Indian Naval 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.
Andrew DeCristofaro
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 14 Jun 2009 22:37

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Andrew DeCristofaro » 24 Jul 2009 20:27

vina wrote:
There was no other carrier available,barring the French Clemenceau,riddled with asbestos,etc

There is the big enchilada available (always was),called Kitty Hawk. Unkil will be more than happy to sell it along with two squadrons of F18s, the entire Hakweye 2000, helis and other doo-dads, with the sensitive equipment either "downgraded" or ripped out of course. :mrgreen: . And yeah. You could have got the kitty at the same price you are getting the Gorshkov, only that , the Kitty was actually a carrier that served and a real McCoy, rather than the burnt out rusting hulk that the IN suckers fell for.

so now you want IN suckers to fall for another 50 year old junk :wink:

Daedalus
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 42
Joined: 29 Aug 2008 00:57

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Daedalus » 24 Jul 2009 20:35

p_saggu wrote:Didn't know where to post this, what is this at cochin shipyards site?

Image


I looks like a barge, but its huge.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4493
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby putnanja » 24 Jul 2009 21:31

'Second-hand' Gorshkov costlier than new warship: CAG

The Indian Navy's acquisition of Russian-built aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov is facing yet another controversy as the accouting watchdog, the Comptroller and Audit General (CAG), on Friday revealed that the "second-hand" warhorse will be 60 per cent costlier than a new one and there is a risk of further delay in its delivery.

According to the CAG report, the objective of inducting an aircraft carrier in time to fill the gap in the navy has not been achieved due to the delay in the delivery of the warship.

...
Moreover, the report predicts that the Russian shipyard might as well fail to stick to the revised scheduled delivery date.

"Overall work progress continued to be slow and needed to be accelerated to meet even the revised scheduled. Given the work needed to be done, preceeding the undocking and the cascading effect of delay in undocking on downstream activities, there was a risk that the delivery acceptance trials of the ship would not be completed by 2012," the report said.

...
According to the CAG's estimates, the design and construction of a new aircraft indigenously would cost $1.145 billion and would take two years for design and development and eight years for construction. It would have a life of 40 years.

On the other hand, refurbishment of Gorshkov is estimated to cost around $2.6 billion and will take 46-50 months. The life of the vessel would be only 20 years.

The CAG report also points at the payment terms not directly linked to the physical output.

"Financial control by the Indian side was diluted as payment terms were not linked to physical outputs. Thus, though 66 percent of the contracted cost of repair and refit has been paid, only 35 percent of the work has been completed," it noted.

Despite the exorbitant price tag, the CAG report points out the carrier has limited operational capabilities and certain key capabilities which would enable the ship "to meet potential threats or challenges" had either not been provided for or had been postponed to a later date.

Then there are further problems with the acquisition, according to the accounting watchdog.

"The anti-aircraft missile complex selected to be fitted in the ship failed during the trials and the refurbishment contract was concluded without the missile system. This implies that the ship would not have a CIWS (Close-In Weapon System) till her first refit in India in 2017," revealed the report.

The CIWS is a vital naval shipboard point weapon for detecting and destroying incoming anti-ship missiles and enemy aircraft at short range.

Andrew DeCristofaro
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 14 Jun 2009 22:37

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Andrew DeCristofaro » 25 Jul 2009 03:17

According to the CAG's estimates, the design and construction of a new aircraft indigenously would cost $1.145 billion and would take two years for design and development and eight years for construction. It would have a life of 40 years.

On the other hand, refurbishment of Gorshkov is estimated to cost around $2.6 billion and will take 46-50 months. The life of the vessel would be only 20 years.

The CAG report also points at the payment terms not directly linked to the physical output.


"The anti-aircraft missile complex selected to be fitted in the ship failed during the trials and the refurbishment contract was concluded without the missile system. This implies that the ship would not have a CIWS (Close-In Weapon System) till her first refit in India in 2017," revealed the report.

