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.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7619
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

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

Postby rohitvats » 06 Aug 2014 17:38

vic wrote:A trainee requires around 60 hours on BTT. Each Pilatus on average can turn out 90-100 hours per month (flying different trainees). Hence 75 Pilatus can train anything between 1200-1500 pilots every year. So what's the hurry for more imports?


Why don't you bother to check your claims before making such tall claims? Especially, when information is so readily available?

http://www.forceindia.net/TrainingonTrack.aspx

According to Air Vice Marshal V.R. Chaudhuri, deputy commandant AFA Dundigal, “The training syllabus has been increased to 55 hours per trainee from the earlier 25 hours. The solo content has also increased to 14 sorties from only one sortie earlier. This amounts to the task of approximately 1,200 hours per month, making it approximately 60-70 sorties per day on PC-7 MK-II aircraft.” The IAF is looking at an utilisation rate of 300 flying hours per year per aircraft.

The PC-7 MK-II has a design life of 10,000 hours and 30,000 landings per aircraft. By the end of August, the fleet had already logged 3,000 flight hours with almost 5,600 landings, and serviceability for the PC-7 MK-II fleet was at 81 per cent.

Chief Instructor (Flying) at AFA Dundigal, Air Commodore Nagesh Kapoor tells FORCE, “The rate of flying is very high and that speaks a lot about the maintainability of the aircraft. Earlier, we would need three to four people looking after one aircraft, presently one aircraft is looked after by one person, which is very good. It is very easy on fuel and has tremendous endurance.” He goes on to add, “We are really exploiting this machine and we are doing a whole lot of flying. By the end of this course we would have ended up flying twice as much as we would have done six months earlier.”


PS: We don't have all the 75 Pilatus, yet! Something like 35-40 aircraft with balance planned over next couple of years.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5304
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

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

Postby Viv S » 06 Aug 2014 18:06

rohitvats wrote:The IAF is looking at an utilisation rate of 300 flying hours per year per aircraft.

The PC-7 MK-II has a design life of 10,000 hours and 30,000 landings per aircraft.


That seems an awfully low utilization rate. Just an hour every working day on average. Theoretically we could flog them harder and retire them in say.. 15 years instead of 30 years. A decade should be long enough for the HAL to come up with the HTT-40.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

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

Postby Surya » 06 Aug 2014 18:35

why would you still keep looking to HAL if you are planning 10 years ahead

We have to bring in other players

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5304
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

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

Postby Viv S » 06 Aug 2014 18:45

Surya wrote:why would you still keep looking to HAL if you are planning 10 years ahead

We have to bring in other players


Even better. Let ADA be the design agency and a private consortium be the development/production agency.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

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

Postby Surya » 06 Aug 2014 19:12

Let ADA be the design agency and a private consortium be the development/production agency.


I am fine with that initially

long term we need multiple design teams - so the pvt players should build up by then

anyway the failure of the IJT is a good wake up call to not put all the eggs in the HAL\NAL basket

I dont think Saras will make it too. Thats another project which needs a cold hard relook.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2415
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

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

Postby vic » 06 Aug 2014 19:42

Pilatus can put out 100 hours per month, point is why is IAF only wanting to use it for 30 hours per month? To increase requirement of imports?

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2645
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

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

Postby Victor » 07 Aug 2014 00:16

Avarachan wrote:
Victor, for a variety of reasons (limited funding, limited project-management expertise, etc.), thirty years ago, India had to choose: locally-made light weapons, or locally-made ICBM's. In general, India chose to develop the weapons that no one would sell to India, due to their strategic significance. It would have been better if India could have excelled in both high-tech and low-tech. However, Indian leaders decided that wasn't possible. Accordingly, they decided to prioritize their limited resources. Most Indians would say that they made the right choice for their time.

This sounds reasonable but I find it very difficult to buy.

* If India chose to develop only the weapons that nobody would sell to us because of lack of money, great. But then why did we embark on the development of the INSAS, Trichy Rifle, Kalantak etc instead of just buying off the shelf? That would have been the cheapest route but OFB obviously had the money to develop these items and made a hash of it. Net result: all that money wasted and the army is forced to go for imports.

* Why did we sit on the paid-for ToT from Bofors for 30 years while the Army ran from pillar to post desperately begging for guns? It was only when a foreign purchase was imminent that the drawings miraculously appeared like manna from heaven. Net result: no friggin guns yet.

90% DPSUs are political milch cows first and foremost. They are rotten to the core, nothing can save them and it shouldn't take a rocket scientist (pun intended) to figure out why this is the case. Best we can do is save the experienced people that deserve to be saved, privatize and pension off the rest. Time to bite the bullet.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16191
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 07 Aug 2014 22:09

Market For Indian Defense Industry Opens Wide

India’s government officially opened up the defense industry to foreign investors Wednesday, allowing defense contractors from abroad to own up to 49% instead of 26% of Indian military equipment makers.

The plan was first announced in the July 10 budget by new finance minister, Arun Jaitley. The cabinet approval is all the proposal needed to become a national policy.

Indian defense contractors are known entities in the U.S. The wings of the C-130 Hercules are made in Hyderabad by Tata Advanced Systems. Tata also manufactures the main cabin of the Sikorsky S-92.

India is world’s largest importer of military equipment. The higher investment cap will help it attract the investment it needs to modernize its military. Over the last 10 years, India’s defense industry brought in just $4.1 million in foreign direct investment.
Building the Sikorsky S-92 main cabin at the Tata Advanced Systems facility in Hyderabad, India. New Delhi made it an official policy today to allow for 49% foreign ownership of Indian defense contractors. (Photo by Jackie O. Cruz/FORBES)

Building the Sikorsky S-92 main cabin at the Tata Advanced Systems facility in Hyderabad, India. New Delhi made it an official policy today to allow for 49% foreign ownership of Indian defense contractors. (Photo by Jackie O. Cruz/FORBES)

McKinsey & Company said in a report released last year that India’s $12 billion defense market will likely reach somewhere between $18 billion and $20 billion by 2020 for capital equipment alone. Platform spending, mainly Naval equipment, will likely hit $150 billion by 2017. India will continue to be a large net importer of defense hardware, however.

Domestic demand will likely be set by five factors, according to McKinsey.

These include geopolitical scenarios relevant to Indian foreign policy, such as Pakistan and home-grown terrorist groups that may necessitate the need for new defense equipment. Moreover, replacing outdated weapons and delivery systems are also high on the demand list.

If India’s economy improves, as many economists are now forecasting since Narendra Modi and his BJP party swept into power in May, the government will have more to spend on defense.

“The domestic industry seems poised for another period of rapid growth,” the report stated. “India has the potential to become an attractive destination for governments and companies around the world that need engineering services and components.”

As defense budgets shrink in the U.S., some contractors have turned to India to offset higher labor costs at home. Lockheed Martin’s C-130 is an example of that.

Such opportunities for offshoring could mean an additional $6 billion to $10 billion for Indian defense contractors over the next six years.

India is in its early days of expanding defense relations, including with the U.S.

The country’s defense spending will be determined by its geopolitical situation and its budding defense ties with Washington. Events and political relationships with the U.S. and other countries, namely France and Russia, will have the biggest potential to spark “substantial changes in India’s strategic relationships and ultimately the balance of trade in the global defense industry,” the McKinsey report stated.

Some of the main orders expected include Mirage and MiG-29 upgrades along with new, fifth-gen multi-role combat aircraft for the Air Force. On sea, India will likely spend upwards of $40 billion on nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers. For land vehicles, Indian made tanks and U.S. made Javelin anti-tank missiles are also likely purchases.

member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_23694 » 07 Aug 2014 23:48

Just turn DRDO into a DARPA like agency and let privates slowly start doing most of the heavy lifting.


Always been advocating this. However an additional point. To prevent the private players from becoming another "just assemblers" for foreign JV partners additional safegaurds should be inplace for % of imported contents in the product, availability and sanction proof nature of critical stuff of the product , forex spent as a percentage of total product cost, technology availability of the product with the local JV partner (in case of private parties bidding with foreign JV partners).
Once the minimum quality requirement of the services are met for such products additional points given to bidders who comes up with some serious export plans for such products.
Point is simple- damn care who makes the product , DPSU or private , till the product meets the services timeline, quality and quantity with the right price.
DRDO [ along with other local vendors ]focus only on development of strategic stuff which no one will give us , and once developed the production part goes to the most eligible agency after alignment with government and the services (with certain criteria) [ex. Vikas engine manufactured by Godrej and others.]

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16191
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 08 Aug 2014 01:52

Some additional points:

US defence secretary Hagel arrives in India, Javelin missile deal on cards



The US will make India an offer to "co-produce and co-develop" state-of-the-art Javelin infra-red-guided anti-tank missiles during defence secretary Charles 'Chuck' Hagel’s three-day visit. Hagel arrived in New Delhi on Thursday and will be meeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi and defence minister Arun Jaitley on Friday.

The high probability of the US bringing up the Javelin deal springs from US President Barack Obama’s July 7 letter to Modi, in which he sought closer defence and strategic ties and directly made the missile offer to the PM. He also wrote that Hagel would be discussing the Javelin details with his Indian counterparts during his visit.

India is currently looking to buy some 3,600 anti-tank missiles with 900 launchers at a cost of $700 million (Rs 4,284 crore approximately) through the foreign military sales route. The army is in desperate need of an anti-tank missile as the indigenous Nag missile continues to be a work in progress.

Under the Javelin deal, India and US would jointly produce the third-generation FGM-148 missile through transfer of technology (ToT) and jointly develop a fourth-generation missile that can successfully hit a target 2.5km away. The weapon uses fire and forget technology where the launcher locks on to the target via thermal image and guides the missile through infra-red technology without being in the line of sight.

While India is keen on co-production, it wants full transfer of technology and the talks on Friday will be centred on this. “The Javelin makers are willing to do 97% ToT and want to withhold the algorithms related to core infra-red seeker technology,” said a senior defence ministry official.

Hagel is also expected to remind India that the window for purchase of Chinook and Apache helicopters at current rates will close by September. The US, which has kept aside six Boeing C-17 cargo aircraft for possible purchase by India, is extremely concerned about slow decision-making in the Indian defence ministry and Hagel will be looking to find a new equilibrium with Jaitley.

Apart from the Javelin deal, talks with Hagel will centre around a new defence framework agreement for 2015-20, a tri-lateral maritime exercise with Japan, and the regional environment, including the rise of China and the situation in Af-Pak and West Asia.

Maritime security is another top priority for both India and the US in the backdrop of Chinese attempts to acquire long legs in the South China Sea and Indian Ocean. With US capabilities declining in the Asia-Pacific and India unable to cope with Beijing on naval upgradation, both sides need each other to maintain the balance of forces in the region.

Hagel's visit follows a similar stop in the country last week by secretary of state John Kerry and commerce secretary Penny Pritzker aimed at wooing a key ally in Asia.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9894
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

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

Postby Vayutuvan » 08 Aug 2014 04:45

>> While India is keen on co-production, it wants full transfer of technology and the talks on Friday will be centred on this. “The Javelin makers are willing to do 97% ToT and want to withhold the algorithms related to core infra-red seeker technology,” said a senior defence ministry official.

Anybody know what kind of algorithms are used? Dynamic control?

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

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

Postby Rien » 08 Aug 2014 10:19

rohitvats wrote:
Rien wrote: That's very unconvincing. There are already 75 Pilatus here. There are also plenty of imported trainers already, so there is no urgent rush to meet requirements as the IAF states. Rather the issue is of cost. Rather than a Pilatus, what is needed is the much cheaper HAL gear.


What do you mean by 'plenty'?


Victor already answered earlier. We already have 75 Pilatus. There's no need for more. If the IAF wants a faster induction, it must spend more money for concurrent prototypes to speed up development. The IAF, as usual, only wants imports rather than development.

rohitvats wrote:Are you aware of the total requirement of Basic Trainer as against what is the current inventory in IAF of these types? And what do you think is being used for Stage II training at present for which IJT was planned as a replacement? How long can they be sustained in the IAF service?


I don't see any relevance for Stage II training. We're talking about Stage 1, the HTT-40. You've gone off on a tangent. Pilatus is stage 1. And the IAF claimed that the HTT was more expensive than the Pilatus.

But an actual lifecyle analysis shows the HTT is far cheaper than the expensive videshi maal.

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 059_1.html

rohitvats wrote:Are you out of your mind here? Fire Air Marshals because HAL has screwed up on a program which is running 7-8 years late? And for which IAF has placed orders for 73 aircraft? Think before you spout such nonsense.


Firing people for incompetent decisions is the way everyone handles things. There is no reason the IAF is exempt from this rule.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2415
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

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

Postby vic » 08 Aug 2014 10:37

Israeli apart from lip service are also not giving us any major technology as shown by deals of LRSAM and FSAPDS rounds.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2399
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

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

Postby abhik » 08 Aug 2014 13:25

NRao wrote:Some additional points:

US defence secretary Hagel arrives in India, Javelin missile deal on cards

India is currently looking to buy some 3,600 anti-tank missiles with 900 launchers at a cost of $700 million (Rs 4,284 crore approximately) through the foreign military sales route. The army is in desperate need of an anti-tank missile as the indigenous Nag missile continues to be a work in progress.

Generous sprinkling of BS.


rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7619
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

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

Postby rohitvats » 09 Aug 2014 09:08

Rien wrote: Victor already answered earlier. We already have 75 Pilatus. There's no need for more. If the IAF wants a faster induction, it must spend more money for concurrent prototypes to speed up development. The IAF, as usual, only wants imports rather than development.


First - the 75 trainers have not arrived yet.

Secondly, on what basis have you decided that 'there is no need for more'? Are you aware of the training requirement based on number of rookie pilots inducted in each batch, flying hours required per student for Stage 1, availability of aircraft and associated variables to make this bombastic statement? Or, is this typical of making inane statements without any basis in reality?

IAF wants a trainer aircraft. Period. And given the track record of HAL with IJT, I would be very wary of giving them any more order(s) for a new aircraft unless they get their own house in order. Coming to spending of money by IAF, it wants to spend that money on Pilatus rather than give HAL to blow it all away. As it is, HAL is one hell of a profitable organization. Let them put their money where their mouth is and for once, compete against established products and players.

After all, considering that many here believe that developing a BTT is no big-shake, HAL should be able to come up with a prototype in no time. They've promised one prototype will fly in 2015 - lets wait and watch.

Firing people for incompetent decisions is the way everyone handles things. There is no reason the IAF is exempt from this rule.


Just because you think so based on unfounded assumptions, does not mean anything of this sort is going to happen.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16757
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 » 09 Aug 2014 09:26

please start a new thread with a link to this page in its first post.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests