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

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 18 Mar 2010 06:59

Craig Alpert wrote: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!

I did not see this before or I would have replied. I have not followed your point. Can you please rephrase it?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 18 Mar 2010 07:06

Craig Alpert wrote:Pvt Sector Has Big Role in Defence Equipment: Antony

ALL TALK AND NO ACTION on his part!!!

They are trying. The off sets, the technology transfers etc. It will take atleast 50 to 10 year period if the majority of PVT sector firms have to be primed for supply to forces.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 18 Mar 2010 10:21

You meant either 5 to 10 or 10 to 50 years?

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 18 Mar 2010 10:41

It seems that to certain segments on BR, DRDO can do no wrong. So there is no point trying to explain anything to them. I understand that you feel that they are supermen, while the services are idiots.

Just remember, the DRDO WAS created, to provide the services with the equipment they want and need, according to their lights. The services were NOT created to use the equipment that DRDO produces. Think about that for a moment, and all else becomes clear.

And all, I am not claiming superiority of one government service or anything else. But these are plain and simple facts. The providers of the national defence are the armed forces. Period. All other services in the MoD have been created to support them in fulfilling their mission. So the needs and requirements of the Armed Forces come first, above those of the ancillary backup service providers (whose role is invaluable, but the point is that it is not the main role and guiding purpose of the MoD).

Anyway, are any of you aware that service officers on joining DRDO are given a lower rank and status than they have in their parent service? This has been a grouse for a long time, and in fact violates the principles of natural justice as laid down in the constitution.

As I had mentioned in a discussion with RM, a lot of the degradation in the services is the fault of Army HQ leadership, which had started posting Brigadiers as Directors, and Colonels as Deputy Secretaries (!!), in staff postings, even though Colonels are (even after degradation) STILL officers in the pay of director. The other services have to anyway go along with whatever equivalencies are established with the army, it being the largest service.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 18 Mar 2010 12:36

ASPuar wrote: The other services have to anyway go along with whatever equivalencies are established with the army, it being the largest service.

ASPuar ji,

The other Services did try to get the correct equivalences established but the DRDO always claimed that the issue was settled and it could not be revisited.

IMHO, the Army may have some justification to revisit and correct the situation.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 18 Mar 2010 12:56

Chetak, I dont want to go OT on this thread, so allow me X-post, and to ask you to visit the second to last post on this page, by me:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... start=1320

It relates to armymen going on deputation to IB, and gives you some idea of the bumbling thats been going on in AHQ, regarding pay and equivalences and status. Also shows the difference between the Navys handling of things, and that of the Army.

Shubham · Post by **Shubham** » 18 Mar 2010 14:40

We had a Lecture by Prof. A Paulraj last year , who is a very good friend of one of our professor. I can't comment on what the other posters have said but , Prof Paulraj was very proud of Indian Navy and he said he still holds the rank (and IIRC maybe he is still on the payroll of IN).

He is helping Indian Defence Industry in his own ways, there was one entrepreneur who was starting to develop a Frequency hopping communication device with the help of Prof Paulraj.

BTW the man is brilliant , one of the foremost expert in the world in his field.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 18 Mar 2010 14:46

ASPuar wrote:It seems that to certain segments on BR, DRDO can do no wrong. So there is no point trying to explain anything to them. I understand that you feel that they are supermen, while the services are idiots.

Just remember, the DRDO WAS created, to provide the services with the equipment they want and need, according to their lights. The services were NOT created to use the equipment that DRDO produces. Think about that for a moment, and all else becomes clear.

And all, I am not claiming superiority of one government service or anything else. But these are plain and simple facts. The providers of the national defence are the armed forces. Period. All other services in the MoD have been created to support them in fulfilling their mission. So the needs and requirements of the Armed Forces come first, above those of the ancillary backup service providers (whose role is invaluable, but the point is that it is not the main role and guiding purpose of the MoD).

Anyway, are any of you aware that service officers on joining DRDO are given a lower rank and status than they have in their parent service? This has been a grouse for a long time, and in fact violates the principles of natural justice as laid down in the constitution.

As I had mentioned in a discussion with RM, a lot of the degradation in the services is the fault of Army HQ leadership, which had started posting Brigadiers as Directors, and Colonels as Deputy Secretaries (!!), in staff postings, even though Colonels are (even after degradation) STILL officers in the pay of director. The other services have to anyway go along with whatever equivalencies are established with the army, it being the largest service.

