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

[Viv S]

Not strictly related to R&D but one has to ask - what the hell is Manu Pubby's problem?

Bharat Forge predicted collaboration on air defence guns to German company Rheinmetall before DAC meeting

By Manu Pubby, ET Bureau | 3 Aug, 2015

NEW DELHI: More than a week before a high-powered defence ministry committee, whose agenda and minutes are always kept secret, decided to clear a Rs 16,000-crore project, Bharat Forge wrote to a blacklisted German arms manufacturer, Rheinmetall, accurately predicting what the committee would clear and exploring collaboration possibilities with the German company.

ET has reviewed the relevant documents and they show that a Bharat Forge senior executive wrote to Dusseldorf-head quartered Rheinmetall on July 6, while the Defence Acquisition Committee (DAC) met on July 14. That July 14 meeting, ET has learnt, cleared the procurement of state-of-the-art air defence guns, with an estimated project size of Rs 16,000 crore.

The July 6 email from Bharat Forge's Associate Vice-President-Defence, Col GNM Rao (retd), read: "I would like to update you that the procurement proposal for procurement of air defence guns under 'buy and make (Indian)' category is being fielded in defence acquisition counsel (sic) during this month for approval. The approval by DAC is likely to come through as lower committees already recommended the proposal. Considering that the proposal is approved in July 15, it is likely that the RFP (request for proposal) will be issued by Nov/Dec 15." "It is time for us to decide on way ahead and discuss a plan to participate in the programme. Request you to suggest an action plan," the email also noted.

When approached for a comment by ET, Bharat Forge said in a written reply: "As a group, we have written to number of technology providers for this program and will tie-up with the most suitable one and one who is approved by Indian MoD for the programme."



When asked by ET, how its executive had foreseen the decision of the DAC, which was to meet a week later, the Bharat Forge spokesperson said, referring to the reply quoted above: "Same as above, we are in touch with number of technology providers seeking an action plan."

Defence ministry officials told ET that any questions on this matter will be taken up at later stages of the procurement process and that they didn't wish to comment now.

The DAC is a high-powered panel led by the defence minister that takes a call on all major procurement plans. Typically, the three armed forces make a pitch for their procurements at DAC meetings that take place once every month or two. The agenda is drawn a few days in advance and is not circulated generally.

ET has learnt that the July 14 DAC meeting did have the air defence gun on its agenda and the decision was taken that the Army should go ahead with the procurement and that Indian companies should be invited to submit bids. The meeting had started on 4 pm that day and had lasted close to three hours. The Army has for long been trying to acquire a new air defence gun. It currently relies on 1960s technology — the L70/ZU 33 guns. Earlier, efforts to get a modern gun from Rheinmetall in partnership with the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) went nowhere after the European company was accused of corruption in the course of a CBI probe into the OFB. The company got into further trouble when its name also figured in a CBI investigation into arms dealer and lobbyist Abhishek Verma. Rheinmetall did not respond to ET's questions.

The dilemma for the Army has been that Rheinmetall's gun is most suited for its purpose. Currently, the procurement process has been initiated by inviting Indian bidders who will look for foreign collaborators. Bharat Forge, Punj Lloyd and L&T are expected to be lead contenders.

[Nitesh]

Guru log, so Nag will come with which seeker? MMW or IIR

[chetak]

^^ That part is true, this "sources said" stuff can be very iffy. If I may, Huma Siddiqui though was a BRF member and definitely not one of the paid media cabal that has run amuck in many newspapers/media. Might be the sources played fast and loose.

Question is whether HAL was late or whether HALs work was bad. Given HAL can make large components for ISRO, whose quality standards are pretty high, navigation systems for Brahmos (failure unacceptable), the comment attributed to Boeing seems a tad fishy.

ISRO has positioned in house and resident inspectors even in private companies where ever their substantial work is going on. I have personally seen this in many companies ,making components for ISRO. They are involved in the process and also stage inspections. Without clearance, no contractor can even proceed to the next stage.

[Austin]

Guru log, so Nag will come with which seeker? MMW or IIR

IIR for now , it seems they dumped MMW seeker for nag but the FCR will be MMW

[chetak]

Not strictly related to R&D but one has to ask - what the hell is Manu Pubby's problem?

Bharat Forge predicted collaboration on air defence guns to German company Rheinmetall before DAC meeting

By Manu Pubby, ET Bureau | 3 Aug, 2015

NEW DELHI: More than a week before a high-powered defence ministry committee, whose agenda and minutes are always kept secret, decided to clear a Rs 16,000-crore project, Bharat Forge wrote to a blacklisted German arms manufacturer, Rheinmetall, accurately predicting what the committee would clear and exploring collaboration possibilities with the German company.

ET has reviewed the relevant documents and they show that a Bharat Forge senior executive wrote to Dusseldorf-head quartered Rheinmetall on July 6, while the Defence Acquisition Committee (DAC) met on July 14. That July 14 meeting, ET has learnt, cleared the procurement of state-of-the-art air defence guns, with an estimated project size of Rs 16,000 crore.

The July 6 email from Bharat Forge's Associate Vice-President-Defence, Col GNM Rao (retd), read: "I would like to update you that the procurement proposal for procurement of air defence guns under 'buy and make (Indian)' category is being fielded in defence acquisition counsel (sic) during this month for approval. The approval by DAC is likely to come through as lower committees already recommended the proposal. Considering that the proposal is approved in July 15, it is likely that the RFP (request for proposal) will be issued by Nov/Dec 15." "It is time for us to decide on way ahead and discuss a plan to participate in the programme. Request you to suggest an action plan," the email also noted.

When approached for a comment by ET, Bharat Forge said in a written reply: "As a group, we have written to number of technology providers for this program and will tie-up with the most suitable one and one who is approved by Indian MoD for the programme."



When asked by ET, how its executive had foreseen the decision of the DAC, which was to meet a week later, the Bharat Forge spokesperson said, referring to the reply quoted above: "Same as above, we are in touch with number of technology providers seeking an action plan."

Defence ministry officials told ET that any questions on this matter will be taken up at later stages of the procurement process and that they didn't wish to comment now.

The DAC is a high-powered panel led by the defence minister that takes a call on all major procurement plans. Typically, the three armed forces make a pitch for their procurements at DAC meetings that take place once every month or two. The agenda is drawn a few days in advance and is not circulated generally.

ET has learnt that the July 14 DAC meeting did have the air defence gun on its agenda and the decision was taken that the Army should go ahead with the procurement and that Indian companies should be invited to submit bids. The meeting had started on 4 pm that day and had lasted close to three hours. The Army has for long been trying to acquire a new air defence gun. It currently relies on 1960s technology — the L70/ZU 33 guns. Earlier, efforts to get a modern gun from Rheinmetall in partnership with the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) went nowhere after the European company was accused of corruption in the course of a CBI probe into the OFB. The company got into further trouble when its name also figured in a CBI investigation into arms dealer and lobbyist Abhishek Verma. Rheinmetall did not respond to ET's questions.

The dilemma for the Army has been that Rheinmetall's gun is most suited for its purpose. Currently, the procurement process has been initiated by inviting Indian bidders who will look for foreign collaborators. Bharat Forge, Punj Lloyd and L&T are expected to be lead contenders.

This seems a good and slick way for rhinemetall to sneak into the Indian gun market.

[Karan M]

There is nothing shady or wrong in what Bharat Forge has done. That is simply Manu Pubby's pathetic attempt to rake muck. They said its "likely" it will be cleared which is entirely reasonable and akin to conjecture.
Next, its a good thing for India if Rheinmetall is in the Indian market. They are a worldclass company and with Bharat Forge, if they get into munitions, have the capability to address many of our most basic and important needs which OFBs shoddy production simply doesn;t match. Bharat Forge can effectively do this work for India. Rheinmetall in Poland took over & salvaged FSAPDS production, which similar to our Israeli experience didn't work out between the Poles and Israelis. Point being what they offer usually works.

[jayasimha]

It might be slightly OT. But I would like to post some material related to Indian Telecom industry which covers both PSU and Private which was catering to both civil and military. One person who strived in this area is Padma Bhushan Shri. SAM Pitroda. In my opinion, he is one of the stalwarts like Dr. Kalam who worked in his area ( telecom ) but missed the bus to fame and glory.
You can read all about above mentioned subjects in the article:
Development, Democracy, and the Village Telephone by Sam Pitroda in harvard business review.
I am sure no eyes with desi heart wll be dry after reading.
Many of us were inspired by his article when it was published and entered in to telecom industry. That was the time when every other industry bigwigs who were in paint, pharma, textiles, hotels etc.. jumped in to telecom “revolution”. CDoT ( public sector) was deigning eqpt and private industry use to manufacture it to the DoT based on the healthy tender system at competitive costs. 40 to 60 % components were Imported depending upon the products. I believe ( correct me if I am wrong) CDoT had designed and India was deploying electronic exchanges and digital transmission epts ( both Microwave and fiber optic ) when cheen was not even manufacturing transistorized radio….
In its natural growth, it would have become another great industry and Sh. SAM pitroda would have become another Dr. Kalam.
But ………Alas then came madam’s party to power and mantri sookh rom.
Mantriji use to attend high power ITU conference in svitserland. Specifications were changed overnight to suit pirngi maal and tender were called. CDoT product were immediately “Not qualified” to participate in the tender. Obviously it does not take brains to sink a ship that too home made…
You can assume similar story for design/ supply of telecom eqpt to defence.
Then came private telecom industry in the form of mobile license, international and national long distance telephony, land line services and internet. Now we import anything to everything from outside.. The same DoT People (who later moved to BSNL) who ditched the CDot long ago are rubbing their wounds with mirchi and salt.
Based on the above I have some points to air:
==>It was PM Indira Gandhi who initiated both missiles ( through Dr. Kalam ) amd Telecom ( Through SAM). Obviously one succeeded. The readers can give list of reasons..
==>Good or bad, Mantriji defines everything. Babus are given a choice to align to mantri wish or not. The treatment will be depending upon the alignment. The same will peculate down in PSU.
==>We cannot design and manufacture EVERYTHING like US nor import EVERYTHING like Gulf countries. Our place is some where in between depending on the product/ technology / cost/ availability etc.etc…
==>Public sectors have to/ will enter the area where no private industry want to venture out first. But later private industry can enter / should be allowed / should not be blocked to enter the field if they acquire that potential. Cost or reward or risk suitably shared.

[Viv S]

Building an infantry combat vehicle



By Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 4th Aug 15

Incompetence dogs the defence ministry’s plan to harness Indian defence companies to develop a “future infantry combat vehicle” (FICV) --- an armoured battle-taxi for the infantry to keep pace with tanks. The ministry started out well by deciding to buy the FICV in the “Make” category of the defence procurement procedure, under which Indian companies are funded to develop “high technology, complex systems”. In this case, two vendors were to design and develop separate FICVs, with the defence ministry reimbursing 80 per cent of their costs. The better one would be mass-produced to replace the army’s 2,600 BMP-2 vehicles that are now obsolescent.

A fine plan, but the ministry has failed twice in evolving a model for selecting the two “development agencies” (DAs), the vendor consortia who will compete to build the FICV. In 2012, the defence ministry cancelled the Expression of Interest (EoI) it had issued two years earlier to four vendors --- Larsen & Toubro, Tata, Mahindra and the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB). The reason: after the companies submitted their strategies and plans, a defence ministry official observed that the EoI had omitted to specify the methodology for deciding the two winners. Anticipating that the losing vendors might approach the courts, the ministry scuppered the EoI and started afresh.

It took another three years to formulate selection criteria and issue a fresh EoI, but the ministry finally managed it on July 16. As this newspaper reported (July 17, “After 5-year delay, tender issued in Rs 50,000-cr Future Infantry Combat Vehicle project”) EoIs were issued to ten Indian companies --- Mahindra; Bharat Forge; L&T; Punj Lloyd; Tata Power; Tata Motors; Pipavav Defence; Rolta India; Titagarh Wagons, and the OFB. They have been asked to build a tracked vehicle that would carry a crew of three and also eight combat-kitted infantrymen. While the FICV’s weight is not specified, it must be amphibious and so can be no heavier than 18-20 tonnes. It must be air-portable in the air force’s IL-76 and C-17 aircraft. Finally, it must fire anti-tank guided missiles out to ranges beyond 4,000 metres.

While this is not an insurmountable technological challenge, there remain lacunae in the evaluation methodology that the EoI lays out for selecting the two DAs. There is insufficient incentive to indigenise, which should be the primary objective in a “Make” project. And the ministry’s unfailing urge to support the OFB has resulted in skewing the evaluation criteria to favour large companies with enormous installed capacities, rather than lean organisations oriented towards high-tech innovation.

The EoI specifies that vendor responses will be graded in four categories, each having a certain weightage. These four criteria are: commercial assessment (26.08 per cent); technical capability assessment (34.24 per cent); critical technology assessment (31.37 per cent), and technical specification assessment (08.31 per cent). To answer the perfectly legitimate question of how each criterion was allocated such pinpoint weightage, the ministry declares that these were “arrived at by using a complex method called the Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) model.”

Beyond the jargon, we learn the best vendor response in each category will be allocated full marks, with the rest scoring lower in proportion to the merit of their bids. A Business Standard analysis, however, finds problems in the grading process.

Take the first parameter, the “commercial assessment”, with a weightage of 26.08 per cent. In this, the defence ministry has asked for four parameters: the company’s/consortium’s annual turnover, profit after tax, net worth and fixed assets. There seems little reason to set so much store by company size, especially since the defence ministry gave this zero weightage in the “Make” category EoI for the Tactical Communications System (TCS); and only 10 per cent weightage in the EoI for the Battlefield Management System (BMS). In the FICV EoI, it might seem as if L&T would score highest in this segment, but the defence ministry has shielded its wayward child, the OFB, by mandating that the ministry would mark the OFB in this segment at its own discretion. Meanwhile, Tata Motors, which should logically be a strong candidate for building an FICV, will score poorly here due to its large loss last year. This might make other companies --- including group company, Tata Power --- reluctant to join a Tata Motors consortium.

The second evaluation criterion is “technical capability assessment” with 34.24 per cent weightage. This evaluates the R&D capability of a company/consortium across its entire spectrum of activity. In the TCS and BMS evaluations, credit was given only for R&D capabilities in areas directly related to the project. Now, broad-based credit would allow Tata Motors and Mahindra to benefit from R&D in their small car projects, even if that has little “carry-over” to building an FICV. Similarly, L&T would benefit from R&D expenditure in L&T Infotech. Meanwhile smaller companies with higher R&D spends in percentage terms might lose out because their absolute R&D spends are lower.

In this same category, the EoI favours vendors with large fixed capacities in brick-and-mortar manufacturing. It asks for minute details of bending and cutting machines installed, while no credit is given for electronics and system integration capabilities. Here again, the OFB stands to benefit as a vertically integrated organisation with large capacities installed at taxpayer’s expense. Says a private sector chief executive: “I may wish to outsource a range of machining activities, while retaining high-tech design and electronics for myself. Why should an EoI discriminate against such a business model? In a project that is going into a development phase, why is the defence ministry looking for production facilities?”

The third evaluation criterion is “critical technology assessment”, with a weightage of 31.37 per cent. It requires companies/consortia to offer as many “core technologies” and “critical technologies” as possible, specifying some 40 technologies, of which almost half relate to engines and transmissions. Vendors need not develop technology. Credit can be obtained simply by signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with a foreign technology partner, who undertakes to provide the rights and licences for manufacturing a specified product in India. Since a foreign vendor can provide MoUs to multiple Indian companies, theoretically all ten FICV bidders could submit an MoU from the same foreign vendor.

The fourth and last criterion of “technical specification assessment” carries a tiny weightage of 8.31 per cent. This involves proposing specifications for the FICV. With the ministry specifying some capabilities and demanding certain technologies, this assessment largely writes itself.

A betting man could make good money on the outcome of this EoI. It is structured to ensure that the OFB emerges as one DA. The second will most likely be L&T, with its size, installed capacities and engineering capability. The gamble really centres on what consortia these two will assemble. The OFB would probably tie up with Russia’s Kurganmashzavod, which it has earlier partnered in building the BMP-2 in Medak. Its other likely partner would be Bharat Forge, which has a tie-up with Israeli electronics firm, Rafael, which would supply the FICVs missile, night vision and sighting systems and active protection systems. This consortium’s offer will essentially be another Russian vehicle with Israeli electronics.

The other likely DA, L&T, could partner Tata Power (Strategic Engineering Division); a tried and tested consortium that has emerged tops in the first two “Make” projects. This consortium might also suck in BAE Systems, which had earlier tied up with Mahindra, a partnership that came unravelled.

But, first, to make a good choice, the defence ministry needs to get its evaluation criteria in order.

=============================

Graphic: Criteria for comparing vendors in TCS, BMS and FICV projects:

[VinodTK]

Reliance Group plans $1bn aerospace park

MUMBAI: The Anil Ambani-owned Reliance Group has selected Mihan near Nagpur in Maharashtra for developing India's first smart city for the defence sector. Known as Dhirubhai Ambani Aerospace Park (DAAP), the smart city will be developed at a cost of $1 billion to manufacture helicopters for both commercial and military applications.

The project would be the first integrated facility in aerospace structure, engine design and manufacture, fabrication and platform integration in the country.

The move is part of the Reliance Group's aggressive play in defence, seeking to capture a slice of the $100 billion worth of opportunities that the sector would soon throw up as part of the NDA government's 'Make in India' programme to focus on indigenous manufacturing of defence equipment.

Confirming the move, Reliance Group chairman Anil Ambani said, "The group plans to develop DAAP as a centre of excellence in the aerospace segment on the lines of the global centre of ship building at Pipavav in Gujarat." Earlier this year, the Reliance Group added heft in its defence manufacturing by buying out Nikhil Gandhi-promoted Pipavav Defence and Offshore Engineering (PDOE), which houses India's largest dry dock facility to build warships. It subsequently committed investments of Rs 5,000 crore towards indigenization efforts.

Company officials told TOI that Mihan was selected after negotiating with the governments of Maharashtra, UP, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan for land for the project.

DAAP may draw some influences from Aerospace Valley in France, a cluster of aerospace companies and research centres concentrated around Toulouse. About 500 companies - including Airbus, EADS, Air France Industries and Dassault Aviation - operate in the cluster, creating jobs for around 1.2 lakh people.

The aerospace park, comprising a cluster of manufacturers, will indigenously produce and deliver major aircraft components and spares and cater to the avionics requirements of the aerospace industry and will generate direct employment for over 2,000 people in the skilled category. Besides, it would also provide for 10,000 indirect jobs.

Reliance Defence & Aerospace (RDA), a Reliance Group company, has shown interest for the tenders of providing 387 Army reconnaissance and surveillance helicopters and 100 Naval utility helicopters, estimated to be valued at Rs 25,000 crore. It is also in talks with a few potential partners for a tie-up.

Sikorsky, Eurocopter and Kamov are some of the top helicopter manufacturers said to be in talks for a tie-up but Reliance officials refused to comment on potential technology partners, citing non-disclosure agreements signed with them.

DAAP will not only create indigenous capabilities but will also add to skill development in the core aviation industry as it is pursuing opportunities to meet home-grown solutions for the defence sector as the company plans to include fully integrated solutions starting from sub-assemblies to completed platforms with an ability for maintenance, repairs and overhaul (MRO) for the life cycle of platforms, said sources in the know, adding that the group is in discussion with various OEMs for supporting its growth strategy.

The Narendra Modi government has redesigned its military procurement programme under the 'Make in India' initiative and has also allowed a 49% FDI in defence to promote local manufacturing as well as to aid the much needed technology transfer. The buy and make (India) scheme, under which these tenders will be issued, requires an Indian company to bid after tying up with a technology provider. It seeks to establish the required defence industrial base in the country to gradually move away from being the world's largest importer of defence hardware.

[srai]

Some good posts on G Harindra Kumar's blog "Arthashastra - Indian Defense & Space".

DRDO looks back on Year 2014

Major Achievements of ISRO Year Ended 2014

India's Space Shuttle

India's Missile Armory

[somnath]

It might be slightly OT. But I would like to post some material related to Indian Telecom industry which covers both PSU and Private which was catering to both civil and military. One person who strived in this area is Padma Bhushan Shri. SAM Pitroda.

C-DOT is yet another instance of national missions not concentrating on setting up institutions, but running on individual brilliance (and contacts). When it was set up, the mandate of C-DOT was to develop indigeneous digital exchanges, which it did a good job of, under Sam Pitroda. But C-DOT remained an adjunct to a govt department, with no institutional framework. Once Sam Pitroda left (after Rajiv Gandhi lost power), the political backing was gone. C-DOT languished like any other govt department. Ina few years, fibre optics and mobile technologies overtook the landline exchange. C-DOT was nowhere in the picture by then.

[vaibhav.n]

There is nothing shady or wrong in what Bharat Forge has done. That is simply Manu Pubby's pathetic attempt to rake muck. They said its "likely" it will be cleared which is entirely reasonable and akin to conjecture.

He is known roosi hack......writes for their publications and regularly attends summers at cooler climes.....only other competition is the russian system if they ask for a truck mounted capability.

[abhik]

FICV looks like a screwdrivergiri replacement for something that could have been very easily developed in India.

[Hobbes]

It might be slightly OT. But I would like to post some material related to Indian Telecom industry which covers both PSU and Private which was catering to both civil and military. One person who strived in this area is Padma Bhushan Shri. SAM Pitroda.

C-DOT is yet another instance of national missions not concentrating on setting up institutions, but running on individual brilliance (and contacts). When it was set up, the mandate of C-DOT was to develop indigeneous digital exchanges, which it did a good job of, under Sam Pitroda. But C-DOT remained an adjunct to a govt department, with no institutional framework. Once Sam Pitroda left (after Rajiv Gandhi lost power), the political backing was gone. C-DOT languished like any other govt department. Ina few years, fibre optics and mobile technologies overtook the landline exchange. C-DOT was nowhere in the picture by then.

C-DOT was Rajiv Gandhi's brainchild, and one of the initial steps taken by the GoI towards liberalization. The initial project charter called for an investment of Rs.36 crores over a 3 year time frame to realize the first indigenous digital phone switch. Till then the Indian telecom equipment manufacturing monopoly was with Indian telephone Industries (ITI) an underperforming PSU. The problem that Sam asked C-DOT to address specifically in their de novo design was the use case peculiar to India, of a very high BHCA (Busy Hour Call Attempt) count, which the imported Alcatel and Siemens exchanges were not designed to deal with. The other issue C-DOT was to address was that of low maintenance, as the imported switches were prone to break down frequently under the tender loving care of the MTNL and DoT techs as also the poor infrastructure in most Indian exchanges including dust ingress, shoddy cabling and frequent failure of air conditioning systems.

C-DOT ended up solving the problem very well. Their MAX switch, from what I've heard and read, worked extremely well after a couple of false tries. Their RAX (Rural Automatic Exchange) was a roaring success as it would continue to plug away year after year in primitive conditions in the small towns and villages where it was installed.

However (shades of the Arjun) - C-DOT had its fair share and more of detractors in the Ministry of Telecommunications as well as ITI and MTNL. The problem as always was money related; the desi C-DOT did not provide the fat commissions the foreign telecom manufacturers did, and the prize at stake was huge; no less than a refresh of the entire Indian telecom infrastructure. Things became really bad once Rajiv Gandhi, Sam's patron, fell from power. The successor Government of VP Singh appointed K. P. Unnikrishnan as Minister for Telecommunications. Unnikrishnan was a corrupt party hack and a front man for the foreign telecom equipment lobby who loudly and publicly stated his dislike of C-DOT on every available occasion, and ended up nearly destroying it in the 18 months or so that his Government clung to office. After that, it was all downhill for C-DOT, and Alcatel ruled the Indian phone world.

I've always believed that if the Government of the day had supported C-DOT the way they should have (and which would have happened in any other reasonably sensible country) India would have had a world beating telecom industry. Instead what happened was that ITI ended up producing both the C-DOT MAX as well as the Alcatel E-10B switches, and no prizes for guessing which one won.

[somnath]

^^^Largely agree. But the fundamental issue was that C-DOT remained without an instittuional basis. It wasnt a company that would have going concern commercial objectives, it wasnt a research lab that would (under suitable guidance) keep innovating for the next level. It is symptomatic of the ad hocism rampant in government - another similar "idea" was ADA.

By the early '90s, it was anyways evident that wireless is the next generation (the first mobile telco licenses were given out in 1993/94), and landline phones had limited future. C-Dot failed to graduate to the next level

[ramana]

somnath welcome back.

Are you still in Lion city

[somnath]

Thanks! In Mumbai now...

[jayasimha]

^^^
C-DoT had plans to develop mobile telephony. they were ahead of the curve. As pointed by Hobbes KP Unni and Sookh ram both went on over drive and destroyed with personal attacks and rigged tenders by DoT. Phirangi maal specs became DoT specs overnight..


under PVN when India finance was in bad shape and borrowing money, I think India signed a agreement where it had to privatize the telecom services. Under obligation that's when they issued license for Mobile telephones. Not out of economic foresight. Please read the SAM pitroda article. Politicians never wanted to spread telecom where people interacted freely. They never imagined that pvt. mobile service will send them ( BSNL) to some corner one day. No matter how high they were ( Monopoly, Govt department protection etc..) , decision made out of corruption sent them to hell.


When ever I see arguments of Army(DRDO, Arjun) & IAF(ADA, Tejas) it reminds of same saga I have seen regarding DoT( C_DoT eqpt) 20 years ago.

My only hope is modi_parikar

..satyam eva jayate

[Gyan]

And there always have been interesting rumours of Chinese Telecom Companies relationships with UPA and oppostion leaders of NDA.

[shiv]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMJeWOZWi24

[Dileep]

Moving here from LCA Thread, with a discussion on CEMILAC audit.

Background: My place is being audited by CEMILAC for recognition as a design firm. We had been working with them for this for the past couple of months. Still, we have no clue what approach they will take. They aren't giving much details.

Having CMMI is more of a problem as I see it, because:

1. The QMS guys start with "business objectives", "metrics" etc, which has no meaning for CEMILAC's domain. They want to hear Safety and Risk Management.

2. "Risk Management" for QMS guys is "Making sure that the darned project is delivered", not "making sure that the darned plane doesn't crash"

3. "Configuration Management" for the QMS guys is "to make sure that the code coolie check-out/check-in the right version of code". For CEMILAC is is "making sure that the right bolt gets into the right hole"

These lines don't meet. At least, they hadn't met in our case.

Reminds me of a scene from a mammootty movie. The scene is music composing for a movie. The producer is a rich, know-all snob. The music director hums a tune. The producer keeps on giving suggestions, but every time, the music director starts humming that tune, but gradually moves to the original tune he played. Like this, the QMS guys always tend to their well imprinted concepts.

What to do onlee...

[deejay]

Moving here from LCA Thread, with a discussion on CEMILAC audit.

Background: My place is being audited by CEMILAC for recognition as a design firm. We had been working with them for this for the past couple of months. Still, we have no clue what approach they will take. They aren't giving much details.

...
What to do onlee...

Dileep Sir, I am not a technical person nor do I have any experience in manufacturing set up. However, I have been part of a Non Scheduled Charter Operations and we set it up from scratch. So we went through the entire process of Air Worthiness certification and thereafter regular and repeat audits by DGCA. We were audited as "Operators" and our maintenance agency was separately audited for "maintenance"

We were audited for:
- Legal - All compliance and certification required for being a Non Scheduled Operator ( Audit of documents original and required copies) plus Service Tax, TIN / VAT, Shops and Establishment act registration etc.
- Financial - Company audited balance sheets, other commercial agreements including original invoice and forex transfer details if any, bank verification of current year accounts.
- Infrastructure - Office plus parking space lease agreements and permissions. Vehicle, checking, security, flight safety arrangements.
- Staffing - Adequate staffing in terms of pilots, cabin crew, security, loading, airport drivers, nodal officer and all with adequate training as required by DGCA with current and up to date
- Documentation - All manuals as required and up to date with a functioning process of updation. All paper work properely filed and records available.
- Maintenance - Engineers training in adequate numbers and as required (we even had to train a DGCA staff on our type to certify us).
- Spares & Stores - Adequate spares and stores kept as mandated with correct documentation.

Plus a few other Operational issues. To keep the story short - they flipped through everything over one full week with a magnifying lense and would always require document trail to support everything (including copies of letters sent to them).

I seriously do not know how CEMILAC will do it but to learn of DGCA process you may read it in the "Design Standards and Type Certification" segment of DGCA issued CAR's

http://www.dgca.nic.in/rules/car-ind.htm

Please go through all CAR's under Section 6 of Civil Aviation Requirement as in that link. These are updated. It may be of help and indicative of what to expect.

Not sure if this will help.

[SaiK]

Dileep.. simple: documented artifacts alone does not matter.. but does those artifacts reflect the actual business events, process events and/or product specifications that matters.

Since this is all about how you do design.. show your methods, design methods, process methods, patterns, architecture, tools you use for designs etc. [not IPRs, blue prints ..

Given x,y,z.. how will you bring out a,b and c? does your kompany follow stds? what is that? tools/software/design process, v&v..

btw, when you do your own v&v sessions, use a design review check list [hard to come up].. these check list with date timestamp is a fantastic artifact for design review audits.

[Dileep]

Thanx deejay and SaiK.

I practically wrote the QMS of the KB from manufacturing side (ISO9001) in 1994. It was running well till 2001 when I left for massa. When I got back to the old place in 2013, they had managed to screw it beyond recognition. As of Now, we are associated with the software arm, and the QMS ownership went to them, and right now, we are in a totally confused state. I am trying to get my work done among this mess.

We have aerospace eggspurts (DO-178) on board who opined putting the PCB CAD files on SVN would satisfy the requirements of configuration management (PCB == code onlee). What to do onlee. I believe I have a good grip on things here, and I have overruled the eggspurts on many things. Now I am scared that I might have got it wrong. That is why I asked.

Will report back after the audit. Scheduled for late next week, subject to final confirmation.

[SaiK]

no.. no documented artifact can go wrong. it does not matter how you version it, as long as it reflects the artifact that is not cooked up., but you can demonstrate the artifact generation when asked for [except in this case, your timestamp, and perhaps the data might have diff sets].

i think you are good to go, if you are pucca on your process. remember, repeatable processes that produces same result is more important than to show some blah precisions ignoring accuracy.

[hnair]

Crossposting from Space:

Via ISRO's FB page:

Indigenous Titanium Sponge Plant operational

[Shreeman]

It might be slightly OT. But I would like to post some material related to Indian Telecom industry which covers both PSU and Private which was catering to both civil and military. One person who strived in this area is Padma Bhushan Shri. SAM Pitroda.

C-DOT is yet another instance of national missions not concentrating on setting up institutions, but running on individual brilliance (and contacts). When it was set up, the mandate of C-DOT was to develop indigeneous digital exchanges, which it did a good job of, under Sam Pitroda. But C-DOT remained an adjunct to a govt department, with no institutional framework. Once Sam Pitroda left (after Rajiv Gandhi lost power), the political backing was gone. C-DOT languished like any other govt department. Ina few years, fibre optics and mobile technologies overtook the landline exchange. C-DOT was nowhere in the picture by then.

What ij this? People circling their wagons around my old home (lonnnnnnnng time ago, long enough to be able to comment on this if needed). Just chiming in to pay homage.

There is indeed many a story behind CDOT, but may be not this story. May be not these failings either. And may be not entirely relevant to DRDO type discussion. Perhaps one day, in an appropriate place, it could be told.

[VinodTK]

L&T set to bag Rs 530 crore project for army bridges

NEW DELHI: Defence sector major L&T is set to bag a Rs 530-crore contract to manufacture new bridges for the Indian Army. The bridges are urgently required for deployment along the western sector which is crisscrossed with canals and water obstacles that hinder movement of vehicles and armoured formations.

Source told ET that the Army has moved a proposal to purchase over 100 new short span bridges and the project is likely to be given a nod by the defence ministry soon. The 'short span bridge' contract will be awarded to L&T on a single vendor basis as it has acquired the technology for construction of military grade systems.
:
:
:

[Karan M]

^^
No more Antony to take L&Ts work and hand it to beml

[Vayutuvan]

^^^Largely agree. But the fundamental issue was that C-DOT remained without an instittuional basis. It wasnt a company that would have going concern commercial objectives, it wasnt a research lab that would (under suitable guidance) keep innovating for the next level. It is symptomatic of the ad hocism rampant in government - another similar "idea" was ADA. ...

I am a little late to the discussion. But here are my two cents. IMHO, following factors were very important in the success of c-dot its ultimate slide into obscurity.

1. Sri S. Pitroda was a great motivator and an inspiring man. His personality is very close to late kalam ji. He has the "we - Indian techies - can do as well as anybody out there if the leadership in research institutions are somewhat politically agnostic".

2. He hired some excellent people. C-dot being located in Delhi helped.

3. He was driven and drove the people under him relentlessly to excel.

4. He had the political backing of a progressive engineer PM who was quite idealistic when he first entered politics.

So it was a personality cult, as somnath says above. But that Is How great institutions start, don't they? Bhabha, sarabhai, mahalonabis, recently of course kalam, Bhatkar. Hopefully a new crop of people will be encouraged by The current govt. past 10 year cong(I) was a complete washout.

[NRao]

L&T set to bag Rs 530 crore project for army bridges

NEW DELHI: Defence sector major L&T is set to bag a Rs 530-crore contract to manufacture new bridges for the Indian Army. The bridges are urgently required for deployment along the western sector which is crisscrossed with canals and water obstacles that hinder movement of vehicles and armoured formations.

Source told ET that the Army has moved a proposal to purchase over 100 new short span bridges and the project is likely to be given a nod by the defence ministry soon. The 'short span bridge' contract will be awarded to L&T on a single vendor basis as it has acquired the technology for construction of military grade systems.
:
:
:

Make they can carry 80 tons.

[Hobbes]

^^
No more Antony to take L&Ts work and hand it to beml

That seems to have been fixed though as per the report:

.....
L&T has built significant capability in military mobile bridging systems for the Army in partnership with the Defence Research and Development Organization and is a prime manufacturer of the Sarvatra bridging system.
.....

[Karan M]

Hobbes exactly the thing.

[Karan M]

Indigenous integrated coastal surveillance soon

A *deleted* in India’s coastal security armour is that unlike bigger vessels (300-tonne ones and above) that are mandatorily fitted with automatic identification system (AIS) — which provides for automatic locating and tracking — the thousands of smaller vessels operating along the country’s shores are largely unaccounted for, necessitating physical authentication of their identity.

This is set to be passé, if the multi-sensor network developed by the communication cluster laboratories of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is chosen to replace the predominantly Israeli sensor suite in the Coastal Surveillance Network steered by the Coast Guard during the project’s Phase-II expansion.

The fully indigenous network — known as the Integrated Coastal Surveillance System — capable of mounting real-time surface and subsurface surveillance over the coastal seas is in the final stages of pilot-testing and trials at coastal Kochi in Kerala, confirm defence sources.

The system has taken about four years to attain a certain level of maturity.

Assembly and trials

Dehradun-based Defence Electronics Application Laboratory (DEAL) has developed the Indian AIS while the coastal surveillance radar for the package has been developed by the Electronics and Radar Development Establishment (LRDE) in Bengaluru, and the electro-optical sight by the Instruments Research and Development Establishment (IRDE) in Dehradun. The Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (CAIR) in Bengaluru has developed the software and the Kochi-based Naval Physical and Oceanographic Laboratory (NPOL) has put together the underwater sensors (the diver detection system) besides coordinating the project assembly and trials.

Nearly 150 boats — in the under 20-tonne category — operating along the Kochi coast have been fitted with the Indian AIS (IAIS) for trials. Radars have been set up at Aroor, Malippuram, and Fort Kochi.

“The beauty of the project is that it’s all done in-house. The trials have given encouraging results, with just the fine-tuning left to be done now. The network can be scaled up for deployment along the country’s 7,500 km coastline,” revealed a top source.

“Given the asymmetric threats posed by smaller craft, a tracking system for vessels regardless of their size is a hugely positive development. Better still, if the system is indigenous, developed by DRDO labs and productionised for trials by the Machilipatnam unit of Bharat Electronics,” he added.

Once operational, the IAIS can be integrated with the IMO-mandated AIS. While the prototype of the IAIS made for trials cost about Rs.25,000 apiece, volume production will render it far cheaper and affordable to boatmen, said another official.

In return for equipping their boats with the IAIS, fishermen will get weather and fish shoal data from INCOIS (Indian National Centre for Ocean Information Services) relayed to the system, which will double up as a distress alert beacon, he pointed out.

NOTE - The *deleted* word in the beginning of the article is c_h_i_n_k.

LRDEs radar design can be seen in this tender for a working model.

http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/tenders/vie ... icro=11110

[NRao]

New chiefs for DRDO labs CABS, GTRE

In two elevations to top posts at two city-based defence labs, M.S. Easwaran, Outstanding Scientist, has been appointed Director of DRDO's Centre for Air Borne Systems (CABS), Bengaluru.

M.Z Siddique, Outstanding Scientist and Project Director (Kaveri), takes over as Director, Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE), based in the city, according to an official announcement.

Mr. Easwaran, an M.Sc in Physics and Electronics from the University of Delhi and M.Tech in Electrical Engineering from IIT-Delhi, had been officiating in the post after former Director Christopher was elevated as Secretary, Defence R&D, and Director General DRDO. He assumed charge on July 16. He has been involved in developing radars for the Akash missile, the Light Combat Aircraft, maritime patrol and was associate programme director for the Airborne Early Warning and Control programme.

Mr. Siddique, a mechanical engineer, succeeds C.P. Ramanarayanan who was elevated last month as DRDO's Chief Controller R&D and posted to New Delhi.

[Karan M]

yay!!

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 460898.cms

Pinaka II user trials in Jaisalmer by year endJatinder Kaur Tur,TNN | Aug 13, 2015, 05.06 AM IST
JODHPUR: The desert land of Jaislamer will get to witness the user-trials of much-awaited Pinaka II, a complete multi-barrel rocket launcher (MBRL) system with a range of 60 kilometres. The range of Pinaka II is 20 kilometres more than Pinaka I version which has already been inducted into the armed forces.

Further, in what can be termed as an extremely significant chain of developments, Pinaka II has gone into manufacturing stage and the same shall be manufactured in large numbers and delivered to the Indian Army by December so that the latter can kick-start the user trials for Pinaka II here. Meanwhile, the work has started on the 'guided' version of Pinaka.

Anil M Datar, a scientist and director general, armament and combat engineering (ACE) systems, Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), said the 'in-house' or 'technical trials', actually a part of development trials for Pinaka II, have been completed in two phases. "The first phase was conducted in Balasore for checking the range and the second one at Pokhran for checking the accuracy and consistency, and the performance levels were very encouraging," he said.

He further said the development trials were successful and now the Pinaka II rocket systems are being manufactured in huge quantities in production lines for being handed over as per the projected demand to the army by December this year.

"Following this, the user trials shall start," he said.

The Pinaka has been indigenously developed by the Armament Research and Development Establishment (ARDE), Pune, a DRDO laboratory.

Datar also said that 'submunition warheads' which have been successfully tested for Pinaka I in Pokhran field firing range during June last week this year, shall be used in Pinaka II as well which is going to act as a force-multiplier while supplementing the artillery guns as well.

Pinaka, the indigenous unguided rocket system which has been undergoing extensive testing for the past 20 years, is capable of neutralising large areas with rapid salvos.

The multi barrel rocket launcher used in Pinaka I shall be used in Pinaka II as well.

Having proven its mettle during the Kargil war, Pinaka is capable of incorporating different kinds of warheads rendering it all the more lethal for the enemy. Pinaka takes pride in its low cost vis-a-vis other such rocket systems in the world bestowed with shoot and scoot capabilities.

[SaiK]

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/ban ... 530920.ece
we should not miss oppty to reorg and shake ups. right time for gtre.

I think we are letting kaveri go down!

[Hobbes]

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/ban ... 530920.ece
we should not miss oppty to reorg and shake ups. right time for gtre.

I think we are letting kaveri go down!

I'm curious about the basis for that interesting conclusion from the bare announcement that the current GTRE head has been posted elsewhere, probably on promotion, especially given that his replacement has earned an Outstanding Scientist title and is currently the Project Director, Kaveri.

M.Z Siddique, Outstanding Scientist and Project Director (Kaveri), takes over as Director, Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE), based in the city, according to an official announcement.

[Karan M]

Huge ramifications if it works out. We are very dependent on kevlar and other imported items so far to make our BPJs and then any advanced abroad have to be jury rigged in

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 418208.cms

Bullet-proof vests to shed weight by half
Amaninder Sharma,TNN | Aug 10, 2015, 07.30 AM IST
PATIALA: Bullet-proof vests for the armed forces are set to get lighter by around 2kg as scientists at Patiala-based Thapar University are working on a polymeric liquid which will replace the fibre used in such jackets at present.

In a 'Make in India' initiative, the scientists are developing the new vests under a project sponsored by Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO).

The bullet proof vests currently used by the security forces weigh around 3.8kg and are made bullet-resistant by using a fibre named Kelvar (poly-paraphenylene terephthalamide), whose 20-40 layers are packed inside the jacket.

The new bullet-resistant liquid will reduce the number of layers up to four.

"The major portion of such jackets is comprised of Kelvar layers. If you reduce the number of layers, you can substantially reduce weight of the vests. We are developing a polymeric liquid with suspended nano particles, which will have unique properties to stop the bullet from reaching the soldier's body. Three layers of Kelvar will form compartments which will be filled with the polymeric liquid," said Rajeev Mehta, professor at the varsity's department of chemical engineering.

The liquid will have the property of converting itself into thick solid material once hit by the high speed bullet and protect the person wearing it.

"This technology will not only reduce the weight but also improve the flexibility of the bullet-proof vests," said Mehta.

"We are working on it for the past one year and it may take us a few more months to come up with the final version," he said.

Claiming that this was the first such initiative in the country, Mehta said, "If one goes by the research debates in foreign scientific and defence journals, this techniques are either being developed or are in use in US and European countries and Japan. But import of such material is too costly for us. We have analyzed this before starting our research."

Mehta said that besides Thapar, a few more institutes are also working on the project. "However, we are dealing with the major part. Other institutes are working on developing alternative designs and textile for the vests," he said.

Average weight of bullet proof vests: 3.8 kg

Wight of vests made of polymeric liquid: 1.5-1.8kg

Project cost: Rs 29 lakh (approx)

Project time: 3 years (started in June, 2014)

[Karan M]

CNBC Make in India updated - Mahindra, Datapatterns (an amazing story that one), and Ashok Leyland
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... G_8liCe68h