Flawed CAG report again,isn't ADS is projected at initial 4 billion price tag and this cost will increase further over the years.

kashtan CIWS is already operational and gorshkov will have 8 kashtans along with 192 short range ready to fire missiles onboard.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2456
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby John » 25 Jul 2009 03:29

kashtan CIWS is already operational and gorshkov will have 8 kashtans along with 192 short range ready to fire missiles onboard.

Gorshkov will have 4 and VL shtil not 8 based on 2007 model, because IN wanted VLS SAM system (Barak) russians relented by agreeing to fit in VL Shtil for that purpose. In the last two years i am not sure what has changed and article itself is not very clear so i won't jump the gun on saying Kashtan is out.

Andrew DeCristofaro
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 14 Jun 2009 22:37

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Andrew DeCristofaro » 25 Jul 2009 03:37

John wrote:
kashtan CIWS is already operational and gorshkov will have 8 kashtans along with 192 short range ready to fire missiles onboard.

Gorshkov will have 4 and VL shtil not 8 based on 2007 model, because IN wanted VLS SAM system (Barak) russians relented by agreeing to fit in VL Shtil for that purpose. In the last two years i am not sure what has changed and article itself is not very clear so i won't jump the gun on saying Kashtan is out.

shtil missile system is not CIWS or russians will use TOR missile system instead of barak-1.

guns are still needed despite short range SAMs.

but if kashtan is not installed so it will be ak630.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Gerard » 25 Jul 2009 03:51


putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4493
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby putnanja » 25 Jul 2009 04:31

A scam to shame Bofors- CAG report reveals colossal waste of money on Gorshkov

...
“The objective of induction of the ship... as an aircraft carrier in time to bridge the gap in Indian Navy capabilities has been defeated,” the comptroller and auditor general (CAG) has concluded. The auditors have written that the defence ministry did not co-operate with them.

“We were not given any documents after September 2007 and not allowed to photocopy documents, either,” said Gautam Guha, the director general (audit), defence services.

The CAG report tabled in Parliament today also unearths irregularities in acquiring the French-origin Scorpene submarines that caused delays and led to an increase in project cost by Rs 2,838 crore.

The Gorshkov is a rusty old tub, the audit findings show, but India is sinking public funds into it for a worthless cause. The ship was originally scheduled for delivery in August 2008. There is little chance the navy will get it before 2013.
...
...
India concluded the contract in January 2004 with a “guess” estimate of $27 million for sea trials. The amount under this head had gone up by September 2007 by almost 20 times to $550 million.

In 2004, the navy compared the cost of a new carrier with that of the Gorshkov. A new carrier with a life of 40 years and deliverable in eight years would cost $1,145 million when the Gorshkov was priced at $974 million.

The Gorshkov is projected to have a life of 20 years. But by September 2007, the cost had gone up to $1.82 billion.

“Thus, it can be seen that Indian Navy was acquiring a second hand, refitted aircraft carrier that had half the life span of and was 60 per cent more expensive than a new one,” the CAG report says.
...
...
The CAG says the defence ministry also contracted six Scorpene submarines, of French origin, after nine years of negotiations in October 2005, despite the navy’s depleting force level. The delay led to a cost increase by Rs 2,838 crore.

The contract for the six submarines to be made under technology transfer from DCNS Thales and Armaris at Mazgaon Docks was concluded for Rs 18,798 crore.

The CAG says: “The ministry/naval headquarters scaled down the original technical specifications and extended undue financial benefit to the vendor.”

The first submarine is to be delivered by 2012. But since construction began in December 2006, only 9.34 per cent of the work has been done, against a targeted 27.43 per cent, by September 2008.

Andrew DeCristofaro
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 14 Jun 2009 22:37

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Andrew DeCristofaro » 25 Jul 2009 06:14

why CAG doesn't comment on ATV project ongoing for last several decades.

if CAG does it then this would bring many things for public to know about ATV and something which MoD or Navy will never tell to public. :idea:

Andrew DeCristofaro
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 14 Jun 2009 22:37

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Andrew DeCristofaro » 25 Jul 2009 06:23

RaviBg wrote:A scam to shame Bofors- CAG report reveals colossal waste of money on Gorshkov

...
“The objective of induction of the ship... as an aircraft carrier in time to bridge the gap in Indian Navy capabilities has been defeated,” the comptroller and auditor general (CAG) has concluded. The auditors have written that the defence ministry did not co-operate with them.

