India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector
I dont see any problem in the LT/BEML issue. LT even if it provided sub-system design and integration need not be the overall system integrator. RM must have taken all aspects of capacity etc etc into account. Even in the US the total weapon system integration is in govt hands. Despite what ever the brochures say.
-
sanjaychoudhry
- BRFite
- Posts: 756
- Joined: 13 Jul 2007 00:39
- Location: La La Land
Frankly, the article seemed to me to be a plug sponsored by L&T.ramana wrote:I dont see any problem in the LT/BEML issue. LT even if it provided sub-system design and integration need not be the overall system integrator. RM must have taken all aspects of capacity etc etc into account. Even in the US the total weapon system integration is in govt hands. Despite what ever the brochures say.
Deccan Chronicle, 27 Mar 2008
Must be a landmark for India.Dhruva to boost defence research
Hyderabad, March 26: Dhruva, a super computer developed by the DRDO laboratory, Anurag (Advanced Numerical Research and Analysis Group), in the city will make designing of missiles, torpedoes, Light Combat Aircraft and other air warfare faster and easier.
The minister of state for defence, Mr M.M. Pallam Raju, on Wednesday inaugurated ‘Chitra,’ a centre for high performance computing and research, hosting the super computer Dhruva at the DRDO in Kanchanbagh.
Dhruva will be useful in Computational Fluid Dynamics to design any aircraft, or airborne or water borne systems. These computations involve very large amount of data, and need super computers with extremely high computing power and memory.
While inaugurating Chitra, Mr Raju said, ‘‘This is a big step towards self-reliance in the country. The lab should also explore the commercial applications of Dhruva. However, we have a long way to go to match our technologically advanced neighbours like China.’’
The director of Anurag, Dr K.D. Nayak said, ‘‘Chitra, equipped with Dhruva, is one of the fastest high-performance computing facilities in the country. Apart from designing aircraft, it is also useful for simulation of complex systems, molecular modelling and bioinformatics applications.’’ A small team of eight scientists of the Anurag has been working on the project for the past three years and developed Dhruva using indigenous technology.
Dhruva has come in handy for Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, involved in gene sequencing. The Delhi University, involved in gene sequencing of E.Coli bacteria, and the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) at Bangalore will also now make use of the super computer at Anurag.
The calculations that used to run into days will be completed in hours now. The super computer Dhruva has a speed of six teraflop (tera is trillion and flop is floating point operations per second).
Interview with the founder of DERL:
http://deccanherald.com/Content/Mar2720 ... 59603.asp
Security of the country not only depends on the soldiers on the war front, but also the defence scientists quietly working in various defence laboratories across the country, developing defence capabilities so crucial for success in the battlefield. As the recent Gulf War demonstrated so vividly, the conventional war has given way to electronic warfare, the mastery over which will give an edge over the enemy.
The Karnataka-born V Narayana Rao, who had a distinguished career as a defence scientist, was among the pioneers who helped in establishing advanced research and development in areas such as cryptography, radars, microwave technology and electronic warfare. He was the founder director of Defence Electronics Research Laboratory, Hyderabad, which he steered for two decades. Rao, now 87, has authored an excellent book giving an insight into the working of DRDO and its achievements. Excerpts from an interview to Ramakrishna Upadhya of Deccan Herald:
You worked in an era of meagre resources and meagre salaries. What motivated scientists like you to work in the defence sector?
I had a great liking for defence research. When I was in the UK, I attended two conferences in which many eminent UK scientists participated. I was enthralled by the papers that were presented. When I came back to India, I decided to get into research, as I strongly felt that we should not be dependent on a foreign country all the time for defence equipment. First, they have to tailor to our requirement and as the technology advances, they build better equipment, but they won’t give it us. They will give what they are prepared to give. That inspired me to do something for my country. As regards salary, I must say I was handsomely paid in those days.
Of late we find that great talent that there in government scientific institutions and laboratories leaving and joining the private sector. What needs to be done to retain them?
The work in defence establishments is very challenging and interesting. People work long hours and they have a sense of doing something for the country. With better pay and perks now being offered, I’m sure more people will stay.
What kind of roles defence research laboratories are playing in keeping India’s defence preparedness at the optimum level?
It has to be seen in two ways. Our defence services employ people who are well qualified. The DRDO which is in its golden jubilee year, has matured in many areas of technology. Before a project is taken up, the scientists have discussions with the armed forces. There is a close interaction between the two. Supposing some equipment have to be bought urgently, scientists are with them to make the right choice. We have always had close interaction between the users and developers of technology. For instance, when we were developing a missile, the Army realised that a lot of changes had taken place and they wanted an integrated missile project to be taken up. What we were developing was discontinued, but the experience gained was useful.
How important is the role of electronic warfare technology in the contemporary wars?
Electronic warfare (EW) is very important even during peace time. We have to have constant surveillance on the kind of equipment the enemy possesses, airborne surveillance, elevated platforms, radar system they are producing... We have to develop counter measures, jamming system, etc. EW helps in constantly looking at the kind of aircraft, weapon system the opponent has and counter measures play a very important role in any war.
The US achieved quick success during its first Gulf War, much of which was credited to its superior technology. But in Iraq, the same US defence juggernaut has apparently got stuck. Does it indicate the limitations of the electronic warfare?
No. it is not the limitations of EW. It is the limitation of the human beings. The American military might could destroy the physical things like radar stations, missile sites, communication equipment, etc. Having done that, there is nothing else to destroy. There are only people. You are up against the people. The Americans thought that once they knock off unwanted people everything will be smooth. They simplified things. They did not know the kind of resistance the people will put up. It has turned into chaos. But no weapon system can deal with it. In the last two years, the Americans have spent as much as they did during World War II, but still they are not out of the woods. How to get out of Iraq without losing face is what bothers them now.
After the Pokhran explosion, the US sanctions did hurt India’s defence and scientific establishment. But it also acted as a motivation for self-reliance. What do you think should be the right balance between importing technology and being self-dependent?
We must try to do as much as we can to the maximum. We should import technology where we are facing a lot of difficulty, but it should be done in an intelligent way so that it supplements our own efforts.
(Rao’s book Reminiscences of a defence scientist: a quest for self-reliance can be procured from Defence scientific Information & Documentation Centre, Metcalfe House, New Delhi-110 054)
http://deccanherald.com/Content/Mar2720 ... 59603.asp
Laser-Guided missile by India?
Today in Deccan Herald editorial page I saw a snippet from 28-Mar-1983 talking about India developing a Laser guided missile. Which missile is this? Was it the Nag whose specs were later changed to IIR / MMW guided?
IR-suppressor adorns the ALH
Thursday, 17 January 2008
The performance of indigenously developed IR-suppressor for engine exhaust duct of Advanced Light Helicopter masterminded by the Department of Aerospace Engineering, IIT Bombay is proved successful by ground tests conducted in RWR&DC HAL - Bangalore, in Dec'07. The non-specific stealth design concepts behind this critical component will soon be published in AIAA's Journal of Propulsion & Power, authored by Prof. Mahulikar & his M.Tech. students, Mr. H.S.S. Prasad & Mr. S.K. Potnuru.
Thursday, 17 January 2008
The performance of indigenously developed IR-suppressor for engine exhaust duct of Advanced Light Helicopter masterminded by the Department of Aerospace Engineering, IIT Bombay is proved successful by ground tests conducted in RWR&DC HAL - Bangalore, in Dec'07. The non-specific stealth design concepts behind this critical component will soon be published in AIAA's Journal of Propulsion & Power, authored by Prof. Mahulikar & his M.Tech. students, Mr. H.S.S. Prasad & Mr. S.K. Potnuru.
Re: Laser-Guided missile by India?
No... its the new missile CLGM or SAMHO (Semi Active mission homing missile). Check out the IDF Defexpo thread for more details.KiranM wrote:Today in Deccan Herald editorial page I saw a snippet from 28-Mar-1983 talking about India developing a Laser guided missile. Which missile is this? Was it the Nag whose specs were later changed to IIR / MMW guided?
Companies Incubated at IIT's
http://www.whirlybird.in/
http://www.aurora-is.com/
http://www.zeusnumerix.com/
http://www.whirlybird.in/
http://www.aurora-is.com/
http://www.zeusnumerix.com/
DRDO up for overhaul, weapons prog to be prioritised
Thu, Apr 3 04:46 PM
A high-powered Committee set up by the government to suggest revamping of the Defence Research and Development Organisation has recommended that the DRDO focus on critical weapons programme and offload research in other areas to private sector.
The report of the committee, headed by eminent scientist P Rama Rao, has suggested that the DRDO focus all its attention on 10 to 14 critical projects like missiles, anti-missiles systems, light combat aircraft, aero engines, electronic warfare, development of high altitude extreme endurance weaponised unmanned aerial vehicles.
The report submitted to Defence Minister AK Antony has still not been made public. Antony had set up a team of two senior Defence Ministry officials to analyse it and make an operative draft for putting it up before the Cabinet Committee on Security(CCS), which is chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
In other far reaching recommendations, the Committee has also proposed setting up of more Brahmos style joint military ventures, making all new futuristic weapons programme time bound and suggested that changes be undertaken in the administrative structure of the organisation.
The Committee has called for increasing the number of top rung scientists, recruit more middle rung scientists and suggested that Rs 600 crore be earmarked as a corpus for setting up advanced weapons research.
The Committee feels that 10 to 14 projects which the DRDO takes up should have a culmination time of 10 to 12 years and these should include extensive research to be undertaken in specialised alloys and metals. One of the most significant recommendations made by the Rama Rao Committee is calling for establishment of the Defence Technology Commission (DTC) to the Defence Minister, which would act as his think tank on military research.
Experts feel that setting up of such a commission would give the DRDO a " significant say" in defence purchases. The committee, experts said wants DRDO to have a greater say in weapons purchases as often its comments are some times overruled by the three services--- Army, Navy and IAF. Rama Rao Committee says that the proposed DTC should restore the role of DRDO in rendering scientific advice in acquisition of weapon systems and also formulate a" clear-cut policy on self-reliance'".
The Committee has remained silent on the demand made by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence that the Secretary DRDO, should be divested of many roles that he currently has. The Committee wants that the Secretary,DRDO who also acts as the Director General, should be renamed as Chairman DRDO and head the Science and Technology Management Mission.
He should also be made a member-convenor of the DTC, which should be chaired by the Defence Minister, the Committee suggested.
Thu, Apr 3 04:46 PM
A high-powered Committee set up by the government to suggest revamping of the Defence Research and Development Organisation has recommended that the DRDO focus on critical weapons programme and offload research in other areas to private sector.
The report of the committee, headed by eminent scientist P Rama Rao, has suggested that the DRDO focus all its attention on 10 to 14 critical projects like missiles, anti-missiles systems, light combat aircraft, aero engines, electronic warfare, development of high altitude extreme endurance weaponised unmanned aerial vehicles.
The report submitted to Defence Minister AK Antony has still not been made public. Antony had set up a team of two senior Defence Ministry officials to analyse it and make an operative draft for putting it up before the Cabinet Committee on Security(CCS), which is chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
In other far reaching recommendations, the Committee has also proposed setting up of more Brahmos style joint military ventures, making all new futuristic weapons programme time bound and suggested that changes be undertaken in the administrative structure of the organisation.
The Committee has called for increasing the number of top rung scientists, recruit more middle rung scientists and suggested that Rs 600 crore be earmarked as a corpus for setting up advanced weapons research.
The Committee feels that 10 to 14 projects which the DRDO takes up should have a culmination time of 10 to 12 years and these should include extensive research to be undertaken in specialised alloys and metals. One of the most significant recommendations made by the Rama Rao Committee is calling for establishment of the Defence Technology Commission (DTC) to the Defence Minister, which would act as his think tank on military research.
Experts feel that setting up of such a commission would give the DRDO a " significant say" in defence purchases. The committee, experts said wants DRDO to have a greater say in weapons purchases as often its comments are some times overruled by the three services--- Army, Navy and IAF. Rama Rao Committee says that the proposed DTC should restore the role of DRDO in rendering scientific advice in acquisition of weapon systems and also formulate a" clear-cut policy on self-reliance'".
The Committee has remained silent on the demand made by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence that the Secretary DRDO, should be divested of many roles that he currently has. The Committee wants that the Secretary,DRDO who also acts as the Director General, should be renamed as Chairman DRDO and head the Science and Technology Management Mission.
He should also be made a member-convenor of the DTC, which should be chaired by the Defence Minister, the Committee suggested.
-
Raj Malhotra
- BRFite
- Posts: 997
- Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31
I just wanted to enquire whether there will be technology spin-offs in developing thermal imager and ccd arrays from the pvt companies setting up semi conductor fabs?
semi conductor fabs
semi conductor fabs
Mahindra says 'Rakshak' saved soldiers' lives
April 6, 2008
Mumbai : Hurt by a stinging report by the auditor of government accounts, Mahindra Defence System (MDS) today said its bullet-proof vehicle 'Rakshak' had lived up to its name and saved the lives of numerous soldiers.
"We reiterate that the vehicles were provided as per the requirements of the Indian army and there have been several instances where Mahindra Rakshak has saved the lives of numerous soldiers in J&K and North East," MDS' CEO Brig. Khutab Hai said.
There had been a case where 'Rakshak' (Hindi for protector) had withstood the attack by an IED explosion and saved the lives of an officer and three jawans travelling in the vehicle, he added.
The reaction was prompted by the Comptroller and Auditor General's latest report that observed that the engine fitted in Rakshak is suited for vehicles weighing below 1,600 kg and not for the one from the Mahindra stable, whose weight is 2,660 kg and thus not handy for "providing safe and swift movement to army commanders in militant-affected areas".
The company, Hai said, has alread developed a new engine with more power and a much higher torque for Rakshak.
"We have supplied them (the army) new vehicles fitted with new engines almost three months back and these are on trial. We have now offered them a new engine with more power and a much higher torque, which will improve the performance of Rakshak particularly in hilly terrain. The trials with the new engine are currently in progress," he said. The improved Rakshak with new and more powerful engine is in keeping with the continuous process of product development, which the company undertakes from time to time, he added.
Hai stressed that Rakshak is not only the highest selling BPV in the country, but it is regularly being exported to Ghana, Sri Lanka and Nepal.
"Not only the army, even police forces engaged in anti militancy and counter insurgency operations in Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar Manipur and Chhattisgarh are using Rakshak vehicles," Hai said.
If any member from the CAG is reading this, SHAME ON YOU.
April 6, 2008
Mumbai : Hurt by a stinging report by the auditor of government accounts, Mahindra Defence System (MDS) today said its bullet-proof vehicle 'Rakshak' had lived up to its name and saved the lives of numerous soldiers.
"We reiterate that the vehicles were provided as per the requirements of the Indian army and there have been several instances where Mahindra Rakshak has saved the lives of numerous soldiers in J&K and North East," MDS' CEO Brig. Khutab Hai said.
There had been a case where 'Rakshak' (Hindi for protector) had withstood the attack by an IED explosion and saved the lives of an officer and three jawans travelling in the vehicle, he added.
The reaction was prompted by the Comptroller and Auditor General's latest report that observed that the engine fitted in Rakshak is suited for vehicles weighing below 1,600 kg and not for the one from the Mahindra stable, whose weight is 2,660 kg and thus not handy for "providing safe and swift movement to army commanders in militant-affected areas".
The company, Hai said, has alread developed a new engine with more power and a much higher torque for Rakshak.
"We have supplied them (the army) new vehicles fitted with new engines almost three months back and these are on trial. We have now offered them a new engine with more power and a much higher torque, which will improve the performance of Rakshak particularly in hilly terrain. The trials with the new engine are currently in progress," he said. The improved Rakshak with new and more powerful engine is in keeping with the continuous process of product development, which the company undertakes from time to time, he added.
Hai stressed that Rakshak is not only the highest selling BPV in the country, but it is regularly being exported to Ghana, Sri Lanka and Nepal.
"Not only the army, even police forces engaged in anti militancy and counter insurgency operations in Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar Manipur and Chhattisgarh are using Rakshak vehicles," Hai said.
If any member from the CAG is reading this, SHAME ON YOU.
^^^ kalantak, Ajai Shukla's blog has details on that episode. Mahindra supplied what the army asked for.
Meanwhile,
Laser light on terror war
[quote]Lucknow, April 6: A laser technique that can be used to map terrain with high accuracy, penetrating even dense foliage, could help India boost its war on terror and guerrilla groups hiding in forests, experts and former defence officers have said.
Aerial surveillance based on the light detection and ranging (LIDAR) technology may help security agencies track down terror cells in deep forests more easily than conventional aerial photography, experts attending a LIDAR training programme at IIT Kanpur said.
“This is a technology to create very accurate 3D maps of terrain very fast,â€
Meanwhile,
Laser light on terror war
[quote]Lucknow, April 6: A laser technique that can be used to map terrain with high accuracy, penetrating even dense foliage, could help India boost its war on terror and guerrilla groups hiding in forests, experts and former defence officers have said.
Aerial surveillance based on the light detection and ranging (LIDAR) technology may help security agencies track down terror cells in deep forests more easily than conventional aerial photography, experts attending a LIDAR training programme at IIT Kanpur said.
“This is a technology to create very accurate 3D maps of terrain very fast,â€
Kalantak.. What CAG said was absolutely RIGHT at the same time what M&M are saying is true too.. The problem lies in WHAT ARMY ASKED FOR.. if they asked for oranges and were provided oranges when they should have asked for apples.. it's the fault of them and not CAG or the M&M..
BTW... RAKSHAK is underpowered by a HUGE margin and I wonder in first place how they were able to sell it off to Army
BTW... RAKSHAK is underpowered by a HUGE margin and I wonder in first place how they were able to sell it off to Army
Previously the CAG used to target DRDO projects and dole out advice on technical matters they had no knowledge about. Now they have turned their attention towards military forces. The problem with CAG is they think they know what is best for the defense forces. A month ago they criticised the Trenton purchase from the US without understanding fully the implications of such an purchase. The CAG officials are living in an fool's paradise. They think they are experts in military matters and give their ill-informed advice. There is an urgent need to reign in the CAG and ask them not interfere in matters that they have no knowledge about.
Kalantak..
We at BRF have a whip nearly for everyone who goes against/questions any organisation/personnel/project etc related to the Defence or there off..
I would suggest that we understand the functioning of the CAG first before we jump on to conclusions. Trenton was/is a perfect example. CAG is responsible to audit the contracts and here they did the exact thing and brought out the DIFFERENCES in the CONTRACT from the LAID DOWN RULES OF THE GOI that are used to write the contracts.
In the M&M Rakshak vehicles case CAG highlighted the area that was known to vehicle enthusiasts even before those vehicles landed with the army..
NOW the question is
-Was army requirement such that they overlooked the power/weight ratios...
-Was there a mis-understanding in the TORQUE requirements figures
-Was army in such critical needs that they overlooked the shortages in power requirements and opted to re-engine the vehicles later on with the help of the M&M..
--
--
--
There are n number of possibilities..
Look we don't know what led to this.. BUT they(IA) have definitely felt for the need of extra power and hence have raised it in some official communication which I BELIEVE has become the SOURCE for the CAG's outburst..
BTW CAG Audit for Defence Services are categorized into Performance Audit and Regularity (Compliance) Audit.
We at BRF have a whip nearly for everyone who goes against/questions any organisation/personnel/project etc related to the Defence or there off..
I would suggest that we understand the functioning of the CAG first before we jump on to conclusions. Trenton was/is a perfect example. CAG is responsible to audit the contracts and here they did the exact thing and brought out the DIFFERENCES in the CONTRACT from the LAID DOWN RULES OF THE GOI that are used to write the contracts.
In the M&M Rakshak vehicles case CAG highlighted the area that was known to vehicle enthusiasts even before those vehicles landed with the army..
NOW the question is
-Was army requirement such that they overlooked the power/weight ratios...
-Was there a mis-understanding in the TORQUE requirements figures
-Was army in such critical needs that they overlooked the shortages in power requirements and opted to re-engine the vehicles later on with the help of the M&M..
--
--
--
There are n number of possibilities..
Look we don't know what led to this.. BUT they(IA) have definitely felt for the need of extra power and hence have raised it in some official communication which I BELIEVE has become the SOURCE for the CAG's outburst..
BTW CAG Audit for Defence Services are categorized into Performance Audit and Regularity (Compliance) Audit.
How is Trenton the perfect example? The CAG shamelessly lied to the nation that there are restrictive clauses which prevented it from being used in offensive roles. The CAG has been proved wrong and it does even say sorry for misleading the nation.Himanshu wrote:Trenton was/is a perfect example. CAG is responsible to audit the contracts and here they did the exact thing and brought out the DIFFERENCES in the CONTRACT from the LAID DOWN RULES OF THE GOI that are used to write the contracts.
No Restrictions on Deployment of Jalashwa : Navy
Friday, March 28, 2008
Ridiculling a report by the national auditor that raised doubts over the ‘restrictive clauses’ on the deployment of INS Jalashwa—a former US Navy troop carrier—the Navy has said that the warship can be used in all roles possible and India has written permission from the US for the same.
“It is an old ship and there are no such clauses. We have written permission from the US to use the ship in any role we want,â€
If you give any credence to Wikipedia, India already has the fastest supercomputer in Asia @ 170 Teraflops:SaiK wrote: Any idea how long is the chase?
Most powerful publicly known computer systems
I suppose since it aint entirely domestic, there must have been a clause that it cant be used for military purposes. Still the quote:
seems like chicom worship from the communist controlled mediaHowever, we have a long way to go to match our technologically advanced neighbours like China.
Kalantak..
WRT Trenton.. I really do not know who is lying.. the CAG or the Forces.. I am reading these reports ONLY in the media.. I was trying to search about the report tabled by CAG in the Parliament but have not got my hand on it yet.. BTW If the tabled report DOES STATES the issues highlighted by the media.. then I would believe that tabled report over any statement issued by any person.. CAG cannot lie in these reports otherwise MOD would have torn them apart which has not happened as of now btw..
Look.. I am NOT contesting the point that the Trenton is good/bad buy etc.. What I am saying is that CAG is an organization that is responsible to audit the Contracts etc from the point of view of the Performance and the Compliance based on the rules laid down by the GOI over the period of time.
These rules we ASSUME were laid down by the GOI to ENSURE that the public money is well spent.
Compliance Audit will mean that any contract signed by any organization that comes under the CAG purview would be judged based on the adherence of the rules laid by GOI.
Performance Audit will mean that they will identify the ROI/Value for Money spent by the organizations based on the various parameters like options available etc etc...
The Babus you are talking off were MOD personnel and not the CAG guys..
Let's not bring coffin scam over here.. else we will just open up the Pandora box and would deviate from the basic point.. If you want to discuss it we can surely do that in some other relevant thread..
NOT SAYING that CAG is foolproof .. there have been lots of reports to bring in changes in CAG's functioning etc .. don't know what happened to them..
BTW.. how will CAG babu know that the Vehicle is underpowered.. ?? Can you tell me how they would have come to know about it.. Obviously they are not the auto genius... I believe there was some breach some where in the contract under the original pretext.. BUT it was MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING between the army and the M&M that the contract went through..
CAG is right from the compliance perspective in questioning the IA.. and IA might be right in their decision because at THAT TIME they might be running out of cover for these vehicles so a compromise formula with M&M..
Buddy.. I am requesting you to differentiate the functioning of the two.. you cannot give preference to the organizations, bend rules etc in so called genuine cases else every single department of GOI would jump in with their causes ..
WRT Trenton.. I really do not know who is lying.. the CAG or the Forces.. I am reading these reports ONLY in the media.. I was trying to search about the report tabled by CAG in the Parliament but have not got my hand on it yet.. BTW If the tabled report DOES STATES the issues highlighted by the media.. then I would believe that tabled report over any statement issued by any person.. CAG cannot lie in these reports otherwise MOD would have torn them apart which has not happened as of now btw..
Look.. I am NOT contesting the point that the Trenton is good/bad buy etc.. What I am saying is that CAG is an organization that is responsible to audit the Contracts etc from the point of view of the Performance and the Compliance based on the rules laid down by the GOI over the period of time.
These rules we ASSUME were laid down by the GOI to ENSURE that the public money is well spent.
Compliance Audit will mean that any contract signed by any organization that comes under the CAG purview would be judged based on the adherence of the rules laid by GOI.
Performance Audit will mean that they will identify the ROI/Value for Money spent by the organizations based on the various parameters like options available etc etc...
The Babus you are talking off were MOD personnel and not the CAG guys..
Let's not bring coffin scam over here.. else we will just open up the Pandora box and would deviate from the basic point.. If you want to discuss it we can surely do that in some other relevant thread..
NOT SAYING that CAG is foolproof .. there have been lots of reports to bring in changes in CAG's functioning etc .. don't know what happened to them..
BTW.. how will CAG babu know that the Vehicle is underpowered.. ?? Can you tell me how they would have come to know about it.. Obviously they are not the auto genius... I believe there was some breach some where in the contract under the original pretext.. BUT it was MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING between the army and the M&M that the contract went through..
CAG is right from the compliance perspective in questioning the IA.. and IA might be right in their decision because at THAT TIME they might be running out of cover for these vehicles so a compromise formula with M&M..
Buddy.. I am requesting you to differentiate the functioning of the two.. you cannot give preference to the organizations, bend rules etc in so called genuine cases else every single department of GOI would jump in with their causes ..
Himanshu, I provided the detailed rebuttals that the navy had made against the wide allegations of the CAG regarding the Trenton purchase. If you dont believe it, it's your choice. The navy has more knowledge of the systems that they buy and the clauses under which the systems were brought rather than the CAG. CAG has such an illustrious record of inventing scams that no one believes them now.
About the Mahindra Rakshak, it has already protected and saved many lives by withstanding IED explosions. Even an cursory glance towards the IED explosions that take place in Iraq and deaths that regularly occur of the americans even when they are protected by heavy armour will give you an understanding of how effective the Rakshak has really been.
So raising doubts about its effectiveness is an mischevious business that we may leave to the illustrious CAG.
About the Mahindra Rakshak, it has already protected and saved many lives by withstanding IED explosions. Even an cursory glance towards the IED explosions that take place in Iraq and deaths that regularly occur of the americans even when they are protected by heavy armour will give you an understanding of how effective the Rakshak has really been.
So raising doubts about its effectiveness is an mischevious business that we may leave to the illustrious CAG.
Kalantak.. Rakshak indeed has saved many lives.. and so has the armored Indian Army Gypsy in J&K.. and BTW.. both are underpowered..
Please read this--
CAG questions army`s Rakshak purchase
As I said earlier
"The problem lies in WHAT ARMY ASKED FOR.. if they asked for oranges and were provided oranges when they should have asked for apples.. it's the fault of them "
Also highlighting from the MEDIA article
"Even the army has tacitly acknowledged that the Rakshak RFP was flawed. For the next round of purchases of bulletproof vehicles, the army’s Weapons and Equipment Directorate has written to the vendors asking for an upgraded vehicle with more power, a smoother suspension and a better steering.
When asked why it had complained about the 200 Rakshaks already bought, the army told the CAG that they were only “suggestions from users to improve efficiencyâ€
Please read this--
CAG questions army`s Rakshak purchase
As I said earlier
"The problem lies in WHAT ARMY ASKED FOR.. if they asked for oranges and were provided oranges when they should have asked for apples.. it's the fault of them "
Also highlighting from the MEDIA article
"Even the army has tacitly acknowledged that the Rakshak RFP was flawed. For the next round of purchases of bulletproof vehicles, the army’s Weapons and Equipment Directorate has written to the vendors asking for an upgraded vehicle with more power, a smoother suspension and a better steering.
When asked why it had complained about the 200 Rakshaks already bought, the army told the CAG that they were only “suggestions from users to improve efficiencyâ€
Himanshu wrote:
Also highlighting from the MEDIA article
"Even the army has tacitly acknowledged that the Rakshak RFP was flawed. For the next round of purchases of bulletproof vehicles, the army’s Weapons and Equipment Directorate has written to the vendors asking for an upgraded vehicle with more power, a smoother suspension and a better steering.
Confused and unclear RFPs have elicited complaints from several vendors. In last year’s performance audit on defence procurement, the CAG pointed out that RFPs often demand products that existed nowhere. "
according to CAG it is a crime to try and jointly improve based on the experiences of the past. Either the Army should forsee the perfect Brahmastra that it will need from now to infinity and order it immediately or asking for improvements is a crime.
But not being content with that the CAG in the same breath also add that the RFP should also demand products which already exist.
So not only should army be able to predict the future accurately and completely today -- it should also translate what it wants to serve the future to something -- and get this it has to be available from many sources -- today.
I wonder why the CAG did not complain that lack of omniscience by the Defence chief caused army to maintain the wasteful expense called war wastage reserve (although on second though I think it has complained about that too)
these are exactly the kind of observations which have turned the DDM and through it the CAG into a laughing stock of any one with any knowledge of defence procurements.
CAG has no understanding of how defence works; much less of iterative improvements and R&D; and value add -- however that has never stopped it from rushing in where even MoD babu's fear to tread.
Oversight is fine and all that but CAG behaves like a know all big brother -- which would be fine if it add any real experts outside bean counters on its staff in the first place.
Last edited by Sanku on 08 Apr 2008 16:25, edited 1 time in total.
The army said that the RFP was flawed not the Mahindra Rakshak vehicle itself and the CAG crticizes the Rakshak.Himanshu wrote:Also highlighting from the MEDIA article
"Even the army has tacitly acknowledged that the Rakshak RFP was flawed.
Strange that such geniuses are born once in an blue moon and they all find employment in the CAG.
Himanshu wrote:When asked why it had complained about the 200 Rakshaks already bought, the army told the CAG that they were only “suggestions from users to improve efficiencyâ€
ekameva Dwitiyam DRDO!. yes.. TaTas can do whatever.. I also read DRDO moving on to power as well. how true w.r.t super computing?jmaxwell wrote:If you give any credence to Wikipedia, India already has the fastest supercomputer in Asia @ 170 Teraflops:SaiK wrote: Any idea how long is the chase?
Most powerful publicly known computer systems
Not only thatKalantak wrote:Himanshu wrote:Also highlighting from the MEDIA article
"Even the army has tacitly acknowledged that the Rakshak RFP was flawed.
The tacit acknowledgment is DDM spin -- the army has done no such thing -- having learnt from previous batchs it has suggested improvements.
We are blessed nation producing many geniuses and since AWMTA (copyright -- Rahul Mehta) they all flock to certain occupations.
Sanku.. Have you ever read that article carefully.. by your words.. it does'nt appear like you did..
Acquiring through RFP and Joint development are two separate contracts quite different from each other..
and BTW.. if army could not predict that their RFP will bring in the underpowered vehicle then it's them who are to blame..
Kalantak..
And where has CAG questioned the M&M Rakshak.. it has questioned the M&M Rakshaks IN THE INDIAN ARMY.. there's a difference if you can see.. and IA Rakshak vehicles came through the RFP.. and CAG's contention is with the RFP not with the vehicle if you read the details.
Hmm.. so now IA gives a twist to the whole process by saying that's it's just the suggestion when even to the outside people it's a known fact that Rakshak was a grossly underpowered vehicle in it's original form.. and btw.. M&M was already working on the higher powered version of the Rakshak because it could foresee the problems but had to provide to IA the underpowered versions because of the RFP requirements.. IA Rakshaks provided are armored by Plasan Sasa plates.. which are quite heavy.. as a result they have moved to sourcing from Israel, Germany and Sweden now..
Acquiring through RFP and Joint development are two separate contracts quite different from each other..
and BTW.. if army could not predict that their RFP will bring in the underpowered vehicle then it's them who are to blame..
Kalantak..
And where has CAG questioned the M&M Rakshak.. it has questioned the M&M Rakshaks IN THE INDIAN ARMY.. there's a difference if you can see.. and IA Rakshak vehicles came through the RFP.. and CAG's contention is with the RFP not with the vehicle if you read the details.
Hmm.. so now IA gives a twist to the whole process by saying that's it's just the suggestion when even to the outside people it's a known fact that Rakshak was a grossly underpowered vehicle in it's original form.. and btw.. M&M was already working on the higher powered version of the Rakshak because it could foresee the problems but had to provide to IA the underpowered versions because of the RFP requirements.. IA Rakshaks provided are armored by Plasan Sasa plates.. which are quite heavy.. as a result they have moved to sourcing from Israel, Germany and Sweden now..
Oh yes I have but it seems you have read it and yet not understood it.Himanshu wrote:Sanku.. Have you ever read that article carefully.. by your words.. it does'nt appear like you did..
Eh so who said it was the same? But at the same time a RFP does not mean that the product should exist today. By that token the MRCA RFP is also flawed. How can it ask for mythical perfection and let it be available today too.Acquiring through RFP and Joint development are two separate contracts quite different from each other..
Underpowered is a loose word -- it was underpowered for what? Did it not do it job totally? Or was it less than perfect? So army is to be blamed for being less than perfect by CAG? Bean counters never make mistake I guess but guess what in the real world no one is perfect.and BTW.. if army could not predict that their RFP will bring in the underpowered vehicle then it's them who are to blame..
Its obvious that CAG will only talk about the ones in IA; the context makes it clear that people are talking off that one. Why are you confused.it has questioned the M&M Rakshaks IN THE INDIAN ARMY.. there's a difference if you can see..
Every one understand that CAG is cribbing about the RFP -- and we are laughing at the kinds of complaints it has.and IA Rakshak vehicles came through the RFP.. and CAG's contention is with the RFP not with the vehicle if you read the details.
It is a suggestion for improvement ? Whats the twist? Except to those who seek to make mountain of molehills since they have nothing better to do.Hmm.. so now IA gives a twist to the whole process by saying that's it's just the suggestion when even to the outside people it's a known fact that Rakshak was a grossly underpowered vehicle in it's original form..
And who from the outside knew it was "under powered"
Yes indeed; and all the Jehadi were waiting for the new Rakshaks to arrive BEFORE they planted the IEDs.and btw.. M&M was already working on the higher powered version of the Rakshak because it could foresee the problems but had to provide to IA the underpowered versions because of the RFP requirements..
Funny that CAG didnt complain against the Jehadi's? How dare they start planting explosives before the research was complete and the perfect system inducted?
And if you notice the Army figured out all this on its OWN before the CAG told them too....IA Rakshaks provided are armored by Plasan Sasa plates.. which are quite heavy.. as a result they have moved to sourcing from Israel, Germany and Sweden now..
On CAG Rakshak:
Actually the matter is simple --
1) There are IEDs and Army quickly needs a solution
2) It sends out a RFP for what it thinks it needs and what it can practially get ASAP
3) Once it uses the vechiles it understand that better systems can be made
4) It asks for a upgrade.
Now the Babus in CAG dont understand any of it
1) First and foremost the urgency -- since its not their bums over the bums
2) The fact that what Army wants will probably be never available off the shelf -- its not a tin of cheese after all
3) The fact that in real world there are learning which are associated with such a new requirement.
Its easy for them to sit in their Air conditioned office in Delhi Cant area and pass strictures -- why did you not ask for the perfect Vehicle for your needs today amongst the ones available (an oxymoron if there ever was one)
While its easy to do -- I dont think such CAG reports add any value -- as it is the procurement process is completely bogged with Army getting what it needs 20 years after the requirement is felt. The CAG by talking of not the financial parts (which is actually its brief) starts getting into the operational matters -- POST FACTO the event.
Simply red tape nightmare with zero value.
The system has to be overhauled and overhauled fast.
Actually the matter is simple --
1) There are IEDs and Army quickly needs a solution
2) It sends out a RFP for what it thinks it needs and what it can practially get ASAP
3) Once it uses the vechiles it understand that better systems can be made
4) It asks for a upgrade.
Now the Babus in CAG dont understand any of it
1) First and foremost the urgency -- since its not their bums over the bums
2) The fact that what Army wants will probably be never available off the shelf -- its not a tin of cheese after all
3) The fact that in real world there are learning which are associated with such a new requirement.
Its easy for them to sit in their Air conditioned office in Delhi Cant area and pass strictures -- why did you not ask for the perfect Vehicle for your needs today amongst the ones available (an oxymoron if there ever was one)
While its easy to do -- I dont think such CAG reports add any value -- as it is the procurement process is completely bogged with Army getting what it needs 20 years after the requirement is felt. The CAG by talking of not the financial parts (which is actually its brief) starts getting into the operational matters -- POST FACTO the event.
Simply red tape nightmare with zero value.
The system has to be overhauled and overhauled fast.
Sanku.. you are mentioning MRCA RFP .. Will the IAF buy an aircraft and will then jointly develop/upgrade it.. not related to MRCA.. so what's stopping them in committing to the underpowered LCA aka using GE-404 ..
Underpowered.. ok let me tell you.. Why were BMW's and not the Mercedes bought for the Indian Prime Minister by the SPG.. why were they hell bent on disposing off the Amby's that they used till that time.. All three are equally armored...
btw.. are you considering only the armored factor that's required in the vehicles as Rakshak.. they did their job perfectly only from the point of the armour.. what about mobility..
(BTW.. from outside I meant the automobile enthusiasts.. and I am one of them.. I have driven a lot Mahindras and know there +-'s to a decent amount.. and that's why I was a little concerned why mobility was not considered in the initial batch of 200.. but then I/we don't know what were the army requirements at that time.. what were the factors.. x-posting from my earlier post
"
-Was army requirement such that they overlooked the power/weight ratios...
-Was there a mis-understanding in the TORQUE requirements figures
-Was army in such critical needs that they overlooked the shortages in power requirements and opted to re-engine the vehicles later on with the help of the M&M..
--
--
--
There are n number of possibilities.. "
)
Underpowered.. ok let me tell you.. Why were BMW's and not the Mercedes bought for the Indian Prime Minister by the SPG.. why were they hell bent on disposing off the Amby's that they used till that time.. All three are equally armored...
btw.. are you considering only the armored factor that's required in the vehicles as Rakshak.. they did their job perfectly only from the point of the armour.. what about mobility..
(BTW.. from outside I meant the automobile enthusiasts.. and I am one of them.. I have driven a lot Mahindras and know there +-'s to a decent amount.. and that's why I was a little concerned why mobility was not considered in the initial batch of 200.. but then I/we don't know what were the army requirements at that time.. what were the factors.. x-posting from my earlier post
"
-Was army requirement such that they overlooked the power/weight ratios...
-Was there a mis-understanding in the TORQUE requirements figures
-Was army in such critical needs that they overlooked the shortages in power requirements and opted to re-engine the vehicles later on with the help of the M&M..
--
--
--
There are n number of possibilities.. "
)
Himanshu you have lost me --- I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Perhaps if you can elucidate the exact point you want to make I will be wiser; meanwhile I have already done so for my part.Himanshu wrote: There are n number of possibilities.. "
)
Digressing now:-
If IAF accepts a GE 404 IN engine and not Kaveri -- it will be accepting a "underpowered" aircraft -- and all signs say that IAF will do that. In any case the consensus on the board is that IAF should go with LCA even if Kaveri takes longer. So you see its not double standards.
With MRCA my point was that CAG says that army asks for "products not currently existing" -- I found that comment hilarious to say the least.
However accepting the next best has to be seen in the context of
- the importance/cost of the system
- ease of getting newer units
- availability of alternatives
- number of units under consideration
- upgrade route.
In all for the reasons I outline the Army's action make perfect sense to me -- and CAGs report seem like a useless piece of verbiage -- its like saying you could have done better -- well nearly in 100% of cases you can do better. Thats a generic truth -- but neither the CAGs observation and neither the manner CAG operates in adds value to procurement -- its a bean counter and should remain so instead of trying its hand at mattes its not qualified for.
You see this is not a isolated example-- CAGs report are always full of such glorious examples -- for example comparing coffin to aluminum prices .
-------------
PS>> Added later : saw you last post now -- so cease fire
-- but I think I can guess what the next CAG post will be like again. 
Some bile by a former fighter pilot. Wonder if it belongs to the Psy Ops thread. Looks like a typical lifafa job.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/apr/09anil.htm
DRDO is not a lost cause, it can be revived
http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/apr/09anil.htm
DRDO is not a lost cause, it can be revived
Then more bile -The DRDO, called DODO in jest, is a behemoth with 50 labs, 5,000 scientists and 25,000 employees. Success stories have been few and far between despite having 440 projects under its belt. Though it has produced duds after duds, it manoeuvred to thrust them down the throats of the armed fForces through political pressure.
and more.. This guy was a former fighter pilot!The DRDO, predictably, waffled first and then tried to brazen it out by claiming Agni III was a partial success! Mind you, Agni is an official carrier of the Indian nuke. What's partial success? The missile with nuclear payload can nosedive, midcourse, into its home territory itself? This example testifies what's wrong with the DRDO and what's right with ISRO.
Not it is not LT that is at fault, its the way Public sector plays games...sanjaychoudhry wrote:Frankly, the article seemed to me to be a plug sponsored by L&T.ramana wrote:I dont see any problem in the LT/BEML issue. LT even if it provided sub-system design and integration need not be the overall system integrator. RM must have taken all aspects of capacity etc etc into account. Even in the US the total weapon system integration is in govt hands. Despite what ever the brochures say.
First BEML has a current line making bridges which are heavy and outdated and in the first place LT product is going to replace.
Second BEML never made an attempt to take the needs of Forces and improve the technology to meet changed or new requirement, "ardhatah" they just wanted to continue assemblng or building what the got from East Europeans...
If LT gets to go ahead with this BEML has to shut down its line, making its line and work force redundant, thats where the rub is , hence involve DM/RM and push the nonsence through.
BEML should shut up and just supply the TATRA vehicle and thank L for selecting that plat form atleast....
BEML if it had sense of duty should have developed s engine for Arjun and the suspension systems...
HMT used to play the same games during 1980s when Godrej was attempting to develop coin presses (mechanical) for GOI Mints. HMT would go Industry Ministery ans suggest they enter into new collobration with schuler etc. HMT already had collobration and specialised in Hydraulic presses withVersion all steel Chicago