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

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 20 Nov 2015 05:12

The company that builds Tonbo's equipment is not chinese :8 . The components, including diecast body, are of course imported. PCB assembly, optics assembly and product build happen domestic.

Karan, I can understand the challenges and pains in developing new technology. But we are talking about mainstream technical work, like building a microcontroller board, and failing to test all required hardware functions before or after integrating it into the final system. I can't imagine what will happen if I do that with one of my regular, non-defense customers!!!

That is what I called 'chalega attitude'. That is what crashes planes and sink ships.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 20 Nov 2015 05:25

ramana wrote:Do the have Acceptance test and workmanship type testing? What about qualification testing? 1 in 500 environments.

I think the standard design process of Requirements->design->review->implementation->verification->validation, which is standard practice in industry, is missing in the Indian scene. They go by Initial Design->Preliminary Design Review->Final Design->Critical Design Review->Implementation->Trials. The problem with electronics is, you can't make good product by any amount of trials/testing. They must be designed right and built right.

This particular problem was a bad design choice, which caused the controller to reset arbitrarily. This would have easily seen in the verification testing. However, it would have been impossible to trace in any kind of trials, because you will see only a glitch in the system, which will be brushed off as 'clutter'. It maybe acceptable functionally, because events don't happen in the time scale of seconds in the sea.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Nov 2015 05:34

That is the reason, you do modeling on the computer maximum your product needs to do.
Design for variance and boundary limit extensions.
For example how EJ200 has room for growth. #justSaying

Don't have to cut your embedded legs to fit enlarged controller specification changes. Provide design constraint limits to the user (stakeholder) ahead so that they know the variances and cost of a redo of design.

It is much tougher to test your controls on closed feedback loops.
Design for standardization helps!

that old book, 'design of everyday things - don norman' is a good read even for experts who forget "use-cases" are important, even if there were no such requirements from the user. New products mean the designer must write the maximal use-cases of the product, limits and constraints. It is a hard problem to think 360* like a user. Ultimately, they will always find something you never thought off before!

V&V early in the life! saves you a ton of money

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 20 Nov 2015 06:35

I am almost EJ level fanatic in this. My policy is, if you have 'designed' something, that MUST be documented, reviewed, verified and validated.

And the example I give is, you designed a voltage divider, two resistors as part of a voltage regulator, the output of which is available as your product output. You must:

1. Record the calculation, and put it in the documentation.
2. Someone else must review that document, and see that the calculation is there, and it makes sense.
3. When you review the schematics, you must make sure that the resistors are connected correctly and their values are correctly entered.
4. Once your prototype comes for verification, you (or whoever does the verification test) must stick a multimeter at the joint and see that the voltage is as designed.
5. When the validation team does their job, they must stick a multimeter at the output and see that the specified output voltage is there, within the spec. (This is validation because the intended use is generating the voltage. If the intended use was driving a motor, the motor rotating at the spec would be validation. Measuring the output voltage of VREG would be verification onlee)

Follow this principle, and you will get good, reliable designs.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 20 Nov 2015 06:56

From https://books.google.co.in/books?id=UPx ... ty&f=false posted by Karan M,

In 2002, a panel chaired by the former Chairman of the ISRO, R.Kasturirangan, concluded on the basis of statistical analysis of failures of major systems, subsystems, and components and their performance in static tests that two to three consecutive successful test firings would meet the standards of reliability and affordability.

That is the practice in ISRO too to declare a launch vehicle operational.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 20 Nov 2015 09:22

^^That is perfectly alright, if the design is done with care, and each of the subsystems are validated. I haven't got the opportunity to work with the space guys (we tried, but didn't make any headway), but given the success rate of their work, I am pretty sure they do things properly. The folk we work with seems to be totally 'chalta hai' folk.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Nov 2015 09:24

v&v can be at all stages and life cycles. I can simply verify if the requirements are correct and are not out of the world wish list. most of the time users are not product specialists.. and don't know how they may use it later, and are always reactive in nature.

oh! btw, this was not I was thinking about.. I meant the other.. yadi yada... it just fails to meet my specs, that was just drafter after seeing your product. and before that, he/she has no idea about the wants.

you can only design to verify to the requirements, and use only deploy to verify the design...so on.
RE is a big subject and wide open. and there is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextual_design. the examples by DEC folks give is more mundane microsoftish.. but definitely methods can be apply for embedded systems as well.

systems can behave like users. automate them to model users.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 20 Nov 2015 10:51

Thank god I don't work for you SaiK (or with you, for that matter)

See, if one of the boards in the LRU resets arbitrarily, you sure can say "there was no requirement that say the board shouldn't reset". In fact, our own software arm folk are experts in saying such things. For them, life begins and ends in "meeting the requirements". But we digress.

