Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timelines

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby Gyan » 25 Apr 2015 19:12

If prior experience is required for everything than even DRDO would be out of all the projects. Developing vendor base is as important as designing a product on paper. Even OFB for Dhanush goes for foreign APU, why??

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34230
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby shiv » 25 Apr 2015 19:59

Gyan wrote:If prior experience is required for everything than even DRDO would be out of all the projects. Developing vendor base is as important as designing a product on paper. Even OFB for Dhanush goes for foreign APU, why??

The Wright brothers were bicycle makers and knew what there was to know about materials and structures that were both light and strong. Why on earth should a company have prior experience in gear for UAVs or light aircraft be required to make the landing gear for Nishant renamed Panchi. I suspect most engineering students would be able to calculate the strength and weight of the gear requirement given in the pdf. Wheels, tyres brakes and hydraulics lines for breaks (as mentioned in Annexure A of the pdf) do not sound like anything that mandates prior experience specifically with UAVs or aircraft. They want landing gear for a 400 kg aircraft with a maximum descent rate of 3 m/sec. That is 11 kmph. Any motorbike wheel/fork should be able to withstand a bump at 8 times that speed and maybe half the weight.

Why this requirement of "prior experience in UAV or light aircraft construction"?

Could this be a requirement framed for a specific party that is going to win the contract eventually, like the advert for vice-president of a company tailor made for the owner's son "Candidate should be 21 years and 4 months as of this date, five foot five, SSLC pass, BSc fail, left ear pierced"

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby Gyan » 25 Apr 2015 20:13

Re Shiv

This prior experience business used to be mandated in WB, ADB, IMF funded projects to keep out local companies and maintain the hegemony of western nations. Now it's a pretext to collect bribes and avoid hardwork. Have you wondered why HAL has never developed any local vendor base for components of ALH and why it refuses to manufacture ALH engines even with ToT? Note:- imports are very lucrative, one not only gets money at stage of tender drafting, but on awards and even for spares, maintenance, servicing etc

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15922
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby NRao » 25 Apr 2015 21:24

Prior experience in areas such as material sciences is a must. Juts cannot get around such things and so school/book can provide assistance in such areas. No shortcuts.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34230
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby shiv » 26 Apr 2015 06:04

Something that puzzles me here:

Look at tender number 4 below
http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/tenders/liveTenders.jsp

1200 Reynolds ball pen refills
400 Natraj sharpeners

I am surprised that the brand name is mentioned in the tender

Both Reynolds and Natraj have manufacturing units in India. As far as my knowledge of business goes the manufacturer sells in bulk to a distributor making a small profit. The distributor sells to retail outlets making his profit along the way. The retail outlet in turn sell to the customer making a further profit.

If DRDO wants a specific brand (in this case Natraj and Reynolds) surely the right thing to do would be to cut off the number of middlemen and approach the appropriate distributor no? If they call for tenders, they are inviting retailers to skim some profits - at least this is how it appears to me. In a private organization a person in charge of purchases would simply call a few retailers and distributors, get the best price and ask for a quote. But I suppose that man could then be bribed. But bribery and deceit are still possible in the DRDO tender method no?

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3725
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby deejay » 26 Apr 2015 10:01

Karan M wrote:
Shiv, no doubt the DPSUs etc are pathetic at PR. But part of the reason is also when the DRDO, HAL et al do this sort of PR, you have folks like AM Matheswaran and service folks criticizing them and saying don't do hype. That's another issue. There is an element of "we decide whatever happens everywhere else" that seems to be common in service-developer interactions and this is certainly a factor.


This post is a delayed response. It is with reference to the bold part of the quote above. Again, it is no expert opinion but what will qualify as PR - Basics or ( PR 101).

The kind of PR is important. The exercise has to begin at a point where the aim of the entire PR exercise is well defined. Then, a multiple platform approach to spread the good word needs to be adopted with periodic course corrections, new messages, reinforcing ideas etc.

A good advert. film / a good five second video / a static image / twitter / facebook / print space presence / lining up editorials besides those big functions, launch ceremonies, seminars etc are all platforms to reach the target audience with the desired message.

Everywhere there is a lot of 'Noise' in the media space trying to grab public attention. A drive which is targeted for its desired audience, sustained and focused on the message will get the right amount of 'Share of Noise' while keeping the budget in control.

Detractors (Matheswaran), competitors (import lobby), will attack and do it across industries. The idea of PR effort is to create a positive image in the target audience mind space. A high end technology firm will / should never release a poorly made video. Even the smallest video needs to be slick and it must reinforce the image of a top end R & D group. While grease and oil is part of shop floor life, it does not help in reinforcing the high end, R & D effort. Lab coats, dust free environments, TFTA workplaces help.

The Tejas programme is an example where positive image can be deliberately cultivated about its strong points.

Andy B posted a video of Sukhoi factory (appears to be an Official Sukhoi PR effort), R & D, Design Bureau etc. Pretty good but try alternating between a Boeing video and the Sukhoi video. Both the short term and long term memory will tend to recall the more slick video with a positive image. This does not mean the 'other' will have a negative recall but in the high end technology buyer's POV it will always be number two.

PR effort needing vigour is definitely not limited to what PSU's do. Even IAF, IA and IN is way behind the PR effort of pvt sector. Press Releases and grand standing announcements should be done only if delivery is guaranteed or the backlash can damage even an Apple. Did the iPhone bend?

Next, not everyone is Steve Jobs. Just because someone is part of PR / CEO / Director etc., he / she / they, do not automatically get to face the camera or hold a road show.

The NaMo election campaign is a prime example of an awesome 'Presenter + CEO' combination. However, there is a catch - the promise of delivery. NaMo said mission 272+. He did it, in style and some more. He delivered on a stated objective. Result, expectations on all promises made (stated objectives), spiked. Probably, Indians may be expecting more than promised. If that does not happen, there will be a backlash. (Note: All counters to this may go to the".... Drama" thread :))

You see, PR is the battle of mind space. Mass mind space is reached differently. Targeted mind space is reached differently.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2596
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby Sagar G » 26 Apr 2015 13:27

shiv wrote:The Wright brothers were bicycle makers and knew what there was to know about materials and structures that were both light and strong. Why on earth should a company have prior experience in gear for UAVs or light aircraft be required to make the landing gear for Nishant renamed Panchi. I suspect most engineering students would be able to calculate the strength and weight of the gear requirement given in the pdf. Wheels, tyres brakes and hydraulics lines for breaks (as mentioned in Annexure A of the pdf) do not sound like anything that mandates prior experience specifically with UAVs or aircraft. They want landing gear for a 400 kg aircraft with a maximum descent rate of 3 m/sec. That is 11 kmph. Any motorbike wheel/fork should be able to withstand a bump at 8 times that speed and maybe half the weight.


Will you please point out to me Indian manufacturers who have R&D experience in making shock absorbers i.e. without any foreign technical collaboration.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby Gyan » 26 Apr 2015 15:06

Who manufactured the suspension of Arjun Tank?

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8800
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby UlanBatori » 26 Apr 2015 15:50

It's a good question to ask: Why does a ..RDO insist on buying things only from ppl with "prior experience" in making those? Isn't the whole point of RDO to develop the needed competence?

Of course it is not that simple: one cannot just go out and develop a ball-point refill, for instance. Is it possible to find out how much they bought this item for, eventually?
1200 Reynolds ball pen refills

Now if you have a Reynolds Ball Pen, you really can't stick in any refill and expect it to work, but my question is whether this sort of micro-procurement exemplifies a systemic problem. In much of the world, it is cheaper to buy a new ball-point pen than it is to find the right refill. So is this a saving by re-using Legacy Equipment, or a gross waste of money? Wonder if Reynolds stuck them with these outrageously expensive Ball Pens, guaranteed to last for 1000 years each.
Since it is the refill that decides how the pen writes, these write about the same as the Pack of 10 Reynolds pens which costs 5.95 on eBay ($0.6 each).
The total cost of 1200 ball pen refills should not exceed, say, 0.3 times the cost of 1200 pens, hain? Or are these Special Pens with Invisible Ink, guaranteed to write invisible from -5000 to+30,000 meters ISA and at temperatures from 218K to 400K?
Added later: O I C!!
This is part of a larger stationery order. EMD is 1000 rupees, bid document 100 rupees, and
You are requested to ensure that the drawings and specifications are enclosed along with this enquiry are returned with your reply, if applicable.
Incase you are not in a position to quote for tendor inquiry regrate letter may please be forwarded within due date.
You have to quote on your letterhead only

They do ask for Correction Pen (150 Nos) and u can c above, why.
I wonder about this one:
Stapler Machine No. 10 (Kangros) 200 Nos

They are only ordering 7700 envelopes - If each (Kangros) stapler can be operated at least 100 times, that's 20,000 staples - and they seem to be well-stocked already with those.
Plus 400 sharpeners. That's a sure sign of hanky-panky. Where do you put those sharpeners? Each Stapler-Operator can operate a Sharpener with each hand (2-Gun Babu?)

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8800
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby UlanBatori » 26 Apr 2015 16:24

Very interesting thread.. relevant to other stuff being tried in Ulan Bator for Phostering Investment and Bijnej in Desh Dephenj Sector. So the jarnails and directors are admitting that there is a problem. To quote Kunjan Nambiar about the Graduating Class from desh engineering colleges:
Laksham maanushar kootumbol athil Lakshanam ullavar Onno Rando

If they need to be trained to draw, to design, to think, to write, to read, to count... exactly what does their degree mean? That they know all about Nyooklear Pissiks? :roll:

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34230
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby shiv » 26 Apr 2015 20:01

Sagar G wrote:Will you please point out to me Indian manufacturers who have R&D experience in making shock absorbers i.e. without any foreign technical collaboration.

Don't know but the renamed Nishant does not require shocks.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34230
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby shiv » 26 Apr 2015 20:09

UlanBatori wrote:It's a good question to ask: Why does a ..RDO insist on buying things only from ppl with "prior experience" in making those? Isn't the whole point of RDO to develop the needed competence?

This was my explanation posted on previous page. Tendorly regrate that you may not have seen it
DRDO takes as long as it need to develop tech that is unavailable to anyone and pats itself on the back. then it tries to "speed up" the process by importing "low tech non embargoed" things. The DRDO takes all the credit for development of tech but does not give local vendors the opportunity and time to develop something. Later the DRDO wears a halo and says "Well we have no local vendor because they do not make even low tech things while we are doing cutting edge stuff. So we are forced to import from abroad"

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15000
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby Karan M » 26 Apr 2015 20:28

Shiv, that's just half the story.

If DRDO decides to develop everything inhouse or local, the timelines suffer and they are accused of reinventing the wheel by the services. You have had one of the gents here who regales us of all his drinking buddy stories "so and so air marshal told me this" constantly use that term to disparage local development.

Fact of life is DRDO is up against near insurmountable challenges. Developing from a low tech base, to highest WW standards, limited budgets & strict timelines. In that process, it has to compromise on some aspects. The usual method is to take whats available & import what's not if there is no time for ab-initio development. In other cases, vendors are developed & used. Take a look f.e. at the SIATI vendor list. Almost all DRDO vendors. Indian PSUs don't bother as much as the DRDO does. They outsource almost all development to WW vendors. HAL's programs are often like that. In recent years they are attempting to change this.

Ultimately, the only answer for the above is to disassociate tech development from ready programs & consistently invest in the former (and kick the CAG/CGDA et al in the butt if they interfere with idiotic objections of "but this tech was not used"). This way you will have a tech and vendor base even if you don't have programs. This is as much a political decision as anything else. Funds & support need to be there. Before the LCA f.e. HAL had a proposal to develop FBW. It was shot down as there was no program to use it. Later LCA went around looking for FBW experience and there was none.

So same thing repeats. The US for instance has a clear list of strategic items & technologies to which it works to develop local sourcing, even if there are no immediate programs. By all means prioritize, but it has to be done at a national level.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34230
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby shiv » 26 Apr 2015 20:59

Karan M wrote:Fact of life is DRDO is up against near insurmountable challenges. Developing from a low tech base, to highest WW standards, limited budgets & strict timelines. In that process, it has to compromise on some aspects.

Let me put it this way.

When DRDO starts to develop a completely new and unavailable technological item they do allow themselves time to develop that technology because no one will give it to us. On the other hand, the DRDO chooses to "speed up" the process by importing things that anyone is willing to export. This looks like a very clever plan - for DRDO.

But it is actually screwing the country because the DRDO is giving itself time to develop some hi-funda tech, but is not bothering to give local industry the time and opportunity to develop non embargoed items from scratch because it will delay the DRDO program further. This may not be the DRDO's fault but the fault of government priorities and brainless ministers who don't understand how important it is to develop local industry.

Whatevre the reason, the DRDO is, in a sense, displaying "institutional selfishness" and will not tolerate delays caused by others but chooses to mitigate those delays by imports from "experienced sellers". How can any Indian company develop that experience when the DRDO is bypassing them altogether so that the DRDO "appears" like they are doing things as fast as they can. It makes business sense but it does not always make strategic sense.

The latest saga is the renamed Nishant, called the Panchi after fitting wheels. How did the DRDO make those wheels, or where did they get them from? Unless I am mistaken the DRDO has actually test flown at least one example of the "Panchi". I hope they have actually test flown it - because if they have not, then the situation would be quite ludicrous because the Panchi is being tomtommed as a done deal.

For this country to move forward the good news is not going to come as fast as DRDO develops stuff while using some imported items. The good news can only come when even the imported items are made in India in addition to what the DRDO develops. This will undoubtedly make things more expensive and take longer, but in the long term this is a cost that the country must bear.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15000
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby Karan M » 26 Apr 2015 21:08

Shiv,

The basic facts which lie underneath the argument remain the same. That DRDO (or the DPSUs) only have a certain window period to get their program ready.

I agree that things need to change. But that has to be GOI level. DRDO can't do this. They are in a dysfunctional system and responding per the needs of that system.

Qn is within the system can they do more?

DRDO does not have time because the scale of support required to speed up/acquire/develop technologies is lacking from the GOI end.

DRDO itself doesn't have the manpower either to depute to private industry and get these out of the door.

So, it chooses the midway option.

If they don't meet that deadline or even score nearby (with say a bit of delay), the entire program goes for import.

So what would India prefer "A 100% import" or a "40% import"

Lets take your Panchi example. We know for Nishant/Panchi , DRDO & its public/private partners have

- airframe
- sensors
- datalinks
- ground exploitation systems
- onboard avionics & actuators etc

they don't have landing gear.

So, in the quest to develop a completely 100% local system, and the above program falls flat (only 4 are ordered etc etc and Panchi 2 or whatever is the next big hope), and 100% imported Searchers are the new answer, which is better?

Is a 40% imported Panchi better than a 100% imported Searcher?

Until & unless you scale up to develop technology seriously, this issue will not be resolved.

What DRDO does is launch multiple programs & "where possible", it involves private industry to develop those items.

Stuff like Digital Map Generators on LCA came out because of that approach.

However, when the systems end up costing time (not just money, time because aerospace certification is a huge challenge), the program developers have to make that choice to go with a mix of proven & new tech.

To change this, launch national missions for every item and fund them.

And keep those CAG/CGDA fellows away.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34230
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby shiv » 26 Apr 2015 21:13

Has the Panchi been flown?

If not are the tenders for 6 wheel sets for the prototypes then?

Does that mean that the DRDO does not know about the stresses that may be placed on the landing unit? Surely they must have some idea? The naval LCA team, after all are doing exactly the same work but of greater complexity.

If the Panchi has not been flown and they have no idea who is going to make the landing gear or the stresses it will be subjected to, how come they have already given the damn thing a name as if it is a done deal?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15000
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby Karan M » 26 Apr 2015 21:19

Of course they have an idea & know what they want. Panchi has already flown in the form of a wheeled Nishant. But remember it has flown in Proto form. Test beds are lighter than final units (our LCA itself is example of that).

Design apart, its a different thing though to have it production ready & certified.

Usual process DRDO follows is to sound its own teams and get to know which units (private/public) can work on it. Those units are also made aware of such programs coming up.

The tenders then go out - the vendors then have to work with DRDO team/s, to make sure items meet requirements & get them integrated and certified.

There is no given that landing gears have to be foreign or local. Problem is apart from HAL & its vendors, few have experience with the type. Per se, there are half a dozen big name companies in India that can do this.

Question is why would they, for a LSP of 6 sets & when prior practise has been to nominate a DPSU for production even if prototypes were developed by private sector.

Parrikar has asked for this policy to be changed (DRDO & pvt industry had lobbied Antony hard, but he didn't budge).

That change itself should move a lot of folks into subsystem support.

Otherwise, like we discussed, Panchi apart, we have to have a national "LANDING GEARS MISSION" with funding just for developing landing gears capability in India.

Typically UAVs are harder than aircraft to make stuff for, because weight requirements are much harder. Turkeys local version of the Heron (Israeli) UAV has ended up struggling because Turkish made subystems are much heavier than their Israeli counterparts (much can be as much as a few kgs).

Per se, Indian firms can do this. Again, they need funding and direction and not just from Panchi.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15000
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby Karan M » 26 Apr 2015 21:25

Our huge issue has been that everything is linked to mission mode programs. LCA has to develop radar, composites, everything from scratch. We don't have separate TD programs and roll it all into one program making the whole thing incredibly hard.
DRDO now has programs to develop tech & do programs after the base tech is available. But funding remains an issue.
Sadly, national coordination on key items remains an issue.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34230
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby shiv » 26 Apr 2015 21:26

Karan M wrote:The basic facts which lie underneath the argument remain the same. That DRDO (or the DPSUs) only have a certain window period to get their program ready.

I agree that things need to change. But that has to be GOI level. DRDO can't do this. They are in a dysfunctional system and responding per the needs of that system.

This is precisely the point. The DRDO has limited time and funding. But the nature of the business is such that foreign companies will undercut anyone in India for almost any item because they have the production lines, experience and tooling. So the DRDO's high technology development, while laudable on its own is still not enough because a huge percentage of the items are imported simply because
1. They are available off the shelf abroad
2. It is faster to do that
3. It is cheaper to do that

This model makes business sense and strategic sense for the western entities deling with each other who are traditional allies and friends who don't embargo each other or help each others' enemies. But for us it does not make strategic sense. It is only good business sense. In a trice the suppliers of imported parts will supply enemies, raise prices or stop supplies

Thus we end up having a Tango between an uncertain number of foreign vendors and the DRDO. This fact needs to be recognized, acknowledged and internalized first by us (as we must be ahead of the curve) and we must make our countrymen understand the problem because the problem is not so easy to understand unless spelt out clearly. Those foreign vendors have skills that need to be developed in India by the private sector. The environment has to be made right for that. The DRDO cannot sit on its laurels until that happens. Some sufficiently intelligent person from the DRDO has to point out to the thick headed babus and ministers that the country will not go forward with simply high tech. Even low tech must be done at home and not imported. And it is the duty of the rest of us to make this situation clear to people who think that al iz vel when al is far from vel
Last edited by shiv on 26 Apr 2015 21:29, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34230
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby shiv » 26 Apr 2015 21:28

Karan M wrote: Panchi has already flown in the form of a wheeled Nishant.

I would appreciate a link to a news item that says the Panchi has actually flown (and landed) at least once.

OK found one
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2014/12/ ... drone.html
Panchi, the wheeled variant of India's first operational home-built surveillance drone Nishant, took off for the first time today on a 20 minute sortie. The platform has taken its time. The Panchi was unveiled for the first time in Feb 2009, and a photograph of the Panchi, still designated Nishant at the time was seen on a tarmac in 2010.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34230
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby shiv » 26 Apr 2015 21:32

Who made the wheels here?
Image

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15000
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby Karan M » 26 Apr 2015 21:36

You are quite right.

But what is happening is as usual haphazard.

While a huge vendor base has been developed for these essential systems, and DRDO/HAL/NAL etc have started talking on some programs, items, there is also a school of thought which is frustrated at doing the "hard stuff" which is vendor development & which sees the obvious hypocrisy of an Army General like Shekhawat taking pot shots at the Arjun's import content while accepting the T-90's 100% import content.

At the same time, the constant attacks on the DRDO via the media on account of delays etc. IMHO, this pressure has actually been responsible for accepting "imported systems" as a "necessary" to make programs go faster.

Oldtimers from DRDO are not happy with this either.

On the plus side, DRDO has incubated a whole bunch of firms in BLR-HYD run by its or ex DPSU employees who meet its subsystem requirements at a pace the DPSUs wont.

But critical gaps remain.

The answer for this is to let the technocrats make a case and support them.

Unfortunately, in recent years, we have had a whole bunch of folks, some rtd ex services types, some out and out vested interests - all talk a whole bunch of poppycock about stuff they neither understand nor care to understand.

This reinvent the wheel stuff f.e.

Folks won't admit or care to understand, that TOT is not some magic pill to banish our problems. And to make motorcycles, its important to understand how a wheel works and make it.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15000
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby Karan M » 26 Apr 2015 21:52

Where it is possible, efforts are made

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/k ... 324365.ece

Increased Indigenization
While handing over SP1 was handed over to the IAF on January 17, 2015, the HAL Chairman said the aircraft was 60 percent indigenous.

In August 2014 DRDO Chief Avinash Chander, and HAL and ADA officials met about 50 small and mid-sized LCA component manufacturers several times over the past one year and encouraged them to manufacture more components so that within three years the LCA’s indigenous content could go up from the present 50 to 55 per cent to 80 per cent. The officials reminded vendors that LCA production starting 2015–16 LCA production would double from the current 8 aircraft per year to 16 aircraft per year.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8800
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby UlanBatori » 26 Apr 2015 23:18

Here is the Unsolicited Tendor Regrateful Sharpener Program from Ulan Bator, home of Chengis Khan.
1. Depute (meaning fund) 20 recently-retired DRDO experts (61 saal?65 saal? youngsters I mean), one to each educational/research institution.

2. Make the institutions bid for them, like IPL. Appoint them as Full Institute Brophejar rank (not Brophejar of Sheep-shearing etc), teach only 1 course per semester max. So Institution X can brag about having a "DRDO Distinguished Institute Brophejar" on board.

3. On campus, each sets up a Swadesh Cell. Directly under Institute Director, affiliated with all departments but answerable only to Director and many Senate. And of course, to Director, DRDO.

4. Each takes on 20 projects per year (no joke this!). Projects can have mixture of UG and PG yaks. Projects are taken for grade (F to A+ or S).

5. Each yak gets 9 semester credits for this, so it is like Make-Or-Break. All volunteers.

6. Each project is to produce Indi-Genius version of some neat gizmo or software. Clear requirements, clear metrics of acceptance. Clear timeline.

7. Report at end of 6 mo (1.5 semester), 12 mo (3 semesters), 2 years, 3 years. My expectation is that this should produce 1000 advancements. See how many made it into production, how many got Classified because they were so neat, how many were flops (along with the yaks who flopped them).

8. Grading for yaks not entirely based on success, but on clear metrics such as regular attendance at meetings, regular submission of Project Document (format available from Ulan Bator Chengis C. Khan Institute of Tender Yak Nurturing) every week before 8AM Mondin, in LaTEX phormat with Chicago ishtyle of repherenjes. Presentations, design reviews.

9. Also, extra bonus for Invention Disclosures, early adoption of products, on-site installation and field tests and refinement. Zero-defects quality, etc etc.

At minimum, yaks coming through this are very different from other yaks who just sit around chewing the cud in classes.

BIGGEST benefit is that - yaks who understand what it takes to actually solve problems, take responsibility, take technical risks, get things actually done, report on time, meet deadlines, make presentations, do calculations, use theory, invent theory... deal with peer review.

If you want I know someone who does the university part of this routinely for past 20 saal, but no 'Pull" from the other side here so can't comment on that part. The big difference needed, is the total focus on getting things built and working successfully, one at a time. Only yak-istan has the sheer numbers of yaks to make this work on a huge scale when it really gets going.

But should not waste his time - serious inquiries only. DRDO should prepare a clear list of what they want done. Guvrmand should provide the development funds (not a big deal..). The right retirees should be found.. (tough but not impossible). And there has to be clear periodic tracking of performance.

What he would like to see is this system really catch fire all over the top 20 engg. institutions of India. The others can bid, IPL-ishtyle, for similar bragging rights.

Some examples of what can be done in yak-istan, in a few months:
1) Software-driven laser Doppler interferometer for flow velocity measurements.
2) Software-driven laser Doppler interferometer for structural vibration/ non-destructive testing measurements.
3) Method to obtain airload coefficients of arbitrary-shaped objects about arbitrary axes.
4) Method to capture shape of arbitrary objects into STL files for generating See-Eph-Dee grids - or for reverse-engineering. This can be demonstrated with an i-phone, but vastly improved with a bit more smarts.
5) Method to put Beryllium Oxide/ Yttrium Oxide coating to prevent catalysis of rich reactions near Platinum surfaces (bad news for surface)
6) No end to these things: u specify problem, v find solution. Using Method of Archimedes' King. :mrgreen:

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34230
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby shiv » 27 Apr 2015 05:37

Karan M wrote:At the same time, the constant attacks on the DRDO via the media on account of delays etc. IMHO, this pressure has actually been responsible for accepting "imported systems" as a "necessary" to make programs go faster.



No. I have interacted with oldtimers starting more than 15 years ago when it was standard practice to import what was available easily and cheaply abroad with the overall goal of "technology development" by the DRDO. The focus was always "technology development" for doing things that were denied to us. The focus was never on skill and capacity development in the mass manufacture of non embargoed, low to medium tech, "easily available, simple technology" by private industry. To use an analogy the DRDO has acted like a specialist cardiac surgeon who has not bothered about "simple tonsils operations" because they are done by many. But while honing and displaying his cardiac skills - all the tonsils operations have been outsourced to foreign surgeons in the name of speed and efficiency, preventing Indian tonsils surgeons from developing their skills.

Part of the problem is definitely socialist government policies that sought to keep military hardware and ancillary industries within the fold of PSUs and other government establishments - keeping private players out. This is a colonial mindset where the Indian government took the place of the British government and treated private Indians manufacturers like the British treated Indians. The British did not want military industrialization (or any serious industrialization) to take hold in India. So the military industries were owned by the "crown" - the king or qyoon of England. The Indian government after independence simply continued this model without understanding why it had been set up in the first place. It had been set up to restrict Indians from developing capacity and skills. Too many Indians, for too many decades after independence have admired the old colonial days blindly without understanding that colonization was a rod up our backsides - only we had the rod for so long we think it is part of the body.

The entire governmental system and the IAS bureaucrats who admire themselves too much imagining that they are the only people capable of passing tough exams have simply become our "lords and masters" like the Brits were and do not have the necessary mental capacity or education to see how their policies are hobbling the nation. Specific to this thread is the need to allow ordinary Indians to make mistakes, take time and do low tech things in the same way that the DRDO has been allowed to make mistakes, take time (many decades) and develop high tech things. Both are necessary. DRDOs glory means zilch unless the country can be developed evenly by allowing Indians to learn to produce low tech things rather than trying to save DRDOs reputation by importing low tech simply because they are criticized. That low tech must come from Indian private sources.

The latter is not going to necessarily make anything faster. But in the long term it will make things better for the country.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34230
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby shiv » 27 Apr 2015 07:49

I just had another thought - and this concerns the manner in which the transition occurred by which "Her Majesty's government" became the "Government of India" and the similar manner in which the Royal Indian Army and Air Force became the IA and IAF.

Under "her majesty's government" the British government sent British made arms and aircraft to the Indian armed forces - and those British goods were state of the art back then. In other words, under the British the Indian army and air force were supplied with the latest in weaponry and did not have to worry about "National technical Capability". The armed forces (other than the navy) were only concerned about fighting and defence.

After independence, the Government of India continued to source weapons from the outside and the armed forces continued to fight with imported weapons. The armed forces (army and air force) were never really forced to make do with real outdated stuff and were never asked to look for national technical capability because the great big matriarch, the government of India sat on top of the army and air force like her majesty used to lord over them. The former continued to import and the latter simply continued to use the imported weapons.

The GoI felt the pressure to indigenize before the armed forces. That is how DRDO was set up. But even DRDO did not help the country make the low tech rust bucket stuff outside of the PSUs - excluding 99% of Indians from contributing to defence production. In the meantime the army and air forces heroically fought wars but expected the latest and greatest imports, having developed in an atmosphere that clearly said "Indian produced stuff either does not exist or is useless"

It is ironic that the departments that were totally starved are the ones that are shiniong and there is a strategic lesson here that I will state at the end of this post. The navy got nothing, space and nuclear tech got little help and missile tech got no help. And hey presto the navy is buidling kick ass equipment that 99% of countries cannot build. ISRO, IGMDP and the Atomic Energy dept are doing similar stuff.

The strategic lesson is as follows. The west, who have dominated the world for 200 years are most afraid of some game-changing technologies that can put their own freedom to act globally at risk. These technologies are rocketry and missiles, sea dominance and nuclear energy. They have done their darndest to starve everyone of these technologies and it is just these techs that stupid bum incompetent Indians have excelled in.

In areas where the west has cheerfully spoon fed India - we are lagging. Our defence PSUs are an example and as a consequence our air force and army too lag behind in thinking and independence from phoren

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3764
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby Shreeman » 27 Apr 2015 08:28

The indian bureaucracy is not "pampered". The lack of stable governance and persistent corruption means people need to be "extremely flexible" just to survive. You cant get attached to ANYTHING. One of the consequences is the state of PSUs.

Privatisation has changed the fate of roads, telcom, cars and so on in private hands is a)competition and b) use by public where shortcomings come out, and c)sell to survive. So unless you aim to use howitzers on each other privatisation isnt changing anything.

You COULD export and that would be therapeutic. But that is not happening either.

In the west, the same debate is happening in private vs public education. Is anything more important? Yet they are screwing it up consistently.

The problem is internal. The only feasible solution is forced exports a la ecuador. Every other symptom is a side effect.

My 1 1/2 c.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1421
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby srin » 27 Apr 2015 09:22

I don't see what's wrong here. The golden rule of project management: "good, cheap, fast - [b]pick any two[/b]". DRDO can make it, they can wait for someone else here to make it, but they have focussed on "good" (prior experience) and "fast" (no in house development). Keeping it open to foreign vendors suggests their confidence in local private players is pretty much absent. They don't want to risk the project.

However, it is possible and highly likely that when it gets into production, it would be manufactured here. OTOH, it may not happen and if it is too expensive, someone else would have reverse-engineered it and offered it cheaper.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60704
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby Singha » 27 Apr 2015 15:13

ET:

NEW DELHI: The IAF may be forced to junk its transitional training for rookie fighter pilots because of Hindustan Aeronautics' continuing failure to deliver its Sitara intermediate jet trainer (IJT), which was first sanctioned in 1999 but still cannot stall-and-spin.

Stall-and-spin is one of the critical maneuvers used to transform rookie cadets into top-gun fighter pilots in the inherently-dangerous art of combat flying. It teaches them how to handle emergencies, hold their nerve and retrieve their planes from a spin, as was depicted in Shashi Kapoor's film Vijeta of the early-1980s.

Sources said the Sitara IJT has been hit by a delay of another four-to-five years after missing seven deadlines for getting initial operational clearance following the formal approval by the Cabinet Committee on Security in March 2005.

The IJT will require major structural changes, including increase in airframe length as well as addition of another 305-kg to the already overweight plane, to resolve the stall-and-spin problem. "The IJT has been declared unfit for spin, even by foreign consultants like BAE Systems, after spending around Rs 4,500 crore on it," said a source.
:twisted:

This will obviously have serious repercussions for the current three-stage training of fighter pilots undertaken by the IAF, which costs around Rs 13 crore per cadet. A rookie is taken through the paces to ensure he can handle supersonic fighters, some of which like the single-engine MiG-21s are "highly-unforgiving" to pilot errors.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15000
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby Karan M » 27 Apr 2015 16:06

And a bunch of HAL chiefs reduced support on LCA to prop up this disaster to show off how great HAL was in design & could do everything on its own. Net result, zero progress on IJT. Further delays on LCA. MOD sitting and fiddling while all this went on.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby member_22539 » 27 Apr 2015 16:28

^Is it time to cut our losses and think of coming up with a clean sheet design?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15000
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby Karan M » 27 Apr 2015 16:53

Just drop it and focus on the Hawk/Pilatus-HTT-40. Never got the IAFs 3-stage program to be honest and most AF do fine without it.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby member_22539 » 27 Apr 2015 17:12

^Makes sense. I have a funny feeling thats the reason why HAL is so adamant about HTT-40. Maybe they anticipated this long ago.

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

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby member_23694 » 27 Apr 2015 17:33

"The IJT has been declared unfit for spin, even by foreign consultants like BAE Systems, after spending around Rs 4,500 crore on it," said a source

At least this proves that either the above article or some written by "knowledgeable" defence experts are motivated and more interested in acting as lobbyist for certain orgn. rather than taking the national interest first.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2013/12/i ... -also.html [2013 article]
So keen is the IAF to get the Sitara into service that HAL has been allowed to press into flight-testing the 12 trainers the IAF ordered.
In March 2010, the IAF also ordered 73 Sitara trainers for Rs 6,180 crore.

So IJT had no issues with lack of orders from IAF, which is widely used as a complain in case of Tejas
A tour of the Sitara makes it clear why the IAF is so keen. Unlike the clunky Kiran, the Sitara’s clean-cut lines are distinctly 21st century.
Everyone who sees the Sitara remarks upon its ‘wow’ factor. Many don’t believe that this is an entirely India-designed aircraft,” says Kumar.

That works out to Rs 40 crore per trainer, a fraction of what would be paid abroad for a similar aircraft that also integrates rockets, guns and bombs.
All that is history, say HAL project managers, as the Sitara is poised to enter service.


Like FM said recently
You see there are areas like defence where the cheapest is not necessarily the best. You have to look in terms of the entire quality of your model.

Tejas production line still needs work, IJT is facing others issues, now HAL stress to work on BTT, really don;t get this HAL model to develop the aerospace industry. At least something basic is not right

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34230
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby shiv » 27 Apr 2015 19:39

Singha wrote:ET:

NEW DELHI: The IAF may be forced to junk its transitional training for rookie fighter pilots because of Hindustan Aeronautics' continuing failure to deliver its Sitara intermediate jet trainer (IJT), which was first sanctioned in 1999 but still cannot stall-and-spin.

Stall-and-spin is one of the critical maneuvers used to transform rookie cadets into top-gun fighter pilots in the inherently-dangerous art of combat flying. It teaches them how to handle emergencies, hold their nerve and retrieve their planes from a spin, as was depicted in Shashi Kapoor's film Vijeta of the early-1980s.

Sources said the Sitara IJT has been hit by a delay of another four-to-five years after missing seven deadlines for getting initial operational clearance following the formal approval by the Cabinet Committee on Security in March 2005.

The IJT will require major structural changes, including increase in airframe length as well as addition of another 305-kg to the already overweight plane, to resolve the stall-and-spin problem. "The IJT has been declared unfit for spin, even by foreign consultants like BAE Systems, after spending around Rs 4,500 crore on it," said a source.
:twisted:

This will obviously have serious repercussions for the current three-stage training of fighter pilots undertaken by the IAF, which costs around Rs 13 crore per cadet. A rookie is taken through the paces to ensure he can handle supersonic fighters, some of which like the single-engine MiG-21s are "highly-unforgiving" to pilot errors.


I am like the "chronic patient" who has had diseases for so long that he is able to comment on every disease more than a doctor. I am a chronic aviation enthusiast and there is some serious bullshit in the above article and I intend to pass comments like an expert.

There is no such thing as an aircraft that will not stall. Any aircraft needs to fly above a certain speed for wings to generate lift and keep the damn aircraft in the air. If you slow the plane down, it bloody well will stall, even it the name of the plane it IJT/Sitara. Rutan designed his Varieze (Rustom 1 anyone?) precisely to make stalling difficult - with the foreplanes stalling before the main wing and causing a nose down to recover airspeed

The only question is what it will do after that? Will it spin or not? IMO Planes that do not stall easily are a great gift to mankind and a plane that does not spin is one of the best gifts a designer can give to a pilot. It is because most planes do spin that pilots are taught about how to handle spin. Your IJT may not spin but your Rafale might do that.

I once did a time-pass experiment in which I made a superstable paper aeroplane and tried to make it stall and spin. I also videoed that experiment and put it on Youtube for more timepass. Anyone who wants to see it for even more timepass can watch it here. Well made paper planes don't spin easily. Even if they stall they recover as long as they have altitude. I suppose it would be too sick a joke to say that the IJT is also a paper plane - it exists as a trainer on paper onlee - sorry. Not funny

Here's my video - about three and a half minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3xdC6VnCHc

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby ramana » 27 Apr 2015 19:48

IOW this Economic Times story is humbug?

What do the aero guys think?


Is this another tantrum?

Do Hawk etc. stall and spin?

I thought only dead ducks do that.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2596
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby Sagar G » 27 Apr 2015 19:52

shiv wrote:Don't know but the renamed Nishant does not require shocks.


Dumb me !!! All this time I was thinking that they have put out a tender for the landing gear itself but reread the article and it's only for the tires,wheels and a hydraulic braking system to be integrated with the existing landing gear.

Can you please post the tender pdf link here, the one I have downloaded keeps giving me "pdf damaged" error.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34230
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby shiv » 27 Apr 2015 19:57

ramana wrote:IOW this Economic Times story is humbug?

What do the aero guys think?


Is this another tantrum?

Do Hawk etc. stall and spin?

I thought only dead ducks do that.

Ramana Hawk does not like to spin and needs coaxing. But it does spin and recover

See this - by AM Rajkumar
http://vayuaerospace.in/images1/Advanced_Jet.pdf
On 8 May 1986 I flew a 85 minute
sortie on Hawk X-345 with Jim. We
climbed to 40,000 feet and arrived over
Cardiff and started doing spins over
the Bristol Channel. The Hawk did not
want to spin and one had to sit with pro
spin controls applied for several seconds
before she dipped the nose and settled into
what appeared to be a steep nose down
corkscrew motion. Standard application of
anti spin controls ensured quick recovery.
After the Alpha Jet experience this was an
unimpressive spin.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1501
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby Sid » 27 Apr 2015 19:58

When your defense source is an "anonymous" expert, then usually these stories are humbug.

If that is the only sticking point why not do this course on PC-17 or AJT, even though all three planes have overlapping flight envelop and capabilities? Simply don't have this course executed on IJT.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3725
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chronicle of DRDO/PSU missed targets & extended timeline

Postby deejay » 27 Apr 2015 20:29

^^^ Sid Sir, after the basic course, the 'spin' (IMV humble humble opinion) is an elimination step. Now I've come round to this view very recently. Your suggestion could / should be put in practice.

The IJT is fighting a battle in the media space and some heads up at this point from HAL may help.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ashthor, Bala Vignesh, csaurabh, dinesh_kimar, JayS, jaysimha, K_Rohit, L Ram, SPattath and 49 guests