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

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 12 Mar 2016 11:54

So we are supposed to calculate, LCA, Brahmos indigenisation on LRUs and ignore things like imported engine? Does engine count as 1 LRU?

At least in LCA we own design IPR what about Brahmos? If DRDO makes 10 fasteners and Russia 2 LRUs being engine and seeker, so 80% indigenous? There should be balance between rationalization and self delusion. I remember long time back, you supported shakti engine ToT, now has any indigenisation taken place? Even 1%?

Israel is 1/10th the Size of India and completely dependent on US and NATO military industrial complex, do you wish same for India? Things like Brahmos, LRSAM are shameless costly imports.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Mar 2016 13:13

Gyan you seem to be in the habit of making meaningless generalizations and off the cuff remarks. If anyone is being delusional, it is you. So stop ranting and speak logically and civilly. If you had seen the LCA example, many LRUs go into a larger assembly.

The engine may or may not count as one LRU depending on its design. LRUs are Line Replaceable Units which mean modular units which can be replaced on the flightline or AF maint facilities, in an ideal case.

Indigenization has to be calculated by BOTH cost which determines value and LRU count. Former to identify expensive items which represent outlay and second to track overall indigenization progress. For the latter, indigenization also counts as design and development. So a seeker developed in India with an imported microprocessor, would by international standards still count as Indian.

In short there is no direct correlation between indigenization by cost and by LRU unless broken down system by system. LCA can be 80% indigenous but if the radar and engines comprise the remaining 20% and thier cost can be as high as 50%.

To simplify things DPP does indigenization by cost with 30% for india developed items. DRDO et al track by LRU count. Their supply guys can even go into parts count but that ignores value addition at LRU level with designing using those parts. As regards Shakti you havent given any data on what current indigenization is soyour statements right now on it are meaningless.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 12 Mar 2016 18:41

Karan M wrote: <SNIP>Indigenization has to be calculated by BOTH cost which determines value and LRU count. Former to identify expensive items which represent outlay and second to track overall indigenization progress. <SNIP>

At this stage of our MIC and R&D set-up, I'd be more inclined to look at indigenous count in terms of no of LRU or such sub-systems. Simply because we're yet to master some big-bang items.

But more importantly, if we achieve large %age share of local products by LRU it means we've development the ecosystem for these products. Remember, a smallest item can withhold operational exploitation of a system.

And IMO, this approach also allows to put together a working system in quicker time-frame and induct it faster into service.

Take Brahmos for example - we might still be importing some critical and expensive stuff from Russians but we've a world class missile which adds tremendous value to our Services. Development of domestic replacement for imported systems (if permitted in the contract) or a new alternate system can happen in parallel.

One of biggest grouse with LCA program was exactly this - we tried to develop everything from scratch. Development of radar for LCA was one of the most complex and time intensive sub-programs. Today LCA Mk1A will fly with foreign radar. If we had gone for a foreign radar for initial phase of aircrafts, we could've had the a/c much faster in service. With radar development happening in parallel. As is happening in case of Uttam Radar, which one hopes will power LCA Mk2 from word GO.

When people on this forum look at R&D programs, please also look at the operational requirement of Services. And timeline for induction.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 12 Mar 2016 19:33

Shakti Indigenisation is Zero % - Satisfied.

You have written a long post without meeting the basic argument that indigenistion percentage is obfuscated by basing it on Price. So buy a product for 100 sell to Army at 200, does it mean indigenisation is 50%? Remember TATRA, You are cultching at straws talking about LRUs and trying to link indigenisation % with it. Anyway, if pro-indigenisation persons like you, Karan, are not convinced, then I am just talking to myself.

Lot of Generlisations have basis in reality, such as HAL purchase of imported vs indigeous Raw Material is 1:7, so much for it's 70% indigenisation claims.

I am ending it by saying that Brahmos, Shakti, LRSAM, Scorpene are just imports neither JV nor meaningful ToT. (LCA, Arjun are different)

jayasimha · Post by **jayasimha** » 13 Mar 2016 15:31

Source : The Asian Age
08 Mar, 2016
Push for defence offset
Defence minister Manohar Parrikar (pictured) said investment under the new offset policy is likely
to touch $11-12 billion. “some $5billion investment has been generated and another $6-7billion will
be coming in soon,” the minister said, at a session on manufacturing. He said Haryana would be
the hub for defence and aerospace industry. Assuring the industry, he said, “when something goes
wrong in India, the tendency is to tighten rules and genuine people are the ones who suffer from it.”

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Mar 2016 15:32

Gyan wrote:Shakti is 0- Satisfied.

No, I am not. I am yet to see any numbers for Shakti indigenization.

Please share the data that zero indigenization has taken place for Shakti after TOT etc has taken place and then we can judge what the status is.

you have written a long post without meeting the basic argument that indigenistion percentage is obfuscated by basing it on Price.

This is a very illogical line of argumentation advanced by you. Indigenization percentage is HARDLY obfuscated by basing it on price, it is an essential metric to judge high value indigenization.

Simply put, if India does 50% indigenization by LRU on its weapons platform, but key systems such as engines continue to remain imported even decades into the effort, without any effort to produce them optimally and the indigenization by cost is low (say 30%), then you now have a reason to either make those items locally or TOT it.

You clearly don't understand what the point being made is.

So buy a product for 100 sell to Army at 200, does it mean indigenisation is 50%?

What are you even talking about at this point.. its very hard to understand what you are saying.

If you do indigenization by price, obviously you look at systems and then do a price breakup.

In which case IT DOES NOT MATTER what the overall profit is, you can allocate it proportionately and still get an understanding of where the price is highest.

Remember TATRA, You are cultching at straws talking about LRUs and trying to link indigenisation % with it. Anyway, if pro-indigenisation persons like you, Karan, are not convinced, then I am just talking to myself.

Actually if anyone is clutching at straws, its your arguments, for instance Tatra is a case of how badly your argument can fail.

Tatra is a case of BOTH indigenization by LRU count being low AND indigenization by price being haywire.

For a vehicle like Tatra, its atleast most straightforward, since you don't have additional inputs to price such as software, heavy vetronics and electronics.

Here, you can actually draw a direct correlation between low indigenization by part count AND low indigenization by price.

Suppose BEML was making almost the whole vehicle in India (AND STILL importing the engine and transmission), and that accounted for 70% of the overall price. Then IA would have been justified in stating that we still need to revisit the indigenization because even 60% indigenization, missing the engine and transmission is not good enough.

In short, indigenization by LRU count is not always indicative of high value items which is why DPP takes indigenization by cost as a simpler metric. This is to force indian suppliers to "make locally" and not skew the figures towards high indigenization by making low value items in India and importing all the complex items. However, this also has a risk, that you can claim to indigenize only high value items and ignore all the rest which continue to be imported.[ Which is why you need both.

So far, in LCA we have managed both, but we clearly have a ways to go with the radar and engine. For radar, HAL states it will make 60% by value locally - it all depends what it will make, is it Tr/Rx module (most important, so I suspect Elta will not allow it) or rest of the radar hardware, and if so, will the software be given to India to customize?

Arjun, is a case in point where because of low order numbers, the LRU and price indigenization has BOTH been affected and the engine and transmission continue to be imported since TOT required at least 500 units to be made locally.

This is the reason I was happy with the new IRDE sight, because at least that commanders H&Ksight which serves as abackup to GMS, is equivalent to the GMS complexity wise, and while a low proportion by LRU count (only a single item or a few items) it is a high value item!!

Lot of Generlisations have basis in reality, such as HAL purchase of imported vs indigeous Raw Material is 1:7, so much for it's 70% indigenisation claims.

Now where is this 1:7 coming from?

Regarding raw materials, one also has to see contractual provisos. Su-30 MKI for instance has only indian raw material applicable for spares. This is a hard reality of local manufacture.

I am ending it by saying that Brahmos, Shakti, LRSAM, Scorpene are just imports neither JV nor meaningful ToT. (LCA, Arjun are different)

You are saying this, but is it the single way to look at the situation:

Facts:
1. Via Brahmos we now have a universal missile system which is in service across all 3 systems and whose ground systems are all Indian & the missile has some key Indian parts. Through the program Indian developers got experience with that class of missile as well, test, production and deployment.
2. LRSAM - same as above. A missile system which has Indian contribution, motor, actuation and learning versus complete import (Aster, Shtil etc). BEL is to make the radar which is a step forward - remember BELs experience via PSM-33 was helpful.
MRSAM has DRDO/Tata C3I.
3. Shakti- license assembly and some local design contribution, better than outright import.
4. Scorpene - welding and manufacturing skills lost after HDW.

Its not a zero sum game. We should definitely indigenize more but for the limited funds and scientific personnel we have, one has to prioritize.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Mar 2016 15:45

rohitvats wrote:At this stage of our MIC and R&D set-up, I'd be more inclined to look at indigenous count in terms of no of LRU or such sub-systems. Simply because we're yet to master some big-bang items.

But more importantly, if we achieve large %age share of local products by LRU it means we've development the ecosystem for these products. Remember, a smallest item can withhold operational exploitation of a system.

And IMO, this approach also allows to put together a working system in quicker time-frame and induct it faster into service.

Completely agree and that indigenization by LRU % is a very very important metric.
Even so, then you have (motivated) complaints that why call this indigenous, engine is imported etc.. that remains an issue.

Take Brahmos for example - we might still be importing some critical and expensive stuff from Russians but we've a world class missile which adds tremendous value to our Services. Development of domestic replacement for imported systems (if permitted in the contract) or a new alternate system can happen in parallel.

One of biggest grouse with LCA program was exactly this - we tried to develop everything from scratch. Development of radar for LCA was one of the most complex and time intensive sub-programs. Today LCA Mk1A will fly with foreign radar. If we had gone for a foreign radar for initial phase of aircrafts, we could've had the a/c much faster in service. With radar development happening in parallel. As is happening in case of Uttam Radar, which one hopes will power LCA Mk2 from word GO.

Agree about Brahmos and my biggest disappointment (in which I agree with Gyan) is that talk apart, where is the progress on missile indigenization, eg the engine.

Re: LCA, doing everything inhouse, this is partly accurate for the LCA because (unfortunately), with LCA the plan was to have a much higher degree of foreign involvement, the plan was stopped by sanctions hence the delay apart, core systems like FBW or actuators (eventually) will also be Indian. Relying on local engine was just a mistake though, and the radar development, we didn't have options. France did not have a radar at the time (RC-400 came much much later), Kopyo was/is suboptimal (A2G modes remain dodgy, low reliability), American radar (AN/APG-67 not an option). Finally, we took the EL/M-2032 with Indian scanner but again, we did so after IAF evaluated the radar via Jag upgrade (Maritime) and HAL had LUSH also..
In a way, the folks abroad shot their strategic containment plan for India in the foot by putting sanctions. Now we have core FBW capability in India! Far more important than even radar IMHO, because no country can/will give you this.
Interestingly, for high value avionics items, if our RLG-INS goes into mass production for aircraft, we will even have that portion (mostly) locally sourced which was initially very French centric -MFDs (now Samtel-HAL), navigation system (as mentioned), and radar the hold out...

For radar, I think the LCA Mk1A deal gives LRDE time to mature their first gen fighter AESA. It has taken Elta some 11 years after they started advertising the 2052 to mature it!

http://www.acig.org/exclusives/aero/acig_aero05_isr.htm

Quote:
Elta revealed their latest debutant, the EL/M-2052 AESA radar at Aero India. Despite the high profile, the rather inadequate exhibit of the model in a mere corridor facing wall space left the radar, shockingly, mostly unnoticed. A prototype set has been fabricated and is being installed on a fighter for testing. If successful, this radar could kill just about every other set in the world, in terms of exportability and capability. As expected, a ridiculously high tracking capability of 64 targets, is given. In the air-to-sea mode, the radar is supposed to acquire and track surface targets up to 160 nm away. There are over 1500 T/R modules in this antenna aperture - I know because I counted!

Add another 3-4 years before this program to make a prototype and we can imagine that with Elta's access and resources, it took them 15 years to get to a "supply ready program". They already had EL/M-2032, 2035, 2022 etc experience.

In our case, we have launched the Uttam in 2012 (if I am right) and we have a prototype with a scaled down array in ground testing. We will have a long way to go IMO to achieve optimal high power Tx/Rx module designs which offer significant range (beyond 100km small fighter sized ranges).

When people on this forum look at R&D programs, please also look at the operational requirement of Services. And timeline for induction.

Yes, but in the same vein, people from the services (rtd or otherwise) should not then crib about high import content etc. It does seem sometimes some folks speak out of both sides of the mouth in this respect. They either accuse local developers of reinventing the wheel or berate them of being indigenous etc and yet having imported systems.

Consistency is required. One has to appreciate those in IAF who pushed for high indigenization of Arudhra and Ashwini radars in the same vein and did not merely rely on imports. That balance is essential.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Mar 2016 21:42

Some visuals from Aero India of an IAF Base repair Depot stall showing import substitution for parts from Mi-8/17 and MiG 27 and other aircraft. Not surprised that all these little parts don't get assembly lines built for them - they are imported from the OEM or his suppliers in Russia or wherever

https://youtu.be/RKM56xkLl8g

kit · Post by **kit** » 13 Mar 2016 22:15

I think a country s policy matters a bit in the level of indigenization .. reinventing the wheel for every part will make the product costly but at the same time give a certain level of independence in times of hostilities . Russia is now in the process of indigenizing almost every single component that goes into their machines and finding it hugely expensive and time consuming .. the GOI feels it can live with a certain level of dependence on foreign suppliers whether how far that might go is a different matter .. maybe not much in strategic systems but times change and tactical affairs in a sub strategic war environment and in face of sanctions how things will turn out ? .. thats why american machines might not play a huge role given their penchant for sanctions .. even the airlift capability will be part Russian .. the airbus consortium may not make it if the Russians build maintenance depots and improve serviceability of their products

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Mar 2016 06:52

When I claim that "Mine is bigger" the question for the more discerning people should, in my view, be "Bigger than what?"

When news media publish "import percentages" of Indian weapons systems how come neither the media nor ahead of curve readers ask what is the import percentage of goods made in USA, Britain, France, Italy, Spain, Japan, Israel, China, Germany etc.

It would make sense to see their import percentages as well to understand what is happening.

Can anyone point me to such a link where the media of some country are howling about import percentages?

In the Gripen for example, what is the import percentage by component number and by value considering that the engine is American and any processor in the avionics and controls are probably designed in the US and made in Taiwan or China.

Why don't we ask these questions?

srai · Post by **srai** » 14 Mar 2016 07:53

x-posting.

The whole % import in indigenous products needs to be broken out into the following five for better clarity:

% import by parts count
% import by cost
% import by value-added (this one will be subjective)
% import targeted for indigenization (what will continue to remain as import vs what's the end goal % of indigenization)
% import in comparable international products (i.e. LCA-Gripen or Arjun-Markava etc)

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Mar 2016 08:17

srai wrote:x-posting.

