain without joining up with industry and helping out. It is after all our own country. The forces cannot take the attitude forever that technology and manufacture will happen magically to meet their needs without their involvement. If they believe that they there are a thousand foreign snake oil salesmen gunning for them with shiny brochures.
.
Is it a bureaucratic issue where public sector industry protects its most incompetent nincompoops and keeps the forces out? We know that the DRDO and GTRE and other places have often been led by the most brainless and greedy self-centered morons in India. This is clear from the many competent and starry eyed youngsters who joined these organizations and left in disgust because of assholes for bosses. We know that Public sector employees retain their jobs whether they work or not.

If we ask people who left HAL, GTRE and DRDO in disgust in the last 25 years to write, on BRF or on Facebook why they left along with names we will get to know the industry worthies who have helped screw the nation. i know there are multiple problems but they must be laid bare. This is too serious an issue to be ignored.


Last edited by shiv on 12 Apr 2015 18:57, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2015 12:59 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31
Posts: 322
Shivji, apologies for being with this somewhat facetious and shallow-sounding post of mine (mostly due to bandwidth issues).

Question is, would you want to have your expert-driver (with the attended knowledge level) design the next sedan/SUV/whatever that you intend to possess? Would you want him to team up with the local dealer-based-mechanics, who services your car regularly, to do so?

If that sounds like a problem statement, the root-cause can well be - because of the lack of educational background and professional expertise of your driver (who is excellent driver between), you wouldn't want that to happen.

And now if that's the root-cause, can the causal analysis point to a solution that is based on upgrading the educational and experience of the driver sufficiently enough for him to be able to contribute first, gather experience in the process, and then may lead the design team (or the manufacturing team) eventually.

If you carefully go thru how IAF officer cadre (especially the executive cadre) has evolved thru 70s-80-90s-2000s, it should be quite apparent what is the reason of the malaise that you have pointed out above.

More on this later ... betw if this above sounds strawman-ish, pls note that was not the intention (can't be with you).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2015 13:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Posts: 4903
Location: Eggsporting Sophtware @ Axact with The Upper Hand
shiv wrote:
Over the years I have seen an active contempt of people in the IAF for Indian workmanship and industry. It was not regret or concern but contempt. The word "Khadi Gramodyog"

...What is the matter with our people that they simply hate and detest other Indians but blindly admire anything that is given to them imported? I know many examples of why the IAF is justified in cursing HAL (given to me by IAF people) and many examples of how the IAF simply accepted stuff that was imported but below par (open source). There are example of perfectly good Indian stuff that was willy nilly rejected. So what is wrong?



Lets take it one by one , in no particular order.

shiv wrote:
...We know that the DRDO and GTRE and other places have often been led by the most brainless and greedy self-centered morons in India. This is clear from the many competent and starry eyed youngsters who joined these organizations and left in disgust because of assholes for bosses. We know that Public sector employees retain their jobs whether they work or not.

..If we ask people who left HAL, GTRE and DRDO in disgust in the last 25 years to write, on BRF or on Facebook why they left along with names we will get to know the industry worthies who have helped screw the nation. i know there are multiple problems but they must be laid bare. This is too serious an issue to be ignored.


This pre supposes that the the "problem" was bad bosses who screwed the nation and that if there were "good" selfless bosses and not a**holes, things would be fine. I submit that it would have been just as bad even if you had the best of bosses possible to run the show. The trouble was, it is structurally flawed, the entire system is up against you and set to fail and it does. No surprise. If you want to hear the name of bosses, I can give you a few. Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and other the long list of useless deadwood who sat on the def min's chair , most notable being Shri AK Anthony in living memory (not doing anything at all, and then claiming to be a non corrupt saint isn't exactly a virtue, some should tell it to that worthy.. sometimes, I wonder how did the UPA manage to get the kind of guys it did to run important ministries such as defence, railways, home and even finance (I am talking not the last guy who was brought back out of sheer desperation, but the guy kicked upstairs).

The hope I had was that the Modi sarkar would get rid of this set to fail industrial structure (in general and in defence in particular) and make a fresh beginning, but all we are seeing are tinkering at the margins, trying to play the whack-a-mole game and getting things moving on the ground, which is fine , which is not long term strategy. For e.g., unclogging a stuck drain is not the same as building a city sewerage system.

shiv wrote:
...What is the matter with our people that they simply hate and detest other Indians but blindly admire anything that is given to them imported? I know many examples of why the IAF is justified in cursing HAL (given to me by IAF people) and many examples of how the IAF simply accepted stuff that was imported but below par (open source). There are example of perfectly good Indian stuff that was willy nilly rejected. So what is wrong?


What else do you expect ? Any thing imported was done by the IAF/powers that be. YOU BETTER say that what was got smells of roses, even if it was a lump of turd. Saying anything otherwise is a career ending move. Imagine some lower level officer, complaining, WTF have the dumb brass got for us. This is a piece of turd! If that filters back to the brass, you know what you will happen, more importantly, the lower level officer knows what will happen, and will NEVER stick his neck out. Neck stretching exercises are never ever done in the Govt or in the Defence forces . So that is the way it will stay. Even if they import a lump of turd, they will keep insisting that it is a rose. Too many vested interests (institutional, political, pecuniary and institutional idiocy) for it to be any other way.

shiv wrote:
Over the years I have seen an active contempt of people in the IAF for Indian workmanship and industry. It was not regret or concern but contempt. The word "Khadi Gramodyog"

You are the Pisskolojee guru, there must be a psychological term for "if you are incompetent/ whatever, you project your failings on others" .

Fact is, the IAF is best modelled like the BMTC /KSRTC or other transport corps (which serve a pretty important role of public transportation). Like the IAF, the BMTC/KSRTC have a pretty capital intensive fleet, requires regular maintenance, support and renewal. Unlike the IAF , the BMTC/KSRTC have to buy their buses from Tata and Ashok Leyland and others (now Volvo, and probably Mercedes and Scania for KSRTC). Now, just like the IAF , BMTC/KSRTC too have repair depots, who do complete overhauls and maintenance and even build the body for many of their buses (the IAF doesn't make airframes though). It will be very funny if the BMTC/KSRTC maintenance head now believes that with his ability to rebuild an engine and chassis and drive train of an Ashok Leyland /Tata or a Volvo bus , that BMTC/KSRTC are now super duper and can piss of AL/Tata /Volvo and tell them stuff about engineering their buses and trucks and how to run the heavy vehicles business., they must be in fool's paradise and worthy of mirth and merriment. This is exactly what the IAF does, however, which seems to believe that with it's operating experience and it's maintenance backend, they unlike the BMTC/KSRTC can start dumping on some really stupid things on the manufacturer.

