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

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23933
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

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

Postby SSridhar » 15 Feb 2009 09:20


Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

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

Postby Tilak » 16 Feb 2009 00:47

Indian shareholder to own 51% in defence cos: Kamal Nath
Feb 13, 2009 at 17:33
Commerce Minister Kamal Nath said for companies involved in defence and information and broadcast, the largest Indian shareholder will have to own 51% equity. He clarified that the definition of ownership was in line with that in the Companies Act. He added that for calculation of indirect FDI, all categories of foreign investment would be considered.


Here is a verbatim transcript of the Kamal Nath's address to mediapersons. Also see the accompanying video.


The Home Minister had conveyed to you this and there was a press release also made. This was followed by a PIB press release. I wish to clarify since a lot of stories have gone around and amplify this today. While the calculation of foreign direct investment (FDI) in an Indian company had been fairly clear, the need for fresh guidelines on calculation of direct and indirect foreign investment arose as a result of use of different regimes across different sectors. This was a practice in the past that different sectors have different methods of calculating indirect foreign investment.



We were using different methods in information and broadcasting, telecom, insurance and in other sectors. The present methodology which was then was very cumbersome with difficult calculations. When large number of companies with indirect foreign equity had to be taken into account, one further implication of the pro-rata method was the possibility of anomalous and unintended consequences emerging from which may not have been in keeping with the spirit of our foreign investment policy.

For example, if there is a foreign company incorporated in India with 50% equity, a downstream 51% investment by this company could operate in all sectors. So it was a foreign company and it could operate in all sensitive sectors like I&B and defense since as per the earlier guidelines. The calculation was proportionate and as per the proportion it could since they would not even if it was a foreign company, downstream it was calculated proportionately. So if that company invested 50.5% which was held 51% - the total investment 50.5% of 51% became 25.76%. So where there was a 25% cap or 26% cap – he was within that cap. So he was allowed to do that by that method.


This was not the spirit of our FDI policy where just by opening a subsidiary in India non-residence could operate in sensitive sectors. This difficulty further got heightened in multilayered structures. If there were 2-3 structures which were happening and the present guidelines which have been issued now corrects this scenario. It was also necessary for the first time to introduce the concept of ownership and control in the guidelines for calculation of total foreign investment.

The underlying considerations behind sectoral caps are concerns relating to ownership and control.


Ownership and control have been defined in the press notes which were cleared by the cabinet on 11th and follow the definitions of the company’s act. Bringing in the concept of control in our foreign investment guidelines is a policy shift we made, clarification which we made that at the heart of any FDI will be control and management. This is the most important thing.

Considering all these factors three core principles were adopted for formulation of new guidelines. The guidelines for calculation of direct and indirect foreign investment should be simple, homogeneous and consistent across sectors. The guidelines should migrate to a system which recognizes both the concepts of ownership and management control and not merely either – it should not be ‘either-or’, it should be both. The guidelines should not lead to passing a management control in sensitive sectors from residence to non-residence.

By the previous method, the control and management could pass into the hands of non-residence which was because of the proportionate calculation - 50 is 25, so somebody holds 50 and then you calculate in the other downstream, it will be 25. But he controls the company. So now this has been corrected, this was anomalous situation which has been corrected.

The most important feature of the new guidelines on calculation of direct and indirect foreign investment in companies is that indirect foreign investment will not be counted as foreign investment for such investment companies which are owned and controlled – the word ‘controlled’ has been defined in the company’s act and in the guidelines, we just picked it up, so it is nothing new – it must be controlled by Indians. So if there is a question of Tatas, Tata may have GDRs/ADRs over the companies but it is an Indian company, it is controlled by Indian. We cannot start saying that these are foreign companies. So this concept of controlled and managed by Indians is the most important part of this policy framework.

For the purpose of competition of indirect foreign investments, we have defined it in a comprehensive way taking all types of foreign investments now under the ambit of the above calculations - FDI, portfolio investments by FIIs, investments by NRIs (Non Resident Indians), ADRs (American Depository Receipts), GDRs (Global Depository Receipts), foreign currency convertible bonds (FCCBs), foreign currency convertible debentures all these will now be calculated for these purposes.