The whole % import in indigenous products needs to be broken out into the following five for better clarity:

% import by parts count

% import by cost

% import by value-added (this one will be subjective)

% import targeted for indigenization (what will continue to remain as import vs what's the end goal % of indigenization)

% import in comparable international products (i.e. LCA-Gripen or Arjun-Markava etc)

..and this comparison should be done for a list of 20 countries to see the trend of what the world is doing

I haven't specifically looked (I will do from now on) but I am yet to come across any British or American or any other article that dissects a product of that country in terms of import percentage.Unless we can compare with others we will never know how much shorter Indian organs are compared to others' organs

I ask yet again, with regard to Gripen
1. How much of the engine is manufactured in Sweden from Swedish raw material?
2. How much of the electronics is made in Sweden from Swedish raw material
3. What percentage of the composites used have material entirely made in Sweden
4. How much of the Aluminium and other materials, such a s steel or titanium are entirely Swedish swadeshi?

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 14 Mar 2016 10:45

NaMo asked CJI to publish an yearly bulletin for cases pending for most number of years.

In the similar vein an annual report with least amount of indigenization by parts count as well as by cost should be published.

Having data point in public domain itself will create enough pressure to target the high cost critical items for indigenization.

Public pressure is an wonderful thing, it even stopped mig21 from falling out of sky.

srai · Post by **srai** » 14 Mar 2016 14:16

srai wrote:x-posting.

The whole % import in indigenous products needs to be broken out into the following five for better clarity:

% import by parts count

% import by cost

% import by value-added (this one will be subjective)

% import targeted for indigenization (what will continue to remain as import vs what's the end goal % of indigenization)

% import in comparable international products (i.e. LCA-Gripen or Arjun-Markava etc)

Couple of more to list:

% import by raw materials
% import by Tier1, Tier-2, Tier-3 level manufacturer parts/components

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 14 Mar 2016 20:53

All of these "import percentages" misses the point and is looking in a rear view mirror trying to formulate a forward looking policy.

For instance, the entire worlds semiconductors are manufactured in a few facilities. Same for advanced optics. Its economically completely infeasible to move over manufacturing of these items to India and criticize local designs as somehow lacking if they use these components.

Today, the world is organized in a "rules based system" of which India is a respected and valued member. India is not seen as a revanchist, war mongering state bent on upsetting the apple cart anymore. These items can not be 'denied' to us, the upcoming third largest economy in the whole world. Instead, we have the manufacturers of high tech items lining up to sell these to us, as long as we can pay!

Design is the key component that I suspect is not being counted in these import percentage tables. As long as the design is owned by Indian entities, we can substitute one component for another, even get people to move manufacturing to India for exotic parts by playing one manufacturer against the other.

srai · Post by **srai** » 15 Mar 2016 03:28

^^^

Agree.

As long as import percentages are being done and presented in parliament, then at least those data should be revealed in a more thorough manner where one can call "spade a spade". Lack of clarity on what those percentages really mean masks the end goals that are being strived for.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Mar 2016 03:33

^^ These percentages are available via DRDO documents, Parliamentary documents etc. It takes effort to figure out is what is what but can be done.
Next, its not in India's interest to catalog minutae in public lest it be used against us. Experts and professionals can be briefed.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Mar 2016 05:37

What is the import percentage of Gripen?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Mar 2016 06:42

Here is Google book link about Gripen. How much of Gripen is totally Swedish

Gripen Landing Gear: maade by UK AP Precision
Gripen Ejection seat: Martin Baker
Gripen Environment control system: BAe
Gripen Auxiliary power units: Garrett, Sundstrand, Pratt & Whitney (USA), MicroTurbo (France)
Gripen Black box: SLI avionics (Lear jet)
Gripen Engine: USA
Gripen Radar: Developed with Marconi

There is much more. I am amazed at how Indians self-flagellate without even looking at what is happening in the rest of the world

member_27581 · Post by **member_27581** » 15 Mar 2016 06:58

shiv wrote: There is much more. I am amazed at how Indians self-flagellate without even looking at what is happening in the rest of the world

dr saab what else do you expect from kids "educated" from history written by leftist apologists (no intention to criticize any individual on the forum). Perhaps "koop manduk" with inferiority complex

csaurabh · Post by **csaurabh** » 15 Mar 2016 08:13

shiv ji, there is a difference between Western/NATO allies supplying parts to each other and that of a nation like India or China or Russia. The former doesn't have to worry about sanctions or other political issues. We are a continent sized nation. Ideally, we should do everything.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Mar 2016 08:46

csaurabh wrote:shiv ji, there is a difference between Western/NATO allies supplying parts to each other and that of a nation like India or China or Russia. The former doesn't have to worry about sanctions or other political issues. We are a continent sized nation. Ideally, we should do everything.

This is the "normal" counter argument to the point that almost anyone you can care to name is totally dependent on someone else who could be a foe.

The counter-counter argument that is usually made is that the world is more closely joined up than anyone might care to admit and isolating oneself makes sense up to a point, beyond which there are some things that one simply cannot get in house (like rare raw materials) and other things (like electronic chips) that take too long and are too expensive to duplicate within reasonable periods of time, or certain companies who have a virtual monopoly on some items (say black boxes) and if everyone decides to boycott them - they would go out of business - so they become reliable suppliers.

If you do a Venn diagram of what is possible within one's country and what one must import for any given product, you will never get two separate islands. There will be an overlap. The only questions are how much overlap is essential, how much is unavoidable, and how much the risk of unavoidable overlap can be mitigated.