“We were not given any documents after September 2007 and not allowed to photocopy documents, either,” said Gautam Guha, the director general (audit), defence services.

The CAG report tabled in Parliament today also unearths irregularities in acquiring the French-origin Scorpene submarines that caused delays and led to an increase in project cost by Rs 2,838 crore.

The Gorshkov is a rusty old tub, the audit findings show, but India is sinking public funds into it for a worthless cause. The ship was originally scheduled for delivery in August 2008. There is little chance the navy will get it before 2013.
...
...
India concluded the contract in January 2004 with a “guess” estimate of $27 million for sea trials. The amount under this head had gone up by September 2007 by almost 20 times to $550 million.

In 2004, the navy compared the cost of a new carrier with that of the Gorshkov. A new carrier with a life of 40 years and deliverable in eight years would cost $1,145 million when the Gorshkov was priced at $974 million.

The Gorshkov is projected to have a life of 20 years. But by September 2007, the cost had gone up to $1.82 billion.

“Thus, it can be seen that Indian Navy was acquiring a second hand, refitted aircraft carrier that had half the life span of and was 60 per cent more expensive than a new one,” the CAG report says.
...
...
The CAG says the defence ministry also contracted six Scorpene submarines, of French origin, after nine years of negotiations in October 2005, despite the navy’s depleting force level. The delay led to a cost increase by Rs 2,838 crore.

The contract for the six submarines to be made under technology transfer from DCNS Thales and Armaris at Mazgaon Docks was concluded for Rs 18,798 crore.

The CAG says: “The ministry/naval headquarters scaled down the original technical specifications and extended undue financial benefit to the vendor.”

The first submarine is to be delivered by 2012. But since construction began in December 2006, only 9.34 per cent of the work has been done, against a targeted 27.43 per cent, by September 2008.

CAG reports are hopeless,why don't they comment on the 15 billion loan waiver for poor farmers by congress govt from where that money came from and this was done to
FETCH VOTES and WIN ELECTION.

now the same money being taken by increasing PETROL and DIESEL prices despite international prices have gone down and there was no need to increase prices.

why doesn't CAG comment on useless govt. to protect people from several bomb blasts
in various cities,just see there is not even a single bomb blast in US,UK or other western countries.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54776
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby ramana » 25 Jul 2009 06:56

Andrew, Looks like :(( :?:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16815
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby NRao » 25 Jul 2009 07:21

Andrew DeCristofaro wrote:why CAG doesn't comment on ATV project ongoing for last several decades.

if CAG does it then this would bring many things for public to know about ATV and something which MoD or Navy will never tell to public. :idea:


Buddy, ATV is a StratAsset. You can complain about your wife .................. strat asset/s - no. Never.

George J
BRFite
Posts: 312
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby George J » 25 Jul 2009 08:13

The CAG is doing its job. If you don't want a system of oversight you need to hang out on the panadapoker forums. The CAG takes equal delight and puts in equal diligence when it rakes Dept. of Animal Husbandry or the Ministry of Defense-Army/Navy/Airforce over coals. But obviously animal husbandry shortcomings don't carry the same impact as a delayed scorpene project.

Old timers will remember that when the CAG pulled up the Navy on Processor Based Mines the Navy shot back. That was the only time armed forces actually had the temerity to challenge statements made by the CAG, meaning that CAG is pretty much on the ball all the other times.

I am sure if the CAG got its scorpene and gorshkov numbers wrong the Navy will waste no time in defending its position. Till as such time the CAG is right.


I know its too much to expect your average new and improved jingo to comprehend fairly simple things like accountability, transparency, judicious use of public funds. To them GAO and CAG are gadflies. Look at the Chinese...they dont have such organization they keep everything quite.

Well....what needs to be kept discrete has been kept discrete. The CAG does not have the authority nor is it interested in auditing anything termed as a Strategic asset unless specifically requested by the Parliament.