There is another thing which was a very anomalous situation. Let us take an example of there is 49% cap and the person invests 49% and he goes to somebody else and says you buy the balanced 51%, we will finance you. So that person is a beneficial owner, there was no concept of a beneficial owner. So they have a shareholder’s agreement that all the voting rights of the Indian will lie with him because he has financed him. So we have said that there must be full disclosure of any shareholder’s inter se agreements, which has an effect on ownership and control.



This will have an effect on ownership and control because if there is a shareholder’s agreement even if somebody owns 51%, which is not disclosed, now this disclosure has become mandatory. Any beneficial interest that a foreigner may have will also have to be disclosed.

We have introduced special features for sensitive sectors of Information and Broadcasting and Defence where the Indian shareholder would have to have at least 51% of the total equity. We have to look at not who has 49%, but the minimum required would be 51% in the case of I&B and Defence. They would have to have a minimum of 51% irrespective of any method of calculation. This has again been brought in. The concept of beneficial interest has also been brought in. This is beneficial interest as defined in the Companies Act.


Kudos! to the Govt for taking a firm stand, will hopefully yield good results wrt. long term goal of indigenisation.

JaiS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan
Contact:

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

Postby JaiS » 20 Feb 2009 04:12

Posting here for the record. :)

Arjun tank gets vote of support from Indian Army chief

NEW DELHI: In a reversal of the Indian Army's stand on the indigenous main battle tank (MBT) Arjun, which has been 37 years in the making, army chief General Deepak Kapoor has written to the defence ministry appreciating the tank's performance.

"The army chief for the first time has appreciated Arjun tank for performing well. In a letter written earlier this year he said that the tank was subjected to the most strenuous of tests and it performed 'admirably well'," a defence ministry official told IANS on the condition of anonymity.

The Defence Research & Development Organisation's (DRDO) demand for the comparative trials of the two tanks is being seen as a desperate bid to save the Arjun as it would need to manufacture at least 500 tanks to make the project feasible.

"The defence ministry had been pushing for the joint trials for the past one-and-a-half-years but people in the military set up were not too keen," the official added.

A Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 1144
Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31

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

Postby A Sharma » 20 Feb 2009 21:40

Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE), Avadi, has taken up Development of Defensive Aids System for Armoured Fighting Vehicles (AFVs) to enhance the survivability of the tanks against antitank guided missile threats and to reduce the probability of detection by the target acquisition systems. Under this project, two major systems viz., Advanced Laser Warning and Countermeasure System (ALWCS) and Mobile Camouflage System (MCS) are being developed.
MCS is to provide multispectral signature management of the vehicle to reduce the vehicle signature against all known sensors and smart munitions. MCS system has been developed in collaboration with Barracuda Camouflage Ltd, Gurgaon. The system has been integrated on MBT Arjun and the performance evaluation trials have been successfully completed. The methodology and the technologies can be adopted for any AFV platform. ALWCS system comprises laser warning system, IR jammer, and aerosol smoke grenade system. This is being developed jointly with Elbit Systems Ltd, Israel. The system will be integrated on MBT Arjun and performance evaluation trials are expected during summer 2009.
Link

ajay_ijn
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 20:43

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

Postby ajay_ijn » 22 Feb 2009 12:15

Pvt shipyards eye defence contracts
Companies like ABG Shipyard, Bharati and Pipavav are tying up with international engineering companies like Rolls Royce, Wartsila Diesel and Yanmer Marine, among others, to get a share of the Rs 8,000-crore defence pie for ships. ABG Shipyard and Bharati Shipyard have already tied up with Rolls Royce to build ships for Coast Guard, and others are also in talks for the same.

As per a proposal being considered by the government,
sophisticated and smaller-size vessels required by Coast Guard and Indian Navy would be built by private shipyards while public sector shipyards would build strategic & large vessels required by the defence sector.

In India, there are only a few private sector shipyards including ABG and Bharati which have the requisite expertise to fulfil the requirement of the defence sector,” said a Bharati Shipyard official. “Bharati Shipyard has built vessels for the Indian Navy in the past and we are keen to work for the Coast Guard and the Indian Navy. The company looks at the defence sector as an independent business unit and would like to build up volumes by actively participating in the bidding process of the tenders floated by the Coast Guard,” he said.

ABG Shipyard, which is executing defence orders worth Rs 600 crore, hopes to secure orders for bigger vessels. The company’s CFO, Dhananjay Datar, said: “Private shipyards are now gearing up for bigger defence orders as the global shipping market is in turbulent waters.” ABG Shipyard will now focus on securing more defence orders as the future requirement will be huge, he added.

Pipavav Shipyard is also keen on the defence sector. “We are looking at various kind of vessels for the Navy, which will be more complex and weapons-oriented. As we gain experience in doing these things, we will look at more complex vessels,” said a Pipavav official.


pkudva
BRFite
Posts: 168
Joined: 23 Jul 2008 13:57

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

Postby pkudva » 22 Feb 2009 13:41

Its time when we need to license to the private shipyards to manufacture the Naval Ships, i mean there are so many private contractors for the ATV Project and hence we can take it as an example and extend the same to the construction of the warships also.

The PSU are overloaded and hence the load has to be shared so that required ships can be aquired on time with the best of technology.

Malay
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 44
Joined: 26 Jan 2007 02:42
Contact:

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

Postby Malay » 22 Feb 2009 14:14

It all depends on how fast private Indian shipyards come up, and how fast the existing private as well as PSU ones are able to expand and modernize.

The number of private shipyards in India as well as their size is pitiable when compared to even China.

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

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

Postby Vipul » 22 Feb 2009 19:53

The Pvt sector shipyards are sure to get business (even larger vessels) in the future as unlike the PSU,the Pvt sector entities can give kickbacks to the Babudom. All the other DRDO products which the armed forces are reluctant to buy will be inducted rapidly into the forces if the Pvt sector is entrusted with its manufacturing.


RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

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

Postby RayC » 25 Feb 2009 19:12

Carnicobar & Chetlat

In a unique event, on 16 Feb 2009, the Indian Navy commissioned two ships, INS Carnicobar & INS Chetlat on the same day. These would be the first two in a series of ten Water Jet fast attack ships being built at Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers, Kolkata. Are the first ever water jet propelled ships of the Indian Navy. The commissioning marks another step in the direction of indigenisation of the Navy’s ship building efforts.

They are an improvement upon the earlier version of the Fast Attack Crafts, with a more efficient hull form developed indigenously. The Fast Attack Crafts can achieve speeds in excess of 35 knots.

The Water Jets of these ships are coupled with latest generation MTU 16V 4000 M90 engines with a combined propulsion power of 8160KW. The modified Aluminium superstructure of the vessels, reduces their Radar Cross Sections (RCS) and also provides improved habitability. A Reverse Osmosis (RO) Plants allow for fresh water generation increasing vessel endurance while the Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) complies with the latest International Maritime Organisation (IMO) regulations on sea pollution. The armament includes the 30mm CRN-91 Gun along with sensors manufactured by Ordnance Factory, Medak. The ships are equipped with IGLA missiles, SLRs, HMGs and LMG/MMG in their armament fit. These features are an updation over ships of the previous class and the current version of design is comparable with similar ships, built across the world.

http://www.salute.co.in/210209/col_news.html

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54407
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 26 Feb 2009 03:28

anyone seen this site before?

DRDO Blog

ajay_ijn
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 20:43

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

Postby ajay_ijn » 26 Feb 2009 09:06

url
He said the Defence Acquisition Council had "in principle" agreed to share development cost in 'make by DRDO' equipment among DRDO, industry and the tri-services in the ratio of 70:20:10 as part of the procedure for funding of high-technology projects.

In another written reply, Government today admitted that the supply of ammunition for Indian Army's Schilka air defence gun "suffered" due to drawbacks in designs of the ammunition.

"Annual supply of 23mm Schilka ammunition suffered disruptions on account of certain drawbacks in design," Rao Inderjit, Minister of State for Defence Production Singh said.

The Minister said the design of the ammunition has been modified by the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) and the Director General Quality Assurance (DGQA) for supplying it to the armed forces in the next financial year.



http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=47952
The tank ammunition was produced as per approved technology and the supply was affected only after proof and acceptance by the designated agency. The indigenous technology of propellant was not available for 125 mm HE/HEAT Ammunition and a decision was taken to use triple base propellant developed by DRDO. For 125 mm FSAPDS ammunition, a decision was taken to use Russian technology due to limited capacity of indigenous sources. Subsequently, quality problem were noticed in these ammunition and a decision was taken in the Ministry of Defence in consultation with all stakeholders to – replace triple base propellant by single base propellant in 125 HE/HEAT Ammunition ; replace combustible cartridge case of Russian design with combustible cartridge case of DRDO technology in 125 FSAPDS ammunition.


