Indian Army: News & Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby merlin » 27 May 2010 11:34

ASPuar wrote:DRDO's VK Saraswat seems to have launched a bomb at the armed forces in open public, in front of the PM and Defence Minister.

Seems the armed forces chiefs are livid, and making their displeasure known to the cabinet.


Good! Somebody had to say it and say it out loud publicly. Well done.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10025
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby sum » 27 May 2010 22:11

From Orbat:
#

Then the Indians are going bizzaro with a new weapon systems development road map, a 79 page document that says India will have stuff like ASAT, directed energy weapons, and loitering smart bombs among other things. The Indians have not been properly brought up, you can tell, because they are ignoring grandma's strict instructions: clean your plate before you get dessert. The Indians want their dessert first, and want to stuff themselves so full of it they will have no room for the main meal.
#

So, India, how about some simple stuff like new howitzers and helicopters, and reequipping the air force, which is in about the same state as those sorry-looking spavined donkeys you see in the urban areas. How about getting on with the mechanization of the ground forces, basic stuff like that which is running a 25-yerar modernization backlog.
#

But - oh no, that's not exciting, we cant be bothered

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2091
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Picklu » 27 May 2010 22:25

anirban_aim wrote:
abhishek_sharma wrote:Military tribunal slams Kargil war leadership

http://www.hindu.com/2010/05/27/stories/2010052755911200.htm


The order is pretty damning. Brass will have to do a lot of explaining. Well its not unknown that there is very little love lost Lt Gen KP but admitting mistakes is not going to be easy.

Old festering issue. I'm intrested to see how it unfolds. I'm even more intrested to see how Gen VKS reacts to this.

More disturbing is the fact that wrongdoing in the army are not being redressed even after given opertunities in its own eminent domain and being corrected from outside. Gives a lot of ammo against the institution to question its judgement in every decision from the human rights to arms acquisition.

anjan
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 08 Jan 2010 02:42

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby anjan » 27 May 2010 23:57

Picklu wrote:More disturbing is the fact that wrongdoing in the army are not being redressed even after given opertunities in its own eminent domain and being corrected from outside. Gives a lot of ammo against the institution to question its judgement in every decision from the human rights to arms acquisition.


I've been resisting the urge the respond to a lot of these "Bash the Army" posts up until now. What "human rights" issue are you talking about? Second what do you mean by "eminent domain"? The armed forces tribunal is supposed to be what? An international org foisted from outside? What "correction from outside"?

As is apparent from many of the posts people don't need reasons to question the Army's judgement. I wonder how many people have spoken to service officers about contentious arms acquisition issues? When the Army inducts indigenous SAMs and helicopters not a peep is heard. Not induct a tank and suddenly all hell breaks loose. Seems too often that in their grandiose pursuits of self sufficiency people don't seem to care about the end user who use said equipment and whose lives depends on it.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7722
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 28 May 2010 00:07

anjan wrote:
I've been resisting the urge the respond to a lot of these "Bash the Army" posts up until now. What "human rights" issue are you talking about? Second what do you mean by "eminent domain"? The armed forces tribunal is supposed to be what? An international org foisted from outside? What "correction from outside"?

As is apparent from many of the posts people don't need reasons to question the Army's judgement. I wonder how many people have spoken to service officers about contentious arms acquisition issues? When the Army inducts indigenous SAMs and helicopters not a peep is heard. Not induct a tank and suddenly all hell breaks loose. Seems too often that in their grandiose pursuits of self sufficiency people don't seem to care about the end user who use said equipment and whose lives depends on it.


While I agree in toto to whatever you've said in your post above, let us not go down the bolded part. First part of your bolded statement and second are not related in this case.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7722
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 28 May 2010 00:09

merlin wrote:
ASPuar wrote:DRDO's VK Saraswat seems to have launched a bomb at the armed forces in open public, in front of the PM and Defence Minister.

Seems the armed forces chiefs are livid, and making their displeasure known to the cabinet.


Good! Somebody had to say it and say it out loud publicly. Well done.


Merlin, these statements don't do anyone any good. If anything, they harden the attitude into "us-versus-them" mindset. Saraswat's statement changes nothing on the ground except create bad blood. DRDO is not exactly an angel with white wings here....

anjan
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 08 Jan 2010 02:42

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby anjan » 28 May 2010 01:27

rohitvats wrote:While I agree in toto to whatever you've said in your post above, let us not go down the bolded part. First part of your bolded statement and second are not related in this case.


Well he did mention acquisitions but I'll let it slip. The trouble is too often this is taken as a blanket defence of the army. The Army like any large organizations has its share of politics and internal chicanery. The problem is that the makeup and motivations of the armed forces is very different from that of the outside world. People don't seem to get that different motivations are required to get a person to wade through knee deep snow with danger of enemy fire and avalanche than picking up a briefcase/laptop and heading to work. Every Damn day. Comments which ignore this reality are either misguided or plain malicious and do more harm than good to the services.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7722
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 28 May 2010 01:36

^^^Again, agree in full. The problem is that media tries to malign the IA as one monolith....no one sees the fact that a guy here or there can and do go wrong. Why do people forget that a fomer GOC gave testimony that the said brigadier in this case did command 70 Brigade during entire duration of operation under question?