What the IAF doesn't realise that in India, the defence forces are not given the same kind of scrutiny as others and there is an unwritten code to go easy on them in all situations and show them in the best light, for very good reasons I must add. But a self aware IAF should know very well, how this kind of restraint operates on both sides and if they throw muck, even if the other guy has his hands tied and doesn't throw back (the HAL is govt owned after all), they will eventually seen muck coming their way.

The easiest way for HAL to handle this is this. The IAF whines about cost of repairs and timelines etc.. Okay. HAL hands back all the IAF maintenance ops to IAF and transfers their folks to IAF. IAF will be stuck with a civilian unionised staff, who will cost lot more than their short service tenure airman with 5 years service whom they periodically refresh with younger cheaper folks. HAL will just manufacture the spare and give it to the IAF per their order. With their empire building fantasies, the IAF guys will be happy to take it on. HAL should just give IAF what it wants, the entire maintenance and support , and be like AL/Tata to the BMTC/KSRTC. THEN the fun will start. Imagine a uniformed Pooh Bah, barking orders and harrumphing at the civilian workforce, lets say that he will be grounded in seconds.

And oh, I forget to add, most of the private transport guys running the same Volvo buses have better uptimes and maintenance and upkeep than the KSRTC buses which even look unwashed and unkempt. Also, a large fleet owner of AL trucks like VRL will have better uptime and operational availability of the Indian Army's fleet of AL Stallions. I don't need statistics to back it up. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is on this and put a bet on it.

And frankly that guy who talked about Khadi Gramodyag, simply lost a great opportunity to shut up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2015 13:44 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 25161
Location: In all wars: Pakistan ki gone-for-tea
maitya wrote:

And now if that's the root-cause, can the causal analysis point to a solution that is based on upgrading the educational and experience of the driver sufficiently enough for him to be able to contribute first, gather experience in the process, and then may lead the design team (or the manufacturing team) eventually.

If you carefully go thru how IAF officer cadre (especially the executive cadre) has evolved thru 70s-80-90s-2000s, it should be quite apparent what is the reason of the malaise that you have pointed out above.

That's a fair point - but on that note my comparison with the navy is also somewhat unfair. The navy needs hand on engineers as part of the sailing team. The air force does not need people with that type of skill on their flying team. But there's the crunch point and my post too may enter into strawman territory here, I don;t know. The air force (until Fali Major) has always chosen a chief from the fighter flying cadre. Non flyers and transport cadre and helicopter pilots (apart from Fali Major) have never become Air Chiefs.

The real issue is that once we get into very senior levels in the Air Force there has to be a deep understanding of geopolitical pressures, sanctions, import costs, local technology etc. I went and looked at the Cheifs of Air Staff from 1985 to the early 1990s. Those the men who could have taken an interest in the LCA program. The names are Katre, La Fontaine, SK Mehra, Suri and Kaul - for the 1985 to 1995 period. I know nothing about these gentlemen. I was out of the country and the internet did not exist. But that was the era in which we bought, serially the MiG 29 and the Mirage 2000.

In the same 1985 to 1995 period here is a list of Prime Ministers. They are Rajiv Gandhi, VP Singh, Chandrashekhaar and PV Narasimha Rao. Not an inspiring list by and large. Rajiv Gandhi simply inherited the party and won on a sympathy vote. VP Singh and Chandrashekhar, the less said the better. PVNR inherited a country in the doldrums, getting out of Rajiv Gandhi's Sri Lanka adventure and getting into Pakistan sponsored Khalistan militancy, with Kashmir terror starting up. 1993 was when PVNR appointed the bureaucrat Manmohan Singh and got the economy out of the doldrums.

So the early phase when the LCA was planned seems to have been a "tamasha phase" when the air force has fighter pilots trying to catch up with
shitistans F-16s with the LCA in the "Twinkle in the eye" stage and the political leadership straight from the craphouse.

The question that comes to my mind was that if the 1985-1995 period had no IAF involvement in manufacture and R&D, why did the air force not jump in after 1995? After all Vajpayee became PM in the late 90s. He tested an atomic bomb at a time when the LCA software had already been written and was being tested in the US. The Air Force had just done Kargil and had seen the effect of sanctions and had done well using jugaad of Spanish bombs and old US PGM kits. Once again we had sanctions and the Air Force knew damn well that their op readiness would be down by 2015 unless they started looking for new aircraft. As I mentioned earlier the need for 126 aircraft (later "MMRCA requirement") was first mentioned by the IAF in 2001. And it was in 2000-01 that a very senior and celebrated fighter pilot called the LCA "Khadi Gramodyog". What a shame. This is the same type of Macaulayite contempt for India that I was taught in my schooldays.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2015 14:01 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 25161
Location: In all wars: Pakistan ki gone-for-tea
Relevant cross post
deejay wrote:
As far as the IAF is concerned, when I speak to my contemporaries who are senior Wing Commanders or fresh Group Captains (mid level) the feeling is very strong vis-a-vis HAL. I have not found a single voice in service and pro HAL and I also include the Engineering officers.

Secondly, the IAF, which may be 'import passand' etc, is very efficient in its work culture in things like discipline, timelines, punctuality (I am refering to rank and file and not the Air ranks or decision makers only). Folks in uniform almost as a rule expect PSUs of defence sector to be like them and no amount of argument gets them to see the other side - Unions, Worker issues, non military life style, etc.

I also felt that very few if any understood challenges of setting up Assembly Lines, Production, economic order quantity etc, even among the Engineers.

IMO, the disconnect is large and continues. A sustained effort is required to inculcate a culture which supports Indian production is. HAL and other PSU's need to turn a new leaf and learn some Marketing, Advertising, Brand Promotion, etc for once. Another step will be to stop time line slippages. Just last weekend I could not get folks to see how LCA would be available in quantities and on time given that the second aircraft has again missed a deadline provided by HAL.

Even today, the news or opinion folks in uniform digest or consume is not BRF style "Indic" but very mainstream Western style propagandized view points. This further increases the disconnect. Add to that the opinion of the likes of Air Marshal (Retd) Mathesaran and Col (Retd) Shukla tends to get more traction in military circles for obvious reasons.

HAL and IAF are two entities and while there are other players in this Military vs. Def PSUs debate, this one relationship probably embodies all the ills faced by the Indian MIC. If this relationship improves, I am sure all else will fall in place.

I think the Defence Ministries proposal of not allowing imports in certain sectors and in time increasing this list to cover more and more sectors will go a long way. Let Rafale be the last example of a weapon system where a generational equivalent Made in India was available but imports were allowed.