Bullet Proof Jackets made by DRDO
http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=47954
In the knowledge of the Government, no Bullet Proof Jacket (Body Armour Jackets) designed and developed by Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has been subjected to a test at Meerut and Azamgarh.

The Bullet Proof Jackets developed by DRDO met the Qualitative Requirements (QRs) given by the Users. These are available in different configurations and provide different levels of protection. These have been designed to ensure proper fitting to enable the wearer to perform his operational tasks without any hindrance as per QRs given.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10032
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

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

Postby sum » 26 Feb 2009 09:22

Might be OT but:
http://deccanherald.com/Content/Feb252009/city20090225120605.asp
Protection for scientist
Bangalore, DHNS:


A R Rajendra Kumar, a scientist residing in Rajarajeshwarinagar in Bangalore, is facing a threat from terrorists, according to Congress leader T B Jayachandra.

Home Minister V S Acharya in a written reply to Congress’ T B Jayachandra’s question, informed the Legislative Assembly on Tuesday, the police have given adequate security at his residence following a request from the scientist.

Any idea who this scientist is?

Hope he stays safe....

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54407
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 27 Feb 2009 00:19



This issue has some awesome details of the PXE Chandigarh. Usually stuff like that is not well publicised in other countries but not complaining.

KiranM
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Location: Bangalore

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

Postby KiranM » 27 Feb 2009 01:59

Without triggering a war between entities, what exactly is the advantage of using T-72 chasis over BMP for Akash missile launcher? I am trying to understand the Army requirement to change over from the latter to the former.

If advantages exist, why was not the same required for NAMICA?

KiranM
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Location: Bangalore

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

Postby KiranM » 27 Feb 2009 02:38

KiranM wrote:Without triggering a war between entities, what exactly is the advantage of using T-72 chasis over BMP for Akash missile launcher? I am trying to understand the Army requirement to change over from the latter to the former.

If advantages exist, why was not the same required for NAMICA?


Just to try to answer my own question, I found this in the comments section of Ajai Shukla's blog. Quoting the relevant portion.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/05/drdo-revolution-new-engagement-with.html

Comment in BroadSword wrote:i was very much there when the army asked for the bmp and not the t-72 on the grounds that it was cheaper and lighter and would be more deployable. later, they changed their mind, when they found that the bmp based systems couldnt accompany the fast moving strike corps and would need more vehicles per battery


But still does not answer if the same need not apply to NAMICA

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 443
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

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

Postby aditp » 27 Feb 2009 16:43

^^^^ NAG is a comparitively much lighter missile syste. Possibly, the removal of turret easily compensates for the additional weight of the onboard missile and associated systems. Also Nag on BMP makes the system much more air deployable to Laddakh etc.

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

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

Postby Vipul » 27 Feb 2009 22:12

'No slowdown in defence sector for next 25 years'.

The global financial crisis might have cast dark clouds over many industries but not the defence sector in India. This is because India's armed forces have a demand for new equipment and technology for the next 20-25 years and liberalisation of India's defence procurement policy offers a unique opportunity for Indian companies to provide services for the armed forces.

With the 34 per cent increase in the annual defence budget to Rs 1,41,703 crore, or 2.4 per cent of the GDP, there is an opportunity for Indian industry, especially the capital goods sector, to provide sub-contracting services to the armed forces, said S Rajan, joint secretary (exports), Ministry of Defence, at a CII seminar on opportunities for the capital goods industries in the capital today.

Currently, most of the sub-contracting services are being provided by the IT/ITeS sector, but the capital goods industries must step up its efforts to provide such services for the defence sector, he said.

By 2013, nearly $35 billion would be spent on defence in India, said Rajan.

An amount of Rs 3,000 crore has been earmarked for defence forces modernisation in the next three years, Rs 2,000 crore to build naval shipyards and Rs 2,000 crore earmarked for defence PSUs. All this money would be spent on imports if entrepreneurship is not encouraged in India's capital goods industries, said Rajan.

The defence offset policy, which requires a foreign vendor to spend a minimum of 30 per cent of its investment in building capability of Indian R&D, has led to many joint ventures between Indian and foreign vendors and this advantage must be leveraged at such a time, he added.

Pragadeesh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 32
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 04:29
Location: Germany

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

Postby Pragadeesh » 28 Feb 2009 19:20

X posting from Indo-Israel thread:

[size=85]The author of the article has mentioned that
India’s main supplier of advanced military hardware is Israel. In the 1990s India took a major decision to procure arms from Israel after its much-touted Defense Research and Development Organization failed to develop any high-end weapons systems.
[/size]

I (as an Indian citizen & a taxpayer) believe DRDO is doing fine in many areas with its limited budget (at present budget allocations may be better). It may have delayed in achiving it's targets but it has developed the technologies to reach the target. Without DRDO we would've never achieved many technologies in our country.DRDO's research covers a wide area of spectrum. We must be proud of it's achivements. I don't know how come (on what basis)the author just straight away mentioned that DRDO has Never developed or failed to develop any high-end weapons systems. The author also mentioned that,

India negotiated its first large-scale contract with Israel in 1997 for the Barak-1 weapons system. This was meant to knock down Pakistan’s Harpoon anti-ship missiles, supplied by the United States. Since its initial supply of six Barak systems, eight more have been added and negotiations on a multi-billion-dollar Barak-2 system is in progress.

Prior to the contract, India’s defense scientist and former President Abdul Kalam paid a number of visits to Israel to get help in missile development. Later India tested its Prithvi and Agni missile systems to counter Chinese and Pakistani moves.

Can someone tell is this really true?, I believe no country will share the knowledge or ideas on strategeic weapon system(s).I feel like (my opinion alone), the whole article is filled with lot of Anti-DRDO voice.

ajay_ijn
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 20:43

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

Postby ajay_ijn » 28 Feb 2009 19:34

Pragadeesh wrote:X posting from Indo-Israel thread:

[size=85]The author of the article has mentioned that
India’s main supplier of advanced military hardware is Israel. In the 1990s India took a major decision to procure arms from Israel after its much-touted Defense Research and Development Organization failed to develop any high-end weapons systems.
[/size]

I (as an Indian citizen & a taxpayer) believe DRDO is doing fine in many areas with its limited budget (at present budget allocations may be better). It may have delayed in achiving it's targets but it has developed the technologies to reach the target. Without DRDO we would've never achieved many technologies in our country.DRDO's research covers a wide area of spectrum. We must be proud of it's achivements. I don't know how come (on what basis)the author just straight away mentioned that DRDO has Never developed or failed to develop any high-end weapons systems. The author also mentioned that,

India negotiated its first large-scale contract with Israel in 1997 for the Barak-1 weapons system. This was meant to knock down Pakistan’s Harpoon anti-ship missiles, supplied by the United States. Since its initial supply of six Barak systems, eight more have been added and negotiations on a multi-billion-dollar Barak-2 system is in progress.

Prior to the contract, India’s defense scientist and former President Abdul Kalam paid a number of visits to Israel to get help in missile development. Later India tested its Prithvi and Agni missile systems to counter Chinese and Pakistani moves.

Can someone tell is this really true?, I believe no country will share the knowledge or ideas on strategeic weapon system(s).I feel like (my opinion alone), the whole article is filled with lot of Anti-DRDO voice.

Its DDM article of the year or probably the decade. i did not read so much bull krap even in the articles written by most popular DDM reporters.

Div
BRFite
Posts: 327
Joined: 16 Aug 1999 11:31

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

Postby Div » 28 Feb 2009 20:08

^^^ Unless I am mistaken, that article is written by a BR member.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

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

Postby Raj Malhotra » 28 Feb 2009 20:14

DRDO budget is idiotically small and pathetically limited. Example - france with decades of experience took US$ 2 Billion to develop M-88 while India wanted to do it for US$ 100 million later enhanced to US$ 550 million. Now we are ready to pay something like US$ 1 to 3 Billion for JV. Something like Kaveri needs a budget of US$ 10 Billion to fructify and it will have massive spin offs. WE have to money but do we have will and the confidence. I say raise R&D budget for DRDO, PSU, OFB and Pvt sector by atleast 10 times to US$ 10 Billion per annum in next two years.

Avinash R
BRFite
Posts: 1973
Joined: 24 Apr 2008 19:59

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

Postby Avinash R » 28 Feb 2009 23:05

AFAIK the Green Pine radar was never sold to India due to objections from usa. What India could get was technical expertise which was utilised to make an indian radar.

Pragadeesh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 32
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 04:29
Location: Germany

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

Postby Pragadeesh » 28 Feb 2009 23:24

http://www.ast-protec.de/en/Infos/UAV%20catelogue.pdf

I found the above mentioned document, when I was looking for the UAVS of a particular Indian company.
This company is working on the future UAVS projects like Cargo UAVS (capacity 1 ton and 20 ton(s)) and VTOL UAVS.
I just thought of sharing the info.

Other open source reference(s):
http://www.airforce-technology.com/contractors/uav/mku/
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/personal/m_kumar/press2.html
Added some additional URL(s). Edited - 1 time in total.

JaiS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan
Contact:

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

Postby JaiS » 01 Mar 2009 05:44

Avinash R wrote:AFAIK the Green Pine radar was never sold to India due to objections from usa. What India could get was technical expertise which was utilised to make an indian radar.


The Green Pine deal did go through.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

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

Postby Arun_S » 01 Mar 2009 09:33

Related to Important mineral.
Thanks to Mrs Indira Gandhi's foresight and determination India took proactive action to checkmate western plan to own the sea bed mining.

SindhToday: Manganese plenty in ocean off Goa
Feb 27th, 2009 | By Sindh Today | Category: India

Panaji, Feb 27 (IANS) Researchers with the National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) claim to have discovered a large presence of manganese modules off Goa’s shore.

Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a Science Fiesta organised by the Goa government Friday, Vineesh T.C., a senior researcher with the NIO, said India was preparing to harvest these minerals from the ocean.

“The International Seabed Authority (ISA) has been kind enough to have licenced India to explore these polymetallic modules spread over an area of nearly 75,000 sq km in the sea,” he said.

Based in Jamaica, the ISA is an autonomous international body established under a 1982 UN Convention to organise and control activities in the seabed area. The convention considers the international seabed as common property of all human beings.

Describing manganese modules as an example of the generation next of mineral resources, Vineesh said research was on globally to make harvesting these marine mineral resources a financially viable option.

“These modules are polymetallic in nature. They have a component of copper and zinc,” he said. “With our existing conventional mineral stockpile steadily depleting, the ocean’s vast bed is the future of mineral harvesting.”

The seabed accounts for nearly 49 percent of the earth’s surface and covers an area in excess of 250 million sq km.

Avinash R
BRFite
Posts: 1973
Joined: 24 Apr 2008 19:59

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

Postby Avinash R » 01 Mar 2009 09:53

JaiS wrote:
Avinash R wrote:AFAIK the Green Pine radar was never sold to India due to objections from usa. What India could get was technical expertise which was utilised to make an indian radar.


The Green Pine deal did go through.

My source of info is the rediff article. Any other report which contradicts this one or has more details?

The untold story of India's missile defence
http://www.rediff.com/cms/print.jsp?doc ... issile.htm

A delegation was sent to Israel, but it was turned down because the Green Pine radar incorporated US technology. But Israel did agree to collaborate with India in building a Long Range Tracking Radar.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17005
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

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

Postby Rahul M » 01 Mar 2009 10:04

Avinash, we did buy green pine from israel, 2 IIRC but tech was refused. this was stressed again and again by Avinash Chander according to reports by rakall/K prasad
but israel co-operated with us on the development of LRTR which has better performance.

you can check ajai shukla's blog on the AAD tests for info.

Avinash R
BRFite
Posts: 1973
Joined: 24 Apr 2008 19:59

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

Postby Avinash R » 01 Mar 2009 10:13

^Thanks rahul.

JaiS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan
Contact:

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

Postby JaiS » 01 Mar 2009 10:24

Avinash,

While I ran into many sources, I am quoting only a few here. More can easily found via google if required.

Source 1:

SIPRI Armstrade register
Choose Israel as supplier, India as recipient and year - 2002.

Source 2

Source 3

Source 4

Also, while US did have reservations about the transfer of advanced technology via GreenPine, consider the fact that US allowed the sale of similar technology-Phalcon (which BTW is nothing but the airborne variant of Greenpine).

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17005
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

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

Postby Rahul M » 01 Mar 2009 10:47

jai, even in phalcon it is the system that is sold, not the tech.

arrow was the only case where US opposed even the sale of system.

JaiS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan
Contact:

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

Postby JaiS » 01 Mar 2009 11:03

Rahul,

I was addressing Avinash's post in which he said:


AFAIK the Green Pine radar was never sold to India due to objections from usa.



For this I replied by saying that US did allow for the sale of Phalcons(which is essentially the same tech as GreenPine). My point being that despite their concerns, US did allow the sale of Phalcons, so there is no point in them blocking the sale of a similar system, i.e. Green Pine. AFIK, neither Avinash nor me talked about ToT, so I do not know what you are talking about.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17005
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

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

Postby Rahul M » 01 Mar 2009 11:53

did have reservations about the transfer of advanced technology via GreenPine

misunderstood this line.

Avinash R
BRFite
Posts: 1973
Joined: 24 Apr 2008 19:59

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

Postby Avinash R » 01 Mar 2009 13:18

JaiS wrote:Avinash,

While I ran into many sources, I am quoting only a few here. More can easily found via google if required.

Source 1:

SIPRI Armstrade register
Choose Israel as supplier, India as recipient and year - 2002.

Source 2

Source 3

Source 4

Also, while US did have reservations about the transfer of advanced technology via GreenPine, consider the fact that US allowed the sale of similar technology-Phalcon (which BTW is nothing but the airborne variant of Greenpine).

Thanks jai for clearing my doubts.


bart
BRFite
Posts: 712
Joined: 04 Jan 2008 21:33

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

Postby bart » 01 Mar 2009 14:01

"Clock Technology"

:rotfl:


Bloody DDM strikes again. He obviously meant cloak. Goes to show the journalists not only have no clue about technology, they don't even know basic English nor have any common sense. :evil:

skher
BRFite
Posts: 197
Joined: 16 Apr 2007 23:58
Location: Secured; no idea

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

Postby skher » 01 Mar 2009 21:10

bart wrote:"Clock Technology"

:rotfl:


:lol:

If clock technology refers to agile project management and time-travel.....finished finalized variant reaches here @speed of light,then I'm all for it.
If wishes were horses....

Bloody DDM strikes again. He obviously meant cloak. Goes to show the journalists not only have no clue about technology, they don't even know basic English nor have any common sense. :evil:


They're ordinary "mod" 21st century journalists,probably co-erced to cover 'defens/ce'.

Weren't they supposed to just copy/paste Directorate of Public Interface (DPI)'s press releases?

Nalla Baalu
BRFite
Posts: 127
Joined: 24 Aug 2006 07:16
Location: Yerramandi, Dhoolpeta

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

Postby Nalla Baalu » 02 Mar 2009 02:45

Interesting developments from (hitherto unheard of) Project 'Nayan':

Seabed array system prototype tested

k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 633
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

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

Postby k prasad » 02 Mar 2009 12:16

Rahul M wrote:Avinash, we did buy green pine from israel, 2 IIRC but tech was refused. this was stressed again and again by Avinash Chander according to reports by rakall/K prasad
but israel co-operated with us on the development of LRTR which has better performance.

you can check ajai shukla's blog on the AAD tests for info.


AFAIK, I havent put up a report by Avinash Chander, so that may not be me.... however, I can confirm that the deal did go through, and is indeed open knowledge, despite some reports to the contrary. I think this is because

1) the deals happened quite some time ago (after Kargil) and
2) the DDM getting confused by reports about our indigenous radars.

Anyway, what US did object to was the sale of the whole Arrow 2 BMD system, so that wasn't sold. However, they had no issues with selling Greenpines i guess.

Now, the point is that if only 2 were sold, that is hardly enough to defend a state, let alone a country... and given the reports about indigenous LRTRs and MFCRs, I think its easy to see what went on...

k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 633
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

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

Postby k prasad » 02 Mar 2009 12:18

Nalla Baalu wrote:Interesting developments from (hitherto unheard of) Project 'Nayan':

Seabed array system prototype tested


No... it was heard of... there was a report on this in DD about 5-6 months ago. Unfortunately, no one picked it up, and the DD link wasn't permanent, so I couldn't post it in full...

I'll try and dig up the text somewhere, but suffice to say that this seabed array thing was heard before. Additionally, the seabed array thing was only a small part of the report... they were also talkign about oceanic sensors, etc.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jivana, Karan M, madhu, RaviB, Vamsee, Vivasvat and 83 guests