Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

[Karan M]

^^^ AFAIK what ever we assemble locally or lic manuf it here we call it indigenous only.

Not always, but at least on BRF we consistently differentiate between the two.

[Karan M]

5

they have to start somewhere. without a long history of making weapons in pvt sector we do not have the ecosystem at all. and they will atleast deliver it better than OFB I feel with their 3 guns/month ambitions.

Agreed, but what I am saying is that they should start by making the guns at least, even if the proportion of the guns made in India is 20% in Phase 1 and rises to 80% by Phase 4. If importing the guns into India, assembling them on Indian made trucks, adding third party electronics from Israel/US/UK, and then offering servicing with visiting engineers from abroad is what is on offer, then it is no better than getting the same "treatment" from the likes of BEML.
The risk we run is that in running away from the mess that is OFB, we end up running into the hands of another mess altogether with screwdriver kits from all across the world, with Indian made stickers and no guarantee of long term support either. Come one war or economic collapse in some european country, and there we are stuck, without guarantees of who will maintain our weapon. Similar cases happened in the 90's when we brought stuff from then Yugoslavia, and ended up nowhere. Later, buying stuff without guarantees from small European vendors resulting in lack of spares when local peaceniks created an issue post Pokhran.

Our issue is that we seem to be buying piecemeal units for each arty program separately - towed, tracked, wheeled & then on top of it, running each program separately, with no thought about standardized logistics. Each of these programs has some pvt vendor competing with different partners for that segment! On top of it, we don't seem to be insisting that the core gun & critical components with highest wear & tear be manufactured inhouse.

Its the typical case of shambolic procurement practises that seems to dog all of our efforts. Better still to have given extra points to those who (like Kalyani) have access to tech across the board & can sustain it over the long term.

[Singha]

yes kalyani having a long history and competency in precision forging are good bet. and they have procured the production line for it.
Tatas and A&L do have the inhouse or allied forging and metal working expertise too but in CV unlike kalyani who supply heavy industry and hot parts probably used in steel plants..might have more of a handle on things.

[Austin]

^^^ AFAIK what ever we assemble locally or lic manuf it here we call it indigenous only.

Not always, but at least on BRF we consistently differentiate between the two.

I mean at the official level what ever we lic produces or assemble it is passed off as indigenous ..... only directly imported component are listed other wise.

[Austin]

what Ural trucks are they talking about and for what purpose any idea ?

http://indrus.in/economics/2014/02/19/r ... 33163.html

India is also interested in acquiring Russian vehicles. According to a source close to India's defence ministry, talks are underway for the purchase of 100 to 500 new Ural trucks that would be used by the Indian home and defence ministries. The truck model costs $50,000.

“Talks have been ongoing for three years now, and soon the contract will be ready to be signed,” said the source.

The UAZ Automobile Plant is part of the GAZ group of companies, and has been working with the Indians for some time. A joint automobile assembly plant has been operating near Calcutta since 2006. To date, 190 vehicles have been assembled there.

[srin]

Private enterprises have a different problem, albeit a far more serious one - capital. So - a very small financial analysis.

Indigenization defence technology, however small, requires upfront capital investment and investment in research. Most of the private enterprises are already debt-ridden. For those that are listed, the stock gets hammered.

If you look at Pipavav or L&T Shipbuilding, you'll see that they are making losses and also have debt.

OTOH, it is difficult to verify that, because some big guys (like Tata Power, Kalyani) can use the capital from profitable business to the SED, and it is difficult to make out reading up the annual reports. And this will be reflected in low valuation of stock price (by magnitude of shift in capital). And in many cases, the management is under pressure by board/investors to give excess money as dividends instead of investing in an uncertain business and hence, the valuation will be low.

Given these circumstances, it is difficult for them to do substantial investment in indigenization. Easier to do partnerships and where the integration is more or less on paper pending firm orders.

So - unless it makes financial sense, privatization really won't bring indigenization benefits.

[Karan M]

Srin, correct. A cogent analysis.

IMHO the entry of the private sector is essential for improvement in manufacturing and QA especially for land systems.

[Singha]

Urals could be to replace the old russian vehicles that take around the sa-3 and associated gear like radars? any other truck will also work though..as it does for akash. but our DGMF has its own russophile ways.

Ural has setup a office in india and wants to explore commercial and mining sector though..which is fair enough.

[Austin]

IA probably needs no more two Indian companies to make Trucks , LUV and 4 wheelers etc , TATA and Ashok Leyland .. just to maintain competition ..the other like Ural , OFB , TATRA should be gradually eased out.

