Indian Army: News & Discussion

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.
Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 23 Feb 2010 04:37

Modernisation of Armed Forces Top Priority: President
Government today said it would accord the highest priority to modernisation of the country's defence by providing its armed forces with the latest weaponry, equipment and platforms.

"Government is fully committed to the modernisation of the armed forces. We will accord the highest priority to modernisation programmes to equip our armed forces with the required weaponry, equipment and platforms," President Pratibha Patil told Parliament.

In her customary address to the joint sitting of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha to mark the beginning of the Budget session, she hailed the recent successful test of Agni-III missile and the induction of the indigenous Arjun main battle tank into the Army as examples of capability demonstration and self-reliance.

"The successful launch of the Agni-III missile is a shining example of the capabilities of our scientists and engineers who deserve full praise."

"Efforts to enhance our technological self-reliance received a new impetus with the commencement of the handing over of the main battle tank, Arjun to the Indian Army," she added.

Declaring that the nation was proud of its armed forces, she said they had distinguished themselves in preserving the country’s unity and territorial integrity and in defending the borders.

On the issue of welfare of personnel, Patil cited the establishment of an Armed Forces Tribunal for adjudication of complaints and disputes regarding service matters and other appeals.

"The government has accepted the recommendations regarding substantial improvements in the pensionary benefits of personnel below officers rank and commissioned officers," she noted.

The government's commitment to the armed forces modernisation comes at a time when the Army, Navy and the Air Force's plan to induct latest weapons have been delayed.

While the Army has been waiting for modern towed, self-propelled and light artillery guns for the last two decades, the government had agreed to the trials of these weapons systems only recently.

The nod for the trials came after the Law Ministry agreed to a company, blacklisted following the CBI naming it in a corruption case against former Ordnance Factories Board chief Sudipto Ghosh, being part of the tests, pending contract awarding.

The Navy's plans to have Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier has now been rescheduled to 2012 due to slow pace of work at the Sevmash shipyard in Russia, which has been demanding USD 2.9 billion instead of the originally contracted USD 974 million for the warship. It is also facing a delay in construction of second line of diesel-powered submarines.

The IAF is awaiting a decision on the 126 medium multirole combat aircraft (MMRCA) which has only reached the flight trails stage and is now likely to be inducted only by 2015.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby RayC » 23 Feb 2010 08:44

rohitvats wrote:^^^Lt.Gen. Rath was the only one slapped with 180A and attached to Eastern Command...MS had not been slapped with 180A and was not there when the COI proceedings took place...the COI stands null and void in absence of MS/lawyer having cross examined the witness....


The word 'slapped' has a negative connotation.

Army Rule 180 is actually a positive item since it 'protects' a person when the character of the person involved is in question. In the said case the military reputation and character has been sullied and hence AR 180 was an absolute must.

I checked the MIML and its just Army Rule 180.

In a C of I, even when AR 180 is invoked, there is no provision for a lawyer there. The officer himself sits through the recording of the C of I and can question a witness and the witness's answers recorded.

Thereafter, the witness and the Officer whose military reputation and character is held to question has to sign it as correct.

ASPuar
BRFite
Posts: 1538
Joined: 07 Feb 2001 12:31
Location: Republic of India

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ASPuar » 23 Feb 2010 10:12

^^

Look, Ive been saying for a while, that this whole proceeding stinks of media trial, and the moment it comes to a real court, tough questions will start being asked. Without prejudice to the merits of the case (and I think there are few), the media has been desperate to fix these officers.

Why?

I can think of a few reasons. The current chief is on his way out, and a new chief is on his way in. There is sadly no shortage of sycophants in the army, and there will be plenty who will give out selective "leaks" to the media, etc, if they think that it will please their new overlord (note, that these sorts often come a cropper themselves! Nobody likes a snitch. As Manekshaw once said: "Do you think I do not see through these people? But I can use them as I wish".). But yes, on the off chance that their actions will please the new chief, some fellows in AHQ etc might be trying to play a dangerous game. A setting sun has few worshippers, but the rising sun has many.

The media too has its share of hacks who will pander to what is the perceived will of the incoming chief (note that I dont even say that it is his will!). It never hurts to have a powerful friend in government. In the hope of exclusive access, they will try to please the new chief.

As to Manekshaw, many of you will know, that a similar smarmy band of opportunistic sycophants had appeared in order to testify against him in the 1950s, under the impression that he was finished, and would never recover from the blow. They learned, to their misfortune, that while media circuses last for but a few months, justice usually ends up prevailing anyway.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby RayC » 23 Feb 2010 10:33

A point of View on Sukhna Land Case

The Land Case is still to be probed in detail and then we shall know the real facts.

The Armed Forces Tribunal is headed by a Retired Judge and a senior Army Officer who is also retired and who is given the status of a Judge as in Civil Courts with the same power and privileges.

There was a report on the Land issue in Times, London which gave a lot of details of what happened behind the scenes. However, how far that is correct, is anybody's guess!

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby RayC » 23 Feb 2010 11:35


RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby RayC » 23 Feb 2010 11:37

Former Naval Chief Hits Back with RTI

This indicates how things go!

Pop goes the weasel!

ASPuar
BRFite
Posts: 1538
Joined: 07 Feb 2001 12:31
Location: Republic of India

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ASPuar » 23 Feb 2010 12:21

A disgusting episode. I hope the courts pass severe strictures against all those who wanted to name Adm. Sushil Kumar in this compaint, for personal gain, and to humiliate the services.

This is the sort of thing I mean. While bureaucrats and politicians play their games, they have started to forget that the Military's job is serious, and the nation cannot be defended by Sailors with anti-aircraft spears in their hands.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby negi » 23 Feb 2010 12:26

All those cases filed on basis of Tehelka tapes were a sham , I wonder what happened to Tarun tejpal and his ilk after UPA came to power.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby RayC » 23 Feb 2010 12:28

While there is much that can be done to improve the Armed Forces, but I quoted those links to show how crooked politicians and bureaucrats can be do defile the Armed Forces.

Nobody can win an election without money and muscle power. If Mr Anthony has a reputation of being Mr Clean, he has achieved a miracle. I sure would like to know how he achieved this miracle so that some of us could also become MPs and instead of using the BRF to air our views without results, we could do so in the Parliament and achieve some results! :roll:

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7716
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 23 Feb 2010 14:44

The word 'slapped' has a negative connotation........<SNIP>

My bad for the language. I will edit my post accordingly.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53967
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 25 Feb 2010 01:48

RayC wrote:While there is much that can be done to improve the Armed Forces, but I quoted those links to show how crooked politicians and bureaucrats can be do defile the Armed Forces.

Nobody can win an election without money and muscle power. If Mr Anthony has a reputation of being Mr Clean, he has achieved a miracle. I sure would like to know how he achieved this miracle so that some of us could also become MPs and instead of using the BRF to air our views without results, we could do so in the Parliament and achieve some results! :roll:


From Ajay Shukla's op-ed in Buiness Standard and his blog, it was by not buying anything. Cant accuse him of kickbacks when he doesn't buy anything.

So has CBI withdrawn its charge sheet on the Adm? And DRDO lying about project readiness? Imagine that!

They are so honest and get Bharat Ratnas etc.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby RayC » 25 Feb 2010 07:26

ramana wrote:
RayC wrote:While there is much that can be done to improve the Armed Forces, but I quoted those links to show how crooked politicians and bureaucrats can be do defile the Armed Forces.

Nobody can win an election without money and muscle power. If Mr Anthony has a reputation of being Mr Clean, he has achieved a miracle. I sure would like to know how he achieved this miracle so that some of us could also become MPs and instead of using the BRF to air our views without results, we could do so in the Parliament and achieve some results! :roll:


From Ajay Shukla's op-ed in Buiness Standard and his blog, it was by not buying anything. Cant accuse him of kickbacks when he doesn't buy anything.

So has CBI withdrawn its charge sheet on the Adm? And DRDO lying about project readiness? Imagine that!

They are so honest and get Bharat Ratnas etc.


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Great start for the day for me. It is 0742h where I am!!

somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby somnath » 25 Feb 2010 08:02

^^^ The la affaire Barak is not as "cut and dry" as either side of the debate would like it to be..ACtually its quite typical of all defence procurements..Was there a requirement for a ship-borne point defence SAM? The answer is yes..Was the Trishul ready? The answer is no...Does it mean no kickbacks were involved in the Barak deal, including (potentially) to services officers? The answer is neither an unequivocal yes or no, at least not yet...Going by circumstantial anecdotes, the sort of leverage Israeli (and Russian, and French, and increasingly American) vendors seem to have within the services would suggest otherwise...

It would be interesting to recall the public insinuation made by an ex-DRDO chief sometime back about culling of the size of the Akash order by an ex-IAF chief, in favour of (surprise, surprise) an Israeli system (I think the SPYDER)...The stated IAF chief went on to become the India rep for the Israeli vendor!!

The truth is in various shades of grey...There are urgent operational requirements..There are of course multiple sources of equipment, and very often the "best" is a subjective call - there is very little to choose between competing systems...Given tha high stakes, it is not surprising that favours are sought to be curried, and they are 100% curried, as any insider will tell you..

The problem is exacerbated because of the sheer volume of imports by India...

The only way to deal with this is to separate the procurement process from the anti corruption investigation...The problem with Bofors was that we cancelled the contract itself..Neither the investigation nor the procurement got done satisfactorily..I think we are smarter now..The Barak deal was allowed to go through, while the investigation went on..The media, as is its wont, misses the point on both ends..The question is not whether the missile was required, or whether Barak was a good enough option - the deal isnt "shady" on either of these two counts..However, kickbacks could still have formed a part of the deal...Most probably it did...

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby RayC » 25 Feb 2010 11:30

Kickbacks is not the issue.

