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

jaysimha · Post by **jaysimha** » 20 Jun 2018 16:18

https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/ebooks ... x.html#p=1
drdo annual report 2017

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 20 Jun 2018 16:48

jaysimha wrote:
Karan M wrote:Standing Commitee on Defence Report 2018-19, March 2018
we will be highly obliged to have the link..

Just copy paste that string in google.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 20 Jun 2018 17:48

Karan M

I presume these are projects done - not necessarily successfully.

The MCIWS if it were a success would have been the basis of the new 7.62x51 requirement no?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Jun 2018 19:12

Sachin,
The list includes mission mode projects, TD programs, infra programs and some developed by DRDO without a firm service requirement.

The majority of the items in that list (over 90%) are in service are against mission mode programs, or with firm indents/orders while others are in the process of trials. EWSFA is ready and variants are in trials, same as for DCMAWS.
That IIR seeker could well refer to the IIR seeker for Project AD.

In fact, in that entire list only a handful of items have not been publicized as having been in service - MCIWS, Aerostats. The rest are actually mission mode projects with firm orders (e.g. Varuna is now a defacto ESM system for IN) or TD/Infra programs (e.g. BMP into tele-vehicle).

nam · Post by **nam** » 20 Jun 2018 19:22

Hence an additional Rs. 5,000 Crore is critically required for sustained R&D efforts/output

This is a no brainier investment. Investing this amount would probably save us atleast 5 times in terms of import.

We need to sort out 3 things. Funds, bleeding edge fundamental research by our univs and production capability.

DRDO needs to involve private sector and sell tech for royalty to reduce funding from central. Monetizing the tech is a good idea.Univs needs some serious cash for fundamental research.

Production, we are somewhere in the middle. It is the easiest to sort out with some strong dandha on the back and private orders.

DRDO can provide the engineering and project management capability. We will be all set out Indian Military Industrial Complex.

nam · Post by **nam** » 20 Jun 2018 19:28

jaysimha wrote:https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/ebooks ... x.html#p=1
drdo annual report 2017

It has an image of the Long Range Tracking Radar.. our BMD eyes.

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 20 Jun 2018 19:39

Saurav Jha has lots of images and products from DRDO report highlighted on his timeline today.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 20 Jun 2018 19:55

For what they get in budget, the results are simply outfekinstanding!!!

Our govt throws lakhs of corer of rupees on sunsidies and useless political sppeasment compared to that Rs 3000 corer is not even amount to pocket change in Jetley’s pajama.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jun 2018 23:00

KaranM Please post a link as you have taken the trouble to post excerpts from it.

There are 3 pdfs with that name showing up in google.
Thanks, ramana

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 20 Jun 2018 23:56

https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/ebooks ... .html#p=23

sahay · Post by **sahay** » 21 Jun 2018 00:11

jaysimha wrote:
Karan M wrote:Standing Commitee on Defence Report 2018-19, March 2018
we will be highly obliged to have the link..

It is the 43rd report: http://164.100.47.193/lsscommittee/Defe ... nce_43.pdf

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Jun 2018 00:39

Thanks but that is old report for 2017 to 2018.

sahay · Post by **sahay** » 21 Jun 2018 00:54

nam wrote: It has an image of the Long Range Tracking Radar.. our BMD eyes.

That's not an image of LRTR, it is Israel's Green Pine.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 21 Jun 2018 05:43

@IndianDefenceRA on twitter:
Click link above for a low-res picture of the 1.6 MJ capacitor bank

Rail gun Update__
Eight firings were conducted, max muzzle velocity 1500 m/sec achieved for a mass of 8 gm. Currently 1. 6 MJ capacitor bank is set up by four 400 KJ modules.

(target is to fire a 1 kg projectile with 2000 m/s+ velocity with a capacitor bank of 10 MJ.)

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Jun 2018 07:27

ramana wrote:Thanks but that is old report for 2017 to 2018.

The report is from March 2018, the link is correct. Thanks sahay.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Jun 2018 07:31

Katare wrote:For what they get in budget, the results are simply outfekinstanding!!!

Our govt throws lakhs of corer of rupees on sunsidies and useless political sppeasment compared to that Rs 3000 corer is not even amount to pocket change in Jetley’s pajama.

I am amazed at how many products are now regularly clearing extremely demanding user trials. I am fairly certain if they were funded more liberally, even the oft quoted delays would be reduced, if not eliminated (thsts unlikely given the nature of doing completely new tech and having to change tack midstream).

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 21 Jun 2018 07:36

I hope DRDO is doing good work... i would like they indicate the status of each product ..in concept stage, development, trials , accepted, INDUCTED ( and how many units). will make me feel more at ease....

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 21 Jun 2018 07:38

You are right sir, OFB gets ~Rs 50 corer/year for R&D and still have 25% of their sales from product developed in-house. This princely some also delivered an 155mm 45 caliber artillery gun.

It’s bordering on criminal neglect!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Jun 2018 07:39

Thing is if we look at the issue this means DRDO now has a core competency in certain systems with trained personnel, partners, vendors, and in house building blocks- subsystems and hardware available. Plus tge competence to build on it and make either an extension double quick ( Bharani Mk2 is derived from Aslesha) or something brand new ( eg Arudhra MPR, drawing on experience from LRTR but with completely new tech and no foreign partner for TOT for hard to master modules).

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Jun 2018 07:45

manjgu wrote:I hope DRDO is doing good work... i would like they indicate the status of each product ..in concept stage, development, trials , accepted, INDUCTED ( and how many units). will make me feel more at ease....

Manjgu, we will have to take the report I have quoted sbove and then do a line by line search for each item ( DRDO is abysmal at reporting its achievements, typical scientist mentality. My posts have done this sort of legwork tocollate inductions and also have induction /TD/infra/test data and so do the annual reports.
Check my post in radar thread for example.

Also, given DRDOs very limited funding, almost all of their programs are mission mode and often have some TD as part if the program. So 2014 you hear AESA rotating as a TD but by 2017, the Arudhra cleared user trials and has 8 units indented by IAF, and based on Arudhra, and Rohini (many units in service,) LLTR also clears user trials.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Jun 2018 07:54

See for instance, items in bold are local inductions, having cleared user trials without any major fuss.

Karan M wrote:GBMES deliveries have started & per low-key reports barely reported in the media, Divya Drishti is also operational.

Now consider the number of radars IAF has inducted, many AESA units.
37 Rohini radars LLTR
18 Israeli 2084 radars MPR
19 Thales GSM-100 LLTR
15 EL/M-2106 LLWR
21 Aslesha Mk1 LLWR
2 Aerostat radars (though one crashed)

SAM units have come with their own radars
Akash with 8 3D CAR and 16 Rajendra; some 7 squadrons more are in negotiation, BEL expects it this fiscal, thats another 21 radars. IA orders double the orderbook, so around 100 radars
Spyder with at least 3 EL/M-2106
MRSAM with EL/M-2084 (some 9 squadrons were reported)

Now local AESA units which have cleared trials
18 Ashwini LLTR
8 Arudhra MPR

Add to this the recent clearance for digitizing 16 Pechora Firing Units. Pechora radars, by virtue of their bands are anti-stealth.

Then the 5 operational IACCS and the several other which have been stood up, the operational AFNET and all sorts of comms upgrades.

I feel the focus on merely squadron numbers is misleading.

We also know five S-400 *firing units* are under negotiation.Thats another 5 batteries for high value areas & I fully expect a DRDO LRSAM to make up the rest of the numbers, because 5 batteries are laughably small for India's size. - this would be the oft quoted drdo xrsam program, yet to be fully gunded but on the roadmap. The Indo-Pak border is 3300 km & even if each S-400 is deployed near the border, huge numbers of internal Vital Points will still require LRSAM cover.

Even so the rise in IAF capabilities is huge.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Jun 2018 07:57

sahay wrote:
nam wrote: It has an image of the Long Range Tracking Radar.. our BMD eyes.
That's not an image of LRTR, it is Israel's Green Pine.

The DRDO LRTRs pic is in a DRDO tech focus article from several years back. Check the last page of an AESA array being tested.

jaysimha · Post by **jaysimha** » 21 Jun 2018 10:49

DRDO e-book section has been updated.
https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/in ... latest.jsp

https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/ebooks ... forpc.html
https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/ebooks ... forpc.html
https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/ebooks ... forpc.html

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 21 Jun 2018 11:55

Karan M ... I understand your point and I did read all that u highlighted ... but as a taxpayer I can demand more transparency from a govt PSU. I dont think its too difficult to implement what i suggested. all these reports are done by DESIDOC who pride themselves on their documentation..

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 21 Jun 2018 12:00

even on the LRTR ..i know its the Green Pine. Why is it in the DRDO handbook. Did they make LRTR clones on their own or assembled more Green Pines?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Jun 2018 13:26

manjgu wrote:Karan M ... I understand your point and I did read all that u highlighted ... but as a taxpayer I can demand more transparency from a govt PSU. I dont think its too difficult to implement what i suggested. all these reports are done by DESIDOC who pride themselves on their documentation..

Manjgu, i actually think DRDO is transparent.. it allows guys like us to deduce where they are and where they will be. It would actually be simpler for them to just do exactly what you stated and avoid the details .. its just that they lack the proper marketing arm to do it (and the mindset to even understand how important it is.. in today's perception driven world, documenting positive achievements is not just good to have, but essential). Having said that, DESIDOC is a disaster & DRDO labs no better in contributing to their own PR.. see how many webpages remain un-updated on the main site & the shoddy DESIDOC documentation of key DRDO programs. Heck, DRDO labs could just scan their own AI/Defexpo brochures and that would be good enough.. but no, too much effort for DESIDOC.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Jun 2018 13:57

manjgu wrote:even on the LRTR ..i know its the Green Pine. Why is it in the DRDO handbook. Did they make LRTR clones on their own or assembled more Green Pines?

Manjgu, LRTR is not the Green Pine 1-to-1, LRTR is basically a desi variant of the Green Pine architecture. The Israelis shared the hardware design with us - and helped us make our own versions of the TX/RX modules etc. But majority of components are now sourced from within India (including hardware such as L-Band modules) and most importantly, the software which includes the signal processing and the specific modes that we implemented on the LRTR. They are now developing a follow on to the LRTR (900km-1000km class).

The biggest break through, is the Arudhra MPR - its our own complete in-house AESA with new gen TX/RX modules and several other improvements. That combined with AEW&CS radar means that DRDO has now got the basics of AESA in-house, now its all about next gen variants, and iterative improvements.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 21 Jun 2018 14:30

good to hear our own desi effort on LRTR... i would love to see the day when our products are exported and we can squeeze other folks balls... then we have truly arrived.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 21 Jun 2018 15:52

Comment section from a dated article..
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/01/ ... ssile.html

any radar engineering professional conversant with the designs, would now that the greenpine is not the lrtr. the greenpine can track targets at a lower range and only upto 3 km/sec since its 36 by 21 feet array is only partially populated with lower power mic tx/rx modules. the LRTR on the other hand is a true MW class radar. i would be very interested in knowing its true range, within a given elevation, i wouldnt be surprised if radars placed well within india could track traffic deep into pakistan as well.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Jun 2018 16:04

On LRTR from way back, from Dr VK Saraswat.

Ajai Shukla article on BMD

An untold story: how India got its missile defence

Dr Saraswat rejects reports that the LRTR in Indiaâ€™s ABM system is actually the Israeli Green Pine radar. He stated, "The LRTR is actually a radar built by (a DRDO laboratory) the Electronics and Radar Development Establishment (LRDE) in Bangalore, in collaboration with Israeli company, ELTA. It is not the Green Pine. The technology of the Green Pine may be built into this, but not even a single module of Green Pine is in (the LRTR). If we had done that, the Americans would have stopped the flow of technology to Israel."

India on way to joining exclusive BMD club , 2007

Interestingly, the crucial LRTRs used in the tests are based on the two Israeli Green Pine early-warning and fire control radars imported by India in 2001-2002.

"But we have upgraded LRTR, which is 30-40% better in target classification and identification. It can prioritize the incoming threats and track 200 targets simultaneously," said Saraswat.

