India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 20 Jul 2014 22:23

Walchandnagar Newsletter

Interview with Mr Suhas Mahabaleshwarkar President Defence & Aerospace

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Jul 2014 01:52

Well, I did not say that the chaiwallas I know sold chai to the design team. All I can say is that the chai is good.

Regarding aerostructures, we have to build a few more planes, before we get to the generations which have the Mikoyans, Rutans, Tanks and Messerschmitts of the world. We can't simply read it in books and papers and hope that we can build optimized planes just like that.

I will just say that the people working on IJT are a good bunch, probably one of the best India can put together. They are not novices and that they also know that changing an engine midway through testing is a bad proposition. They had faith in the Russians and made an honest mistake.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Jul 2014 04:04

Yeah, that is of course one side of the coin.

On the other side, if AI-55 was a success story, we would have been singing paeans to the same group. At the moment, they took that decision it did not look that risky. Also, they had to look at the financial books. AI-55 appeared to be a cheap alternative. Development from a developed and fielded engine (assembled in India) and from a respected engine manufacturer, prospect of full ToT (for at least assembly), and a prospect of domestic production run of a thousand engines. It is a difficult proposition to pass. And if it was passed, at least the desi lobby here would have been crying hoarse that we passed a proposition for desi manufacture and went for a complete import!

In hindsight, we can all make the best decision. They don't have that benefit. If they passed, we would have said, they did their job. Now that they have failed, we are throwing bricks at them. I don't envy their position at all.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 22 Jul 2014 04:36

chackojoseph wrote:DRDO developed 35 m man-portable Mountain Foot Bridge adapted disaster relief

Costs just 6.5 lakh Rupees to make.

How much is it delivered?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Jul 2014 05:18

agupta wrote:Fair point on potential criticisms.

2 counter points though

1. Anybody with any experience or knowledge in the aerospace design world would've not sung paenas - but would've sacrificed goats, tonsured heads etc. By any yardstick, it was a stupid, in-disciplined thing to do - what is usually taught in the "how not to " in any mature engg. design organization - regardless of eventual success or failure. If you care about eventual delivery to a customer, you just don't take fool hardy chances like that.

So either their leadership is highly flawed OR I suspect some other forces at work (quid pro quo for something strategic?)

Fair point. But our customers and govt. (like us) ask the same questions: Mileage kitna deti hai?

agupta wrote: 2. They seem to still have a fundamental aero/handling quality problem - independent of engine issues, it seems - that puts a big cloud on their design ability, so to speak. If a group with the LCA design experience behind them did it, it would raise significant issues. You can think of it in two ways - for a company with sufficient design experience from the HF-24 to Kiran to the HPT/HTT series etc., this should not happen - so something major got lost over the years; or you could argue - there's been a known weakness / capability gap re. flight handling qualities that seems to have afflicted this part of the HAL design bureau - and they've never managed to fix it... and the expertise in the LCA team never transferred over.

I kind of agree. But I don't know enough about the problem or the solutions. My speculation is that they probably know how to fix it but they can't afford to go through the entire cycle if they changed something fundamental. So they are trying to fix the problem by making superficial changes. If my speculations are right, they are close to fixing the problem. I am not too worried about the weight gain at all. The TWR even with the weight gain is still higher than the Hawk. So performance wise they would be fine. The payload capacity will be sacrificed till the empty weight is reduced. It can be fixed in tranches.

partha · Post by **partha** » 22 Jul 2014 07:48

SanjayC wrote:Private sector set to enter Indian aerospace market

But in October 2013, Patel had written to then PM Manmohan Singh and defence minister A K Antony to demand that PSUs should get "equal opportunity" and "a level-playing field" in the project. That, in effect, held up the entire endeavour.

Amazing how a minister can just write a letter and stop a critical project. This Praful Patel is a shady character. One has to go through the Radia tapes to know how he was responsible for sinking Air India and Indian airlines to benefit private airlines. So I don't believe that he had interests of PSUs like HAL on his mind here. It seems like his aim was to just stop / delay this project. I wonder why? And I wonder how many more such important projects were derailed.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 22 Jul 2014 11:28

Cosmo_R wrote:How much is it delivered?

1 delivered. The technology is up for companies. Himalayan Environmental Studies and Conservation Organization), Dehradun is also working at pushing this bridge to remote areas.

vic · Post by **vic** » 22 Jul 2014 11:30

Al-55 Engine is a very shady deal. We paid big money for developing ab initio new engine while working of deal is such that we get zero manufacturing. Also note Hal is trying to develop another 25kn engine, why?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Jul 2014 22:49

http://agmetalminer.com/2014/07/22/the- ... re-earths/
The Real Reason Behind India’s Titanium Push? Rare Earths

by Sohrab Darabshaw on July 22, 2014

Indian Rare Earths Limited operates under India’s Department of Atomic Energy. When complete, the new $82 million titanium plant joint venture with India’s NALCO (National Aluminum Company) will make 100,000 tons (1 lakh ton) of titanium slag in the eastern state of Odisha. Some of it will also be used to make pig-iron. A feasibility study and technology selection on the project will soon be carried out.

Incidentally, the MoU for formation of the joint-venture was signed between the two state-owned entities about three years ago but was revalidated last week. No explanation was forthcoming for the delay.

IREL has four plants that extract rare earths from India’s coast line. One of them called OSCOM currently produces 2,20,000 ton (2.20 lakh) Ilmenite per annum, most of which is exported to other countries.

India is part of the handful of nations around the world that makes titanium sponge. In April last year, as reported by MetalMiner, India had taken another step in the production of titanium sponge when the well-known public sector steel producer, the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), signed an agreement with the Kerala State Industrial Development Corp (KSIDC) and Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd (KMML) to jointly set up an approximate $458 million plant to produce titanium sponge and metals.

For many years, ISRO was dependent on other nations for its titanium sponge needs, but it will be able to source titanium sponge from this new plant, one of the few in the world being put up by KMML. India will be the seventh country in the world to have the technology to make titanium sponge.