The above are my views and opinions based on a small sample of people I interact.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2015 14:08 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19
Posts: 4695
Location: छिछला पानी में (In shallow waters)
Formation of spare part banks must be made mandatory for all IndiGenous products. That is one way to create positive impression with high amount of availability. Additional amount of funding for rigorous testing for war gaming with LCAs, or testing with home made products such as LGBs should be adding to confidence levels, too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2015 14:21 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Posts: 4903
Location: Eggsporting Sophtware @ Axact with The Upper Hand
vishvak wrote:
Formation of spare part banks must be made mandatory for all IndiGenous products. That is one way to create positive impression with high amount of availability. Additional amount of funding for rigorous testing for war gaming with LCAs, or testing with home made products such as LGBs should be adding to confidence levels, too.

Logical fallacy. Your post assumes that the products are selected on merit. Take Arjun. It proved to be a better product than the TinCan 90. What came of it ? Same will the case with the LCA.

The future is this. With Anilbhai and other bhais entering the business (the Pipavav take over is a pretty large sized deal), there is no way in HELL that any future naval hull will be bought out from abroad without the local yards participating. That part is history. The Russians can kiss their history of building frigates and destroyers and subs for the IN in their yards goodbye. We have a MIC with solid heft here for the Navy.

What is needed is similar entry into the air and land segments , especially armaments. That is what will put an end to this cretinous current situation. The DPSUs are dead long term, every one knows it, especially the ideologically wedded ones like St. Anthony and hence the refusal to open the flood gates.

You are dealing with a global bunch of pirates and cut throats out there, who collude, manipulate, bribe, wh*re and play both sides to sell their stuff here, have you as a perpetual captive market and keep you from forming a local industry. The PSUs guys are dead ducks. They are playing with one hand tied and box with Marquis of Queensberry rules against pirates wielding cutlasses and pistols. You need the big bad bhais to take on the pirates and that is what will save the day.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2015 14:55 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Posts: 968
Location: India
Few points we must remember while discussing this topic :

1.Navy's DND is not filled with men in uniform alone. In fact a majority of them are civilian scientists employed by the Navy because DND is a department directly under the Navy. Ofcourse there are some really brilliant Naval Officers who work in DND. It is the passion for reseach which drive them. Many of them may not reach high ranks - you would rarely see a Rear Admiral who is a Naval Architect.

2. Design of a warship is comparatively less sophisticated than a hightech fighter plane. That is where IN initially succeeded and IAF failed. But IAF did nothing to have a design team of their own even to design less sophisticated items like a drop tank or a simple bomb. That is the fault of IAF. They could even have a design department employing civilian scientists like the Navy and carried on with design of helos, transports etc..no they didn't.

3. Design of a nuclear submarine is more sophisticated than even a figher plane. But it is with sheer grit that Navy could reach where they are. They begged, borrowed and stole..They were working under the same political leadership that IAF had. But the approach is totally different.

4. IAF pilots in general.act like cowboys and there is more disconnect between them and the engineers. In the Navy it is much less because the Captain is more dependent on the engineers in a ship and he often sees for himself the problems faced by the engineers. If the ship doesn't sail, his marks are also down and he generally helps the engineers in what ever way he can. In submarine arm, it is all one small family inside.

5. The set up in avaiation in this country is such that people in general wish to maintain status quo. Once a while a Sarabhai or Kalam would appear on the horizon and try to do something. Sometimes they get support and most of the time their demands are met with indifference from political leadership and babudom. Reason is vested interests.

6. Vested interests come in many forms. Politicians and babus want their cuts in foreign and domestic acquisition. People at the helm want to continue in their position spoiling the chances of juniors. They often achieve it through chamchagiri and collaboration in making bad decisions. Private and foreign vendors want to sell their products and so they try to smother whatever little research is going on. Babus choke funds so that purchase of even rudimentary equipments for labs become a problem etc etc..

7. Research labs in India are more of bureaucratic set ups which discourage innovation and reward chamchagiri. Often incompetent people reach the top and remain there because that is what is convenient to everyone..politician, babus, scientists..

8. It is not always the best talent that get recruited to these research labs. Academic knowledge, reservation policies etc play a role. Often, you will find morale of the young scientist recruited is low because of the working environment.

9. Private Industry doesn't have any incentives to get in to research of high tech products and we cant expect them to spend their money in the name of patriotism ..In turn R&D has become the monopoly of Govt and they could produce some bright sparks here and there with lots of inconsistency. Time is not an issue for them at all..

we can go on and on...

So, we need a complete overhaul of the system. IAF attitude is only part of the problem. Yes, if they had started early enough, may be that could have made a difference. Asking them to change their attitude now will be a jolt to them. However, I am of the view that this jolt is long overdue and somewhere we have to make a begining. If not anything else, atleast it will force them acklowledge and appreciate others' work if not anything else.


Last edited by geeth on 12 Apr 2015 15:06, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2015 15:03 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Posts: 4903
Location: Eggsporting Sophtware @ Axact with The Upper Hand
Quote:
you would rarely see a Rear Admiral who is a Naval Architect

True. But I know one Naval Architect who rose to be Vice Admiral. Last name Nath.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2015 15:05 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 29 Apr 2014 11:45
Posts: 1111
Location: taleb muridke naal
maitya wrote:
Shivji, apologies for being with this somewhat facetious and shallow-sounding post of mine (mostly due to bandwidth issues).

Question is, would you want to have your expert-driver (with the attended knowledge level) design the next sedan/SUV/whatever that you intend to possess? Would you want him to team up with the local dealer-based-mechanics, who services your car regularly, to do so?

If that sounds like a problem statement, the root-cause can well be - because of the lack of educational background and professional expertise of your driver (who is excellent driver between), you wouldn't want that to happen.

And now if that's the root-cause, can the causal analysis point to a solution that is based on upgrading the educational and experience of the driver sufficiently enough for him to be able to contribute first, gather experience in the process, and then may lead the design team (or the manufacturing team) eventually.

If you carefully go thru how IAF officer cadre (especially the executive cadre) has evolved thru 70s-80-90s-2000s, it should be quite apparent what is the reason of the malaise that you have pointed out above.

More on this later ... betw if this above sounds strawman-ish, pls note that was not the intention (can't be with you).


Maitya sir, allow me to take your argument a step forward in the sense I view it.

While what I say is very personal judgement so one will have to use caution in accepting it. I broadly agree with you that the IAF officer corps lacks the requisite knowledge base or competence to correctly entrench themselves with high end R&D.

- I say this because despite seven decades of existence, I find few IAF officers pursuing research, phd's or producing papers of note. IMO, it is because IAF lacks an organisational culture which promotes such pursuits.

- The way IAF utilises its Engineering Officers is even more frustrating. Just how many Engineers from prime institutes even think of joining IAF (How often is it a first or second carrier choice)? If you were an engineer in missile sqns of IAF, you would serve in them for life, be the most knowledgeable on the systems and yet when the time comes to command, a person from the flying branch who could not continue in the flying sqn / unit will come and sit as your CO.

- A culture of not promoting academic excellence based on originality but merit on memory based tests has almost as a rule discouraged original thinkers and promoted those who know how to clear exams well.

- If by some accident an original thinker still made it past and rose high enough, the rest almost gang-up and make sure the said person's future is sealed.

- Under the garb of obedience, is IAF killing originality? Since original thinkers almost always have a view different from Senior / Superiors and existing practices and they tend to make people uncomfortable in an organisation entrenched in traditions.

- The Fighter Pilot as a chief as Shiv Sir has pointed out is an important indicator as how things are manipulated to make sure non fighter pilots never get to a situation to become one. The case of ACM Fali Major was an exception and the word out is it will never happen again. This is also an indicator that political pushers are able to and do manipulate to get on top and merit alone does not count.

P.S.: What I have written above are opinions. I must clarify that none of these barriers personally affected me hence it is not a personal sob story.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2015 15:14 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57
Posts: 1425
Here's a story from 1996:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ent-10316/

Quote:
The ADA claims that the an initial operating capability for the LCA is still 2002, with a final full operational clearance expected some three years later


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2015 15:27 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Posts: 968
Location: India
deejay,

As you know..the general saying in armed forces is..if you are a genius then you are not fit to be there..that said, Navy provides opportunity for these 'scientists' by way of deputation to DRDO, liberal rules for higher studies (MTech, PhD etc). I cant comment about IAF.

I also agree with you that technical branch officers are a frustated lot..To a lesser extend it is true for IN and IA as well. As a student, IAF officers who used to visit our institute were actively discouraging us from joining IAF. Part of the reason for me to choose IN.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2015 15:31 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57
Posts: 1425
Here is a story from 1998 (post-Pokhran):

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/us-s ... 64963.html

Quote:
Project Director Kota Harinarayana, who heads the Bangalore-based Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) that designed the aircraft, is putting on a brave face. "We may be delayed by another five or six months," he maintains, "but the advantage now is that we will be totally indigenous."

This touch of bravado seems all-pervasive. On August 19, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, scientific adviser to the defence minister, told a seminar on aeronautical research that there is the possibility of 200 LCAs being inducted into the Indian Air Force (IAF) between 2003 and 2010, offering Rs 30,000 crore worth of business to HAL.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2015 15:56 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 29 Apr 2014 11:45
Posts: 1111
Location: taleb muridke naal
geeth wrote:
deejay,

As you know..the general saying in armed forces is..if you are a genius then you are not fit to be there..that said, Navy provides opportunity for these 'scientists' by way of deputation to DRDO, liberal rules for higher studies (MTech, PhD etc). I cant comment about IAF.

I also agree with you that technical branch officers are a frustated lot..To a lesser extend it is true for IN and IA as well. As a student, IAF officers who used to visit our institute were actively discouraging us from joining IAF. Part of the reason for me to choose IN.


Geeth Sir, the rules are same / similar in IAF. The IAF does not have policies on using those with higher qualifications. But, I am not sure if they are liberally allowed to pursue these courses. The engineers in IAF get little recognition or reward and the Flying Branch vs. Engineering Branch is really embarrassing to even discuss, such is the situation.

As far as the saying on 'geniuses' goes - the Armed Forces must as a rule encourage academic excellence and not ignore it. The IAF has such a large corps of engineers which can really become the backbone of our national aerospace research. Even small steps like that of IN will go along way in rejuvenating the pursuit of excellence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2015 16:15 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Posts: 968
Location: India
What I meant was that those who have inclination for research would find the daily chores monotonous and boring.. I find some of them take their frustation on their superiors and get in to trouble. The present Admiral Supt of one of the Naval Dockyard is an extremely intelligent Electrical officer. As a trainee I heard he was doing some really good project..half way through, his guide realised the potential and tried to steal it. Our man simply stopped pursuing the project..He reached on top due to his ability and character..Not many are lucky though..

May be because of operational requirements or other such matters..armed forces are not good in utilising available talent..with the result a young officer who completes his Masters in computer Science from one of the IITs would get his next posting as Officer-in-Charge of a machine shop in the dockyard..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2015 17:00 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 29 Apr 2014 11:45
Posts: 1111
Location: taleb muridke naal
The HAL vs IAF tiff itself has many dimensions, ego being just one. I shall attempt to put IAF perspectives here, again based my experiences and discussions with contemporaries:

An overview: For the IAF, 90% of its product dealings go through HAL either as the OEM or as licensed by OEM route. This has been perennial. Such a long history almost always will have bitter moments. With HAL being the only alternative, IAF and HAL are almost in a wedding like situation more so for the IAF because HAL does have other customers like IN, IA, Civil and even Foreign. Broadly, the points below are categorized under - "it is felt that":

- HAL has made it, IAF will have to buy, whether it is liked or not.
- HAL brushes aside IAF's concerns or does not address it as priority.
- IAF could have better equipped itself with the money it has given HAL and the money that has flown out for TOT with little benefits shown for it.
- A crash (specially if a pilot dies) invariably hurts the IAF. Within the Sqn / Unit the anger is palpable even if the smallest doubt on failure of technical nature is suspected. Such anger is often directed at HAL if the aircraft is one of those being handled by it. Here, an us vs. them definitely comes up. Think of HPT 32.
- HAL always gives out deadlines and one can guarantee it won't happen on the given date.
- Work standards are not so high. Recently met a pilot doing a flight safety course in Bangalore and he went ballistics on poor record keeping by HAL (just a small example).

This is a small list of 'it is felt'. Someone current and serving would list out more with great authority.

If one examines this relationship as a Client - Vendor equation and asks basic question like what are the steps taken by HAL towards active customer support on its own to really work towards a good work atmosphere with IAF, the answer will be disappointing. Hence, HAL is also guilty of treating IAF as 'them' and thus helps to increase the gulf between the two.

How many companies globally have such poor customer relationship management with their primary customers? Is the HAL interested in letting IAF participate in R & D efforts? What would be the ways HAL would want IAF to assist?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2015 17:01 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 29 Apr 2014 11:45
Posts: 1111
Location: taleb muridke naal
geeth wrote:
What I meant was that those who have inclination for research would find the daily chores monotonous and boring.. I find some of them take their frustation on their superiors and get in to trouble. The present Admiral Supt of one of the Naval Dockyard is an extremely intelligent Electrical officer. As a trainee I heard he was doing some really good project..half way through, his guide realised the potential and tried to steal it. Our man simply stopped pursuing the project..He reached on top due to his ability and character..Not many are lucky though..

May be because of operational requirements or other such matters..armed forces are not good in utilising available talent..with the result a young officer who completes his Masters in computer Science from one of the IITs would get his next posting as Officer-in-Charge of a machine shop in the dockyard..


Geeth Sir, I understood what you meant.