The strength of the institution is in correcting the wrong. It is easier said than done - but does get done, though at the speed at which IA is comfortable with.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19453
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 28 May 2010 02:52

The problem is that the services have been bashing the defence establishment publically and via leaks by retired officers, often with made up data (as can be clearly seen in the Arjun case) for so long that finally Saraswat has spoken up. Its not just the DRDO, its the DPSU set up, including HAL, BEL etc and many others. It is also the MOD, which has kept its mouth shut all the while, taking all the flak for procurement snafus, never mind, the irrational GSQRs from services have their part to play. The recent Army Chief as a breath of fresh air has reportedly done something about this. Time will tell.

The entire defence establishment has been vilified in the strongest and most abusive of terms time and time again, in media, in public, scorned and their entire brand dragged through the mud by service representatives speaking "off the record" and then by rtd officers who now man positions of interest throughout the public speaking space.

Then innocent questions are asked about why these "incompetent, worthless" organizations are unable to "get talent", after having ensured their brand is not worth a whit.

The services need to understand what teamwork means. It means working with people, not abusing them and treating them like second class citizens who will snap to attention only via the crack of a whip. Lest you think I am being too harsh, none decry the valour of the services. But that does not mean partnership is a one way street. If examples are sought, then the list would be endless. Let us leave names out of it, but the ignorance of what the local industry has done is not just shocking, but the contempt in which they are held often for the flimsiest of grounds needs to be changed. That has to come from within the services themselves.

Till date, I have not seen one professional article from the vast pool of experience that lies within the services casting an critical eye about the manner in which the service establishment continues to work at cross purposes with local developers. There is a code of silence. Never speak against your own, for that is betrayal.

The DRDO/DPSU have long been of the opinion that silent work would open the eyes of the services to their value and cease the relentless and shameful attacks on their patriotism, their capability, skills and general intent. That has not happened. The Pinaka, strategic missiles, Arjun, many electronics items, worth around Rs 70000 crore have gone into production over the past decade, developed on a budget which is a shoestring when compared to that of advanced nations. Yet, the services continue to mock the defence development establishment every given chance, and hand out patronizing advice about improvement. A recent article about the LCA by a certain worthy mocked the program as having consumed vast resources for no tangible benefit (which is clearly wrong) but then went to sing rhapsodies about imports and how more money should be made available for imports. Advertorials are now run without even the barest of pretences.

Furthermore, two years back, when the local establishment made a plea for increasing the defence research budget to accomodate the advanced systems currently in requirement, a then service chief, who went onto take a role in a prominent pvt arms venture, went so far as to publically rubbish the idea. This was then leaked extensively to the press to further rubbish the idea.

Gentlemen, there are many good people in the services, but some behaviour is simply unacceptable. You dont curse a partner day in and night out and then expect him/it to perform like a trained circus monkey. The services would do well to imbibe the maturity that certain western nations display (as much as it raises the hackles of those who believe we are perfect and need no lesson from anyone). Even the most egregious of errors are sorted out post haste in private meetings, and public discussions are professional and not meanspirited. There is no abuse about how "pathetic" (said word used many times for both DPSU and civilian R&D in India) their local industry is. The focus is on "gung ho" ie work together, not making sure the industry partners know who is the top dog and act submissively. The behavior is throughout, professional. Penalties are handed out, professionally without making a hue and cry and corrective action taken in the same vein. No matter the dispute, the services abroad realise the importance of local industry, which does not have to beg for crumbs from the table a la Oliver Twist, which is not only humiliating but gravely harmful to the development of a local arms base.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19453
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 28 May 2010 04:03

anjan wrote:The problem is that the makeup and motivations of the armed forces is very different from that of the outside world. People don't seem to get that different motivations are required to get a person to wade through knee deep snow with danger of enemy fire and avalanche than picking up a briefcase/laptop and heading to work. Every Damn day. Comments which ignore this reality are either misguided or plain malicious and do more harm than good to the services.


This is exactly the hyperbole, which leads to an "I am superior than thou" attitude which is the bane of the user-developer relationship, where the former dictates to the latter driven by a perception of superiority.

For your attention, do you think that Saraswat - a man who gave up the option of a lucrative career abroad despite offers of the like, or his mentor Kalam, who led the life of an ascetic, with a single minded goal to catapult India's weapons development into the league of advanced nations, are any less motivated or patriotic or selfless that they have to be categorized and dismissed as "picking up a briefcase/laptop" and heading to work! Clearly, you imply there are no sacrifices made by the civilian side of the establishment, to contribute to national development. It is not a job, it is a calling, for many. Many of the younger breed have caught this infection, and continue to work on programs despite being called incompetent, worthless in the media every single day! And per serving rules, they are not even permitted to speak out lest they offend their valued customer/s.

And then out comes the stereotype of "enemy fire/avalanches" et al. For the record, many folks who are currently facing these tribulations (and they are as such, no mistake) in the armed forces, are also there because of employment considerations.

So both sides have their employment/dedicated souls!

So kindly, let us leave these stereotypes out.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5193
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Kartik » 28 May 2010 04:12

Mrinal wrote:
anjan wrote:The problem is that the makeup and motivations of the armed forces is very different from that of the outside world. People don't seem to get that different motivations are required to get a person to wade through knee deep snow with danger of enemy fire and avalanche than picking up a briefcase/laptop and heading to work. Every Damn day. Comments which ignore this reality are either misguided or plain malicious and do more harm than good to the services.