User having no clue what he wants to begin with, and wanting all frills and whistles he figure as the project progress, is as normal as rice and sambar in our industry. We, the poor coolies live with it, because no one will listen if we cry "moving goalpost". The only check against that is, the user being actually under pressure to finish the project and deploy. If that factor is not there, you can see the goalpost skating around like an ice hockey puck.

Actually, one of the toughest job in my line of work is to clamp down all such digression, both from the customer and from the teams, and staying focussed.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 20 Nov 2015 11:09

Dileep wrote:Have a whine to make.

We are building a 'big rack' for some 'little boats', and another leading pvt sector electronics company supply an LRU in it. Went to factory acceptance for this piece, and the darn thing promptly failed some basic stuff. They guys haven't done basic verification/validation process on the product. 'sab chalega' seems to be the attitude.

And these guys claim to make lot of gizmos for various birds, arrows and fishes. After starting working in this area, my confidence level on the indigenous programs is dropping by the day.

there is now, a slowly growing feeling among a growing majority of producers that as per Modi's "make in India" program, the customers will have to lump it and take whatever hog swill is shoveled out as product.

This is seen in both govt and private sectors where they are beginning to whisper that such "high standards"(??) need not be met anymore and the customers have to live with it in the interests of progress. parrikar is being seen as the new driver.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 20 Nov 2015 13:23

It is nothing new. This 'quality consciousness' is limited to businesses that cater to the established customers in the first world. Vast majority of Industry was, is, and will be chalta hai.

Will give you another example. We got a custom machine built by a supplier, who is selling them worldwide. This machine will build the spool of 'fishing line' that tether the 'fish'. They have absolutely no control on their design, manufacturing, assembly, and even PLC programming. One injineer comes a programs it to turn left, and another one comes and programs it to turn right. We ended up running a set of basic tests every time they touch the machine.

Yes, we did teach these furriners that quality is something that should be "appropriate", like the chinese did with their $10 appliances.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Nov 2015 17:28

Dileep.. next time, I am making a point to visit your home at mahab ali. we need to talk!

.

LRU dependencies must be resolved! IOW, it has to be tamed.

srin · Post by **srin** » 20 Nov 2015 17:52

I don't know what is surprising about it. Contracts go to the lowest bidder who will cut corners to cut costs - increasing shareholder wealth, you know ?

That's where the services will need to be careful - to ensure proper testing is done. And MoD needs to slap the vendors really hard if they don't provide good quality stuff.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Nov 2015 06:52

chetak wrote:
there is now, a slowly growing feeling among a growing majority of producers that as per Modi's "make in India" program, the customers will have to lump it and take whatever hog swill is shoveled out as product.

This is seen in both govt and private sectors where they are beginning to whisper that such "high standards"(??) need not be met anymore and the customers have to live with it in the interests of progress. parrikar is being seen as the new driver.

I can't comment on high tech or claim insight over the length and breadth of manufacturing, but when it comes to low and medium tech items for home use and in hospital some local stuff scores over highclass imported maal in many ways although it appears that we simply do not make some very very basic stuff. Many surgical instruments are of lower quality (longevity) but score over in terms of cost and availability of repair service. But it may sound silly - I don't think we make sewing needles or nail clippers in India. (Not sure). There is a degree of precision machining and steel quality needed even though these items are probably bottom rung items. There are "domestic items" where Indian stuff is simply more appropriate like mixers, grinders and scrapers and the eco system for supply and maintenance. Some of it is low tech. Other stuff scores in maintenance so that a single investment last over a decade.

Some oddball observations. China manages to dump some really low quality cheap stuff in India but in a few instances a few local guys manage to hold their heads above the water and give "better than China" quality, costlier than China, affordable but not TFTA. In general the entire country already runs on less than top notch quality because even those who have paid an arm and a leg for high quality tend to push their machines harder and longer after local servicing and jugaad.

member_28108 · Post by **member_28108** » 21 Nov 2015 07:50

Actually many of the imported stuff for eg from Downs brother's and other famous companies are manufactured in India (for eg Jalandhar and also in Sialkot). The same fellows make lower grade stuff also for the Indian market. If you want a high quality titanium clamp you can get it done.
I think the real mess with Indioa is product design and finish- we make products but they look so crappy and have a bad finish that gives a bad appearance . If one wonders what made iphoneclick- not all the device content but pinch to zoom and the ability to change from landscape to portrait etc an turning the phone - in fact that was what they advertised !!