I see no trend. The DRDO bashing has caused this reaction. DRDO was created to provide R&D.

DRDO ideally should not provide equipment as its the job of DPSU's. Unfortunately Army has an attitude that the products have been figment of DRDO imagination, inspite of the QR's they write. Normally, DRDO's job should be over after handing over designs to production units and to back them up in case corrections come up.

About the status etc. There are limited ranks available within DRDO. For example, an X force officer had to be retired in order to accommodate an Y Force personal for an important ongoing project. It is also upto the forces themselves to promote or demote.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Mar 2010 14:55

chackojoseph wrote: DRDO was created to provide R&D.

DRDO ideally should not provide equipment as its the job of DPSU's. .

Precisely the problem. The post clearly outlines the mindset that is the issue. Defence product creation is no one's baby in India, until Mission mode centers like ADA, IGMDP are created, and sometimes not even then.

Any wonder that products are not made and there is total blame game by the DPSUs and DRDO, MoD babus' etc and the Services are left holding the bag at the end of the day.

----------------------------

DRDO to everyone -- hey we only do tech R&D, dont expect us to bother about how a product really works or what is needed in the field or what is the services pain, we are technologists onlee, now when is the conference on sub-wavelet transform method of understanding vortex is anyway?

PSU -- hey we only make after blue prints are given, and chai and coffee, and if there is electricity and if there is no left union rally. What do you mean the barrel of Tank burst, we dont make barrels, we do? Oh sorry let me send my peon to fetch the foreman who will ask who was the person doing the contract duty that day to make up for the striking worker.

MoD -- Uhh, defence forces what defence forces, you mean the IA is doing a coup????? No, oh sorry, then whats the problem? You guys are so excitable, When is the mushaira bhai, what IA is asking for Tanks, let me see who wants to go to Russia on a PNC this year? The joint undersecretary of defence accounts seconded to Arunachal is bored is he? Let us see if I can help him, after all he is from my cadre onlee.

RM -- Is my Mundu starched yet? Good, is that photo of mine holding the pichkari good? That is a gun ? Good god any way same thing onlee.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Mar 2010 15:12

Shubham wrote:We had a Lecture by Prof. A Paulraj last year , who is a very good friend of one of our professor. I can't comment on what the other posters have said but , Prof Paulraj was very proud of Indian Navy and he said he still holds the rank (and IIRC maybe he is still on the payroll of IN). .

Once a service man always a service man. Literally.

They are allowed to and do keep the Rank for their entire life, even if they left before eligible for pension.

sum · Post by **sum** » 18 Mar 2010 15:41

DRDO to everyone -- hey we only do tech R&D, dont expect us to bother about how a product really works or what is needed in the field or what is the services pain, we are technologists onlee, now when is the conference on sub-wavelet transform method of understanding vortex is anyway?

PSU -- hey we only make after blue prints are given, and chai and coffee, and if there is electricity and if there is no left union rally. What do you mean the barrel of Tank burst, we dont make barrels, we do? Oh sorry let me send my peon to fetch the foreman who will ask who was the person doing the contract duty that day to make up for the striking worker.

MoD -- Uhh, defence forces what defence forces, you mean the IA is doing a coup????? No, oh sorry, then whats the problem? You guys are so excitable, When is the mushaira bhai, what IA is asking for Tanks, let me see who wants to go to Russia on a PNC this year? The joint undersecretary of defence accounts seconded to Arunachal is bored is he? Let us see if I can help him, after all he is from my cadre onlee.

RM -- Is my Mundu starched yet? Good, is that photo of mine holding the pichkari good? That is a gun ? Good god any way same thing onlee.

Good ones, esp abt MoD and RM.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 18 Mar 2010 15:52

chackojoseph wrote:
About the status etc. There are limited ranks available within DRDO. For example, an X force officer had to be retired in order to accommodate an Y Force personal for an important ongoing project. It is also upto the forces themselves to promote or demote.

Look, please do not try to pass off personal theories/opinions as fact. Deputations between organisations are not some sort of arcane sport, they are always done strictly according to pay and rank equivalences, with pay protection. There is an equivalence policy in place, and placement in DRDO is not decided by X's and Y's of any sort. Placement is NOT on a case by case basis (which would cause utter chaos), but according to policy.

As for the DRDO policy, it is skewed, and confused. Majors (and equivalents) with less than 12 years service were being posted as Scientist "C" (In the scale of Captains), while only majors with more than 12 years service were being posted in the correct scale of Scientist "D". An arbitrary action. But better yet, Lt Cols, who were in a higher scale of pay than Scientist E, were being deputed as Scientist D also, in the same scale of Majors. Colonels, who should have been posted as Scientist F, were being posted as Scientist E.

Noone wants to be posted off, at a scale and rank below his own! And remember, these are officers from the Corps of Engineers, EME, and Signals. All are qualified engineering ME/MTechs, many from the IIT's and REC's.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 18 Mar 2010 17:14

chetak wrote:
Kanson wrote: Pls answer this directly, does Navy thinks asking secondment to drdo by Naval officers as disloyalty ?
Kanson ji,

Yes.

Thanks chetak-ji for the free and fair discussion. This is the reason it is said before, what is good for goose is good for gaunder with reference to the discussion we had earlier. I dont find fault with Navy, infact they are right. As Navy tries to protect the cadre, sameway, drdo is entitled to look after there cadre/team as you know both Navy and drdo jobs are human intensive and comes at the high end of the value chain. I mean replacing them like factory workers cant be possible, as their expertise is gained with several yrs of grooming them in their specified field as niche. [ASPuar: this is also the reason why cadres from Service eventhough they came from Singals and engineering corps with all M.tech, may not be placed in equal post/rank. Engineering job in Signals is totally different from what a Scientist do. And it is not wrt to just pay scale and it mainly relates to the capabilites that one perceive as competent for the post wrt the developement of a system.] And wherever possible, drdo lab has accomodated Paulraj with high degree of freedom. Thats the fact.

Second thing is whether is disillusioned with Navy or drdo he didnt stick with the Navy. So he could be anyone but Rickover. For whatever ills happened, the US Navy put up with Rickover and Rickover put up with the Navy.

JMT on the discussion happened yesterday.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 18 Mar 2010 17:16

Oh Really, is it personal opinion?

x, Y i quotes as its a live example that happened and I don't want to give the names and forces name.

rest of the stuff you mention, I have already addressed it with rank limitations in DRDO. They have certain quota of ranks and limitations they can place them. There are other factors, I would not like to mention because of certain reasons.

Added later.....

But, I do not agree with your assessment. One of the services has absolutely no issues when it comes to such ranks in DRDO. Other has become more proactive.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 18 Mar 2010 17:21

ASPuar wrote:Just remember, the DRDO WAS created, to provide the services with the equipment they want and need, according to their lights. The services were NOT created to use the equipment that DRDO produces. Think about that for a moment, and all else becomes clear.

Sir, fyi,
http://www.drdo.org/mission.shtml
Vision:
Make India prosperous by establishing world class science and technology base and provide our Defence Services decisive edge by equipping them with internationally competitive systems and solutions.

And one of the mission:
Develop infrastructure and committed quality manpower and build strong indigenous technology base.

I mainly trying to point out that, it is just not to serve Armed forces.

And all, I am not claiming superiority of one government service or anything else. But these are plain and simple facts. The providers of the national defence are the armed forces. Period. All other services in the MoD have been created to support them in fulfilling their mission. So the needs and requirements of the Armed Forces come first, above those of the ancillary backup service providers (whose role is invaluable, but the point is that it is not the main role and guiding purpose of the MoD).

Hope, you are aware of notion from all over the world that, with the defence equipment becoming more machine/computer/Artificial intelligence/Robotics etc intensive, half of the battle is won in developing defence systems in the lab and the rest of the war is won in the battlefield. With more and more unmanned war machinery with tread towards automation and AI, like in the movie Terminator III, it will be prudent to expect that in future machines will be fighting the war and the value of man behind the machine will go down gradually. I'm just presenting another thoughts/ideas just gaining ground. What i'm trying to say is every arm of defence is essential for the safety of this nation. Why to have a mentaility of pegging one above the other..

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 18 Mar 2010 17:26

Kanson wrote: Sir, fyi,
http://www.drdo.org/mission.shtml
Vision:
Make India prosperous by establishing world class science and technology base and provide our Defence Services decisive edge by equipping them with internationally competitive systems and solutions.

And one of the mission:
Develop infrastructure and committed quality manpower and build strong indigenous technology base.

I mainly trying to point out that, it is just not to serve Armed forces.