The issue is that lie put out by the DRDO that even though their stuff was ready, the IN went in for foreign goods.

Now to the kickback.

Supposing for argument's sake we say there was. How does that in any way diminish the requirement of a Barack type of equipment?

So, to have it, is wrong when our DRDO is light years behind to develop one for the Navy?

Typical of DRDO boast in vacuum with the connivance of interested parties in the bureaucracy and political honchos that misleads the Indian public who sniff worms crawling out of the woodwork!

somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby somnath » 25 Feb 2010 12:09

^^^RayC,

The media jumbles up multiple issues together...Sniff of kickback in a deal - the story gets better if the equipment bought in the bargain was "inferior"...DRDO's non-delivery on Trishul and purchase of Barak are related issues - kickbacks are independent issues, at least in this case..

But actually the Barak affair has been by and large handled pretty well by the govt..The deal was not scuppered - NAvy's ships were not left without a SAM...And the investigation has been allowed to continue nevertheless..In case the accused have a case, it would come out..

On the other hand, there is a systemic issue with the services on indigenisation..Buildign up a domestic military industrial complex is not an easy option - Mark I versions of the domestic equipment will always be inferior to the best equipment available from Europe/US/Russia....But the record of all the services, barring the Navy has been esepcially bad on this...

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby RayC » 25 Feb 2010 12:18

Can't blame the services wanting good equipment rather than indigenous technology demonstrators.

I, for one, would prefer a Browning to a county made katta (pistol) for after all, it is my life that is at stake and not the one who is selling or who is persuading me to encourage an indigenous cottage industry! :D

ASPuar
BRFite
Posts: 1538
Joined: 07 Feb 2001 12:31
Location: Republic of India

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ASPuar » 25 Feb 2010 14:19

RayC wrote:Can't blame the services wanting good equipment rather than indigenous technology demonstrators.

I, for one, would prefer a Browning to a county made katta (pistol) for after all, it is my life that is at stake and not the one who is selling or who is persuading me to encourage an indigenous cottage industry! :D


Hear, hear! I've repeatedly said here, that the Services would have no problem with ANY DRDO product, if it showed some promise, and DRDO was quick and accomodating in catering to the user response. Instead, the DRDO's standard line is to try to ban import, while supplying either a shoddy product, or far more commonly, NO product.

To expose our troops, who are putting their lives on the line, to enemy firepower without adequate and up to date equipment is criminal!

Armchair posters here shouldnt lecture the services about "foreign maal addiction" and natasha, without remembering that the defence services need no lectures or lessons on patriotism, and putting the country first, from part time pashas like us! No soldier would ask for foreign equipment without first seeing if there is an adequate Indian product.

But for people on this board to claim that our troops should be used as guinea pigs with malfunctioning eqpt till DRDO gets it right, is callousness in the extreme.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11545
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 25 Feb 2010 14:37

It was DRDO which claimed that Trishul was ready, it was the UPA Govt and Media coterie. DRDO had to maintain silence under Govt. of the day's orders.

Funny no apology from the media after accusing Sushil Kumar of being Gf sidekick etc...

somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby somnath » 25 Feb 2010 18:01

ASPuar wrote:Hear, hear! I've repeatedly said here, that the Services would have no problem with ANY DRDO product, if it showed some promise, and DRDO was quick and accomodating in catering to the user response. Instead, the DRDO's standard line is to try to ban import, while supplying either a shoddy product, or far more commonly, NO product.

To expose our troops, who are putting their lives on the line, to enemy firepower without adequate and up to date equipment is criminal!

Armchair posters here shouldnt lecture the services about "foreign maal addiction" and natasha, without remembering that the defence services need no lectures or lessons on patriotism, and putting the country first, from part time pashas like us! No soldier would ask for foreign equipment without first seeing if there is an adequate Indian product.

But for people on this board to claim that our troops should be used as guinea pigs with malfunctioning eqpt till DRDO gets it right, is callousness in the extreme.


This sort of sweeping generalisation is as fruitless as searching for consipiracies behind every import deal..

first up - points on "up to date", "latest" etc - building a military industrial complex cannot be achieved in a jiffy..It needs consistent patronisation of domestic efforts, incremental improvements over Mark I before the MIC achieves a "world class" status..All countries do that..Israel had huge issues with th first versions of the Merkava - they did not switch to (an easily available) American alternative..the Americans had serious issues with the Bradley when it came out, it didnt stop them from deployign the vehicles and getting incremental improvements....

Equipment is only one part of the story - deployment in advantageous regimes is what dtermines the efficacy of the equipment..We did not have the "ideal" solid fuelled nuke missile till the Agni 1 got operationalised - but we made do with liquid fuelled Prithvis as our primary deterrent missile for more than a decade, didnt we? We still dont have that obligatory SLBM capability for second strike, but we are obviously adjusting by having surface ships equipped with ballistic missiles, till the Arihant comes on board..So its about pushing the domestic effort along...

At the same time, DRDO has had a bad habit of trying to do everything, rather than focus on few key tech and deliver on them....