Now you've put it down nicely.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2015 17:35 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Posts: 2029
IAF has demanded that HAL MD be retired uniform. Similar arrangement is in place for all major shib building yards. Will that help the case?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2015 18:09 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 8046
How? He is neither experienced in manufacturing, and nor does he have a pure R&D or operations (SC/OpE) background. Better is to privatize (semi - Govt owned/Pvt run) HAL and get it proper manufacturing experience/input from outside. HAL's unionized workforce issues will constantly remain a challenge. There is no way around that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2015 18:15 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Aug 2005 02:41
Posts: 818
Location: Bangalore
there is another dimension here.
the threat from sea was never as high as the threat from air. this has allowed the navy a reasonable amount of freedom with relatively lesser risk.

the relationship between navy and shipyards is as bad as air force and hal. the issue is understandably amplified by loss of life from crashes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2015 18:38 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Aug 2012 15:48
Posts: 630
P 75I still talks about imported design though Arihant is now on sea trial. Nuke sub tech in the past and even now have support from various other parties. It is completely different stuff and nothing comes in between whether fund, support etc.
Navy can afford delay in N-Tejas since it has Mig 29K as backup and delay in Vikrant carrier. Even the timeline of various ships under construction has delays
I am curious to know what is the percentage of primary and high end systems and propulsion etc used by Navy being manufactured indigineously. Import cost percentage vis-a-vis the total system cost. Real Numbers please and not perception or the approach etc.
Would definitely like to stand corrected .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2015 18:45 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 8046
Aditya G wrote:
IAF has demanded that HAL MD be retired uniform. Similar arrangement is in place for all major shib building yards. Will that help the case?


In fact, I like the BEL-India approach. Directors include several members from the Armed Forces & DRDO. Getting the primary customer & providers of tech as part of the board is good.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2015 18:51 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 15 Sep 2011 07:22
Posts: 765
Aditya G wrote:
IAF has demanded that HAL MD be retired uniform. Similar arrangement is in place for all major shib building yards. Will that help the case?


Aren't there cost overruns and delays in all the ongoing warship construction ? Civilians don't like to be ordered about and when we are talking about unionized labour, you really have to very very political.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2015 18:53 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 25161
Location: In all wars: Pakistan ki gone-for-tea
deejay wrote:
Broadly, the points below are categorized under - "it is felt that":

- HAL has made it, IAF will have to buy, whether it is liked or not.
- HAL brushes aside IAF's concerns or does not address it as priority.
- IAF could have better equipped itself with the money it has given HAL and the money that has flown out for TOT with little benefits shown for it.
- A crash (specially if a pilot dies) invariably hurts the IAF. Within the Sqn / Unit the anger is palpable even if the smallest doubt on failure of technical nature is suspected. Such anger is often directed at HAL if the aircraft is one of those being handled by it. Here, an us vs. them definitely comes up. Think of HPT 32.
- HAL always gives out deadlines and one can guarantee it won't happen on the given date.
- Work standards are not so high. Recently met a pilot doing a flight safety course in Bangalore and he went ballistics on poor record keeping by HAL (just a small example).

This is a small list of 'it is felt'. Someone current and serving would list out more with great authority.

If one examines this relationship as a Client - Vendor equation and asks basic question like what are the steps taken by HAL towards active customer support on its own to really work towards a good work atmosphere with IAF, the answer will be disappointing. Hence, HAL is also guilty of treating IAF as 'them' and thus helps to increase the gulf between the two.

How many companies globally have such poor customer relationship management with their primary customers? Is the HAL interested in letting IAF participate in R & D efforts? What would be the ways HAL would want IAF to assist?


Absolutely correct. Exactly as I have heard.

The IAF is naturally contemptuous of HAL because they rightly feel that they are putting their lives on line. HAL on the other hand can afford to act like they don't give a sh!t and as a PSU they are answerable only to God.

But the IAF should really get its hands dirty and get involved - but the IAF is led by Cowboy fighet jocks and engineers are second class citizens.

There are deep problems on both sides. This fighter jock must lead the air force culture needs to go as well. It's just not fair. And as we can see - it affects national security because fighter jocks don't have a grip on the academic/technical side of things and probably come with huge egos to cover up what's missing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2015 20:02 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Posts: 968
Location: India
***P 75I still talks about imported design though Arihant is now on sea trial. Nuke sub tech in the past and even now have support from various other parties. It is completely different stuff and nothing comes in between whether fund, support etc.

True ..and we must thank the Navy for telling the leadership to take help from outside for design of P75 I..Unlike ADA leaving the LCA half way through and start on the design of IJT. DND is not a huge organisation and they are not Jack of all trade. In fact they have taken help in design of most of their warships..be it Dehi Kolkatta Vikrant. And the influence of Russian designers are very obvious- have a look at INS Delhi. Coming to shipbuilding, even the steel is imported in some cases. You can't blame Navy if things are not available in India. That is where the role of Indian Industry comes in. Even if they use imported machinery initially, there is a tendency to indigenise at the first available opportunity.


***Navy can afford delay in N-Tejas since it has Mig 29K as backup and delay in Vikrant carrier. Even the timeline of various ships under construction has delays

Yes Navy people realised early enough that NLCA is not going to around anywhere in the near future and so got the 29K. That is advanced planning. And even after getting the 29Ks, they haven't given up on the NLCA and are actively supporting if..instead of chasing katrinas and Rambhas. That is what the scientists expect - appreciation of their hard work and not ridicule in public. Navy never said NLCA is two and half or three and half generation.

***I am curious to know what is the percentage of primary and high end systems and propulsion etc used by Navy being manufactured indigineously. Import cost percentage vis-a-vis the total system cost. Real Numbers please and not perception or the approach etc.
Would definitely like to stand corrected .


In some cases it may be 70% or more..In fact I can say, even now in a warship, as far as equipments/machinery/ various systems are concerned, most of the Industrialised nations would find representation. That situation is slowly changing and indigenisation is taken seriously. Work culture in dockyards - it used to be pathetic and don't know how is it now. The positive thing is, they work under Naval officers and have some sense of discipline...though on rare occasions even Naval officers get gheraoed. In general civilian staff are respectful towards Naval staff. And Navy is fully involved in design, construction, repair and maintenance of warships. For your information, a technical branch officer has to sail onboard ship only thrice - as LT, LCDR and CDR, each spanning 1-2 years. Rest of the time they spend in dockyards and other shore establishments. So, for Navy, if at all they have to point fingers, it is at their own colleagues who are in charge of various repair & construcion yards in the dockyard and other establishments.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2015 20:15 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Apr 2008 15:07
Posts: 503
While at IITB I met a chap doing his masters, was in IAF ( Lt. Colonel ). He could de-assemble helicopter engines and wanted to know more about the theory of how they worked and so on. I helped him what I could, but I don't know if he really benefited. Our educational system is just so painfully limited because of emphasis on theoretical work, exams and grades.