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 21 Nov 2015 19:33

SaiK, any time!!

It is all in the leadership. We can do great if we put our mind to it.

My KB was making top end communication stuff when China's principal export was soy sauce. We could, after putting considerable effort, develop vendors for sheet metal and machined parts. But Plastics was, and still is a problem. The tooling/molding folk are taliban like in their belief, and refuse to improve, citing "that is all possible onlee saar". Look at the plastics of domestic cars till 2010. Even now, we go to china for critical molding tool, because the domestic suppliers, including our own facility, can't do it.

The LRU in my original post was single tender. They were not under cost pressure. And we too work under cost pressure anyway.

srai · Post by **srai** » 26 Nov 2015 16:26

This is something some of us have been advocating for--longer contracts with lead times! Again, we see that 36 months (3-years) lead time being mentioned. That is required for planning and sourcing raw material in advance. Longer duration contracts (i.e. 5-year production run) are required to negotiate for cheaper raw materials and for assured supplies.

BharatShakti.in: Exclusive interview with Manohar Parrikar - part 1

...
Revenue Expenditure

NG: These are all items of capital expenditure but how are you tackling the delays in revenue procurements. Very often essential supplies get delayed when decisions are not made quickly.

RM: First of all, the bottlenecks in decision-making have to be cleared. Timeline for clearances have to be compressed. We are monitoring every item now. For example, in case of ammunition, the OFBs are being continuously exhorted to improve efficiency and increase production. We are giving them five years indent and clear orders three years in advance so that they can plan and source their raw material in advance. From January, we will be allowing them longer duration rate contracts so that raw material becomes cheaper and assured. Otherwise, they used to take a lot of time in finalising supplies. This year, OFB has delivered around 15 per cent higher output with improved quality. So by 2017, my ammunition requirement should be adequately addressed.
...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Nov 2015 17:20

Dileep wrote: It is all in the leadership. We can do great if we put our mind to it.

The other thing I have heard (I don't know where) is that the top bunch in GoI are uncorruptible/unbribeable. With UPA everyone was neck deep in making moolah and no one could make any decision that would cut off someone else's lucre

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 03 Dec 2015 19:30

Not far off topic or degree of relevancy! Can anyone state whether "Jackal steel", a product developed by DRDO for bullet proof vests, and also for plating certain vehicles, is being used to this day?

I recall some degree of dissatisfaction with the material for one type of usage, but a successful employment with another. Important in counter-insurgency.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 Dec 2015 20:36

Jackal steel was very heavy in BPJ use, using steel for that purpose was not ideal anyhow. IIRC a variant is still being used in Patkas which have a band of steel around the forehead. BPJs have moved onto ceramics + dyneema, whereas we have various grades of steel for IFV/MBTs.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Dec 2015 22:35

Indian sonar - like i said before our indigenous equipment goes through stringent trials and when it comes, it does deliver.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/in-u ... 33506.html

pragnya wrote:
An operation under the high profile naval exercise MALABAR, between the navies of India, USA and Japan, featured a simulated battle to hunt and destroy each other's submarines. Locked in this match were two prowlers, the INS Sindhudhvaj (S56), a Soviet-designed EKM class of conventional submarine and the USS City of Corpus Christi (SSN705), a nuclear-powered attack submarine which functions like a fighter plane - scramble and destroy enemy submarines and ships. The crew of both the vessels were asked to hunt the other down in a general area of the Bay of Bengal, based on 'available int'. They, subsequently dived.

Hours later, as they still searched the Americans were informed that the game was over already.

Unknown, they had been marked, tailed and suitably 'annihilated' by the 533mm torpedos 'fired' by their Indian counterparts from on board the INS Sindhudhvaj. What came as a clincher to the Indian side was the tool which detected the USS Corpus Christi - the 'made in India' Ushus SONAR (Sound Navigation and Ranging) which was recently installed. "The way it happens is that the Sindhudhvaj recorded the Hydrophonic Effect (HE) - simply put, underwater noise - of the nuclear powered submarine and managed to positively identify it before locking on to it. Being an exercise what did not happen was the firing," explained a naval officer. The HE thus captured can easily slide into the elaborate database that the any navy maintains for classifying and identifying foreign submarines. A US embassy spokesperson said, "We have no information on the results to share."

USHUS is considered reliable as well. Good going NPOL. Some more reports about USHUS.

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/for-the- ... an-1231729

What the Indian commander does have on his side is deep knowledge of the conditions of the Bay of Bengal. The Sindhudhwaj, based in Visakhapatnam, regularly operates in these waters and her commanding officer would look to take advantage of the salinity, variable temperatures and current patterns of these waters which often make submarine detection extremely challenging.

He also has a superb Indian designed and manufactured sonar system at his disposal recently fitted on his upgraded submarine. In June this year, the crew of the Sindhudhwaj, using their USHUS sonar, had with great accuracy, locked on to signals from the emergency locator beacon of a Coast Guard Dornier that had crashed. Search aircraft and other ships had picked up sporadic pings but were unable to pinpoint the specific crash site in the Bay of Bengal.

And also.
http://www.wikinewsindia.com/english-ne ... b-surface/

However, inside the double-hull stealth submarine, its 53-member crew sported a confident look. “She is as good as any new, trust me,” assured a young officer. The Sindhukirti was commissioned into the Indian Navy on January 4, 1990. Today, she boasts of capabilities she’s never had. Where she could earlier fire only underwater torpedos with a range of under 20km, today she can fire about 18 missiles which can travel up to 300km to neutralise targets at sea and on shore. An old Soviet-designed sonar has given way to an indigenous one, the Ushus whose reliability the crew swears by. From analog readings in her control room, the crew gleans data off digital sets. Earlier, after having dived in, the submarine had to come to periscope depth (9m below the surface) to pick up direction or messages from the command centres ashore. This would put them in a vulnerable state. Now, all she has to do is to let out the 600m long chord of the Towed Wired Antenna (TWA) and receive communication as she prowls the depths of her choice.

Now for the Towed Array Sonar. It has taken time but when it comes it will be a performer.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Dec 2015 23:30

Dileep's 'Snake Ruby' story.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Dec 2015 23:51

A comprehensive system.

INTEGRATED SUBMARINE SONAR - USHUS

SALIENT FEATURES

Indigenous integrated submarine sonar system to detect, localise and classify underwater submerged and surface targets through passive listening, interception of signals and active transmissions of acoustics signals.
Both analog and digital external system interface.
Modular and rugged design with upgradeable performance features
Powerful Fault Diagnosis System (FDS) with On-line & Off-Line FDFL
User Transparent Automatic Periodic key change.
Local and Remote Loop Back tests.
To ensure easy customization and updation of the encryption algorithm, without requiring change in hardware, the encryption algorithm is implemented using a judicious combination of high speed processors and Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA's).
The encryption algorithm used is complex enough to withstand Sophisticated modern day attacks

PASSIVE SONAR

Surveillance in Passive Mode with high search volume
Automatic detection of multiple Targets
Performed Beams in azimuth and in three vertical book directions using ASICS
Post Processor Normalisation and three time constant integration using floating point SHARC Processors
Colour coded multiparameter video in 20.1 inch Flat Panel Display
Auto track for six targets
Lofar, Demon, Classifier and Spectrum Processing for tracked targets
Color Coded display to identify target threat level
User friendly MMI

ACTIVE SONAR

CW and LFM modes of transmission with three selective pulse widths
High source level
Low frequency planar transducer array
Complex demodulation, replica correlation for Doppler and Range estimation

INTERCEPT SONAR

Early warning long range target detection
All round coverage in three bands
FFT, Spectral processing
Colour coded bearing Vs time water fall display

UNDER WATER COMMUNICATION SYSTEM

Multiple mode acoustic communication in dual frequency to meet NATO and other requirements
VOICE, TELEGRAPH, DATA AND MESSAGE modes of operation
Three separate elements to cover 120° in Azimuth

OBSTACLE AVOIDANCE SONAR

High frequency short range sonar
Rectangular transducer array
Transmission to cover three sectors of 30° each

http://www.bel-india.com/?q=USHUS

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 06 Dec 2015 01:04

So after all the delays and CAG bellyaching, what we do make does deliver.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 288615.ece

The NPOL is the sole Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) laboratory in the State. “We are the only agency in the country with core competence in Sonar technology,” said director S. Anantha Narayanan, who was project director of ‘Panchendriya,’ the first indigenously-developed Sonar system for submarines.