According to this report in Forbes, the breakthrough was a result of pooling of resources among state-run organizations and companies. The technology was developed by Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory, a laboratory under India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation, or DRDO.

India has vast reserves of Titanium ore because of its vast coast line, and India has been trying to be self-sufficient in this crucial material.

World production of the ore is about 150,000-200,000 tons, and China dominates the production and use of titanium. Nine out of 18 companies making titanium sponge are Chinese. The KMML plant will help India get parity in strategic affairs.

Like Ilmenite, there are other heavy minerals found on the beach sand in the Indian States of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa such as zircon, rutile, garnet and sillimanite. India has 360 million tons of Ilmenite reserves, or 18 percent of global deposits. Outside of the state-owned producers, there are some private players, too, involved in the extraction of these strategically important minerals.

The author, Sohrab Darabshaw, contributes an Indian perspective on industrial metals markets to MetalMiner.

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 25 Jul 2014 10:29

Thanks Karan. So we can see that Bharat has made a substantial move into producing Titanium sponge.
But so much more needs to be done.

From page 8

Titanium bearing ilmenite deposits are estimated at around 375 – 400 Mt i.e. 21% of global deposits approx.
Installed capacity only 1% approx. of the total world’s capacity
Demand of around 150,000 t/yr of Titanium dioxide – Imports about 70% of it

http://www.iim-delhi.com/upload_events/ ... a_SAIL.pdf

GoI needs to start levying a punitive tax on imports of Titanium from sanction prone nations. We now have a domestic source. I also thought I should mention that there is good research on a more modern method of producing titanium via molten salts.

Video of Cambridge FFC process
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97dfa1GoF7w
Indian equivalent
http://eprints.nmlindia.org/2508/1/121.pdf

ISRO, Madhani and even SAIL have done a great job on Titanium. There is no excuse for imports. The demand for 150 000 t/year of Titanium should be met by desi sources only. We need an import tax, customs obstacles. We need Babudom at its finest for every titanium importer. Get them to fill out documents in triplicate! Intrusive tax inspections. Make those non tariff barriers very high for any Western nation. The babus know every trick in the book, they can use it for Bharat this time.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Jul 2014 20:19

About time ......................

DRDO to open centres in academic institutes

New Delhi, July 25 (IANS): The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) plans to set up advanced technology centres in prominent academic institutes including IITs, parliament was told on Friday.

There will be one centre in IIT-Bombay for research in advanced propulsion technologies and next generation aero engine technologies, Defence Minister Arun Jaitley told the Lok Sabha.

Another centre at Jadavpur University in Kolkata will work on "Unmanned Autonomous Soldier-Assist Technologies", he said.

DRDO was organising technical workshops with research faculty and scientists and negotiating with institutes for establishing these Advanced Technology Centres, he said.

"Research focus areas, existing capabilities and need for additional research facilities are assessed for establishing these centres," Jaitley added.

The DRDO established the Research and Innovation Centre at IIT-Chennai in 2012.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 26 Jul 2014 19:16

Found two links about INSAS and OFB and other DPSU's

http://salute.co.in/details.php?id=44

http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main52 ... 12ARMS.asp

below are selective quotes.

“The INSAS project was established during a period of particular optimism in India’s domestic defense industrial research, what one author characterised as a ‘return to selfsufficiency’ after two decades of depending on imported arms.”

The ubiquitous DRDO, claiming to have made progress in developing its own 5.56mm AR at its Armaments Research and Development Establishment in Pune, stepped in and vociferously undertook to make good the army’s small arms requirements.

It took nearly 15 years for the INSAS AR project to fructify, in 1995, and according to weapon experts, what emerged was an ‘amalgam’ of several models: the Russian AK-47, the G41, AUG and SA80 designs.

Each OFB-produced INSAS AR eventually cost over Rs 20,000, compared to the 1,00,000 battle-tested AK-47’s supplied by Bulgaria that cost $93 each, or Rs 2,800 at the prevailing exchange rate

“The INSAS AR emerged after years of development as a noncompetitive and inefficient weapon system and the army, being a tied customer, had little choice but to accept it irrespective of its operational shortcomings,” says Major General (retd) Sheru Thapliyal. This profligacy has not only deprived the army of an efficient basic weapon system for decades but made hugely expensive imports a necessity, he adds

The INSAS programme symbolises the inefficiencies inherent in India’s vast and monopolistic military-industrial complex, comprising 51 DRDO laboratories, 39 OFB units and eight Defence Public Sector Units (DPSUs).

The ongoing inquiry by the CBI into the MoD’s Kolos Tatra truck procurement for inflated amounts from the DPSU Bharat Earth Movers Limited (BEML) in Bengaluru, is just one such instance of the Services paying more for questionable licence-built equipment than importing it directly.

Being State-owned, their manpower was considered ‘free’ and deadlines mattered little, besides which they functioned wastefully under the MOD’s overarching protection

Alongside, their monopoly resulted in supplying problematic, and at times, even unsafe equipment to their ‘dedicated’ customers at hugely inflated rates

Domestic political considerations too perpetuated inefficiencies and casualness in the DRDO, OFB and the DPSUs, as all political parties feared that disbanding, streamlining or even privatising their combined workforce of more than 1.4 million for greater efficiency would trigger the disintegration of loyal ‘vote banks’.

“The DPP (that monitors the OFB and DPSUs) is solely responsible for the current pitiable condition of the indigenous defence industry,” says Major General (retd) Mrinal Suman, known analyst on offsets and the military-industrial sector.

The army, he declared, was forced by the DPP to accept poor-quality equipment and ordnance, resulting in extensive loss of life and adversely impacting the military’s overall war-preparedness.

Two key problems appear to have troubled the development of the INSAS
The inability of the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB), the department responsible for fabrication and manufacture of the weapon to produce prototypes of weapons. ?? The OFB’s difficulties in producing suitable ammunition.

The DRDO claimed that the specially designed INSAS cartridge is a qualitative improvement over the standard NATO 5.56 mm round. But whatever the merits of the ammunition as designed, the OFB repeatedly failed to produce it.

