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

[Hiten]

x-posting from the Technical information & link repository thread

Whitepapers presented at a Conference held some time back

National Conference on Advances in Armament Technology

[sunny y]

US still denying us technology

Excerpts

Q. What about tactical missiles?
A. Nag, the anti-tank missile, will go in for repeat summer trials this year after we incorporated user (Indian Army) suggestions. It’s a third-generation anti-tank guided missile with infrared seeker. India will be only the third or fourth country to make such a missile.

For the Navy, we are developing a canisterised anti-anti-ship missile, with a range of 70 km, and able to intercept manoeuvring targets. It is an advancement over the 15-km range Israeli Barak missile

Is this some new missile without any collaboration with Israel???

Now, we are starting a commercial arm of DRDO to transfer technology to industry

Another reason why we should not trust Uncle Sam.....Wake up GoI

Q. Are we going to see the Hyperplane test flight happen any time soon?
A. We faced a problem in high-temperature materials for the scramjet engine. We needed to run the engine for 20 seconds, but could do it only up to three seconds. We were denied imports of the material required. So, we launched a separate programme and developed three materials. We have now been able to reach 20 seconds twice. We want to do five to six more ground tests. We expect to be able to do the first test flight by the end of the year.

Q. But hasn’t it become easier since the Indo-US nuclear deal to obtain technology?
A. No. We are still victims of US denial regimes. Our labs are still on the “Entity List”. Technology denial continues. There is a big gap between American talk and action towards us.

[SriniY]

One more thing from the article

Q. What are the focus areas in the 25-year technology development plan?
A. There are three. The closest to our heart is low-intensity conflict (LIC). Many technologies that we have developed for the military have relevance for LICs. You will appreciate that many agencies in the country are today involved in LICs — the paramilitary forces, police forces, counter-insurgency and counter-terror organisations and so on. We have started a programme to customise DRDO technology for each of them. LIC is one of our key result areas now.
Another area is space security because future wars are going to be controlled from space as network-centric warfare becomes the new way of war-fighting. So, technologies that are relevant for space security such as ballistic missile defence, anti-satellite systems, are going to be part of our development process. Secondly, to be able to quickly launch satellites to regain space-based capabilities when existing assets are attacked or denied to our military during war. These are low-cost, quick reaction satellite launch systems and low-endurance satellites — they last just long enough to do their job. What will emerge through our programme are micro-satellites, mini-satellites etc. On the launch side, some of our missiles can be modified, a satellite put on top of them and launched

This probably has not been reported before

[vasu_ray]

^^^

considering the strategic need, hopefully the Navy indulges them by providing a platform for sea launch

[Neshant]

During Defexpo 2010, Raytheon (US) signed a MoU with Precision Electronics Ltd (PEL) to jointly develop and provide advanced communications technology for India’s military forces

what a great avenue for espionage.

Raytheon will just pass that info onto the CIA for spying on all Indian communicaitons.

are the babus even aware?

[Bheem]

US still denying us technology

A very good article !!! Thanks Sunny.

We are developing the Long Range Surface-to-Air Missile (LRSAM) in collaboration with Israel Aircraft Industries. The first flight test will happen in mid-2010. We started developing a similar missile for the IAF in late 2009.

Is he referring to a complete new missile or the same Israeli LRSAM, customized for IAF?

I feel that DRDO is not revealing something special about IAF missile and I wonder what, otherwise there is no reason for seperate projects

[vipins]

US still denying us technology

Q. What are you doing to give a fillip to the private sector defence manufacturing base?
A. The DRDO has been partnering with industry for the last 25 years and has a network of 800 small and medium enterprises and large public and private enterprises working with us on various projects.
Now, we are starting a commercial arm of DRDO to transfer technology to industry............

Something on the lines of ANTRIX would be good, so it could also earn from exports in collabration with private sector.

[sunny y]

Posted by Arun_S Sir on India Forum..... I hope it's OK to post it here....Mods can delete it if it's in violations of any copyright.....
No link was avalaible so I am posting the complete interview here.....

Scientific advisor to the defence minister and director general, Defence Research and Development Organisation, Padmashri Dr V.K. Saraswat

After four successful tests, what is the status of the PAD (exo-atmospheric) and the AAD (endo-atmospheric) interceptors?

The Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) programme is in two phases. The first phase deals with targets at maximum ranges of 2,000km and the second phase will cover longer range targets up to 5,000km. This will be our strategy of BMD development. Two interceptors, PAD and AAD have been developed in phase I. These trials started with the exo interceptor (PAD) at the altitude of 48km and second trial with the altitude of 80km, and the endo interceptor (AAD) was 15km. The phase I activity is to increase the altitude of interception as much as possible within the limits of the design of the interceptor. Now we are aiming to increase the altitude of PAD to more than 100km. For this, we have made certain modifications in the interceptor. This year, we will test the modified PAD at an altitude of over 100km for a 2,000km range missile.

Are you talking about PDV?

Yes, the modified PAD will be PDV and it will have two changes. The first stage of PAD which is a liquid motor will be replaced by a solid motor stage with high energy levels. The second stage, ‘kill-vehicle’ has also been modified for higher interception accuracy. Earlier, in PAD, we had an RF seeker. Now we are introducing Imaging Infra Red (IIR) seeker also for higher accuracy. PAD also has ‘divert thruster’ on the second stage to bring better accuracy and controllability. The PDV will be tested by the end of this year, with these new features.

In your last interview you mentioned that the length of the PDV will be one metre more than the PAD.

Yes, this is correct.

You have been quoted as saying that phase I of the BMD will be operationally deployed by 2011. What does this mean?

Our commitment is to complete the flight trials of the phase I interceptor for the 2,000km range missile by 2011. By 2013, we will realise all the other elements, including radars, required for strategic defence.