Recently, the agency developed the Ushus Sonar for use in submarines and this won the AGNI Award for self-reliance from the Prime Minister in May last. This Sonar is considered to be a versatile system to detect submarines and ships and is comparable to the best in the world.

Panchendriya was the sonar + FCS deployed as a testbed on the Foxtrot class. USHUS is the follow on for EKM and a higher power version is on Arihant.

srai · Post by **srai** » 06 Dec 2015 06:53

^^^

Foundation is there upon which more sophisticated versions can be developed. That goes for wide spectrum of indigenous defense equipment. The real question in my mind is whether India will continue to support its hard-earned know-hows or let it whither away like in the past decades. There are too many powerful vested interests in the government, armed forces and agents/corporates who in their myopic views, or to line-up their pockets, or foreign interests go to extreme lengths to roll back indigenization in favor of imports. Time will tell which path India chooses.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Dec 2015 11:47

Dr. Arogyaswami Paulraj laid the foundation for sonar development after the INS Khukri sinking.

APSOH sonar...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arogyaswami_Paulraj

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 Dec 2015 00:21

srai wrote:^^^

Foundation is there upon which more sophisticated versions can be developed. That goes for wide spectrum of indigenous defense equipment. The real question in my mind is whether India will continue to support its hard-earned know-hows or let it whither away like in the past decades. There are too many powerful vested interests in the government, armed forces and agents/corporates who in their myopic views, or to line-up their pockets, or foreign interests go to extreme lengths to roll back indigenization in favor of imports. Time will tell which path India chooses.

Given we have managed all this in the face of the worst dalals and most corrupt sods influencing Govt, I think as long as people like Parrikar etc are around we will do ok. He may have made his missteps initially but more and more his steps are firm & he decisively understands the value of indigenous production. IMO intent matters.

raghava · Post by **raghava** » 07 Dec 2015 20:54

another tidbit folks...this time from a pan wala who was earlier a chai wala...

you all know about the recent decoy system was handed over to the Nau Sena.

In the end user's own words - compared decoy to decoy, this is far superior to the WASS C303 which they already have.

in fact its "decoying" performance was so good that the users actually were ready to accept it even though a subsystem of the overall system was still being proofed. Its been 18 months since then and now the subsystem in question is also working wonderfully. Overall its quite an effective system which will play a part in diluting the sub surface numerical superiority our eastern neighbour has.

People would have read in the media recently that two production grade systems were handed over. These , the chai wala thinks will be integrated to work with the ACTAS systems being imported. During and after the integration, user doctrines will be fine tuned & honed... watch out bad guys...!

May actually become a "compulsory" system on all major active and future combatants.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 Dec 2015 23:22

Super info Raghava, keep the tidbits flowing.

BTW it looks like the Mareech has its own integrated towed array sonar, so it can work even on ships without a dedicated ATAS.

srai · Post by **srai** » 08 Dec 2015 00:47

raghava · Post by **raghava** » 08 Dec 2015 00:59

Karan M wrote:Super info Raghava, keep the tidbits flowing.

BTW it looks like the Mareech has its own integrated towed array sonar, so it can work even on ships without a dedicated ATAS.

Yes Karan M sir,

It will. In fact, Maareech also has an "Only - Hull Mounted Sonar" mode.

member_29259 · Post by **member_29259** » 08 Dec 2015 08:59

It would be interesting to see the level of Naval Involvement in the D&D of this product....

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 08 Dec 2015 09:56

This is the sort of thing that can be used on the lightly armed Saryus in numbers! A network of such ASW nodes during wartime gives much better situational awareness than the ever popular "heavily armed corvette with 500 extra brahmos towed around in a rubber dinghy, just in case". Once a sub is tracked, other more capable (costly) assets can be efficiently deployed to hunt it down.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 10 Dec 2015 00:45

I think some level of ASW should be defacto on every IN/CG ship being produced. How is Abhay coming along? Wasn't that meant for patrol boats?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 10 Dec 2015 01:07

What was the R&D cost for Mareech? Do we know cost of manufacture is? Also what is the cost of a similar system from a foreign vendor?