I wondered at that time why they were not working with HAL, DRDO etc. His reply was something like, they don't understand our operating conditions, etc.

I think congie political culture made it very difficult for institutions across the country to work with each other. I see it everywhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2015 21:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Aug 2012 15:48
Posts: 630
Quote:
***P 75I still talks about imported design though Arihant is now on sea trial. Nuke sub tech in the past and even now have support from various other parties. It is completely different stuff and nothing comes in between whether fund, support etc.

True ..and we must thank the Navy for telling the leadership to take help from outside for design of P75 I..Unlike ADA leaving the LCA half way through and start on the design of IJT. DND is not a huge organisation and they are not Jack of all trade. In fact they have taken help in design of most of their warships..be it Dehi Kolkatta Vikrant. And the influence of Russian designers are very obvious- have a look at INS Delhi. Coming to shipbuilding, even the steel is imported in some cases. You can't blame Navy if things are not available in India. That is where the role of Indian Industry comes in. Even if they use imported machinery initially, there is a tendency to indigenise at the first available opportunity.


***Navy can afford delay in N-Tejas since it has Mig 29K as backup and delay in Vikrant carrier. Even the timeline of various ships under construction has delays

Yes Navy people realised early enough that NLCA is not going to around anywhere in the near future and so got the 29K. That is advanced planning. And even after getting the 29Ks, they haven't given up on the NLCA and are actively supporting if..instead of chasing katrinas and Rambhas. That is what the scientists expect - appreciation of their hard work and not ridicule in public. Navy never said NLCA is two and half or three and half generation.

***I am curious to know what is the percentage of primary and high end systems and propulsion etc used by Navy being manufactured indigineously. Import cost percentage vis-a-vis the total system cost. Real Numbers please and not perception or the approach etc.
Would definitely like to stand corrected .


In some cases it may be 70% or more..In fact I can say, even now in a warship, as far as equipments/machinery/ various systems are concerned, most of the Industrialised nations would find representation. That situation is slowly changing and indigenisation is taken seriously. Work culture in dockyards - it used to be pathetic and don't know how is it now. The positive thing is, they work under Naval officers and have some sense of discipline...though on rare occasions even Naval officers get gheraoed. In general civilian staff are respectful towards Naval staff. And Navy is fully involved in design, construction, repair and maintenance of warships. For your information, a technical branch officer has to sail onboard ship only thrice - as LT, LCDR and CDR, each spanning 1-2 years. Rest of the time they spend in dockyards and other shore establishments. So, for Navy, if at all they have to point fingers, it is at their own colleagues who are in charge of various repair & construcion yards in the dockyard and other establishments.


Thanks for the feedback . Some opinions above are debatable for sure , but maybe for some other day :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2015 22:00 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 6463
Location: Sergeant Major-No.1 Training Battalion, BR Rifles
geeth wrote:
<SNIP> Yes Navy people realised early enough that NLCA is not going to around anywhere in the near future and so got the 29K. That is advanced planning. And even after getting the 29Ks, they haven't given up on the NLCA and are actively supporting if..instead of chasing katrinas and Rambhas. That is what the scientists expect - appreciation of their hard work and not ridicule in public. Navy never said NLCA is two and half or three and half generation.<SNIP>


This benefit of being able to plan for contingency in case of Tejas was NOT available to IAF. Even though IAF realized pretty early that the timelines mentioned for development of Tejas were nothing but flights of fancy on part of the R&D team. IAF did the best it could to cushion against delay(s) - and this is where the Mig-21 Bison upgrade was conceived. Even this has more or less run its course and we'll be extending the in-service life of Bison in IAF service.

Just imagine the horror situation if Bison upgrade had not happened?

Also, you're over-simplifying the problem being faced by IAF due to delay in Tejas - Indian Navy Fleet Air Arm is graduating from Harrier to Mig-29K. IN's operational readiness is not impacted by the delay in NLCA development. NLCA will go towards expansion of FAA and not replacement - which LCA was to do in IAF's case.

Thank God for something like Su-30MKI happened to India and IAF! Else, we'd paddling up the shit-creek w/o a paddle. The irony of the situation which people miss is that bulk of Mig-21/23/27 squadrons which were to be replaced by Tejas, have ended up being replaced by Su-30MKI.

The lesson in Tejas development is pretty simple and straight-forward: The Operational Readiness of the Armed Forces is the prime-objective which any R&D program aims to address. And the objectives and attendant timelines need to address this first and foremost.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2015 22:37 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 8046
>>>This benefit of being able to plan for contingency in case of Tejas was NOT available to IAF.
If IAF was in the program from early on and remained ..but its water under the bridge.
Embedded IAF officers in the team would have helped. That's a big plus which has helped in the AEW&C program. So hopefully lessons learnt!

>>>Thank God for something like Su-30MKI happened to India and IAF! Else, we'd paddling up the shit-creek w/o a paddle. The irony of the situation which people miss is that bulk of Mig-21/23/27 squadrons which were to be replaced by Tejas, have ended up being replaced by Su-30MKI.

IIRC only MiG-21 was/is Tejas. While ADA always hoped for 23/27 to be Tejas replaceable too, IAF considered these "medium weight class" fighters. Their ideal replacement would have been the Mirage 2000/MMRCA. But its all juggling, as new/old squadrons will get re/formed once Rafales come in.

>>>Also, you're over-simplifying the problem being faced by IAF due to delay in Tejas - Indian Navy Fleet Air Arm is graduating from Harrier to Mig-29K. IN's operational readiness is not impacted by the delay in NLCA development. NLCA will go towards expansion of FAA and not replacement - which LCA was to do in IAF's case.

MiG-29K has been a disaster from what one hears. Hopefully IAF Upg is better.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Apr 2015 06:02 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 06 Mar 2015 21:43
Posts: 11
Location: Unkil land - For work onlee. Will be back soon to amchi Mumbai
Although this has been pointed out already in the thread by others in some way or the other -
I have always believed that the personalities between Navy and Air Force is distinctly different. At the risk of over-simplifying that - Its a sailor vs. aviator thing.
An aviator is always pushing to have the best and latest in his hands and understandably so. It is his skill/flying ability which keeps him alive and he wants a machine that is as modern and best of the bread as possible.
A sailor has always (even historically) been the one who studies a lot before venturing out; knows/plans his voyage. Yes he too deals with situations in seas where he has to react to the elements, but mostly the voyage/mission is successful on back of good planning and excellent anticipation.
So given this difference in basic personal psyche; the difference in the thought process has played out on the indigenization front as well, I guess?

I know the above sounds like over simplifying it a lot than that is. And there are lot more significant and intelligent points made out by the other members like the problems with HAL and the lesser threat perception for the Navy vs. Air Force etc.

