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

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

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

Post by Singha »

42 smerch TELs is a pitiful holding indeed. the old soviets would be a complete rotfl at the idea of the nations three most powerful mech formations having a grand total 42 smerch's to share between them.

and our holding of Grad was nothing to write home about either.

within the soviet system , thin skinned buggies like the T72, BTR and BMP worked because divisional artillery was built up to lay a killing barrage of fire on enemy positions and tanks, letting these buggies exploit their superior speed to drive through the gaps and avoid combat with heavier western units crushed by dense artillery fire.

as posted here the american mech divs also carry a massive M109, M777 and MLRS complement.
Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2197
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

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

Post by Shrinivasan »

We have what we have!!! GRAD was brought at a time when our economy was down in the dumps... things have changed a lot and we are moving forward on a higher trajectory. IA's plan was to manufacture SMERCH on TOT in India, RU reneged on this after initially agreeing to this. hence we stopped with the Initial order. SMERCH is extremely expensive compared to Pinaka and hence the plan to develop Pinaka II with 300mm tubes and longer range rockets effectively giving you a MBRL better than SMERCH!!!
BTB, we have around 200 GRAD MBRLs.
Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2197
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

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

Post by Shrinivasan »

rohitvats wrote:^^^One regiment per year was the original plan when such a system was envisaged. Expect good action on this front in the 2012-2017 Defense plan.
Pictures of Smerch MBRL have the # 356 (right) with the formation sign of 40 Arty Div, pictures of Pinaka also have # 356 with 41st Arty Div sign. what does 356 signify? where will Regiment # be displayed?
Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2197
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

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

Post by Shrinivasan »

GRAD BM-21 MBRL, IA is currently using a DRDO developed longer range rocket with a range of 35KM. Also the glacial pace of acquiring Tube Artillery seems (emphasis on SEEMS) to be offset by the rapid expansion of the MBRL and Rocket Artillery (Missiles) portfolio!!!
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7827
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

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

Post by rohitvats »

cheenum wrote:
rohitvats wrote:^^^One regiment per year was the original plan when such a system was envisaged. Expect good action on this front in the 2012-2017 Defense plan.
Pictures of Smerch MBRL have the # 356 (right) with the formation sign of 40 Arty Div, pictures of Pinaka also have # 356 with 41st Arty Div sign. what does 356 signify? where will Regiment # be displayed?
That number is a tactical number. It is assigned to each unit with-in a Division. Bde/Div/Corp HQs also have a number assigned to them. By looking at formation sign, one can find out about the parent formation. That is why the formation sign is blackened in case of vehicles on mobilization or exercise.

Regiment number or name is never displayed.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7827
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

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

Post by rohitvats »

OK. A question to everyone. What is unique about the pic in the link below:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... t-pic1.jpg.

Let us see who gets it right.

edited: linked higher resolution pic.
merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

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

Post by merlin »

rohitvats wrote: That number is a tactical number. It is assigned to each unit with-in a Division. Bde/Div/Corp HQs also have a number assigned to them. By looking at formation sign, one can find out about the parent formation. That is why the formation sign is blackened in case of vehicles on mobilization or exercise.

Regiment number or name is never displayed.
Besides tactical number changes every few years...
vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 573
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

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

Post by vaibhav.n »

Are you sure about the number of Smerch systems delivered??....IIRC there was a little controversy on the CAG report on the operational problems for the Atry units deploying Smerch also...

Link: http://www.kommersant.com/p1014294/r_50 ... nd_export/
The Smerch multiple launch rocket system has a 90-km. range. It was developed by Splav and is mass produced by OAO Motovilikhinskie Plants. Perm Powder Mill is a subcontractor. Motovilikhinskie has delivered 38 Smerch complexes to India this year on a contract dated December 31, 2005, worth $450 million. In 2010, another 24 complexes are to be delivered to India under a 2007 contract.
This takes the number to 62 units. Roughly one Smerch Regiment for each Strike Corps plus WWR.
vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 573
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

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

Post by vaibhav.n »

rohitvats wrote:OK. A question to everyone. What is unique about the pic in the link below:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... t-pic1.jpg.

Let us see who gets it right.

edited: linked higher resolution pic.
err...Formation sign??...I'm guessing that's 9 corps 16th (Independent) Armoured Brigade...Black Arrow Brigade?? :-?
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7827
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

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

Post by rohitvats »

merlin wrote:
rohitvats wrote: That number is a tactical number. It is assigned to each unit with-in a Division. Bde/Div/Corp HQs also have a number assigned to them. By looking at formation sign, one can find out about the parent formation. That is why the formation sign is blackened in case of vehicles on mobilization or exercise.

Regiment number or name is never displayed.
Besides tactical number changes every few years...
Nope. It does not. The unit may move/shift to new formation across India and take up tactical number alloted within that formation.
But the basic numbering format remains same for all formations.
merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

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

Post by merlin »

rohitvats wrote:
Besides tactical number changes every few years...
Nope. It does not. The unit may move/shift to new formation across India and take up tactical number alloted within that formation.
But the basic numbering format remains same for all formations.[/quote]

Ok, then this differs from what I was told. A number, say 262, will belong to one unit for some years and then it will refer to some other unit after some years.
Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2197
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

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

Post by Shrinivasan »

rohitvats wrote:OK. A question to everyone. What is unique about the pic in the link below:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... t-pic1.jpg.
That Arjun is from 18th Rapids Division and not from the 33rd Armoured division.
Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2197
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

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

Post by Shrinivasan »

vaibhav.n wrote:Are you sure about the number of Smerch systems delivered??....IIRC there was a little controversy on the CAG report on the operational problems for the Atry units deploying Smerch also...
This takes the number to 62 units. Roughly one Smerch Regiment for each Strike Corps plus WWR.
According to SIPRI it was 28+14=42 units. but it is 28+24=52 units also it doesn't make 62. How did you get 62?

There are 12 launchers in each regiment, this makes 3 regiments for the 3 strike corps and leaves Six launchers which could be held as reserves. There was a clause allowing India to manufacture it in India, there is no record of India taking up this and building more units in desh. Any news from Paanwaals on this?
Avik
BRFite
Posts: 228
Joined: 06 Oct 2009 00:16

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

Post by Avik »

Nope. It does not. The unit may move/shift to new formation across India and take up tactical number alloted within that formation.
Rohit: Have to call you out on this one. The tactical number allotted to units within formations does change every three years or so. So, lets say, you have an engr regt in 33 div, and it has a tac no. of 256; after about three years or so, the tac no. will have changed to 273 or something, even though the engr. regt continues within the same armd div.
vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 573
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

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

Post by vaibhav.n »

cheenum wrote:
vaibhav.n wrote:Are you sure about the number of Smerch systems delivered??....IIRC there was a little controversy on the CAG report on the operational problems for the Atry units deploying Smerch also...
This takes the number to 62 units. Roughly one Smerch Regiment for each Strike Corps plus WWR.
According to SIPRI it was 28+14=42 units. but it is 28+24=52 units also it doesn't make 62. How did you get 62?


Russia will shortly begin supply of 38 Smerch-M 300mm BM9A52-2 multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) to India under a $450 million deal signed two years ago, according to Russian media reports.The original $450 million contract, included the cost of combat vehicles, auxiliary equipment, fire control systems, personnel training, and a commission for Rosoboronexport.
The new $300 million agreement envisages the supply of two more batteries (24 units) by 2010.
Cheenum,
I had been trying to get the number of systems for the first tranche of Smerch Launchers. The previous link quotes it at 38 launchers instead of 28. Checked out SIPRI too and they are way of the mark, so it's extremely confusing. IIRC, the Splav site quoted a delayed first tranche of 10 launchers which could take the number up to 38. That's the primary source of the confusion. Based on the reports, I'm fairly sure the first buy was for 38 and not 28 launchers followed by an option of 24 more, totaling to 62 units. Any help would be great. :-?

Links:
http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... ms/281060/
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20081001/117357923.html
http://www.india-defence.com/reports-3038
Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2197
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

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

Post by Shrinivasan »

vaibhav.n wrote: I had been trying to get the number of systems for the first tranche of Smerch Launchers. The previous link quotes it at 38 launchers instead of 28. Checked out SIPRI too and they are way of the mark, so it's extremely confusing. IIRC, the Splav site quoted a delayed first tranche of 10 launchers which could take the number up to 38. That's the primary source of the confusion. Based on the reports, I'm fairly sure the first buy was for 38 and not 28 launchers followed by an option of 24 more, totaling to 62 units. Any help would be great. :-?
The data from the Russian site throws an interesting info. The Qty does not tally with SIPRI numbers but the $ value tallies.
First order
SIPRI - $450Mil for 28 launcher
RIANOVOSTI - $450Mil for 38 launcher

Second order
SIPRI - $300Mil for 14 launcher
RIANOVOSTI - $300Mil for 18 launcher
India Defence - $300Mil for 24 launcher

All Maya onlee. Interestingly Wiki says 62 launchers.

62 MLRs would yield us 5 Regiments, but there is no sign of us having more than 2-3 regiments.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17167
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

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

Post by Rahul M »

normal arty regt. has 3 batteries with 6 launchers/guns to a battery. that makes 62 smerch = 3 regt (1 for each strike corps ?) + reserve.
Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2197
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

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

Post by Shrinivasan »

Rahul M wrote:normal arty regt. has 3 batteries with 6 launchers/guns to a battery. that makes 62 smerch = 3 regt (1 for each strike corps ?) + reserve.
Actually, the SMERCH Regiment has 12 launchers (3x4) and not 18 launchers. Pinaka has 18 Launchers (3 x6).
As I stated in my previous post three different sources give different counts.

Paging Rohitvats!!!!
Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2197
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

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

Post by Shrinivasan »

Another Interesting thing about the SMERCH deal, the first deal was delivered from Russia, the second deal was assembled in India using an Indian built TATRA, hence the reduced cost. I wonder if the support vehicles (replenishment and loaders - both based on TATRA platform) were built in Desh itself?
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17167
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

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

Post by Rahul M »

interesting cheenum. any sources ?
Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2197
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

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

Post by Shrinivasan »

Rahul M wrote:interesting cheenum. any sources ?
Statement "Indian rocket systems are based on locally-built Tatra 10x10 chassis to reduce unit costs. Deliveries to the Indian Army commenced in 2008."
Source http://www.military-today.com/artillery ... smerch.htm
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7827
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

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

Post by rohitvats »

cheenum wrote:
rohitvats wrote:OK. A question to everyone. What is unique about the pic in the link below:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... t-pic1.jpg.
That Arjun is from 18th Rapids Division and not from the 33rd Armoured division.
Correct.

The uniqueness is that this is the only pic of Arjun with 18 RAPID formation sign. All the pics are from 24 RAPID or the older one are from 2(I) Armored Brigade. I have never heard of any info on Arjun equipped Regiment as part of 18 RAPID.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7827
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

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

Post by rohitvats »

Avik wrote:
Nope. It does not. The unit may move/shift to new formation across India and take up tactical number alloted within that formation.
Rohit: Have to call you out on this one. The tactical number allotted to units within formations does change every three years or so. So, lets say, you have an engr regt in 33 div, and it has a tac no. of 256; after about three years or so, the tac no. will have changed to 273 or something, even though the engr. regt continues within the same armd div.
Drop me an e-mail at rohitvats29atgmaildotcom.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

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

Post by chackojoseph »

rohitvats wrote:
cheenum wrote:That Arjun is from 18th Rapids Division and not from the 33rd Armoured division.
Correct.

The uniqueness is that this is the only pic of Arjun with 18 RAPID formation sign. All the pics are from 24 RAPID or the older one are from 2(I) Armored Brigade. I have never heard of any info on Arjun equipped Regiment as part of 18 RAPID.

Especially, this pic is very old.
pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

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

Post by pragnya »

Rahul M wrote:interesting cheenum. any sources ?
cheenum wrote:
Rahul M wrote:interesting cheenum. any sources ?
Statement "Indian rocket systems are based on locally-built Tatra 10x10 chassis to reduce unit costs. Deliveries to the Indian Army commenced in 2008."
Source http://www.military-today.com/artillery ... smerch.htm
related video - India chose TATRA for SMERCH MBRL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwkw3VNKNnk
Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2197
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

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

Post by Shrinivasan »

rohitvats wrote:
cheenum wrote: That Arjun is from 18th Rapids Division and not from the 33rd Armoured division.
Correct.
The uniqueness is that this is the only pic of Arjun with 18 RAPID formation sign. All the pics are from 24 RAPID or the older one are from 2(I) Armored Brigade. I have never heard of any info on Arjun equipped Regiment as part of 18 RAPID.
Thanks Rohit, the picture shows Arjun very clearly in High Res.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

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

Post by chackojoseph »

BAE Systems expands its geospatial-intelligence business for govt and mapping industries in India


SOCET GXP satisfies the Indian Ministry of Defence’s requirements for full-motion video, terrain generation and editing, feature extraction, image exploitation and orthorectification capabilities. With its expanded presence in the region, BAE Systems is positioned to surpass the expectations of the geospatial-intelligence community throughout India and the APAC region.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

:shock: Here's a question to ask BEL folks in the next Defexpo/Aero India

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=14865
Who Owns the Night?
The ultras do, because Bharat Electronics Ltd sold a lemon to the home ministry, reveals THE WEEK investigation

By Syed Nazakat

Soon after he took charge as Union home minister in 2008, P. Chidambaram cleared a long-awaited proposal to procure 32,766 telescopic night vision devices (NVDs) for the paramilitary forces. Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), a prestigious public sector undertaking, bagged the contract.
BEL started supplying the NVDs in September 2010. Till March 2011, it supplied 5,000 NVDs, of which 2,000 were tested. Ten per cent of the tested pieces were found to be faulty; the promised life of a piece was 10 years. The remaining 3,000 pieces are stored at defence depots, as the ministry is wary about deploying them in the field.

Apparently, BEL charged the ministry twice the market price. And, there are fears about some of the components being sourced from the grey market. Regarding the NVDs in storage, a senior paramilitary officer said, “[As they were not tested], we will not be in a position to identify defective devices and seek replacement under the one-year warranty cover from BEL.”

Following complaints, the home ministry has asked the defence ministry to investigate whether proper trial procedures have been followed and whether kickbacks have been paid.
The story began in December 2006, when the home ministry put out a tender for NVDs. The tender stated that the devices were to be compatible with INSAS rifles and light machine guns (LMG) used by the paramilitary forces. For a long time, the ministry was unable to find a supplier. On November 19, 2008, during a target fixation meeting with the ministry, the Ordnance Factory Board said the Ordnance Factory Dehradun was developing an NVD for 5.56mm rifles and LMGs. It offered the device for trial.

On February 23, 2009, Dinesh Batra, senior deputy general manager, BEL, wrote to R.S. Sharma, then director of procurement, home ministry, that it could supply the required device. BEL claimed that it had developed a state-of-the-art NVD based on XD-4 technology, in technical collaboration with Prizmatech, a subsidiary of Star Defence Systems, Israel. The company web site claims that “Prizmatech was established as Israel Defence Force’s biggest source for night vision devices.” In early 2009, a fresh ‘request for proposal’ was issued, leading to BEL winning the contract.

On June 23, 2009, a trial was conducted at the Border Security Force range in Gurgaon. The trial team consisted of officers of the BSF, Indo-Tibetan Border Police, National Security Guard and Central Reserve Police Force. BEL provided two models for trial—PR-1614 F and BEANS-0802. Ordnance Factory Dehradun also supplied two models—PNS-3X for INSAS and PNS-5.5X for LMG. Both failed the trials. BEANS-0802 failed the trial and the other one scraped through. P.C. Joshi, joint manager, Ordnance Factory Dehradun, declined to talk to THE WEEK about the trial procedure and results.

Allegedly, the trial team endorsed BEL’s claims without testing the device’s magnification, operating temperature, battery life (which should be 15 hours) and resolution. But the trial team insisted that the device should have cheek-rests. But, no cheek-rests have been provided till date. The trial team had also found that the NVDs were not fitting snugly on to the assault rifles as BEL had not integrated the sights with the guns. These issues created a lot of inconvenience to the shooters. So, the trial team strongly recommended that BEL submit the NVD for a retrial after fitting a cheek-rest and solving the slotting issues.

Surprisingly, despite the shortcomings, no second trial or field trial was conducted. Normally, all equipment is trial-evaluated in varying locations and climatic conditions such as summer, winter, high altitude and desert. “That never happened,” revealed an officer who was on the board. Lt-Gen. (retd) P.C. Katoch, former director-general (information systems), Indian Army, said that a device being procured after a single trial was unheard of. “It should be tested in the places where it is going to be used,” said he. “It should be subjected to battlefield conditions.”

Katoch said the four important performance parameters of an NVD are its signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), resolution, modular transfer function and lifetime (see box). “SNR is by far the most important parameter for an image intensifier tube [II tube],” said Katoch. An II tube is a vacuum tube device for increasing the intensity of available light in an optical system, and it constitutes 70 per cent of the cost of the device. THE WEEK learnt that BEL’s NVDs were not tested for SNR. In August 2009, the home ministry cleared the Rs:1,000 crore deal.

On January 7, 2010, S. Chattopa-dhyaya, inspector-general, BSF, issued a proprietary article certificate in favour of BEL stating that no other Indian firm manufactured passive night vision telescopic sights. “A proprietary article is given if a company develops three parts—casing, optics and II tubes,” said an officer who was on the trial team. “BEL developed none of these three critical objects. I am surprised how they were awarded this certificate.”

The proprietary article certificate was false because the Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Limited (BECIL) and the Ordnance Factory Dehradun have supplied NVDs to paramilitary forces. In 2010, Assam Rifles had procured 2,000 night vision devices from BECIL, of which only five have developed snags. BECIL developed the NVD in collaboration with a Russian firm. The Opto Electronics Factory, under the Ordnance Factory Board, also makes night vision devices. Ordnance Factory Dehradun has supplied night vision devices to the CRPF in 2000, to Assam Rifles in 2002 and to the ITBP in 2007. On April 25, 2007, the ITBP paid only Rs:1,74,300 per piece to Ordnance Factory Dehradun, while BEL charged the home ministry Rs:3,50,000 per piece.

BEL told THE WEEK that it had been supplying large numbers of binocular and monocular devices to the paramilitary forces over the past five years and that only a few devices had developed faults, which were being attended to.
“Regarding supply of weapon sights for INSAS and LMG for paramilitary forces, BEL received the first order and started deliveries from September 2010,” BEL said. “Till March 2011, we have supplied close to 5,000 numbers of these night sights. These are currently under deployment and we have not received any complaints from our customers regarding supplies made up to now.”

Documents accessed by THE WEEK reveal that BEL did not manufacture the NVDs. It was only sourcing them from Prizmatech in “complete knocked down condition” and assembling them. Prizmatech, in turn, was procuring the II tubes from Photonics, a French company. THE WEEK has with it a letter of intent dated January 26, 2006, reference number CV/CB/150601, signed by Cor Boet, director, Photonics, addressed to Moti Solomon, reportedly a majority shareholder of Prizmatech. The letter proves the Prizmatech-Photonics deal.

Interestingly, many of the II tubes do not have the mandatory identification number. Paramilitary officials told THE WEEK that some of the II tubes could have been bought off the grey market. “If a device does not have an identification number, that simply means that it has been taken from the grey market,” said Katoch.
What created suspicion about the authenticity of the II tubes was its low figure of merit (FOM), which characterises the performance of the tube. The FOM of an II tube is arrived at by multiplying the number of line pairs per millimetre with the tube’s signal-to-noise ratio. The BEL equipment’s FOM should have been around 1,000, but a senior paramilitary officer said, in field trials, it was less than 750 (see box).

The officer also told THE WEEK that when the issue of the unmarked II tubes was raised, BEL temporarily stopped supply. It had reportedly promised to deliver 22,200 devices by March 2011. About the delay in delivery schedule, BEL told THE WEEK that it had not received any request for 22,200 NVDs to be provided before March 2011. The available orders were being executed as per the agreed delivery schedules, BEL said. When THE WEEK inquired with BEL about the missing cheek-rests, its reply was that cheek-rests were not needed, and therefore were not provided.

“We have received a complaint about BEL’s night vision devices,” Home Secretary G.K. Pillai told THE WEEK. “We have asked the defence ministry to inquire about it because BEL works under the defence ministry. We hope to get the report from the defence ministry soon.”
According to reliable sources, high on the suspicion list is R.S. Sharma, former director (procurement), home ministry (see box on page 44). “We have registered a case against him for allegedly granting undue favours to certain private firms in the procurement of 59,000 bullet-proof jackets,” said CBI spokesman R.K. Gaur. “We are also investigating his role and involvement in other procurement deals.”

Another surprising element of the NVD deal was that there was no commitment from BEL and Prizmatech to provide spare parts. By the end of the trials, it was clear the device, in its current form, was not fit for service. So, the board proposed three options to the ministry. First, if BEL overcomes the shortcomings, the procurement may be made from BEL on nomination basis. Second, the NVDs may be procured through limited tender from PSUs. Third, procurement through a global tender.

“The best option was to go global so that we could have chosen the best device at the best cost,” said a senior paramilitary officer. Pillai agreed to this view: “Normally, we go for a global tender. It is always good to go for a global tender because you get to know what the competitive cost of equipment is. If we do not have different prize disclosures, then we would not know whether that cost is the best cost for the weapon system.” Then why was standard procedure not followed? “We will look into the case and see what went wrong,” said Pillai.

The lack of NVDs was felt acutely after the Maoist attack in Dantewada on April 6, 2010, which claimed the lives of 76 CRPF personnel. An internal inquiry report on Dantewada pointed out that the inability to spot the enemy at dawn left the troops at the mercy of well-armed Maoists.

“Night vision goggles and gunsights are absolute treasures,” said Vijay Raman, former special director-general, CRPF, who was in charge of anti-Maoist operations. “The view through a passive NVD may be 40,000 to 50,000 times brighter than what the unaided eye sees. With them, you own the night. But if the device fails or creates hindrance, then the consequences will be severe. It may take a soldier’s life.”

With the Indian market for NVDs projected at $1 billion, companies like Prizmatech are bullish on India. A defence ministry official said that one of the easy routes for foreign companies to enter India’s defence and domestic security market is through ‘transfer of technology’ deals, where they share technology with India.

In the NVD deal, transfer of technology was allegedly the cover to win the contract. BEL told THE WEEK that initially some NVDs were supplied in fully finished form from Israel. “In the second phase, items were supplied in completely knocked-down condition. Assembly and testing was done at BEL before supply,” BEL said. For the rest, BEL did what it calls an “in-depth manufacturing of mechanical and optical components”. But the question remains: how can Prizmatech transfer technology, when the II tubes were made by Photonics?

In the end, the ultimate benefactor of the deal was Prizmatech, which used BEL as a cover to sell a device they did not even manufacture! The ball is now in the defence ministry’s court. If BEL is found guilty of flouting procurement rules and procedures, will the home ministry cancel the deal? In this investigation, the defence ministry may find itself in an awkward situation as the Army has recently signed another contract with BEL for 30,634 third-gen
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

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

Post by chackojoseph »

^^^^ The other part is that Maoist have got NVG's too and they are triggering blasts with it.
Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1438
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

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

Post by Craig Alpert »

This is why I have said time and again, that the GI's don't have adequate NV devices to battle Insurgency and Maoists. Anthony should step up and cancel the contract with BEL and go to BECIL and fund them for additional R&D if the need be but ensure that the products they offer are 100% up to the mark. IF all fails, put out a global tender, I'm sure the French, Israelis, Russians, Europeans & the good ole USofA would love to sell these devices (albeit maybe a a generation lower then what their current forces use, but it is still better to have those then not have anything!)
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Post by SaiK »

There is no point going in for large numbers of NV, when we are sure it is evolving technology where we can think of proxy numbers or group of people get certain versions.. now, the real combat and marcos gets the latest always.. wherever it is from.. locally R&Ded and develped is awesome.

so, we need to have user categories and types of NV that they could have.
Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2197
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

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

Post by Shrinivasan »

shiv wrote::shock: Here's a question to ask BEL folks in the next Defexpo/Aero India
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=14865
Who Owns the Night?
This is pathetic to say the least. we are facing huge casualties against Maoist worse than what we face in Kashmir or on the IB/LOC and we bungle one thing after another.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60273
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

Look at the number of makers with or without collaboration. Why didn't they have a competition?
vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

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

Post by vic »

I have repeatedly pointed out that we are giving orders for around Rs 2000 crores for NVGs and around Rs 10,000 crores for thermal sensors as moronic babus are not alloting money to set up the sensor manufacturing plant in India
d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

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

Post by d_berwal »

cheenum wrote:Another Interesting thing about the SMERCH deal, the first deal was delivered from Russia, the second deal was assembled in India using an Indian built TATRA, hence the reduced cost. I wonder if the support vehicles (replenishment and loaders - both based on TATRA platform) were built in Desh itself?
i thought the first batch is on TATRA too. All pictures in public domain are on TATRA, including support vehicles
Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2197
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

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

Post by Shrinivasan »

d_berwal wrote:i thought the first batch is on TATRA too. All pictures in public domain are on TATRA, including support vehicles
Both batches are on TATRA, the first one Russian built and the second batch Indian built. Even in the first batch all support vehicles were either Indian built or assembled.
VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3280
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

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

Post by VinodTK »

Column: An indigenous arms card
Prior to India’s Independence, the PM-in-waiting Pandit Nehru had asked a distinguished British scientist and later a Nobel laureate Sir Patrick Blackett as to how long will it take to ‘Indianise the military’, referring primarily to minimising India’s dependence on foreign equipment and secondarily to Indianise the military manpower structure (overwhelmingly dominated by the British nationals in the officer corps during the time). Sir Blackett answered that it could take 18 months in the short term and many decades in the long term for self-reliance in Indian defence!
.... Interesting read
Post Reply