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

[Sanku]

Mrinal, I just hope that you are as quick to jump to IAs defence when the same behavior that you think less than satisfactory in ASPuar's post are seen in ad-hominum attacks against the IA; for far less logic.

A general balance would be appreciable, seems to be getting lost these days.

[Karan M]

^^
Nowhere have I called the Army names and nor do I do ad hominum (?) attacks on the Army or condone them. I support the Indian Army (who wouldnt). I replied here, because it is one thread I visited on doing a quick scan of all the topics and there was a IGMDP discussion about which I knew something I could contribute to. Otherwise, time and some other issues dont permit me to visit every topic, where I can, I would rather listen to what most people are saying and try to decipher their points of view.

My point was that if we tear ourselves into pieces in a fratricidal war pitting one GOI org against another, we end up as the loser.

[Sanku]

^^
Nowhere have I called the Army names and nor do I do ad hominum (?) attacks on the Army or condone them.

No my point is simple, I am not saying that you have attacked what I have said is as following

-----------------
Mrinal, I just hope that you are as quick to jump to IAs defence when the same behavior that you think less than satisfactory in ASPuar's post are seen in ad-hominum attacks against the IA by many others on the forum; for far less logic.

A general balance would be appreciable, seems to be getting lost these days.
----------------

Please also call out those who do ad-hominum attacks on IA, there are some here. And compared to their behavior, the post by ASP is of truly specific.

[Surya]

WRT to the Arjun and other DRDO-vs-Services discussions, I will suggest to all those who are so strongly in favour of DRDOs position vis a vis the services, please understand that anyone can be compromised, and even DRDO doesnt always tell the truth.

And please understand vice versa that Army comes from the same society - all is possible better ethos not withstanding

"RFP came from glossy janes brochures" (even some of our admins say these sorts of things, sadly, without any proof, and largely as a slur),

Col Kaul mentioned the same???

"possibility of sabotage of trials",

Renk put a datalogger- and rest is history

But dont forget, that the personnel of DGMF/IA/IAF/IN are professionals, and being soldiers, are so in a way that most other government departments will not understand. They armoured corps know their tanks. They are not idiots. They have to drive these weapons into battle, and have to be 100% convinced that they are the right tool for the job. That should be the final word on the matter.

and yet the DGMF made comments which could be argued with, try to push others in charge of reviewing (per Shukla )

Else, all this chaff about building national capacity etc can be defined very easily, viz.:
In the final calculus, it is a matter of who you want to trust. I trust our soldiers. They have not let us down. Ever. And they have already been treated badly by an ungrateful nation, and an actively useless government. I trust our troops over a bureaucrat anyday. What have the bureaucrats ever done, save for lord over the people, and steal from the public till? Our men in uniform deserve better. The rest, ie these discussions, are a question of semantics, As far as Im concerned.

red herring - we are not criticizing the soldiers, junior officers and many senior officers who have saved our bacon everytime

This is about a select few in a certain areas eg. Armor

are a question of semantics, As far as Im concerned

and thats why we differ



Just for record I would like that DRDO guy to be shot at, wearing the jackets he authorised. That will teach him and others a lesson.

[ASPuar]

Col Kaul mentioned the same???

Which Colonel Kaul, and so what? One mans word, against an entire army?

Renk put a datalogger- and rest is history

But of course it is in the interest of a manufacturer to make sure that no bad news ever leaks about its product. What was the result? Was "sabotage" ever proved? What is the history except for another murky mire of inconclusive accusations?

red herring - we are not criticizing the soldiers, junior officers and many senior officers who have saved our bacon everytime. This is about a select few in a certain areas eg. Armor

A far greater red herring than any which I might have laid across. This strategy of "We (who is we, by the way? Lets speak for ourselves, rather than seeking comfort in some larger feeling of a community of feelings) arent criticising X, but are criticising Y" is just divide and rule.

If this were actually true, you would speak in specifics about these few. But the debate here is a preposterous melange of generic accusations and vague aspersions, which have been objected to by SEVERAL of our colleagues on BR.

If "you" (and by this, I refer to the same consortium of persons whom you have referred to as "we") have a specific complaint against a specific person, say that. Dont make blanket assertions about our army, which IS what has been happening repeatedly. If "you" know of a documented, SPECIFIC person who referred to "glossy brochures", and issued an RFP (just for example), well, by all means let us know about him. But if you dont, please dont parrot these "blood libels" out here.

Indeed, if what "you" have written above is true, then let me see in every post that "you" make henceforth on this subject, a specific person mentioned, by name, rather than a generic tarring of our army/armed forces. There has been enough disrespect towards the honourable service of the tens of thousands of officers in the Indian Army, who are NOT involved in any conspiracy to do down "your" favorite armoured project, and are serving day and night in difficult conditions (both at the business end of warfare, and even in the MoD).

I think that I am making a reasonable request here. Noone can object, at least in the philosophical sense, to a specific allegation or objection to a specific person. So let us please stick to this, for the sake of a fair discussion.

Just for record I would like that DRDO guy to be shot at, wearing the jackets he authorised. That will teach him and others a lesson.

And that, is where we agree.

[Surya]

Which Colonel Kaul, and so what? One mans word, against an entire army?

LOL so first you said we pulled it out of our a$$ -but now that we show you that it is an Army person - you say so what???

Well that happens to be someone who has first hand experience of combat in Tin can and was known in the Army as a "straight shooter".

So when it suits you now cast doubts on a decorated veteran?????

How long are you going to keep spinning the yarn about an entire army. In this debate (Arjun) its not the entire army.

But of course it is in the interest of a manufacturer to make sure that no bad news ever leaks about its product. What was the result? Was "sabotage" ever proved? What is the history except for another murky mire of inconclusive accusations?

Renk submitted a report to the MOD - till thats ever open source - lets suffice to say after the datalogger was put in none of those breakdowns occurred



Rest of your self righteous rant - I am going to ignore plus no need to make this an Arjun thread - Cya in appropriate thread

[ASPuar]

With even greater respect, I was merely referring to the fact, that your rhetoric contributed little to the topic at hand and was at best as you described it "disingenuous and also illogical". Clearly, you had a case to make, but the manner in which you attempted to make it, all the while with rhetorical flourishes and continue with ("warm cocoon of self awarded moral superiority"), left and leaves a lot to be desired.

This is the DRDO and R&D thread. If that R&D goes awry, and is subverted in a manner which undermines the safety of jawans through an act of commission of a DRDO employee, I think that that news is important enough as a stand alone to be here. My contention is that the DRDO requires greater audit and accountability, and should be made more responsible for the projects that it commits to, especially to the Armed Forces. I am not making a one track argument only on the Arjun, as seems to be the focus point of many posters here.

I am sorry if you feel that my post does not satisfy.

Now perhaps, we could go to something more substantive?

And now that you have taken your rhetorical potshot of the day, yes, we can.

I would daresay that for all the words that you are bandying about, while enraged (and then imputing motives implying that you are the only one enraged while others suffer from moral relativism), you have failed to even read the amount of evidence posted in this forum.

Im sorry if my posts seem verbose, but this is how I write. Anyway, it would be better if you did not presume to impute emotions to me. The facts are the facts. The so called "evidence" posted in this, and other forums, doesnt satisfy me, and nor does it satisfy a vast spectrum of other posters. It is circumstantial, at best, and fabricated, at worst.

Here is an ex Army man himself pointing to how shoddily several GSQRs are written. Will you accuse him of moral relativism as well, of burying his hand in the sand, and covering up the truth or other such rhetorical insults?

This is simply a news report. It does not offer endorsement by an "ex army man" as his personal opinion. The job of the Comptroller and Auditor Generals dept is to find faults and highlight them.

If you like, read this article (by the same author quoted by you), entitled "DRDO: More failures than successes".

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... es/245203/

Will you now accuse him of being partisan?

Personages no less than the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, and the National Security Advisor have in their time, suggested that the CAG have greater audit powers over the DRDO. But, the DRDO's response to them was not very postive. Please read this article for an overview of what problems are known to exist within the DRDO:

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/will- ... do/16708/0

Not only has DRDO testified to the Standing Committee in January that it has more than sufficient auditing mechanisms, it wants less interference from the government, and even less accountability. In fact, in what the armed forces call preposterous, DRDO chief M Natarajan told the Standing Committee: “We intend examining the possibility of a structure similar to Space Commission/ Atomic Energy Commission to bring about greater autonomy in our functioning...This may take some time to evolve conceptually, before we could seek government approval for the same.”

• The highest monitoring body for DRDO, the DRDO Research Council (DRC), is in-house and under the control of the DRDO chief, who personally reviews its progress. DRDO has testified to the Standing Committee that it has “no scientific audit of DRDO projects as such”, and justified this by indicating the existence of feasibility studies for projects, decision aid for technology evaluation (DATE), in-house project peer reviews and post-project reviews.

• All DRDO projects costing more than Rs 2 crore are to be compulsorily “peer reviewed” by an expert committee for their viability. The Peer Review Committee (PRC) is necessarily an in-house mechanism.

• There are three-tier monitoring boards for all projects over Rs 100 crore. All these boards are under the aegis of the DRDO.

• This September, Army vice chief Lt Gen S Pattabhiraman reviewed 40 DRDO staff projects for the Army and found just three of them on track. Later, in the same month, DRDO chief Natarajan recommended to the Standing Committee that time extensions and cost increases be jointly endorsed with the services for government approval. In other words, DRDO would have sole control over projects but would rather not be accountable all alone.

• In its latest testimony, DRDO has said that accountability “cannot be fixed for loss of time in projects” and that slippages are due to “technological problems and not negligence”. Yet, on September 22, it officially asked the government for the freedom to recommend additional project authorizations, and that the Department of Defence Production (DDP) should ensure compliance.

• Given that the three services are the ones most visibly complaining about DRDO delays and results, DRDO has recommended that equipment trials be conducted by an independent test and evaluation agency, preferably with Integrated Defence Staff or DG Acquisition. In other words, DRDO doesn’t trust the armed forces but puts itself above all questioning.

I do hope that you will not now try to tell everyone on this board, that this is mere media hype, while your arguments are based on far superior information (culled from the same media sources, no less! )

If you would leave your outrage aside, and post with a clear head, you would realise that criticizing an organizations failures in process is not marking them out to be traitors or fundamentally dishonest.

Again, please do not presume to prescribe to me. If this is so, then you should not object to my criticism of the DRDO. I say that there is an institutional problem with DRDOs attitude to its work. Do you disagree? There is plenty of evidence in the open source media, to suggest that it is true. Especially when even the CAG of India, and the NSA, and even the defence minister have suggested reforms, let alone the three services.

I have myself seen several debates amongst service members who roundly criticize unrealistic GSQRs released on the basis of manufacturers claimed specifications. The humorous term, if you are unaware is referred to as "BBC" - Best of Brochure Claims

Alas, I am not aware of these humourous terms, as I am not privy to the rarefied environs in which you move. Im sure anyone can come up with them at a moments notice, even while typing out an angry response to a post on BR. My point being, that regardless of which drawing room you heard them in, they are of no relevance to a discussion on the topic. These are the types of vague assertion which are touted as facts here, and which I object to.

By the same standard, ASPuar, we have had several individuals from the services who have conciously chosen to break their oath to their fellow soldiers and their country. By your standards, one would hold the entire service accountable then!

In the armed forces, Mrinal, these people are punished, no matter how high their rank, and how exalted their position. How often do we see this in the bureaucracy, where power without accountability is the norm? (and yes, the DRDO is a bureaucracy, with an established service cadre, the Defence Research and Development Service (DRDS))

In this case, perhaps you are not aware, the person in question even threatened and browbeat his junior and attempted to get his own way. Would he have to do so if all were like him? How exactly do you think his antics were leaked out and bidders made aware that he was breaking the law.

In the event that you didnt read the article, its because he approached another bidder to try and extract some cash from that end. The other bidder filmed him.

Unlike your partisan method of pointing fingers - I would not rush to impute motives or imply that the entire organization is corrupt.

How truly noble of you. I shall now go crawl under a rock, and reflect upon my sins.