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 14 Dec 2015 08:08

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 107702.cms

Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment in Chennai wins DRDO award
Ekatha Ann John,TNN | Sep 25, 2015, 09.45 PM IST

CHENNAI: The Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment in Avadi - a Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO) laboratory developing armoured fighting vehicles and tanks - has won the Defence Technology Spin-off Award instituted by the DRDO.

P Sivakumar, director of CVRDE, received the award from Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar at a function held at DRDO Bhawan on Wednesday.

The laboratory was awarded for the development of indigenous hydraulic filters for various defence applications.

For the first time in the country, CVRDE designed and developed six different types of hydraulic filters for indigenous fighter air craft LCA-Tejas.

At present, CVRDE has also taken up a project to design and develop filters for Navy submarines

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Dec 2015 09:26

A cannon yet to fire - not a single big ticket proposal
Jayant Sriram
http://www.thehindu.com/business/Econom ... avdropdown

Foreign firms are unwilling to transfer high-end technology unless the cap is increased to a level above 50 per cent (and perhaps significantly more), because it simply doesn't make business sense.

India is still reliant on importing military equipment to fulfil its short-term needs

Where does India stand on defence manufacturing and how have the government’s recent moves on easing FDI norms and ease of doing business helped the sector?

The reality on the ground, according to several senior analysts is that little has come in by way of tangible large investments and for now India is still reliant on importing military equipment to fulfil its short term needs.

Why is this still the case?

Following on the heels of its heavy defeat in the Bihar elections, the NDA government moved quickly to ease FDI regulations for several key sectors including defence. The government allowed foreign investment up to 49 per cent under the automatic route, from the earlier government approval route. It also stipulated that investments exceeding 49 per cent would now be cleared by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board rather than going through the more circuitous route of the Cabinet Committee on Security.

Jayant Sriram

Yet, more than a year after the NDA government first announced that it would increase the FDI cap in the defence sector to 49 per cent, from 26 per cent, there is still a reluctance on the part of most global majors to come in with a significant project. Part of this problem is linked to an ongoing debate about whether 49 per cent is actually enough given that the limit is designed to ensure that control of the venture remains with the Indian companies.

From an industry perspective it's long been the opinion of several analysts that unless the FDI cap is increased to at least 74 percent things are unlikely to move on the ground.

Most other developed countries have recognised the fact that defence production necessarily involves a series of international collaborations. However, as India gradually opens up the sector there remains a lingering sense of mistrust among Indian companies who don't want to lose control of the venture. Conversely, foreign firms are unwilling to transfer high-end technology unless the cap is increased to a level above 50 per cent (and perhaps significantly more), because it simply doesn't make business sense.

But is the debate about investment caps merely a superficial one that covers up some deeper issues with policy planning in defence?

Amit Cowshish, a former financial advisor to the Ministry of Defence, explained that in reality there has always been a provision to raise the cap over 49 per cent if it involved a significant transfer of high-tech technology. In September this year, a U.S. official noted that when there was 'industry anxiety over control of technology' then the FDI limit would be increased on a case-to-case basis.

Yet despite this clause there has not been a single big ticket proposal for investment. Figures tabled in parliament in March showed that the government has got just six FDI proposals worth a paltry Rs 96 crore ($15.3 million) in the defence production sector, with only two of them being for 49 percent. This was for a period of seven months and the situation hasn't really improved since. In the meantime, India's defence expenditure is expected to accelerate heavily over the next three decades, with the country expected to spend another $120 billion on arms acquisition over the next 10 years.

Given such a large domestic need, why have Indian companies continued to be such poor suppliers and why are foreign companies still unwilling to invest given the potentially huge market.

“Design and Development projects usually entail a long gestation period and there is an inherent risk of failure,” Mr. Cowshish observed. “Therefore no one would run the risk of making heavy investments in such projects unless there is a guarantee of orders coming in and clarity on the exact nature of the domestic market,” he said.

There is therefore a catch 22 situation where local manufacturers like Bharat Forge, L&T and Tata require high-end technology to scale up manufacturing but there is no clarity from the MoD on what exactly its requirements are. “On the MoD website there is a document called the Technology Prospectus and Capability Roadmap but the targets mentioned here are vague with no idea even of what the requirements are over the next five or even fifteen years,” Mr. Cowshish pointed out. “And it is difficult to make out a business case from this document.” Another senior industry analysts points out that India has a history of dragging its feet on defence deals. Added to this is the fact now that the Make in India campaign sends out mixed signals with regards to foreign investment. “There is a hesitation on the part of foreign companies because they don't know where they are going to fit in. It's clear that the MoD will now prioritise Indian manufacturing,” he explained. The central government is now cognizant of the fact that the majority of technology, at least for the short term, has to come in the form of off-the-shelf purchases like the Rafale deal. In the long term, the plan may be to have Indian companies scale up to the level of a Lockheed or a Boeing.