[Philip]

X-posted.
http://www.newindianexpress.com/opinion ... wa_JqLNmN8

Fire Up Defence Industry
By Bharat Karnad

Published: 21st February 2014 02:00 AM

The recent Singapore Air Show opened a week after the Indian Defence Expo (Defexpo 2014) ended in Delhi. What evoked interest in Singapore was the CN-235 turboprop maritime patrol aircraft that Indonesia displayed there. Considering the Indonesian defence industry was revived only in 1976 with the establishment of Indonesian Aerospace (IA), this is quite an accomplishment. With IA contemplating manufacture of the South Korean T-50i light fighter, Indonesia may soon have a cheap supersonic combat aircraft to sell to developing states hard up for cash.

Put this development in perspective. The prototype of the indigenous multi-role Marut HF-24 supersonic combat aircraft, the first ever produced outside the United States and Europe, took to the skies over Bangalore in 1961. That project should have led to the emergence of a comprehensively-capable Indian defence industry supplying the Indian military and the rest of the Third World, and as generator of high-technologies to drive the economy. Instead, between a foreign aircraft-fixated Indian Air Force and short-sighted Indian politicians (to wit, defence minister Krishna Menon who decided against sanctioning `5 crore for rejigging the Orpheus-12R engine with reheat the British firm Bristol-Siddeley had produced as power plant for a NATO fighter to fit the HF-24) the Marut was eliminated on the excuse of being “under-powered”. It aborted growth of the defence industry in general, habituated the Defence Public Sector Units (DPSUs) to an endless cycle of licensed manufacture, and turned the country into an arms dependency that can be jerked around at will by foreign suppliers.

Understandably, at the DefExpo the mood was morose in the stalls of the private sector majors, among them L&T, Tata, Pipapav, and Bharat Forge, as well as smaller private firms, all venturing into the high-value military market. The private sector defence industry has, time and again, proved itself in the most prestigious and sensitive indigenous high-technology projects, such as Agni missiles and Arihant-class ballistic missile firing nuclear-powered submarine. They have shown particular appetite for ingesting and innovating transferred technology and for complex designing and production engineering. It is talent the DPSUs seem bereft of in the main because profit-linked survivability is not their concern, even less motive. No matter how incompetent and wasteful, they keep getting showered with mega contracts by the Indian government, forcing the more productive, technologically capable, and cost-efficient private sector firms to make to do with meagre sub-contracts.

The representatives at the Indian DPSU stalls at the DefExpo were, however, all jaunt and puffed-up chests, because continued government patronage has resulted in over-full order-books they are in no position to deliver on. After some 60-odd years one thing is clear: DPSUs simply cannot absorb military technology, leave alone develop new products, and are content with their limited skill-sets of reproducing military hardware by screwing plate A onto plate B as per detailed design instruction sheets provided them. This is the stuff of Meccano sets, which in a bygone era helped young kids put together toy cranes and trucks—the very essence of licensed manufacture. The DPSUs have even ignored the transferred technology available in massive documentation with the ordnance factories (OFs) which, as in the case of the 155mm Bofors howitzer field gun, was collecting dust for 30 years.

Take the case of the follow-on to the Bofors gun. As the preferred option of buying a foreign 155mm/52 calibre towed artillery gun system was not materialising the army is considering a desi alternative. The OFs working with the transferred Bofors technologies have struggled to produce a gun which, alas, has featured many failures, including repeated barrel bursts in test firings, showing up the DPSU capability deficiencies. In the meantime, Bharat Forge bought technology from Elbit, an Israeli Company, fully digested it, introduced its own innovations into the design, and now has a ready artillery piece which it is willing to enter into competition against rival systems produced anywhere, including by the OFs and L&T. L&T, contrarily, decided against full transfer of technology from the French Company, Nester, on the ground that buying expensive foreign technology without a fair chance of selling it to the army makes no commercial sense. India would have long ago rolled out an advanced successor gun system had the Bofors technology been passed on to the private sector even as the OFs assembled this gun from completely knocked-down kits.

The department of defence production (DDP) in the ministry of defence (MoD) is the chief culprit. The DDP sees its remit as protecting the DPSUs, not as growing a national defence industry, which last requires acknowledging the private sector defence industrial assets as national resource. This means that a howitzer gun will not be purchased from the private sector, no matter how desperate the army’s need for it.

How hurtful to the national interest is the official procurement policy may be gauged from the fact that despite the entire fleet of some 1,000 Russian T-72S tanks being currently immobilised owing to suspect gun barrels that have burst with disturbing regularity, the DDP has not entertained an offer (made directly to defence minister A K Antony in 2013) by a big private company to fit the rifled gun barrels it has produced on two tanks on a “no cost, no commitment” basis for rigorous testing. A year later, the DDP is still dithering, willing to risk an army with defanged strike forces than approve testing of tank gun barrels sourced to this private firm lest successful tests lead to pressures to buy them, thereby setting a precedent.