LRTR has a detection range of 600 km and is capable of tracking intermediate range ballistic missiles, with velocities up to 5,000 metre per second. Incidentally, a ballistic missile can be targeted at all the three points in its parabolic trajectory — boost or launch phase, mid-course in space or terminal phase during atmospheric descent.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 21 Jun 2018 23:38

Didn't see this posted anywhere else
In a blow to private defence firms, govt will not subsidise development of new weaponry
This was IMO much better than the "Strategic Partner" which would have only increased import/screwdrivergiri. Of course they weren't able to see through a single SP contract either till date

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Jun 2018 00:39

But, I am completely with L&T on this. What is this nonsense that ship building PSUs with orders which cannot even be fulfilled for the next 5 years are given more orders while L&Ts shipyard lies idle in want of orders.

nam · Post by **nam** » 22 Jun 2018 00:49

Indranil wrote:But, I am completely with L&T on this. What is this nonsense that ship building PSUs with orders which cannot even be fulfilled for the next 5 years are given more orders while L&Ts shipyard lies idle in want of orders.

I would say, L&T should concentrate on nuke subs projects, rather than create bad blood with MoD over conventional subs. It is pointless creating another ecosytem at L&T for conventional subs, when Mazgoan docks already has the trained manpower for Scorpene.

Nuke subs are the crown jewels.

However I agree, in the domain of surface assets, they have been short changed. MoD has found a neat way of not giving orders to private sector by having a RFP send to private & DPSUs.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Jun 2018 01:03

Conventional sub building are low hanging grapes.
Hence the bickering.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 22 Jun 2018 21:32

Indranil wrote:But, I am completely with L&T on this. What is this nonsense that ship building PSUs with orders which cannot even be fulfilled for the next 5 years are given more orders while L&Ts shipyard lies idle in want of orders.

just asking onlee.

what happens if a private entity, after gaining warship building expertise, decides to set up a warship building enterprise in a JV with a local firm, say in bangladesh??

we already have one parsi entrepreneur jumping around in his undies, trying to set up manufacturing plants in pakiland, every time there is a slight thaw in the Indo pak relations.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jun 2018 00:10

jaysimha wrote:
Karan M wrote:Standing Commitee on Defence Report 2018-19, March 2018
we will be highly obliged to have the link..

Second that. The one I got is previous year 2017 one.

All, its good practice to put a link when you are quoting as that reduces swirl.

Thanks in advance.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 Jun 2018 03:53

Links are not always available via mobile devices. You get to D/L the PDF/doc and then copy excerpts! Formatting itself is a huge pain.

Anyhow stay tuned, another arthshaster chunkian document will be shared soon. Keep your eyes peeled @ sauravjha and other brf friendly folk!

sahay · Post by **sahay** » 23 Jun 2018 07:38

ramana wrote: Second that. The one I got is previous year 2017 one.

It was the newest report dated March 2018. You might be mixing up the year of Standing Committee with the year of report. Check pages 29-34 of http://164.100.47.193/lsscommittee/Defe ... nce_43.pdf and you'll see the same things that Karan posted. I have also put the pages into an imgur album if you are still having issues: https://imgur.com/a/RXnRCQy

The 2017 report on DRDO is the 30th Standing Committee report: http://164.100.47.193/lsscommittee/Defe ... nce_30.pdf

nam · Post by **nam** » 23 Jun 2018 13:12

ramana wrote:Conventional sub building are low hanging grapes.
Hence the bickering.

If l&t wants to get into conventional sub building, they could leverage lessons from nuke programme, spend money on r&d and build their own design.

Market it to the world like dcns. French navy does not buy conventional from dcns, however they sell conventional all over the world.

I totally agree private yards are short changed. However there is no point bickering as mod will not change.

They are private enterprise, bring out design, out of box ideas and compete.

kit · Post by **kit** » 23 Jun 2018 17:14

nam wrote:
ramana wrote:Conventional sub building are low hanging grapes.
Hence the bickering.
If l&t wants to get into conventional sub building, they could leverage lessons from nuke programme, spend money on r&d and build their own design.

Market it to the world like dcns. French navy does not buy conventional from dcns, however they sell conventional all over the world.

I totally agree private yards are short changed. However there is no point bickering as mod will not change.

They are private enterprise, bring out design, out of box ideas and compete.

If the government mandates private sector route then L&T could bring in a foreign partner with a futuristic design like the kockums and build on it .. DCNS and HDW will not , they will most likely try on their own.