Having said that, to assume that there is no kickback involved in weapons deals is a fallacy..I gave the example of the ex IAF chief alleged to have cut down on the Akash order in favour of the Israeli SAM...There are tons of such examples...

The point is it does not mean that the imported system is bad (which is the mistake the media tends to make, mixing up the issues)...

finally, it is not a question of patriotism, its a question of mindset...Situations are almost never of comparing a Browning against a Katta...they are about a heavier Arjun against a "more familiar" T90, an Akash without seekers against a Spyder with seekers, a (slightly) underpowered LCA against an uber Gripen and so on....

vila
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 68
Joined: 30 Jun 2008 00:00

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby vila » 25 Feb 2010 18:09

I agree with Somnath. There two sides to the issue, But one thing we must remmber that unless we develop our own MIC we will always at the mercy of other people. There's no permanent friend. IMO both the armed forces and the DRDO are to be blamed and overall above the GOI. There has been absolutely no policy, and the amount of redtapism faced both by the armed forces and DRDO is just too much. It has to change, the govt way of working has to change whether its the services the finmin or the DRDO.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby RayC » 25 Feb 2010 19:52

It is a sweeping generalisation that the Armed Forces are against the DRDO. Not at all!

However, it is the desire that lemons are not handed over as ‘first class’ equipment. Have we heard any complaints about the Prithivi etc? If not, why not. I am sure they meet the bill.

No one is contesting that to build a military industrial complex can be done in a jiffy. But when will it come to age? How many years has the DRDO come into existence? If BEL is upto some standard, why are the others lagging light years behind? Even though Tata and Mahindra are late comers, they are producing good equipment. If they can do it, then why not the DRDO who have massive govt funding?


I am quite comfortable with the INSAS, but quite a few here are enamoured over cosmetically enhanced small arms and egging all to buy them!

One has to look at its employment and cost. If it is OK, then, who cares?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53967
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 25 Feb 2010 22:57

somnath wrote:^^^RayC,

The media jumbles up multiple issues together...Sniff of kickback in a deal - the story gets better if the equipment bought in the bargain was "inferior"...DRDO's non-delivery on Trishul and purchase of Barak are related issues - kickbacks are independent issues, at least in this case..

But actually the Barak affair has been by and large handled pretty well by the govt..The deal was not scuppered - NAvy's ships were not left without a SAM...And the investigation has been allowed to continue nevertheless..In case the accused have a case, it would come out..

On the other hand, there is a systemic issue with the services on indigenisation..Buildign up a domestic military industrial complex is not an easy option - Mark I versions of the domestic equipment will always be inferior to the best equipment available from Europe/US/Russia....But the record of all the services, barring the Navy has been esepcially bad on this...


Excuse me a former Navy chief has been accused of favoring an import when there was no local product available from DRDO at all. On the contrary they lied that it was a national security issue when asked to substantiate the progress report of the Trishul which looks like was an unobtanium product.

What about th edamage to the Chief's reputation? It has to be worth something. In the services the Chief's reputation is everything.

* Please read the Wings of Fire as why the Trishul was sanctioned and who was on the committe that sanctioned it.

In case you dont have access. It was Adm Dawson and Trishul was primarily to meet an IN requirement.

kaldag
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 7
Joined: 19 Aug 2009 17:16

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby kaldag » 25 Feb 2010 23:18

RayC wrote:
No one is contesting that to build a military industrial complex can be done in a jiffy. But when will it come to age? How many years has the DRDO come into existence? If BEL is upto some standard, why are the others lagging light years behind? Even though Tata and Mahindra are late comers, they are producing good equipment. If they can do it, then why not the DRDO who have massive govt funding?


When DRDO was first set up, India had an industrial base which was not capable enough to support all the projects that DRDO took up. This was not the case with other advanced countries. DRDO had to go about building everything (from the pin to the plane). If DRDO has taken time, it was for a reason.
Now that our industry has matured you can expect the projects to be executed a lot faster. All it needs now is some support from our armed forces (apart from young talents etc etc).

Fani_A
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 15
Joined: 05 Feb 2010 23:49

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Fani_A » 26 Feb 2010 01:36

somnath wrote: The stated IAF chief went on to become the India rep for the Israeli vendor!!

The only way to deal with this is to separate the procurement process from the anti corruption investigation...


conflict of interest has to be eliminated completely. no decision maker should be allowed to take up any conflicting employment ever. they should be paid a suitable lifetime pension, costly but beneficial in long run, and a condition of service. this will elimate somebody becoming a Rep, President, Governor, Commissioner, Board Member and other such lucrative titles but so harmful a practice to the country. alas will never happen. those with money and power control everything. seen it so many times.

completely agree on the second part. a must.
though we all know how anti corruption works. only way somebody will be punished, if at all, is if he/she was not a part of the "system". loss is never recovered anyhow.
Last edited by archan on 26 Feb 2010 01:46, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Username updated according to rules. If you want another human-sounding ID, contact us.

Avik
BRFite
Posts: 193
Joined: 06 Oct 2009 00:16

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Avik » 26 Feb 2010 02:07

^^^^^^^^^^^
Brilliant idea Fani.
I guess the plan would also extend to ex-DRDO Chiefs ( and Scientific Adviser to the PM) who emigrated to the US after retirement ? And that the plan would also extend to ex-Railway, Telecom, IAS, Indian Oil, BARC etc. officers who dump their Govt. service to move on to international companies ? Or are these ideals only for the Armed Forces??

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 26 Feb 2010 03:31

Another land scam troubles Army
After the Sukhna Land Scam shook the Army, a multi-crore scam involving Defence land is brewing in Pune. The Army has filed a complaint alleging that land sharks have grabbed prime defence land worth Rs 800 crore.

In Pune's Lohegaon area, right next to the international airport is Defence land - a Rs 800 crore property. Now the Army has discovered, that land sharks have grabbed 69 acres of it from right under its nose.

The Southern Army Command has filed a complaint with the CBI saying:

• The encroached plot has been in possession of the Army since 1920s

• Revenue records show this as military land

• Vested interests have manipulated land records in favour of certain individuals

• Revenue records and land records of the Defence Estates Office have been changed

In conclusion, the Army has made an alarming statement that land sharks have been making concerted efforts to grab defence land at prime locations.

The manipulation of the Army and revenue records raises questions about whether officials both from the government and the Army could have been involved in this deal.

The builder who has taken over the property refused to speak, saying the dispute is now in court.

Fani_A
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 15
Joined: 05 Feb 2010 23:49

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Fani_A » 26 Feb 2010 03:42

Avik wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^
Brilliant idea Fani.
I guess the plan would also extend to ex-DRDO Chiefs ( and Scientific Adviser to the PM) who emigrated to the US after retirement ? And that the plan would also extend to ex-Railway, Telecom, IAS, Indian Oil, BARC etc. officers who dump their Govt. service to move on to international companies ? Or are these ideals only for the Armed Forces??


should apply to all public decision makers. so includes everyone you mention. working out the framework is not very difficult. perhaps full scale media mobilization along with unprecedented voter response can make it happen. but highly unlikely.

somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby somnath » 26 Feb 2010 07:57

RayC wrote:However, it is the desire that lemons are not handed over as ‘first class’ equipment. Have we heard any complaints about the Prithivi etc? If not, why not. I am sure they meet the bill.

No one is contesting that to build a military industrial complex can be done in a jiffy. But when will it come to age? How many years has the DRDO come into existence? If BEL is upto some standard, why are the others lagging light years behind? Even though Tata and Mahindra are late comers, they are producing good equipment. If they can do it, then why not the DRDO who have massive govt funding?


There have been enough "noises" about Prithvi - they have been there all the time - its liquid fuelled, cumbersome, short range, high CEP etc etc...The reason why the services had to "swallow" it is because there was no imported alternative available..

BEL/Tata and DRDO are two different categories of animals..DRDO is not a manufacturing entity, its an R&D institution...

The biggest problem that DRDO has had (and I am not the first one saying this) is that they wanted to do too many things, rather than focus on a few things and do a great job of it...The services have at least got to shoulder part of the blame for not "owning" the process up...Its changing now for the better, but it will take time..And it will need its sole customer to be supportive to the idea..

Excuse me a former Navy chief has been accused of favoring an import when there was no local product available from DRDO at all. On the contrary they lied that it was a national security issue when asked to substantiate the progress report of the Trishul which looks like was an unobtanium product.


As I said before, there are three spearate issues - whether Trishul was available, whether Barak is a "bad" alternative and whether kickbacks were involved...The answers can well be a No for the first two and Yes for the last...By all accounts, the Israelis enjoy unprecedented access, and there are lots of anecdotal cases to suggest that they are not behind in the "commercial game"! The media has picked up a convenient line - Barak was imported with kickbacks despite Trishul being there, kickbacks involved - its a better headline than saying - Barak is a good alternative to a non-existant missile, but kickbacks have been involved...

In fact if kickbacks were involved, this line offers a great alibi for those involved to wriggle through..Proving the non availability of Trishul is quite easy..But that really is not the moot point here!! The real investigation should be to find out whether kickbacks were there, and if yes, to whom...As for the Navy, Barak has already been bought, and newer versions have been contracted for...In that sense, it is a well handled case..

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2997
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Kanson » 26 Feb 2010 08:28

somnath wrote:
There have been enough "noises" about Prithvi - they have been there all the time - its liquid fuelled, cumbersome, short range, high CEP etc etc...The reason why the services had to "swallow" it is because there was no imported alternative available..