Then again the entire government and military system tilts against the private sector defence industry. The Defence Procurement Procedure the MoD has laboured over is a joke. It is big on extolling “Make and Buy Indian” but in practice provides it cover for doing nothing, least of all actively encourage and incentivise the private sector companies, or enable fair competition between them and DPSUs that the department of defence production and the MoD know the latter will lose. The problem is too many politicians, bureaucrats, military officers, and DPSU personnel are milking this system to accept its radical overhaul.

[Singha]

IA probably needs no more two Indian companies to make Trucks , LUV and 4 wheelers etc , TATA and Ashok Leyland .. just to maintain competition ..the other like Ural , OFB , TATRA should be gradually eased out.

there is also AMW(Essar), Bharat Benz, Volvo, M&M and Eicher who can contribute .

[Austin]

IA probably needs no more two Indian companies to make Trucks , LUV and 4 wheelers etc , TATA and Ashok Leyland .. just to maintain competition ..the other like Ural , OFB , TATRA should be gradually eased out.

there is also AMW(Essar), Bharat Benz, Volvo, M&M and Eicher who can contribute .

In theory every one can contribute and competition is good to bring prices down but in the end few specialises in Defence Vehical and over that very few would win the day ..... there is also the issue of Financial Health of Company and how much can they churn out .....the big guys in the business have better staying power ...... Tata and AL can ofcourse subcontract many of these to their partners as they choose but thats their internal story.

For better or worse even global biggies are moving toward consolidation

[chackojoseph]

United Aircraft Corporation President Mikhail A Pogosyan Visits HAL’s Su- 30 Facilities at Nasik

At present, HAL is producing these aircraft from raw material phase and till date has delivered 134 aircraft to Indian Air Force. HAL manufactures around 43000 components for airframe, 6300 for engine, and 9600 for accessories. HAL makes 72% of the components in India with 100% technology absorption as per the scope defined in the contract.

[abhik]

they have to start somewhere. without a long history of making weapons in pvt sector we do not have the ecosystem at all. and they will atleast deliver it better than OFB I feel with their 3 guns/month ambitions.

That's being really unfair to OFB. The MoD has given a firm order of only about 114(or so) units, and at that rate the entire production run will be over in 3 years. For all they know this could be another Arjun tank for them. There needs to be long-term commitment for the MoD. We must not forget that the OFBs have in fact mass manufactured and delivered a lot of stuff, such as the INSAS rifle which they have manufactured over 2 million @ ~100,000/year, albeit sometimes with quality issues.

[Brando]

We must not forget that the OFBs have in fact mass manufactured and delivered a lot of stuff, such as the INSAS rifle which they have manufactured over 2 million @ ~100,000/year, albeit sometimes with quality issues.

That is precisely the problem, nobody's forgotten about the INSAS. It's the principle reason to be skeptical of OFB.

Defense technology is a rapidly evolving technology industry. If OFB keeps waiting for its "sweetheart deal" that will last the next 50, they are delusional. If they cannot produce limited quantities in good time, they give neither the Army nor the MoD confidence in large procurements and OFBs ability to meet them in time. Also, their approach to manufacturing is antiquated relying on economies of scale. Modern manufacturing accepts small orders and an evolving or changing product line. They need to adapt and being a monopoly they have little incentive to do so.

[member_28454]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 969620.cms

The projects cleared included the up-gradation of 37 more IAF airbases (Rs 1,125 crore), modernization of five ordnance depots (Rs 1,800 crore), 4,000 hand-held thermal imagers for soldiers (Rs 1,400 crore), 5,000 thermal imaging sights for tanks and infantry combat vehicles (Rs 2,825 crore), 44,000 light-machine guns (Rs 1,328 crore) and 702 light armoured multi-purpose vehicles (Rs 1,200 crore).

Do we know if the vendor for the 702 light armoured multi-purpose vehicles has been finalized? I do hope that it is a Domestic vendor. Tata, Ashok Leyland, M&M all have vehicles in this category. The Tata vehicle developed with Supacat and exhibited at the Defexpo looks particularly promising.
The additional Thermal Imager procurement for T90s could hint at further issues with this unfortunate import.

[NRao]

Thought this was a nice and informative article:

Ashok Parthasarathi: Some myths about the Indian military-industrial complex

As a student of military and security affairs, I find both analysts and the media having many misconceptions about our military industrial complex. This article deals with some major ones to promote a correct understanding of the matter.

First, our defence hardware imports are around 60 per cent, and not 70 per cent. Second, delays and cost over-runs in our defence production programmes also occur in all North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) countries; the reasons are many and complex. These have been documented in numerous reports of the General Accounting Office of the US Congress. The UK Comptroller and Auditor General has done likewise.

A specific major example is the M-88 aero-engine for the latest French fighter-bomber Rafale. France's sole and public sector aero-engine manufacturer, Snecma, which has been making military aero-engines for 30 years, took 11 years to design and develop that engine against its commitment of seven years to the French ministry of defence. There was also a 320 per cent cost over-run. As a result, there was also a massive delay in Rafale's first test flight from 1982 to 1987.

Another misconception is that the design and development (D&D) of the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) took three decades. In fact, it took only two, despite encompassing laboratory R&D, production of two technology demonstrators and two prototypes plus 2,500 hours of test flying. The Tejas series production plan would be: six LCAs in 2014-15, eight in 2015-16 and 10 in 2016-17, all for induction in operational Indian Air Force (IAF) squadrons against an IAF order of 40 aircraft by 2020 - which will be met.

As for the IAF mainstay, the 4.5 generation Sukhoi-30MkI, it is misconceived that the plane continues to be assembled and not manufactured in depth by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL). Actually, the 30MkI (where the I stands for India), is radically different from the Su-30 Russia makes for its own air force. Their plane is a pure air-defence fighter; ours is a multi-role aircraft, i.e. it also includes air-to-ground attack capabilities. Moreover, the MkI was a joint D&D project with large technical and operational inputs from IAF engineers and Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) scientists working with Russian engineers. So, the 30MkI is the creation of joint Indo-Russian knowledge, ingenuity and skill to meet the IAF's operational needs.

HAL started its phased manufacturing programme for the 30MkI in 2004-05. Over 2004-05 to 2012-13, HAL manufactured 174 aircraft. By 2012-13, the air frame was 100 per cent indigenous while the more complex engine was 70 per cent indigenous. This included some 1,500 highly sophisticated and complex castings and forgings - to the great surprise of Russian engineers. Today, the aircraft's overall indigenous content is around 75 per cent. A detailed plan is underway to take that to 85 per cent in 2015-16.

Frequently, the Tejas D&D, the Su-30MkI production and the contract between HAL and French aerospace company Dassault for the Rafale medium multi-role combat aircraft are compared in terms of costs and supply time frames with the allegedly "speedy operationalisation" of finished import-based aircraft, such as the Mi-17v5 helicopter from Russia, the C-130J and C-17 transporters from the US and Pilatus PC-7 basic trainer from Switzerland. But doing so is not comparing apples with apples because the latter constituted direct imports. Additionally, Tejas uses indigenous technology.

Direct imports make the user eternally and massively dependent on the foreign supplier for spares and technical services, and when modifications, add-ons and upgrades over the 30- to 40-year lifetime of the aircraft have to be made. Financially, foreign suppliers jack up prices for both spares and service to exorbitant levels.

If an Indo-Pak war occurs or we conduct nuclear device tests, the Nato government of the foreign supplier will embargo all supplies of spares and technical services, thereby immobilising our imported weapon systems. Only Russia has never applied embargoes on us.

Another problem with direct import occurs if the foreign supplier phases out production of the supplied weapon system. It then cannot supply spares or technical services, so the weapon system becomes non-operational. This occurred with seven US-origin enemy artillery-location radars India imported in 2005. Consequently, all seven radars have been non-operational for the past six years and more.

A common uninformed allegation is that decades of defence ties with the Soviet Union have not helped "kick-start" our defence industry and that they have the character of a "patron-client" relationship. The contributions of such ties in building our defence industry have been so wide ranging and deep that they need a separate article to deal with them. Here, however, are some major examples: laying the foundation for the industrial capabilities and capacity for in-depth manufacture of fighter aircraft with the MiG-21 models FL, M and Bis from as far back as 1964 and the MiG-27 fighter-bomber from 1974. Taken together, these projects did, indeed, kick-start our defence aircraft industry by: (i) training a huge number of specialist engineers, technicians and skilled workers; (ii) building a large vendor population; and (iii) supplying highly specialised equipment and facilities to HAL to manufacture, test and prove the aircraft. The Soviet ties built our domestic technological and industrial capabilities so wel
l that our own engineers and technicians were able to upgrade the MiG-27 without any Russian assistance.

Further, the experience and expertise developed as a result of these defence ties played a major role in enabling HAL, DRDO, IAF and the Aeronautical Development Agency to D&D, engineer, flight test, and manufacture the Tejas LCA.

The ties also contributed to numerous other major weapon systems, such as the stealth frigates of the Navy and two generations of main battle tanks for the Army - the T-72 of the 1970s and the T-90 of the early 2000s.

Then there is the major case of the nuclear weapon-tipped ballistic missile firing nuclear submarine, Arihant, and the futuristic Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft now in progress. These are weapon systems no other country was, or is, willing to even discuss with us, let alone undertaking joint technology development as the Russians have.

The Russians have also provided us enormous technical assistance to overcome our design and engineering problems in successfully launching and targeting the critically important 3,500 km Agni-3 intermediate range, nuclear-tipped, strategic ballistic missile developed by DRDO. These few examples put paid to the allegation that Indo-Soviet/Russian defence ties were, and even now are, those of a "patron" vis-à-vis a "client". Would a "patron" help a so-called "client" overcome problems in a strategic missile developed by the "client"? Would the US be willing to even consider providing us such help?

[Victor]

^ That's a lengthy list of excuses for why, while we are just like NATO countries in defence production, for one reason or another we don't have our own major weapons systems and how all western suppliers will screw us unlike the Russians. Another DPSU sponsored hack job and I stopped reading after this:

France's sole and public sector aero-engine manufacturer, Snecma, which has been making military aero-engines for 30 years

He must think that the 70% ownership of its parent Safran by the public makes it a public sector company.

[Singha]

er, leaving aside snecma, a lot of french govt run labs are able to deliver cutting edge technology...not just in defence. so its the manner in which its run and the quality of people recruited that matters, not who owns it on paper. and they must still be having their 35 days PTO/annum and 40 hr work weeks but probably if someone works honestly and hard for 35 hrs a week thats more than enough to get things done.

[shiv]

On the general subject of how countries other than India make 100% indigenous products, I found an interesting (if dated) titbit in Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dy ... n_variants

The Soviet Union significantly reduced the export of titanium during the late 1970s, so the manufacturers of the F-16 used aluminum instead wherever practical

[vic]

Indian Defense Budget should be 4% of GDP and R&D Budget should be 20% thereof. On that principle the DRDO budget is only Rs. 10,000 crore when it should be Rs. 100,000 crores.

[Will]

er, leaving aside snecma, a lot of french govt run labs are able to deliver cutting edge technology...not just in defence. so its the manner in which its run and the quality of people recruited that matters, not who owns it on paper. and they must still be having their 35 days PTO/annum and 40 hr work weeks but probably if someone works honestly and hard for 35 hrs a week thats more than enough to get things done.

The problem with our public sector companies is the culture. Chai n biskoot 5 times a day. Breaks for shopping and family chores at least twice a day. Work that is actually to be done be damned

[fanne]

Boss we have enough public sector companies, we need some big players (we already have Tata, Mahindra and Reliance willing - they should be given equal footing) and small specialized players be encouraged - A group of 30 young hungry techeis just to do claw, maybe for SPIN recovery which team LCA cannot surmount, another group just for blade tech for jet turbines another one for just airborne radar, have 2-3 teams parallely working on the same issue. The R&D is not costly, the labs can be shared, production and whole 9 yards can still be centralized if short on funds.

[srin]

I wish that there were more private players too, but there are good reasons it isn't going to happen overnight.

The objective of private enterprise is maximize the shareholder value. If you look at some of the companies (Pipavav etc), you'll see that some or all of the below hold true:
a) They are in huge debt
b) They are not profitable
c) Their valuation is quite low - indicating that the market believes that money can be either productively invested elsewhere or returned to shareholders.

You do need large upfront investment and you pray that the MoD doesn't blacklist you because somebody wrote some letter to the ministry with some allegations.

And let us say that - to quote your example - two groups, Tata & Reliance offer to write CLAW for AMCA. Which one would the ADA accept and why ? How do they price it ? How do they do tenders ? And imagine doing this for each contract and hoping that nobody, not even the loser, complains.

And let us say that Pipavav wants to build submarines. Do they have the expertise ? Is an MoU with an OEM enough to show expertise ? How do you evaluate the capability to perform ?

There are good reasons why things are how they are.

[shiv]

Anyone know what stuff we have to get from Ukraine?

[Austin]

Anyone know what stuff we have to get from Ukraine?

An-32 Upgraded plus the Engine on P-15/15A/15B are from Ukraine.

[abhik]

Thought this was a nice and informative article:

Ashok Parthasarathi: Some myths about the Indian military-industrial complex

...Another problem with direct import occurs if the foreign supplier phases out production of the supplied weapon system. It then cannot supply spares or technical services, so the weapon system becomes non-operational. This occurred with seven US-origin enemy artillery-location radars India imported in 2005. Consequently, all seven radars have been non-operational for the past six years and more.

Is this true? find it a little hard to believe.

[Prem]

Challuna Balm Requirement Article

World’s Biggest Arms Importer, India Wants to Buy Local

NEW DELHI — Of the 30 countries that attended a defense exposition last month to sell weapons to India, the world’s largest arms importer, only the Russians had the chutzpah to dress up their tanks and guns with women in tightfitting camouflage.The confident and sexy display reflected Russia’s longtime position as India’s dominant military provider, but decades of effort by India to make its own hardware may finally be bearing fruit. India recently rolled out its own fighter jet, a tank, a mobile howitzer and a host of locally made ships.If India succeeds, the Russians could be in trouble. Russia has nearly $39 billion worth of military equipment on order by India, representing nearly a third of Russia’s total arms exports.India’s defense minister, A. K. Antony, said at a news conference during the exposition that the country’s reliance on foreign arms makers must end. “A growing India still depending on foreign companies for a substantial part of our defense needs is not a happy situation,” he said. Whether India can break its import addiction is anyone’s guess, but many arms analysts are skeptical. India is expected to spend about $11 billion this year buying weapons from abroad, despite decades of effort by the government to create a domestic military manufacturing sector.
“I don’t think there’s another country in the world that has tried as hard as India to make weapons and failed as thoroughly,” said Pieter D. Wezeman, a senior researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which studies global security.India’s main problem as an arms manufacturer is a corrupt and inefficient government sector that has neither the expertise to develop top-notch weapons nor the wherewithal to make them in abundance, said Manoj Joshi, a fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, a policy group based in New Delhi.
In one telling example, India could buy fully assembled Russian Sukhoi fighters for about $55 million each, but instead mostly relies on kits that are sent to the government-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, which assembles them at a cost of about $68 million each — nearly a quarter more. In another example, government labs spent billions trying to develop an aircraft engine, only to abandon the effort and buy engines from General Electric for the recently introduced fighter, the Tejas.“While it’s more complicated assembling Sukhois than putting together an Ikea flat-pack, it’s not that hard,” said Samuel Perlo-Freeman, a program director at the Stockholm institute. “And it’s far from an independent and autonomous development of a new weapons system.”. Mr. Antony dismissed criticisms of the government’s chokehold on arms production. “Indian scientists and Indian industry are more efficient, and the government will have to support them,” he said.
Continue reading the main story But Mr. Joshi said India’s government needed to get out of manufacturing. “Our defense industrial base is hopelessly out of date,” he said. “It needs to be dismantled and handed over to the private sector.”That has left the door open for countries like Russia, whose arms deliveries to India reached a record level in 2012, the most recent year for which figures are available, rising 50 percent from 2011. In the previous five years, India bought 12 percent of the world’s arms imports, and Russia accounted for 79 percent of India’s deliveries, according to the Stockholm institute. American manufacturers have recently won several orders for transport and maritime patrol aircraft, displacing some Russian equipment, but the Russians are still by far India’s dominant arms supplier. In 2012, Russia delivered to India the second nuclear-powered submarine ever exported by any country.
Because of poor infrastructure, stultifying labor rules and difficulties acquiring real estate, making anything in India is hard. The country’s manufacturing sector is declining and now represents 13 percent of the total economy — about the same share as in the United States.But its military and civil aviation markets are so enticing that major manufacturers are opening facilities in the country anyway. In 2010, Sikorsky Aircraft, part of the American conglomerate United Technologies, opened a plant in Hyderabad that it operates jointly with Tata Advanced Systems. The facility assembles the cabin for its midsize helicopter, the S-92. The helicopter’s cabin was previously made at a Mitsubishi facility in Japan.
Production was transferred to India not because costs were lower (surprisingly, they were not), but because having a local facility might encourage sales in India, said Ashish Saraf, program manager for the Tata-Sikorsky joint venture, of which Sikorsky owns 26 percent.
But the challenges have been immense. New roads had to be built to the venture’s 11-acre site, and they came slowly. The company had to build its own facilities to treat water, handle sewage and harvest rainwater. It eventually got power from the state but operated initially from six backup generators, which must be kept operational for occasional power cuts.Employees needed considerable training in aerospace manufacturing and in the early days often left for higher-paying jobs as soon as their training was complete. “Our talent got poached all the time,” Mr. Saraf said. So in addition to expensive training, the company had to undertake an employee retention program.
Shipping has been a challenge. Some of the Tata-Sikorsky plant’s most important equipment was damaged on the trip from the port in Mumbai by India’s terrible roads, delaying production. The plant sends its helicopter cabins back to the port; from there, they are shipped to Pennsylvania, where the aircraft are fully assembled. To safeguard against damage to the cabins, the company has hired the operator of a fleet of specially made suspension trucks that travel more slowly, at less than 30 miles an hour, and never at night. As a result, the 450-mile journey takes five days. At least two people are needed for each journey, since one must repeatedly get out with a long stick to push low-slung electrical wires up and out of the way of the truck.
To encourage local manufacturing, India now requires private foreign arms companies to undertake at least a third of their manufacturing in India, as measured by the value of the weapons. But because of the difficulties in making high-technology equipment in India, billions of dollars’ worth of products from these so-called offsets have been piling up unused.“We are at a watershed moment, because we cannot afford to keep importing every piece of equipment we need,” Mr. Shukla said. “We have just produced a fighter, a tank and a range of warships. For the first time, India can realistically indigenize.”Much of India’s military, in any case, does not want Indian-made equipment. So many Russian fighters assembled by Hindustan Aeronautics have crashed in recent years that the Indian Air Force calls them flying coffins. India’s Russian-made submarines and naval equipment have experienced deadly mishaps in the past year as well, leading the country’s naval chief to resign last week. The distrust between the civilian builders and military users has turned the made-in-India effort into an even tougher sell. If the two sides cannot agree, the Russians are ready to step in.“You cannot blame the Russians for taking advantage of the situation,” Mr. Shukla said.

[NRao]

Singapore buys A330 air tankers, India in talks -Airbus

PARIS, March 7 (Reuters) - Airbus Defence and Space said on Friday that it will supply six A330 MRTT refuelling jets to Singapore's air force and that India was close to ordering another half dozen.

The deal brings the total number of converted Airbus jetliners sold as tankers to 34 worldwide after Australia, Britain, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates previously placed orders.

India was in the "final stages of contractual negotiations for six aircraft," the company, a subsidiary of Airbus Group NV , said in a statement.

Airbus Group Chief Executive Officer Tom Enders told reporters in Washington that the Singapore order underscored the appeal of the MRTT tanker, although he acknowledged that the orders were far smaller than the 179 planes ordered by the U.S. Air Force from Boeing Co after a prolonged series of competitions.

Singapore was also assessing the Boeing 767-based KC-46A tanker being built for the U.S. Air Force.

Boeing said it was disappointed by the news, but remained committed to its longstanding relationship with Singapore.

Boeing said it would also continue to vy for tanker orders elsewhere, including South Korea, which is expected to launch a formal competition in coming months.

"We continue to see strong interest in the KC-46A from nations looking to modernize their aerial refueling capabilities," said Boeing spokesman Jerry Drelling.

Singapore's decision to buy the six Airbus tankers to replace its fleet of four Boeing KC-135 tankers gives it a vehicle that can refuel both its F-15s and a possible purchase of Lockheed Martin F-35s.

The Airbus purchase means Singapore could transport aircraft that can carry around 300 passengers. That would be useful for the Singapore Armed Forces, which conducts training in Australia and Taiwan.

Singapore-based maintenance and repair firm ST Aerospace, a unit of Singapore Technologies Engineering Ltd, was expected to be selected to make the modifications on the A330 MRTT for the country.

[Brando]

Challuna Balm Requirement Article

World’s Biggest Arms Importer, India Wants to Buy Local

........
In one telling example, India could buy fully assembled Russian Sukhoi fighters for about $55 million each, but instead mostly relies on kits that are sent to the government-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, which assembles them at a cost of about $68 million each — nearly a quarter more. In another example, government labs spent billions trying to develop an aircraft engine, only to abandon the effort and buy engines from General Electric for the recently introduced fighter, the Tejas.“While it’s more complicated assembling Sukhois than putting together an Ikea flat-pack, it’s not that hard,” said Samuel Perlo-Freeman, a program director at the Stockholm institute. “And it’s far from an independent and autonomous development of a new weapons system.”. Mr. Antony dismissed criticisms of the government’s chokehold on arms production. “Indian scientists and Indian industry are more efficient, and the government will have to support them,” he said.
...........

Typical garbage from lazy Western journalist too dumb to even use Google to check up on his facts. (Gardiner Harris is singularly responsible for NYTs obtuse and plain erroneous coverage about India).

Since when did the government spend "billions" on the Kaveri program ?

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ld-369811/
The cost of developing the Kaveri was revised to Indian rupees (Rs) 28.39 billion ($560 million) in 2009, up from the original estimate of Rs3.83 billion allocated to the project in 1996, says Indian minister of defence A K Antony in a written reply to a question in parliament.
Costs involving the Tejas Mk II have nearly doubled to Rs57.77 billion from an expected Rs33.02 billion, while costs involving the naval Tejas have risen to Rs17.5 billion from Rs9.48 billion.

Apparently the NYT editors and journalists are too lazy or too stupid to do simple fact checking even through Google before they put their foot in their mouths. The sad part is nobody in the Indian press rips their shoddy articles apart and shows them their place. Instead our TOIlet rag and others eagerly reprint such rubbish without comment.

Further, the Sukhoi-30MKI being built at HAL is FAR more than some CKD kits that Mercedes or BMW assemble in India, HAL manufactures a lot of components from the ground up. And of course this doesn't even take into account the Tejas program and assembly that produces significant portions of the aircraft from base metals onwards in India itself. Not to mention all the other upgrade programs that HAL carries out with the Jaguar, Mig-27 etc aircraft that are indigenous.