People in general have assumed that DRDO provides production. Most projects, DRDO has to certify limited numbers of initial systems and then the production agency takes over the certification.

If you look at the Arjun Tank project, a certain number was sent back. What was the defect? Calibration problems. The production agency had wrong calibrations. Hence DRDO was asked to look into it.

meanwhile anon army officers poured over news papers that how Arjun Tank problems continue and how DRDO has failed.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Mar 2010 17:29

Kanson wrote:
ASPuar wrote:Just remember, the DRDO WAS created, to provide the services with the equipment they want and need, according to their lights. The services were NOT created to use the equipment that DRDO produces. Think about that for a moment, and all else becomes clear.

I mainly trying to point out that, it is just not to serve Armed forces.

Indeed it is quite clear by the situation that exists.

As I said before, defence product creation in India is no ones baby.

THE structural problem -- and thank you for providing YET another pointer to back up my statement (after Chacko's statement on what DRDO considers itself to be)

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Mar 2010 17:37

ASP sahab, why do you continue to push the strawman that DRDO et al asks the services to induct things they make rather than what the services ask for ? please name these systems that DRDO designed on its own without consulting the forces and is now trying to force on them ?

secondly, the forces themselves have no problem buying items designed in foreign countries to their requirements but it is portrayed as a heinous crime if DRDO does it. over the last 50-60 years frequently military technology has overtaken military requirements and the militaries have had to adjust to that jump.

after all, our forces have a dubious record when it came to setting technological requirements for future programs, especially the IA has a pathetic record in this regard, as many as 4 GSQR within the space of 22 years for the arjun project is beyond ridiculous ! for the most part, can we depend solely on the forces to dictate future technological routes, when even now the RFP's appear as cut-pastes from brochures.

this is how IA operates : release a note asking for RFP within 6 months of the date of release, with the requirements tailor-made for foreign products (not necessarily due to untoward motives but because the requirements are decided from a reading of arms industry brochures in the first place)

is 6 months a realistic timeframe for DRDO etc to develop a product ? is there any way a domestic product can be developed in such a situation, ever ? if there was any amount of foresight, a GSQR could easily have been forwarded to DRDO 3-4 years earlier.

but for the IA, (with some notable exceptions) it is always ad-hoc, always knee-jerk and then blame the bl**dy civilians @ DRDO for failing to create star-trek tech at chinese prices within the 'long' period of 3 years.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 18 Mar 2010 17:38

Sanku ji
twisting facts seems to be your idea of discussion. I said, one of the mission is to support defence forces and drdo has other missions to. It is not exists to solely cater to Armed forces though it takes that as predominant function.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 18 Mar 2010 17:45

Rahul M wrote:ASP sahab, why do you continue to push the strawman that DRDO et al asks the services to induct things they make rather than what the services ask for ? please name these systems that DRDO designed on its own without consulting the forces and is now trying to force on them ?

secondly, the forces themselves have no problem buying items designed in foreign countries to their requirements but it is portrayed as a heinous crime if DRDO does it. over the last 50-60 years frequently military technology has overtaken military requirements and the militaries have had to adjust to that jump.

after all, our forces have a dubious record when it came to setting technological requirements for future programs, especially the IA has a pathetic record in this regard, as many as 4 GSQR within the space of 22 years for the arjun project is beyond ridiculous ! for the most part, can we depend solely on the forces to dictate future technological routes, when even now the RFP's appear as cut-pastes from brochures.

this is how IA operates : release a note asking for RFP within 6 months of the date of release, with the requirements tailor-made for foreign products (not necessarily due to untoward motives but because the requirements are decided from a reading of arms industry brochures in the first place)

is 6 months a realistic timeframe for DRDO etc to develop a product ? is there any way a domestic product can be developed in such a situation, ever ? if there was any amount of foresight, a GSQR could easily have been forwarded to DRDO 3-4 years earlier.

but for the IA, (with some notable exceptions) it is always ad-hoc, always knee-jerk and then blame the bl**dy civilians @ DRDO for failing to create star-trek tech at chinese prices within the 'long' period of 3 years.

Bl**dy Civilians at DRDO? Imbeciles, and what not.

If you look through the past, IAF also got the cane for the same. Since ACM Fali major, the IAF has set a different course. Akash Missile has been inducted ( I remember one IAF walla quoting in press that Akash parts were falling from sky). LCA has charted its own course. MCA course is charted.

Army remains the odd man out, They clog all the think tanks and gymkhanas and of course, expect them to be at supremacy at DRDO too.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Mar 2010 17:56

FWIW, just one example of the brickbats Paulraj received while at DRDO :

http://indest.iitd.ac.in/alumni/Dist.%2 ... 0Award.htm

Scientist of the Year Award from DRDO in 1984

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 18 Mar 2010 18:44

^^^ Rahul, I have handed out many "service excellence awards" to employees in my company, when a pay hike or promotion would have been more appropriate but was refused by HR since it affected HR normalization/cost targets.

Get my drift?

PS - Hoping Sheldon Lobo from HR is no longer a member of BR.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 18 Mar 2010 18:59

I don’t think the Services would reject an indigenous equipment or system that meets the military’s need. It would be rather odd if equipment or a system that has met acceptable standards is being rejected!

Scepticism over DRDO can be attributed to four issues. One, they always claim that they have the expertise to produce whatever the Military indicates they want. Two, they can never meet their assured and guaranteed deadline. Three, they have more failures than successes. Four, the delay in producing the prototype is so large that the strategic and geopolitical environment has changed, prices ex import for that type of equipment has become astronomical and even if one wants to buys one will not be able to get the numbers that are required given the funds available and most importantly, while the military modifies it plans to incorporate the void for the period guaranteed by the DRDO for its product, inordinate delay beyond the guaranteed timeframe causes huge worries in retooling the plans to meet the challenges. (Now, if the country cannot wait further owing to the threat perception, one has to go in for ex import with its attendant accusation, conspiracy being bandied as in the Barak case. The Barak case indicates the DRDO mindset [where they claimed that though their equipment was ready, the Navy opted for ex import and this claim of the DRDO was proved false and malicious] and so the military has good reason to be sceptical. Barak is just one case)

Why do the military go for ex import? They go for this mode when they find that the DRDO is not true to its word and instead continue to make claims that they are on the verge of producing the prototype! This claim allows them greater funding and that has a huge input on administrative costs. Then there is the feeling of crying wolf too many a time.

The reason why the military has no problem in buying equipment from foreign counties is because they cannot maintain a yawning void in its defence preparedness and since indigenous equipment has no show on the horizon, it is either buy something compatible or leave the nation defenceless. What has to be done requires no second guessing!

I fail to understand why one feels the GSQR of the Arjun should not have changed, be it one or four times. In 25 years, it must be understood that the threat changed, strategic and geopolitical environment kept changing, the adversaries were getting better equipment than what the original GSQR and it successors aimed for and technologies changed. Therefore, should the Army hung onto the GSQR while the world and threat changed? Horse drawn transportation was used by the German and the Soviets in WW II. If they were successfully used, then would it be correct to feel that given the technological advancement thereafter, one should not modernise and be state of art?

It would be an incorrect premise to believe that the Military decides unilaterally deciding the timeframe for indigenous products. All concerned are consulted and so is the DRDO which is the main player in producing the prototype.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 18 Mar 2010 19:03

Nobody said GSQR should not change.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 18 Mar 2010 19:11

chackojoseph wrote:Nobody said GSQR should not change.

The change of GSQR repeatedly (sic!) has been mentioned many a time. Maybe you missed them in your excitement. I had replied this earlier but that too must have been missed!

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Mar 2010 19:21

^^^ Rahul, I have handed out many "service excellence awards" to employees in my company, when a pay hike or promotion would have been more appropriate but was refused by HR since it affected HR normalization/cost targets.

Get my drift?

not quite.
if what you say is true then again, it was the IN that played spoilsport and refused paulraj a well-deserved promotion since he was still an IN officer at the time and it was IN's decision whether to promote him ?
that again doesn't seem right for he got the VSM the year earlier.

also, DRDO scientist of the year is not a consolation prize of the type you are mentioning, it's quite a big deal to be given out in lieu of a missed promotion.
at the end of all, I don't see how we can conclude that Paulraj's award was anything other than genuine appreciation of his efforts. that he had no problems with DRDO in general is borne out by the fact that he continued in DRDO as director CAIR in his preferred field of study (remember that his original topic of interest was stochastic communication theory).

chackojoseph wrote:Nobody said GSQR should not change.

but four times in 22 odd years ? a GSQR is expected to hold for the next 20-25 years from the time it is issued with minor periodic updates, 15 years being worst cases.
why even have a GSQR then ? why not provide weekly requirement updates after each jane's issue is out ?

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 18 Mar 2010 19:30

Chacko, Im afraid that your "real examples" with X's and Y's are all baloney as far as Im concerned. Are you unaware of an equivalence policy at DRDO? If so, Im afraid the rest of your post becomes irrelevant.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Mar 2010 20:03

Kanson wrote:Sanku ji
twisting facts seems to be your idea of discussion. I said, one of the mission is to support defence forces and drdo has other missions to. It is not exists to solely cater to Armed forces though it takes that as predominant function.

Kanson ji; I dont have to twist facts for my arguments.

You have yourself said that DRDOs be all and end all is not to serve the forces per se, and I agreed, whats the pain that you see in that?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Mar 2010 20:05

Rahul M wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:Nobody said GSQR should not change.
but four times in 22 odd years ? a GSQR is expected to hold for the next 20-25 years from the time it is issued with minor periodic updates, 15 years being worst cases.

Rahul do you know a single GSQR which has been static for 22 years?

Heck a deployed product changes totally in 22 years.

You are taking an extreme stand to defend a clearly untenable position. Why bhai?

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 18 Mar 2010 20:17

ASPuar wrote:It seems that to certain segments on BR, DRDO can do no wrong. So there is no point trying to explain anything to them. I understand that you feel that they are supermen, while the services are idiots.

Well than for those certain segments let's give them more glory on how "commendable" DRDO is and an example of it

World's hottest chilli in a hand grenade

A defence spokesperson said scientists at the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) in Tezpur in northern Assam were making a trial run of the hand grenades and other repellents by using the bhut jolokia.

"The chilli grenade is a non-toxic weapon and when used would force a terrorist to come out of his hideouts as the smell is so pungent that it would literally choke them," R.B. Srivastava, a senior scientist and director of the DRDO, told IANS.

The DRDO scientists had already carried out trials for the hand grenades mixed with the world's hottest chilli and so far the tests have been satisfactory.

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

Now only if the trials Mature into REALITY and PRODUCTION!!! until then the DRDO minorities/majorities can hog at these JHOOL's

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 18 Mar 2010 20:34

Rahul M wrote:not quite.
if what you say is true then again, it was the IN that played spoilsport and refused paulraj a well-deserved promotion since he was still an IN officer at the time and it was IN's decision whether to promote him ?
that again doesn't seem right for he got the VSM the year earlier.

Rahul M ji,

Have you considered that maybe he was not due for promotion at that time? Out of turn promotions was not the policy at that time.

chackojoseph wrote:Nobody said GSQR should not change.

but four times in 22 odd years ? a GSQR is expected to hold for the next 20-25 years from the time it is issued with minor periodic updates, 15 years being worst cases.
why even have a GSQR then ? why not provide weekly requirement updates after each jane's issue is out ?

Do you mean to say that the IA should not revise GSQRs to take note of newer threats or doctrine changes?
22 years is a very long time for any threat to stay static!

What's wrong in revising GSQRs if the threat on the ground ( not from janes ) changes every week?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 18 Mar 2010 20:38

GSQR should be valid for all times to come if that is feasible. Yet, that is a pipedream in today’s rapidly changing geostrategic and geopolitical environment and the quantum jump of technology happening all around.

.303 British, or 7.7mmx56R, is a .311 inch calibre rifle and machine gun cartridge first developed in Britain in the 1880s as a blackpowder round, later adapted to use cordite and then smokeless powder propellant. It was the standard British and Commonwealth military cartridge from 1889 until the 1950s. Why did they change when it was OK for more than the time of 20 years as mentioned?

How come it lasted from 1880s till 1950? The reason is simple. Technology had not taken the desired quantum jump as is seen today and the .303 then was compatible to any other rifle that was there.

One has to be aware of the vast technological advancement that has occurred since the Strategic Defence Initiative. Should the IA sit pretty and not take cognisance, more so when the DRDO states that they are ready for it and even gives a timeframe?

Take the case of the INSAS. It is a fine rifle, but the military enthusiasts feel that India should adopt 6.8 instead!

One can visualise based on the current environment and foresee the future. However, one cannot legislate the change in the security environment or spurt in technological innovations.And not to be sensitive to it, is being plumb stupid.

Has one observed the quick pace in the change in technology after the SDI? Now, should the Indian military sit around and bury their heads in the sand like ostriches to show patriotic intent and not ask for change and which the DRDO states that they can.

There are those who claim that they are expert on tank technology and the changes taking place. Let them observe how quickly the technology for tanks are changing. What have they to say? Stand still or change?

So, it is rather odd if some people feel that IA should be in a timewrap. It is equally ridiculous to state that there has to be a weekly update!

Now onto understanding the threat over 20 years.

I wonder how many in the world, military and civilian thinkers and think tanks visualised 9/11 and the change it would bring to the geopolitical and geostrategic environment or that terrorists would be roaming around like vermin and Pied Pipers rats.

Or that China would become a capital oriented Nation and that would change the geostrategic and geopolitical matrix.

Did India visualise 1962 after Panch Sheel and Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai?

One has to be in the environment, teh vast change in technology that requires one to be 'current' to understand the issues.

I have been on the BRF long enough, but I never saw the brilliant thinkers here even have an inkling of what is up and what is going to happen even one year beyond!

Let's get realistic!

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 18 Mar 2010 20:50

Rahul M wrote:ASP sahab, why do you continue to push the strawman that DRDO et al asks the services to induct things they make rather than what the services ask for ? please name these systems that DRDO designed on its own without consulting the forces and is now trying to force on them ?

secondly, the forces themselves have no problem buying items designed in foreign countries to their requirements but it is portrayed as a heinous crime if DRDO does it. over the last 50-60 years frequently military technology has overtaken military requirements and the militaries have had to adjust to that jump.

after all, our forces have a dubious record when it came to setting technological requirements for future programs, especially the IA has a pathetic record in this regard, as many as 4 GSQR within the space of 22 years for the arjun project is beyond ridiculous ! for the most part, can we depend solely on the forces to dictate future technological routes, when even now the RFP's appear as cut-pastes from brochures.

this is how IA operates : release a note asking for RFP within 6 months of the date of release, with the requirements tailor-made for foreign products (not necessarily due to untoward motives but because the requirements are decided from a reading of arms industry brochures in the first place)

is 6 months a realistic timeframe for DRDO etc to develop a product ? is there any way a domestic product can be developed in such a situation, ever ? if there was any amount of foresight, a GSQR could easily have been forwarded to DRDO 3-4 years earlier.

but for the IA, (with some notable exceptions) it is always ad-hoc, always knee-jerk and then blame the bl**dy civilians @ DRDO for failing to create star-trek tech at chinese prices within the 'long' period of 3 years.

RahulM, everything in your post is a matter of your personal opinion, wherein your personal preferences and biases are obviously going to come about. Are you seriously suggesting that the General Staff and ARTRAC are such rank amateurs at their jobs, that they "read brochures", and issue RFP's?

Look, I respect you and all, but really, youd better have some very serious sources to be able to back up such outlandish claims, which are more likely than not, simply wild speculation!

If you say that the forces have a "pathetic" record in terms of "setting GSQR's", dont forget that GSQRs were set with a time frame for development in mind, and that time frame was quoted by DRDO itself. If they were subsequently unable to meet their commitments, that is not the fault of the armed forces.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 18 Mar 2010 20:53

chackojoseph wrote:
Army remains the odd man out, They clog all the think tanks and gymkhanas and of course, expect them to be at supremacy at DRDO too.

To the detriment of ChackoJoseph, I suppose.

No sour grapes evident in that statement above, Im pretty sure.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 18 Mar 2010 20:57

RayC wrote:The change of GSQR repeatedly (sic!) has been mentioned many a time. Maybe you missed them in your excitement. I had replied this earlier but that too must have been missed!

We have alleged that army changes GSQR to scuttle. If someone challenges the need to change GSQR, its not agreeable. I have been reading this for sometime, I actually do not see anyone challanging the "need" to change GSQR.

ASPuar,

I have said nothing to score an internet brownie.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 18 Mar 2010 21:00

Kanson wrote:
ASPuar wrote:Just remember, the DRDO WAS created, to provide the services with the equipment they want and need, according to their lights. The services were NOT created to use the equipment that DRDO produces. Think about that for a moment, and all else becomes clear.

Sir, fyi,
http://www.drdo.org/mission.shtml
Vision:
Make India prosperous by establishing world class science and technology base and provide our Defence Services decisive edge by equipping them with internationally competitive systems and solutions.

And one of the mission:
Develop infrastructure and committed quality manpower and build strong indigenous technology base.

I mainly trying to point out that, it is just not to serve Armed forces.

And all, I am not claiming superiority of one government service or anything else. But these are plain and simple facts. The providers of the national defence are the armed forces. Period. All other services in the MoD have been created to support them in fulfilling their mission. So the needs and requirements of the Armed Forces come first, above those of the ancillary backup service providers (whose role is invaluable, but the point is that it is not the main role and guiding purpose of the MoD).
Hope, you are aware of notion from all over the world that, with the defence equipment becoming more machine/computer/Artificial intelligence/Robotics etc intensive, half of the battle is won in developing defence systems in the lab and the rest of the war is won in the battlefield. With more and more unmanned war machinery with tread towards automation and AI, like in the movie Terminator III, it will be prudent to expect that in future machines will be fighting the war and the value of man behind the machine will go down gradually. I'm just presenting another thoughts/ideas just gaining ground. What i'm trying to say is every arm of defence is essential for the safety of this nation. Why to have a mentaility of pegging one above the other..

Kansonji, lets not clutch at straws. The job of the DRDO is to fulfill the Armed Forces requirements for defence technology. A vision and mission statement is a pretty weak thing to try to base your counterclaims upon. I too have a vision, that I will be saviour of the human race. But its not happening anytime soon. A man can dream, and so can an organisation. But they should stay within the bounds of what their job is. If the government of India had wanted them to become the engine of making India prosperous, they would have called them the "Indian research and development org", and not DRDO. They also wouldnt have placed them under the MOD. But since they havent, and this argument is clearly just hoping against hope, lets come back to reality, and understand what DRDO was created for, which was to provide the AF the tech that they require.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 18 Mar 2010 21:01

ASPuar wrote:Chacko, Im afraid that your "real examples" with X's and Y's are all baloney as far as Im concerned. Are you unaware of an equivalence policy at DRDO? If so, Im afraid the rest of your post becomes irrelevant.

Apusar, I considered your post as such. But, I refrained.

But, the respect for your opinion still holds. As said in the previous post, I do not want to score an brownie by spilling out something that is not needed.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 18 Mar 2010 21:10

chackojoseph wrote:
RayC wrote:The change of GSQR repeatedly (sic!) has been mentioned many a time. Maybe you missed them in your excitement. I had replied this earlier but that too must have been missed!
We have alleged that army changes GSQR to scuttle. If someone challenges the need to change GSQR, its not agreeable. I have been reading this for sometime, I actually do not see anyone challanging the "need" to change GSQR.

ASPuar,

I have said nothing to score an internet brownie.

CJ (if I might call you that, the handle is a bit long), I mean you no ill-will. The point I am making is, that the army has:

1. Experienced disrespect from the DRDO, especially in terms of equivalences, and ego clashes.
2. Not been satisfied with some of the products, but had trouble having its concerns addressed by DRDO.
3. Nevertheless, they have not complained about anything that they have actually been satisfied with.

DRDO has done much with little resources, and all recognise it. But it has also failed in many places.

We dont have an indigenously designed large caliber tube artillery piece. Ammo for 155mm guns has to be imported still. We dont have an indigenous 7,62mm UMG. We dont have a functional indigenous jet engine. Or tank engine. Or ship gas turbine. Or a number of other crucial technologies.

Its of the essence that we have HAPO bags, and IFG, and LCA, IGMDP, and Arjun, and INSAS, and even nice that we have leh-berry juice, and chilli grenades, but the fact is that we still need much more!

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 18 Mar 2010 21:15

There are those who claim that they are expert on tank technology and the changes taking place. Let them observe how quickly the technology for tanks are changing. What have they to say? Stand still or change?

One has to be in the environment, teh vast change in technology that requires one to be 'current' to understand the issues.

Of course, no arguments there. Just one comment:

How does the above attitude (and a very correct, professional and proactive one too!) result in IA plumping for about 1000 x T90, which provides no protection against the new challenges that have recently come about? If you are implying a revolutionary change in thinking (based on your SDI reference), how is the T90 "revolutionary"?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 18 Mar 2010 21:20

Tanaji wrote: How does the above attitude (and a very correct, professional and proactive one too!) result in IA plumping for about 1000 x T90, which provides no protection against the new challenges that have recently come about? If you are implying a revolutionary change in thinking (based on your SDI reference), how is the T90 "revolutionary"?

It's the only game in town ?