What is meant by saying that ‘we will realise all the other elements’?

It means completion of development trials of interceptors. This is not a conventional weapon which requires large numbers; the production of the needed interceptor will not take much time. Between 2011, when the interceptor development trials are over, and 2013 we will put together the required number of the interceptors as well as other elements like radars and control centres, which need time.

Who will produce the interceptors and the other elements?

BDL and BEL will be the producing agencies. Several sub-systems will come from the private industry as well, for example, launchers will come from L&T.

Is it correct that you are looking for the PDV interception at 100km plus range and the AAD interception at 20km range in phase I for medium range 2,000km missiles?

Yes, this is correct.

Regarding other elements, let’s talk about the Long Range Tracking Radar (LRTR). The present one that you have is of Israeli origin (Green Pine radar) with the range of 600km. How do you plan increasing this range, and will outside assistance be sought?

We are planning to enhance the detection range of the existing radars. The exact range is classified. However, considering that we now have the capability and the capacity to build all elements of state-of-the-art radar, the range enhancement will more or less be an indigenous effort.

Are there any plans of using satellites and air (Synthetic Aperture Radar and Infra Red means) for LRTR?

We have plans for this, but the availability of satellite with required payload called the missile monitoring system payload is likely to take four to five years. But the process is on. Regarding air, until our own AWACS system gets deployed, we cannot integrate that. What we have done is through the air force network and air defence network and mission control centre we have integrated the entire command and control structure including data transmission. So when these platforms are commissioned and our own AEW & C gets going, we will have the early warning, detection and tracking through these assets.

Are you saying that until the AWACS and AEW & C systems are not commissioned, your BM/C3I (battle management and Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence system) for the BMD will not be realised?

This is not correct. I will have all the needed systems for BMD phase I as mentioned to you by 2013. What it means is that once I have air and satellite assets available, I will have more reaction time for ballistic missile defence. Let’s say that today I have 120 seconds available to me between detection of a missile and its interception. Once I have air- or satellite-based assets, they give me a dual advantage by providing early warning as well as early cue to the LRTR. What this means is that of now I have 150 seconds available to me, I can enhance the interception from 100km to a higher altitude. Thus, the present system does not have any deficiencies; it will get better once the additional assets are available. I will get 20 to 30 per cent incremental advantage, both in detection and interception.

Are you planning any incremental changes in the MFFCS (multi-functional fire control system) that you have acquired from Thales that has the range of 350km?

The MFFCS is fine and does not need any further modification.

How many more interceptor tests have you planned?

As I mentioned, the PDV test is slated for later this year and an AAD test will be done in March 2011. The range for AAD will be 15 to 18km.

What are your plans for phase II?

In phase II, we plan to take on targets with ranges till 5,000km. This has two implications: One, the targets come to you at a higher velocity, and two, they come from higher altitude. For these targets, early warning and incremental increase in detection becomes essential. For this reason, it is important that the range of the long-range tracking radar be more than 1,000km. We have started work on this and it will take up to three years. When I say that this will be indigenous, it means that design and development will be done here, while computers and certain other essentials like TR modules will be procured from outside. You know that it is neither possible nor desirable to make everything within the country. Once work on radar is going on, we will also be working on the AAD 1 and AAD 2. For such targets, the interceptors need more agility, higher energy and higher speed. For example, AAD 2 will have speed of Mach 6 to 8, which is completely hypersonic. Today, the speed of AAD is between Mach 4 and 5, and is being called high supersonic. We will also increase the endo-atmospheric interception to more than 30km altitude. Similarly, the exo-atmospheric interception will cross the 200km altitude limit. The design for both these interceptors has been completed and we are already in the propulsion testing mode. Considering that they are new missiles, this process will take time. Roughly, we are looking at 2015 when phase II interceptors will be realised.

You have been quoted in the media saying that India is ahead of China in BMD. What does this mean?

I have been quoted out of context. What I had said was that we have taken steps to develop BMD from 1995 onwards. The Chinese have also started their work. They have shown satellite interception and recently on January 13, they have shown ballistic missile interception. That is all I said and this cannot be interpreted as saying that India is ahead of China. I also told them that I do not know when the Chinese actually started work on BMD. As a scientist, if I have to say anything, I would say that they have already demonstrated satellite interception capability, so in a way they are ahead.

You have also been quoted saying that like China, we do not need to demonstrate satellite interception capability. What does this mean?

Demonstrating satellite interception is not something that is necessary to acquiring this capability. Satellite, as you know, has a predictable path, whether it is in the polar, low earth or any other orbit. To check my interception capability, I can always simulate satellite path electronically. I will generate an electronic scenario at the launch-pad as if I am getting the data from another satellite or ground-based radar and take that as the inputs to my mission-control centre and then launch as interceptor. Since the path is known, I can accurately know if I have hit the target or not, unlike the ballistic missiles, where the path can be unpredictable because of aero-dynamic and many other reasons. So technically, we have concluded that we do not need to check our building blocks to ascertain whether we have satellite interception capability.

Why have the Chinese felt the need to demonstrate satellite-interception capability?

I do not know. Only they can answer this question.

Is there any benefit in seeing an actual demonstration?

There are no technical benefits but maybe there are other benefits including 100 per cent assurance. These days, we have a lot of capability that actual flying tests are not required. Every time we make a change, we don’t have to flight-test the capability.

You have also been quoted as saying that we don’t need to build and store missiles as we have the capability to convert two weapon systems at short notice. The question is, a certain number of missiles will always need to be made and stored as, after all, how short is the short notice. Would you agree with this?

This statement was made to the media in the context of the Agni missile. You will appreciate that the Agni class of system is not a tactical missile. When you talk of strategic missiles and you don’t have a threat today for these class of weapon system, and I was saying this in the context of an ICBM then there is no need to make and store these weapons.

Are you saying that certain number of the Agni series of missiles, including Agni I, Agni II and Agni III have not been made and stored?

No, this is being done as per the requirement.

Which is the production agency?

BDL is the production agency and they are well geared up for producing these series of missiles.

Another statement attributed to you is that you are making Multiple Independent Re-Entry Vehicles (MIRV)?

I never said that we will make the MIRV. We have no plans for MIRV. All I said was that we are working on Agni V. (But Mr. Avinash Chander confirmed they are working on MIRV as quoted by Mr. Ajai Shukla, may be they are trying to hide it)

[Gaur]

^^
Thanks. Very interesting interview.

[Craig Alpert]

VIDEO: India increases defence budget by $32bn

[svinayak]

Why have the Chinese felt the need to demonstrate satellite-interception capability?

I do not know. Only they can answer this question.

What kind of stupid question is this.
China showed that it has the will to shoot a Sat and create debris causing orbital damage even during peace time.

[A Sharma]

DRDO Newsletter for March 2010

[nachiket]

^^Ameerkhan prints the world's reserve currency and has more than enough cash lying around to start all the wars they want. We don't.

[Ameet]

BEML to become a billion dollar company - dated in Feb, but lots of highlights.

http://netindian.in/news/2010/02/18/000 ... ar-company

Defence public sector undertaking BEML Limited is aimed to become a billion dollar company as part of its vision 2013-14 to coincide with its golden jubilee.

BEML Chairman and Managing Director V R S Natarajan told a press conference here today that the company aimed to improve the volumes of its defence business and expectd to cross a turnover of Rs 3500 crore in 2009-10.

The company had an order book of around Rs 5400 crore and last year it had secured export orders worth Rs 304 crore. The major buyers were from Indonesia and Brazil.

Mr Natarajan said BEML was also exploring opportunities for the supplies of 10 metre- and 5 metre-span bridges, for which it is working closely with the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

He said BEML would also offer state-of-the-art 43 metre-span dry support bridges to the Indian Army. This bridge can be launched from one bank without intermediary support.

He said that his company, being the offset partners for DMD, Slovakia for wheeled gunss with 30 per cent of value, is in the final stages of offering 155 mm wheeled guns for which trials will take place soon.

Mr Natarajan said the newly-raised Aerospace Division of BEML had recently bagged orders from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) for Slat Jigs for SU-30 aircraft, fuselage rotating jig for jet trainers, tow bars for aircraft operations, gear component for Cheetah-Chetak helicopters and Advanced Light Helicopters.

He said BEML was already manufacturing ground support equipment and ground handling equipment, including 18 tonnes and 28 tonnes aircraft towing tractors, automatic weapon loaders and crash fire tenders. This division also proposes to manufacture aero-structures.

He said BEML had got CEMILAC certification for aero design and is in the process of obtaining manufacturing certification to become eligible for tie-up for defence aero offsets.

Mr Natarajan said BEML had also developed a snow cutter for use by the Indian Army and the Border Roads Organisation for clearing of snow in forward areas. The equipment, which is undergoing extensive field trials, can withstand extreme conditions at altitude upto 18,000 feet. The snow clearance rate is 3500 tonnes per hour and the casting distance is 40 metres.

He said development of simulators for the training of the armed forces had been identified as one of the thrust areas by BEML's technology division. This division has developed a driving simulator for the BEML-Tatra trucks, which are supplied to the Army.

BEML signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Obrum of Poland during DefExpo 2010, which concluded here today, for the joint design and development of products such as Armoured Recovery and Repair Vehicle on Arjun, Futuristic Main Battle Tank, Overhaul of T – 72 and BMP-II, Armoured Personnel Carrier, 155 mm SP tracked gun system, T-72 1000 hp engine and BMP-II upgrade.

Mr Natarajan said BEML had established a company in Brazil to cater to the South American market and more recently a local company in Indonesia, apart from a warehouse in Malaysia and an outsourcing office in China.

[Kanson]

Therefore, when he speaks, he is batting for the DRDO and not the Army and therefore, maybe you would not be right to say that Army is the biggest enemy of the Army!

I termed the Army as its own enemy wrt to this saga for the following reasons:

1. Following two different standards of selection for the same requirement.
2. Misleading the Parliament on the Arjun ACURT trials.
3. Report of defence officer as described by DeveGowda in the Parliament.
4. Utterance of word Sabotage by MoS defence and later fixing of "black box" with tamper proof.
and so forth.

[Ashutosh Malik]

Hi Chetak

Without going into the merits of the argument in favour or against Arjun! And with no hard feelings - just some humble thoughts.

Are we suggesting that Maj. Gen. Singh (whoever he is - I don't know him in any case) doesn't deserve to be where he is or has been promoted unfairly?

If so, aren't we being rather speculative and probably unjust as well?

Are we also suggesting that the interview process, as a selection tool, in DRDO is flawed, while that of the Defence services (where ACRs is probably the only route) is the only correct one? Disclaimer - I dont work for either of them.

And in any case, is there really an organisation in this world where everything is always hunky dory in the selection process. I know of private sector organisations where beyond a certain level, irrespective of a person's credentials and achievements, he won't go if he does not "fit into" the culture of what the top most folks consider as the right ingredients. And that promotions in all kinds organisations happen for all the wrong reasons as well - in the Army as well. All over the world, what to talk of India.

To give an example (without suggesting that anybody here is one - this is just an examlple - Communists and their fellow travellers, for example, in particular, in India, go for character assasination of the person with whom they disagree, when their arguments fail to destroy the logic of the opponent.

So my humble opinion is that we should be carefule with arguments on the lines of questioning the credentials of a person, in a public forum, without being rather sure.

[Sanku]

Kanson you are extremely inaccurate once more

I termed the Army as its own enemy wrt to this saga for the following reasons:

4. Utterance of word Sabotage by MoS defence and later fixing of "black box" with tamper proof.
and so forth.

Correction Minister of state of defence for production, i.e. the political head of OFB etc. Nothing to do with Army

1. Following two different standards of selection for the same requirement.

No same standards have been followed. The difference is that the "requirement" as defined by GSQR was very different.

You can question different GSQRs (which no one does since the reasons are obvious) but not the process. We have seen that they had the same process. One tank went through it faster since it came from a established and mature design house as opposed a to fresh and struggling one.

2. Misleading the Parliament on the Arjun ACURT trials.

Patetenly false -- the information on ACURT was correct and after the minor tamasha by the MoS Pallam Raju, the issue were owned up and fixed.

You can find the issues found and fixed in the Parliamentary report I posted -- which has DRDO inputs as well

3. Report of defence officer as described by DeveGowda in the Parliament.

Lets not get into comical territory please.

So to take your statement

I termed the Army as its own enemy wrt to this saga for the following reasons:

Of the 4 reasons given 3,4 have nothing to do with Army

And 1 and 2 are patently incorrect.

[Kanson]

I think, i can use the words and thoughts of FrontierIndia who put it in much better way...

For those who don’t know, I have titled the headline based on “The Passion of the Christ,” which is a religious film produced in 2004. It is based on the New Testament accounts of the arrest, trial, torture, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, events commonly known as The Passion. Before some hackles are raised, I am not trying to compare the Arjun Tank with the bible story.

One more point, I would like to emphasize that, I am not against the Russian T-90 Tank. This is for my friends who have repeatedly pointed out to “the fact” that I am anti T-90. Most of the times, I have put up the other side of the fence, whenever there has been attempt to malign the Arjun Tank. Many a times, I have been informed that Frontier India Strategic and Defence” has the most comprehensive collection of data, facts and stories. While I always took it as an compliment, some indicated that it proves I am anti T-90. I absolutely have no arguments for them.

For starters, whoever is working overtime on the anti-Arjun Tank campaign has been responsible for demonization of T-90 in Indian service. There are some points to be considered. The anti Arjun Tank camp is normally Indians. If there are Russians behind it, then I would say, these Russians are doing their job and doing the best for their country. Russia has great generals who make these tanks and great statesmen who would like India to posses these toys for its defence. On the other side, we have Indian generals. They could or could not be thinking about their own country. Let me give them a benefit of doubt and say that, they indeed want the best for their country. But, having said that, even with their best of intention for the country, we have a very “vision” challenged generals when compared to the Russian, American, Israeli generals who make their own stuff and fight.

I have seen the arguments that DRDO has not made tanks up to their standards hence they import. At the same time, we have seen the development histories of tanks in the world. Majority of the tanks have been adopted by their armies when these tanks were not up to their mark. subsequently, they have evolved their tanks to a state that, Indian generals drool at them. Infact, Our generals wanted an Israeli company to evaluate and tell if Arjun Tank was good or bad. Then they wanted DRDO to improve the tank as per the recommendation of the Israeli company. Is army incapable of making a qualitative requirement for itself and the evaluate it themselves?

The habit of changing the qualitative requirements to suit imports was the brain child of General Gopal Gurunath Bewoor. While he was the Deputy Chief of Army Staff (1967 – 1973), he earned a dubious distinction of changing a qualitative requirement, which led to purchase and license production of SS11B1 and the death of the Indian Anti Tank Missile program. Who can argue that General Gopal Gurunath Bewoor was not a good Army Chief? Was there any foreign lobby involved?

I must admit that Indian Army has an history of using Indian equipment. Most of them were shoddy quality from the Indian public sector units and defence production units (DPSU). DRDO was in infancy then. So was Indian Navy. I am not trying to pitch Indian Army vs Indian Navy. Let me give you another example. The Indian Air force, wanted a replacement for the MiG-21’s. The light combat aircraft, though has not achieved the newly formed “air staff requirement,” the IAF is willing to take a specified number of LCA’s. Why? Because they think that LCA, even in its current form is better than the MiG-21’s in service. Indian Army had a similar chance back in 1980’s when they scuttled the induction of Arjun Tank, in favour of T-72 tanks. Look at Akash Missiles induction into IAF and recent orders.

Armed Forces Chiefs can make or break history. IAF chief’s have been not very dynamic in this respect. I am not implying that they were not competent in other departments. It took former Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi Major to push the much needed change in Indian Air Force mentality. In the Indian Army, General Shankar Roychowdhury was the only general who made a difference. Rest of the Army chiefs were not in his grade in this respect. There is an argument that Indian Army is the user and not an R&D or production unit. An argument which is flawed.

The mismanagement and frequent attacks on the Arjun Tank project by the Army has attracted worldwide attention. The Arjun Tank project detractors were largely responsible for the popularity of the project. I would like to give you an example. When the media is invited to any of the armed forces events, they expect media not to ask ugly questions, eat refreshments and then print their press releases. But media seeks sensation. Press releases don’t sell. Now look who is bad mouthing Arjun Tank project? It is the anonymous Army officers and some retired army officers. They succeed in feeding sensational news about constant failures of the project. Then media somersaulted. When it was pointed out to media that there was a likely sabotage of Arjun Tank trials, they realised that it was a bigger sensation than the regular failure news. It was a matter of DRDO establishing its Public Interface Directorate that the anti Arjun Tank camp faltered. Under strict media and political glare, Arjun Tank showed up its mettle. Nay sayers could not manipulate the results. Also, I hope Indian Army personnel should read a bit on internet. I had already written what Indian Army would cook up during the AUCRT trials. It came as no surprise when Indian Army reported in parliament that Arjun Tanks failed.

Hypothetically, If Russians are very concerned about the image of T-90, then they should be sacking their Indian agents (bothe official and unofficial ones). T-90 tank purchase was a knee jerk reaction to T-80 sale by Ukraine to the pesky neighbor. The Arjun Tank detractors probably bunked their class during studies. Probably that can explain their lack of knowledge of the phrase ” people living in glass houses don’t throw stones at others.” The T-90 tanks came with their set of inefficiencies which were greater than the Arjun tanks advertised deficiencies. There is another aspect to T-90 purchase. Indian Army gives the linage argument. T-90 is logical successor to T-72, an argument which Russian army does not buy. Russians want Black Eagle, a fifth generation tank. Now, if you read carefully the press reports after the acquisition of T-72, these tanks were always under performing. Retired Tankers have said so. They like Chieftains and Centurion better. The T-72 tank was an interim main battle tank in 1979. Since the tanks were worse at the other side of the border, it was okay. Subsequently it was DRDO which improved the T-72 and it was called combat improved Ajeya. When Pakistan acquired T-80 tanks, Russia gave a proposal to improve T-72. Since the DRDO came up with Tank-Ex upgrade, Indian Army did not want an T-72 upgrade. (you can read Indian Armies reaction here.) So Indian Army pushed for T-90. It was not the issue that enemy Pakistan bought T-80’s, the issue was the enemy DRDO came up with Tank-Ex upgrade.

I would like to add one point here. A lot has been said about Indian Army’s problems with DRDO. Less has been said about DRDO’s problem with Indian Army. It is not just the ego the Indian Army officers have inherited from British. They have also acquired the traits of colonial British when dealing with other Indians. I am sure, I have generalised it. But, how far is it away from the truth? Some time back a DRDO’s project manager wanted to demonstrate an equipment to Indian Army. His main concern was not the demonstration, but, where will he and his team mates stay. The place was an remote place, far away from civilization. “You see, they (Indian Army) have quarters there, but not for us” he explained defensively. After some discussion on Indian Army attitude, he again defended Indian Army by saying that “Customers are never satisfied.” DRDO has been bending back to accommodate the Army’s daunting requests, which later on goes on to boomerang on DRDO. I hope, one can understand how strained is the relationship. Its equally strained both ways.

Then there is another argument that Arjun Tank was not available when Army needed it. Sometime back, I was chatting up with two retired senior army officers. This point came up. One of the officers observed dryly that “or is it the Army did not induct Arjun Tank.” Actually, this example can be seen the sequence of events after 1996, when Arjun Tank displayed that it was fit for induction as per the last of Army qualitative requirements.

Army has not been entirely out of loop of developing the tank. There are two names of Indian Army personnel whom I wish to mention or my article will not be complete. One is Lt.Gen Ajai Singh who is the governor of Assam state in India. He was responsible for rejuvenation of the Arjun Tank project. The other one is Retired major general H.M Singh. He has been with the Arjun Tank project in excess of 20 years. A die hard Arjun Tank backer. The 43rd armored regiment have been involved in the development and testing of the Arjun Tanks. They have seen various versions of this tank. They say that every cloud has silver lining.

Some sections feel that Arjun Tank will not get a fair trial by the army. Some say that Army does not has the competency to evaluate Arjun Tank. There is an anecdote. While Arjun Tank was on trial, the engine compressor broke down. The engine was replaced in less than 30 minutes and the tank was up and running. The engine can be repaired and put on to the next tank. Where as if the same thing happens to the T-90, its grounded till the repairs are effected. It may take in excess of 3 hours. So, finally when the report reached the Army HQ, it stated:

Arjun Tank: engine broken. Complete replacement
T-90: engine broken, repaired.

Then there is another anecdote. The Advanced Light helicopters built by HAL in Army service were running huge repair bills inspite of army being specifically told that ALH does not need as many services as a Chetak helicopter.
There is a view that the army had issued GSQR to see that Arjun Tank does not fructify ever. DRDO pulled a fast one on them by importing all it cannot make in time and put together the tank. If army orders it, it will indigenise it as much possible. So, Arjun detractors ended up blaming that it has imported content. They forgot that T-90 was not even an Indian design.

In India, there is no professional independent agency that can interface between the R&D, production and the user. The US has it. The Russians have the military backing their R&D centers. So do others.

Like rest of the apprehensive Indians, even I am eagerly looking forward Arjun Tank vs T-90 comparative trial results. Is the anti Arjun Tank lobby is running and avoiding these trials for the obvious reason?

[chetak]

Hi Chetak

Are we suggesting that Maj. Gen. Singh (whoever he is - I don't know him in any case) doesn't deserve to be where he is or has been promoted unfairly?

If so, aren't we being rather speculative and probably unjust as well?

Are we also suggesting that the interview process, as a selection tool, in DRDO is flawed, while that of the Defence services (where ACRs is probably the only route) is the only correct one? Disclaimer - I dont work for either of them.

Ashutosh ji,

I don't know this Singh gentleman. I was not commenting on him.

I was referring specifically to the benign DRDO promotion process.

The steep pyramid structure of the Armed forces wipes out a lot of good guys who are no less capable than their promoted peers.

The number of vacancies are strictly limited and forced retirement for the faujis comes at a earlier age.

The DRDO has no limit on promotions. Once, a scientist G was as rare as hen's teeth. Today every tom dick and harry lab has many many Gs. Very very few DRDO guys do not get promoted. Now they even have scientist H. It's like any RTO that has finished the AA series in vehicle registration and moves on to the AB series.

The DRDO guys award each other cash prizes for "outstanding work" and I have it seen it add upto tens of lakhs in some cases.

The very steep pyramid of the Forces structure is absent in the DRDO. So it's certainly easier to promote , accommodate and appease a very large number.

If you delay a project in the Forces, you WILL not survive to tell the tale but in the DRDO it appears that they actually thrive.

[SaiK]

If it had been IG ji, Arjun would have been in 100s by now with IA.

[chackojoseph]

The Battlefield Surveillance Radar was initially rejected. And it remained so till a very good one was produced. It was immediately accepted and is in service.

I guess this is a partial truth. Army plumped for cobra from US or something like that. It failed to perform. Then it had no other option but to go for DRDO one.

[tsarkar]

The other aspect is the DRDO/Defense PSU/OFB monopoly on indigenization. Letting others, for example, Universities, work on projects upsets the apple cart and the holiness quotient.

Take the story of L&T and the Sarvatra bridging system going to BEML.

Take the story of Cdr Paulraj, who developed APSOH sonar that detected submarines before they approached torpedo firing range.

http://indiannavy.nic.in/t2t2e/trans2em ... _sonar.htm

“my close relations with the Navy (innocent and indeed vital for the project) were unfortunately misread by many of my superiors in the DRDO and BEL”

“APSOH was an impossible dream that came true for many of us”

“One day in May 1983, as the APSOH trials were concluding, Dr Arunachalam, the Scientific Adviser to the Defence Minister, asked me to leave the country on sabbatical for two or three years and to do something completely different. He made it clear that my sonar career was over and I should find wider interests.”

Why did Dr Arunachalam fire Commander Arogyaswami Joseph Paulraj? I speculate he and the scientific establishment was scared that Cdr Paulraj, solely based on merit, would upset their holiness quotient.

Most younger DRDO chaps are more focused on primary research, that helps them get into foreign universities/research labs. Senior DRDO chaps are more focused on high visibility projects. What forces need – applied research – is completely lost.

What forces need is a strong dose of MKI-izing or projects that deliver what is needed even if it isn’t state of the art.

Classic cases –

MKI. Take a standard plane, improve flight characteristics, add better avionics and weapons and give it an edge over its nearest competitors.

Or Al Khalid - take a mediocre Chinese tank, add a 1200 hp engine, western electronics, a DU round, and you get something that is cheap, easy to manufacture yet having an edge over its nearest rival.

On the other hand, none of the TECHNICAL ADVANTAGES of the LCA offer any PERFORMANCE ADVANTAGES over its competitors. Does the LCA have better rate of climb, turn rate, radius of turn, etc than JF-17? I am yet to see any figures.

The IAF lost interest the moment ADA junked Dassault analogue FBW software and decided to go its own along with LM. We know the delays caused in 1998 due to LM non cooperation. Certainly, the aircraft would have entered service faster if it used proven components, even if old.

The WLR radar, Catapult SPA, 30mm AA gun to replace L40/70 and L40/60, and a long list of failures make the Army wary.
Arjun too wasn’t in a good shape until this decade, when DRDO, to its credit, ironed out deficiencies.

[Vivek K]

Yup! Great going tsarkar! LCA not good, Al-khalid good, ......! If there is a problem with DRDO's internal functioning, then we should stop buying domestic and buy from overseas. Good line of thought!

The IAF lost interest the moment ADA junked Dassault analogue FBW software and decided to go its own along with LM. We know the delays caused in 1998 due to LM non cooperation. Certainly, the aircraft would have entered service faster if it used proven components, even if old.

Like to clarify? Last we heard, the IAF is ordering LCAs? Where did it lose interest?

[tsarkar]

Chackojoseph, you are misreading RayC.

RayC is referring to Battle Field Surveillance Radar (BFSR) while you are referring to Weapons Locating Radar (WLR).

DRDO had promised WLR for two decades and it’s still not ready. In the interim, Army sought alternatives like French/German Cobra (NOT US) but was repeatedly frustrated by DRDO. WLR was sorely missed in Kargil, would have saved lives, and been invaluable to the conduct of operations. Cobra was never tried. Emergency purchases were made of Raytheon AN/TPQ-37. DRDO WLR is nowhere to be seen TEN YEARS after Kargil.

The BEL PIT-530 BFSR-MR is based on Elta EL/M-2140 while BEL PJT-531 BFSR-SR is based on Elta EL/M-2129. Both were initially white labeled. Probably components are being locally manufactured by now.

Vivek K - Lost interest in the interim period. Nothing against DRDO, but WE NEED TO BE PRAGMATIC ON A CASE TO CASE BASIS. Shourya, PAD/AAD, Akash, are all positive examples.

[Vivek K]

tsarkar, being pragmatic will lead you to our line of thinking - eventually. Self reliance has its own advantages.

Do you think that wars can only be won with the best available weapons? Tactics therefore have no role? The Japs had a superior fighter at the start of WWII then how did they lose?

[Rahul M]

OT but, ts sahab, VSA is not quite a character that is trusted by anyone any longer, the wider view is that he batted for unkil interests rather than desi interests. projecting him as typical of DRDO is akin to projecting rabinder singh as typical of army and R&AW or buddhi kota subbarao as typical of IN.

[chackojoseph]

Chackojoseph, you are misreading RayC. And the statements made by you are 100% false.

RayC is referring to Battle Field Surveillance Radar (BFSR) while you are referring to Weapons Locating Radar (WLR).

I agree, I misread on BSFR.

Indian Army acquiring 28 indigenous Weapon Locating Radars

It may be noted that the Indian Army had asked for the WLRs in mid-1980s but the government sanctioned their acquisition only after the 1999 Kargil War in which the Indian Army suffered more than 80 per cent of its casualties due to the Pakistani artillery fire.

The process for the WLRs acquisition was stopped in 1990 by the then government along with the purchase of most other systems for the armed forces and the intelligence agencies.

In fact, the Parliament’s Standing Committee on Defence said in a report tabled in both the houses on 18 April 2000 that it “was seriously concerned by the degree of seeming casualness shown by the Defence Ministry in this regard,” and observed:

“The Ministry of Defence has not shown any sense of seriousness in acquiring this item. The enquiry in respect of this item had admittedly started in 1989 and even after a decade the Indian Army has not been able to acquire it. Our adversary is in possession of the weapon locating radar and it was used by it during the Kargil conflict to destroy our gun positions..…The Committee desire that the Government should take immediate steps to equip the Army with this Radar.”

[chetak]

The other aspect is the DRDO/Defense PSU/OFB monopoly on indigenization. Letting others, for example, Universities, work on projects upsets the apple cart and the holiness quotient.

Take the story of L&T and the Sarvatra bridging system going to BEML.

Take the story of Cdr Paulraj, who developed APSOH sonar that detected submarines before they approached torpedo firing range.

http://indiannavy.nic.in/t2t2e/trans2em ... _sonar.htm

“my close relations with the Navy (innocent and indeed vital for the project) were unfortunately misread by many of my superiors in the DRDO and BEL”

“APSOH was an impossible dream that came true for many of us”

“One day in May 1983, as the APSOH trials were concluding, Dr Arunachalam, the Scientific Adviser to the Defence Minister, asked me to leave the country on sabbatical for two or three years and to do something completely different. He made it clear that my sonar career was over and I should find wider interests.”

Why did Dr Arunachalam fire Commander Arogyaswami Joseph Paulraj? I speculate he and the scientific establishment was scared that Cdr Paulraj, solely based on merit, would upset their holiness quotient.

Most younger DRDO chaps are more focused on primary research, that helps them get into foreign universities/research labs. Senior DRDO chaps are more focused on high visibility projects. What forces need – applied research – is completely lost.

What forces need is a strong dose of MKI-izing or projects that deliver what is needed even if it isn’t state of the art.

Classic cases –

MKI. Take a standard plane, improve flight characteristics, add better avionics and weapons and give it an edge over its nearest competitors.

Or Al Khalid - take a mediocre Chinese tank, add a 1200 hp engine, western electronics, a DU round, and you get something that is cheap, easy to manufacture yet having an edge over its nearest rival.

On the other hand, none of the TECHNICAL ADVANTAGES of the LCA offer any PERFORMANCE ADVANTAGES over its competitors. Does the LCA have better rate of climb, turn rate, radius of turn, etc than JF-17? I am yet to see any figures.

The IAF lost interest the moment ADA junked Dassault analogue FBW software and decided to go its own along with LM. We know the delays caused in 1998 due to LM non cooperation. Certainly, the aircraft would have entered service faster if it used proven components, even if old.

The WLR radar, Catapult SPA, 30mm AA gun to replace L40/70 and L40/60, and a long list of failures make the Army wary.
Arjun too wasn’t in a good shape until this decade, when DRDO, to its credit, ironed out deficiencies.

tsarkar ji,

Good for you.

Few could have put it better!

The Army is wary because men needlessly die knowingly using inferior equipment. Yes imported systems can also be inferior but that is all that was available to us at that time.

The faujis don't like being used as guinea pigs by people who refuse to even visit the front lines or test equipment in a Naval vessel in bad seas. The scientists should get their act together, come out with some good stuff and prove it on the field instead of through the media.

The hell with indigenisation if it continuously leads to such fiascos. Will we never learn? We don't need to test inferior systems on the spilled blood of trusting jawans and officers while some scientists leisurely get to work on marginally improving mediocre systems.

Until then, please give the Army what it wants, at whatever the cost because your ass is on the line too.

Let the DRDO withdraw into the background, take as much and more money that it says it requires, take decades but finally deliver a relevant state of the art system.

[chackojoseph]

Let the DRDO withdraw into the background, take as much and more money that it says it requires, take decades but finally deliver a relevant state of the art system.

Let new British India company rise again.

[chetak]

tsarkar, being pragmatic will lead you to our line of thinking - eventually. Self reliance has its own advantages.

Do you think that wars can only be won with the best available weapons? Tactics therefore have no role? The Japs had a superior fighter at the start of WWII then how did they lose?

Because the americans discovered the sad secret of this superior fighter!

[tsarkar]

Guys, I am all for indigenization. Local design, development, manufacture and supply chain over invaluable advantage over any purchases.

My viewpoint on the Arjun or Artillery procurement is that no one is putting the full facts on the table. Let the decision be on FACTS and MERITS. All we see is shadow boxing. And the nation needs tanks and artillery.

Rahul, I fully agree with you. Imagine we could have been world leaders if Cdr Paulraj was allowed to continue on the lines of Admiral Rickover. My point was look at broader universal benefit rather than agenda of your team (Services or DRDO).

The current LCA engine development is the best approach. Buy a working engine so that the overall project is on track while doing R&D.

Chackojoseph, my earlier post was harsh, I have edited it accordingly.

[chetak]

Let the DRDO withdraw into the background, take as much and more money that it says it requires, take decades but finally deliver a relevant state of the art system.

Let new British India company rise again.

No.

Let private India company rise again which is the consuming fear of the DRDO. It's the old story of the emperor and his new clothes.

When employees can be hired, fired and "bonused" easily, that usually brings out the best in a human being.

Ambition and fear of failure should ride on the same horse!

[negi]

Rahul, I fully agree with you. Imagine we could have been world leaders if Cdr Paulraj was allowed to continue on the lines of Admiral Rickover. My point was look at broader universal benefit rather than agenda of your team (Services or DRDO)..

How can you be so sure about that ?

“Soon Prof Indiresan became impressed with my work and asked the IIT and NHQ to allow me to transfer to a Ph D programme. I did not have a B Tech degree and therefore normally needed to complete a M Tech before starting on a Ph D. Prof Indiresan succeeded in persuading the IIT Senate to make a concession, but had much more difficulty with NHQ. Initially Vice Admiral Krishnan (the VCNS) gave a flat no, because, as he put it, he did not need scientists in the Navy. But Prof Indiresan persisted and wrote or visited NHQ. VCNS finally relented on the condition that I get back to the Navy in the two years allowed for the M Tech.

“I began my Ph D research in December 1969. After an initial start in more applied work, I was successful in developing many interesting results in filtering theory (extracting signals from noise). During early 1971, Prof Kailath from Stanford University visited the IIT. Kailath was already a legend. He encouraged my theoretical research interests. Prof Indiresan with his emphasis on 'practice' and Prof Kailath on 'theory' influenced my professional interests and they remain my principal heroes and mentors.

“In August 1971, my two years at IIT were completed, and I was posted to Valsura (the Navy's Electrical School). I still needed a mandatory additional year to submit my thesis. I did have interesting results, but it required more polishing and Valsura, lacking a research library, would have killed the Ph D. Once again, Prof Indiresan lobbied NHQ for a New Delhi posting and after a great deal of anxiety, I was assigned to the Directorate of Electrical Engineering at NHQ.

[chackojoseph]

Chackojoseph, my earlier post was harsh, I have edited it accordingly.

Thanks. I did not take it personal. Your point was correct.

[negi]

And since we are talking on case by case basis , let me re-iterate this started with Arjun vs T-90 acquisition , I see people trying to divert the issue by trying to rake up other issues .What has WLR , BFSR or even Captain Paulraj's case got to do with this ?

[chetak]

Rahul, I fully agree with you. Imagine we could have been world leaders if Cdr Paulraj was allowed to continue on the lines of Admiral Rickover. My point was look at broader universal benefit rather than agenda of your team (Services or DRDO)..

How can you be so sure about that ?

“Soon Prof Indiresan became impressed with my work and asked the IIT and NHQ to allow me to transfer to a Ph D programme. I did not have a B Tech degree and therefore normally needed to complete a M Tech before starting on a Ph D. Prof Indiresan succeeded in persuading the IIT Senate to make a concession, but had much more difficulty with NHQ. Initially Vice Admiral Krishnan (the VCNS) gave a flat no, because, as he put it, he did not need scientists in the Navy. But Prof Indiresan persisted and wrote or visited NHQ. VCNS finally relented on the condition that I get back to the Navy in the two years allowed for the M Tech.

“I began my Ph D research in December 1969. After an initial start in more applied work, I was successful in developing many interesting results in filtering theory (extracting signals from noise). During early 1971, Prof Kailath from Stanford University visited the IIT. Kailath was already a legend. He encouraged my theoretical research interests. Prof Indiresan with his emphasis on 'practice' and Prof Kailath on 'theory' influenced my professional interests and they remain my principal heroes and mentors.

“In August 1971, my two years at IIT were completed, and I was posted to Valsura (the Navy's Electrical School). I still needed a mandatory additional year to submit my thesis. I did have interesting results, but it required more polishing and Valsura, lacking a research library, would have killed the Ph D. Once again, Prof Indiresan lobbied NHQ for a New Delhi posting and after a great deal of anxiety, I was assigned to the Directorate of Electrical Engineering at NHQ.

Paulraj was a notable exception.

Service officers deputed to DRDO, with some few exceptions, become gunga dins.

They immediately begin to lobby for a permanent secondment to DRDO. Compromising both loyalty and integrity.

[chackojoseph]

No.

Let private India company rise again which is the consuming fear of the DRDO. It's the old story of the emperor and his new clothes.

When employees can be hired, fired and "bonused" easily, that usually brings out the best in a human being.

Ambition and fear of failure should ride on the same horse!

I am not going to argue on that. I still prefer govt banks when I keep my money. I still have a government phone connection (investing in more). My opinion about private is not very great. DRDO will do the kind of research that Private companies will not. Indian Airlines flies to non profitable sector. BSNL reaches most places. Etc Etc.

Its my personal view.

[Craig Alpert]

The Battlefield Surveillance Radar was initially rejected. And it remained so till a very good one was produced. It was immediately accepted and is in service.

I guess this is a partial truth. Army plumped for cobra from US or something like that. It failed to perform. Then it had no other option but to go for DRDO one.

Now you know why the Paki's are getting the Cobra!!! AND no reason for the IA to make noice about US arming Pak against India under the pretext of fighting the TALIBAAN!

[tsarkar]

My points –
1. Allow indigenization by any means – Universities, Private, Services, DRDO, PSU or even OFB. The present policy is more of an employment generation scheme for government services. Vehicle Factory Jabalpur assembling Ashok Leyland trucks, MDL white labeling Scorpene parts, L&T denied Sarvatra, this nonsense under the sham of indigenization must end. The same army we are cussing here in-house upgraded T-55 under Project Gulmohar.

2. Ensure usability of the end product. No need to do everything yourself. As Air Marshal Barbora, said, use any and all means necessary.

3. Keep big picture in mind rather than team picture. Accept failure rather than drag the nation down. Easier said than done, of course.

Negi, you are a pragmatic member The same link that shows Navy reluctant to allow Cdr Paulraj do his PhD also shows the same Navy allowing him start the APSOH project with zilch experience. Look at the end result. What purpose does your nitpick post serve?

Craig - Cobra WLR is different from Cobra helicopter

[negi]

They immediately begin to lobby for a permanent secondment to DRDO. Compromising both loyalty and integrity.

So lobbying for DRDO == compromising on loyalty/integrity ?

I am afraid it seems too much generalization , personal bias and wrong inferences at play here , likewise what do I make of loyalty/integrity of non DRDO lobbyists who evaluated the EURO copter for Army's chopper demands where a clear case of conflict of interest existed ? Should I use the same brush to paint all IA wallahs ?