![Mr. Green :mrgreen:](./images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif)
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/tongue.gif)
How do we know that the lukewarm response of MOd s not due to that fact that foreign partner has been black listed due to the wild allegations of one Renuka Chaudhary.Vipul wrote: even though India has large artillery gun acquisitions lined up. "They haven't said no, so that is a relief," says Rahul Chaudhry, CEO of Tata Power SED. "For how long will the life of our soldiers and national security be held hostage by the narrow interests of unions?" he adds. L&T and Bharat Forge are also developing howitzers.[/url]
Oh please TATAs know how to work the system as much as others. Note the 2G Radia gate saga.alexis wrote:Unfortunately, TATA is not known for bribery! Some other group would have got the approval much faster in the system
Very likely........... but there is a story behind MoD not being so enthusiastic in particular with TATA. There is an allegation that they threatened/coerced(you substitute it with any diplomatic word) to sell software developed for Armed forces to outside.Vivek K wrote:More than likely some babu in MOD has not received enough greenback to give up his natash addiction.
rohitvats wrote:Time does not permit me to expand but the problem is not Pinaka system but rockets thereof. The QC issue is with rockets manufactured by OFB. Pinaka is BTW manufactured by private players.shiv wrote:<SNIP>
What has gone wrong in the last 13 months?
Loss of indigenously designed/manufactured ammunition
Large quantity of indigenously designed and manufactured ammunition
valuing ` 408.06 crore was declared unserviceable without thorough
investigation and analysis to determine the causes of failure. This resulted in
import of ammunition costing ` 278.88 crore. (Paragraph 2.5)
<sniped>
Projection of inflated requirement of ammunition
Despite holding surplus stock, the Ministry of Defence based on the
requirements projected by Director General Ordnance Services placed indent
on Ordnance Factory Board for supply of ammunition besides ‘in principle’
approval for their import. Timely intervention by Audit led to cancellation of
orders resulting in a saving of ` 168.75 crore.
(Paragraph 3.5)
<sniped>
Unfruitful expenditure on development of Modular Charge System for field guns
Defence Research and Development Organisation undertook a Technology
Development project for development of modular charge system for 105 mm
and 130 mm guns based on projection made by Director General Artillery.
However, on completion of the project the DG Artillery expressed disinterest
in the technology due to the likely de-induction of these guns from the service
leading to unfruitful expenditure of ` 13.48 crore incurred on the development
of the system. (Paragraph 3.2)
<sniped>
Avoidable extra expenditure in procurement of stores
Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory Hyderabad refloated tenders for
procurement of die blocks and die stack parts even as there was enough scope
to finalise the L-1 offer within the validity period. This led to an avoidable
extra expenditure of ` 4.56 crore. (Paragraph 6.1)
<sniped>
Delay in production and issue of rockets for Pinaka Rocket Launcher System by Ordnance Factories
The project for production of rockets for Pinaka multi-barrel rocket launcher
system is way behind the schedule. The quality related problems in a
production process resulted in a loss of 407 rockets valuing ` 44.51 crore and
propellant valuing ` 4.25 crore. Repeated failures and stoppage of production
of the rockets for a certain period, led to overall delay in operationalisation of
the Army units as per induction plan. (Paragraph 8.2)
<sniped>
Production of new generation vehicles in Vehicle Factory Jabalpur
Vehicle Factory Jabalpur which undertook manufacture of two new generation
vehicles based on transfer of technology from M/s Ashok Leyland Ltd.
(Stallion) and M/s Tata Motors Ltd (LPTA) could achieve in-house
manufacture of components/assemblies to the extent of only a meagre 17.46
per cent (Stallion) and 16.63 per cent (LPTA), as against the objective of
achieving in-house production target of 59.04 per cent (Stallion) and 51.58 per
cent (LPTA). Gross under-utilisation of plant and machinery resulted in trade
procurement of components and assemblies aggregating ` 498.86 crore during
2008-11. (Paragraph 8.3)
Except that this time Tata seems to be acting as a front for a foreign vendor i.e. Denel. An "Indigenous" gun which doesn't have an indigenous gun. Like it or not OFB is still our best bet in making indigenous guns. The only other player I can think of is Bharat Forge which apart from JVs with foreign vendors has bought a artillery plant from Austria which should help them in production know-how. Also their core competency is in metals, so expect some progress in the core technologies involved in the guntself. Unlike Tata which has used its automotive and electronics/software expertise to modify an existing Denel product and dress it up as "Indigenous".rohitvats wrote:^^^And the 'delay' by MOD could very well be to give enough window of opportunity to a DPSU to tie up with a foreign vendor and propose an 'indigenous' product. It does not matter that the said DPSU will simply serve as a front for the foreign vendor and undertake only screwdriver level of work. And there will be no net addition to technology base of the country.
Buying/Moving plants is not new to TATA. They did it for their cars. Maybe they will eventually do it with Denel...abhik wrote:Except that this time Tata seems to be acting as a front for a foreign vendor i.e. Denel. An "Indigenous" gun which doesn't have an indigenous gun. Like it or not OFB is still our best bet in making indigenous guns. The only other player I can think of is Bharat Forge which apart from JVs with foreign vendors has bought a artillery plant from Austria which should help them in production know-how. Also their core competency is in metals, so expect some progress in the core technologies involved in the guntself. Unlike Tata which has used its automotive and electronics/software expertise to modify an existing Denel product and dress it up as "Indigenous".rohitvats wrote:^^^And the 'delay' by MOD could very well be to give enough window of opportunity to a DPSU to tie up with a foreign vendor and propose an 'indigenous' product. It does not matter that the said DPSU will simply serve as a front for the foreign vendor and undertake only screwdriver level of work. And there will be no net addition to technology base of the country.
Well, if you had read the TATA SED statement, it said that 52% of the gun has indigenous component. Which, BTW, is the condition if a product has to be procured from Indian companies - even if they have JV with foreign companies. Secondly, if there is a confirmed order, I don't see a reason for TATA SED/DENEL to not move the full tech production in the country.abhik wrote:Except that this time Tata seems to be acting as a front for a foreign vendor i.e. Denel. An "Indigenous" gun which doesn't have an indigenous gun. Like it or not OFB is still our best bet in making indigenous guns. The only other player I can think of is Bharat Forge which apart from JVs with foreign vendors has bought a artillery plant from Austria which should help them in production know-how. Also their core competency is in metals, so expect some progress in the core technologies involved in the guntself. Unlike Tata which has used its automotive and electronics/software expertise to modify an existing Denel product and dress it up as "Indigenous".
The actual gun itself is made by Denel not Tata.rohitvats wrote:Well, if you had read the TATA SED statement, it said that 52% of the gun has indigenous component. Which, BTW, is the condition if a product has to be procured from Indian companies - even if they have JV with foreign companies.abhik wrote:Except that this time Tata seems to be acting as a front for a foreign vendor i.e. Denel. An "Indigenous" gun which doesn't have an indigenous gun. Like it or not OFB is still our best bet in making indigenous guns. The only other player I can think of is Bharat Forge which apart from JVs with foreign vendors has bought a artillery plant from Austria which should help them in production know-how. Also their core competency is in metals, so expect some progress in the core technologies involved in the guntself. Unlike Tata which has used its automotive and electronics/software expertise to modify an existing Denel product and dress it up as "Indigenous".
That is speculation. AFAIK Tata itself has not released any information on what arrangement they have reached with Denel. Have they bought the design and production IP to freely produce it locally? Or is it like BEML's deal for the Zuzana where they make the prime mover and import the gun itself. What good does that do? It not just that they have not clarified this they are even being quite evasive about the origins of the gun. Not surprising given that Denel is a blacklisted company. And this might make it dead on arrival.Secondly, if there is a confirmed order, I don't see a reason for TATA SED/DENEL to not move the full tech production in the country.
It is the job of the Raksha Mantri/MoD to reform, modernize and make the OFBs/DPSUs more competitive. Unfortunately the RM and MoD is guided by inertia, so we cant really expect any change.As for Bharat Forge - well, best of luck to them. GCF Union had threatened to go on strike the moment they learnt that TATA SED is developing a 155 mm gun. They relented only when they were told that TATA gun is in a different category. BF gun is very much in the same category as GCF, Jabalpur. Let us see how the same plays out.
Put the private players in the same position as the OFBs/DPSUs and I don't doubt they would be doing the same.The OFB/DPSU are themselves known for dressing up foreign product as domestic and passing it own to Services. The Zuzana Wheeled SP Gun is a prime example of the same. So, why discriminate against private player? At least things will be done more efficiently with better QC.
Does this mean each Pinaka rocket costs ~ 75 lac? Not exactly cheap... the government has approved a Rs 1,500 crore proposal for production of more than 2,000 rockets..
Or as it shown in other thread its a typo and it is for 20,000 rockets, still INR 7.5 lac per rocket.abhik wrote:Posted in the BR main page:-
Govt clears Rs 1,500 crore proposal for Pinaka rocketsDoes this mean each Pinaka rocket costs ~ 75 lac? Not exactly cheap... the government has approved a Rs 1,500 crore proposal for production of more than 2,000 rockets..
~ 16 lacs per shot.The Ministry of Defence, in March
2006, i.e. 20 years after the project was sanctioned, finally entrusted the
production of various components of the system to different production
agencies that included two private sector firms16 (rocket launchers), Bharat
Earth Movers Limited, a public sector undertaking (chassis for support
vehicles), and the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) for rockets.
The order on OFB was placed by the Army, in November that year, who were
required to supply 4752 rockets at a total cost of Rs. 767.28 crore during the
period 2007-12. OFB, in turn, assigned the task of producing the rockets to
nine17 Ordnance Factories (OF).
With one key difference. The profit motive! It is this motive that will compel them to perform better, compete or die, lower costs, innovate for better ROI, beg, borrow or steal and become self sufficient. A DSPU has no such corresponding motives, except for claimed but hollow patriotism. Are we saying private Indians are less patriotic than govt companies or employees? I do not think so.abhik wrote:Put the private players in the same position as the OFBs/DPSUs and I don't doubt they would be doing the same.
Correct - an order for 2000 rockets is not being placed. The manufacturing capacity (new production line, maybe ?) is being enhanced.Katare wrote:OFB's manufacturing capacity is being agumented to 2000 rockets/year from 1000 rockets/year now.
On the contrary the profit motive would make it worse. Consider that BEML was able to post blockbuster profits on the Tatra trucks because of the huge mark-up. A private entity in BEML's place will simply be more efficient in profiteering.ShauryaT wrote:With one key difference. The profit motive! It is this motive that will compel them to perform better, compete or die, lower costs, innovate for better ROI, beg, borrow or steal and become self sufficient. A DSPU has no such corresponding motives, except for claimed but hollow patriotism. Are we saying private Indians are less patriotic than govt companies or employees? I do not think so.abhik wrote:Put the private players in the same position as the OFBs/DPSUs and I don't doubt they would be doing the same.
BEML making huge profit on the TATRA deal is exactly what is wrong with the entire DPSU set-up.abhik wrote:On the contrary the profit motive would make it worse. Consider that BEML was able to post blockbuster profits on the Tatra trucks because of the huge mark-up. A private entity in BEML's place will simply be more efficient in profiteering.
rohitvats wrote:BEML making huge profit on the TATRA deal is exactly what is wrong with the entire DPSU set-up.abhik wrote:On the contrary the profit motive would make it worse. Consider that BEML was able to post blockbuster profits on the Tatra trucks because of the huge mark-up. A private entity in BEML's place will simply be more efficient in profiteering.
BEML was able to make money because the MOD was the judge-jury-plaintiff all rolled into one. So, MOD was milking Services through BEML and making itself look good. Services had no recourse to any complaint because at the end of the day, MOD controlled everything. The DPSU can very well ask the Service to go fly a kite in case they took up the matter with it directly. The corruption angle meant that gravy train was too lucrative to be let go.
Rank corruption by way of collusion between private players and MOD powers is the only way private companies can fleece Services. Other wise, a well drafted contract can take care of most of the risk of procurement. There is no such recourse available with DPSUs as they are MOD's own babies.
BEML was selling the TATRA vehicles for up to 1 cr to Indian Army while the same was retailing in Europe at 50%-60% price point. In fact, the main TATRA company was selling the vehicles at loss to the intermediary set up to sell to BEML. So, how was BEML making loss on sale to the IA?gkriish wrote:No Sir BEML was not making money out of Tatra deal in fact the company manufactured the TATRA unit in loss however in the name of BEML few individuals and Babus Nethas both state and central up to the top of the political family was making money out of it....... One more info for the BRF members to talk about still the Tainted BEML Ex CMD VRS Natarajan is not behind Bars because if he goes he will spill the bean on other politicians and babus and Netas