But just thought of putting it out there this thought too which I have kinda always had in my mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Apr 2015 06:37 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 May 2014 00:15
Posts: 2188
Quote:
MiG-29K has been a disaster from what one hears. Hopefully IAF Upg is better.


??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Apr 2015 07:21 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 40728
prat.patel, Carl Builder in his book "Masks of War" (RAND) examines the very issues you raise from US services point of view and some UK.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Apr 2015 11:15 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 06 Mar 2015 21:43
Posts: 11
Location: Unkil land - For work onlee. Will be back soon to amchi Mumbai
ramana wrote:
prat.patel, Carl Builder in his book "Masks of War" (RAND) examines the very issues you raise from US services point of view and some UK.


Thanks a lot for the reference to the book Ramana!! :) Really appreciate it!
Have been looking for a while now for some new good read to pick up next... You have given me one now! :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Apr 2015 14:29 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 31 Jul 2006 05:12
Posts: 2993
Let me ask a different question...what is the end state? what are we trying to achieve?

to help answer:
if HAL and IAF work together beautifully, would the end result look more like Boeing/Dassault/LM and their corresponding defence forces or would it look more like Su/Mig design bureau and RuAF?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Apr 2015 14:46 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 15 Sep 2011 07:22
Posts: 765
pandyan wrote:
Let me ask a different question...what is the end state? what are we trying to achieve?

to help answer:
if HAL and IAF work together beautifully, would the end result look more like Boeing/Dassault/LM and their corresponding defence forces or would it look more like Su/Mig design bureau and RuAF?


Actually, in the Russian context, the production agency is Irkutsk or knappo. For fighters, HAL is a production agency while ADA is the design bureau. (OTOH, for helicopters, HAL acts as design bureau too).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Apr 2015 00:09 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 06 Mar 2015 21:43
Posts: 11
Location: Unkil land - For work onlee. Will be back soon to amchi Mumbai
pandyan wrote:
Let me ask a different question...what is the end state? what are we trying to achieve?

to help answer:
if HAL and IAF work together beautifully, would the end result look more like Boeing/Dassault/LM and their corresponding defence forces or would it look more like Su/Mig design bureau and RuAF?


I think the end result should be that -
First - IAF should be definitely working a lot closely with ADA.
Second - Without getting into private sector vs. public sector debate or American vs. Russian model; but there has to be some competition. There has to be some alternative to HAL. Only a competition can improve production output.

Even the Russians in the communist era had found a way of creation some pseudo competition by forming divisions within the UAC who would be competing (on paper at least) for orders after the Sukhois and Mikoyans would come up with designs.
The point I am trying to drive is that no matter what you are "producing"; monopoly will never give you the best results. And HAL today is a monopoly in fighter aircraft production in India.
If we are so wary of private sector; fine, float another public sector unit (just saying; not that I am thrilled by the particular thought of another public sector unit :-?). Say, the NLCA is produced by this new unit (public or private I don't care).
Do something different; try out things to see how we can get better.

This is another area where Navy is in lot better situation - they have multiple shipyards to give production orders to. Although it is not completely free market where each shipyard can compete for every order; but still there is an alternative at least! :|


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Apr 2015 05:36 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Posts: 1782
X-posting: This pretty much summarizes the current status quo.

Karan M wrote:
deejay wrote:
Karan, please drop the Sir. I am just not comfortable with it.

As far as the IAF is concerned, when I speak to my contemporaries who are senior Wing Commanders or fresh Group Captains (mid level) the feeling is very strong vis-a-vis HAL. I have not found a single voice in service and pro HAL and I also include the Engineering officers.

Secondly, the IAF, which may be 'import passand' etc, is very efficient in its work culture in things like discipline, timelines, punctuality (I am refering to rank and file and not the Air ranks or decision makers only). Folks in uniform almost as a rule expect PSUs of defence sector to be like them and no amount of argument gets them to see the other side - Unions, Worker issues, non military life style, etc.

I also felt that very few if any understood challenges of setting up Assembly Lines, Production, economic order quantity etc, even among the Engineers.

IMO, the disconnect is large and continues. A sustained effort is required to inculcate a culture which supports Indian production is. HAL and other PSU's need to turn a new leaf and learn some Marketing, Advertising, Brand Promotion, etc for once. Another step will be to stop time line slippages. Just last weekend I could not get folks to see how LCA would be available in quantities and on time given that the second aircraft has again missed a deadline provided by HAL.

Even today, the news or opinion folks in uniform digest or consume is not BRF style "Indic" but very mainstream Western style propagandized view points. This further increases the disconnect. Add to that the opinion of the likes of Air Marshal (Retd) Mathesaran and Col (Retd) Shukla tends to get more traction in military circles for obvious reasons.

HAL and IAF are two entities and while there are other players in this Military vs. Def PSUs debate, this one relationship probably embodies all the ills faced by the Indian MIC. If this relationship improves, I am sure all else will fall in place.

I think the Defence Ministries proposal of not allowing imports in certain sectors and in time increasing this list to cover more and more sectors will go a long way. Let Rafale be the last example of a weapon system where a generational equivalent Made in India was available but imports were allowed.

The above are my views and opinions based on a small sample of people I interact.


Agree & that's been my experience too.

Now to a few more controversial points.

One, I think the average IAF person/military person simply doesn't have the background or wherewithal (time, interest) to adequately look into issues that determine national industrial development. I was once told by a senior IAF guys - these "DRDO wallahs are asking millions for a simple bomb" - he neither cared nor understood that the components of a bomb, such as a seeker would require expensive production facilities by themselves. This sort of attitude is all very common. "We are on time, they are not". That "they" are developing things from scratch, is not really looked into at all. Another issue is that the limited amount of reverse engineering that has gone on at BRDs has been very useful, but even worsened this attitude "even my airman could do this" - never mind that the component being machined is a) to an existing form factor b ) uses metal already developed or ex-import c ) relies on commercial analysis often done by the private sector or DPSU/R&D labs themselves. The refrain is since we need to go to war, we need this now, no matter what. The question then is, why was this not raised earlier? And if it was, and the time taken is long, do they understand that cancelling the program/or not giving it adequate orders (as versus imports for the short term, but keep the program running) will lead to permanent reliance on imports? These sort of forward planning/analysis is almost completely missing when these programs are discussed.

The prior practise was to send a few people to the labs, a few stay, others spend as much time as is necessary (bare minimum), come back with a tick mark but not really aware of the issues in detail. How exactly does one become an expert on R&D or production by making a few visits? Yet, the IAF's empire building is such that it want's these folks to run all other organizations which is neither realistic nor will it give the desired results. IAF folks say "we sent xyz to fix HAL, govt didn't agree". Would a person who has spent a better part of a decade cursing HAL, with very little mfg awareness, be the ideal person to do this?

So to sum it up, until & unless the IAF creates a cadre of people who work on such programs & see the real issues, there will continue to be hand waving dismissals of national programs which are far more complex than the IAF cares for.

Second, coming to westernized viewpoints. This has long been a pet peeve of mine & most of my friends who have been on both sides of the divide (brats included) - reluctantly agree. The entire "sahibs in cantonment" versus "Civilians outside" culture deliberately done by the British to have an apolitical, and completely loyal force has served India well, in that the corruption and disorganization outside was kept at bay. However, it has also created an artificial is versus them divide wherein the view that the other side has bleddy civilians (mostly those associated with the GOI, the babus who must be obeyed but can be held in contempt) has poisoned relations with the DPSU structure. Have seen this wherein some services appointees come in with a chip on their shoulder & treat everyone on the other side of the fence with extreme disdain. The worst was at a public function where a gent from the IA (self described as India's foremost expert on offsets and acquisitions) went on a long rant about many of the people attending the function itself. Somehow, this sort of behaviour is NEVER done with the gora's or foreign OEMs, who are treated with stiff necked courtesy even if they are wrong. Those from the services who then work on the R&D/DPSU side are treated with contempt if they seek to have neutral viewpoints. The high(low) point being even the Std Committee on Defence being informed that officers who worked on the Arjun & disagreed with the Army had "forgotten the Olive green". This sort of stuff is almost unique to the Indian services & needs to be solved.

I cannot reiterate this enough. Calling your own people names in public is not done - it causes morale issues, it worsens relations & further more reduces the deterrence effect of our national programs. In 1999, the then ISI chief as much admitted that they went on newspaper reports about how "hollow" the Indian forces were. By constantly crying wolf and claiming to be weak, we invite war. By all means, flag issues in private, be consistent, don't dilute standards.

IMHO, this second issue is fundamentally the biggest issue dogging many critical programs. The problem is acute with senior brass of the age group of the AMs/Generals - but the issue is before they go, they make sure the same ethos carries over to the young guys.

Third, there is the extreme dysfunction in the Indian MIC wherein the MOD has basically been Nero fiddling. If ADA is to design the LCA, HAL to make it, IAF to procure it, why exactly did the MOD not crack the whip and get all to work together? IMHO, this is not merely happenstance but deliberate because it keeps the import gravy train flowing. Disinterested Defence Ministers & babus who could'nt care less & the system is what it has become. If its MOD which funds ADA, HAL, IAF why were HAL and IAF bickering over who funds production? If MOD runs both HAL & ADA, why was HAL not extending full support to LCA? If MOD runs both ADA & IAF, why is it that IAF could get away with zero involvement with the LCA & in turn, ADA could get away with promising unrealistic deadlines? All this because fundamentally, there is nobody to stand upto any of these groups & tell them, enough, work together.

Fourth, the increasingly distressing phenomenon of open lobbyists from the Armed Forces, rtd. They front multiple companies, act as agents, run magazines, run media shows etc. All this is fine but there are often conflicts of interest. Many of those who routinely mocked & denigrate our made in India efforts often have a commercial interest to do so. Whilst the Armed forces may justifiably point out they can't do anything to those who leave, the MOD should have ensured laws were stringent enough to avoid such overt & covert lobbying at the expense of the Indian national interest. Instead, the MOD had people who actively encouraged the media to go after its own groups. Such is the state of affairs.

All said & done, I still believe things will get better. But the manner in which otherwise respected seniors have let their personal perceptions affect national programs is often a hard thing to understand or even accept. That & they still attempt to influence policy & refuse to look at reason.

Having said this, I do believe the LCA will prove its critics wrong & the success of several other programs will gradually change opinions. And in that I think the AF's youngsters/mid-ranked staff (WingCos & so forth) will play a huge role. They come from a new generation & don't really buy into any superiority of the west or similar baggage. They'll do what it takes to get us ahead. There were IAF folks deputed to DARE for EW, others to CABS for AEW&C. These are people who are seeing the R&D effort first hand. Hopefully, they will continue to shape opinion & drive such programs forward.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Apr 2015 06:40 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 25161
Location: In all wars: Pakistan ki gone-for-tea
To summarize some key issues:
    1. HAL/govt organizations have technical manpower but they are lackadaisical organizations where timelines are routinely violated and criticism simply does not sink in - they don;t seem to care about the horror of openly announcing dates and deadlines that they can't meet. This is still happening even today in 2015
    2. HAL and government organizations often have departments led by useless men whose young employees get frustrated and leave because nothing is being done
    3. The IAF is led by macho cowboy fighter pilots whose job is to fly and fight well but they have no grasp of technical issues in design and manufacture, they have little knowledge of the problems involved and until recently did not even understand how a country's strength and independence and the fighting fitness of the forces is linked to industrial prowess which needs to be nurtured
    4. There is mutual contempt between suppliers and users.
    5. Let me add my own 2 paise here: We the people admire the armed forces by in general we too are often contemptuous of our own industry. The armed forces who come from among us carry these attitudes. The contempt for industry is only partly justifiable. We need to tear down what is bad, but we need to understand what holds back industry and acknowledge what is good


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Apr 2015 13:27 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Jun 2009 23:12
Posts: 218
Location: Earth
How does other countries manage this, knowledge base in Air force issue?

F16 and F18 are both produced in US and used in USAF, Russia produces all a/c there only and uses them, Sweden and France also does the same, how come in these scenarios driver and car logic did't interfere with production of a/c..there is something fundamentally different there and here.. did we let our Air force people only as drivers of a/c??

Is it correct time to induct some higher technical officers in IAF and bring them to a place, where they are more than just expert drivers of expensive cars / a/c?
hope GOI does something in this direction??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Apr 2015 16:50 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 25161
Location: In all wars: Pakistan ki gone-for-tea
govardhan wrote:

F16 and F18 are both produced in US and used in USAF, Russia produces all a/c there only and uses them, Sweden and France also does the same, how come in these scenarios driver and car logic did't interfere with production of a/c..there is something fundamentally different there and here.. did we let our Air force people only as drivers of a/c??

Every one of these countries had to start making their own planes to fight their wars in the early and mid 1900s - so the manufacture and engineering skills came first. For India - our people were only employed by Britain as pilots for planes made by Britain and the US. This simply continued after 1947. India's few attempts at making fighters came to naught due to various well known reasons (read history of HF 24). After that LCA is the only attempt. In the meantime our Air Force has worked and fought with imported aircraft designed and made by teams with 60 to 75 years experience in designing and making tens of thousands of aircraft and all the support and experience that goes along with that. We are in a chicken or egg situation. the industry does not have the skills and experience and cannot develop that because it can be imported off the shelf.

I had started an entire thread 3 years ago to discuss some issues related to this:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6387


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 151 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: arunsrinivasan, deWalker, prahaar and 33 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group