Unfortunately the subject is abstruse and when one starts using expressions like "Venn diagram", "risk mitigation" and abstruse one is excluding about 99% of aam junta and 95% of "informed people". It is easier to make long tables of how much is imported and howl.

PS Did anyone know that the concept of lift fan for the F-35 B was bought from the Russians in their application of that concept in their Yak 141 VTOL fighter? Nyahahahaha - F-35 is a copy. Or what?

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 15 Mar 2016 19:13

Airbus plans global hub in India for Panther copters.

Europe’s Airbus Group which is competing for aircraft orders from India’s navy and air force Monday said it will build local assembly lines if these projects come through.

The final assembly lines to make Panther helicopters for the Navy and C295 transport aircraft for the Indian Air Force will be built at a cost of over Rs.5,000 crore and will create over 10,000 high skilled jobs, the aerospace and defence firm said in New Delhi.

“We are proposing to establish a final assembly line in India for the AS565 MBe Panther helicopters, if we get the Naval Utility Helicopters contract,” said Pierre de Bausset, president and managing director, Airbus Group India. “We will have India as the global hub for Panthers,” he added.

He said along with the final assembly line, Airbus will set up tier I, II and III supply chain infrastructure in India for these helicopters.

Airbus Helicopters is in the process to form a joint venture company with Mahindra Defence Systems Ltd. This company hopes to become the private strategic partner on helicopter platforms. On 24 January, the defence production arm of the Mahindra Group, Mahindra Defence and Airbus Helicopters had signed a so-called statement of intent to produce military helicopters in India.The companies plan to set up a final assembly line in India, develop tier-1 and tier-2 suppliers and make extensive transfer of technology, to achieve 50% indigenous content. In July, Mahindra Defence and Airbus Helicopters had signed an in-principle agreement to set up a joint venture to manufacture helicopters in India, seeking to tap a military hardware market estimated to grow to $41 billion in seven years.

Apart from the Naval Utility Helicopters, the joint company will also target the Reconnaissance & Surveillance Helicopters (RSH) requirement of over 200 units with the H125M Fennec and the Naval Multi-Role Helicopters (NMRH) requirement of more than 120 units with the H225M (previously marketed as EC725).

The company also plans to establish a final assembly line in India for the C295 military transport aircraft in partnership with Tata Group companies.The C295 is being proposed as a replacement for the Indian Air Force’s ageing Avro fleet. The company said the selection process is on track and field evaluation trials are expected in the near future.

The Make In India initiative launched by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on 25 September 2014 aims to boost domestic manufacturing and create jobs. Twenty-five sectors were identified for Make In India, from automobiles to aviation to pharmaceuticals to tourism and wellness.

Stressing that the Group is already making in India through its over 45 suppliers, de Bausset said, “What we buy in India, we make in India.”

Referring to the Indian government rules restricting foreign ownership in the Indian defence sector to 49%, de Bausset said: “The issue is not the limit per se. The business case for high-tech transfer to India becomes more compelling if foreign OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) are allowed to have adequate equity and management control in the joint venture in line with the risks they are taking and the contributions they are providing.”

In a first for any foreign aerospace and defence OEM in India, Airbus Group exceeded the $500 million annual procurement mark from India in 2015, Mint reported on 12 March.

Airbus Group has now set its sight on exceeding $2 billion in cumulative procurement, covering both civil and defence, in the five years up to 2020, Mint reported citing de Bausset.

srai · Post by **srai** » 15 Mar 2016 19:14

shiv wrote:Here is Google book link about Gripen. How much of Gripen is totally Swedish

Gripen Landing Gear: maade by UK AP Precision
Gripen Ejection seat: Martin Baker
Gripen Environment control system: BAe
Gripen Auxiliary power units: Garrett, Sundstrand, Pratt & Whitney (USA), MicroTurbo (France)
Gripen Black box: SLI avionics (Lear jet)
Gripen Engine: USA
Gripen Radar: Developed with Marconi

There is much more. I am amazed at how Indians self-flagellate without even looking at what is happening in the rest of the world

Most of these companies will have oversees offices in Sweden where they are staffed by mostly Swedish/EU residents. FDIs are not as restrictive as in India and the concept of ToT is non-existent where in India ToT are expected to be handed over to the GoI entity. As long as these companies open up an international office in the host country, hire local people, pay their corporate taxes and include local suppliers/manufacturers in their chain, the government is happy.

jayasimha · Post by **jayasimha** » 15 Mar 2016 19:57

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 649_1.html

A Committee under the chairmanship of Dr. P Rama Rao was constituted to conduct a comprehensive review of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

The Organisation has implemented the following recommendations of the Committee within its powers:

Nomination of Nodal Officers for structured interaction between DRDO and Services.

Introduction of Integrated Financial Advice (IFA) Scheme for financial decentralization.

Appointment of a dedicated Chief Controller for Human Resources (HR).

Creation of Seven Technology Domain based Clusters headed by Directors General.

Restructuring of DRDO HQrs, Creation of Directorate of Systems Analysis and Modeling (SAM) and Directorate of Quality, Reliability and Safety (QR&S).

Efforts have also been made to increase budget for Extramural Research as recommended by the Committee.

This information was given by Defence Minister Shri Manohar Parrikar in a written reply to Shri Kiranmay Nanda in Rajya Sabha today.

DM/NAMPI/RAJ

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Mar 2016 21:09

PS Did anyone know that the concept of lift fan for the F-35 B was bought from the Russians in their application of that concept in their Yak 141 VTOL fighter?

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7088&p=1993054#p1993054

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 16 Mar 2016 16:31

Babudom wants chai-biskoot sessions to discuss the likely monopolization of defence sector production by private sector entities.

The report by a key panel to select private sector players that will be accorded special 'strategic partner' status for major military manufacturing projects has met resistance within the defence ministry, with various departments and services raising concerns that process recommended may lead to monopolisation and needs more consultation.

Sources have told ET that a high-level meeting on the Atre Committee report - which has identified five priority areas for Make in India in the defence sector - recently took place in South Block, headed by Defence Secretary G Mohan Kumar where the proposed model faced resistance.

Strategic partnership model for military manufacturing meets resistance within Defence Ministry While the larger concept of the strategic partnership (SP) model to identify and encourage private sector players for manufacturing in defence was agreed to, the details of the report - including the suggestion that only one company be selected for a particular segment like warship production or submarine construction - has not found full favour within the ministry.

Officials told ET the defence ministry's finance department raised concerns the model could lead to monopolisation. It may be noted that one of the suggestions of the Atre panel was to exclude defence manufacturing from the Competition Act, 2002. The Navy is believed to have batted for the selection of more than one private company per segment. The Air Force is said to have suggested more consultation on the model, with an industry view point being brought in.

Several more rounds of meetings are expected given the objections raised and it is now unlikely that it would be announced with the upcoming changes in the defence procurement procedure (DPP). (Mission accomplished)

The ministry is expected to announce the DPP 2016 close to the upcoming DefExpo in Goa but sources told ET the SP model would not be elaborated at this stage as it would need cabinet approval as well as constitutional amendments.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Mar 2016 14:21

Further hike in R&D budget proposed.

The Ministry in its Action Taken Reply has stated as under:
'In the current financial year (2014-15), the budget of Department of Defence R&D
has been raised to 6.7% of Defence budget as compared to 5.3% in the financial
year 2013-14. This although an increase, compares very modestly to the R&D
expenditure of world leaders with USA at 12% and China at 20%. A major chunk of
this funding is for Mission Mode (MM) projects/programmes of DRDO which are
basically projects undertaken for system development and focuses on immediate
requirement of the Services. This leaves limited funding for other DRDO projects
which are: Technology Demonstration (TD) projects for demonstration of specific
technology, Science & Technology (S&T) projects which cater to futuristic
technology areas and blue sky research undertaken through extramural research.
The organization is of the view that these are still not sufficient for futuristic projects
and justice towards indigenization can be done only if the budget of DRDO is raised
at least to 10% of the Defence Budget. MoD needs to pursue the matter with the
Ministry of Finance so that adequate increase in allocation is made in the next
financial year and subsequently in the next five year plan period ahead. Efforts for
the same will be made'.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Mar 2016 06:30

Cross post

Kartik wrote:The reason why the US would be more than willing to overlook Indian concerns over sales of the 8 + 10 F-16 Block 52s to Pakistan.

F-16 avoiding production gap

This story has several lessons for the jingo..

Lockheed has already invested in ordering some critical items to protect the line, including batch production of certain parts and last-time buys of components going out of production. “But to do bigger pieces we need to have an indication of interest in further orders,” Ouzts says.

Active F-16 sales campaigns are underway in Bahrain, Portugal and Indonesia. Bahrain and Indonesia are involved in the latest F-16V configuration based on the upgrade under development for Taiwan’s F-16A/Bs, which includes Northrop Grumman’s APG-83 active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar.

This is what a dying production line looks like. They have to pre-order "certain parts and last-time buys of components going out of production". This is in Yumrika. This is in the context of "producing everything in India"

It is also an indicator of how important arms sales are to the top economies of the world. The richest countries of the wrold maintain a large percentage of their standard of living by promoting and supporting wars. India's "Principled stand" about wars means jackshit in this world

csaurabh · Post by **csaurabh** » 19 Mar 2016 08:36

shiv wrote: This is what a dying production line looks like. They have to pre-order "certain parts and last-time buys of components going out of production". This is in Yumrika. This is in the context of "producing everything in India"

It is also an indicator of how important arms sales are to the top economies of the world. The richest countries of the wrold maintain a large percentage of their standard of living by promoting and supporting wars. India's "Principled stand" about wars means jackshit in this world

Do arms sales really contribute that much? I get the impression that total arms sales by the USA is much less than what it spends for its development and its own military. This keeps the arms suppliers (MIC ) running, but at the cost of its taxpayers. I don't see how this can be a good thing.

In Orwell's 1984, the super-nations of the world spend huge sums of money and human labor in construction of armaments ( war economy ). Often these are not used, and eventually scrapped as obsolete. This causes living standards of people to drop, as the products of labor are not used for human happiness. Are we seeing the same thing here?

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 19 Mar 2016 14:27

^Arms means technology and industry. Both a pre-requisite for high standards of living. If you have a balance like Khan does, it works out. If you spend beyond capacity, like the Soviet Union did, it adds to other systemic problems and could end up being the last straw that broke the camel's back.

In the end, it is kind of like infrastructure. Sometimes its never enough (like in India) and sometimes you can go overboard (like in china), but either way, it means jobs and growth.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Mar 2016 14:37

DRDO’s robot system can handle mines, IEDs from afar
Armed forces and security agencies, including paramilitary forces and police, often face situations where suspicious objects need to be identified, handled and transported to some distance.

Written by Sushant Kulkarni | Pune | Updated: March 15, 2016 4:53 am

Armed forces and security agencies, including paramilitary forces and police, often face situations where suspicious objects need to be identified, handled and transported to some distance. The Electro-Mechanical Systems Group, from the R&DE, which is based in Dighi in Pune, has recently developed a Mobile Autonomous Robot System (MARS), a rugged vehicle which in its basic form looks like golf cart with green armour, but is actually a very useful tool in conflict scenario.

Speaking to Newsline, R&DE scientist MK Roy who is part of the team that has worked on the development on MARS, said, “The word ‘autonomous’ in its name is there for a reason. The machine can operate on its own and has an in-built programme that guides the mechanical system. MARS can see, identify and then pick up the suspicious object which can then be transported to a designated location. With some add-ons, this system can even be used to dig the ground for the object and defuse the Improvised Explosive Device by various methods. MARS actually creates a 3-dimensional image of the object before it handles it.”

Scientists say that with basic mechanical additions, it can take several roles and can adapt for any terrain to operate in.

MARS can be operated from very long distances once a telecommunications system is fitted on it.

Along with Roy, the core team comprises of group leader VV Parlikar and MM Kuber. Roy says that everything that MARS uses, right from the algorithm and programme which runs it to the body and arms, have been developed in-house, thus giving the laboratory the liberty to make changes as per specific requirements of the security agencies.

The R&DE will transfer the technology of MARS to the industry for manufacturing in the future, scientists from the laboratory said.

http://indianexpress.com/article/cities ... from-afar/

One step up from Daksh ( a huge one ) because this is autonomous and can handle much bigger payloads.
Hope it clears trials and is inducted.

Every one soldiers lives saved is one family kept together.
We lose our best and brightest time and again to IEDs.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Mar 2016 23:33

Arun, well said.

Meanwhile, Gripen production line
https://twitter.com/Saab/status/710494843097714692

TBH, not much different from the current LCA, Hawk and Su-30 MKI lines at HAL, the more snazzy shopfloor apart.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Mar 2016 23:40

Addressing the students, Parrikar said that under the ‘Make in India’ initiative, the focus of the government is to reduce the burden of import to a “noticeable extent” through the use of indigenous technology.
The minister appealed to the “bright minds” of IITs and other areas to integrate themselves and give their services to the defence sector.

“Bright minds from IITs and other areas should integrate themselves with the country’s defence sector and render their services to DRDO-like establishments to make the ‘Make in India’ campaign successful through your ‘out of the box’ thinking, creative ability, innovation and engineering knowledge,” Parrikar said.

The minister said that people from industry, academia and technology-developing fields could be integrated with DRDO like establishments. “My first priority in this direction is to make a hassle-free and non-bureaucratic system for getting the entry in DRDO by these people,” he said.

“We have earmarked over 120 items of defence requirements which we can be developed with the help of indigenous technology,” the minister said.

On the occasion, the institute’s chairman of board of governors Ashok Misra, director Pradipta Banerji, former chairman of Atomic Energy Commission PV Athawale, former Air Marshal T Suvarna Raju and defence journalist Ajai Shukla were present on the occasion.

https://www.ibcworldnews.com/2016/03/19 ... -parrikar/

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Mar 2016 23:44

A litmus test for Astra as it finishes trial

TOI Jaipur Mon,14 Mar 2016

Jodhpur: Iron Fist 2016, the Indian Air Force exercise in the Pokhran deserts, will prove to be a litmus test for Astra, the Beyond-Visual-Range Air-to-Air Missile (BVRAAM), which having successfully completed its user trials including those for its seekers will be officially fired for the first time on March 18 in full public view, including the presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.As per Dr K Jayaraman, director, Defence Research & Development Laboratory (DRDL), Hyderabad, the primary development agency for Astra the development and trials of the missile having been put on a fast track and the missile shall go into production by year end.Paving its way for induction into the Indian Air Force, March 18 will be the day when India would move closer to being equipped with a missile power comparable to only a few in the world when Astra would be fired from a Su-30 aircraft here.

Which it did.

Dr Jayaraman said that recently the Radio Frequency (RF) Seeker performance trials have successfully spelled out Astra's capability to lock-on before launch. He further said that Astra's capability with respect to undergoing manoeuvres involving very high gravitational forces upto the order of 30-Gs, engaging Lakshya (pilotless aircraft) target with precision, firing from various altitudes (from sea level to 20 kms) at different Mach speeds and RF seekers capable to engage targets during the terminal stage requiring no guidance etc has already been tested successfully.

.....................

Astra can be fired at both sub-sonic speeds and super-sonic speeds.

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 386616.cms

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Mar 2016 23:48

TATA gets into the TOT+radar game.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/new ... 370897.ece

Tata arm is L1 bidder for Navy’s radar project
Amrita Nair-Ghaswalla

Competitors question the offer
Mumbai, March 18:

Nova Integrated Systems, a subsidiary of Tata Advanced Systems Ltd, has emerged the lowest bidder for the Surface Surveillance Radar (SSR) project of the Indian Navy.

TASL had participated in the indigenous radar procurement programme under the Indian defence procurement guidelines. However, competing companies in the Indian Navy’s tender have been questioning the low bid.

Seven domestic firms had participated in the June 2013 tender, including Mahindra, Larsen & Toubro and Bharat Electronics.

A total of 31 SSRs and one SSR training simulator are scheduled to be acquired at a cost of over $300 million. As part of the tender, Indian firms partnered with foreign companies to procure technology.

Sukaran Singh, Chief Executive Officer, TASL, said it would be the first private Indian company to undertake final and full assembly of the military radar, and that it was the first procurement by the Defence Ministry under the ‘Buy and Make (Indian)’ category of the Defence Procurement Procedure.

Strategic partnership

Pointing out that TASL is approaching its vision with a three-fold strategy participation in radar procurement programmes, Singh said the firm has strategic technology partnerships with leading global radar manufacturers and is establishing modern manufacturing and development facilities.

Danish defence major Terma has a strategic partnership with TASL.

Terma’s partnership with TASL developed further after jointly bidding for the SSR programme, as the company moved ahead in the area of Naval Combat Management Systems.

In partnership with TASL, Terma has established a development centre in Noida, for the design and development of Combat Management Systems.

Other collaborations

Denmark-based Terma is a leader in naval and coastal surveillance radars.

The partnership envisages full transfer of technology. (For assembly or real manufacturing from subsystem level?)

Terma also has a seven-year-old relationship with Bharat Electronics Limited, and is collaborating in various fields of defence technology.

BEL is the primary integrator and supplier of defence electronics to the armed forces.

BEL and Terma cooperate on naval radar technology and aircraft self-protection.

Singh added that Nova has partnered with Terma “to undertake manufacturing, integration and testing on Navy vessels of the proven Scanter radar system, under transfer of technology in India.” Incidentally, Thales Nederland, the Dutch arm of Thales International, and TASL have jointly proposed Smart-L radar, based on Active Electronically Scanned Array, for the Indian Navy and Indian Air Force.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Mar 2016 23:52

Scanter radar from Terma to be made by Tata under TOT.
http://www.terma.com/security-surveilla ... veillance/

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Mar 2016 23:58

Swati WLR reported as getting CCS nod... so finally, orders will be placed.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 465947.cms

Defence ministry sources on Friday said the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) has cleared four long-pendingarms deals worth 6,600 crore, while two others for over 8,300 crore are on the verge of getting the final nod.

"Contracts for the four cleared deals will now be inked," said a source. They will include the 1,200 crore acquisition of 65,000 new-generation 84mm rockets, with greater range and better armour-penetration capabilities, for the Swedish-origin Carl Gustaf man-portable rocket launchers.

The other contracts are for 4,000 hand-held thermal imagers with laser-range finders ( 1,400 crore), 5,000 Milan-2T anti-tank guided missiles ( 2,000 crore) and 30 indigenous 'Swati' weapon-locating radars ( 2,000 crore).
....

The two projects headed for CCS nod are for two more Pinaka MLRS regiments for 3,300 crore and another regiment of BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles for over 5,000 crore.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Mar 2016 00:00

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 350718.cms

Ordnance Factory to upgrade Swedish anti-aircraft gun
Shishir Arya | Mar 11, 2016, 03.39 AM IST

Nagpur: Though the Army has invites offers to acquire latest anti-aircraft guns, the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB), which is also in the fray as vendor, is simultaneously working on modernizing the old L-70 guns made with Swedish technology of 1960s.

A mechanical weapon, the L-70 is being fitted with latest electronic systems with the help of defence PSU Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL). The Army has put out a request for information (RFI) to buy the latest air defence guns capable of engaging targets in day and night using systems like fire control radars and electro optical fibre. The new guns are expected to have a capacity of being towed or mounted on a vehicle. Contracts for new air defence systems are estimated to be worth over Rs20,000 crore along with ammunition.

The Army at present has over 1,000 L-70 guns that it wants to replace. Gun Carriage Factory (GCF) at Jabalpur, which had been making the old guns, has now initiated the modernization project. GCF was making L-70s until about 5-6 years ago. There have been no further orders from the Army since then, said sources related to the project.

The L-70 runs on mechanical system and many of its parts are now obsolete. The electronic systems to be put in with the help of BEL will have sensors to increase accuracy. There are plans to develop over 200 pieces of which 15-20 would be done in the first batch, said a source.

Both the modernization of the old guns and participating in tenders for latest systems will go side by side. Getting the new technology can take 3-4 years. Until then the upgraded L-70s could be offered to the Army, said a source in the OFB.

GCF at Jabalpur has also delivered the first batch of three indigenous 155mm (Bofors type) howitzers to the Army. The next three are on the way. The first batch was put under trials at Balasore in Orissa after which the Army added a cold weather trial for the howitzers. The date and time have not been fixed yet, said the source.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Mar 2016 00:58

So a formal program now exists for MPATGM for the IA. Good. Otherwise forever dependent on Spike etc.
http://bdl.ap.nic.in/MediaRelease.pdf