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

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 06 Oct 2011 16:29

What a lot of speculation to prove a convoluted point. Really what is your point, again?!!!

If I am paraphrasing you correctly, you are saying that everybody is somewhat content because there is no pressing need.

You couldn't be more wrong ... the LCA were wanted by the IAF long long time back ... so were the basic trainers.

Besides, Mahindra did not wait for orders ... it saw that there is a market and did the needful ... So did Pipapav ... there couldn't have been more positive news from those two quarters.

Please don't speculate to prove a populist point ... and frankly it is not about appeasing me or any other Indian

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 06 Oct 2011 19:54

^^^ indranilroy,

I guess, the basic points I was trying to make are;

1) Yes, the LCA development program would seem to be much delayed; however it’s not as if HAL/ADA are waaay behind the defence plan. In fact, they seem to be well in-tune with it.

2) It seems to me that the ‘slow goings’ ’til now do not preclude an uber-fast rate of serial production, once all the technologies for the complete platform/warload are worked-out, and the specifications of the variants are finally frozen.

3) In fact, there are several outward and public indications that the LCA is being engineered for very rapid production (please refer to my earlier post). I would be extremely surprised if the LCA assembly line annual output would only be 16 planes/year (as with the SU-30 MKI, which is a much larger, more complex and elaborate piece of equipment, from an engineering and manufacturing standpoint). Indeed, I think that HAL is not just developing LCA prototypes, they are simultaneously developing production equipment, very likely for more than a single assembly line – which is altogether a more complex undertaking that is typically slow to get ‘up and running’, but once it’s ready, it can really hum-along at a fantastic speed. It may one day even be possible for HAL to produce 40 LCAs a year, of a mix of different variants. Such a rate of production would seriously eclipse any other military aircraft production rate. Don’t forget, in warfare, often ‘quantity is quality’.

4) The implications for being able to produce ‘mixed lot’ tranches of a sophisticated aerospace/defence product ARE HUGE, and not only give India a military advantage, but also an important industrial advantage that could have even wider implications than being able to ‘move mud’, and that too, sooner than anyone thinks. IMO, too many Rakshaks have not properly considered this, probably because HAL/ADA executives have not talked it up, either (being under no pressure for their 'share price', and also not wanting to forewarn industrial competitors.

From what I understand about fabrication and manufacturing (which is not a little, if I may say so); the LCA Tejas is being developed not only for the purposes of Indian national defense, but also for the purposes of commercial export. Judging by the way the thing is designed, and the production technologies that have been mentioned, plus what has been published about the testing regimen, it is obvious to me that HAL is looking at the LCA Tejas to be a commercial blockbuster (meaning exports, and all of the geopolitical opportunities that would entail).

These things are more than what they seem. That's not speculation.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 07 Oct 2011 08:04

You have again added a lot of speculation.

No sir the LCA MK I is not going to be made uber fast. They do not have enough orders to go at that speed. They are going to make 12 aircrafts a year or something like the likes.

What has been made public is that LSP 7 and LSP 8 are one the first "serially produced" LCAs and hence there was a delay in getting the rigs in place. Nothing more or nothing less has been said.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 07 Oct 2011 09:00

It was mentioned by officials that, becoz of the composites and methods used if a plane take 12 months to manufacture LCA takes only 8 months. I guess Ravi Karumanchiri alludes to that.

vic · Post by **vic** » 07 Oct 2011 09:15

Vipul wrote:KMML test-run produces titanium sponge.

The public sector Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd (KMML) has started producing ‘titanium sponge' from its Titanium Sponge Plant (TSP).
The Industries Minister, Mr P. K. Kunhalikkutty, has congratulated the public sector unit for managing to produce titanium sponge metal for the first time in the country.

Backed by technology from the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), the TSP has the capacity to produce 500 tonnes of titanium sponge annually. This is sought to be enhanced to 1000 tonnes.Magnesium chloride is the major byproduct from the TSP and KMML is preparing a project to separate magnesium and chlorine.

By world standards how big is 1000 tons plant? I think the world production is around 2 lakh tons per annum or thereabouts??

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 07 Oct 2011 10:13

Kanson wrote:It was mentioned by officials that, becoz of the composites and methods used if a plane take 12 months to manufacture LCA takes only 8 months. I guess Ravi Karumanchiri alludes to that.

The throughput of a assembly line is not defined by the time required to fabricate a single plane. A assembly line is a pipeline and its throughput is going to be defined by the granularity of the pipeline, and the efficiency of the pipeline (% of time when the plane was worked on while it was in the pipeline). Given a 100% efficient pipeline, the time to manufacture a jet is going to be the duration of the lengthiest process in the pipeline.

The more orders you have, the more granular you will make the pipeline. Obviously it cannot go to a granularity lower than the largest atomic action in the manufacturing process. At that point if you want further throughput you duplicate the pipeline.

HAL has said (IIRC) that it could go upto 20 planes per year. But with the given orders it will only be economical to produce at 12 planes per year. Any mumbo-jumbo beyond this is only going to be speculations.

What is worse than not being able to fathom the situation? It is to build up wrong notions and hopes based on unsubstantiated speculations. Then down the line people would again say, HAL/ADA did not deliver!

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 07 Oct 2011 10:39

indranilroy wrote:HAL has said (IIRC) that it could go upto 20 planes per year. But with the given orders it will only be economical to produce at 12 planes per year. Any mumbo-jumbo beyond this is only going to be speculations.

What is worse than not being able to fathom the situation? It is to build up wrong notions and hopes based on unsubstantiated speculations. Then down the line people would again say, HAL/ADA did not deliver!

Valid point.

My statement has nothing to do with HAL, their throughput or their policies. I just restated what was said by ADA officials. It only means that compared to conventional aircraft, LCA take only 3/4th of the time to manufacture.

Gaurav_S · Post by **Gaurav_S** » 07 Oct 2011 10:56

IIT Bombay to help security forces fight terrorism

The Indian Institute of Technology-Bombay will set up a research centre on homeland security to help police and paramilitary forces use state-of-the-art technology to tackle problems like urban terrorism, naxalism and cyber crime.

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 07 Oct 2011 22:43

From robots to insect repellents, corporates are bringing to the market technologies developed by the Defence Research Development Organisation

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 08 Oct 2011 09:45

India & U K to collaborate Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear protection Devices

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 09 Oct 2011 22:09

indranilroy wrote:
Kanson wrote:It was mentioned by officials that, becoz of the composites and methods used if a plane take 12 months to manufacture LCA takes only 8 months. I guess Ravi Karumanchiri alludes to that.
The throughput of a assembly line is not defined by the time required to fabricate a single plane. A assembly line is a pipeline and its throughput is going to be defined by the granularity of the pipeline, and the efficiency of the pipeline (% of time when the plane was worked on while it was in the pipeline). Given a 100% efficient pipeline, the time to manufacture a jet is going to be the duration of the lengthiest process in the pipeline.

The more orders you have, the more granular you will make the pipeline. Obviously it cannot go to a granularity lower than the largest atomic action in the manufacturing process. At that point if you want further throughput you duplicate the pipeline.
...
<snip>

Actually: You wouldn't have to "duplicate the pipeline", as you put it, you'd only have to double-up (or triple-up, etc.) the station with the longest cycle time, in order to meet requirements for "available time" throughout the entire process, given a required rate of output.

Kanson wrote:
indranilroy wrote:HAL has said (IIRC) that it could go upto 20 planes per year. But with the given orders it will only be economical to produce at 12 planes per year. Any mumbo-jumbo beyond this is only going to be speculations.

What is worse than not being able to fathom the situation? It is to build up wrong notions and hopes based on unsubstantiated speculations. Then down the line people would again say, HAL/ADA did not deliver!
Valid point.

My statement has nothing to do with HAL, their throughput or their policies. I just restated what was said by ADA officials. It only means that compared to conventional aircraft, LCA take only 3/4th of the time to manufacture.

I think it's rather interesting that the LSP-7 and LSP-8 came-out together, so close in time. This would imply at least two sets of production jigs.

[SPECULATION] I can see a likely scenario where through the first 2-4 years of serial production of the LCA Tejas, annual output would be something like 12 aircraft -- to be able to 'get some hours out' on the airframe, then lots of non-destructive testing, and more hard flying. This is only reasonable for a new aircraft.

After this time, you will see that HAL will be running at least two production lines, both of which will be able to produce single and double seaters. Both of these production lines will have been in operation from the very beginning of serial production.

To be clear: I think HAL has two production lines already, and are able to make-ready LSP-7 using one set of production jigs, and LSP-8 using another. This doesn't mean to say that every piece of production eqiupment is duplicated, but rather, that overall production capacity is clearly more than what they are letting on (being very low-key guys, that they obviously are).

While they are still in the testing phase and have not yet integrated all the intended weapons and other systems, production rates will be kept low, probably no more than 6 per line annually (total production 12 per year). When orders pick up (likely including some for export, very soon after the LCA is offered for sale), each line can easilly turn-out 20 planes per year, especially if the line is run at double-shifts (and then, it could be more too).

Just to refresh everyone's memory, part of what has me thinking in this direction, is the fabrication and manufacture of the LCA Tejas itself.

==> High use of composites (instead of machined metals -- high machine time, composites are quicker)
==> Monocoque construction (the chassis and the skin are one, fabricated as such, much less assembly)
==> Minimal use of rivets (reduces manual labour, and RCS)
==> Tail-less design, minimal control surfaces (mechanical simplicity, meaning fewer moving parts, assembly time, maintenance)
==> Small form factor (lower logistical burdens)
==> Modular electronics
==> Single Engine
etc.

[/SPECULATION]

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 09 Oct 2011 22:40

HAL Annual Report 2010-11

The programme to upgrade the Jaguar Aircraft to DARIN III standard has progressed satisfactorily. The Critical Design Review (CDR) was completed in September 2010 (2nd CCS milestone) and design work on Avionics, Mechanical, and Electrical systems along with Software have been completed. Three aircraft have been inducted for the modifications. The progress of modification work on the first aircraft (Maritime version) has been on target and the first flight on the aircraft is planned for September 2011.

Technology absorption was successfully completed for production of Su-30 MKI following the raw material phase,and the first aircraft from Phase IV was produced during the year.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 10 Oct 2011 00:18

Given the numerous processor based systems that DRDO has been developing, IMO, DRDO should start building their own processors, something which licenses the ARM cores and builds specialised hardware on top of these cores(like tegra4, omap). We can then create MIL standard packaging for the chips too after that. In this venture DRDO can provide the overall design specifications and can have its s/w team to build the tool chain like compiler/linkers/assemblers/elfweavers and in circuit debuggers while a small private firm can take up the responsibility of licensing the core and adding specific hardware accelerators/co-processors. This kind of specialised hardware can decrease the number of boards that are used in the system thereby decreasing the volume and weight of the system. IF it is already being done sorry for the delayed wakeup

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 10 Oct 2011 03:12

suryag wrote:Given the numerous processor based systems that DRDO has been developing, IMO, DRDO should start building their own processors, something which licenses the ARM cores and builds specialised hardware on top of these cores(like tegra4, omap). We can then create MIL standard packaging for the chips too after that. In this venture DRDO can provide the overall design specifications and can have its s/w team to build the tool chain like compiler/linkers/assemblers/elfweavers and in circuit debuggers while a small private firm can take up the responsibility of licensing the core and adding specific hardware accelerators/co-processors. This kind of specialised hardware can decrease the number of boards that are used in the system thereby decreasing the volume and weight of the system. IF it is already being done sorry for the delayed wakeup

Search for Anupama processor by drdo. ARM cores are low power & are not meant for high altitude applications. Radiation hardening requires large feature sizes (older process tech.), ARM will provide no advantage. Which is why processors like r3000, sparc, i960, i386 & custom ASIC's are preferred for these applications.

ISRO makes its own vikram processor.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 10 Oct 2011 06:35

Thanks Sivab never knew the ANUPAMA had existed. Just one query what does low power have to do with high altitude applications.

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 10 Oct 2011 07:05

You are welcome suryag. ARM's advantage is low power i.e. low watts/mips. For high altitude, because of large feature size, power consumption is high no matter what design you use. Higher voltage results in lower soft error rate and higher power consumption. Secondly most of these high altitude applications don't use high horse power, 25-100MHz is the norm. DSP is probably the exception, but that is done mostly by separate ASIC's anyway.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 10 Oct 2011 07:36

Interesting, IMO only radiation hardening and wider temperature range is needed for high altitude operation and any core can do well if packaged properly.

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 10 Oct 2011 08:48

suryag, how can you protect against cosmic particles with 10MeV to 10GeV energies with packaging. They will pass right through packaging of any thickness and cause SEE as they pass through. Last post from me on this.

Vashishtha · Post by **Vashishtha** » 10 Oct 2011 20:34

Guys any updates on the NAL SARAS? Have any airlines confirmed orders for this aircraft?

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 11 Oct 2011 07:07

MoD at its dirty games again. First the Army chief controversy and now playing politics with IAF senior officers.

MoD scuttles IAF move to head HAL

Appointment of a new chairman to Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), India’s biggest aerospace company, has hit yet another air pocket.

The much sought-after appointment, which will give the incumbent control of a conglomerate that hopes to have a turnover of $6 billion in a decade, has been in the past few months engulfed in several rumours, allegations and even a court case that was quashed by the Supreme Court in September-end.

The interview of eligible candidates, which itself has been postponed thrice, is likely to be held some time soon.

This time, the accusations are that bureaucrats in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) are deliberately inserting qualitative requirements aimed at preventing otherwise eligible Indian Air Force (IAF) personnel from standing a chance in the selection process.

With incumbent chairman Ashok Nayak’s tenure set to end on October 31, the vacancy for the post was listed by the Public Enterprises Selection Board (PESB) on December 9 last year with the last date for submitting applications set for February 7, 2011.

The IAF had fielded Air Marshal M Matheswaran, senior Air Staff officer, Eastern Air Command, for the post. The IAF, which accounts for over 78 per cent of HAL’s business, has had a long-standing demand that one of its serving personnel (not retired) should be appointed HAL chairman. The last IAF representative to be chairman of HAL was Air Chief Marshal L M Khatre.

Well-placed sources told Deccan Herald that more than one Chief of Air Staff had written to the MoD seeking removal of any discriminatory criterion between HAL’s internal candidates and IAF personnel while framing the eligibility rules.

Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Norman Anil Kumar Browne, earlier this month had said: “We have proposed that a senior IAF officer be considered for the post.”

However, the PESB, in the list of criteria, says: “On the date of occurrence of vacancy (November 1, 2011), the candidate must have attained a minimum age of 45 and must not be more than 58 in case of an internal (HAL) candidate and 57 in case of an external candidate.”

Sources allege that this is a deliberate move to prevent Matheswaran from being eligible for the post, as he turned 58 this March.

“It is difficult for the IAF to find appropriate candidates below the age of 58 for the post and they are using precisely this to prevent IAF from fielding its personnel,” the source said.

One of the things making it difficult for the IAF is that the post is reserved for a three-star general or equivalent rank officer, which in the IAF means an officer of the rank of Air Marshal.

IAF’s plea is that the MoD consider IAF candidates as internal candidates and not external candidates.

“The IAF is looking at nominating another officer who has been approved to become an Air Marshal. However, by the time the selection procedures are completed, the window for appointment could well be over,” sources added.

The IAF’s intention in bringing in their man as chairman of HAL is aimed at ensuring that the organisation becomes more accountable to its prime customer.

Air Chief Marshall Browne said: “We spend more than 70 per cent of our budget on the defence PSU and we are in the process of signing deals worth over $20 billion in the next few years, most of which would be undertaken by HAL.”

Also, rumours are afloat that a lobby is pushing for an extension of the tenure of the current chairman HAL, Ashok Nayak. “With nobody within HAL eligible to take over as the chairman, several things are being worked out to prevent candidates from getting selected so that Nayak gets an extension,” a source in the know of with the selection process said.

Deccan Herald had reported on December 17, 2010, about the PESB mysteriously or “intentionally” deleting the job description of the next chairman of the HAL a day after it had called for applications (December 9).

According to sources, this was “probably” a move designed to delay the selection process and hinder the applications of external candidates. Sources added that it was likely that Nayak would get an extension.

The other option would be that HAL’s Nasik Complex Managing Director P V Deshmuk could officiate as the chairman until the selection process for the new chairman is complete.

vina · Post by **vina** » 11 Oct 2011 08:53

I strongly believe that the IAF and IN and IA officers should be kept TOTALLY out of running HAL, the Shipyards and OFB. These are fundamentally businesses and should be run as one and not as Mai Baap beck and call of the defense forces.

The skill sets and experiences of running a business in a highly uncertain environment with great technological and other changes and handling a civilian workforce is light years away from the rigid, hierarchical, "obey orders with a smile" and iron discipline of the defense forces. Fighting men should focus on fighting , business men on business.

The earlier meddling of the IAF and IN folks in HAL and Shipyards is a large part (along with with the boor-o-cratic, socialist IAS Mai Baap and command economy and the dead hand of the govt) for the absolutely sorry and dismal state of those orgs.

In fact HAL should be split into 3 (airframe, engine and avionics businesses and the helicopter division made separate) and each should be divested and a private partner roped in . That is the only way forward. This IAF wallahs trying to run HAL is a throw back to the 1960s and 70s and the heydays of the Mai Baap socialism.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 11 Oct 2011 09:42

vina wrote:I strongly believe that the IAF and IN and IA officers should be kept TOTALLY out of running HAL, the Shipyards and OFB. These are fundamentally businesses and should be run as one and not as Mai Baap beck and call of the defense forces.

The problem with this argument is that it implies that HAL is being run as a business now and is not at the beck and call of anyone. False, and MoD.

Determining the right candidate is PESB's job. Don't nominate a uniformed officer but atleast give everyone a fair chance to present their credentials and then select the best person suited - civilian or uniformed. I think the Forces are looking for someone who can withstand MoD pressures and also be truthful in the job - like in giving timelines of a future product or in clearly spelling out the technical problems affecting production.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Oct 2011 09:50

Vina, In US critical projects are run by officers.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 12 Oct 2011 22:11

ramana wrote:Vina, In US critical projects are run by officers.

To be more precise, if I may...

In the US, critical defense R&D projects are conceived, planned and executed by an assortment of current and former military officers. There are many blurred lines, organizationally and operationally speaking, even with very high tech R&D projects. For design and requirements input, there is always a military liaison, probably "in" on every meeting and memo. When highly technical inputs are required, they may pull-in scientists and engineers who work at different military-run labs (who may or may not "hold rank"). Practically all of the testing, especially anything involving 'live fire', is always either performed or very closely observed by current military officers.

What is particularly troubling, in the US, is the way in which this 'military industrial complex' operates, and how it currently commands almost half of the US Government budget, such that it is these days.

The defense contractors have all employed former military officers, paying them exhorbitant sums, to act as salesmen to the military. The military decision makers who chose which pieces of equipment to induct, are able to recommend the purchase of practically anything they want (congress rarely says no), and after the deal is done, they retire on a military pension, and take-up direct employment with the defense contractor whose kit he just had the taxpayer buy (that is, assuming the right purchase decision was made).

Sometimes I wonder if India should be more thankful for her Babus.

I think it would be better for India to suffer the corruption of Babus, than the consumption of an Indian 'Military Industrial Complex' (which some on BRF have effectively advocated for). I think the corruption of Babus drains funds, whereas an Indian Milindustrial complex like the one in the US, would consume not just treasure, but limbs and lives as well.

If there is ever a nexus between Babus and defence equipment makers in India -- it'll be a very serious threat to Bharat.

(Yes, that's a call for a very vigilant Indian public to keenly observe the role of the private sector in the areas of defense/security. The survival of Indian democracy depends on it.)

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 12 Oct 2011 22:36

In US lateral movement between Govt-Academic-Military-Industry is allowed and encouraged.

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 13 Oct 2011 15:23

I support vina's arguement in this case. It is never good to have a supplier and consumer having common personnel - leads to a lot of conflict of interest. But a Babu there may not be the best option. Suitable people from PSUs, pvt industries should be taken.

After sometime, it could also lead to equipment driving the requirement than the other way round. It would also lead to reduced competition as IAF would favour HAL over other private players (though there are none now, the situation IMHO would change).

However giving IAF control over HAL may improve adoption of indigenous equipment by IAF.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Oct 2011 19:29

What supplier consumer realtiosnhip? IN officers who go on to man shipyards take retirement. They become the suppliers. No more consumers.

Sometimes you need babus as they have the clout in govt warrant of precedence.

IOW it has to be case by case basis.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 13 Oct 2011 20:16

vina wrote:I strongly believe that the IAF and IN and IA officers should be kept TOTALLY out of running HAL, the Shipyards and OFB. These are fundamentally businesses and should be run as one and not as Mai Baap beck and call of the defense forces.

But then even government or bureaucrats should not run HAL or for that matter any other defence PSU.IMO , an IAF Officer will be a much better choice than a bureaucrat for the post of HAL chairman , most of the times.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 13 Oct 2011 20:45

ramana,

I don’t disagree with you, in principal; however, in practice, there is tremendous potential jeopardy inherent in this situation, and so vigilance and administrative rigour are called for, WRT defence and security decision making (purchasing, hiring, promotions, etc.).

In the US, there are uniformed officers who make purchase recommendations to the (rubber-stamp) US congress committee on defense appropriations (or whatever they call it). These same uniformed officers will be looking for work with the same companies whose products they are recommending, often within a year of the recommendation being made. Indeed, it would seem to be the preferred career path for senior US military officers of every service. It behoves the public and the public’s servants to very closely observe these “transactions” to ensure that no inappropriate or faulty decisions are made, in service of colonel-so-and-so’s retirement plan, instead of in service of the nation’s defence and security.

In the US, the situation has long-ago become extremely problematic for American democracy (even if many Americans fail to recognize it). There are those who say that JFK was killed because he wanted to leave Viet Nam, and it would be more profitable for many American defense contractors, if Johnson renewed the flagging Viet Nam war (which he did while Kennedy’s body was still warm). The result was fifty-eight thousand dead American soldiers and over two-million dead Vietnamese (counting men, women and children, civilian and military). The cost of the Viet Nam war eventually lead Nixon to end the US Dollar ‘Gold Standard’ in August 1971, and ever since then, we’ve witnessed the emptying of the US treasury, which is now ‘in hawk’ to the tune of $47 Trillion (that’s right, $47 Trillion, the $14 Trillion they talk so much about, does not include unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare, plus a whole bunch of other things. The real number, all-in, is $47 Trillion!)

This is the kind of danger that India must guard against as her defence industry grows, and as private interests play a bigger role.

Personally, I don’t think that military leaders are necessarily great leaders wherever you put them. The military works by strict rules, reporting structures, standardization of communications and deeply engrained cultural norms that simply do not (and should not) exist in a fast-growing organization that is engaged on the cutting-edge of R&D, and on very sophisticated manufacturing methodologies. The work environments are going to be totally mis-matched; while the General may be comfortable barking orders, the workers at HAL, for example; are more likely to want to provide their own input into the process, which is the only way to get the most out of employees in what is essentially a tech-start-up.

The business at hand is not like a battle; it is more like a race for learning and a race to apply those lessons. To lead such a race, HAL (or other PSUs) need leadership that is dynamic, that elicits employee dedication, creativity and contribution, rather than a leader who "commands obedience" with military efficiency.

I think a much better crop of candidates can be found in Indian industry, at Indian business schools, and among all of the scientists and engineers working at Indian PSUs, defence labs, and research universities. Maybe, just maybe, the best candidate is neither a bureaucrat nor a former officer. Maybe the best candidate should be more familiar with the technologies and systems that will be used by the organization, to produce fighter planes, tanks, ships or whatnot.

ADDED LATER: What HAL needs is a 'Technocrat' 'Visioneer'.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 13 Oct 2011 23:42

Ravi K wrote:I think a much better crop of candidates can be found in Indian industry, at Indian business schools, and among all of the scientists and engineers working at Indian PSUs, defence labs, and research universities. Maybe, just maybe, the best candidate is neither a bureaucrat nor a former officer. Maybe the best candidate should be more familiar with the technologies and systems that will be used by the organization, to produce fighter planes, tanks, ships or whatnot.

Ravi

I agree that the "perfect" choice in a Utopian world would be neither a bureaucrat nor a former officer, but the fact of the matter is that it will never happen. If you see the selection pattern of PSU Chairmen/CEOs, some things become very apparent

1. Excellent candidates from the Pvt sector do apply. (b-school types with proven leadership)

2. They are 99.99% times rejected.
One easy count of rejection is "no relevant experience" i.e. in HAL's case could be no leadership experience at a top aviation company. This is absolutely bull**** since innumerable examples exist when a tech company is led by a non-tech guy (Infosys - KV Kamath). All the candidate should need is excellent management skills and proven track record.
In case, the candidate has the exact background required, there are other reasons invoked. Consider the case of ONGC Chaiman's selection in Dec 2010 - the competition was thrown open for the top job after the PMO rejected OilMin's choice S.Vasudeva. Later PESB identified the top Reliance Petro man - R.N Bastia - the guy who discovered Dhirubhai I, as the second best candidate. Oil Ministry still refused to budge and finally had its way of selecting the internal candidate. What was the point of even having a competition? Here was a guy who was going to forgo 90% of his salary and perks, and risking his top job at Reliance by applying in a competitor's *open* competition. And on the top of it, PESB ranked him second in a transparent interview process. What else was required?

So coming back to the topic, the reality of the situation would demand that the choice is really between an internal candidate and an officer. In case of HAL, the first one is not exactly working out.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 14 Oct 2011 05:13

^^^
Haha, the expected thing happened. R.K Tyagi was the OilMinistry's second choice in ONGC chairman selection earlier this year. OilMin forced the PESB to replace the Reliance guy's name with Tyagi's name in its merit list.

PESB selects R.K.Tyagi, CMD Pawan Hans to be new HAL, Chairman

sum · Post by **sum** » 14 Oct 2011 14:53

One pooch:

Are NAL/other govt R&D units still continuing with their NRI schemes where they attract well educated NRIs from abroad to join up with big pay and lots of freedom? IIRC, they had initiated this sometime back..

Asking since attended a talk by a NAL section head who is a PhD in IISc, Aerodynamics and had worked at Florida univ for many years till joining NAL..

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 14 Oct 2011 23:10

Samtel Newsletter June 2011

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 15 Oct 2011 09:20

Good to see Indian manufacturers making rapid progress in MFDs (Samtel).

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 15 Oct 2011 11:23

Inshallah, the large home market will provide Samtel with the the resources to become a major player in avionics. Half a century of having a near monopoly and BEL still cannot make state of the art displays. Offsets should be used to build up private industry in India. Once they learn to crawl they will eventually walk and run. HAL and BEL etc. will need ToT ad infinitum.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 15 Oct 2011 19:01

The thing with Samtel is that it has the potential to become one of the largest view screen companies in the world. I have had the privilege of visiting their plant near Gaziabad, UP. A world class facility if ever there was one.

That is, to my non technical eyes.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Oct 2011 01:34

tejas wrote:Inshallah, the large home market will provide Samtel with the the resources to become a major player in avionics. Half a century of having a near monopoly and BEL still cannot make state of the art displays. Offsets should be used to build up private industry in India. Once they learn to crawl they will eventually walk and run. HAL and BEL etc. will need ToT ad infinitum.

Can you inform us of this so called "state of the art display" what exactly has Samtel made & why BEL should have made it, and justify the economic incentive to do so? Samtel is a display specialist. BEL is not.
Also, when you say HAL and BEL will need TOT ad infinitum, kindly justify your statement - not just with rants or press releases, but actual analysis, i.e. products HAL & BEL are focusing on, R&D spend, future plans as well. Go on, inform us.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 16 Oct 2011 02:31

^^^^ Simply google Samtel and you will see the range of displays they make--- and which will be in all new SU-30mkis, LCAs and likely FGFA. As for BEL as of 2010 the majority of their products are made under license despite being a monopoly half a century old. I tried to get better numbers from their website but surprise! the website is down.

HAL is as other posters have stated (Vina and others) is simply to large and has too many projects at once to do them all justice. It needs to be be broken down into airframe( ala Boeing), propulsion (ala Pratt&Whitney) and avionics( ala Honeywell). All of these entities should be privatized. Govt. ownership of R&D AND production in defense has been an unmitigated disaster in India. India is now importing piston driven trainers from Switzerland ( a country with 8.7 million people).Why can't HAL supply this? Simple, no dhoti wearing monkey in the GOI or MOD told it to. Private companies, like nature abhor a vacuum. If thier is money to be made they will supply a product. If the customer doesn't like their product they go out of business. Hence a strong incentive to make your customer happy. If an OFB cesspool factory supplies exploding ammunition to the army will they be closed down? If If Israel did not supply 155 mm howitzer shells during Kargill what was India going to do? Even today 155mm shells are imported.

I know an aero. engineer here in Umrikah who worked at HAL and left in disgust at its politicized and lazy work culture. I asked him why he didn't try and attempt to improve things. He said it was simply hopeless. It seems promotions in his section were based on caste not competence and as a Brahmin he was $hit out of luck. India's loss is GE's gain. I am tired of crying hoarse on this forum. Where is there any incentive at any PSU if you are an employee to work hard and get ahead? Obviously the private sector cannot fully satisfy India's defense needs but it is because of the GOI and its reverse Midas touch that this the case. They have purposely not provided the proper environment for this to take place. In 1950 it was not possible toady there is no excuse. We have the opportunity to use substantial offsets to hand hold and transform Indian industries and free ourselves from foreign blackmail. Or we keep going on the road we are on where city sized countries can tell us to f#ck off when we beg them for rifles for our state police forces.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Oct 2011 05:34

tejas wrote:^^^^ Simply google Samtel and you will see the range of displays they make--- and which will be in all new SU-30mkis, LCAs and likely FGFA. As for BEL as of 2010 the majority of their products are made under license despite being a monopoly half a century old. I tried to get better numbers from their website but surprise! the website is down.

Tejas, you missed the point. Samtel may make a "range of displays" - that is fine. That is their raison de etre, so to speak. They are a display specialist. BEL OTOH is an electronics major which handles a wide variety of products and has to spread its R&D and capex amongst a wide variety of projects. It's money is better spent in value addition at the system integration level, plus contributing to specific areas which are denied in terms of imports or really expensive - these include radar components, microwave components, EW systems etc. Next, Samtel won't be "making" those new displays you mention. Not unless they suddenly acquired an AMLCD plant - they, like BEL- will import LCDs from third suppliers, other COTS electronics, ruggedize, integrate, test and supply them onwards to BEL.

Second - you state "the majority of their products are made under license" - no, not according to data at hand.
By BEL's own data as far back as 2007:http://sainiksamachar.nic.in/englisharc ... -07/h2.htm

Consequently, BEL established R&D set-ups in the early 1960s and has R&D divisions at all of its 9 Units. BEL spends 4 to 5 per cent of its annual turnover on research and development activities. During 2006-07, 81 per cent of BEL's turnover accrued from products manufactured by indigenous technology.

BEL established two Central Research Laboratories (CRLs) at Bangalore and Ghaziabad in 1989 and 1992 respectively, to carry out futuristic research in cutting-edge technologies. The CRLs function as technology windows of BEL and work closely with organisations such as DRDO and ISRO as well as academic institutions to nurture technology modules relevant to BEL's future initiatives. Employing only post-graduate engineers recruited from reputed campuses, the CRLs provide a conducive environment for R&D.

CRL, Ghaziabad, specialises in development of embedded software, command and control systems and combat management systems for network-centric operations of the Armed Forces. The R&D infrastructure and manpower of CRL,Ghaziabad have been steadily enhanced to keep pace with the increasing technology requirements of various projects. The new building is the latest initiative in this direction.

The Near Field Antenna Development and Test Centre (NFADTC) has been set up at BEL,Ghaziabad at a cost of Rs 12 crore for development and testing of all types of antennae including Phased Array Antennae. It is an indoor facility with simulated field conditions that occupies small space compared to an outdoor Far Field Antenna Test Facility. BEL also has a Far Field Antenna Test Facility at Sohna in Haryana.

Search for BEL R&D and besides the opinionated tripe that occasionally characterises BELs efforts from rivals seeking to one-up its procurement, and its clear that the company has been investing substantially in R&D. This directly feeds into efforts by DRDO et al. According to GOI policy, the manufacturer has to step up and invest, and BEL has done so. This is but one of the programs.

http://www.hindu.com/2008/07/07/stories ... 891500.htm

Bottomline - even if the data was discounted by a significant margin considering the original equipment to be from abroad and not considering BEL modification to be separate, at even 50% plus turnover - it clearly shows BEL does not only rely on imported designs.

For your information, BEL is regarded by many service members, media claims apart as a responsible PSU which provides timely, substantial support and its gear is of decent quality as well.

HAL is as other posters have stated (Vina and others) is simply to large and has too many projects at once to do them all justice. It needs to be be broken down into airframe( ala Boeing), propulsion (ala Pratt&Whitney) and avionics( ala Honeywell). All of these entities should be privatized. Govt. ownership of R&D AND production in defense has been an unmitigated disaster in India. India is now importing piston driven trainers from Switzerland ( a country with 8.7 million people).Why can't HAL supply this? Simple, no dhoti wearing monkey in the GOI or MOD told it to. Private companies, like nature abhor a vacuum. If thier is money to be made they will supply a product. If the customer doesn't like their product they go out of business. Hence a strong incentive to make your customer happy. If an OFB cesspool factory supplies exploding ammunition to the army will they be closed down? If If Israel did not supply 155 mm howitzer shells during Kargill what was India going to do? Even today 155mm shells are imported.

Tejas, just because Vina has an opinion, it really does not translate to facts per se. Breaking up HAL would be a whimsical and unproductive act because HAL's current system allows it to leverage systems and technologies from one area to the other. Worldwide, the defence industry is consolidating - not splitting up! You might also want to explore Honeywell's entire product portfolio (they even compete in HVAC) and which conglomerate P&W is part of!

Also, look more closely into what Boeing does. Start with their website. Boeing along with LM is one of the most diversified defence conglomerates in the world. It has a finger in every pie, ranging from armoured vehicles, to running test ranges for the US services, to competing and winning contracts for missile defence programs. You name it, they are there! Boeing, Elta, LockMart - they all run multiple BUs and leverage manpower, technology across the board. If anything, they are more diverse than HAL and HAL is taking a leaf out of the US playbook by investing heavily in its own tech.

India is importing piston driven trainers because piston driven trainers are not a priority when compared to programs like the Tejas or license production of complex fighters like the Su-30 MKI. HAL has long had the capability to make a new piston engined trainer - it displayed the HTT-34 concept way back in 1999-2001 if memory serves me correct. However, the IAF at the time was not interested. One cannot just develop things overnight if the primary customer (the IAF takes ~95% of HAL production) is not interested. Today if some company wants to take this over, its a different thing. The Indian budget can handle it.

Second, check up HAL R&D figures. In FY2010-11, HAL was one of the largest R&D spenders in corporate India. Far outstripping most private firms. Last I checked, if HAL had taken that spend and just added it back, it could have essentially doubled its net margin.

HAL also has multiple R&D units. Amongst its R&D accomplishments are the Jaguar upgrade - DARIN2 (its currently working on DARIN3), the various helicopter programs etc. A new focus on strategic electronics means its partnering Indian industry & DRDO in developing various software driven systems as well. These don't come cheap either. You might want to look up HAL Edgewood & the OSAMC. Just above, you were complimenting DataPatterns. The interesting part is the OSAMC does much the same function as some of the stuff made by DP, and is slated across multiple IAF programs. Its a perfect example of synergy.

Last year (fiscal) 2010-11 HAL indigenized over 3000 spares. This translated to only around Rs 50-60 Crores worth. HAL persisted with this despite the low immediate benefits. Most private companies would not have bothered.

Second, India does make regular 155mm shells inhouse. 155mm shells were not made prior to that in India because the entire arty program got waylaid by the Bofors imbroglio and it did not make sense to set up a plant for just 310 odd guns. Only when the 155mm proved its worth did the files move, because funds were scarce before that. So to talk of private sector being a panacea in this case is absolutely misleading. Currently, India is looking for the latest BMCS & Range extended 155mm shells from abroad. This is as much due to lack of attention paid to ground systems as anything else. Making missiles & warheads (with propellants etc) is not beyond Indian capabilities either.

I know an aero. engineer here in Umrikah who worked at HAL and left in disgust at its politicized and lazy work culture. I asked him why he didn't try and attempt to improve things. He said it was simply hopeless. It seems promotions in his section were based on caste not competence and as a Brahmin he was $hit out of luck. India's loss is GE's gain. I am tired of crying hoarse on this forum. Where is there any incentive at any PSU if you are an employee to work hard and get ahead? Obviously the private sector cannot fully satisfy India's defense needs but it is because of the GOI and its reverse Midas touch that this the case. They have purposely not provided the proper environment for this to take place. In 1950 it was not possible toady there is no excuse. We have the opportunity to use substantial offsets to hand hold and transform Indian industries and free ourselves from foreign blackmail. Or we keep going on the road we are on where city sized countries can tell us to f#ck off when we beg them for rifles for our state police forces.

I know many HAL engineers - not those in Umrikah - are contributing in a valuable manner at HAL & doing a decent job.
As regards caste promotions and the like - people who generally leave an organization and move onto the next "big thing" are not always as objective as they should be. Try spending some time with those who make these places run at public events etc where they interact with the public and you'd realize, while not perfect, they are not as full of despair as you make them out to be either.

Second, do understand - I realize this is not your area of focus or even one which you track - but offsets will take a long time to transform any industry. Rule number 1 of offsets is they want the infrastructure to be ready before they commit to orders, apart from a handful of large conglomerates, no Indian company has the gumption to invest at that scale and get orders. That remains a fundamental issue. And so far, only the PSUs you disparage all the time, are the ones taking the lead in investments. Several private firms, despite orders available, are not too keen as they want immediate benefit, not the long cycle of profit generation that defence manufacturing is.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 16 Oct 2011 06:11

Karan M, clearly you are an intelligent and eloquent poster and I appreciate your last post. Out of all the PSUs owned by the GOI BEL is clearly one of the best. But that is all relative. I think we all seek Indian independence from foreign arms. I fear on the current road we are on that day may never come. Given India's progress in strategic missiles, the brain power and manufacturing prowess (much of which is in the private sector BTW) exists in India today.

IMHO when the GOI tries to do everything they risk do nothing well. It seems like progress is best made when no import is available. Perhaps the best solution would be for the govt to concentrate R and D on strategic systems and leave the rest to the private sector. Much of the problem in getting the private sector involved lies with the govt and even the armed forces. Requirements cannot be changed at the drop of a hat and the acquisition process cannot be decades long. Getting back to HAL, what other company on earth makes air frames, gas turbine engines, avionics and helicopters? Not a one. BTW Samtel is doing concentrating on OLEDs which is likely the future of all displays. The future of India lies in the likes of Samtel, Bharat Forge and L&T. Like the communist fossils in WB India no longer has a need for PSUs,