On another note:
I just loooooove the way jingos change their spots on MMS. One day he is a American stooge and when the truth comes out how much he did for the ATV....he gets kudos.

Andrew DeCristofaro
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 14 Jun 2009 22:37

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Andrew DeCristofaro » 25 Jul 2009 08:31

ramana wrote:Andrew, Looks like :(( :?:

well thats a 15 billion dollars fraud with people to win ELECTIONS and now people will pay back much higher than 15 billion.

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby sunilUpa » 25 Jul 2009 08:34

Ahhh stop the spam already!

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby negi » 25 Jul 2009 09:26

I just loooooove the way jingos change their spots on MMS. One day he is a American stooge and when the truth comes out how much he did for the ATV....he gets kudos.

Let us not take the adjectives or expletives to heart (Mods most of the times ban such members), apart from that every individual deserves to be praised for good deeds and on ofcourse criticized for what might not be appropriate . As long as the people are consistent and do this without personal bias isn't it fair enough ?

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4493
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby putnanja » 25 Jul 2009 09:30

Andrew, stop posting one-liners. If you have facts to prove otherwise, please do. Note that most of the information in CAG report was given to it by the navy. And all numbers are provided by IN/DRDO. If CAG says that less than 10% work is done, it is based on input from concerned services/organization. And please stop acting like a russian fanboy. The CAG report has equally dissed french scorpene project, the jalashwa from US and the russian contracts.

As pointed out by GJ, the navy has fought back if the CAG twisted the information. Last year, it was the CAG which broke the news of navy taking permission from US for offensive operations, the navy clarified that it can do whatever it wants without asking for permission.

Sometimes, the CAG does misunderstand/interpret the statements from services. But that doesn't mean we need to do away with checks and balances.

Note that Vikram_S had refuted parts of the Dhruv CAG reports with articles from other sources. If you can do that, that would be a better contribution than quoting entire post to add one one-liner bringing off-topic issues into it.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby negi » 25 Jul 2009 09:41

CAG is doing what it is supposed to do , it is not there to appreciate the JINGO sentiments ; but then since MOD,CAG and services are all under the GOI why worry over such 'reports' ? this is all normal routine only ...BAU

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17033
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 25 Jul 2009 09:44

Andrew, do you wish to stick around or are the charms of life outside BR enough to make you want another outing ?

GJ, no one underestimates the need for a watchdog like CAG but is it too much to expect that they will at least use last years data in stead of the year before that. and also have some experts who actually understand the technical side instead of acting like perennial bean counters ?

SNaik
BRFite
Posts: 524
Joined: 26 Jul 2006 10:51
Location: Riga

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby SNaik » 25 Jul 2009 14:44

Daedalus wrote:
p_saggu wrote:Didn't know where to post this, what is this at cochin shipyards site?



I looks like a barge, but its huge.


Registered in Abu Dhabi, Emirates. A floating bridge? or floating oil pump station?

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Sanku » 25 Jul 2009 14:46

Rahul M wrote:GJ, no one underestimates the need for a watchdog like CAG but is it too much to expect that they will at least use last years data in stead of the year before that. and also have some experts who actually understand the technical side instead of acting like perennial bean counters ?


They are bean counters, as such they can never be otherwise, the charter of CAG (one of most frequently posted document on BRF) pretty much rules out their getting technical expertise.

As such their only problem is that they feel compelled to speak about technical issues. As long as they do their main job of tracking funds etc and making sure their is no leakage etc. that should be fine.

They are not competent to judge the MOD's PNCs or second guess the purchases -- I think they want to share the glory too and not slog in the back office all the while so they take to straying on these areas (to the neglect of their main job I think)

And to beat it all we have then DDM reporting on it with their own third rate spin.

So between Armed forces data --> CAG report --> What we know of the CAG report from media

Thanks to last two entities Vajapayee morphs to Manmohan Singh in the final picture unless you start digging.

George J -- the reason why Navy etc dont speak much on CAG reports is that no one really takes them seriously unless they make a specific charge of malfeasance.

pkudva
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 23 Jul 2008 13:57

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby pkudva » 25 Jul 2009 20:55

Andrew DeCristofaro wrote:why CAG doesn't comment on ATV project ongoing for last several decades.

if CAG does it then this would bring many things for public to know about ATV and something which MoD or Navy will never tell to public. :idea:


ATV Project directly comes under PMO office and it is an top secret project so no files of ATV will go into their hands until we make a standard line of manufacturing. ATV-1 file will never be in CAG's hand because its a research project done for the first time which involvs time and money.

Vikram_S
BRFite
Posts: 359
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 23:49

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Vikram_S » 25 Jul 2009 21:11

George J wrote:TOld timers will remember that when the CAG pulled up the Navy on Processor Based Mines the Navy shot back. That was the only time armed forces actually had the temerity to challenge statements made by the CAG, meaning that CAG is pretty much on the ball all the other times.

I am sure if the CAG got its scorpene and gorshkov numbers wrong the Navy will waste no time in defending its position. Till as such time the CAG is right.

I know its too much to expect your average new and improved jingo to comprehend fairly simple things like accountability, transparency, judicious use of public funds. To them GAO and CAG are gadflies. Look at the Chinese...they dont have such organization they keep everything quite.


it is not that simple sir. there are more less standing principles that nobody takes up issue with CAG on public basis. the CAG (the lead person), is a high ranked person in term of order of precedence in the establishment, and for military to challenge any aspect of civilian structure is considered not acceptable way thigns are. otherwise in successive governments many times services wanted to rebut CAG comments but were asked not to stir pot.

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3032
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Jagan » 25 Jul 2009 21:56

Rahul M wrote: is it too much to expect that they will at least use last years data in stead of the year before that ?


Thats always how CAG operates. It is standard practice in all their reports. Sometimes they do their audit after induction of a particular system and a few years of operating data is available. It is never last year's numbers. (most of the time anyway).

It is actually a bloody tragedy that CAG stopped publishing its reports online. Their reports used to be a source of great info (I am sure even for enemy intel agencies!). But I guess the press is doing our work for us.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17033
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 25 Jul 2009 22:26

jag, remember reading somewhere that they stopped publishing online when it adversely affected some defence sales abroad.

but I agree that at least some edited version should be in the public domain, bereft of stuff that may interest foreign intel. may be a RTI application might change things.


sanku, there is no way CAG can escape making observations on technical aspects. all such aspects are intertwined and can't be considered in isolation from the strictly non-technical aspects. the only way out is to appoint niche technical experts from academia and retd officers from the armed forces as temporary advisers.

George J
BRFite
Posts: 312
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby George J » 25 Jul 2009 22:56

http://cag.gov.in/html/auditing_standards_ch4.htm wrote:The audit reporting process begins with submission of an Inspection Report to the Head of any Office or Department which has been audited with a request to submit replies and clarifications/comments on the audit observations. Depending on the veracity and relevance of replies/clarifications received and the materiality of the observations in the Inspection Reports, these are further processed for reporting in the Audit Report submitted by the SAI for being placed in the concerned Legislature..............


Guys I am too old and too jaded to get into a shouting match with folks who failed their civics class or have already made up their minds.

If you can comprehend what is stated in the above quoted paragraph and if you bother to read the chapter listed above you will see that NONE of these Audit reports are really surprises to the "Head of Office/Department". So unless the new and improved breed of jingos would like to believe that Navy intentionally likes to air its dirty laundry in public or that it intentionally likes to come across as incompetent and corrupt and have it entered into legislative record as such there is no way they will not refute any "baseless allegations" made by CAG.

This is not Naval but still relevant: if you kids remember the PAC report (CAG reports are deliberated by PAC) on the MKI (April 2002 ??) you will note that pretty much EVERYTHING they stated there turned out to be accurate, the delays and cost over runs. There were no MKI's till June 2003 but that did not KILL the program, they just called a spade a spade. The MKI was/is a very complex program and both side underestimated what they were getting into.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby negi » 25 Jul 2009 23:51

I don't know what's the bruhaha about, for even if CAG raises the question regarding the acquisition process or the expense management it is the GOI which will be in the DOCK infact MOD in particular, services have got nothing to do with the cost overruns in case of foreign acquisitions they merely give a nod if the platform meets their GSQR after that the ball is in MOD's court. In case of Gorshkov it is obvious IN went by the original estimates of the refit and training costs after that what ever transpired between Sevmash and the GOI has lead to the current cost escalation. CAG is merely questioning this whole process and imho very rightly so.At the end of the day CAG is just one of the entities under GOI the latter may ofcourse tunr a blind eye or act upon the findings.

George J
BRFite
Posts: 312
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby George J » 26 Jul 2009 00:02

GOI is the executive, CAG is under the legislative-Parliament, ergo its not UNDER the GOI. Please guys.......basic civics ????

Ok my head hurts....I totally agree with whatever you guys have to say.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16815
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby NRao » 26 Jul 2009 00:09

And, HE is BACK.

Sir, please visit the Su-30 MKI thread. Your valued insight is needed there.

Thx.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby negi » 26 Jul 2009 00:11

How does it matter at the end of the day ? aren't CEC and even SC similar entities ? Have you seen any action being taken on the verdict/report being churned out by these entities ?


My point is CAG report is just a piece of paper , GOI is not bound to take any corrective action on it , it might at most come up with some zillion pages document explaining the irregularities.

munna
BRFite
Posts: 1392
Joined: 18 Nov 2007 05:03
Location: Pee Arr Eff's resident Constitution Compliance Strategist (Phd, with upper hand)

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby munna » 26 Jul 2009 00:19

negi wrote:How does it matter at the end of the day ? aren't CEC and even SC similar entities ? Have you seen any action being taken on the verdict/report being churned out by these entities ?

CEC and SC are in no way similar entities! Both of them are independent and devoid of legislative oversight except in the exceptional circumstances of impeachment. While CAG answers and presents its findings to PAC.

My point is CAG report is just a piece of paper , GOI is not bound to take any corrective action on it , it might at most come up with some zillion pages document explaining the irregularities.

Really laughable conclusion as CAG is a very powerful and respected institution whose reports have formed the basis for unearthing scams in various ministries and governments are always wary of adverse reports.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby negi » 26 Jul 2009 00:25

munna wrote:CEC and SC are in no way similar entities! Both of them are independent and devoid of legislative oversight except in the exceptional circumstances of impeachment. While CAG answers and presents its findings to PAC.
:lol:
What becomes of those findings ? ah I know the rats eat up the files or the building goes down due to short circuit .


Really laughable conclusion as CAG is a very powerful and respected institution whose reports have formed the basis for unearthing scams in various ministries and governments are always wary of adverse reports.
:rotfl: Yep folks in the GOI are really scared . Btw can you enumerate those scams which CAG has unearthed ...and yes what happened to the accused ?

munna
BRFite
Posts: 1392
Joined: 18 Nov 2007 05:03
Location: Pee Arr Eff's resident Constitution Compliance Strategist (Phd, with upper hand)

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby munna » 26 Jul 2009 00:45

negi wrote:
munna wrote:CEC and SC are in no way similar entities! Both of them are independent and devoid of legislative oversight except in the exceptional circumstances of impeachment. While CAG answers and presents its findings to PAC.
:lol:
What becomes of those findings ? ah I know the rats eat up the files or the building goes down due to short circuit

First of all you have to understand to differentiate between CEC, SC and CAG and then discuss about the scope and nature of their reports. SC and CEC are very powerful institutions and have taken on GOI/Legislature head on on a number of issues.


Really laughable conclusion as CAG is a very powerful and respected institution whose reports have formed the basis for unearthing scams in various ministries and governments are always wary of adverse reports. :rotfl: Yep folks in the GOI are really scared . Btw can you enumerate those scams which CAG has unearthed ...and yes what happened to the accused ?

For your eyes only
Rural Development Scam
Land Scam in Goa
Mid Day Meal Scam in Jharkhand
Project Tiger Scam

As far as action goes it lies in the domain of courts and government. With Delhi parliament attack accused living it off despite being sentenced to death, how can CAG get the above accused convicted in a jiffy? CAG is doing a stellar role and its findings are taken very seriously by bureaucrats in policy making and provide solid ammunition to the opposition for elections a la infamous "Coffin Scam" that was used/misused by INC to demolish George Fernandes. Any government will consider CAG toothless to its own peril.

PS: My last OT on Civics

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17033
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 26 Jul 2009 00:48

^^
going OT. efficiency of judicial system is better discussed elsewhere.
there's a corruption in defence or some such thread. please use it.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2456
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby John » 26 Jul 2009 01:03

Andrew DeCristofaro wrote:
guns are still needed despite short range SAMs.

but if kashtan is not installed so it will be ak630.

IN had rejected Tor a long time ago as i said before the model displayed in 2007 had Vl-shtil and Kashtan. As for CIWS Barak has very short minimum and can be used for point defense exclusively (example RSN vessels) but you still need small caliber guns for engagements such as pirate vessels.


k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 797
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby k prasad » 26 Jul 2009 07:39

Sanku wrote:
Rahul M wrote:GJ, no one underestimates the need for a watchdog like CAG but is it too much to expect that they will at least use last years data in stead of the year before that. and also have some experts who actually understand the technical side instead of acting like perennial bean counters ?


They are bean counters, as such they can never be otherwise, the charter of CAG (one of most frequently posted document on BRF) pretty much rules out their getting technical expertise.

As such their only problem is that they feel compelled to speak about technical issues. As long as they do their main job of tracking funds etc and making sure their is no leakage etc. that should be fine.


It isn't... you need bean counters with Brains to understand the need for some things. A simple bean counter would not help in any way. Not that bean counters aren't bad, but they DO need technical understanding to make sure that they don't miss figures. For eg, with the recent Dhruv report, they didn't consider operations and the requirements and the concept of Upgrades. When the CAG dares to step into that area, let it at least make sure that it is fit and capable enough to judge them.

Xerox Corp's bean counters wanted to shut down their Palo Alto research centre... till the Palo Alto guys brought in their own counters, who knwe the technology, and proved that not only was it profitable, but the research centre had paid for itself for the next 50 years.

Andrew DeCristofaro
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 14 Jun 2009 22:37

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Andrew DeCristofaro » 26 Jul 2009 08:47

John wrote:
Andrew DeCristofaro wrote:
guns are still needed despite short range SAMs.

but if kashtan is not installed so it will be ak630.

IN had rejected Tor a long time ago as i said before the model displayed in 2007 had Vl-shtil and Kashtan. As for CIWS Barak has very short minimum and can be used for point defense exclusively (example RSN vessels) but you still need small caliber guns for engagements such as pirate vessels.

(example RSN vessels) they have aster15 instead of barak-1

but did IN ever conducted trials of TOR short range missiles?

by the way both tor and aster15 are used for the same purpose barak-1 used and both missiles are faster than barak-1

barak-1 has been tested on P-20M (SS-N-2D) missiles not on current antiship missiles which are smaller

and yes there is still need of guns despite point defence missiles

example phalanx CIWS is installed on arleigh burke class vessels despite these ships have ESSM,SM-2

and SHTIL is a anti aircraft missile rather than point defence missile so SHTIL can't be used to defend the ship against sea skimming missile but tor,aster15,barak-1 can do this.if there point defence missiles fail then SA-N-11 and 30mm guns comes to action.
Last edited by Andrew DeCristofaro on 26 Jul 2009 09:02, edited 1 time in total.


SNaik
BRFite
Posts: 524
Joined: 26 Jul 2006 10:51
Location: Riga

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby SNaik » 26 Jul 2009 12:11

All pictures of 2nd batch of Talwars under construction now in Kaliningrad.
Pics 1-3 belong to first hull - launch expected in September
Pic 4- second hull
Pic 5- third hull - will be moved to the slip vacated by hull #1


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 51 guests