Just add to Somnath's reply: Even some Ex- commented how Prithvi is heavy liquid fuelled compared to Paki "Gho"-dung, I mean paki version of Nodong. So our guys came back. Gave a "investigative report" telling them it is nothing but a copy and liquid fuelled. It was in 90s. The way Army went forward for the Patriot missile when LM offered it, gives good understanding the way Army would have went if those Strategic assets were avallable for sale from other countries. It took a strong note from DRDO to stop acquiescing with the LM offer. Services and developing agency are different arms of the GoI. If GoI is financing a project developed by DRDO and the product is still in development, going for the foreign arms is wasting the tax-payers money and national resources. Just as a unified command there should be unified developement and procurement cycle.


The biggest problem that DRDO has had (and I am not the first one saying this) is that they wanted to do too many things, rather than focus on a few things and do a great job of it...The services have at least got to shoulder part of the blame for not "owning" the process up...Its changing now for the better, but it will take time..And it will need its sole customer to be supportive to the idea..
Fine...if that is the case...why not those tatas and Birlas refused to take up the offer when Rajiv Gandhi offered them the LCA project. You see, if they have taken that offer, very well DRDO could have avoided creating ADA lab, adding one more unit to its behemoth structure. The answer is well known. Well the answer is well known. Now Ajai Shukla is reporting TATA wants to sell the source code of EW system developed for Indian armed forces to foreign products to compensate for the cost incurred.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby RayC » 26 Feb 2010 08:38

In 1966, BEL set up a Radar manufacturing facility for the Army and in-house R&D, which has been nurtured over the years. Manufacture of Transmitting Tubes, Silicon Devices and Integrated Circuits started in 1967. The PCB manufacturing facility was established in 1968.

The second Central Research Laboratory was established at Ghaziabad in 1992. It focuses on ‘complex’ research on futuristic technologies in the area of electronic warfare (EW). The Bangalore-headquartered company already has two CRLs located in Bangalore and Ghaziabad.

BEL is not only a manufacturing unit but also R&D.

They are doing a great job, and way way ahead of DRDO.

BEL/Tata and DRDO are two different categories of animals..DRDO is not a manufacturing entity, its an R&D institution...

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2997
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Kanson » 26 Feb 2010 08:44

However, it is the desire that lemons are not handed over as ‘first class’ equipment. Have we heard any complaints about the Prithivi etc? If not, why not. I am sure they meet the bill.

Sir, you summed it up the state of the Army. So if the equipment is not a first class, then it is a lemon. If that is the Mantra...IN should have never operated all those second hand hulls and be the Navy and serviced the nation as it want to be.

I'm not blaming you sir. But these type of mindset is possible becoz we are successors of British Army, where the arms were imported and maintained by British and we only used the arms given to us. Becoz we missed our own Industrial revolution. I dont have to state the obvious. Every country took pains to develop their own arms and inturn know their value of MIC. ex. Russians, Japans. It took many sacrifices to bring about those Industries to function. And all those Industries never produced "first class" in the first instance. And these could very well can be called as "lemon". So the answer to get a first class product is to support the local MIC throughout. They are many examples worldwide...and many here quoted few examples. For my part..Patriot missile is a good example. It was actually a lemon. Those Gulf countries know well the true value of Patriot during the Gulf war.
Last edited by Kanson on 26 Feb 2010 09:00, edited 1 time in total.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2997
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Kanson » 26 Feb 2010 08:55

RayC wrote:In 1966, BEL set up a Radar manufacturing facility for the Army and in-house R&D, which has been nurtured over the years. Manufacture of Transmitting Tubes, Silicon Devices and Integrated Circuits started in 1967. The PCB manufacturing facility was established in 1968.

The second Central Research Laboratory was established at Ghaziabad in 1992. It focuses on ‘complex’ research on futuristic technologies in the area of electronic warfare (EW). The Bangalore-headquartered company already has two CRLs located in Bangalore and Ghaziabad.

BEL is not only a manufacturing unit but also R&D.

They are doing a great job, and way way ahead of DRDO.

BEL/Tata and DRDO are two different categories of animals..DRDO is not a manufacturing entity, its an R&D institution...

Sir...this is their website http://www.bel-india.com

As you talk about Radar, can you tell us out of product listed under radar section, how many of them are their own "Researched and Developed" radar and how many are from DRDO.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby RayC » 26 Feb 2010 09:24

I am afraid it is not the British mentality that is at work.


It is just that the lives of the defence personnel who use such weapon systems that are at stake and not that of those who work in the DRDO or the country at large. Even so, if a lemon is what the defence forces are to have, so be it. However, to tout it as first rate is adding insult to injury.


Why only the IN operating on second hand stuff. The whole defence force worked and works on second hand stuff since the GOI and the country cannot or does not care to give first hand stuff of standard. Can the defence forces forsake the defence of the Nation just because the GOI fails us? Well, I don’t think so since, yes, they have imbibed Chetwode’s word as our gospel, and even that is second hand but first class in content!


Indeed India has to develop our military industry and R&D. But it must be with dedication and not taken by those who are in it (DRDO or OFB) as a mere bureaucratic 9 to 5 job that pays well to keep their home fires burning. They must have dedication since lives are at stake and so is the National prestige. But for the nagging, Arjun would not have become what it is today.


It maybe patriotic to ‘support’ the local military industry but the defence forces cannot encourage the Military industry just for heck’s sake because it is the lives of the personnel of the defence forces at stake and not that of the personnel of the Military industry or research organisation. If lives were not involved, then sure support the military industry and their shoddy work.


How many complaints have you heard of BEL products? They are also Military industry. And it is a PSU to boot! I am sure there will be better equipment in the world than what BEL produces, but then BEL product meet the defence forces requirement. Who wants imported goods when our own is as good?


In the Armoured vehicle thread there were the Mine Protected Vehicles shown. If one observed the TATA MPV, it was a Caspir copy and the Caspir has proved to be reliable, It surely would be accepted.


The INSAS is a fine weapon; Indian design and manufacture. However, with shoddy manufacturing by OFB of late, complaints have cropped up of the rifle being fragile and with too many stoppages. Lives are involved and so the complaints. We don’t want to be cannon fodder just to pamper the local industries. Or do you think the defence personnel should be cannon fodder to please the citizens who want to sacrifices defence personnel’s lives just to show patriotism by the defence personnel of supporting local military industry? I can assure you that when the INSAS was introduced there was no problem except for the plastic parts and that was rectified.

Therefore, one cannot say that the local Military industry is not being supported when the systems produced does not lead to wanton sacrifice of lives.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby RayC » 26 Feb 2010 09:27

Kanson wrote:Sir...this is their website http://www.bel-india.com

As you talk about Radar, can you tell us out of product listed under radar section, how many of them are their own "Researched and Developed" radar and how many are from DRDO.


The site does not open.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby RayC » 26 Feb 2010 09:31

kaldag wrote:When DRDO was first set up, India had an industrial base which was not capable enough to support all the projects that DRDO took up. This was not the case with other advanced countries. DRDO had to go about building everything (from the pin to the plane). If DRDO has taken time, it was for a reason.
Now that our industry has matured you can expect the projects to be executed a lot faster. All it needs now is some support from our armed forces (apart from young talents etc etc).


Heard of a country called China?

I would be surprised if they are more talented than us or that they were richer in technology and industry than us when we got our independence and they overthrew the KMT regime!

I am no apologist. Where we are behind, we are behind. We have to pull up our socks and get cracking. We have it in us, except that we are not quite so dedicated or so it appears.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2997
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Kanson » 26 Feb 2010 09:39

RayC wrote:
Kanson wrote:Sir...this is their website http://www.bel-india.com

As you talk about Radar, can you tell us out of product listed under radar section, how many of them are their own "Researched and Developed" radar and how many are from DRDO.


The site does not open.


This information you used in one of your post is from the same webstie.
In 1966, BEL set up a Radar manufacturing facility for the Army and in-house R&D, which has been nurtured over the years. Manufacture of Transmitting Tubes, Silicon Devices and Integrated Circuits started in 1967. The PCB manufacturing facility was established in 1968.

The second Central Research Laboratory was established at Ghaziabad in 1992. It focuses on ‘complex’ research on futuristic technologies in the area of electronic warfare (EW). The Bangalore-headquartered company already has two CRLs located in Bangalore and Ghaziabad.


Anyway sir, pls go throu this http://livefist.blogspot.com/2008/08/tr ... sun-k.html
espcially the comments section.

How many complaints have you heard of BEL products? They are also Military industry. And it is a PSU to boot! I am sure there will be better equipment in the world than what BEL produces, but then BEL product meet the defence forces requirement. Who wants imported goods when our own is as good?
i have seen in this same forum you were so critical of BFS radar produced by BEL and developed by DRDO - just to state the fact. You were dismissive as it is a drdo product. Anyway it takes two hands to clap.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby RayC » 26 Feb 2010 09:46

Image

Developed by the Armament Research & Development Establishment (ARDE), Pune, new 84mm Lightweight Lancher (LWL) is a new recoilless manportable, shoulder-fired weapon for the infantry anti-armour profile. According to DRDO, the barrel of the weapon built using indigenously developed hybrid composites.

DRDO clones to replace Swedish rocket launchers
Vijay Mohan
Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, January 5
The Army will be replacing its Swedish-origin Carl Gustav rocket launchers with indigenous lightweight clones developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

The indigenous rocket launcher, developed by DRDO’s Armament Research and Development Establishment is said to be about 50 per cent lighter than the 14 kg Carl Gustav Mark-II launcher presently in service with the Infantry.

The barrel of the weapon has been designed and developed using hybrid-composite technology, used for the first time in the country. The barrel, which is this weapon’s, largest and prime component is made from carbon-epoxy lined with steel. The lighter weapon weight results in reduced fatigue, enhanced mobility and ammunition carrying capacity, thereby improving combat efficiency.

The manufacturing technology has also been established for the first time in the country. Mount brackets, furniture items and carrier systems have been designed and developed using advanced lightweight engineering materials technology, a DRDO in-house journal has claimed.

The 84-mm Carl Gustav rocket launcher is a standard infantry weapon issued at the platoon level and is highly effective in anti-personnel, bunker-busting and anti-tank roles at short ranges. It has also been used to good effect in built-up areas in counter terrorist operations.

The man-portable, shoulder-fired weapon is recoilless and is operated by a two-man team. It can be fired from standing, kneeling and lying positions. It can fire versions of the Carl Gustav are in service with a large number of armies around the world as well as special forces like the British SAS, US Navy Seals and the US Army Rangers and the Indian National Security Guards.

Carl Gustav Clone
Last edited by RayC on 26 Feb 2010 10:24, edited 1 time in total.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby RayC » 26 Feb 2010 10:02

Kanson wrote:
The site does not open.


This information you used in one of your post is from the same webstie.
In 1966, BEL set up a Radar manufacturing facility for the Army and in-house R&D, which has been nurtured over the years. Manufacture of Transmitting Tubes, Silicon Devices and Integrated Circuits started in 1967. The PCB manufacturing facility was established in 1968.

The second Central Research Laboratory was established at Ghaziabad in 1992. It focuses on ‘complex’ research on futuristic technologies in the area of electronic warfare (EW). The Bangalore-headquartered company already has two CRLs located in Bangalore and Ghaziabad.



It was from Wiki.


How many complaints have you heard of BEL products? They are also Military industry. And it is a PSU to boot! I am sure there will be better equipment in the world than what BEL produces, but then BEL product meet the defence forces requirement. Who wants imported goods when our own is as good?


i have seen in this same forum you were so critical of BFS radar produced by BEL and developed by DRDO - just to state the fact. You were dismissive as it is a drdo product. Anyway it takes two hands to clap.

[/quote]


There is a lot of difference between a prototype being sent for trial to one that has been accepted. There is no complaints on BEL products that have been introduced, but quite a lot of the OFB.

Yes, I was critical of the Battlefield Surveillance Radar for the Infantry for good reasons.

It was reverse engineering of ANPPS 6 of 1950 vintage and they could not even reverse engineer.

It was not soldier proof and one had to be outside the trench to operate it. Detection was so designed that it was solely by sound. Therefore, a rustling of leaves because of breeze would sound as if many tanks are approaching.

So, we should have accepted it, right? And every time leaves rustled, we would report a Longewala?

It was not produced. The commentary was on DRDO and not BEL.

The current BFSR Infantry was initiated in 2000 and was accepted after trials in 2002. I have no quibbles about this since the troops are apparently satisfied with this BFSR, though I have not used it since I had retired by then.

If you notice the Light Weight Launcher 'developed' by the DRDO, it is the same 84mm Carl Gustav but the parts are of light weight material. Nothing new has been 'developed''. It is like the modern look Ambassador, old wine in a new bottle!
Last edited by RayC on 26 Feb 2010 10:08, edited 2 times in total.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11545
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 26 Feb 2010 10:05

RayC-. I think 2 things help China develop weapons on its own compared to India.

1) Thanks to Mao days, red Book, close association with Stalin, there is no established beaucratic and Political system in place which takes Kickbacks to the detriment of domestic Industry.

I remember in the early days of the Akash Programme, that the scientists thought x chip will do, 3 months later they realised they need y chip. BABU's sat on approval for 2 years

2) China does not have soo many options of Buying off the shelf with Best of brochure claims from Isreal and Europe. WHen they were allowed to buy from Isreal before 1980, thier R&D did not develop a lot.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby RayC » 26 Feb 2010 10:19

Aditya_V wrote:RayC-. I think 2 things help China develop weapons on its own compared to India.

1) Thanks to Mao days, red Book, close association with Stalin, there is no established beaucratic and Political system in place which takes Kickbacks to the detriment of domestic Industry.

I remember in the early days of the Akash Programme, that the scientists thought x chip will do, 3 months later they realised they need y chip. BABU's sat on approval for 2 years


True. Having no bureaucracy or democracy helps.

But there is quite a lot of corruption in China. However, when detected, they are hung/ shot!

2) China does not have soo many options of Buying off the shelf with Best of brochure claims from Isreal and Europe. WHen they were allowed to buy from Isreal before 1980, thier R&D did not develop a lot.



I believe the overseas Chinese steal modern western technology and reverse engineer. Imagine their dedication to their erstwhile motherland that they are ready to sacrifice their lives and career!

If they can develop their R&D inspite of a closed society with few incentives, why can't we? There is no lack of talent or intelligence in our country. Our non governmental industries are doing extremely well. So, why can't the DRDO? They have a lavish budget. I have interacted with their scientists and I daresay they are not intelligent. However, there is too much of bureaucracy and all the spark vanishes and their mentality changes to that of being a government 9 to 5 public servant! Even the Army officers who are permanently seconded to the DRDO, after a few years, become lalas, walking shabbily in faded uniform and even chewing pan or something of that nature (maybe Ghutka) while in uniform!


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests