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

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 09 Aug 2011 14:28

I didn't knew where to put this ,but a great idea and invention

Bharat Electronics showcases $75 solar- powered Android tablet

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 09 Aug 2011 18:17

X-post

IAF plans to helm Hindustan Aeronautics Limited grounded
DNAIndia

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 09 Aug 2011 20:15

Building confidence
On a high growth path

Leo.Davidson · Post by **Leo.Davidson** » 09 Aug 2011 20:32

shukla wrote:X-post

IAF plans to helm Hindustan Aeronautics Limited grounded
DNAIndia

Definately overreaching by IAF. Bureaucray or not, HAL is working just fine. Having the customer run your organization, is the best way to run a company into the wall. We are a democracy and the military needs to be in its place, this is not Pakistan where the military runs everything.

HAL on it's own need to fix it's act and for that the goverment has instituted the CAG. Instead I believe that HAL needs to convert its branches into individual companies that focus and build only their expertise. Right now I believe that most of the people in HAL are wearing multiple hats and cannot focus or garner expertise in one field.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 09 Aug 2011 20:35

^^^ Daring first post. And how very true.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Aug 2011 20:36

Actually the IAF needs the HAL to productionize the LCA. Development is over. As the primary stakeholders for the LCA they want management control. And the person they wanted was steering the development.

Incidentally the LCA was conceptualized when an IAF officer who later became the chief was in charge of HAL.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 09 Aug 2011 21:06

If a bureaucrat can head HAL , then why not an IAF officer.It is not like that IAF wants to control HAL.From what I read it just wants to post its own officers in HAL to improve the synergy between IAF and HAL.

Leo.Davidson · Post by **Leo.Davidson** » 09 Aug 2011 21:15

gakakkad wrote:^^^ Daring first post. And how very true.

Thanks.
I've been reading this forum for the past few years and it's time that sense prevails.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Aug 2011 21:32

HAL can't work in isolation. HAL needs IAF, and so does the reverse relationship. It is high time GoI and MoD realize this and take up measures to address each other.

We have already been victim to International middlemen and gangs to swindle crores from the exchequer in a jiffy of a deal. We don't want operational and production process be scuttled for few men or money more. It is not a difficult jeopardy to solve.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 10 Aug 2011 08:25

It is good to see IAF taking up responsibility. Ownership is MoD, so if IAF is taking up the post, there should be no murmurs. Or they should come out with a working relation with HAL, that is seen between Navy and the Docks. IMO, IAF did try that and if they feel its necessary to take up leadership position in HAL, then they must.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 10 Aug 2011 09:27

If the IAF sincerely wishes to make HAL a better organization it can do so by forcing changes in the organizational setup of HAL. IAF is HAL's biggest customer it can do that without being intrusive and making demands like the present one. HAL itself is undergoing an organizational change, give it some time and lets see what happens.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 10 Aug 2011 11:48

Leo.Davidson wrote:
shukla wrote: Bureaucray or not, HAL is working just fine.

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I read this. Are your serious? The fact that we have had to wait 30 years and then spend billions for a foreign BASIC TRAINER while HAL is busy designing stealth fighters is enough for me. Nothing else needs to be said.

Breaking it up into several smaller companies will only magnify the inefficiencies inherent in a PSU--we go from 1 layer of babus to 30. Makes me dhoti shiver just thinking about it. What we really need is to make it a semi-private concern with pay and perks tied to productivity and answerable to equity owners. It is very likely that we will be able to get more work done with half the people. It is natural that very few of our brightest kids will want to work for a PSU for peanuts and this is a long term serious problem for critical PSUs like HAL and GTRE. But I don't expect this to happen because the people who are at risk of getting booted out are the ones calling the shots now.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 10 Aug 2011 12:30

So why is ISRO so successful

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 10 Aug 2011 12:38

Victor wrote: The brutal fact that we have had to wait 30 years and then spend billions for a foreign BASIC TRAINER while HAL is busy designing stealth fighters is enough for me. Nothing else needs to be said.

Now , why would you say that nothing else needs to be said. What you are doing here is shutting yourself up and saying this is what I am going to believe and no amount of convincing is going to make me come out. That is your prerogative. And no amount of reality check is going to make you change your opinion.

What is so complicated about a Basic trainer that makes it difficult for HAL/ADA/NAL to pass it to external manufacturers? There is nothing. The issue here is that HAL is stretched beyond its means. There are limited resources in every sphere in the aircraft design and manufacturing phase. So it chooses to pick and develop products that makes economic sense and that feeds in enough know how and builds a knowledge base. . The value in developing Sitara is more when compared to developing a BASIC TRAINER. Plus there is a serious dearth of talent in this country. Look at how the 90 seater civil aircraft project has raised the starting pay for new recruits. But things are headed in the right direction. Mahindra is entering the space and so it TATA. That will free up HAL/NAL/ADA in a few years when basic tasks can be outsourced. I cannot remember the name now but are are already design houses in Bangalore which do CAD and structural design for aircraft. As a company , HAL must also manage it profit/loss book. And only HAL knows the facts and numbers behind the reasons why it has not developed a basic trainer but I am fairly sure that resources, value and economic sense play a crucial part in it. Thats the way a company works.

I have seen this argument far too often - we are importing Basic trainer then why develop LCA/MCA ? I doubt that HAL, who's primary job is Aircrafts , are ignorant enough to pass what seems like a obvious thing. Of course, you could have your reasons and you could be an expert in Aircraft/Manufacturing/Profit/Loss and in that case I humbly withdraw my statements. But having looked at the panel of elite members in the National Civil Aircraft Design here I can say that people who undertake these projects are not morons!

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 10 Aug 2011 12:51

Victor wrote:The fact that we have had to wait 30 years and then spend billions for a foreign BASIC TRAINER while HAL is busy designing stealth fighters is enough for me. Nothing else needs to be said.

IAF didn't show any interest in the basic trainer aircraft programme proposed by them, this has been discussed in this forum at length. If HAL is responsible for delays in indigenous projects then so is IAF for showing lethargy towards indigenous development, so when both parties are responsible for the current situation then how come IAF asks for the top post of HAL???

krishnan wrote:So why is ISRO so successful

Let our defence forces set targets for them then we will see their success charts.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 10 Aug 2011 12:57

This IAF getting into HAL - I have my doubts if it will be successful. Is IAF a manufacturer ? Does it comprehend profit/loss and resource management. Does IAF know about HAL's commercial commitments ?
What I think can be possible is the a IAF member sitting on the board of HAL and a lot of IAF representatives being part of the various military projects - and that I think is already happening.

vishnu.nv · Post by **vishnu.nv** » 10 Aug 2011 14:33

I think the IAF person on top of HAL will be a very good good for the organization. The IAF is in fact suggesting a 3 star office as the top guy in HAL. The military men are generally very strict on their schedules and are disciplined. They will never allow the schedules to be broken and will deliver in time.

We are facing threats from both china and Pakistan. IAF need all aircraft's that we can get to build our force levels to the 42 squadrons and there is no room for further delay in any of the future projects. In such a situation its good to have a IAF guy who knows the job in top of HAL.

jai · Post by **jai** » 10 Aug 2011 14:44

Neela wrote:This IAF getting into HAL - I have my doubts if it will be successful. Is IAF a manufacturer ? Does it comprehend profit/loss and resource management. Does IAF know about HAL's commercial commitments ?

All senior defence officers handle budgets of millions and are very good at resource management - it being a large part of their jobs in the services. Running balance sheets is the CFO's job. HAL CFO can well guide an IAF officer at the helm.

IMHO, an IAF officer at the helm of HAL would be ideal - to prioritize and focus HAL better on IAF needs - their bread and butter providers - their prime customers. This would give IAF more confidence in going local instead of imports- like the Navy.

HAL is not just any other company - they make war machines that IAF use and put their lives/national security on, hence the need for confidence on high quality deliveries on time.

Similarly, I am all for an IA officer heading HVF, VFJ and others involved in equipment manufacture/ ammunition manufacture.

This will help defence forces meet the placement requirements of its senior officers - many of whom retire before they are able to take on their next level ranks even when they have cleared their boards - if there is no placement for that rank available. This is a serious loss of talent and leaves officers who have given their lifetime to the services frustrated.

This will also help improve resettlement of retired officers.

MOD needs to give this a serious thought and not give in to the babbu lobby; but the chances are slim as both Raju and saint have not shown any signs of taming the notorious babus of MOD.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 10 Aug 2011 15:49

krishnan wrote:So why is ISRO so successful

Its because its run by South Indians (says a lot of em. Don't pounce on me.). They keep the Dili types out. DPSU's and DRDO is full of em.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 10 Aug 2011 16:07

father of India's space program - Vikram Sarabhai - not a "South" Indian.

Man who made the PSLV possible and made sure that ISRO emerges from the sounding rocket stage - Satish Dhawan - not a "South" Indian.

People who have failed to get the GSLV to work - "South" Indians by Chacko Joseph's own admission.

Take this "sportingly" as well. Please I beg of you.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 10 Aug 2011 16:10

I am also joking.

It came up during an argument with one of the ex naval commanders. He said "its because its full of your types." I said "me types?". He said "yeah! southeis (pronounced like that)." I "ok."

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 10 Aug 2011 16:23

-chhodh yaar-

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 10 Aug 2011 16:31

jai wrote:
All senior defence officers have a fairly good idea of financial management as they handle budgets of millions an are also very good at resource management as that is a large part of their job in the services. Also, running balance sheets is the CFO's job, and the HAL CFO can well guide an IAF officer at the helm.

I also manage my accounts in the family. Does that make me qualified ? No! Running a company is not the same as running the defence forces . Laws are different. Policies, practices are different. Priorities are different. People are different!
By your same argument, we could have Army running Ordnance factories and Navy running the shipyards!
Why stop there ? Why can't IAF run the government then? Take over every public service as well?

jai wrote: IMHO, having an IAF officer at the helm of HAL would have been ideal as it would have focused HAL better on IAF needs - who are their bread and butter providers - in a manner of speech being their prime customers. This IMO would have also given IAF more confidence in going local for their needs instead of imports just like in the Navy's case.
HAL is not just any other company - they make war machines that IAF use and their pilots die/ country is threatened when HAL products are found short or not available on time. Similarly, I am all for an IA officer heading HVF, VFJ and others involved in equipment manufacture/ ammunition manufacture.

There you go! That is what will happen in your own admission. HAL will focus on IAF's need. And that need not be HAL's priority. What about the other civilian products then? What incentive is there for an IAF man at the top to support the HAL's commitment to the civilian sector?
And how exactly will IAF rectify products that are found short? Does IAF have their own research wing? What does IAF have on quality assurance that HAL does not? Please elaborate.
Again...what is IAF"s focus here? Is it manufacvturing, logistics and QA of products? Or is it defence?

jai wrote: This will also help the defence forces meet the placement requirements of its senior officers many of whom retire before they are able to take on their next level ranks even when they have cleared their boards if there is no placement for that rank available - this is a serious loss of talent and leaves officers who have given their lifetime to the services frustrated.
This will also help improve resettlement of retired officers.
MOD needs to give this a serious thought and not give in to the babbu lobby but the chances are slim as both Raju and saint have not shown any signs of taming the notorious babus of MOD.

I am all for defence forces personnel getting good returns for their services. But not this way! OK...retired IAF personnel joins HAL. And then what? Spend 5 years learning the job of managing a production house?
IAF personnel cannot magically make a problem in the assembly line vanish. And likewise a HAL engineer cannot fly a military aircraft during war times.
Please dont mix things up here and stop ridiculing experienced technicians , engineers and managers at HAL.
A member of the board and also representatives from IAF for projects in HAL makes sense. It should end there.
A takeover will not work.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 10 Aug 2011 17:13

Neela,

Nobody is taking over. They just want one of the officers to be there. (I know its all financial wiz of MoD Funds) IAF has its money on these projects. This is not same as "IAF running HAL." The HAL babudom is bit tedious on both the user and R&D. Finance is really not looked by the Chairman. There is a whole lot of chain that takes financial descisions. Even if there are other products, IAF still forms a major chuk and is the key focus.

Your question on IAF's research wing is very interesting. If you remember, my article "Armed Forces don't have research aptitude" (or something like that), folks were saying that their job is to just fight and not R&D.

The thought process is out on IAF in manufacturing.

As a joke, Pawan Hans chairman RK Tyagi is the other candidate. It will be truly HAL's and Pawan Han's ...... put togther

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 10 Aug 2011 18:22

Leave aside what us non-experts at BRF think. We only need to consider why the IAF would even propose that they take over at the helm of HAL? Mind you, IAF is not an 'outsider'- they have to trust their lives to whatever HAL gives them. It seems clear that they were desperate and saw no other option when they proposed such a radical (for babu-plagued India) solution. I would support the IAF view any day over the politicians and babus surrounding HAL and MoD.

I am not putting down the LCA/MCA/FGFA programs. We need them and they are critical for India. But it is past time for making one excuse after another for the long history of non-performance. *Something* is obviously not right and we can't afford to get hung up in such critical and strategic areas. One possiblity is to bring in consultancy firms to take a look, not just at HAL but at the whole aerospace setup in India, including ADA, GTRE, ISRO and their interaction, potential synergies and inter dependencies. It is certain that there will be a storm of resistance to an idea like this because of vested interests but it needs to be pushed through firmly and urgently.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Aug 2011 19:12

IAF will bring program mgt skill to the table. There were IAF officers in past that were at HAL helm.
IAF currently needs the LCA to succeed. And can take no chances. The chief can censure the IAF officer if he fails to deliver.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 10 Aug 2011 20:08

ramana wrote:IAF will bring program mgt skill to the table. There were IAF officers in past that were at HAL helm.
IAF currently needs the LCA to succeed. And can take no chances. The chief can censure the IAF officer if he fails to deliver.

And LCA is at risk judging by the apparent lack of significant progress post the IOC milestone (itself diluted).

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 11 Aug 2011 17:57

Dr Prahlada is new Vice Chancellor of Defence Institute of Advanced Technology, Pune

wilson_th · Post by **wilson_th** » 12 Aug 2011 12:45

First private plane to be be tested by Diwali this year from Mahindra.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-s-f ... 32287.aspx

they are fast and as per another article "Mahindra's plane to cost 20 percent less than Cessna’s"
hope they start with the 80 seater soon.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 13 Aug 2011 20:30

Pipavav Defence to buy 51% stake in ship design company Conceptia Software.

Pipavav Defence and Offshore Engineering Company said on Saturday it plans to acquire 51 percent stake in ship design engineering and consulting firm Conceptia Software partly by acquiring shares from shareholders and the rest through purchases.

It did not disclose the value of the proposed acquisition. The firm also said it has signed a protocol with a company controlled by the Russian ministry of defence for a potential contract of about $2 billion.

Pipavav has existing strategic tie-ups with foreign partners including SAAB Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and UK's Babcock Group for defence production.

In April this year, the firm got the go-ahead from the Foreign Investment Promotion Board to build warships, thus making it eligible to bid for multi-billion dollar defence contracts along with foreign partners.

Pipavav said it plans to convert its existing wet basin into a dry dock facility to enhance manufacturing facilities for the defence sector. It plans to raise long term loans of upto 13 billion rupees of which 10 billion has been approved by lenders.

Pipavav Defence, which swung to a June quarter net profit of 79.4 million rupees compared with a net loss of about 98 million rupees a year ago, also said it is planning an overseas listing of its shares.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 24 Aug 2011 13:32

DRDO and ICAR MoU for conservation of plant genetic resources at Permafrost Based Plant Germplasm Storage

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 24 Aug 2011 20:19

Government to provide Rs4,000 crore for 70-100 seat NAL aircraft news.

The government has said it will provide seed funding to the tune of Rs4,000 crore for the design and development of the proposed 70-100 seat National Civil Aircraft Development (NCAD) programme which will develop a medium range transport aircraft aimed at providing regional connectivity. This was stated Monday by Union science and technology minister, Vilasrao Deshmukh.

Addressing a gathering at CSIR-National Aerospace Laboratory (CSIR-NAL) foundation day celebrations here, he said India was now a major market for civil aircraft with projections of over $100 billion worth of civil aircraft being required by 2025.

"In terms of numbers, this will translate into more than 1,000 aircraft in different capacities," he added.

Deshmukh said the Indian Air Force was expected to be the first launch customer for multi-purpose civilian aircraft 'Saras' which will be produced at Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) Kanpur.

Speaking about CSIR-NAL's contribution, he said that along with significant developments in military aviation in collaboration with Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO), ADA and HAL, the laboratory had provided the necessary base in terms of infrastructure and expertise and confidence among the India's aeronautical community.

He expressed satisfaction at CSIR-NAL providing the seed for this growth engine by setting up a small civil aircraft design and development activity in the last two decades.

Deshmukh also said even in the worst times of global economic crisis, India recorded growth rates in excess of seven per cent due to its stable foundation and financial regulatory system.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 25 Aug 2011 18:34

Mahindra- BAE JV delivers first Mine Protected Vehicle - India to Jharkhand Police

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 25 Aug 2011 23:51

Defence Land Systems India plans infantry combat vehicles, artillery systems.

Defence Land Systems India, a joint venture between Mahindra & Mahindra and BAE Systems Plc, on Thursday said it plans to develop infantry combat vehicles and artillery systems as it looks to expand its product portfolio.

The company today announced handing over of six Mine Protected Vehicle India (MPV-I) to Jharkhand Police to mark the beginning of serial production of the landmine protected vehicles from its Prithla plant, near Faridabad.

It expects to sell about MPV-I next fiscal as it eyes big orders from the Home Ministry for CRPF and other state police forces for mine protected vehicles.

"We are among the four companies identified for Indian Army's future infantry combat vehicle, out of which two will be shortlisted. Already we are preparing ourselves to be ready if we are shortlisted for that," Defence Land Systems India (DLSI) Managing Director and CEO, Khutub Hai told PTI.

Moreover the company is "also looking at design and development of artillery systems" to widen its portfolio.

He said the company is leveraging on technology from BAE Systems and develop products that are cost effective but at par with global standards.

Commenting on the MPV-I, Hai said:"This is the first such vehicle of its kind indigenously manufactured by the private sector industry being delivered to the police forces in the country." While declining to disclose order size from Jharkhand Police, he said the firm expects to sell a total of about 20- 25 MPV-Is this fiscal.

"This will include repeat order from Jharkhand Police, which will be slightly bigger than the first order and also from five to six states which are actively combating Naxalites," Hai said without disclosing further details.

"For the next fiscal we are confident of doing about 100 MPV-Is and we are expecting orders from various state police forces," he said.

Globally such vehicles cost around about half a million dollars but DLSI is offering it "at a much lesser rate", he said.

At present, DLSI produces combat vehicles such as Rakshak, Rakshak Plus, Marksman and MPVi, armoured bus, riot intervention vehicle and Scorpio Uparmoured for VIP security.

The company's Prithla plant has a capacity to produce up to 800 vehicles a year, of which up to 120 are MPV-Is. In the last three to four years the company has invested about Rs 60 crore on the plant.

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 26 Aug 2011 00:25

Mahindra gears up for military march

With expertise in sectors as diverse as auto and infotech, the $12.5-billion Mahindra Group is tapping into group synergies to roll out its next big bet in the Indian defence space.

kenop · Post by **kenop** » 03 Sep 2011 22:44

How are the DRDO-private companies working mechanisms in the non-top-secret projects?
An insider view would be most helpful. Please provide links on BR or elsewhere. "Development Contract" angle would be most interesting.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 04 Sep 2011 09:46

kenop wrote:How are the DRDO-private companies working mechanisms in the non-top-secret projects?
An insider view would be most helpful. Please provide links on BR or elsewhere. "Development Contract" angle would be most interesting.

All are top secret. For example, a front company places order to another front company in a particular region and that company places order with a supplier. Or, the DPSU places direct contract with a supplier. DRDO also directly sourcing in case of very critical developments.

For instance, you want a forged item of xyz dimension, only the particular part drawing goes out. Since the forged item is a fixture, the supplier has no clue where it goes. The same fixture can go into the DRDO water pipe too. Incase of high value, precision item, then the supplier may know the purpose, but will not have the entire drawings.

There is no fixed routine although the checks and balances have evolved from past decade or more. Unless. you specify the "non top secret projests" you cannot have a clear answer.

kenop · Post by **kenop** » 04 Sep 2011 11:48

chackojoseph wrote: There is no fixed routine although the checks and balances have evolved from past decade or more. Unless. you specify the "non top secret projests" you cannot have a clear answer.

I heard about a project awarded to a private company which did not seem quite top-secret (some industrial heat exchangers IIRC as the company has expertise in this domain). The mention of "development contract" in the context, looked like a (new?) mechanism of such approach.
Of course, this project also can be "front" for something else. Maybe, they are getting paid for something quite normal but delivering something else.
Also, wanted to understand what a "Development Contact" exactly represents.

kenop · Post by **kenop** » 04 Sep 2011 17:43

Quoting myself

kenop wrote: Also, wanted to understand what a "Development Contact" exactly represents.

No big deal there. Everything developed outside is under "Development Contract". I got the impression from my contact that there was something special about it.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 04 Sep 2011 18:00

kenop wrote:No big deal there. Everything developed outside is under "Development Contract". I got the impression from my contact that there was something special about it.

AFIK, this was more inline of DRDO turning into a Development contract agency than an R&D agency.

On the suppliers side, they will be given specific projects which is a subsystem. They are going to hand over it to somebody who is competent to develop it. I tried to figure this out, but, there is nothing special abtout it.