But can this be done without properly addressing the issue of creating an ecosystem for the same?

According to Rear Admiral (Retd.) Vijai S Chaudhari, Additional Director of the Centre for Joint Warfare Studies, a few policy correctives to improve the ease of doing business are imperative.

“To start with if a company is going to spend so much money on a project there is not even now the guarantee of export even to a benign country. It will be dealt with on a case to case basis,” he explained.

The other major stumbling block is India's Defence Procurement Policy (DPP) that keeps getting updated every few years. “There was a proposal sometime back to allow someone who has signed under the old policy to migrate easily to the new one but that was rejected,” Mr. Chaudhari said. The reason the DPP goes through periodic revisions, he said, is that India has always remained cautious about big bang reforms in the sector and so change is always piecemeal. This FDI phobia, he pointed out, has to change.

“The final nail on the coffin is that there is a clause in the DPP which says that in case of a foreign collaboration the department will nominate the production agency,” Mr. Chaudhari said. “This would stack the odds very much in favour of a PSU. The better alternative would be to let a potential bidder reach his own agreement with a private agency.”

PS:From this report,it is obvious that ":Babudom" does nto want transparency in defence deals and is sabotaging the nation's security. It is ridiculous for a pvt. firm to have to accept a foreign partner decided by Babudom.It is as ridiculous as the Govt. arranging every arranged marriage!

srai · Post by **srai** » 14 Dec 2015 14:27

^^^

It's bit more complex than just that. No foreign company would want to give "high-end" technology to its future competitor. That's what gives them the edge globally. Seeking such technologies to be shared through ToT or FDI is pointless. On the other hand, they would love to give India a "black box" that would magically do all the things in its flashy brochure

The real question is what is the end goal for India? Is it seeking access to the core technology inner-workings that will eventually allow it to build its own things with it, or just a way to assemble it in India (but designed elsewhere) to create local jobs. The latter would still be "import" of core technology but with an element of local manufacture and assembly of some of the parts/system.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Dec 2015 20:54

Philip, Can we be more objective please? Who will part technology for a competitor? Japan, S Korea, And Singapore and all are examples of tech transfer that morphed into competitors.

I would rather MOD allows the OFB gun design to be produced by Indian private sector companies.

IA needs to learn like IAF to support local industry.
Its the norm in US also. Public Labs develops technology and private makes it.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 17 Dec 2015 09:50

Mods, pls remove if this isn't the right dhaga.

ISB, PwC arm Strategy& to set up defence industry think-tank (ET)

Lots of think-tank / talk-shop action happening, clearly.

The think-tank will focus on engaging with the domestic companies on strategy, go-to-market approaches and government policy, and will help large corporates seeking to grow their defence revenue, foreign players looking to credibly enter the domestic market, and MSMEs wanting to play an increasing role in the defence value chain.

"The academic rigor at ISB and market insights from Strategy& are being brought together through this collaboration to provide access to ground-breaking R&D of key issues to industry players against the backdrop of the government's thrust on local manufacturing with focus on local aerospace and defence production," said Pradeep Singh, Deputy Dean of ISB and Chief Executive of ISB Mohali Campus.

As per Strategy& estimates, the domestic defence capital expenditure is estimated to increase by 8-10 per cent annually till 2020, with the scope for private sector expanding significantly across the tiered value chain.

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 17 Dec 2015 12:50

Step in right direction

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 212027.cms

The lack of Indian testing facilities had also added significantly to the costs of developing new systems. In the case of an artillery gun developer for example, it took over an year to use an Army range for tests. Other companies, including a major producer of bullet proof materials regularly used European facilities for tests, increasing developmental costs. "By permitting the usage of existing govt. owned testing facilities, the development and prototyping cost of defence products will not only come down but also become faster," Ankur Gupta of EY India said.

Among the facilities now available - on the condition that they are not being utilized for government run projects - are air to ground and small arms ranges, aircraft, helicopters, radars, naval dockyards and HAL laboratories.