[Karan M]

The so called SIPRI researchers are also a joke.. what a bunch of morons...India spends the least on R&d amongst all its peers and it has billions of $ of its local items in production. One can judge the quality of their analysis.

[tushar_m]

India To Seek Home-built Replacement for Air Defense Guns

NEW DELHI — The Indian Army will replace its aging Swedish-built 40mm L/70 air defense guns with weapons from domestic companies, a Defence Ministry source said, after the cancellation of a global tender floated last year that failed to elicit any response from overseas defense companies.

The MoD decided this month to float a $400 million domestic-only tender, the source said, to purchase 430 gun systems to replace the four-decade-old L/70 guns.

The 2013 tender was submitted to Israel Aerospace Industries, Thales, Bumar, Rosoboronexport and BAE Systems. While no executive from the overseas defense companies would respond, an MoD source said the companies did not respond to the tender because they found the program uneconomical.

An executive with private Indian firm Larsen & Toubro (L&T) said it would tie up with overseas defense companies to compete for the tender.

The tender, expected to be issued in three months, will go to state-owned Bharat Electronics Ltd. (BEL) and the Ordnance Factory Board, and to private-sector companies Tata Power SED, L&T, Punj Lloyd and Bharat Forge.

The new L/70 guns, which will be bought from local companies along with ammunition, will be used to protect areas of tactical importance in the mountains, plains, desert and semi-desert terrain.

The guns will be towed or mounted on a high-mobility vehicle, an Indian Army official said.

The new guns will be linked to advanced fire-control radars to automatically lock on to the target and signal the fire. The Army requires that the guns have the ability to engage air targets at a range of at least 4,000 meters and be capable of firing 1,000 rounds per minute.

The Army operates about 2,000 L/70s, bought in the 1960s from Sweden, and upgraded in 1995 by BEL by adding a digital fire-control system. The gun’s rate of fire was increased from 240 to 300 rounds per minute by the state-owned Defence Research and Development Organisation.

The Army has been pressing since 1997 for a full upgrade of the L/70s, including the addition of advanced radars, upgraded night-vision devices and the use of smart ammunition.

[vic]

DRDO made almost 10 different designs of indigenous AD gun but Army changed the requirements completely 9 times in 15 years. It seems that a European manufacturer who is now blacklisted was pushing its revolver AD gun to the Army. But Army brass is absolutely honest and it is mere coincidence that they could not decide the weight, design, caliber, rate of fire of AD gun over 20 years and 10 completely different designs had to be made till DRDO gave up on the plea that they don't know what Army wants.

[pragnya]

India To Seek Home-built Replacement for Air Defense Guns

The Army has been pressing since 1997 for a full upgrade of the L/70s, including the addition of advanced radars, upgraded night-vision devices and the use of smart ammunition.

TATA offers such an upgrade.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5E7zyUnOIrY/U ... C01110.JPG

[vic]

Private sector is just being used as a conduit for imports. One has to allocate time and money for R&D to Pvt Sector to develop indigenous products. Screwdrivergiri whether by DPSU or OFB or Pvt Sector is useless.

[kmkraoind]

Private sector is just being used as a conduit for imports. One has to allocate time and money for R&D to Pvt Sector to develop indigenous products. Screwdrivergiri whether by DPSU or OFB or Pvt Sector is useless.

If Private industry feel they have captive markets and with little govt support, like tax incentives for R&D, Indian MIC can grow. May be at first they will start importing the stuff, but once they realize earning potential, then they will create Indian versions (either by innovating or stealing designs). Tatas have started their Telco business with assembly of Benz trucks, see now where there are. I think even L&T is building nuclear submarine hulls somewhat on their own. Have some faith on Indian brains and entrepreneural skills of Indians. Just try them once, we will loose nothing in trying.

[krishnan]

you are getting it wrong, pvt players more than PSU will try to get maximum profits , import from china and others as much as possible and put a made in india stamp. Maybe they might go and buy some foreign companies and use them to get the job done

[raj.devan]

There are checks and balances against such things (procuring components from unapproved sources). If these systems work fine when dealing with foreign private players who also have a profit motive.

For instance the deal for the Rafale is with a private French company (Dassault). But the way every last component is specified, it's not like Dassault is slipping through a few Chinese parts.

[vic]

DRDO should tie up with Pvt Sector and market their design through them, soon Army brass will be happy to provide a level playing field for Indian products too, if you know what I mean.

[Kersi D]

you are getting it wrong, pvt players more than PSU will try to get maximum profits

TRUE. But they may deliver on time and with a fixed cost. Pvt cos. profits may be more but they may be more efficient. All are PSUs are bloated with un productive manpower. I am sure Pvt Cos will use lesser number of labour. Of course there will be teething problems

But we have to start somewhere