This is exactly the hyperbole, which leads to an "I am superior than thou" attitude which is the bane of the user-developer relationship, where the former dictates to the latter driven by a perception of superiority.

For your attention, do you think that Saraswat - a man who gave up the option of a lucrative career abroad despite offers of the like, or his mentor Kalam, who led the life of an ascetic, with a single minded goal to catapult India's weapons development into the league of advanced nations, are any less motivated or patriotic or selfless that they have to be categorized and dismissed as "picking up a briefcase/laptop" and heading to work! Clearly, you imply there are no sacrifices made by the civilian side of the establishment, to contribute to national development. It is not a job, it is a calling, for many. Many of the younger breed have caught this infection, and continue to work on programs despite being called incompetent, worthless in the media every single day! And per serving rules, they are not even permitted to speak out lest they offend their valued customer/s.

And then out comes the stereotype of "enemy fire/avalanches" et al. For the record, many folks who are currently facing these tribulations (and they are as such, no mistake) in the armed forces, are also there because of employment considerations.

So both sides have their employment/dedicated souls!

So kindly, let us leave these stereotypes out.


excellent posts Mrinal.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby merlin » 28 May 2010 06:37

rohitvats wrote:
merlin wrote:
Good! Somebody had to say it and say it out loud publicly. Well done.


Merlin, these statements don't do anyone any good. If anything, they harden the attitude into "us-versus-them" mindset. Saraswat's statement changes nothing on the ground except create bad blood. DRDO is not exactly an angel with white wings here....


Did anybody say that they were? That's a strawman, rohit
IA bashes DRDO either directly or indirectly every other day and DRDO is not supposed to defend themselves? Does only the DRDO have to be the one to refrain from saying stuff that will harden the "us-versus-them" mindset? The services can say whatever comes to their mind?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby shiv » 28 May 2010 08:45

The forces-DRDO issue is one in which both have their own viewpoints and both are right. But the problem is when the DRDO makes an error the forces suffer, not the DRDO. However the nation suffers in the long term from an absence of understanding of each other's viewpoint.

I have tended to find that the armed forces take the attitude that they have a duty to perform and that they will perform that duty. They only ask that they be given the tools to perform the duty - failing which they will still do their duty but may fail because of lack of the necessary tools. In other words it's like the old doctor joke

Doctor to patient: I have good news and bad news
Patient: "Give me the bad news first"
Doctor: "You have a 50% chance of surviving or dying"
Patient: "Ok, so what's the good news?"
Doctor: "I get paid either way"


The DRDO is the doctor and the armed forces are the patient.

But the DRDO is absolutely right in informing the public and the armed forces that "national security" is not about the armed forces alone, and that making the nation stronger involves a military-industrial-economic cooperation, where the military as a huge consumer of resources and provider of employment to non military industries need to ask if they should forever keep on providing employment to foreign industries or adjust doctrines to cope with the rough and tumble of technology development to help Indian industry get off the ground.

In other words, the Armed Forces must be more than the chowkidar (guard) for whom the Thakur (Government) provides the hathiyar (arms), but must become an aware partner in national development and understand the geopolitics of military tech and sales.

The missiles being fired at each other by armed forces and DRDO are a good sign. Like Lucy said in Peanuts "He loves me. He just threw a stone at me"

ASPuar
BRFite
Posts: 1538
Joined: 07 Feb 2001 12:31
Location: Republic of India

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ASPuar » 28 May 2010 09:38

shiv wrote:....the problem is when the DRDO makes an error the forces suffer, not the DRDO. However the nation suffers in the long term from an absence of understanding of each other's viewpoint.


There sir, you seem to have diagnosed the problem accurately. In other words, you have hit the nail on the head, and the one thing which all the DRDO boosters here have glossed over quite conveniently.

What does the DRDO have to lose if a project falls through? A little H&D.

But the officers and jawans of the armed forces are putting their lives on the line. I think the greater burden therefore lies on DRDO, and the military's demands simply must be given more importance than those of the DRDO. Because the scientists are not going to die because of their mistakes. Just lose out on a "shram" award or two.

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby arnab » 28 May 2010 09:57

ASPuar wrote:There sir, you seem to have diagnosed the problem accurately. In other words, you have hit the nail on the head, and the one thing which all the DRDO boosters here have glossed over quite conveniently.

What does the DRDO have to lose if a project falls through? A little H&D.

But the officers and jawans of the armed forces are putting their lives on the line. I think the greater burden therefore lies on DRDO, and the military's demands simply must be given more importance than those of the DRDO. Because the scientists are not going to die because of their mistakes. Just lose out on a "shram" award or two.


Fair enough sir, but the battle between DRDO and the armed forces seem to be about acceptance of indigenous products. The IA brass have hardly shown a similar level of concern ('putting lives on the line') about equipment quality when it comes to imported products (T-90 for e.g). So all that DRDO seems to be asking is for a level playing field. Work with them - iron out issues and get a good product through an iterative process, instead of constantly telling them that they suck.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Surya » 28 May 2010 10:04

In other words, you have hit the nail on the head, and the one thing which all the DRDO boosters here have glossed over quite conveniently


Not really but by singling out one side again as usual you are clueless about what people go through after putting years of hard labour and passion into a product when the easy thing would have been to walk out and join the private sector for better pay etc.

Even last week I was with a bunch of Army and IAF Groupies and Colonels and everyone agreed a lot of these DRDO guys had a lot of passion in trying move us up the value chain.

Shiv btw correctly put up both sides

Sachin
Webmaster BR
Posts: 7930
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Undisclosed

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Sachin » 28 May 2010 10:46

arnab wrote:Work with them - iron out issues and get a good product through an iterative process, instead of constantly telling them that they suck.

A simple question I have here is; is it the Army only which just behaves like a rude customer by only giving specifications (and perhaps change it too often) to the DRDO and then expecting every thing to be neatly arranged on a plate and handed over? Or is it more of an "Armed Forces (IA,IN,IAF) v/s the DRDO" situation?

If the DRDO chief "bomb-blast" does have a positive impact and if both parties can work as a joint team (rather than one being a rude customer, and the other chap an obedient service provider) it would be great for the nation. This is not only for the defence side, but has to happen on the "civil administration" side as well. We have umpteen agencies, and it is very rare to see all of them working in unison. The "one up-man ship" in these agencies does harm the nation in the long term.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby vic » 28 May 2010 11:02

Military and patient is not a "simple" doctor patient relationship. It is about a patient who wants to get foreign sleeping pills or be prescriped transquilizers "pretending" various illness and not co-operating with Govt hospital doctor, whose diagnosis is that patient is pretending ailments. Or in some cases patients wants branded foreign medicines at ten times the cost even when cheaper generics are available.


Anyway, who said that "Patriotism is the last resort of corrupt"? Services have miserably failed to work towards building an indigenous base and are now (due to well known reasons) are encouraging imports. Note T-90 import and T-72 upgardation is worth Rs. 50,000 crore, imagine the lollipops


Incidentally, "i want best tools for my men who are going to lay down their lives" is a pathetic excuse used by brass to encurage imports. How tin can T-90s or failed Kraspanol will help save lives is moot. While brass clamors for fancy equipment they ignore bread and butter stuff like BPJs. If they actually wanted "best" stuff whose spares cannot be cut off during war then they would go whole hog in encouraging indigenous R&D.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7722
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 28 May 2010 12:39

merlin wrote: Did anybody say that they were? That's a strawman, rohit
IA bashes DRDO either directly or indirectly every other day and DRDO is not supposed to defend themselves? Does only the DRDO have to be the one to refrain from saying stuff that will harden the "us-versus-them" mindset? The services can say whatever comes to their mind?


Lsst I checked, no one on this forum lauded or accepted these public statements or leaks from the IA or Defence Services. I for sure have not done so. So, why should I laud and somehow accept what Saraswat has said? How is it justified? And are statements by retired IA or Defence Officers to news outlets or random articles same as taking a jibe at Services, with Service Cheifs present, in such a forum? What was he thinking? Avenging all the wrongs he thinks has been done to DRDO?

And by airing his opinion in the public, what has he gained? His (DRDO) products will and do speak for themselves. For example, no amount of public "tu-tu-main-main" can/could acheive what Arjun's comparative trials have done so. Two wrongs don't make a right.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7722
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 28 May 2010 12:48

Surya wrote:
Not really but by singling out one side again as usual you are clueless about what people go through after putting years of hard labour and passion into a product when the easy thing would have been to walk out and join the private sector for better pay etc.

<SNIP>



Which will amount to zilch if the product is not capable or unable to deliver when it matters the most. Research and Development for the sake of it does not amount to anything - in this case.

The bottomline is simple - While IA has a long way to go before it understands and reaches the level of user-developer relationship like IN, the onus is on DRDO to ensure that it does not fall short of the brief - for there are lives at stake. Everthing else being equal, a scientist sitting in a lab in Bangalore is not same as a soldier sitting in some forlon place. DRDO exists for the Services and not other way around. Yes, you can say that DRDO is there to serve the nation - the tools which do so are the Services.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16997
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 28 May 2010 13:26

ASPuar wrote:
shiv wrote:....the problem is when the DRDO makes an error the forces suffer, not the DRDO. However the nation suffers in the long term from an absence of understanding of each other's viewpoint.


There sir, you seem to have diagnosed the problem accurately. In other words, you have hit the nail on the head, and the one thing which all the DRDO boosters here have glossed over quite conveniently.

What does the DRDO have to lose if a project falls through? A little H&D.

But the officers and jawans of the armed forces are putting their lives on the line. I think the greater burden therefore lies on DRDO, and the military's demands simply must be given more importance than those of the DRDO. Because the scientists are not going to die because of their mistakes. Just lose out on a "shram" award or two.

sorry, but this is nothing but rhetoric meant to appeal to the emotional side of people who don't know any better.

>> please name one faulty item from DRDO that was thrust upon the forces
>> please name one faulty item from DRDO that caused loss of life in forces due to a basic flaw in design.
fact is that the forces have never accepted faulty items (even minor ones) nor has DRDO/MOD thrust it upon them.
if DRDO gets it wrong, it's the people associated with the program that suffer and money from the exchequer is wasted. NOT the forces, in every case they have been provided with equivalent or better equipment from abroad. if the forces are without vital equipment, by and large they have only themselves to blame along with the MOD. why is the IA still w/o artillery for 20 odd years after the need arose ? it's not a DRDO program that has barred their path.

then we have the situation where perfectly working systems from DRDO have been rejected based on nothing more than petty whims wasting crores of public money. of course, the government has had to buy inferior items from abroad to fill up the requirement, leading to a double expenditure AND what is much worse, putting the lives of IA soldiers at grave risk in substandard foreign equipment.

but hey, it doesn't matter if Indian soldiers die as long as it is in 'superior' furrin machines. :roll:

ASPuar
BRFite
Posts: 1538
Joined: 07 Feb 2001 12:31
Location: Republic of India

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ASPuar » 28 May 2010 16:30

RahulM,

You are getting carried away by emotional arguments. My point was simply, that DRDO bears greater responsibility in this matter, simply because, an error on their part means little in terms of personal discomfort for themselves, but a great deal in terms of personal discomfort, and danger to life for soldiers.

I know that you have your reasons for making the argument you are making, and I know that it is a contentious issue on here. My goal is not to start off another of those endlessly rhetorical irritating arguments. It is simply a point of view. Accept it, or reject it, it is a personal choice.

Ridiculous assertions like "Name one time when DRDO has made a mistake" "Soldiers can die in foreign items" etc, are not only futile, but are assuredly incorrect, and the very same type of obfuscatory emotional argument which you are condemning. Let us not get carried away. DRDO is not perfect, by any standard, a fact acknowledged by the government, and being acted upon presently. Yet I am glad we have it.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16997
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 28 May 2010 17:01

ASP sahab, yes, unfortunately when soldiers and the common man are being duped by the top brass on petty egos, it is an emotional matter.

>> "Soldiers can die in foreign items" etc, are not only futile, but are assuredly incorrect

is that so ? do check, for example how many IA tank crews(as in all 3 personnel) have perished because the T-72 didn't have a properly working fire suppressing system, not to mention that the incidents of catching fire shouldn't have happened in the first place. do I see one peep anywhere about the IA's responsibility to get safe equipment for its soldiers ? no sir. but the brouhaha about hypothetical faulty DRDO items that have killed servicemen have filled up the airwaves !

>> "Name one time when DRDO has made a mistake"

now you are twisting my words, which is *very* unbecoming of you, if I may say it.
what I said was that DRDO's mistakes are not passed on to the forces. the system that we have DOES NOT put soldiers' life at risk due to mistakes by DRDO. however, we do seem to have made concessions for foreign items.
that sir, is the situation as it stands now. do think about it.

DRDO is certainly not perfect, neither have I ever claimed so. I've myself said so on more than one occasion so I didn't quite get the point of this obvious comment. but to generalise and whitewash the serious lack of coordination and lack of cooperation(sometimes bordering on hostility) from certain sections of the forces with platitudes like "they are more responsible" is a disservice to all well meaning people in our defence establishment(services, MOD and DRDO alike) who work very hard to develop cutting edge weapons for our soldiers.

please do read nukavarapu's post above, it has some valid points.
at the end of the day it's the forces responsibility to get the best item for themselves. the correct way forward is taking ownership of these projects as the navy has been doing, NOT grumble about how DRDO-'vendor' is not upto scratch etc.
that's not how cutting edge military equipment is developed all over the world. it's a partnership between the military and the developer. DRDO is not meant to be a vendor, I mean for heaven's sake, it is not even a profit making organisation !
in the FSU where they had a similar model, many of these DRDO scientists would have been officers of the armed forces themselves.
the only militaries that still have this 'vendor' mentality are those of banana republics like KSA. the Indian armed forces, especially section of the army needs to understand that it is the army of an emerging technological power and that it needs to act accordingly and not act like the army of burundi which can't produce a grenade pin for a damn.

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 891
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ParGha » 28 May 2010 17:20

shiv wrote:The forces-DRDO issue is one in which both have their own viewpoints and both are right. But the problem is when the DRDO makes an error the forces suffer, not the DRDO. However the nation suffers in the long term from an absence of understanding of each other's viewpoint.


I wonder if this is because the Indian armed forces and defense PSUs are yet to start thinking strategically?

I believe Brig. Ray used to say that between 1947-62 IA had decent tactical knowledge, but it had very little operational experience (the senior-most IA officer after WWII was Brig. Cariappa) as opposed to the Chinese who had operational and strategic experience from WWII, Chinese Civil War and the Korean War. It was the debacle of 1962 which really gave impetus to learning the operational art; simultaneously the defense PSUs stopped making pressure-cookers and focused on delivering what was needed - including running rough-shod over IP when national defense demanded it (ex. with the SLR and the MMG), and innovating in a realistic, practical and responsive manner (ex. the 7.62mm Ishapore Rifle).

The strategic art is one level above it. Will they learn it by internal impetus? Or will they learn by suffering external impetus? It remains for time to show. The DRDO cheerleaders claim that Indianization is strategic thinking. Maybe, maybe not. One must prioritize with what technology can be gotten easily from outside and what one must developed inside. There is no point in reinventing the wheel. For example, no one will sell or give India BM technology, so DRDOs IGMP is strategic thinking. But do they also have to develop the INSAS? Couldn't they have just license produced or simply copied the Galil or the Valmet and delivered it in the 1980s as requested? It is strategically important that one produces one defense needs internally as much as possible. Time and effort is better spent on strategic developments that one absolutely needs, or on developments that one has a natural advantage in. India may have natural advantage in certain emerging technologies; it does not have it over the Russians or the Germans in making tanks... using their designs shouldn't be a problem as long as one can produce them in-house.

JMTC etc, etc.

Rajput
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 68
Joined: 18 Dec 2004 06:42
Location: Milky Way

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Rajput » 28 May 2010 18:17

In this DRDO-IA tug-of-war, we're forgetting a major factor: foreign sales account for a significant chunk of revenue for political parties, politicians, bureaucrats, etc.
They get zilch when DRDO (or OFB) sells the IA something.

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Igorr » 28 May 2010 18:59

Could be interesting video related to the strike helo tender: Mi-28N windows are checked against 7,62 and 12.6 mm armor-piercing bullets.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby merlin » 28 May 2010 19:07

rohitvats wrote:
merlin wrote: Did anybody say that they were? That's a strawman, rohit
IA bashes DRDO either directly or indirectly every other day and DRDO is not supposed to defend themselves? Does only the DRDO have to be the one to refrain from saying stuff that will harden the "us-versus-them" mindset? The services can say whatever comes to their mind?


Lsst I checked, no one on this forum lauded or accepted these public statements or leaks from the IA or Defence Services. I for sure have not done so. So, why should I laud and somehow accept what Saraswat has said? How is it justified? And are statements by retired IA or Defence Officers to news outlets or random articles same as taking a jibe at Services, with Service Cheifs present, in such a forum? What was he thinking? Avenging all the wrongs he thinks has been done to DRDO?

And by airing his opinion in the public, what has he gained? His (DRDO) products will and do speak for themselves. For example, no amount of public "tu-tu-main-main" can/could acheive what Arjun's comparative trials have done so. Two wrongs don't make a right.


Are you trying to say that serving defence officers don't say these things? I'm sure Mr. Saraswat's statements reflect the frustration within DRDO about being the only ones bashed. As to what he has gained, let us wait for it.

sohamn
BRFite
Posts: 310
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 12:56
Location: the Queen of the Angels of Porziuncola
Contact:

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby sohamn » 28 May 2010 20:56

Igorr wrote:Could be interesting video related to the strike helo tender: Mi-28N windows are checked against 7,62 and 12.6 mm armor-piercing bullets.


What is the fun in having people sitting inside when they are doing testing w.r.t. 7.62 and 12.6 mm armor piercing rounds. :?:

hailinfreq
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 13
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 21:27

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby hailinfreq » 28 May 2010 22:32

rohitvats wrote:
ASPuar wrote:DRDO's VK Saraswat seems to have launched a bomb at the armed forces in open public, in front of the PM and Defence Minister.

Seems the armed forces chiefs are livid, and making their displeasure known to the cabinet.


Merlin, these statements don't do anyone any good. If anything, they harden the attitude into "us-versus-them" mindset. Saraswat's statement changes nothing on the ground except create bad blood. DRDO is not exactly an angel with white wings here....


......................

From what I've read, DRDO chief Saraswat's said the following:

"The responsibility should be shared by all stake-holders of defence ministry and cannot be placed on DRDO alone, which neither has the power to impose its products on its customer (forces), nor the mandate or capacity to produce the developed systems all by themselves,"

and

"Services also must understand that while the temptation may be overwhelming to field proven, state-of-the-art imported systems, they too have a role to play in the country's economic and industrial growth. No foreign system can be customised to completely address our long-term requirements,"

Neither of these sentences seem inflammatory / non-confrontational to me. ...naming names was avoided, no blame was placed, etc

Why exactly are the armed forces livid at this? Surely its not just the subtext that is causing so much anger.

Was there something else said that is not being reported? Looking for some guru /chaiwala to shed some light on this.

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Igorr » 28 May 2010 23:02

sohamn wrote:
Igorr wrote:Could be interesting video related to the strike helo tender: Mi-28N windows are checked against 7,62 and 12.6 mm armor-piercing bullets.


What is the fun in having people sitting inside when they are doing testing w.r.t. 7.62 and 12.6 mm armor piercing rounds. :?:
Yeah... it was an unbeaten PR motion :rotfl:

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2091
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Picklu » 29 May 2010 04:20

It is absolutely not correct to say Army suffers for DRDO's errors but nobody suffers for Army's error. The current plan is to import arms worth $100B over the next 10 years. Can we really afford it given that a large part of our import bucket is always going to be energy in some form?

Each and every death due to malnutrition, heat or cold wave is a sacrifice by the civilian sector which "could" be avoided if our economy were stronger. Every import substitution shows that the armed acquisitions have one of the highest percentage of IP value add that we mango tax payers pay to the foreign economy to maintain their lifestyle. Even the iCRAPs from Apple does not have that much margin for IP. Yes, for a moment, imagine purchasing $10B iCRAP per year and then think about what that money, payed due to IP value add, could have done to the local job market and economy. No other sector of Indian economy has that kind of outflow without any corresponding inflow.

No it is not right to say it is worth it because lives are on line. Lives are being lost even with imported arms. It might sound heartless but it goes with the job profile. People are not drafted in Indian military. Mrinalji raised the employment consideration. Interesting, because the same point was raised by, of all people, Somnath couple of months back as well :lol: He was deliberately flame baited at that point of time and shouted out for speaking against the commonly held belief.

