Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Post Reply
Baljeet
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 29 May 2007 04:16

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by Baljeet »

chetak wrote: Baby steps. Baby steps!
This guy (Indian Defence Ministry release) went from failed aircraft engine to Marine GT on full after burner.
Us Indians have this sunny disposition, no matter how many times the DRDO has failed to deliver on their many promises, we keep leading with the chin.Here's hoping that they make it this time.
Chetak
Believing in effort is not a disposition. It is fact. When some Western Company tries something and fails in original mission but succeeds with same product in something else they are hailed as pioneers, When Desi does something like this, he is given humiliation and chided. Why double standards, so what if kaveri fails as Aero Engine but it succeeds in different Avtaar as Marine Engine. There is opportunity in every failure, profit in every success.
JMHO
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32762
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by chetak »

Baljeet wrote:
chetak wrote: Baby steps. Baby steps!
This guy (Indian Defence Ministry release) went from failed aircraft engine to Marine GT on full after burner.
:D Us Indians have this sunny disposition, no matter how many times the DRDO has failed to deliver on their many promises, we keep leading with the chin.[/color]Here's hoping that they make it this time.
Chetak
Believing in effort is not a disposition. It is fact. When some Western Company tries something and fails in original mission but succeeds with same product in something else they are hailed as pioneers, When Desi does something like this, he is given humiliation and chided. Why double standards, so what if kaveri fails as Aero Engine but it succeeds in different Avtaar as Marine Engine. There is opportunity in every failure, profit in every success.
JMHO
The major cause of DRDOs failure to deliver is because they proclaim victory even before the battlefield is in sight.
When they finally begin to understand the complexity of the problem in its totality, they hesitate to enter the battlefield.
The nation's expectations are already high listening to their empty talk.
I am only suggesting that they take one step at a time, consolidate and then move to the next step.
Its what organizations do the world over.
Like always, DRDO is long on rhetoric but short on delivery.
Can they not do it differently for once?
The marine GT is very far off at this stage. Much more needs to be done before it can actually be put to use.Don't hype it up. Proceed slowly and cautiously. Please succeed.
We wish them well.
merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by merlin »

IMO, the problem lies more with the attitude of the armed forces towards anything Indian rather than with DRDO. What prevents the armed forces (IA in particular) from working with DRDO in coming up with what they need? How come we hear the same complaints from the armed forces all the time - that this is not what they need? How come we never hear the armed forces say that we will work with DRDO to come up with what we need?
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by vivek_ahuja »

merlin wrote:What prevents the armed forces (IA in particular) from working with DRDO in coming up with what they need? How come we hear the same complaints from the armed forces all the time - that this is not what they need? How come we never hear the armed forces say that we will work with DRDO to come up with what we need?
Ego clashes on both sides of the two way street.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32762
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by chetak »

vivek_ahuja wrote:
merlin wrote:What prevents the armed forces (IA in particular) from working with DRDO in coming up with what they need? How come we hear the same complaints from the armed forces all the time - that this is not what they need? How come we never hear the armed forces say that we will work with DRDO to come up with what we need?
Ego clashes on both sides of the two way street.

They do work together.
Just one example. There are many others.
No one should have to wait for over two decades for a UAV from the DRDO. One that is delivered with serious limitations and it took that much amount of time start to finish.
This is what the IA finally got after working with these guys for a long time.
The imported UAVs can read a car license plate from many tens of thousand feet up in the sky and loiter for days.
Meanwhile the uglies in the neighborhood have to be handled.

What would you do?
Import the UAVs or support the local chapter of the Indian version of the teamster's union?
Remember some poor Army guys derriere is at stake. His friends pick up the pieces after the IED has done its job
What would you do?
Do tell.

After all these years, basically due to the non delivery of long promised systems, the internal confidence level in the DRDO is very low.
Additionally, after seeing the repeated failures by the DRDO, the confidence of the Armed Forces in the DRDO, is also at its lowest.
Except for a few labs the others seem to have plateaued out in terms of output and are at a loss for new ideas.
Flogging the same old horses is not going to get DRDO any mileage but in the meanwhile, the old neighborhood is moving up in terms of hardware and the old folks in the Armed Forces definitely want to keep up with the Joneses.
Can you blame them?

The golden jubilee thing of the DRDO is also causing a lot of radio clutter. They could definitely do a better PR job by hiring some professionals. Currently they seem to be making a dogs breakfast of it.
To make some important announcement for the golden jubilee, they seem to have locked on to the Arjun MBT. The very public pressure that they are bringing to bear on the IA for acceptance of the Arjun MBT will have a serious backlash on future DRDO projects. Not only with the IA but with the other Services as well.

The gentlemen running this show ought to maybe, take some steps back and reassess the situation. Bring fresh perspective to bear and arrive at a via media compromise. Washing dirty linen in public will only expose the system to public derision.
Going one to one with the Indian Army and that too publicly is a bad bad idea.
Reality check. The IA is a nationally revered and loved organization along with the Navy and the Air Force. The public look up to the Armed Forces.
DRDO?
Last edited by chetak on 27 Jul 2008 20:01, edited 1 time in total.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by Surya »

chetak


how about responding to Maz's comments

THe IA and services are revered but the Army procurement guys are not.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32762
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by chetak »

Surya wrote:chetak


how about responding to Maz's comments

THe IA and services are revered but the Army procurement guys are not.


Sir, I absolutely agree with you.
Procurement guys everywhere. National culture unfortunately.
For the cheating procurement guys in the Armed Forces in particular, a small solution is recommended, a 9mm solution in fact. Unfortunately the constitution gets in the way. Dang!
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32762
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by chetak »

maz wrote:Indian Navy to buy 37 anti-sub choppers.

>>The Indian Navy is all set to strengthen its air fleet by acquiring 26 Sea King anti-submarine and troop carrying helicopters and 11 Kamov-28 choppers...

The ministry has finalised global tenders to acquire troop carrying and anti-submarine helicopters as well as to upgrade its fleet of Sea King and Kamov-28 helicopters, a senior naval officer said...

The navy operates 14 Sea King and 12 Kamov anti-submarine helicopters..<<

This is incorrect reporting and the writer may be confusing orders fornew helos with those for upgrades.

Several of the SKG are undergoing upgrades at HAL while tenders for upgrades to SKG and KV 28 have are pending , so the above report is quite confusing.

Chetak, your comments regarding SKG a/c are misleading and erroneous. Tell me something: have you flown / operated the SKG? If you have, then you will know that several SKG are operational. The IN has at least two Mk 42C operational along with 10-12 Mk 42A/B plus six UH-3H as part of the Trenton transfer.


Yes.
I have been involved with the Seakings for many years.
They are temperamental and very difficult to keep in operation.
Parts of the aircraft came under American sanctions. This complicated things further
The commando version is basically a troop carrier. Not much difficulty there.
The rest are ASW versions. Very tough to keep serviceable.
Yes, as you say several are operational. But keeping in mind the fleet strength many more ought to be operational.
The forum being public, afraid I can't go beyond this.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32762
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by chetak »

Surya wrote:chetak


how about responding to Maz's comments

THe IA and services are revered but the Army procurement guys are not.

chetak
how about responding to Maz's comments


Sorry Brother, didn't monitor the post.
Thanks for the heads up.
Replied now.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by Singha »

it seems ASW and AEW platforms are very low mission payload mtbf?
and significant ground service hrs per flying hr?

someone was mentioning a scary figure for the Tu192. perhaps importing
civilian airframes and more cots tech will improve the matter in future
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32762
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by chetak »

Singha wrote:it seems ASW and AEW platforms are very low mission payload mtbf?
and significant ground service hrs per flying hr?

someone was mentioning a scary figure for the Tu192. perhaps importing
civilian airframes and more cots tech will improve the matter in future

Very low MTBF and very significant man hours for servicing.
Once back in the shop, it doesn't get out easily because QA inspection gets on your case.
Catch-22 situation literally.

Civilian airframes are maybe the way to go.
Look at the DO-228, in wide service with the IN, CG and IAF.
Robust, reliable, economical and trusted for prolonged over water operations.
That is really saying something. A real work horse.
Civilian airframes are made for commercial operations. If they don't remain airborne and produce profits, they are out out.

The DO 328 plans were available for sale. Lock stock and barrel, along with the complete plant.
Wonder why no one in India took them up.

Could have gone this way and spun off other growth designs.
We seem to do a lot of unnecessary ab initio work.
maz
Webmaster BR
Posts: 355
Joined: 03 Dec 2000 12:31

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by maz »

Chetak

Thanks for responding and enlightening us. Yes, I completely agree with you that many more SKG's should be operational given the size of the fleet. And that serviceability is less than stellar. As you can see, I am practising the " glass is half full as opposed to it is half empty approach". Can we take this discussion offline please?

You may contact me at mmazumdar at hotmail dot com
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32762
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by chetak »

Maz
Please check your hotmail
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32762
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by chetak »

chetak wrote:
maz wrote:Indian Navy to buy 37 anti-sub choppers.

>>The Indian Navy is all set to strengthen its air fleet by acquiring 26 Sea King anti-submarine and troop carrying helicopters and 11 Kamov-28 choppers...

The ministry has finalised global tenders to acquire troop carrying and anti-submarine helicopters as well as to upgrade its fleet of Sea King and Kamov-28 helicopters, a senior naval officer said...

The navy operates 14 Sea King and 12 Kamov anti-submarine helicopters..<<

This is incorrect reporting and the writer may be confusing orders fornew helos with those for upgrades.

Several of the SKG are undergoing upgrades at HAL while tenders for upgrades to SKG and KV 28 have are pending , so the above report is quite confusing.

Chetak, your comments regarding SKG a/c are misleading and erroneous. Tell me something: have you flown / operated the SKG? If you have, then you will know that several SKG are operational. The IN has at least two Mk 42C operational along with 10-12 Mk 42A/B plus six UH-3H as part of the Trenton transfer.


Yes.
I have been involved with the Seakings for many years.
They are temperamental and very difficult to keep in operation.
Parts of the aircraft came under American sanctions. This complicated things further
The commando version is basically a troop carrier. Not much difficulty there.
The rest are ASW versions. Very tough to keep serviceable.
Yes, as you say several are operational. But keeping in mind the fleet strength many more ought to be operational.
The forum being public, afraid I can't go beyond this.
AKAIK, there are only Mk 42B/C ops now.
The Alphas haven't been up for quite sometime now and may be in an upgrade program.
Himanshu
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 25 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: Mumbai

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by Himanshu »

What would be the best chopper for Indian Naval requirements..
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by Singha »

the best available that will fit inside our DDG/FFG hangers are NH90 and SH60.
but NH90 production is said to be backlogged and might take a while. SH60
would imply going with a american sensor pkg too for sure...IN is buying P8I
so that shouldnt be a problem..infact may be easier to network P8 and SH60
if they come from single country.

SH60 as you know is a proven battlefield heli on land and in long service with
folks like USN, JMSDF...
soutikghosh
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 17 Feb 2008 11:21
Location: new delhi
Contact:

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by soutikghosh »

What about another latest helicopter S-92,SH-148 from Sikrosky stable and fitting it with SH-60s ASW gears instead of the old S-60 Class of helicopter.
This is the helicopter I am talking about.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Sikorsky ... 1370885/L/
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7101
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by shyamd »

As I reported earlier the UAE has told Dassault to swap its 63 Mirages for Rafaels.

If a deal is struck, Dassault will find itself with a lot of Mirage's on its hands starting from 2012. For the contract to be profitable, dassault needs to get customers for the Mirages. They are generally in good condition and equipped to fire all the weaponry in the UAE's arsenal, such as the Black Shahine cruise missile and Mica air-to-air weapon. One possibility currently being mulled concerns India.

Elbit Systems is competing strongly for the upgradation of IAF mirage's contract. Instead of modernising the aircraft, Dassault could offer to sell some of the UAE’s fighters to New Delhi.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by Singha »

doesnt the Qatari mirages (10?) also include a cache of Mica missiles kept in mothballs
because their F-16 fleet cannot use it? with servicing and recertification from OEM
that would supplement our A2A inventory also.
they have twelve 2000-5 (9 single seaters,3 trainers) delivered in 1997-98.

the UAE potential swap looks a long way out though.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iPX ... cGjcCIKrLg

UAE eyes France's Rafale fighter

Jun 5, 2008


ABU DHABI (AFP) — The United Arab Emirates said on Thursday it was mulling replacing its fleet of French Mirage 2000 combat planes with the multi-role Rafale, which has yet to find an export market.

"The UAE is seriously considering replacing its fleet of Mirage 2000 combat planes with the French new generation Rafale fighter starting in 2013," an official was quoted by the state WAM news agency as saying.

"Discussions on this issue are under way between the UAE government and France," he said.

The official did not give more details but the oil-rich Gulf country's purchase of the Rafale would be a major boost for Dassault Aviation's fourth-generation combat jet.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy immediately welcomed the announcement as "good news for France.

"The United Arab Emirates has been using French weaponry for a long time," he said in a statement. "They are looking at the Rafale to replace their fleet of 63 Mirage 2000 planes."

He said there was "no fixed dates, nor have commercial negotiations begun" but added that "discussions will be held in the coming weeks."

"In case a contract is signed, the first planes can be delivered from 2012 onwards."

Dassault are also makers of the Mirage 2000-9 combat planes, which the UAE bought in 1998.

Abu Dhabi purchased 30 Mirage 2000-9 in a 3.2-billion-dollar deal which included the modernisation of 33 other Mirages.

France is a leading military supplier to the UAE, which bought more than 400 Leclerc tanks from French firm GIAT in 1994.

During a visit by Sarkozy to Abu Dhabi in January, the two countries signed a deal under which Paris will set up its first permanent military base in the UAE.

The base will be set up in Abu Dhabi, the wealthiest and largest of the UAE's seven emirates.

It is due to become operational in 2009 and will eventually host 400-500 French army, navy and air force personnel, French officials have said.

"It will be the first such French base in the Gulf and it will face the Strait of Hormuz," the strategic waterway through which much of the world's oil supplies pass, a French presidential source said in January.

Abu Dhabi and Paris are linked by a 1995 defence pact under which their armed forces conduct regular joint manoeuvres in the UAE.

Dassault has yet to find a foreign buyer for the Rafale, which can carry out interception and reconnaissance missions as well as nuclear strikes. The French aerospace group is in talks with Libya over a possible sale.

Talks had taken place with Saudi Arabia on a possible deal, but the Gulf oil powerhouse eventually opted for Britain's Eurofighter jets.
prashanth
BRFite
Posts: 540
Joined: 04 Sep 2007 16:50
Location: Barad- dyr

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by prashanth »

Chetak sir,

No disagreements with your posts wrt DRDO's performance. But is it not the responsibility of the armed forces to involve themselves with DRDO in developing weapons and systems? Look at the Arjun story sir. The IA doesn't even want to improve the tank. They are already planning a future FMBT. Ultimately the Indian MBT will meet HF-24's fate. Look how IAF is struggling with LCA now.
It is an inconvenient truth that we cannot go about with imported weapons forever . It is the responsibility of the armed forces to at least encourage DRDO instead of rejecting flatly whatever it comes out with. If indeed the IA had demanded further improvements for Arjun, things would have been different.

JMT.
sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10196
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by sum »

doesnt the Qatari mirages (10?) also include a cache of Mica missiles kept in mothballs
because their F-16 fleet cannot use it? with servicing and recertification from OEM
that would supplement our A2A inventory also.
they have twelve 2000-5 (9 single seaters,3 trainers) delivered in 1997-98.
Think that a IAF/babu contingent had even visited Qatar 4-5 years back but talks had broken down over pricing. Wonder if we will give another try since it is too lucarative for India to let go.

Will be surprised if IAF HQ is not looking at this huge unused Mirage fleet keenly...
pkudva
BRFite
Posts: 170
Joined: 23 Jul 2008 13:57

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by pkudva »

Policy will always be there, but the need of the hour is less paper work , faster negotiation skills and a definate time frame to meet the forces requirement.

No one knows about Qatari Mirges, same with TU-22's, MI-17 V not signed, Reco's Helis deal scrapped so much of work pending.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5411
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by srai »

sum wrote:
doesnt the Qatari mirages (10?) also include a cache of Mica missiles kept in mothballs
because their F-16 fleet cannot use it? with servicing and recertification from OEM
that would supplement our A2A inventory also.
they have twelve 2000-5 (9 single seaters,3 trainers) delivered in 1997-98.
Think that a IAF/babu contingent had even visited Qatar 4-5 years back but talks had broken down over pricing. Wonder if we will give another try since it is too lucarative for India to let go.

Will be surprised if IAF HQ is not looking at this huge unused Mirage fleet keenly...
With the squadron levels decreasing at a pace faster than the acquisitions, one would think IAF would be making a push in this direction with some urgency. But the urgency seems to be lacking for some reason.

If you look at the one of the three Mirage squadrons (No. 9), it is operating with only 10 aircrafts. This is far below the standard 18 aircrafts per IAF squadron.

Similarly if IAF is interested in the ex-FrAF Mirage 2000s to be available in 2012, it needs to start the negotiations now because the whole Indian procurement bureaucracy is super slow. It can't afford to wait till 2012 and then begin this process; it will be too late by then. IMO, in regards to force planning (and contingency planning) there is something to be desired in the IAF.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by RajeshA »

Night Goggles and US Export Law related:

Murtha Intervenes for Company That Broke Export Law
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by Gerard »

Mary Beth Buchanan, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, called the company's violation "a serious offense." The company had no license to export the items, and the government requires one to ensure "that products for military use aren't being sold to countries that might have an improper and criminal use for the product," Buchanan said.
A Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by A Sharma »

Visit of the Chief of Air Staff to Malaysia

The Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal FH Major, is proceeding on a three day official visit to Malaysia from 18 – 20 Aug 08. He is slated to meet the Malaysian Defence Minister and the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) Chief for discussions on a wide range of bilateral issues comprising Defence cooperation. Amongst other RMAF bases, the CAS will also visit Gong Kedak Air Base in North-East Malaysia, which is home to an Indian Air Force Training Team.

The team of IAF pilots and technicians are in Malaysia for two years, on their invitation, to train their Pilots, Weapon System Operators and Maintenance staff for the smooth induction and operation of their newly acquired Su-30 MKM fighter aircraft. This follows the signing of a protocol between the two Governments in December last year at Langkawi, Malaysia and is seen as a major development in Indo-Malaysian relations. The team would also train the RMAF technicians to help them set up a Systems School for the Su-30 MKM at Gong Kedak Air Base. Under an earlier Memorandum of Understanding, the IAF had conducted ground training on MiG-29 aircraft for close to 100 personnel of the RMAF in Oct 94.

Air Force to Air Force cooperation with Malaysia has also received a boost with the first high level Air Staff Talks between the two Air Forces having been held at the IAF HQ in New Delhi on 04 and 05 Aug 08. The talks covered issues that included professional exchanges, Su-30 training, courses, logistics support and air exercises. The strengthening of bilateral relations with Malaysia is indicative of the Indian Air Force’s efforts to seek closer ties with its neighbours in South-East Asia.
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4680
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by putnanja »

Delhi arms reminder to Russia

OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT

A T-90S tank bought from Russia. The Indianised version, called Bhishma, is being assembled at the Heavy Vehicles Factory in Avadi, Tamil Nadu. (Photo courtesy: Bharat-Rakshak)
New Delhi, Aug. 19: India today asked Russia to stick to delivery schedules of contracted military equipment at a review of defence pacts that highlighted more glitches than achievements.

Delhi’s pending military projects with Moscow is estimated to be worth more than $14 billion.

Four important defence agreements were discussed at a two-day meeting of the Indo-Russian Working Group on Shipbuilding, Aviation and Land Systems.

The two sides were led by Ajoy Acharya, additional secretary, department of defence production, and Karavaev Igor Evgeniyevich, the director of Russia’s Department of Defence Industry Complex.

Strangely, an official brief on the meeting given in the afternoon was cancelled in the evening and replaced by a note from the defence ministry.

The note said: “The talks were held in a highly professional manner in an atmosphere of friendship and mutual understanding. The sides exchanged views on implementation of current projects like T-90 tanks, missile systems, various shipbuilding activities and aviation sector projects like the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft and multi-role transport aircraft. They also agreed to take steps for ensuring their successful implementation.”

After the meeting, defence ministry sources told reporters Russia said it would abide by schedules it had agreed to on the T-90 tanks that are now taking over in the frontline of the Indian Army’s armoured corps.

“Both sides agreed to ensure efficient and well-timed execution of important projects,” defence ministry spokesperson Sitanshu Kar said.

But the statement could barely conceal areas of discord in the Russia-India military co-operation programme.

Russia is by far India’s largest supplier of military equipment — accounting for nearly 65 per cent of the imported hardware — and the two countries are now engaged in complex talks to resolve a dispute on the aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov. Russia has demanded about $2 billion more than the contracted price for the vessel.

But this afternoon’s meeting dwelt on other military contracts, each of them important for India’s armed forces that have embarked on a rapid modernisation programme.

The Indian side asked for a commitment from Russia on product support for indigenous production of T-90 tanks.

The T-90 is the army’s main battle tank now and 310 tanks were first contracted in 2001 after the home-grown Arjun did not meet the standards.

India intends to buy a total of 1,000 T-90s, for an unstated price — though industry sources put the figure between Rs 12 crore and Rs 14 crore each.

The defence ministry sources said several issues — like the tank’s anti-aircraft gun mount, ventilation system, torsion bar and gun barrels — were sought to be resolved at the meeting.
renukb
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 18 Aug 2008 12:18

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by renukb »

India in $2bn Brahmos missile order - Ifax

http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/i ... 4420080819

MOSCOW (Reuters) - India has placed $2 billion of missile orders with Russian-Indian military joint venture Brahmos, the firm's managing director was quoted as saying by Russia's Interfax news agency on Tuesday.

Sivathanu Pillai, speaking in Moscow, said the total order book for the Brahmos supersonic cruise missile, including supplies to other countries, could reach $10 billion.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by Singha »

indicates the IA is interested in it as a SRBM replacement and intends to pound the
crap out of anything, just like allegedly the PLA with its 150,000 SRBMs is claimed
to be able to.
sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by sunilUpa »

Don't read too much in to Pillai's statement. It's the usual '1000 missile worth 10 billion production target with more than half for export to friendly countries' PR bs. In any case I believe this time he said 'Indian armed forces' not 'Indian army'.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by Singha »

@$10mil a missile the $2b order should give us 200 rounds atleast.
a man can do a fair amt of damage with 200 brahmos.

IN order for P15A x 3 = 3 x 16 = 48? and P17A x 6 (perhaps 48) too.

IAF would be picking up another 100 atleast for anti-shipping.

is $10mil cost realistic?
bart
BRFite
Posts: 712
Joined: 04 Jan 2008 21:33

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by bart »

10 M seems rather high. Not sure why it needs to be that high, perhaps Russians are overcharging us for the core components as usual.

The need of the hour is a Tomahawk type CM that can be made for 1M or less so we have a 'hi-lo' type mix with short range high impact missiles combined with larger inventory of slower but long range CM.
Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by Vick »

From DN
Indian Companies Plan $9B IT Roadmap

By VIVEK RAGHUVANSHI

NEW DELHI — India ’s defense forces plan a $4 billion automation of major systems and subsystems while spending another $5 billion to purchase new equipment as part of IT Roadmap 2015, senior Indian Defence Ministry officials said.

Indian information technology (IT) companies — including Tata Consultancy Services, Infosys, Satyam, HCL Technologies, Wipro Infotech, Rolta India , Tech Mahindra and Tata Power — are working closely with Indian defense establishments in advisory capacities to devise IT solutions, a senior Defence Ministry official said.

These are all in-house agencies, and thus far no private sector firms are serving the consultancy or think tank role, although private companies are front-runners in several of the IT tenders.

As of now, Army requirements are being guided by think tanks within the service. These are named after the networks they assist, such as the Army Radio Engineering Network (AREN), the Army Static Switched Communication Network and Satellite Communications.

The agency leading design and development of IT solutions for the defense forces is the director general of information services in the Ministry of Defence.

“Virtually every function of the Army is aimed for automation,” a senior Army official said.
The official added that systems are being integrated from the command level to the headquarters level through automatic IT solutions.

Some of the IT systems being put in place include battlefield surveillance systems, battlefield management systems, air defense control systems and a variety of C4ISR solutions. The Army is upgrading its static networks — the Army Satellite Communication Network and the mobile networks that are being supported by mobile radio relay. These systems are being replaced by the Tactical Communication System (TCS).

Costing more than $1.5 billion, the TCS aims to replace over the next three years the aging AREN system that was put in place in the 1980s by employing cutting-edge technologies to provide a fully mobile communication system for the Army.

India ’s IT industry will play an important role in the development of IT solutions for projects such as battlefield management systems, the Defence Ministry officials said.

Proposals are already in advanced stages of consideration in the Defence Ministry, which seeks to give priority to domestic IT companies when procuring future netcentric warfare solutions.

The Defence Ministry recently allowed banking of offset credits in the defense sec tor, which is likely to encourage overseas companies, especially IT majors, to tie up with private Indian companies to design and develop defense products. Overseas companies can now carry forward offset credits to future tenders.

“As the Indian IT industry is already advanced, it is likely to see the maximum number of tie-ups with overseas defense companies,” said Rohiot Mandal, director of the India Rizing Fund, India ’s first defense venture capital firm.

The Indian defense forces are developing IT systems and solutions under separate departments under the control of the director general of information systems. Some of the key departments, which refer to the name of the systems under development, include Artillery Command Control Communication System, Command Information and Decision Support System, Air Defense Control and Reporting System, C4ISR, Battlefield Surveillance System and Battlefield Management System.
Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by Vick »

From DN
U.S. Pushes India on Defense Technology Deals

NEW DELHI — The United States is insisting on the conclusion of pending agreements with India as a condition to boosting defense ties. At the U.S.-India Defence Procurement and Production Group (DPPG) meeting here Aug. 7-8, the U.S. delegation said “routine agreements” between India and the United States must be concluded soon, Indian Defence Ministry sources said. The End Use Verification Agreement, wherein India agrees not to transfer U.S. defense technology to another country, is emerging as a major obstacle to the sales of U.S. weaponry to India , sources here said.

The United States also wants a speedy conclusion with India on the Logistics Supply Agreement, the Communications and Information Security Memorandum of Agreement and an end-use monitoring agreement.

The Indian delegation at the DPPG meeting was headed by the director-general of India ’s Defence Procurement Board, Shashi Kant Sharma. Vice Adm. Jeff Wieringa, director of the Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency, led the U.S. representatives.

The U.S. delegation hailed India ’s recent policy of allowing foreign firms to bank defense-sector offset credits, a demand raised during the U.S. January DPPG meeting.

The U.S. delegation also has insisted on including technology transfer toward the fulfillment of Indian defense offsets. But the Indian delegation said that’s not possible because it is not feasible to assess the value of the technology transfers involved, the sources said.

A diplomat with the U.S. Embassy here said India will have to sign agreements mandated by the U.S. authorities to enable export of U.S. weaponry to India . The diplomat explained that export of defense articles would include “sending or taking a defense article or technical data out of the United States; disclosing, by any means, or transferring a defense article or technical data to a foreign person in the United States or abroad, and performing a defense service on behalf of, or for the benefit of, a for eign person in the United States or abroad.” Indian-U.S. defense ties, which revived after Washington lifted sanctions against New Delhi in September 2001, have not translated so far into major weapon deals apart from India ’s 2002 buy of weapon-locating radars and 2007 acquisition of a retired U.S. Navy amphibious ship.

With the nuclear cooperation deal approved by the Indian government, hurdles to the countries’ defense ties will be removed soon, a senior Indian Defence Ministry official said. India is anticipating major U.S. investments in India ’s defense, as about $20 billion is needed to replace aging military systems, most of them Russian-built. India also is looking to Washington for cooperation in developing its C4I network systems, estimated at around $4 billion, and in developing optronics, electrooptics, encryption, and sensor and jamming technologies — fields in which India traditionally works alone.
Rupesh
BRFite
Posts: 969
Joined: 05 Jul 2008 19:14
Location: Somewhere in South Central India

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by Rupesh »

What is wrong with India’s Defence Industrial Policy?
N. Neihsial
August 22, 2008

The above question arises in the context of publicly known government plans of arms procurement amounting to over $64 billion as part of the modernisation programme of the armed forces. The majority of these acquisitions will obviously be from abroad and will be concluded in the next five years or more. This was why the recent Indian DEFEXPO was a mega event for major international defence companies. At the same time, the quantum of India’s defence exports has all along been negligible; much less than that of Israel, South Korea or even of Singapore, though some of their exports could be technically called ‘trading’. What then has been the problem with India’s defence industry policy, assuming there is such a policy?

Defence industrial policy in the initial years after independence was guided by the simple phrase called ‘self sufficiency’. This was subsequently modified to ‘self reliance’ in defence production and has become a matter of varied interpretation. While for some it means the ultimate objective of complete non-dependence on imports for defence hardware, for others it means selective self-sufficiency in certain critical technologies. And for some others it is a simple reduction in the ratio of imports to indigenous sources of supply to the armed forces.

However, one can say that India’s defence industrial policy broadly consists of three components: (i) maximisation of indigenous manufacturing and production (ii) License production of what could be obtained from abroad and (iii) direct purchase of those equipment not covered by the other two categories but considered essential for ensuring security. Another important unspoken element was that everything, whether indigenous production, license production or direct purchase, was done within the government set-up in line with the general industrial policy. The recent policy change, of course, demonstrates the intention to involve the private sector in defence R&D and production through licensing and the indirect opening of the defence industrial sector to foreign companies through equity participation and the offset arrangement.

The moot question is: was there something wrong with the past policy objectives? On the face of it, the policy components and objectives appear quite sound and logical for a country like India. In simple terms, it means that indigenous production should be maximised; what could not be produced indigenously should be produced under license arrangement; and those that could not be obtained through these two routes should be acquired by direct purchase. A sound policy indeed. But the soundness of a policy has to be judged from tangible outcomes. Arguably, the problems might not have been in the contents of the policy per se. It is due to the nature defence technology and limitations of vision as embedded in the policy.

The policy objective was essentially to substitute imported equipment with indigenous production in the hope of attaining ‘self-sufficiency’ or ‘self reliance’. Unfortunately, the security imperatives of a country translated into defence equipment are like ‘moving targets’. Neither the technological capability of the defence sector nor its policy instrument as highlighted above was able to catch up with the targets. The increasing quantum of defence imports from year to year, the country’s inability to upgrade the imported equipment held for significant period under license production, and, indirectly, insignificant defence exports amply testify to this situation. The general industrial policy wherein defence items and their productions were kept strictly within the government set-up further compounded the problem. In this context, two aspects of the policy – indigenous production and license production, merit detailed analysis.

Maximising indigenous production would imply more than one thing. It would mean meeting the quantitative requirements in terms of the existing demands of the armed forces for equipment or items at any point of time. It would also mean increasing the varieties of items and equipment required by them. Most importantly, it would mean the ability to meet the challenges of supplying their ever-changing demands of technology specific equipment and items. India’s defence industrial policy has conspicuously failed in this respect. In fact, the implication of this policy is that the country should be able to indigenously produce the challenging demands made by the armed forces. Its logical extension is that defence research and development efforts have to be strengthened through policy focused research and development and adequate resources allocations thereto. It is a known fact that the defence research and development organisation has 50-odd laboratories and establishments. However, its lack of focused research and development is equally well known, though of late it has been able to achieve break-throughs in certain strategic technologies. Moreover, its budgetary allocation has been quite modest even within the overall defence budget and until recently it was part of ‘Army Demand’. In fact, the Parliamentary Standing committee on Defence recommended that defence R&D budgetary allocation should be at least 14 to 15 per cent of the total defence budget so that indigenous production to imports in the ratio of 70:30 could be achieved. This recommendation was in line with the projected target of the report of the self-reliance committee entitled ‘10 year plan for self reliance in Defence systems’. But the fact remains that there is no evidence of adequate policy back-up to attain this desirable but difficult goal. The DRDO does not seem to be suffering from lack of funds per se since only 8 to 10 per cent of its total budget is reported to be spent on fundamental research. Perhaps, the solution to this issue lies somewhere else.

How about production under license, another important pillar of the policy? The normal assumption is that production under license would enable the country not only to acquire the capability to produce a particular equipment or product but also help it gain the technical know-how for subsequent upgradation and further technological innovations. For the last fifty-odd years, India has been producing a number of defence equipment under license. Good examples in this regard are the Vijayanta tank and the MIG series of fighter aircraft. But this does not seem to have helped in the development of the Arjun Main Battle Tank and the Light Combat Aircraft. Moreover, India has not even been able to upgrade certain fighter aircraft held and operated for a long time by its armed forces. Thus, the above assumption is definitely not correct.

A closer examination of license production arrangements reveals certain interesting features. License production arrangements are more of an ‘institutional framework’ under which various types of contractual agreements could be entered into between the supplier and the buyer. It is not necessarily a proven mechanism of technology transfer as such. It may envisage the setting up of a simple production line or facilities in the buyer country for assembly of the finished parts and components for the final finished product. In such cases, hardly any technology transfer takes place and the supplier does not part with any technical know-how. In fact, the supplier agrees to sacrifice only a small portion of his economic interest. It is also not possible to discern under these circumstances whether the supplier has compensated itself for this marginal loss by way of increasing the cost of the technology or equipment and components thereof. On the other hand, there could be a situation where license production involves an intensive process of technology transfer within and beyond the physical production of the equipment in the host county. This is rare rather than routine. The truth of the matter is that since technology is know-how, it is the function of human understanding. The focus of active mechanisms, implicitly or explicitly, is people. However, the truth is that no foolproof prescription could be given for the effectiveness of technology transfer. It all depends on the nature of technology to be acquired. Perhaps, India has learnt it by the hard way the limitations of licence production for attaining the objective of self-sufficiency or self-reliance in defence production.

The fact that defence technology needs long term investment, its obsolescence is high and economies of scale are difficult to attain unlike in other areas of civilian technology are well known. This is essentially because higher capability tends to drive downward the scales of production. In the context of a limited number of customers, this trend is more regressive. On top of this, contrary to logical expectation, the production of the next generation of an equipment or of a different variant does not bring down the cost of the equipment. It has been the British experience that a new generation could cost between one and a half times to four times of the previous variant. This is due to the fact that production of the next generation is not a simple straight line trajectory work but involves the integration of various systems, which sometimes may involve a number of companies and agencies, that were not partners earlier.

This leads to the conclusion that the policy of maximising indigenous production without a strong R&D policy back-up would not bring tangible results. License production is more of an economic compromise between the supplier and the buyer, and it does not and cannot bring about significant technology transfer without an inbuilt specific and suitable mechanism. Every country at one point of time or the other will attain a saturation level when it comes to supplying certain categories of equipment for its armed forces. Therefore, the ultimate defence industrial policy goal must be to foster defence exports without which it is difficult to sustain the economic base of a country’s defence industry.

India’s defence industrial policy seems to be lacking in all these important ingredients. Since the industrial base has to be sustained for technological and economic reasons, exports are an essential element of defence industrial policy. This is why many countries and their companies are aggressively competing in the global defence market for exports under different arrangements including license production. It is reported that way back in 1995, the United States government spent more than $7.6 billion in subsidy to help export defence equipment to sustain the economic base of its defence industry. It is a matter of fact that strategic depth in defence production can be increased only by aiming at being ‘internationally competitive’ through the policy objective of defence exports. In the absence of such an approach, India’s defence industrial policy is unlikely to take off in the foreseeable future.

N. Neihsial is on deputation to the IDSA
http://www.idsa.in/publications/stratco ... 220808.htm
sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by sunilUpa »

Indian AF Buys Spyder Air-Defense Missiles
NEW DELHI - Israeli company Rafael has been awarded a $260 million contract by the Indian Air Force for 18 Spyder Low Level Quick Reaction Missiles (LLQRM). The contract was inked Sept. 1, a senior Indian Defence Ministry official said.

Rafael was shortlisted to supply the missiles against France's MBDA early last year. However, the contract was delayed, mainly due to opposition from India's leftist parties, Defence Ministry sources said. :eek:
The deliveries of the Spyder missiles will begin in 2½ years and be completed within four, the ministry official said.

The contract will not include any mandatory defense offsets, the official said. :?:

The Israeli-developed Spyder system is based on Rafael's Python 5 passive infrared and Derby active radar-guided air-to-air missiles, with an effective range of 15 kilometers. The system uses an Elta search radar, an Indian Air Force official said. The system is built as a quick-reaction surface-to-air missile defense system against aircraft, UAVs, and even precision-guided missiles, according to the makers.

The request for proposals was sent in mid-2005 to France, Israel, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

India began looking to foreign firms after the Trishul LLQRM system developed by its state-owned Defence Research and Development Organization was rejected by the Army, Navy and Air Force.
Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by Raj Malhotra »

I think 30% off set is mandatory. The news may mean that additional purchase from Indian sources is not mandated. For instance if TATRA trucks are used for the contract then this itself will be an offset.
Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by Vick »

The 30% offset clause only came into effect with DPP 2006 with clarifications in DPP 2008. Some deals can be grandfathered in like the Spyder and the 80 Mi-17 deals.
A Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Post by A Sharma »

BAE Systems awaits govt nod to pick 49% stake in Mahindras

UK's largest military systems manufacturer BAE Systems today said it is awaiting the government's approval for picking up a 49 per cent stake in a defence joint venture with Mahindra group.

India has restricted foreign participation in domestic defence production in the private sector to about 26 per cent and the government is already debating the possibility of allowing foreign companies to pick up 49 per cent stake.

"We are picking up a 49 per cent shareholding in M&M's defence venture, for which we have sought clearance from the Indian government," BAE Systems India's newly-appointed president Julian Scopes said here today.

BAE Systems' proposal needs to be cleared by the government's Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB).

Due to the restrictions, BAE Systems has sought an exception to the rule from the government, as it has done in the case of some Defence Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs).

"Rules say exceptions can be made. We have made the request through the FIPB in May-June this year and are in discussions with the government. The Indian Defence Ministry has an important say in this regard and we are waiting to hear from the government on our request," Scopes said.

Under the arrangement with automotive-to-technology conglomerate Mahindras, BAE Systems would bring in global intellectual capabilities in land vehicles systems, particularly in the area of mine protected vehicles for which the British major has done advanced technology development work in South Africa.

With India's need for mine-resistant vehicles on the rise, BAE Systems sees greater scope for their business to expand in the Indian defence market, he said.

"Mine protected vehicles apart, BAE Systems can bring in expertise to Mahindras in Artillery systems too. BAE Systems has varied experience in air, land and sea platforms and systems integration, which could be a spin-off of the tie-up with Mahindras," Scopes said.

He, however, pointed out that the issue of restricted ownership of defence assets was already "frustrating" several private industries eager to enter into an agreement with foreign manufacturers.

"We are not demanding from the government to allow 49 per cent stake to foreign companies in Indian private defence industry, but have only put up our case before it," said Guy Douglas, BAE Systems India head of communications, who was present during the media interaction.

Stating that his company was implementing new strategic approach towards India, which was a key defence market to operate, Scopes said BAE Systems was here in New Delhi to be part of the Indian defence industry.

"We are not here just to sell, but to be an integral part of India's defence industrial base. We have come here to establish ourselves through partnerships and joint ventures with Indian private defence industry, employ Indians and develop equipment for the armed forces and exports. We want to do design and development, manufacture, and export businesses in India," he said.

BAE Systems, as a company, has changed in the last eight years, Scopes said, pointing out that it had significant operations not just in UK, but also in other parts of the world such as US (becoming the 6th largest supplier to US' Pentagon), Australia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Sweden.
Post Reply