These delays had serious financial and other repercussions In 1995, because of the delay in the INSAS programme, India was forced to import 100,000 7.62 mm AKM rifles; and in 1997, 50 million rounds of 5.56 mm calibre ammunition had to be imported from Israel to make up for the shortage in OFB’s supply. But in parliament, the government continued to maintain the façade that all was well

Another CAG Report in 2005 noted continuing problems with the production quality of the INSAS rifle.

So to summarize it indicates :
- suggestion of optimistic timeline by the R&D team
- poor quality levels by the manufacturers. Wonder how the same manufacturers produce licensed products of good quality but at higher cost compared to direct import. Does it show inexperience in mapping a design to a state of art assembly line to product high quality product from scratch.
- forcing poor quality equipment on the services with no accountability on the manufacturers. Come on forget import here , an Indian designed product which is manufactured indigenuously is of poor quality . Oh but you give more money and things will be better
Did someone say go for quantity over quality , I hope it was not a suggestion at the cost of our sevice men/women.
Since just saw a couple of days back an officer with 90% disability is getting 14000 pension, and MOD goes to supreme court for amount as little as 700 for a soldier with 20% disability. Depressing .
But then who cares for there sacrifices

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 26 Jul 2014 19:29

So how is the Modi sarkar doing? Sheela Bhatt on Rediff

Important nugget of info about PMO's focus on defense:

Lots of discussion is on how to indigenise some of the expenditure-oriented items for Indian security forces, like bullets and other low-technology items. The sources said within five-seven years at least a few high-cost defence-related items will be manufactured in India to save foreign exchange.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 27 Jul 2014 15:12

Article when Gen V.K.Singh was Army Chief
http://www.afternoondc.in/city-news/arm ... icle_33172

“No nation can become a power to reckon with unless it does so on its own strength,” said General V.K. Singh, PVSM, AVSM, YSM, ADC Chief of the Army Staff, Indian Army of a nation’s power projections.
“As armed forces we are equally frustrated,” was General Singh’s riposte to Kalantri’s observations. However, due to various reasons the armed forces are forced to depend on foreign suppliers. He suggested that China be looked at as a role model for the indigenisation of defence supplies. Points from their success in this regard could then be studied and adopted.

For the armed forces after they have given their requirements to the Acquisitions Department of the Ministry of Defence, the matter goes out of their hands. They can just do a follow-up with the ministry in this regard. Also, the ministry regards the written word (i.e. rules and regulations) as rather firm and often cites this to deny material.

Last point very much validated with Army not having a new gun for last 30 years.

Regarding indiginization , I don't think any one can be against it. But at the same time one must agree that the DPSU's and OF's have not done things that build there reputation much in terms of cost , efficiency, quality and timelines. And this brings in the private industry into play.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/nava ... 47604.html

This summarizes well

The absence of private defence industrial base has ensured that heavy requirements of modern warships for the Navy, aircraft for the Air Force and guns for the Army get routed through government-run factories. The shipyards are overworked and factories are loaded with orders in a clear case of biting much more than they can chew. The result is constant bickering over delays and shoddy work defeating the purpose of modernisation.
The navy takes pride in the fact that all the ships on the horizon are being built at home but the problem of delays in inducted these vessels into the fleet has become a major point of contention. The average ship construction time of around eight years is not acceptable in this age and time.

Just some internet search will provide lots of details of the problems with DPSU's and OF's. At least one should acknowledge this, improve upon them and then everything will fall in place.

http://www.pwc.in/en_IN/in/assets/pdfs/ ... sation.pdf

An analysis of the employee productivity reveals that the defence sector has a long way to go to meet benchmarks from the domestic and global private sector. The Annual Survey of Industries, conducted by the Ministry of Finance revealed that the defence industry output of 1,539 (INR thousand per employee per year) was considerably lower than the average of 3,000 (INR thousand per employee per year) across
various industries. The DPSUs and ordnance factories have often faced challenges towards scaling up production capability and to match global standards of quality and delivery. However, sectors with dominant private participation have over time been more agile in building capacity and adapting new technology and delivering to international standards of quality.

http://orfonline.org/cms/sites/orfonlin ... 728536.pdf

The monopoly status of DPSUs and OFs leads to common ills in economic activity—like inefficiency, lack of corporate accountability & competition, high cost and outdated technologies. With some notable exceptions, these establishments primarily operate as aggregators or
assembly units sourcing components from private producers. They either outsource high-tech components or acquire ToT, leaving behind a static technological base. Progressive corporatisation and Joint Ventures (JVs) with private sector will bring in market based accountability and competition in quality, price and sales. As already recommended by a number of committees, the time has come to close/revamp a number of OFs and DPSUs to address redundancy, generate efficiency and become world class production unit

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 27 Jul 2014 17:59

Just to confirm again I am all for indiginization but fix situations like below first :

May be many of the members here may already be aware about this report, not sure so posting it.
I wonder where the services come into picture for the below mess.

http://www.newindianexpress.com/magazin ... 598145.ece

Selective quotes.

Defence Minister A K Antony ordered the Comptroller General of Defence Audit (CGDA) to do a secret audit of India’s equivalent of the futuristic workshop of James Bond’s ‘Q’ — the Defence Research and Development Organisation that goes by the handle DRDO.

The highlights of the report are frightening. Here are some of them:

* DRDO has been developing equipment which is either sub-standard or have extended deadlines and additional budgets;

* Many of the projects have been sanctioned without the requisite government approval. Only 10 per cent of projects have come to the ministry for clearance;

* Corruption and nepotism exists in the upper echelons;

* There is an exodus of qualified scientists;

The audit notes that in several cases, DRDO bought equipment from other companies after spending crores on R&D. For instance, the CGDA found that after spending two years and Rs 29.96 crore to develop satellite signal monitoring, DRDO ultimately bought the same from a public sector undertaking on a single tender basis for Rs 24.50 crore in April 2011. “If such technologies are indeed commercially available, where was the need of a development project by DRDO?” the audit asked

DRDO also spent Rs 6.85 crore to develop explosive detectors, which were offered to the army for Rs 30 lakh each. Foreign versions of these are available off the shelf for Rs 9.8 lakh per piece, a price that also includes repair and maintenance
The CGDA report criticised the ‘joint development’ technology initiative of DRDO, calling it “import of older, foreign technology under the disguise of joint development.”

“DRDO shall be financing the development expenditure of `19.90 crore by releasing it direct to M/S SCD Israel. Basically, instead of doing development itself, DRDO is funding a foreign agency’s development effort, that too, without any explicit arrangements being finalised about ownership of intellectual property generated from such financing,” noted the CGDA. “Neither the production agency nor the users — mechanised forces of army — have been kept in the loop,” the CGDA report says.

The crores of rupees wasted in innumerable half-baked projects add up to quite a sum. In a separate report by CAG in 2011-12, the DRDO is criticised for spending crores on random research projects. In 2011, out of 55 high priority projects based on user-requirements, only thirteen went into production. A modular bridge, being developed for the army was shelved in 2010, after eight years of experiments and spending Rs 21.46 crore. Six months later, Rs 13.25 crore was sanctioned for another modular bridge project. The initiative to produce next generation laser weapons was closed down within a month after equipment was procured.

Defence minister Antony had asked the CGDA to investigate after receiving complaints on suspected manipulation in DRDO contracts, undue favor to some external vendors, and irregular appointments in the agency which runs a vast network across the country. Its annual budget has no audit verified document to show what value has been generated so far through its technologies. Under a very personal cloud is DRDO chief V K Saraswat. The CGDA has questioned why he granted Rs 2.88 crore to a mathematics institute to develop a futuristic radar when its scientists are not even remotely connected with research relating to the project.

A Dehradun scientific lab was granted Rs 14 crore to develop a communication link, while the institute headed by Saraswat was also sanctioned Rs 2.98 crore to develop the same technology — it doesn’t have even basic facilities like computers for individual researchers. “It shows that the radar development project is being split in different parts to avoid going to the ministry and users with a proper full scope development programme,” the CGDA said.

“There is no comprehensive database to find out the details of projects sanctioned for execution by the DRDO and how many has been declared as successful,” it said

Antony was also informed that DRDO has been operating as an authority unto itself, bypassing the MoD where many crucial expenses are involved: the agency comes under the ministry and its main objective is to develop a modern technology base and equip the defence forces with internationally competitive systems and weapons. During 2009-2010, DRDO sanctioned 702 projects costing above `50 lakh but only 102 research projects were referred to the ministry.

The audit body also questioned the grounds on which DRDO authorities sanctioned new projects in the name of completing failed projects with questionable changes in scope to avoid ministry’s nod. For example, DRDO took up a project for development of counter mine flail (CMF) for T-72 tanks at a cost of `8 crore in December 2002. CMF is a device that creates a safe passage through a minefield by deliberately detonating land mines in front of the vehicle that it is mounted on. Army HQ revised the requirement in 2004, but DRDO continued with the old parameters and in 2008, the product failed tests. In spite of this, it was not closed and in February 2011, another new project costing Rs 49.85 crore was sanctioned for the same CMF project.

DRDO has been splurging 10 per cent of its annual budget on construction of offices and auditoriums.

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... ment-scam/

The Defence Minister has recommended a CBI probe into the alleged recruitment scam in which two former DRDO chiefs and a former Chief Controller of the organisation are under scanner for allegedly giving jobs to their kins in alleged violation of rules and regulations

Recently,a Director-rank officer of the DRDO was under scanner for his alleged role in an appointment made against the laid down procedures and was suspended hours before his retirement from service in May.

SanjayC · Post by **SanjayC** » 27 Jul 2014 18:08

dhiraj wrote:Just to confirm again I am all for indiginization but fix situations like below first :

Large scale indigenization is only possible if led by the private sector. Modi needs to take action and involve private companies like Tatas, Reliance, Bharat Forge, and L&T into defence R&D and manufacturing.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 27 Jul 2014 18:18

SanjayC wrote:Large scale indigenization is only possible if led by the private sector. Modi needs to take action and involve private companies like Tatas, Reliance, Bharat Forge, and L&T into defence R&D and manufacturing.

agreed and accepted. Monopoly and unaccountably has to go . Internal competition has to be supported. Just check J 20 and J 31 developed by China. One has been developed by Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group and another by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation. Even China is going the LM and Boeing way like US. Do we have something similar.
Further Services should head DPSU's just like Navy has its officers heading the ship building activities. That is why Navy has confidence in being a builder Navy since it feels more in control of the things .

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Jul 2014 18:34

dhiraj wrote:Just to confirm again I am all for indiginization but fix situations like below first :

May be many of the members here may already be aware about this report, not sure so posting it.
I wonder where the services come into picture for the below mess.

http://www.newindianexpress.com/magazin ... 598145.ece

Selective quotes.
Defence Minister A K Antony ordered the Comptroller General of Defence Audit (CGDA) to do a secret audit of India’s equivalent of the futuristic workshop of James Bond’s ‘Q’ — the Defence Research and Development Organisation that goes by the handle DRDO.

The highlights of the report are frightening. Here are some of them:

* DRDO has been developing equipment which is either sub-standard or have extended deadlines and additional budgets;

* Many of the projects have been sanctioned without the requisite government approval. Only 10 per cent of projects have come to the ministry for clearance;

* Corruption and nepotism exists in the upper echelons;

* There is an exodus of qualified scientists;

The audit notes that in several cases, DRDO bought equipment from other companies after spending crores on R&D. For instance, the CGDA found that after spending two years and Rs 29.96 crore to develop satellite signal monitoring, DRDO ultimately bought the same from a public sector undertaking on a single tender basis for Rs 24.50 crore in April 2011. “If such technologies are indeed commercially available, where was the need of a development project by DRDO?” the audit asked

DRDO also spent Rs 6.85 crore to develop explosive detectors, which were offered to the army for Rs 30 lakh each. Foreign versions of these are available off the shelf for Rs 9.8 lakh per piece, a price that also includes repair and maintenance
The CGDA report criticised the ‘joint development’ technology initiative of DRDO, calling it “import of older, foreign technology under the disguise of joint development.”

“DRDO shall be financing the development expenditure of `19.90 crore by releasing it direct to M/S SCD Israel. Basically, instead of doing development itself, DRDO is funding a foreign agency’s development effort, that too, without any explicit arrangements being finalised about ownership of intellectual property generated from such financing,” noted the CGDA. “Neither the production agency nor the users — mechanised forces of army — have been kept in the loop,” the CGDA report says.

The crores of rupees wasted in innumerable half-baked projects add up to quite a sum. In a separate report by CAG in 2011-12, the DRDO is criticised for spending crores on random research projects. In 2011, out of 55 high priority projects based on user-requirements, only thirteen went into production. A modular bridge, being developed for the army was shelved in 2010, after eight years of experiments and spending Rs 21.46 crore. Six months later, Rs 13.25 crore was sanctioned for another modular bridge project. The initiative to produce next generation laser weapons was closed down within a month after equipment was procured.

Defence minister Antony had asked the CGDA to investigate after receiving complaints on suspected manipulation in DRDO contracts, undue favor to some external vendors, and irregular appointments in the agency which runs a vast network across the country. Its annual budget has no audit verified document to show what value has been generated so far through its technologies. Under a very personal cloud is DRDO chief V K Saraswat. The CGDA has questioned why he granted Rs 2.88 crore to a mathematics institute to develop a futuristic radar when its scientists are not even remotely connected with research relating to the project.

A Dehradun scientific lab was granted Rs 14 crore to develop a communication link, while the institute headed by Saraswat was also sanctioned Rs 2.98 crore to develop the same technology — it doesn’t have even basic facilities like computers for individual researchers. “It shows that the radar development project is being split in different parts to avoid going to the ministry and users with a proper full scope development programme,” the CGDA said.

“There is no comprehensive database to find out the details of projects sanctioned for execution by the DRDO and how many has been declared as successful,” it said

Antony was also informed that DRDO has been operating as an authority unto itself, bypassing the MoD where many crucial expenses are involved: the agency comes under the ministry and its main objective is to develop a modern technology base and equip the defence forces with internationally competitive systems and weapons. During 2009-2010, DRDO sanctioned 702 projects costing above `50 lakh but only 102 research projects were referred to the ministry.

The audit body also questioned the grounds on which DRDO authorities sanctioned new projects in the name of completing failed projects with questionable changes in scope to avoid ministry’s nod. For example, DRDO took up a project for development of counter mine flail (CMF) for T-72 tanks at a cost of `8 crore in December 2002. CMF is a device that creates a safe passage through a minefield by deliberately detonating land mines in front of the vehicle that it is mounted on. Army HQ revised the requirement in 2004, but DRDO continued with the old parameters and in 2008, the product failed tests. In spite of this, it was not closed and in February 2011, another new project costing Rs 49.85 crore was sanctioned for the same CMF project.

DRDO has been splurging 10 per cent of its annual budget on construction of offices and auditoriums.

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... ment-scam/

The Defence Minister has recommended a CBI probe into the alleged recruitment scam in which two former DRDO chiefs and a former Chief Controller of the organisation are under scanner for allegedly giving jobs to their kins in alleged violation of rules and regulations

Recently,a Director-rank officer of the DRDO was under scanner for his alleged role in an appointment made against the laid down procedures and was suspended hours before his retirement from service in May.

The kind of stuff that you proudly support is exactly why the Defence system in India is in trouble today. There are many dubious assertions made in that article which smack of agenda peddling & to disguise overreaching bureaucracy and bean counting.

Take this asinine claim for instance:

The CGDA has questioned why he granted Rs 2.88 crore to a mathematics institute to develop a futuristic radar when its scientists are not even remotely connected with research relating to the project.

A Dehradun scientific lab was granted Rs 14 crore to develop a communication link, while the institute headed by Saraswat was also sanctioned Rs 2.98 crore to develop the same technology — it doesn’t have even basic facilities like computers for individual researchers. “It shows that the radar development project is being split in different parts to avoid going to the ministry and users with a proper full scope development programme,” the CGDA said.

The folks in CGDA - if you had known about this earlier instead of trying to muck rake on Saraswat - questioned why he had to give money to a mathematics institute when it had "nothing to do with radars" (

) and why "LRDE did not do this" since radars should only be worked on by LRDE.

The geniuses apparently did not even bother to understand the difference between applied engineering & theoretical concepts as applied to algorithms and how one needs the other! They were upset that DRDO gave money to an academic institute to set up stuff which they were not already working on.

A huge sum of Rs 2.88 Crores for the entire class of system

when a single "futuristic radar" ex import costs anywhere upto Rs 100-150 Crores! How horrible.

So, DRDO in an attempt to do bureaucracy busting breaks up programs into multiple ones so they can be sanctioned easily (<Rs 50 Crores), ropes in academia, and the bureaucrats object. Brilliant.

Take this other assertion:

The audit body also questioned the grounds on which DRDO authorities sanctioned new projects in the name of completing failed projects with questionable changes in scope to avoid ministry’s nod. For example, DRDO took up a project for development of counter mine flail (CMF) for T-72 tanks at a cost of `8 crore in December 2002. CMF is a device that creates a safe passage through a minefield by deliberately detonating land mines in front of the vehicle that it is mounted on. Army HQ revised the requirement in 2004, but DRDO continued with the old parameters and in 2008, the product failed tests. In spite of this, it was not closed and in February 2011, another new project costing Rs 49.85 crore was sanctioned for the same CMF project

The Counter Mine Flail Project proceeded exactly as it should have! One should not foreclose programs until they achieve their objectives. In this case, once the program was sanctioned, the IA changed requirements which would have meant a headless run to another program without even learning from the previous one. Quite akin to cancelling the Arjun and running to the FMBT claiming "requirements had changed" without even learning how to field a tank in the first place.
And the entire development program cost Rs 8 Crores which is peanuts in the import scheme of things.

As to where the services come in, the midway requirements change is exactly the problem with the IA. Many programs have suffered the same in the lack of a formal development structure.

Given these "facts" - the entire report is nothing but hogwash. All for "indiginization"(sic) indeed.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Jul 2014 18:40

Coming to claims of Shenyang versus CAC, It helps to do some basic research.
Shenyang is in financial challenges thanks to its J11 program being mismanaged & latest reports note that CATIC aka Chengdu will be taking over Shenyang to create a unified national aerospace firm to match what UAC has done in Russia & BAe achieved in the UK, with Dassault playing the same role in France. In the US as well, consolidation has meant that only two fighter manufacturers survive - LM now includes General Dynamics, whereas Northrop exited the fighter business, Boeing purchased Mc Donnell Douglas! In the latest round of consolidations, Russia has now unified its entire avionics & electronics into a new conglomerate, including both NIIP & Phazatron.

Net, countries with far greater financial resources & technological investment than India are consolidating. Claims that India can hence somehow sustain multiple design bureaus/manufacturing lines in aerospace hence ring hollow. At best, we can liberalize our existing setup in select areas of defence manufacture but there is little evidence that India has the budgetary wherewithal to sustain two competitors HAL-1, HAL-2 and what that would achieve because instead of a monopoly we would have a duopoly.

Instead, its best to reform HAL or even privatize it.

Next, claims that services should head DPSUs are equally facile. Where is the experience? The average person from a service rarely has the hands on depth and breadth of manufacturing experience that a DPSU requires. The Naval shipyards manned by Naval officers rtd are no paragons of efficiency either. The Army BRDs are routinely pulled up by the Army for missing targets and production quality requirement
The answer then is to liberalize the DPSU management so they can hire the people they need, not parachute Generals and Admirals into roles they will find hard to manage!

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 27 Jul 2014 18:56

^^^^^
Thanks for editing the word in the previous post , appreciate it .
No harm in you sticking to your opinion and doing selective quotes. Same applies for me.
Bottomline is , if there are problem with import lobbies then at the same time there are problem with DPSU's and OF and our R&D activities.
Fix is needed for them too rather than brushing them under the carpet and just pushing for indiginization without an efficient system in place.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Jul 2014 19:17

dhiraj wrote:^^^^^
Thanks for editing the word in the previous post , appreciate it .

Actually I didn't edit any word for you to appreciate - I added more data. Your faux appreciation matters nothing to me. I neither know you nor wish to do so. I judge you by your quality of posts & so far they are pathetic. However, when you shed tears over "indiginization" and post rubbish about "fixing issues" which you don't even understand, I will point it out because it is misleading.

The same as you giving screeds about G3OM being somehow an achievement at less cost without even realizing the amount of financial muscle invested in by other nations to make it even work. Comparing it to radars etc (where we have to do all the heavy lifting) as versus a single module which relies on GPS/GLONASS etc infrastructure put up at huge expense and technology invested in by other countries.

When you don't even understand the basics of what you are talking about (as in the above, taking efforts to improve the system as being problems).

o harm in you sticking to your opinion and doing selective quotes. Same applies for me.

I don't do selective quotes but point out & rely on facts. Your projections are amusing.

Bottomline is , if there are problem with import lobbies then at the same time there are problem with DPSU's and OF and our R&D activities.
Fix is needed for them too rather than brushing them under the carpet and just pushing for indiginization without an efficient system in place.

Your claims are irrelevant because you don't understand the first thing about what an "efficient system" means, hence you are quoting reports selectively.

An efficient system is what DRDO et al have tried in the above. Cut down red tape by moving large projects into multiple ones which could be funded by them directly. Move it to multiple academic partners, offer funding to get them to start working on radars and other applied engineering programs at miniscule cost (Rs 2.88 Crore IS miniscule when the average "futuristic radar" India is importing can cost even upto a $100 Million and more). However, the beancounters object because they want complete control, irrespective of how many delays it bakes into the system.

What this tells me is that equal to the word "indiginization", you really don't understand what you are talking about.

In short, in the above report, it bears out as to why the CGDA/CAG etc have caused such a risk averse, slow is ok, culture in the PSUs, wherein any risk tied to any financial implication is avoided lest it cause censure. No matter how penny wise pound foolish it turns out to be in the long run.
And you think it is a good thing.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 27 Jul 2014 19:26

It seems that most of us here are strongly pro-indiagenization but are talking past each other due to deeply entrenched prejudices. Bottom line is this as Dhiraj has pointed out-- no organization will work if it has no accountability. This in turn depends on a perform-or-die rule which, in thecase of USA comes from private industry's easy hire-n-fire and in the case of ex-Soviets and Chinese, gun to head plus Gulag. Both models can produce results while the former ismore efficient as is quite apparent. But the absence of either model can only lead to the mess that we are saddled with. Indians need to go to America to develop top-grade weapons as is evident from the thousands of Indians in US MIC while their country cant make bullets, forget aircraft and guns. This is simple common sense and it is a great mystery how India has allowed this to exist for so long. God knows we are faced with more implacable enemies than almost any other country and we should have been more like Israel by now. Maybe it is the bovine resignation that a 1000 years of brutal subjugation caused. But its time to wake up and see what it is that makes OFB and HAL laughing stocks while Tata, Mahindra, Bharat Forge, L&T and others are feared.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 27 Jul 2014 19:27

Karan M wrote:I neither know you nor wish to do so

Same here.

Karan M wrote:What this tells me is that equal to the word "indiginization", you really don't understand what you are talking about.

Sorry , don't need your certificate.

Since you and DRDO are always right and rest everything in the world are wrong , no point to take it further.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Jul 2014 19:43

dhiraj wrote:Same here.

Good for me.

dhiraj wrote:Sorry , don't need your certificate.

I didn't say you did. I merely pointed out that you were posting rubbish while pretending to be concerned.

Since you and DRDO are always right and rest everything in the world are wrong , no point to take it further.

No, lets be clear here since this idiocy you are peddling actually reflects your reading (in)comprehension.

If you talk about complex technical issues - then yes, DRDO does know more than you and me, because they work with it day in & night out. The only way you could counter what they are saying is by pointing out where exactly they fail based on analysis, not on selective quotation that too by auditors who only track financial aspects.

CAG (in)famously criticized the NDA Govt during Kargil for example, rushing through ammunition for the plains, saying war was fought in the mountains. It never struck them what would happen if the war expanded elsewhere.

If you were to say, ah DRDO is making LRFs in x wavelength, I disagree based on x criteria, then it shows you put in some effort.

If you quote program management aspects and point out hands on issues, again it matters.

However, if you gas on & on about how "efficient" it should be, whilst actually supporting over the top redtape, it does show you have NO understanding of the topic.

Its very similar to how some folks gas about the Indian Army and how "it relies on numbers", is "old fashioned" and should downsize etc without even bothering about how its threat parameters are, its funding & operational challenges and so forth. Where is their analysis, their real understanding?

I note you still could not justify your quip about G30M being an achievement because it was driven by "priority and direction" versus more complex radar and seeker programs. Your comparison was worthless.

But you made it nonetheless & attempted to pass it off as some sort of analysis, even when it should have been clear that it was apples and oranges. In a seeker for instance, ECIL/BARC have to develop the gimballed assembly, the onboard electronics all have to be developed within India (as they are sanctioned) AND a miniaturized navigation assembly is joined, plus then the software. How does this compare to a single module of a less complex system which is relying mostly on navigational signals which other nations have invested in? As credible as an achievement it may be, its not of the same level of complexity, hence it could be done with less funds and in a shorter timeframe.

In short, please don't confuse your inability to post logically and coherently with "DRDO is right" or wrong. All it means is that you make silly claims which are very easy to see through and demolish.

Sure, you have an opinion and you selectively quote (as you proudly acknowledge), but they aren't facts.

Ranjani Brow · Post by **Ranjani Brow** » 27 Jul 2014 20:00

'69 percent of military requirements sourced from Indian companies'

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 27 Jul 2014 20:22

Karan M wrote:while pretending to be concerned

Karan M wrote:this idiocy you are peddling actually reflects your reading (in)comprehension

Karan M wrote:if you gas on & on about how "efficient" it should be

Sorry but I can't counter such words & statements.
If the DRDO bypasses the red tape and builds product successfully it is a brilliant move, if it fails it is because of lack of fund. one wins either way. I give up

vic · Post by **vic** » 27 Jul 2014 20:36

Chinese R&D budget is ten times that of India.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 27 Jul 2014 20:47

BTW would just like to add that all the great/good/not so good indigenous product developed till now have all come from DRDO. Without doubt.
But at the same time is there scope for improvement in terms of prioritization and project management. I definitely think YES.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 27 Jul 2014 22:08

vic wrote:Chinese R&D budget is ten times that of India.

And they also have graveyards full of people who failed to deliver.

Admin - there is a complaint about this post asking if the poster is suggesting we also advocate such practices for failure, however I am taking it you did not mean it in that sense. but pls be careful about language.

vic · Post by **vic** » 27 Jul 2014 23:11

As per Mahamahim import non lover dictat, you have to provide proof of the existence of such graves.

Admin - stop this sniping or face the consequences

vic · Post by **vic** » 27 Jul 2014 23:16

hecky wrote:'69 percent of military requirements sourced from Indian companies'

Su-30MKI is sourced from HAL which shows statistics are like bikinis which reveal important but conceal essential.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 28 Jul 2014 08:40

Victor wrote:
vic wrote:Chinese R&D budget is ten times that of India.
-----deleted-----

Admin - there is a complaint about this post asking if the poster is suggesting we also advocate such practices for failure, however I am taking it you did not mean it in that sense. but pls be careful about language.

Well of course I didn't mean it that way and choice of my wording was bad. Noted and apologies so pls delete my post.

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 28 Jul 2014 16:06

Karan M wrote: But you made it nonetheless & attempted to pass it off as some sort of analysis, even when it should have been clear that it was apples and oranges. In a seeker for instance, ECIL/BARC have to develop the gimballed assembly, the onboard electronics all have to be developed within India (as they are sanctioned) <snip>

Sorry Karan, but what country imposed the sanctions?

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 28 Jul 2014 16:09

vic wrote:
hecky wrote:'69 percent of military requirements sourced from Indian companies'

Su-30MKI is sourced from HAL which shows statistics are like bikinis which reveal important but conceal essential.

To make it clear, even the raw materials to make the MKI are imported. Even the titanium! Bharat has first rate titanium production facilities, developed by ISRO and Madhani. Yet HAL imports even screwdrivers and nuts and bolts. That 69% sourced from Indian companies was 100% imported by them. That is an accounting trick.

Read the Aerospace materials thread where I start with a quote by the HAL chairman.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 29 Jul 2014 04:56

Rien wrote:
Karan M wrote: But you made it nonetheless & attempted to pass it off as some sort of analysis, even when it should have been clear that it was apples and oranges. In a seeker for instance, ECIL/BARC have to develop the gimballed assembly, the onboard electronics all have to be developed within India (as they are sanctioned) <snip>
Sorry Karan, but what country imposed the sanctions?

The seeker technology we are chasing is for multiple applications. A high power seeker such as on the PDV is a breakthrough, which means tomorrow we can make seekers for other applications as the first step has been taken. Hence, there is an informal veto on passing such technologies to India, until & unless we agree to very expensive, large programs that include these sort of technologies. One example is the SRSAM where the agreement is to include MBDA developed seeker tech to be made in India. Similarly, we are licensing the smaller, less capable (than the PDV) Agat seeker for our Astra program. Hence, for the PDV we tasked the same firms which worked on the LCA MMR to make the seeker. BARC/ECIL (ECIL is owned by DAE but works on defense programs) did the gimbal assembly, and the first seeker prototypes were apparently reworked from MMR tech.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 29 Jul 2014 05:02

dhiraj wrote:
Karan M wrote:while pretending to be concerned

Karan M wrote:this idiocy you are peddling actually reflects your reading (in)comprehension

Karan M wrote:if you gas on & on about how "efficient" it should be
Sorry but I can't counter such words & statements.

You could, if you had facts instead of obtuse claims to peddle. I rarely if ever use harsh language, however, your incoherent, meaningless posts disguised as faux concern made sure I responded. Congratulations, because you merit each & every one of those statements.

I note that besides the above, you don't have the capability to counter any of the other points I made as well. So basically, all you are doing is flailing around about the above statements but can't address anything else either. Figures.

If the DRDO bypasses the red tape and builds product successfully it is a brilliant move, if it fails it is because of lack of fund. one wins either way. I give up

If anything describes your closed line of thinking, it is the above. If you actually thought clearly, instead of engaging in silly selective quotations, you would realize the point is that organizations like DRDO could achieve far more if they were not hobbled by red tape AND were funded in line with what they require.

Further, it would have taken you ten minutes to determine via a search that the organization is not being funded as it requires. It has constantly been underfunded irrespective of what the current DM believes (having been in power for 2 odd months, though to his credit he has released funds based on his party's stated manifesto). Parliamentary depositions note that DRDO (and many other research orgs) rarely if ever got the funds they require & they complain vociferously over bureaucratic meddling.

You post rubbish about how DRDO et al are behind in tech with regards to items like seekers and radars & then at the same time, claim that funding is not the issue.

This when anyone with even basic knowledge of current electronics industry would know the huge costs involved in setting up & running a state of the art electronics infrastructure in the semiconductor space.

You then claim that spending of Rs 3Crore, 4 Crore is a problem, when its being used to bypass bureaucracy, and the scale of funding wasted on imports is in the tune of Billions of $'s.

What can one do but to express their "appreciation" at the complete lack of awareness in any of your posts? Not only do you not know, you don't bother about learning anything either.

It is best that you stick to some thread like the Rafale/MMRCA thread where you can spam away and skate by on "opinions" as versus these sort of threads which rely on facts and not conjecture. Because if you post rubbish here, it will be called out for what it is.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 29 Jul 2014 05:14

Rien wrote:
Karan M wrote: But you made it nonetheless & attempted to pass it off as some sort of analysis, even when it should have been clear that it was apples and oranges. In a seeker for instance, ECIL/BARC have to develop the gimballed assembly, the onboard electronics all have to be developed within India (as they are sanctioned) <snip>
Sorry Karan, but what country imposed the sanctions?

BTW, another quick note - one other program that DRDO hopes will get tech to Indian firms is the LRSAM. Note though, that Rafael so far has refused to start a JV to make seekers with BEL (for obvious reasons, BEL is a strategic partner of DRDO & leads Indian electronics mfg in the sector) until & unless it has full majority control & gets to decide what the TOT is. Its unclear as to who will make the LRSAM seeker in India.

Hence, it makes sense to continue in parallel with our own programs.
Missile seeker programs (known) include the PDV (which has been developed), AAD (PDV variant apparently), and a new LPI seeker for Brahmos (with DRDO/ECIL/Datapatterns). There is one too for the Astra but will probably supplant the Russian one which comes with TOT. Nag has two (one MMW and one IIR, IIR using a IIR detector from France/Sofradir). An ARM under development would also need a seeker.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 29 Jul 2014 05:25

Rien wrote:To make it clear, even the raw materials to make the MKI are imported. Even the titanium! Bharat has first rate titanium production facilities, developed by ISRO and Madhani. Yet HAL imports even screwdrivers and nuts and bolts. That 69% sourced from Indian companies was 100% imported by them. That is an accounting trick.

Read the Aerospace materials thread where I start with a quote by the HAL chairman.

Well, a lot of these are also driven by the crazy TOT agreements which we sign without having a choice. If you underfund, don't take your own programs seriously and rush for TOT each time, you agree to such weird agreements. The MKI one for instance merits everything should come from Russia, but leaves out spares & replacement aggregates. So HAL is indigenizing those.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 29 Jul 2014 09:10

Karan M wrote: The seeker technology we are chasing is for multiple applications. A high power seeker such as on the PDV is a breakthrough, which means tomorrow we can make seekers for other applications as the first step has been taken. Hence, there is an informal veto on passing such technologies to India, until & unless we agree to very expensive, large programs that include these sort of technologies. One example is the SRSAM where the agreement is to include MBDA developed seeker tech to be made in India. Similarly, we are licensing the smaller, less capable (than the PDV) Agat seeker for our Astra program. Hence, for the PDV we tasked the same firms which worked on the LCA MMR to make the seeker. BARC/ECIL (ECIL is owned by DAE but works on defense programs) did the gimbal assembly, and the first seeker prototypes were apparently reworked from MMR tech.

For the average jingo, the above quote is nice-sounding stuff that indicates we are progressing vaguely in the right direction. The point is that given the resources available in India, we are not progressing anywhere near fast enough. The DPSUs have not delivered desperately needed bread-and-butter items like guns, bullets, tanks, aircraft, smart bombs, MANPADs, AAMs and ATGMs but hey, we make seekers.

None of this seeker-pheeker, radar-shaydar stuff need be monumental voodoo for us in this day and age IF we lose the fixation on socialist-era DPSUs. They need to go, period. With very few exceptions, they are badly leaking rust buckets and it doesn't matter how much money we pour into them or how good the engineers are, they will never be as productive as Indian companies that compete successfully in the global market. We need to bite the bullet, privatize what we can and pension off the folks who won't cut it on civvie street.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 29 Jul 2014 09:30

Karan M wrote:It is best that you stick to some thread like the Rafale/MMRCA thread where you can spam away and skate by on "opinions" as versus these sort of threads which rely on facts and not conjecture. Because if you post rubbish here, it will be called out for what it is.

Let me make things a bit more clear for you. If you know a lot then please continue to enlighten others, but this does not give you the right to give personal judgement on who should stick to which thread. Period.
Further if you don't agree with some link or reference I have posted (like the report on DRDO, which is available in public domain and not something which I cooked up and sharing it as my own opinion), you are most welcome to ignore it. No one can be forced to accept that their is a halo around DRDO and so any criticism against it is unacceptable.