The main problem I see is the feeling in general that military and civilian sectors are different and should remain so because somehow the performance of military sector is better than the civilian sector. It will take quite sometime for people to realize that the actual situation is just the opposite and the sooner the civilian ethos are adopted by the military the better. But that needs a serious effort to come out of the current group think, so best be avoided at the current time.
Last edited by Picklu on 29 May 2010 06:05, edited 3 times in total.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2091
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Picklu » 29 May 2010 04:57

anjan wrote:
Picklu wrote:More disturbing is the fact that wrongdoing in the army are not being redressed even after given opertunities in its own eminent domain and being corrected from outside. Gives a lot of ammo against the institution to question its judgement in every decision from the human rights to arms acquisition.


I've been resisting the urge the respond to a lot of these "Bash the Army" posts up until now. What "human rights" issue are you talking about? Second what do you mean by "eminent domain"? The armed forces tribunal is supposed to be what? An international org foisted from outside? What "correction from outside"?

As is apparent from many of the posts people don't need reasons to question the Army's judgement. I wonder how many people have spoken to service officers about contentious arms acquisition issues? When the Army inducts indigenous SAMs and helicopters not a peep is heard. Not induct a tank and suddenly all hell breaks loose. Seems too often that in their grandiose pursuits of self sufficiency people don't seem to care about the end user who use said equipment and whose lives depends on it.


Outside does not mean international. One example, how the defense minister has to intervene for Sukna Land scam. And in this case also it is clear from the article that there is still a lot way to go to rectify the wrong that was done. That too when it is already 11 years past.

It is perfectly acceptable for me to speak out against the striking unions of AI employees or BSNL linemen or OFB workmen union even though I belong to neither of them. However the moment i say anything against military for some equally valid reason, I am told by someone more militant than military itself that I can not comment since I have not stood guard in a border post and hence my idea of right and wrong does not count.
I do not mind the opposition itself, that is in fact welcome for a healthy debate. However what gets my goat is the attempt to muzzle me (the excuse being I am a civilian and hence not knowledgeable enough to comment) and shut me out from the debate itself.

Obviously I am not going to buy that argument. Whether military is a calling or not, whether they are the least corrupt or not, whether they did the correct thing about the indigenous SAM or not, it still does not give them the right to be obtuse about the indigenous tank for petty ego where nation's well being is concerned.
It is not just DRDO that is loosing a little H&D. It is me, the mango tax payer, that is loosing each and every paisa that is being paid as IP value add to Rodina.
No, being a selfish and self centered person, I am not going to talk about the loss of life due to the wonderful safety records of the tincan series because that does not affect me personally today even though it is a more "politically correct" debating point.
I am going to shout where it hits me personally and that is my pocket and I am going to question it here in this forum (because it is about Indian Military) whether that hit is really necessary or not.

Regarding bash the army comment, I being the mango tax payer have every right to criticize them if they are not up to my satisfaction because I am the sole reason of existence for them. After all they use the same logic while criticizing DRDO, so it must be right, isn't it?
Last edited by Picklu on 29 May 2010 06:23, edited 1 time in total.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2091
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Picklu » 29 May 2010 05:25

ParGha wrote:
shiv wrote:The forces-DRDO issue is one in which both have their own viewpoints and both are right. But the problem is when the DRDO makes an error the forces suffer, not the DRDO. However the nation suffers in the long term from an absence of understanding of each other's viewpoint.


I wonder if this is because the Indian armed forces and defense PSUs are yet to start thinking strategically?

I believe Brig. Ray used to say that between 1947-62 IA had decent tactical knowledge, but it had very little operational experience (the senior-most IA officer after WWII was Brig. Cariappa) as opposed to the Chinese who had operational and strategic experience from WWII, Chinese Civil War and the Korean War. It was the debacle of 1962 which really gave impetus to learning the operational art; simultaneously the defense PSUs stopped making pressure-cookers and focused on delivering what was needed - including running rough-shod over IP when national defense demanded it (ex. with the SLR and the MMG), and innovating in a realistic, practical and responsive manner (ex. the 7.62mm Ishapore Rifle).

The strategic art is one level above it. Will they learn it by internal impetus? Or will they learn by suffering external impetus? It remains for time to show. The DRDO cheerleaders claim that Indianization is strategic thinking. Maybe, maybe not. One must prioritize with what technology can be gotten easily from outside and what one must developed inside. There is no point in reinventing the wheel. For example, no one will sell or give India BM technology, so DRDOs IGMP is strategic thinking. But do they also have to develop the INSAS? Couldn't they have just license produced or simply copied the Galil or the Valmet and delivered it in the 1980s as requested? It is strategically important that one produces one defense needs internally as much as possible. Time and effort is better spent on strategic developments that one absolutely needs, or on developments that one has a natural advantage in. India may have natural advantage in certain emerging technologies; it does not have it over the Russians or the Germans in making tanks... using their designs shouldn't be a problem as long as one can produce them in-house.

JMTC etc, etc.


A major part of the license fee is for the Intellectual Property related value add. If through this "re-invention of wheel", we can get that same value add in significantly less cost for a high volume item like artillery shell, then why not? Particularly when we produce the largest no of trained manpower? Why should we have to sacrifice the high volume tactical items in favor of strategic items? Why don't we sacrifice the high volume foreign acquisitions to expand local MIC? And task our military to develop operational doctrine to overcome the short-term issues that arises due to this sacrifice?
As one of our civilian PMs famously told his general that given the best equipment and favorable condition he himself can win the war by just following the rulebook, why should he need the general? The general did not have any answer then and the military is still evading the same question with all the fluff like how military is a calling and least corrupt and the only one who are the expert enough to take any decision about themselves. The civilian control over military for all purpose has become something of a lip service.
Till a decade ago, every PSU trade union used to have the similar logic and so was mango tax payers control over those PSU. the sooner we get a "liberalization" of our military the better.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby shiv » 29 May 2010 06:36

Ironically we are discussing this in the Army thread. Apart from the Navy that has been forced to indigenize, it is a senior army offier who has cautioned the government against mindless foreign acquisition. If you leave out Arjun, the army has cheerfully swallowed Indian tech including INSAS.

It is ironically the Air Force that is going to be most dependent on huge phoren inputs, and regarding Merlin's query about who says what about DRDO, he and I know perfectly well which senior Air Force officer described the LCA as Khadi Gramodyog.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2091
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Picklu » 29 May 2010 07:42

That being true, IAF has inducted ALH and Akash as well, in numbers too. So, while individual officer's opinion is a point to note, what also should be noted, probably with more weightage, is the support of IAF (as a single monolithic institution) towards LCA. And an order of 40 given the total size of IAF combat force is certainly not similar to the order of 248 Arjuns out of total tank force of IA.

My point is simple. Being correct in one instance does not give the RIGHT to be grossly incorrect in some other.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2091
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Picklu » 29 May 2010 07:51

One more thing to be noted.
If IAF as a whole provides support towards LCA overcoming individual officer's negative opinion, it shows that the system as a whole is somehow working towards the stated goal, isn't it?
It is never required for everyone to have a single regimented opinion for every issue but rather the system, as a whole, should move, in a time bound manner, towards the objective. And in the case of LCA at least, that appears to be the case.
Not so for Arjun though, with the piddly repeat order.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby shiv » 29 May 2010 08:09

Picklu wrote:Not so for Arjun though, with the piddly repeat order.


The "piddly repeat order" makes a good case for rhetoric at this point in time - on the lines of "This LCA's paint is chipped, therefore all LCAs probably come with chipped paint."

Only time will tell whether the "piddly order" will translate to bigger orders later. But by the time that later date arrives to disprove your statement, you will not be around to retract your words, having have already made that comment for its temporary effect.

If we are going to nitpick - the Indian army has 3500 tanks and the IAF about 700 combat aircraft.

248 (Arjuns)/3500 is 7%
40(LCAs)/700 is 5.7%

Here is a statement you made
Being correct in one instance does not give the RIGHT to be grossly incorrect in some other.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2091
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Picklu » 29 May 2010 08:46

Well, a nitpic from my side as well doc, the no of IAF combat aircraft is less than 600 as per wikipedia. However the point conceded about the support of IA and IAF about Arjun and LCA respectively. Both are similar in treatment it seems :oops: even though, it may be noted that IAF is not simultaneously inducting a 'lesser' phoren combat aircraft paying 'more price' which IA is doing in case of Arjun btw.
Sorry, not buying the logic about rhetoric at this pt of time however. Opinions are always formed and expressed based on the current situation/behavior and not about anticipated future action. Church's later acceptance of scientific truth's does not negate it's early handling of Copernicus and Galileo, right? So, while comparing with IAF may not show IA in a specifically bad light, it still can and should be discussed in the current thread.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby shiv » 29 May 2010 10:14

Picklu wrote:Sorry, not buying the logic about rhetoric at this pt of time however. Opinions are always formed and expressed based on the current situation/behavior and not about anticipated future action.


Hence the utter irrelevance of the following logically fallacious and unnecessary post-fluffing rhetoric.

Being correct in one instance does not give the RIGHT to be grossly incorrect in some other.


Being correct or wrong is about opinions or beliefs, not rights.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2091
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Picklu » 29 May 2010 12:31

shiv wrote:Hence the utter irrelevance of the following logically fallacious and unnecessary post-fluffing rhetoric.
Being correct in one instance does not give the RIGHT to be grossly incorrect in some other.

Being correct or wrong is about opinions or beliefs, not rights.

Not so fast doc. If not protested, incorrect "actions" can be undertaken as if it is the RIGHT on the strength of correct "action"s taken else where. Similar to the way Unkil(and its supporters) asserts its RIGHT about the way it conducts its foreign policy leveraging its social values. Or army(and its supporters on this forum) justifies the RIGHT to ignore questions about its acquisition process on the strength of its winning war or handling disaster. This shuts down the debate altogether.

And "opinion"s are formed about such "action"s, based on what is currently happening and not on future "anticipated" "action"s. The action of rape is wrong even if in the future the rapist falls in love and marries the victim. And no, the rapist do not have RIGHT to rape even if he invented the cure of cancer. Not legally and not morally. Should be protested. Using rhetoric if that helps :P

So, I do not see the logical fallacy of the original statement neither do I see the irrelevancy given that we are discussing certain "action"s by the army. However, I do see a thread derailment in progress while discussing semantics.
Btw, post count ++ :mrgreen:


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests