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.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50385
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 15 Apr 2015 02:33

shiv, Page 88. Table 8.3 gives the funding for the various categories in DRDO and product costs and under induction.
I don't know how to post the data but one can see DRDO is very cost effective.

And same page has the review mechanisms in place.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 15 Apr 2015 05:35

It turns out that the entire BR Aero India 1998 gallery images were taken by me because there was practically no one else. Those were days of 36 mm film rolls.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... roIndia98/

Let me post some images of projects to see where they went

1. Here is DRDOs Hyperplane
Image
------------------------------

2. Our poor flying idly. Although that project died, our desi AWACS is up and flying. A mixed story. The electronics bit is positive. The airframe part is struggling (but I will come to that in a separate post later)
Image
--------------------------------


3. The Naval ALH got a thumbs down
Image
--------------------------------

4. Astra and Trishul: 17 years on, Trishul is out. Astra looks like it will be in. I see no reason for despondency with regard to Astra
Image
--------------------------------

5. Nag! Wherefore art thou Nag? 17 years later. But yes, "things have moved". I hope some user accepts it
Image
--------------------------------

6. Kaveri. All but dead
Image
--------------------------------

7. Laksyha, yes, but 17 years on we are still lagging in a usable UAV
Image
--------------------------------

8. Indra radar. No specific radar issues to whine about
Image
--------------------------------

9. Prithvi - been there, done that
Image

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 15 Apr 2015 08:51

This image is from Aero India 2001. 14 years ago and counting. One model says "Irkut-HAL MTA" (Medium Transport Aircraft). The brochure says "IAF-ADA-HAL" 15-20 ton transport aircraft

After 14 years there is exactly NO movement on this. India is no closer to producing a transport/passenger plane than back whenever.

Here is, IMO an area where Private players need to jump in. The PSU's smoke and mirrors and poor customer relations will never get us a transport aircraft from them IMO. Someone wake me up if it happens.

Image

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

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

Postby member_22539 » 15 Apr 2015 08:53

Shiv, how come you didn't know that a CLGM is not shot from the cannon like a regular tank round, but rather launched like a missile, yet you thought that you could raise serious criticisms about it?

Are all your criticisms as ill-informed?

Doesn't this undermine the mob out there ranting about indigenous technology and its delays and failures?

Aren't you making a mockery of real criticism when you engage in fault-finding with such mistaken notions?

Of course, you could say that you chose what to criticize about and how to do it and its none of my business, but then thats defeating the purpose of posting on a forum, because if you just wanted people to just see your posts and not discuss it, then there is no point in opening a thread such as this.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 15 Apr 2015 09:03

Arun Menon wrote:Are all your criticisms as ill-informed?

They could be. It is possible.

Arun Menon wrote:Doesn't this undermine the mob out there ranting about indigenous technology and its delays and failures?

What mob?


Arun Menon wrote:Aren't you making a mockery of real criticism when you engage in fault-finding with such mistaken notions?


You mean criticism should be classified as real and false criticism?

Arun Menon wrote:Of course, you could say that you chose what to criticize about and how to do it and its none of my business, but then thats defeating the purpose of posting on a forum, because if you just wanted people to just see your posts and not discuss it, then there is no point in opening a thread such as this.


Do you believe there has been no useful discussion on this thread? Do you believe that other people like ThakurB and ramana and even The Jones have been sitting with their thumbs in their mouths reading all I have to write without pointing out mistakes I have made and posting solid and valid counters to my criticism? Do you believe that people are only reading my posts and are not reading the counter arguments and seeing where I was wrong as pointed out by people who actually think before they type?

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

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

Postby member_22539 » 15 Apr 2015 09:23

Shiv, I know many things you do aren't as simple as they appears on the surface. The debate here is the very reason I am reading this thread in the first place rather than just reading the DDM (which has more than enough rants). The counter arguments given by the various posters here are true gems that need to be read by everyone.

Having said that, what I am pointing out is that your criticism is taking the same ill-informed track that one sees in the DDM. While I understand that the DDM does it due to ignorance/retardedness/laziness/vested interest, I quite frankly don't know why you would do the same. Maybe you are playing mind games, riling up people to spark a discussion or maybe you made an honest mistake.

Regardless, I think that we should never let criticism sink to the level of what the DDM puts out. It should not make one disgusted enough to scroll over it and go to the next post. It should be informed and thought-provoking rather than just provocative.

I just hope the quality of criticism on this thread proves itself better than what one sees in DDM. I say this as I really want to read unprejudiced and relevant criticism regarding whats going wrong in our Mil-Ind complex.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 15 Apr 2015 20:24

According to IDRW:
http://idrw.org/luh-pt-1-structure-firs ... more-62001
In Aero India held in month of February , HAL had promised back then that first flight of LUH will be ready for first flight by August

I will try and confirm that and if confirmed - I am going to watch out for this deadline.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 15 Apr 2015 20:26

From Shiv Aroor
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2015/02/ ... -hals.html
HAL's Light Utility Helicopter (LUH), under development to meet a requirement of at least 187 light reconnaissance and utility rotorcraft for the Indian Air Force and Indian Army is all set for its first flight in August. An internal target of July has been set for the sole current prototype at HAL's Helicopter Division to lift off in July, though sources confirm that August is likely to be when it will happen.


Also note
Quick news points:
    The first LUH prototype will fly in August, officially kickstarting flight test.
    HAL aims for final operational clearance in 2017, and begin deliveries to the Indian Army and IAF by the end of that year.

ravip
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby ravip » 15 Apr 2015 21:08

"So far HAL is comfortably beating the MoD clock and plans to beat the 2017 deadline by a full two years. It has built a mock-up within the timeline; plans to freeze the LuH design by the end of this year; fly the LuH for the first time by 2012; certify it by 2014, and begin delivery by 2015."

this was what said by Ajay Shukla in 2010 when he visited HAL.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15513
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 15 Apr 2015 22:28

8. Indra radar. No specific radar issues to whine about


Or is that the only way to look at it? What about noting that since the Indra in 2001
DRDO/BEL/partners have developed and had orders for/delivered
- BFSR-SR (1500+ Units)
- Rajendra (28 units)
- 3DCAR (10 units)
- Rohini (37 units+)
- Aslesha (21)
-Bharani (20?+)
- TCR (20+)
- Revathi (P-28 as many as)
- AEW&C (2 units)
- LRTR (3+ as many as BMD)
- MFCR (as many as BMD)
- MPR proto demonstrated (8 on order)
- LLTR proto demonstrated (18 on order)
...

Am sure there are a bunch I have missed - in fact I know a few but I guess above is representative enough.

Point is you were saying there is little progress by the DRDO/DPSU/MIC etc from all the displays they usually point out, using the Hypersonic stuff as an example.

But the above shows how far we have come in other areas.

Because the PR is lacking bar ad hoc press releases these things tend to be missed.

member_28108
BRFite
Posts: 1854
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chronicle of DRDO and PSU bluffs and doublespeak

Postby member_28108 » 15 Apr 2015 23:14

shiv wrote:
ramana wrote:shiv, The report you quoted is about the engine. It ges very hot and even 20 sec burn time is good with fuel injected while at Mach 2.7
To me it looks like they have a solid booster that kicks it to Ma2.7 and then the combustor takes over.

Ramana - I should not be asking you this question - so it is not directed specifically at you and obviously I will not hold you responsible for the answer. But exactly what is it about this engine that took 20 years to achieve? I want to be proud. I want to praise our folks.

Shiv the technological challenge is to maintain and sustain aerospike ignition. No country has done it consistently - it is an area of intense research so don't you think that beating that timeline is of any use- they give timelines for budgeting in research centers- some are met and some are not .Unfortinately as these are not 'Black projects" details are metioned in the public domain and these funding timelines are confused with active timelines.A government has to budget these things- money will not appear from no where and if things were that easy - tell me how many hypersonic aerospikescramjet engine bearing planes are really out there ?
It is easy for armchair warriors to crib but simple example - one of the mainr eason for Kaveri failure is inability to get certain casting requirements and alloys - no PSU or private comapny was ready to do it in the scales that we wanted as there are no large scale orders.This posed a huge problem.Either you have to budget for that huge amount of money or get it done at afantastic price. Sometimes these things become unsurmountable even though obvious.

it is like when I asked why plastic tubing for the heart lung machine are not manufactured in India the answer was it is a 1/2 a day run by Dupont for the entire world's requirement for a year so no company is interested !

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Chronicle of DRDO and PSU bluffs and doublespeak

Postby shiv » 16 Apr 2015 08:47

prasannasimha wrote:one of the mainr eason for Kaveri failure is inability to get certain casting requirements and alloys - no PSU or private comapny was ready to do it in the scales that we wanted as there are no large scale orders.This posed a huge problem.Either you have to budget for that huge amount of money or get it done at afantastic price. Sometimes these things become unsurmountable even though obvious.

Ultimately it appears that at least one problem is lack of general understanding of the scale of technological hurdles and a mindless continuation of "government only" funding that comes in trickles because the minute money is put down for research someone will say "Farmer suicide" and another will say "subsidy for xyz". The media, especially prostitute media paid by foreign sources who raise the "poverty, starvation, rape" bogey any time anything high tech is attempted in India need to have their tongues checked.

Long ago developed nations created robust means of communicating some of these issues to people in a way they could understand. India simply has not done that.

Indian government run agencies have never been good at communication. To repeat myself they are just like the uneducated cleaner in a doctor's clinic who says "doctor will come in 10 minutes" when doctor has no chance of being in for over one hour. Even today - I go to buy something (say a printer cartridge) on SP road in Bangalore and the shopkeeper tells me "phive minutes sir" and I end up waiting 45 minutes. HAL and DRDO ofter do an equivalent of this by saying "First test flight in April". Then April passes and someone else says "First week of May". That deadline passes and then someone else comes up with some other deadline.

Surely they should be able to put a less definite time frame and say - "In the next 3-4 months barring delays regarding technical issues now being addressed". Unfortunately some of us live in a world where if we are told "Five minutes" we think 300 seconds. Not one hour. When I hear the name "August" I am thinking 8th month of the year - 4 months away. I am not thinking December.

Fighter pilots have to be time Nazis. They time their rendezvous over a target literally to the last second. If they are to be above Janpath at 10:53:45 AM that means 10:53:45, NOT 10:52, NOT 11:01. An Air Force accustomed to this kind of precision would naturally be driven to distraction by PSU nincompoops who say "April 15th" and then change to May 3rd, and then change to June 10th an finally it happens in August. Why make a statement of a time line that may not be met? Even for a person who understand that the technology is difficult it gets irritating to see what appear to be slippage. The least they could do is to make a short statement of why the date was not met rather than treating educated observers as complete idiots.

In India we have rural folk who sit at a bus stand waiting for a bus that is supposed to come at about 10 AM and they will keep waiting even if it does not arrive till 2 PM They do not agitate or complain - let me not ask why. But us people who are interested in military tech are treated like those villagers. We are given a time and that time is not met and there is no word. We are, in general treated like small fry who need not know and do not deserve any explanation, and the hot shot big shot PSU spokesman who said "First flight in April" gives no explanation whatsoever as to why the first flight did not take place in April. We people are supposed to "be understanding" and say "Oh technology is so soo complex. We should not ask why. The big PSU boss knows and that satisfies me even if he does not say a word"

I must point out the the missile testers in Odisha are better than HAL At least they fail to launch a missile and they put out a statement saying "Technical problems". They do not treat us like ignorant idiots. But HAL simply makes deadlines that it does not meet and does not say a word about why the date was given in the first place. The least they should do is explain why a date was not met - let them say "technical problems"

Why is this important? Apart from "Not treating us lay observers like idiots" - each time they postpone by saying "technical problems" they are owning responsibility and acknowledge that the public wants to know. They are answerable to the public, not just NaMo or MMS. After they give the "technical problem" excuse 3 or 4 times they will have to answer some more detailed questions. That is a responsibility our PSU spokespersons must accept. Currently they do not give a rats ass about going past timelines and there is no one to ask them or tell them that the country is interested. "Helorilla. Kelorilla", if you know what I mean.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50385
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 16 Apr 2015 19:11

HAL is a PSU owned mostly by GOI under MOD. So its upto the MOD to ask the hard questions and run HAL like a company and not a govt department. The golden rule remember?

There is a cultural problem here. If HAL thinks they can get away with galloping milestones as IAF the customer has no other alternative,(like the rural person waiting for a bus delayed by 6 hours) that helps the import lobby.
Add shoddy goods to the mix, the import fixation hardens.

And all along MOD is both the customer(IAF) and the seller(HAL/ADA/DRDO) who is having passive oversight of both areas.

We now have a hands on RM who is asking nay demanding accountability. He will have to ask for that on both ends.

HAL/ADA/DRDO claiming complexity of the project half way through is not acceptable.

Defence technology is started with mature technologies to ensure reliable weapons.

For esoteric technologies you have technology development projects.

I think we should go to the DRDO section where there is break down of funding and number of projects to see what's happening.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 17 Apr 2015 16:49

http://idrw.org/can-hal-finally-get-its ... more-62110
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) missed another Internal deadline, which went unnoticed in National media. HAL which has skipped many deadlines in the past again failed to get its act together and failed to deliver series production (SP-2) variant of India’s Light Combat Aircraft Tejas before March deadline.

The collapse of MMRCA tender has left a lot of uncertainties in the procurement of fighter jets for Indian air force which has been in downward spin in fleet strength for last decade. Defence minister Manohar Parrikar is closely monitoring production of indigenous developed Lca Tejas project but it seems it has failed to raise any alarm bells in HAL which wants more orders for Tejas MK-1 but is non-committal on delivery schedules of already ordered jets which are missing delivery schedule.

HAL as per delivery schedule supposed to deliver 4 SP (SP2-SP-5) aircrafts this year, we are already in mid of April and not a single aircraft has been delivered to Indian Air force commented disappointed Defence expert Ranesh Rajan . At this rate, it will be hard to squeeze in the delivery of 3 jets said Rajan.


On another note we have one more "defence expert" - Ranesh Rajan :P

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

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

Postby pragnya » 17 Apr 2015 17:14

shiv wrote:http://idrw.org/can-hal-finally-get-its-act-together-for-tejas-push/#more-62110
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) missed another Internal deadline, which went unnoticed in National media. HAL which has skipped many deadlines in the past again failed to get its act together and failed to deliver series production (SP-2) variant of India’s Light Combat Aircraft Tejas before March deadline.

The collapse of MMRCA tender has left a lot of uncertainties in the procurement of fighter jets for Indian air force which has been in downward spin in fleet strength for last decade. Defence minister Manohar Parrikar is closely monitoring production of indigenous developed Lca Tejas project but it seems it has failed to raise any alarm bells in HAL which wants more orders for Tejas MK-1 but is non-committal on delivery schedules of already ordered jets which are missing delivery schedule.

HAL as per delivery schedule supposed to deliver 4 SP (SP2-SP-5) aircrafts this year, we are already in mid of April and not a single aircraft has been delivered to Indian Air force commented disappointed Defence expert Ranesh Rajan . At this rate, it will be hard to squeeze in the delivery of 3 jets said Rajan.


On another note we have one more "defence expert" - Ranesh Rajan :P


seems these guys pick old reports, rehash them with observations by individuals on this forum and make a report!! :lol:

good going. i asked this on the LCA thread - viewtopic.php?p=1828337#p1828337

SP 2 was supposed to make the first flight by march 2015. it was SP 1 which was to be delivered by march 2015. there are many reports on this and those are the latest on SP 2 - info coming from the DM himself.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 17 Apr 2015 18:54

pragnya wrote:SP 2 was supposed to make the first flight by march 2015. it was SP 1 which was to be delivered by march 2015. there are many reports on this and those are the latest on SP 2 - info coming from the DM himself.

One point I want to make is that HAL officials should stop releasing dates when the exact date cannot be predicted. I don't know about the younger crowd in HAL but I do bump into some of the more senior types professionally and they tend to be surprised that anyone knows anything about aircraft. They don't seem to have figured out that times have changes and apart from tens of thousands of aviation and military enthusiasts we have so many news portals faithfully reproducing dates that are announced. If an exact date can't be given it should not be given.

In my own field of work there are some conditions for which the best estimate that can be given is that the problem will be solved in approximately 3 months. It would not be possible to say "The problem will be solved on June 3rd".

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15513
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 17 Apr 2015 18:57

Shiv - 100% agree. I still don't understand why HAL/ADA go out on a limb and end up posting these ambitious deadlines and then missing them even due to weather etc and reinforcing the perception they never meet dates. The Tejas has far too many instances of this. Either be 100% transparent and tell whats going on in every sense or just keep quiet and provide measured, periodic updates without unnecessary date stuff.

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

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

Postby pragnya » 17 Apr 2015 20:32

shiv wrote:
pragnya wrote:SP 2 was supposed to make the first flight by march 2015. it was SP 1 which was to be delivered by march 2015. there are many reports on this and those are the latest on SP 2 - info coming from the DM himself.

One point I want to make is that HAL officials should stop releasing dates when the exact date cannot be predicted. I don't know about the younger crowd in HAL but I do bump into some of the more senior types professionally and they tend to be surprised that anyone knows anything about aircraft. They don't seem to have figured out that times have changes and apart from tens of thousands of aviation and military enthusiasts we have so many news portals faithfully reproducing dates that are announced. If an exact date can't be given it should not be given.

In my own field of work there are some conditions for which the best estimate that can be given is that the problem will be solved in approximately 3 months. It would not be possible to say "The problem will be solved on June 3rd".


no issues at all with what you have written. also both ADA/HAL know the delay (many reasons beyond their control - radome/ifr) and panic when a statement is made by some ministers or officials or IAF. so you see new dates being given etc. adding to all that you have written the misinformation, disinformation spread by the media, planted news etc. only aggravates the situation and the perception only gets stronger.

however coming to the SPs, as you may have noted from the link in my post - SP 1 was the first aircraft from the new tejas facility at the HAL. so it is possible there can be minor QC issues, may be feedback from IAF who i guess must be flying the SP 1 which need to be taken into account for the next SP to roll out. i am not sure if SP 2 has indeed flown as there seems to be a lid on info. considering IAF will start inducting from SP -3 onwards and SP - 4 onwards all FOC standard (per ADA chief) may be they want to take care of any issues arising from the new facility so everything can move smoothly but the delay is inevitable.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1566
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

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

Postby srin » 17 Apr 2015 21:46

My take on the deadline slippages and cost overruns is different.

There are a few reasons that always come up in R&D projects - they don't know all the issues till you've hit the brick wall and can go no further (and then discover it is a can of worms they had no idea about), they try to be optimistic in estimations, they underestimate the influence of logistics on the timelines. It means that the estimates were wrong, not that they are inefficient. I've been in two tech startups and multiple projects in those startups doing ab initio development using new technologies and we've slipped my years. Forget high-tech, housing projects are late and more expensive.

Then there are those where the scientists are internally focussed - on the science - and not necessarily on the practical applicability and more importantly the usability of the project. And therefore, when they say it is "done", it doesn't mean that you can use it, it only means that they have crossed a tech barrier and now you can begin the process of productizing it (which again takes a while).

But when we talk about Govt institutions, you should be aware of additional factors. One is that the budgetary allocation is dependent upon the boffins convincing some sarkari babu (who has no idea and probably doesn't care) to allocate resources. So, they have to exaggerate the importance of the project, they have to exaggerate the progress, they have to be more optimistic about timelines. (Btw, they also have to utilize their full budget, otherwise the budget for the next year is reduced by that margin). And this is if they are sincere. And if they aren't - they keep getting transferred and wreak havoc wherever they go. There are also those who are neither good nor bad - as a job to support their family.

Of course, the CAG is going to pass adverse comments after a few years (public money wastage), but then CAG is going to do that to everybody, no ? And who cares even then ?

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

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

Postby pragnya » 18 Apr 2015 10:17

^^^

yes srin. agree.

delays have been there for various other reasons too - related to PM, tech complexities, designers, prod agency, non availability of past data for testing, non availability of talent, sanctions, tech denial regime, time taken for building an ecosystem and institutions, a non functioning MOD, and hands off by the users during the development phase etc..

what was needed was cool heads who could understand all complexities and work a way through. instead war of words has been the order of the day. IAF needs to understand too that in addition to its primary function of defending the country, it has a vested interest in 'operational independance' which only accrues through getting hands dirty now so they can breathe easy tomorrow. they have been liberal with their requirements wrt to foreign acquisitions/OEMs but not so with our very own which is sad. for ex - radome fix. this is related to only 'range' which ofcourse is needed but functional aspects of the radar otherwise are proven (quoting dr. tamilmani) which means it is not a show stopper. this can be done post induction too. even IFR too -i am not sure if it is taught in the initial phase of training itself that it is a must have (may be Deejay sir can explain this point). these need to be done. no questions about it but you can't hold it hostage for FOC. rather getting airframes to roll out, kinking out the QC issues are far more important IMO.

after all do we need to surmount our over dependence on arms import? do we want to save precious FE? should we fund the foreign OEMs to progress at our cost? do we really care for our own MI complex which provides for us? can the MOD show some guts and make all the people accountable? these are the questions which will determine the outcome.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby deejay » 18 Apr 2015 12:02

Pragnya ji, by the time LCA training starts, it is very advanced stage training. MOFT and HOFT (Hunters) syllabus to qualify a pilot as Fully Ops prior to being moved to a frontline (as in those near the fronts) Sqn. Personally speaking, IFR is something which will be done as routine for any kind of exercise so it would be qualify for part of Fully Ops status.

But you see, if training commenced without IFR today and it is included when IFR is certified later it will not change a thing. So, IFR can come when it does. LCA's if delivered even in IOC 2 status are OK to commence training activity or even regular Sqn flying..

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

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

Postby pragnya » 18 Apr 2015 13:29

deejay wrote:Pragnya ji, by the time LCA training starts, it is very advanced stage training. MOFT and HOFT (Hunters) syllabus to qualify a pilot as Fully Ops prior to being moved to a frontline (as in those near the fronts) Sqn. Personally speaking, IFR is something which will be done as routine for any kind of exercise so it would be qualify for part of Fully Ops status.

But you see, if training commenced without IFR today and it is included when IFR is certified later it will not change a thing. So, IFR can come when it does. LCA's if delivered even in IOC 2 status are OK to commence training activity or even regular Sqn flying..


thanks Deejay sir for clearing the picture. so it means SP productions should move unhindered - kinks wrt QC being continually corrected and the platforms inducted for IAF to use and a further loop of feedback/action is implemented to streamline the production/indution. as to the IFR - new SPs are integrated and the already inducted ones are retrofitted later with plumbing space being available on them.

on a side note it is possible SP 2 may have been delivered to IAF. i get that impression when i read ACM's comment -

"The first two series production aircraft (SP-1 and SP-2) have some slight variations and from SP-3 onwards we will have them entering into the Squadron. The first squadron will consist of aircraft from SP-3 to SP-6," the Air Chief said.


there was another report which alluded to this - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 204973.cms

however this is 'speculation' on my part as there are no other reports of handover other than the TOI one. besides the DM himself said the SP 2 will be ready for the first flight by march. did the HAL beat the deadline? needs confirmation. if it has happened then it is cool.

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

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

Postby Gyan » 18 Apr 2015 13:50

The fact remains that our indigenous production of technological advanced products like LCA, Arjun etc has been disastrous. The problem is on both ends and we need to study it carefully without rhetoric.

IAF & Army - We need to decide to what extent there is failure to co-operate in iterative development and how many complaints are genuine.

DRDO - We need to find out to what extent there are excessive demands by forces, where is delay due to lack of funds & lab infra and where gross incompetence lies.

Babus & Mod- To what extent import is encouraged for bribes? Is LCA being delayed by HAL and politicos (in past Govt) to generate bribe money through imports of Rafale? Whether funds of R&D is delayed or is tooooo low?

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby deejay » 18 Apr 2015 14:40

I find this thread very negatively oriented. I sure the purpose is to highlight a problem and encourage discussions to solve problems. Probably a look at successful projects vs. projects which are in a soup and chronicle the differences in their project management or reasons for the difference in results.

A prime example would be success of the HJT 16 programme and not the same with HJT 36. I am sure HJT 16 in the era it was being readied was equally challenging for our industry as the HJT 36 is today.

Just my thoughts.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63092
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

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

Postby Singha » 18 Apr 2015 15:10

Idrw
HAL as per delivery schedule supposed to deliver 4 SP (SP2-SP-5) aircrafts this year, we are already in mid of April and not a single aircraft has been delivered to Indian Air force commented disappointed Defence expert Ranesh Rajan . At this rate, it will be hard to squeeze in the delivery of 3 jets said Rajan.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 551
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

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

Postby sankum » 18 Apr 2015 15:51

There was a news report that only first 4 will be IOC standard and rest 36 will be FOC standard. So expect delay

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

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

Postby pragnya » 19 Apr 2015 17:55

sankum wrote:There was a news report that only first 4 will be IOC standard and rest 36 will be FOC standard. So expect delay


yes as per this and ADA chief.

i find it 'sad' to see how excited ADA family gets on 'one' statement from IAF chief. says it all - a ray of hope to save thier baby in not so friendly environment - given the brickbats they have received over the years for something they have endevoured to do for a 'national' project and undoing many decades of criminal negligence. in any other country they would be treated as heroes. well it is india....

however what i find perplexing is his statement that he is 'sure' SP 4 onwards IAF will get all FOC standard platforms. is he in his over enthusiasm, committing a mistake? while it would be great if it can happen, what if there are unforseen delays as happened already in procuring the radome/ifr kits? won't it only enhance the popular perception? wouldn't it have been better if he had stuck to the original plan of 20 IOC 2 std and 20 FOC std? shouldn't they be more worried about QCs arising out of the new facility or accounting for any minor feedbacks from the IAF so production stabilises, IAF gets platforms while FOCed machines will follow? will it not help their image if first 20 platforms are delivered on time? why complicate a schedule which has already been fixed?

i fail to understand. :roll:

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

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

Postby Gyan » 19 Apr 2015 18:30

My Solution, Higher budget for R&D plus appoint a Naval admiral as honorary head of IAF to show dissatisfaction with IAF conduct.

Eric Leiderman
BRFite
Posts: 358
Joined: 26 Nov 2010 08:56

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

Postby Eric Leiderman » 19 Apr 2015 19:09

Great idea , we need a Naval flyboy to shake up the men in blue.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 19 Apr 2015 19:31

Not a good idea Gyan and Leiderman. These may work for children of ages 5 to 8, but not for an air force. Of course we could screw the air force by putting anyone as the head and then jailing or shooting anyone who disagrees - which is as bad an idea as putting a navy man as chief. 'I request that such suggestions not be made because it reveals deep ignorance and reflects poorly on BRF which has degenerated to pretty profound depths. Only politeness and a requirement that I must not start a flamewar stops me from being scathing in my response to such an idea.

Please.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50385
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 19 Apr 2015 20:25

shiv wrote:Not a good idea Gyan and Leiderman. These may work for children of ages 5 to 8, but not for an air force. Of course we could screw the air force by putting anyone as the head and then jailing or shooting anyone who disagrees - which is as bad an idea as putting a navy man as chief. 'I request that such suggestions not be made because it reveals deep ignorance and reflects poorly on BRF which has degenerated to pretty profound depths. Only politeness and a requirement that I must not start a flamewar stops me from being scathing in my response to such an idea.

Please.


Shiv, the core point has to be refuted. Please go ahead as to why its wrong idea at this stage of IAF evolution. And no need for scathing response. :)

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 20 Apr 2015 05:42

From the missile thread
Kanson wrote:
"20 years down there is virtually no progress"
And how do we know there are no progress.....we may not know.


That is an interesting answer. It matches the question perfectly and pretty much sums up the public questions that are asked about delayed programs and the information that is given in response to the question. On BRF we have been the first to defend the fact that technology cannot be acquired easily or quickly. No. Scratch that. Some people on BRF (in fact that includes me) have been the first to defend the fact that technology cannot be acquired easily or quickly.

Forget about journalists. Those of us who defend researchers have paid very little attention another group, right here on BRF who compare India with China or Pakistan and even Iran. We are shown dozens of examples of "research" in China that have shown results in a short while compared to long fruitless struggles in India. People ask "hey Pakistan has made miniature nuclear warheads; Pakistan has made drones, UCAVs, Pakistan has made such beautiful handguns. Compare with IOF quality. WTF are our DRDO doing?". I have also heard people point out that Iran has produced a slew of technologies in which Indian researchers are stuck in the past. Of course there are valid answers for such "ignorant journo" questions. But who is actually giving out good answers? Certainly not DRDO. When someone says "China has made a working WS 10 engine and will export it to Pakistan" how can that person get any confidence in Indian research when he is told "Oh research is tough. You can't get results so easily or quickly" If you look at the media - everyone outside India - especially China and Pakistan are getting results "just like that". You and I may be sceptic but the best reply we seem to have is "if you know what I know you would say what I say". Duh. Not good enogh.

Do you believe that your reply "How do you know there is no progress..we may not know" is a useful one in this regard? The meaning of the reply actually is "I don't know. You don't know" That actually makes the criticism sting even more no matter how stupid or invalid the criticism might be.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6871
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 20 Apr 2015 07:20

Hakim,

If you have the right to question in ignorance, any body has the right to reply in ignorance. So, borrowing words from you "It (the answer) matches the question perfectly" is only fair and equally "useful" in my view.

By the way, saying that DRDO and scientists are "taking the country for a ride" is a statement made in very poor taste. They deserve criticism in many aspects, but taking the country for a ride is taking it way too far.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 20 Apr 2015 07:40

indranilroy wrote:Hakim,

If you have the right to question in ignorance, any body has the right to reply in ignorance. So, borrowing words from you "It (the answer) matches the question perfectly" is only fair and equally "useful" in my view.

By the way, saying that DRDO and scientists are "taking the country for a ride" is a statement made in very poor taste. They deserve criticism in many aspects, but taking the country for a ride is taking it way too far.


Yes it is in poor taste and people must take umbrage. But such criticism is not going to stop with non answers or people getting angry.

Let me put down some possibilities:
1. The Chinese bluff and hype their stuff so what they boast about is fake
2. the Pakis are worse - their boasts are purely hot air
3. Indians tell the truth so so they don't pretend to have developed technology that the Chinese and even Pakis claim to have developed in so many obviously publicized areas

Now this is a warm fuzzy story that I like to hold close to my heart. But as a story it is unconvincing. DRDO has not come up with a more convincing story and we on BRF who have been solid supporters of Indian research programs seem to want to avoid the most irritating and "ignorant" questions, or simply get angry and dismissive.

That only fuels more derision.

Let me set aside the hardworking researchers of DRDO whom we seek to protect from ignorant questions for the moment and look at what the forces have been saying and what the media pick up from the forces, and what "we the people" pick up from the media

1. Arjun not good enough
2. LCA not good enough an too late
3. INSAS not good enough
4. Indigenous 155 mm barrel burst
5. HPT 32 useless. Do not depend on HAL
6. Crashes due to pilot error covers up the shoddy maintenance and spares that we get from our companies
7. Our atomic scientists are liars and we have not done enough tests and can only field a 15 kt fizzle which is proven. This is an old BRF favourite
8. China, Pakistan have done so much ...etc

These points reflect the "general information environment" within which we (the people), DRDO (the researchers) and the forces exist.

What have DRDO done to inform to change mindsets that are rampant if it is only a question of being understanding and sympathetic of our researchers and PSUs and not one of actual failures? I put it to you that we will not even be able to convince people on BRF if we angrily turn away from such questions.

Sorry I am being difficult. But it is not an easy thing to wish away.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6871
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 20 Apr 2015 08:31

I don't think that it is a matter of sympathy. I don't think they deserve or care for it. And this decades of ridicule by the armed forces and the media have made them hardskinned to criticism. Also lets not be delusional in our impact on the whole scheme of things. We just stop the juggernaut (of the media) by providing a balance. Nothing more, nothing less.

You are asking for accountability, which is frankly missing. I will not get into the reasons, because the my laundry list might be different from yours and both are irrelevant. But, at the same time, while asking for accountability, you can't say, I will stand on your head with a stick, but I have nothing to offer back to you if you perform!

And this is where I don't like the current govt. The keep asking questions. But when it comes to offering something, I havn't seen much on the ground. For example, Parrikar seems to have a lot of spine in public, but his actions belie his talk. In the case of Chander, he took the fall for (seemingly) Modi's actions. First he said (to journalists), I am coming to know of it from you! Then, he said, I ordered it, and I have a replacement in sight. Three months have transpired since then! Now in the Rafale deal, first he said, This was all so sudden. Nobody could see it. It was Modi's masterstroke, two days before the French trip. Yesterday he said, every body was consulted, IAF bla bla bla. For whom will these scientists work? Under what faith?

Also the scientists can shoot back. We say Make in India, Make in India. And then, it becomes Make in FRance. Where is the scrutiny?

Did the Maha-CM come to Bangalore and visit HAL factory and sit in a LCA cockpit? Say, hey make your Nashik factory bigger, produce LCAs here, I will give you incentives. Or hey make a bigger overhaul facility for the Su-30s in Maha. I will give you incentives. Okay forget that! Let's say, after his visits, he did not like LCA and Su-30s and he "felt" that India needed GRipen more. That's fine he could promise incentives to Saab. Atleast he gave the desi scientists and companies a chance. But, why this preferential treatment to a foreign firm, knowing fully well what it means to the desi industry. What about scrutiny for that? Why is the scrutiny reserved only for the scientists and PSU workers only?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 20 Apr 2015 08:37

The PLAAF did not release any vision document that I know about asking for a stealthy aircraft with any specific capabilities. To my knowledge the PLAAF did not openly specify the development of a jet engine asking for certain specific things like thrust, SFC, MTBF etc.

Suddenly, out of the blue the Chinese announced that they had created the WS 10 engine. There was no prior history of mock ups, trials, failures, etc. The engine "just came". Equally suddenly the J 20 appeared. In one year the F-35 had a competitor. No prior news of earlier developments in avionics or stealth tech, or engine. Suddenly the US and China are up there competing for top place. PAKFA is not mentioned along with F 35. The J 20 is.

The PLAAF for its part did not complain "Oh these WS 10 engines are failing" or "Heck where do we fit in this J-20 into out operational doctrine. What are its capabilities? Range? Weights? Its climb rate? its holy AoA? Nothing.

One day the Chinese had no engine, the next day they had a working successful engine
One day the Chinese had no F-35 competitor, the next day it was ready to fly.

We talk of ignorance as something to be pitied or mocked. But most people are ignorant and the above story is like a fairy tale come true.

What did we do?

30 years ago we wanted to make a plane and engine well beyond our known capabilities. We set high targets and kept slogging at it - 1 millimeter at a time. At every juncture when some titbit of info was released there was somebody to compare with something else and say "What sh1t are our guys trying. they need to know their place. They are hardly moving forward"

When we finally got the plane, we find that we have been fed with so much information that we, intelligent as we are can now comment with great knowledge and say "Hey - angle of attack not enough", "Radome leaky" "Are the guns firing?" "Where/what radar?" We are too clever by half. Our deep knowledge combined with 20 years of being fed with information about every extra hour of test flying now makes us experts who can compare all the failures of the LCA with the F-35 equal, the J 20, which literally appeared overnight.

And what about the poor Kaveri - another victim of 20 years of half information - the goddam thing actually flew for over 50 hours. It achieved something like 90% of its targets. People associated with the LCA program literally pleaded in private - "Now put the damn thing on an LCA and try it out". But no. It is a failure. It is written off. And the Chinese? "Hey they have their own engine - the WS 10"

Who is faking it? Who is telling the truth? What does "reality" even mean?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6871
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 20 Apr 2015 08:59

^^^ Your question is why does China not trumpet its intentions?

I had thought of this same thing a few months ago. Why do some countries trumpet their intentions, while others don't. I feel trumpets are drawn for posturing. When there are two parties who might go to war, the lesser of the two uses a trumpet to say, I can bleed you equally bad. The less prepared the country is the bigger is the trumpet. Look at Iran, for example. So, yes. When we come close to China in military technology, I feel the trumpeting will go down.

And China did not reach where it is overnight. Its J-20s and J-31s did not appeared overnight. They flew for many decades in J-5,J-7,J-8, J-10,JF-17s,JH-7,A-5. The subsystems have been readied. It gives immense pride for a scientist to see his work flying and faultering, than become beautiful reams of papers. Now, everything is incremental.

There is nothing magical about it. You see the same thing with India's strategic missile systems now or defence ships. On the contrary, LCA is waiting for world beating radars, and radomes, and IFRs!!! Arjun is waiting missile firing capability!

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3404
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

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

Postby hnair » 20 Apr 2015 09:13

Dont have answers, but some thoughts,

US upgrades assessment of China's Type 094 SSBN fleet

This article was curious:

"The Jin-class submarine carries the JL-2 submarine launched ballistic missile [SLBM] with a range capable of reaching the US and will give China its first credible sea-based nuclear deterrent. Nuclear deterrence patrols will likely commence this year," he said.


Everyone knows:
1) China had a nuclear sub since 1980
2) China has a potent and mature nuclear force, with triad in place, a long time ago

So why did this Admiral wake up now and tell us it was not true? Why did no one tell the world in no uncertain terms that those subs tied to the pier for last thirty years are duds?

Guessing here, by using three countries (China, Brazil and Israel):
1) China's form of representative* government demands "progress", because that is what the people's representatives working inside the system has to bank on as "metrics of elevation up the power ladder", which are in turn aggregated into factions (or cliques as they call it) et al. In our case, we have caste, money et al, which is turned into factions and then into a party. This "party" layer is the only one missing in China. To use Indian terms, their Party, Election Commission and Parliament is fused into a layer called "CPC".

2) The Chinese govt of the day (80s) obviously made a smallish reactor, shoved it into a fuggly hull and turned it on. The coolants must have been pumped in and out by quayside pumps and the entire area would be still having kids with third eye and fourth ear from the radiation. But the fanfare was so great, the representatives of that area and their clique must have got booted higher up, for providing maal for "triad" news feeds. Khan's panchagone was busy with soviets and they wanted more funds. So this was a godsend and their MSM played it up too. No one in MSM (or Capitol) looked closely at deterrence patrols of cheen. Or rather, lack of one.

3) Same is the case for their space program. They stabilized in the late 90s, but were always considered as "a space power since the 60s". Their crew modules looks very steam-punk, for obvious reasons

4) Brazil had plans for nuclear weapons, nuclear sub, ICBMs, aircraft carriers, space launchers, non-stick jack-fruit halwa et al. They are nowhere close to fruition and things like the SLV had horrendous failures too. Their public, IIRC, screams like our public at "wastage". Some of the programs (like ICBM and nukes) got choked successfully by khan and friends. Brazil does not negotiate with a gun onto their heads like bakis or Kims.

5) Brazil can allow itself to be choked by khan, because its military's only real enemies are the Candiru fish of Amazon. Even piranhas are gentle and dont attack humans (as goras dipping their pasty butts in piranha-tanks @ Discovery channels proved)

6) Brazil is termed "achiever" in BRF, because of that Embraer jet. I too clap politely and push away thoughts of "but they dont make engines".

7) Israel is a country that is a half-way house for technologies that need to be hooked out to the world by khan, without tripping off the Capitol snoozers (since Iran-Contra games). But it does not seem to go as khan plans. Reason? Due to being surrounded by a jillion idiots with guns and shoulder-chips, the Israelis work hard and beat up their researchers into coming up with that delta, that khan has not cleared for sale. Their communal leverage in khan's economic world helps and acts as an indirect bribing mechanism of Khan's politicians. For not asking awkward questions

8) Israel's politicians are (with exception of electorally insignificant few) all ultra-hawkish by Indian standards. Their mandatory military service means these people know what it means to be holding a small stick. The budgeting et al, they learn after joining politics. So their science programs are all well controlled.

9) Israel's representational system of stuffing ballots is like a bank's rather than a country with myraid races or communities. The bottom line is all that matter and that is making sure the country survives that Apocalypse of Jillion crazies. Kind of like the gora Survivalists you see in khan. Not a fun life to lead


Summarize: India, has the attitude of Brazil, but enemies that are stronger than Israel's. And has khan's favourite neck to choke. Not always successful, but does not STFU, despite everyone calling it names, including us here in BRF :D

China is somewhere in between India and Israel.
___________________________
* I am assuming democracy as we practice is one form, their party system route is another way to represent. I am substituting "elections" with "party congress" since no God came down and said "though shalt need to shove a paper with stamp through a slit, to anoint a douchebag to lord over you on my behalf" to us in the non-atheist world. Nor did the Lawd say "though shalt not elevate a douchebag at a district/province/national Party Congress, based on his geek-achievements, via a show of hands". In their case the way politico-turds float to top is by a combo of successful projects and consensus building, not elections or caste. As good or bad as "democracy" as we know it
Last edited by hnair on 20 Apr 2015 10:25, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Edited

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

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

Postby Zynda » 20 Apr 2015 09:34

I don't think this is completely OT to what is being discussed here. One of the issues with PSU is definitely manpower.

One of the posters here had provided a name of a consultancy in Bangalore which places folks on contracts basis to PSU/Govt. Defense Labs. A friend of mine with around 4-5 years of aero engineering experience (both in India & abroad) managed to contact the said consultancy last week regarding his desire to work in ADA/ADE/HAL Rotor Division or any of the aero indigenous product development firms in Bangalore.

When called, the consultancy did not encourage him to visit their office and they clearly said that we only place freshers and do not even entertain experienced folks. When pressed further about this experience and his desire, the consultancy said there is no use for him to waste his time traveling to their place.

Point is, there is absolutely no mechanism for experienced people to gain entry and contribute towards indigenous programs in India. Without fresh lateral thinking, HAL will still be stuck with manual composite laying techniques or our structures being overweight compared to contemporary products.

I am actually quite disappointed. So with the Govt labs, its like you get in early (fresh outta school) or you don't get in at all.

I believe DRDO wanted to "attract" talented NRIs to come & work on its programs few years back. The eligibility criteria was so high that unless you played a significant role in any aero/missile stream, your application probably wouldn't pass screening test. But there are many people with good amount of experience but not "highly" accomplished who are interested in helping Indian efforts. Good luck to Govt labs on their programs with their current hiring practices.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3404
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

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

Postby hnair » 20 Apr 2015 09:47

btw, Iran has similar representational model like China's. Imamlings and geeks rising up the Majilis. Their stealth fighters, stealth flying boats, stealth bicycles, stealth ICBM et al are the equivalent of those PR photos of cheen's special forces in segways and mechanized infantry riding into war using 6x6 Wolverine mould.

No one really asks questions, sitting in Isfahan or Dalian, that Doc asks here.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Rakesh and 20 guests