If you would rather point out substantive issues with the Arjun in specific or muster up any sort of overall critique of the product itself, or why the Army was rejecting it. These would have been proper responses, not alluding to one case of corruption, however despicable, and stating that it was all like this.

Well, I have no problem with the Arjun in the first place, so I think that this line of reasoning fails. I do have a problem with DRDOs record, and its lack of accountability to those it is supposed to support.

Let us not be disingenuous here & put words in other peoples mouths. My stand has been consistent, that while a grave incident, it is not by all means standard across the entire organization, whereas yours seems awash in stereotypes and generalizations, and extends it to an entirely different topic.

So you would tell us that DRDO has no problems at all, delivers all its projects in time, and satisfies the consumer completely? Tell another one, Mrinal!

The government itself is saying that almost ALL the DRDO prestige projects are unacceptably delayed, and that DRDO should take responsibility for this and fix it. The CAG is saying that DRDO refuses to subject to full audit. Is this all not a sign of institutional resistance to accountability?

Sir - first things first, why is the DRDO being called a bureaucracy, when it is a scientific and development organization wherein the bureaucracy is in support of the technologists as it should be. One daresays that if we count the number of people in staff and support functions e.g. the commonly accepted definition of bureaucracy, there would be more people in the Army serving such a role than in the DRDO, CSIR or MOD.

1. The DRDO is staffed by an organised group A civil service, the Defence Research and Development Service (DRDS). It is a civil and not a defence service.

2. It is organised along secretariat lines, with Secretary DRDO at its head, as a member of the DRDS Group A.

3. There are more officers in the army than in the DRDO, MOD or CSIR. Whats your point? By this reasoning, there are more officers in the Army than in the IAS, so IAS officers are not bureaucrats, but the Army is a bureaucracy? Wow. Reductio Ad Absurdum (See, I know a little latin too! )

Please do take the time to read through my post carefully, Mrinal. Time is short, but I have answered all of your assertions as faithfully as I can.

[ASPuar]

LOL so first you said we pulled it out of our a$$ -but now that we show you that it is an Army person - you say so what???

Well that happens to be someone who has first hand experience of combat in Tin can and was known in the Army as a "straight shooter".

So when it suits you now cast doubts on a decorated veteran?????

How long are you going to keep spinning the yarn about an entire army. In this debate (Arjun) its not the entire army.

In the first place, profanity only suggests frustration. I know who Colonel Kaul is, and he has had a hard time. I personally, in fact, know the General who made sure he was retained in the Army, and ensured (in the face of opposition from the MoD, no less), that he got an MVC. But none of that means that everything he says is gospel truth. So Colonel Kaul said so, big deal. He said a lot of things, but that doesnt mean that every one of them was meant as a quotable quote. Ask him again if he meant that literally, or not, and then we will see.

Renk submitted a report to the MOD - till thats ever open source - lets suffice to say after the datalogger was put in none of those breakdowns occurred

So, the report isnt released, but hey, let us not let that get in the way of rumour, surmise, and slander. Wonderful.

Rest of your self righteous rant - I am going to ignore plus no need to make this an Arjun thread - Cya in appropriate thread

Good, because I wasnt talking about the Arjun, except as a side reference, to the main point that DRDO needs a complete overhaul, and a much higher dose of accountability. On the other hand, the Arjun issue seems to be the one and only MBT (Main Blathering Theme) as far as "you" (I use it in the collectivized sense, of course) are concerned.

PS: Posting a news article that you dont like is not ranting. Its just an article. So relax.

[Surya]

What are we in KG??

Thats profanity
No my friend - no frustration

Frustration would be explained with @$$#@%@#^


Its funny to see you want specific names - yet every one of your posts is peppered with babus, bureaucracy, yada yada

Your best contribution is " trust them they know best".

Sorry ain't gonna happen this side of the border.

As for the Renk report - as we have said - no problems reported since.

Meanwhile feel free to ask MOD - oh but those are babus - they may have a motive

[somnath]

The DRDO-Army relationship is an extremely complicated one, dogged by decades of not-so-good blood...In fact right from the very begining, the services were not willing to cut any slack to a fledgling defence R&D setup..Raj Chengappa mentions quite a few instances in his "Weapons of Peace"..My favourite one is where the DRDO Chief is told by the COAS - "how does it matter if we fight with Indian-made or foreign weapons, as long as we win the war"? And the DRDO chief replied - "well then why even endanger Indian lives , why dont we get some foreigners to fight our battles?"

It might sound facetious, but a country of India's size and ambitions cannot but have a large MIC...The latest numbers from SIPRI showing how India is becoming the consistent largest importers of defence h/w is a sad reflection on us..And the services need to take their full share of the blame, as much as DRDO is (mostly justifiably) pilloried for the state of affairs...

The reorganisation carried out in the DRDO recently is a step in the right direction..they need to focus on a few things and attempt to be the cuttign edge there...About the rest, JVs are the way to go..Which is exactly what is happening..The services too need to understand that none of the marquee platforms used by militaries worldwide - Abram or Merkava tanks, Mig21/F16 fighters, M16 rifles - were inducted without serious controversies over performance..But the US/Israeli/Russian militaries did not junk the products - they inducted them, persisted with them and demanded and got improvements...The Indian military has been singularly abject on this count (with the exception of the Navy)...Especially in the last 7-8 years when they have preferred to send money back each year to the Consolidated Fund of India than to spend at least a part of it in inducting indigeneous equipment...

Arjun is not the right example maybe (I think IA has doctrinal issues with it), but be it Akash, Abhay, LUH and tons and tons of other projects, the recalcitrance has been galling...

Thankfully, things are changing for the better, and there is a realisation that domestic stuff needs to be patronised, even if its not 100%, but only 80%..

ASPuar, your constant allusions on how the services are a near-perfect organisation wrt integrity and competence is simply not true, as most if not all servicemen themselves will vouch..As are your constant rants against all civvie establishments as corrupt and incompetent...And yes, one more thing..All organisations have "bureaucracies", in the negative sense of the word...Including the military and Google..I remember many years back in B-school a couple of batchmates did an interetsing study of the Army bureaucracy and organisation..The bureaucracy exists, and has its own set of issues...

If you think that the Indian services are "bureaucracy-free", well, you need to seriously study the way organisations are structured and worked.

[Ashish J]

FINSAS news...


http://www.soldiertechindia.com/

Some Action taking place

[Bheem]

I wonder why DRDO did not change guidance methods with Trishul when it was facing so much difficulty with 3 beam guidance. How has Israel got barak and Russians/Soviets got SA-8 to work? From open sources it seems that Maitri is another Brahmos or Dhruv in which everything is foreign except the label.

I think due to lack of funding and lack of confidence on ourselves we don't pursue multiple lines of R&D. I believe that OFB should develop 'evolutionary' systems derived from license manufactured items and DRDO should develop 'revolutionary' systems which require deeper R&D. They both should involve pvt and foreign partners whereever required without hesitation. The R&D funds need to tripled and handed out to PSUs, Pvt Sector and also OFB apart from DRDO.

[ASPuar]

What are we in KG??

Thats profanity
No my friend - no frustration

Frustration would be explained with @$$#@%@#^

Dont ask me. Perhaps you hold yourself to different standards. There are certain words I just dont use in polite company.

Its funny to see you want specific names - yet every one of your posts is peppered with babus, bureaucracy, yada yada

Your best contribution is " trust them they know best".

Sorry ain't gonna happen this side of the border.

As for the Renk report - as we have said - no problems reported since.

Meanwhile feel free to ask MOD - oh but those are babus - they may have a motive

Whats funny, actually, is seeing you foam at the mouth at every little thing that you dont agree with. And yet again, this amorphous "we". Dont feel confident enough to speak just for yourself? Need to bring your "backers" into an argument, before starting one?

No problems reported since, could also mean that the claims of sabotage were fraud from the beginning, and once the Army said it wasnt working, the problem was fixed.

Aint working THIS side of the border? What exactly is your meaning? That because we have an army that protects weirdos like you, so that they can say whatever they want, you will compare them to people "across" the border? Enough with the insults to the forces already.

Your posts cite no specifics. When you have some, come back to the discussion, instead of attempting to insult those who demand that you back your words up with some proof beyond mere conjecture.

In the meantime, lets hear what "you" have to say, instead of your telling me what all those people holding your hand think.

[ASPuar]

ASPuar, your constant allusions on how the services are a near-perfect organisation wrt integrity and competence is simply not true, as most if not all servicemen themselves will vouch..As are your constant rants against all civvie establishments as corrupt and incompetent...And yes, one more thing..All organisations have "bureaucracies", in the negative sense of the word...Including the military and Google..I remember many years back in B-school a couple of batchmates did an interetsing study of the Army bureaucracy and organisation..The bureaucracy exists, and has its own set of issues...

If you think that the Indian services are "bureaucracy-free", well, you need to seriously study the way organisations are structured and worked.

Thank you for the homework, however, I do know a little bit about both the civil and the defence services, and heck, Ive even been to B-School, so I think Ill pass on this assignment, thanks.

In the first place, pointing out the documented shortcomings of an organisation does not translate to "ranting". If the CAG says that the DRDO needs to open itself to audit, and the DRDO says it doesnt, hey, given the DRDOs record on delivering on promised projects, I think Ill go with the CAG, thank you very much. I too would like to know what the publics money is being spent on. DRDO is even exempt from answering a large number of queries under the RTI act, unlike the Army, which is completely under it. So more transparency? I can see nothing wrong with it!

In the second instance, please dont set up straw men, Somnath. Nowhere do I say that the services are A) Perfect, B ) Bureaucracy free. Theyre simply better than all the other government services out there, in terms of accountability, detecting and punishing corruption, and expeditiousness of decisionmaking.

[negi]

From open sources it seems that Maitri is another Brahmos or Dhruv in which everything is foreign except the label.

Speaking of label which one do you drink ?

Maitri is supposed to be a JV may be on similar lines as Brahmos , Dhruv is not a JV . As for foreign content vs indigenous you need to google up .

[Karan M]

This is the DRDO and R&D thread. If that R&D goes awry, and is subverted in a manner which undermines the safety of jawans through an act of commission of a DRDO employee, I think that that news is important enough as a stand alone to be here. My contention is that the DRDO requires greater audit and accountability, and should be made more responsible for the projects that it commits to, especially to the Armed Forces. I am not making a one track argument only on the Arjun, as seems to be the focus point of many posters here.

That would be indeed a fair point, but for the fact that while going through this thread, I noticed this news had already been posted, and doing a search revealed a prior debate as well, so clearly, as you can infer there would be no objection to raising a pertinent topic of this nature.

The issue was that you extended this one incident to the claim that the entire organization was more or less like this, that it was bureaucrats who do stuff like this, and hence the Arjun case was similar and the DGMF was right as he was a soldier and a professional, whereas those disagreeing with him werent.

Now this is where I would differ with you.

If your contention was merely about project management and accountability, it would have been made via an analysis of projects and where they went astray, if it was corruption, you would have pointed to this particular issue as being of import.

However, when you mix up all these issues and then insinuate that the entire organization is defined by one incident, then sir - I am afraid you dont make any sense whatsoever, and such leaps of logic need to be backed up with more than your dislike of babus.

I am sorry if you feel that my post does not satisfy.

I hope I have explained why.

Im sorry if my posts seem verbose, but this is how I write. Anyway, it would be better if you did not presume to impute emotions to me. The facts are the facts. The so called "evidence" posted in this, and other forums, doesnt satisfy me, and nor does it satisfy a vast spectrum of other posters. It is circumstantial, at best, and fabricated, at worst.

Would you now be implying that the actions of the Army post Tehelka were fabricated viz. cases of corruption? Also, that the CAGs comments were circumstantial and fabricated?

I can well understand that you may disagree with the CAG - but I would like to understand why you believe they were wrong in this specific case (besides the fact that they are babus).

Also, if the former, I would disagree that the Armys actions were based on any sort of circumstantial or fabricated evidence. They were based on a clear case of corrupt behaviour as was determined by the Tehelka expose.

This is simply a news report. It does not offer endorsement by an "ex army man" as his personal opinion. The job of the Comptroller and Auditor Generals dept is to find faults and highlight them.

Ajai Shukla ran a three part series in Business Standard based on the CAG. Would he do so if he did not think the report had merit.

Furthermore, if as you state, it is the job of the CAG to find faults and highlight them - then you agree these were faults in the Army's GSQRs? Including making specs based on brochures and glossies?

Come now, you cant have it both ways, can you sir.

If you like, read this article (by the same author quoted by you), entitled "DRDO: More failures than successes".

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... es/245203/

Will you now accuse him of being partisan?

Yes, I have read the article.

It must also be noted that this article dates from 2006 & he has since written several insightful articles on both private industry and DRDO and their contribution to the indian defence setup, wherein he highlights their positives as well as weaknesses.

His recent articles are in fact, more balanced vis a vis DRDO, wherein he does not take such an eye catching stand -"more failures than successes" - which I think is in part due to the fact that he has had opportunity to explore the topic in depth. A relevant case in point would be the Arjun, which he outright dismissed earlier but now supports ardently, based on its merits, which he determined via detailed interaction via those who operate it, from the 43 AR.

As regards the Army (and MODs) procurement policies he continues to be critical, again - if he changes his stand, we would know.

Either ways, I do not dismiss his points as circumstantial or fabricated or even refuse to consider the fact that he may have a point of view.

The point is to investigate what he writes, irrespective of whether it is positive or negative, and come to our own conclusion.

Would that approach not be better than the one you have taken so far - which seems to imply that a) the fault viz. procurement issues entirely lies with the babu staffed DRDO which has accountability issues b) little to none whatsover with the Army.

Personages no less than the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, and the National Security Advisor have in their time, suggested that the CAG have greater audit powers over the DRDO. But, the DRDO's response to them was not very postive. Please read this article for an overview of what problems are known to exist within the DRDO:

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/will- ... do/16708/0

I am aware of this series of articles on the DRDO. Unfortunately, their are several factual inaccuracies in the report. Would you wish me to list them? It is unfortunately, not a very good reference document.

But let us assume in order to bolster your arguement, that every word they have said is accurate.

With that in mind, are these issues being addressed? That they are.

In case you are unaware, the DRDO is being restructured according to the recommendations of a committee (link given below in the reply).

So clearly, the DRDO was held accountable and steps are being taken to streamline their functioning.

Would you be able to point me to a similar study done for the Army's procurement practises and how it is being similarly reformed?

I have no objection to any GOI agency being asked to perform better, I would only suggest that any critique of the Army's processes be not dismissed out of hand, as you have done.

I do hope that you will not now try to tell everyone on this board, that this is mere media hype, while your arguments are based on far superior information (culled from the same media sources, no less! )

No, if I were to do so, I would be using your debating tactics.

It is interesting though that you quote the Army in the above article, because these are the Vice Chiefs latest comments as quoted by the aforesaid media. Incidentally these are from 2010, and not 2006 or 2005 etc.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 706939.cms

Vice-Chief of Army Staff Lt General P C Bharadwaj on Saturday said India had a long-term plan to indigenously manufacture all major defence equipment used in combat zones as part of its modernisation programme.
.............
"Modernisation is a very high priority matter. We are looking up to 2027. All the services (Army, Navy and Airforce) have drawn up their plans," Bharadwaj told reporters on the sidelines of the passing out parade at Officers Training Academy. He said India has progressed in a big way in making indigenous defence equipment like Brahmos supersonic cruise missile and said a lot of technical equipment used in battle is being produced indigenously.

Where exactly do you think the bulk of this technical equipment is coming from, if not the DRDO? The product he refers to - the Brahmos - is in specific from a DRDO JV.

The point about delays is exactly why we (as in members of the board who are raising this issue) are asking for better organizational structure from the Army side, so that they can work closely and in a more coordinated manner with the DRDO (or any other industry/unit) to deliver products in an effective manner.

That would address your point about accountability as well. In this case, accountability would be fixed not by your hated, incompetent babus (whether they be the CAG or any other) but by the men from the Army itself. Would that not be what you want?

Again, please do not presume to prescribe to me. If this is so, then you should not object to my criticism of the DRDO. I say that there is an institutional problem with DRDOs attitude to its work. Do you disagree? There is plenty of evidence in the open source media, to suggest that it is true. Especially when even the CAG of India, and the NSA, and even the defence minister have suggested reforms, let alone the three services.

I am not presuming to prescribe to you.

I am merely replying to your rhetoric with a point of view that does not dovetail cent per cent with yours. Is that unacceptable?

The point that I am trying to make is that merely cursing, denigrating or running down the DRDO does little to improve its effectiveness in any manner, as compared to dispassionately analyzing both stakeholders in the process and suggesting possible improvements.

Merely stating that one side has incompetent babus, and the other professionals, does not make for a convincing analysis.

Its also somewhat interesting that you note the CAG of India, the Defence Minister et al. are criticizing the DRDO. But they have, at different times criticized the Army as well.

The CAG, as you'd note - and which point you have not addressed - points out glaring deficiencies in the manner in which the Army sets out GSQRs, orders its equipment and chooses which equipment to order. If the Defence Minister is to be spoken of, then the same Defence Minister has personally intervened in recent times to ask the Army to do something about the Sukhna imbroglio, which raises questions about accountability wherein the DM had to intervene.

Clearly things are not as black and white as you are stating them to be.

If the CAG - as you refer to them - "personages no less than" - have pointed to deficiencies within the Army procurement system, then would you not agree that there are problems with the Army system as well, which contribute to whats happening with cases like the Arjun.

The point is to resolve things to make them better, not seek scapegoats whereupon no improvement ever results, and finger-pointing is the usual result.

Alas, I am not aware of these humourous terms, as I am not privy to the rarefied environs in which you move. Im sure anyone can come up with them at a moments notice, even while typing out an angry response to a post on BR. My point being, that regardless of which drawing room you heard them in, they are of no relevance to a discussion on the topic. These are the types of vague assertion which are touted as facts here, and which I object to.

Given your command over English, which suggests a good education, and your references to your relatives in the armed forces, I am sure that you are privy to several rarefied environs, far more than I, and there is nothing wrong in that.

So lets not bandy words about environs.

Furthermore, you would be mistaken if you think that I came up with the term on a moments notice - for I am not so quick witted, I have heard this term from quite some time back. If I may mention the context, perhaps it would be clearer.

The context was of an officer who joked that he had been once asked to learn from BBC to improve his english, and many years thence he was being asked to learn from "BBC - Best of Brochure Claims" again, when asked to ook at an unrealistic GSQR drawn up by someone else.

Now, you may very well object to them, but I would suggest they are of relevance to the topic, given the context in which they were made, and "no less a personage" than the CAG suggests they are of relevance.

The point that I was making, rather than dwelling who said what, irrespective of whether it be the DM or the CAG or you and I, is that the Army needs a dedicated organization of its own, to rival those achieved in the Indian Navy, to keep apace with weapons development, and define and develop its own platforms to meet its needs.

As things stand, one section of the Army is in support of the Arjun, another dislikes it, while all the documentary evidence states that the product works, and was made to a GSQR defined by the Army itself.

In the armed forces, Mrinal, these people are punished, no matter how high their rank, and how exalted their position. How often do we see this in the bureaucracy, where power without accountability is the norm? (and yes, the DRDO is a bureaucracy, with an established service cadre, the Defence Research and Development Service (DRDS))

People are punished in the bureaucracy as well, ASPuar. And as they say "absolute power, leads to abuse" - and this is true of the services as well as the DRDO or any other organization.

Now unfortunately, I would rather not cite many cases on this point since I really dont believe in muck raking about a honourable institution which despite the occasional bad apple does a fine job with its constraints.

As I said, the issue is beyond that of taking sides.

In the event that you didnt read the article, its because he approached another bidder to try and extract some cash from that end. The other bidder filmed him.

Perhaps then if you read the other articles, the point that I raised may well have been quoted about him abusing his junior and bragging about it. Would he have to do so, and risk exposure about his aims if all were "corrupt babus" like him? Clearly if his female junior were like him, she would not need to be threatened, but would be hand in glove with him.

Furthermore, if the case is to be made about how such people exist, we have already seen e.g. the case of the corrupt officers in the Tehelka scam. That they could survive in such a strict Army for so long indicates how the occasional bad apple slips through the cracks and manipulates the organization to their advantage.

How truly noble of you. I shall now go crawl under a rock, and reflect upon my sins.

Have I asked you to do such a thing, sir?

I would rather that you approached a debate with the purpose of understanding what others are saying, instead of seeking absolutes in the form of those that critique are necessarily anti-Army.

Well, I have no problem with the Arjun in the first place, so I think that this line of reasoning fails. I do have a problem with DRDOs record, and its lack of accountability to those it is supposed to support.

If you did not have a problem with the Arjun, then why exactly did you raise it in the original post?

Pardon me for thinking though, that your statements about how professional the DGMF was, and how he & his peers were automatically right, vis a vis the Arjun (which as it was developed by the babus at DRDO was necessarily suspect), were to a different tangent altogether, because thats what they came across as.

As far as the DRDOs record and accountability are concerned, the issues I and others raise, are exactly to that point wherein the DRDOs record with several programs were the user was associated closely, were key successes.

This is also a case with the DRDO & entities such as the Army Corp of Signals, which has received a very large EW systems project from the DRDO.

Which is the point of the debate, wherein we were pointing out the ad hocism in some procurement actions which goes against this end state.

So you would tell us that DRDO has no problems at all, delivers all its projects in time, and satisfies the consumer completely? Tell another one, Mrinal!

Now where did I say that - I said that extending a single case of corruption as representative of the entire organization was wrong.

Nowhere did I say - that "the DRDO has no problems at all, delivers all its projects in time, and satisfies the consumer completely". No - these are words, you are attempting to put in my mouth, in order to hide the fact that your original claim was pretty illogical and could not be held upto scrutiny.

Clearly, you are not willing to admit that - and have brought this tangent in. Be as it may, despite your rather insistent attempts to speak for me & say what I never did, I would only point out that even here, what I & other posters referred to, was different. Namely, greater organization & systemic improvement on the Army end plus the DRDOs, as the former would also improve the DRDOs contribution to delivering products on time and budget to the Army,by a great extent.

The government itself is saying that almost ALL the DRDO prestige projects are unacceptably delayed, and that DRDO should take responsibility for this and fix it. The CAG is saying that DRDO refuses to subject to full audit. Is this all not a sign of institutional resistance to accountability?

The Govt also says that almost all the key Army procurement actions are delayed. Are these all issues at the MOD end itself?

Perhaps you are unaware but the CAG also includes the Army in its performance audit, including such issues such as:

http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/jul/ ... t-scam.htm

Wherein the Army commands misused financial powers to procure golf carts (which I presume are not exactly operational requirements - any other light vehicle may at least have a dual tasking).

So let us not pretend that the CAG is in some how full acquiescence with the Army & not vis a vis the DRDO. The reality is that both organizations could do with improved processes and streamlining, and the occasional dash of accountability.

Now, again - did the CAG subject the Indian Army to full audit? Did it audit each HQ, each formation each unit? If not, why not? Does this indicate as you say "systemic resistance to accountability" as you would infer?

I would disagree as IMHO, the reason is much simpler. The reason is time & manpower. The reason why the DRDO & for that matter even the Army would object to such scrutiny is not merely because of the CAG digging up embarrassing tidbits about their respective organizations, but because audits are a tremendous time sink, in terms of paper work, documentation and evaluating each and every project. Hence representative projects are chosen & evaluated.

Whatever mistakes are made, and observed are then picked up by the Public Accounts Committee, which then asks the MOD to act on it, if it cannot receive a proper response from the MOD.

So as you see, whether it be the DRDO or the Army, the process followed is the same, and this business of "now lets believe in the CAG as it critiques DRDO", lets not talk of the CAG when it says "GSQRs are thanks to glossies" - does not exactly work.

Now coming to what actionable things are happening from prior critique of the DRDO, which would be a reasonable question, we have this:

http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=37794

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) Review Committee constituted by the Government to suggest measure for improving the functioning of DRDO inter alia Ministry of Defence, and Services has submitted its report to the Government on 05th March 2008. It is under study of the Government.

There had been delays in some of the DRDO projects due to some genuine difficulties, like technical complexities, technological embargo/sanctions, non-availability of infrastructure within the country, extended and long lasting user trials, revision of systems specification during development phase, etc. Besides many constraints, DRDO had equipped Services with state-of-the-art technologies in the field of strategic systems, battle tanks, electronic warfare and communication systems, armour and armaments, life support systems, naval systems, missile systems, aerospace systems, etc.

DRDO is developing only defence –critical / denied technologies and strategic systems. In this area, DRDO has ensured 100 % self – reliance. As far as the tactical systems are concerned, DRDO is responsible for design, development, trials & evaluation as and when tasked by Government. Acceptance of DRDO developed systems and their subsequent production and induction depends on Users and identified production agencies, Defence Public Sector Undertakings (DPSUs) and Ordnance Factories (OFs). Achieving self-reliance is a responsibility that has to be met through national effort by DPSUs, OFs, Private industries and DRDO jointly. DRDO works with the production agencies to resolve the major problems during the production.

This information was given by the Defence Minister Shri AK Antony in a written reply to Shri BK Hariprasad in Rajya Sabha today.

So as you can see, action is being taken to improve the DRDO, and the Defence Minister's take on DRDO is more nuanced than you implied it was, wherein he acknowledges "There had been delays in some of the DRDO projects due to some genuine difficulties, like technical complexities, technological embargo/sanctions, non-availability of infrastructure within the country, extended and long lasting user trials, revision of systems specification during development phase, etc. "...

Now in particular note the last bit - the "extended and long lasting user trials, revision of systems specification during development phase" - this is exactly what I was referring to when I posted previously.

While, issues such as technical complexities, tech embargo, infra are clearly out of our (India's) control, the last two can definitely be addressed (to whatever extent posssible) via better Army-DRDO cooperation.

The revision of systems specification alludes to the topic in question, which are improperly framed GSQRs - which as has been noted, are often unrealistic and do not meet operational needs.

1. The DRDO is staffed by an organised group A civil service, the Defence Research and Development Service (DRDS). It is a civil and not a defence service.

2. It is organised along secretariat lines, with Secretary DRDO at its head, as a member of the DRDS Group A.

3. There are more officers in the army than in the DRDO, MOD or CSIR. Whats your point? By this reasoning, there are more officers in the Army than in the IAS, so IAS officers are not bureaucrats, but the Army is a bureaucracy? Wow. Reductio Ad Absurdum (See, I know a little latin too! )

The issue is not of merely calling it a bureaucracy - but the manner in which you implied that DRDO was merely a bureaucracy and hence worth a whit, as babus/bureaucrats contributed nothing, whereas the point I was making was that your words were a broad bush stereotype about a scientific organization with a support bureaucracy.

As regards your point 3 - thats the point about bandying words, since clearly the statement was a bit absurd to begin with and did not even have to be reduced to absurdity in any manner, hence my point.

On the one hand the word bureaucrat is bandied about derogatorily - and then you now raise the term officers. What now, since the IAS has officers aka babus, and the Army has them, the Army deserves contempt as well? Its gets quite confusing, real fast, and I daresay, quite irrelevant as well.

An amusing sidenote, if I may, is the manner in which you brought up the issue of civil service staffing & completely sidestepped the actual point about scientists vs the commonly accepted understanding of bureaucrats - well, to be honest, that was quite babu like. Perhaps you have some common ground with these gentlemen after all and need not detest them with such spirit.

Please do take the time to read through my post carefully, Mrinal. Time is short, but I have answered all of your assertions as faithfully as I can.

I have indeed read through it, and answered faithfully in turn.

[Karan M]

I wonder why DRDO did not change guidance methods with Trishul when it was facing so much difficulty with 3 beam guidance. How has Israel got barak and Russians/Soviets got SA-8 to work? From open sources it seems that Maitri is another Brahmos or Dhruv in which everything is foreign except the label.

I think due to lack of funding and lack of confidence on ourselves we don't pursue multiple lines of R&D. I believe that OFB should develop 'evolutionary' systems derived from license manufactured items and DRDO should develop 'revolutionary' systems which require deeper R&D. They both should involve pvt and foreign partners whereever required without hesitation. The R&D funds need to tripled and handed out to PSUs, Pvt Sector and also OFB apart from DRDO.

I will answer your first question in reply to Vina.

However, what is Maitri - is it SRSAM? Googling seems to suggest so. Please clarify.

If so, the SRSAM will have substantial Indian contribution and MBDAs contribution would be primarily around assistance on the seeker and some aspects of the missile design and integration.

The SRSAM system will be configured around Indian equipment, including radars, ground systems and support equipment.

[Karan M]

In the first place, pointing out the documented shortcomings of an organisation does not translate to "ranting".

Exactly - so hopefully you will not have any issues with those of us raising pertinent questions about the Army procurement system and its documented shortcomings.

If the CAG says that the DRDO needs to open itself to audit, and the DRDO says it doesnt, hey, given the DRDOs record on delivering on promised projects, I think Ill go with the CAG, thank you very much.

Then logically speaking, you would also agree then about the CAGs comment about some of the IA's GSQRs coming from brochures and glossies, and go with it as well. We can then move onto exploring possible solutions, as compared to wondering whether such a well documented problem exists to begin with.

I too would like to know what the publics money is being spent on. DRDO is even exempt from answering a large number of queries under the RTI act, unlike the Army, which is completely under it. So more transparency? I can see nothing wrong with it!

Absolutely nothing wrong with transparency, and the RTI act is a good step in that direction. I do hope that we even implement electronic documentation and that the RTI becomes hassle free and more accessible to the public.

One concern though about putting the DRDO under the RTI act is that it needs to be done with some finesse. Would we like the information to be disclosed f.e. that we are working on a certain munition, or the extent of the DRDO-DAE relationship or that we are even exploring certain technology?

One of the unfortunate side effects of the media campaign vis a vis the DRDO amid calls for "greater transparency" were that programs like the BMD one indeed became transparent. I would rather that such programs were kept under wraps, and the general taxpayer, including I, just told about innumerable Prithvi tests, till the actual system was near deployment.
Whereupon its being revealed would come so late in the day, that the opponent would have lost several years of lead time in planning to counter it.

Hence, if the RTI is to be extended to DRDO, care needs to be taken that the information revealed does not affect our advantages and that adequate manpower is kept in place for such requests so that a project lead is able to dedicate time to his actual work, than answering a thousand questions.

[Surya]

Perhaps you hold yourself to different standards.

absolutely - me no Eric Margolis

No problems reported since, could also mean that the claims of sabotage were fraud from the beginning, and once the Army said it wasnt working, the problem was fixed.

But Renk never applied any fix

Rest of your rant - could not care what you think of me. You are the only uber patriot here and that should be enough.

[Bheem]

From open sources it seems that Maitri is another Brahmos or Dhruv in which everything is foreign except the label.

Speaking of label which one do you drink ?

Maitri is supposed to be a JV may be on similar lines as Brahmos , Dhruv is not a JV . As for foreign content vs indigenous you need to google up .

I wonder whether you smoke the stuff in your signature line before posting here? you need to know way more about Dhruv, JV is just a new nomenclature which appears cool.

[Bheem]

I wonder why DRDO did not change guidance methods with Trishul when it was facing so much difficulty with 3 beam guidance. How has Israel got barak and Russians/Soviets got SA-8 to work? From open sources it seems that Maitri is another Brahmos or Dhruv in which everything is foreign except the label.

I think due to lack of funding and lack of confidence on ourselves we don't pursue multiple lines of R&D. I believe that OFB should develop 'evolutionary' systems derived from license manufactured items and DRDO should develop 'revolutionary' systems which require deeper R&D. They both should involve pvt and foreign partners whereever required without hesitation. The R&D funds need to tripled and handed out to PSUs, Pvt Sector and also OFB apart from DRDO.

I will answer your first question in reply to Vina.

However, what is Maitri - is it SRSAM? Googling seems to suggest so. Please clarify.

If so, the SRSAM will have substantial Indian contribution and MBDAs contribution would be primarily around assistance on the seeker and some aspects of the missile design and integration.

The SRSAM system will be configured around Indian equipment, including radars, ground systems and support equipment.

Maitri is SRSAM. As I understand the seeker & data link represents 80% cost of the missile. If the help is in design then it should be welcomed but if a imported missile (or most its components) is packaged as JV then it is another fraud, how so ever we put it.

[Kanson]

So its boils down to what capabilities you want. You must have heard of IR guidance for Trishul much before the Maitri JV. And the performance of IR guidance actually relies on the seeker gen. How good you make it. By merely talking abt IR guidance doesnt make the missile modern. If you ask me, i would say, except in some circumstances, the Trishul with CLOS guidance can do the same damage as IR guided missile and some areas it comes favourable. And when you talk abt IR guidance as comparision, it must be what type of tech and generation you should compare and do we have the tech ? More than that, will IAF accept that second best or third when it has Spyder in sight? Without that latest generation seeker, it is good to have CLOS Trishul as a short range missile.

Actually, this is the first time I am hearing of the IR guided Trishul. In fact, that makes a lot more sense as a tri sevice missile with anti missile and anti aircraft capability than a CLOS type missile.

A variant of the Nag IIR seeker for the Trishul with data links and final IR engagement makes the most sense and maybe even conceptually easier. You immediately get genuine multi target capability, possibly longer engagement ranges than a CLOS, more capability against fast and higher maneuvering targets.. etc..etc.

But, you are right, it will come down to , do you have a seeker ?. With Nag, they do seem to have one. So maybe, that was what was the problem. The moment the guidance problems become apparent, someone internallys should have probably challenged the entire concept and looked for a plan B via an IIR version of Trishul!.

Vina ji, i guess i'm not putting myself correctly. What i'm trying to say is *if* we have to go for modern guidance system like seeker based homing system, then we must not go for some half baked options. With the available of Derby and Python 5, exceptation of providing seeker based homing system goes high and the system should be valid for the future. So instead of going for any half-baked approach, as the developement of such system may take time to mature, it is better we can stick with Trishul CLOS system.

We had confidence in thinking of Nag as futuristic third generation fire and forget system though it was considered advanced to our capabilities in 80s becoz we already developed and had experience in AT missile. But the basic strength in realising these missile systems under IGMDP was started with Trishul, which was the first system along with Prithvi considered as basic building blocks. As what i'm trying to say is intead of calling one system as "forward looking", i like to see these systems as building blocks to each other for the entire IGMDP. Hope i was clear.

Try engaging a fast crossing target with a beam rider, given that the beam has to swivel really really fast in that case, guiding a beam riding missile at such high angular rates sweep rates of the beam is close to impossible

Not a problem with 3-beam guidance.

Ok. Explain how. I would think, it becomes a "bigger" problem.

You might like to check with how exactly the missile align itself at the center.

I can guess. Tweak the control response and sensitivity and increase damping in the missile and make it track the peak intensity , which I guess should be in the middle of the beam lobe( a guess, but I think reasonable) .. But ah, to solve the oscillation problem, you put limits on the maneuverability of the missile. Nothing is free

Beam-riders are of different shades. Better we call Trishul as 3 beam CLOS. Yes as you say, it is the use of "dampener", but here the "center" which is taken as reference is the narrow beam which tracks the target, so any "dampening" makes the missile closer to the tracking beam and i couldnt see here the problem arises to manoeuverability. So for the cross-over targets, eventhough the tracking beam's track rate is considered faster, the widest beam captures the missile and allow the latax to be compensated to the reference of the tracking beam/target and it also employs Pro-Nav. By talking about latax, the missile is highly agile and has the speed higher than Barak-1. Becoz of the Wide beam in 3 beam, the system has comparatively wide coverage. I dont have to launch the missile in lofted trajectory to be catched by the beam as in some legacy system. This also helps in dealing with launching the missile against sea-skimmer and it further plays a role in reducing the reaction time considered to be ~ 6 secs.

Dont know. Cruise missiles, BMs etc wont have DIRCM which will probably be restricted to high value manned platforms. CLOS is too restrictive. With fallng costs and more maturity of active seekers, probably more compact active seeker based missiles are the future I think.

I'm merely trying to point out that these guidance system evolution is like cat and mouse game. What is considered good for now may become bad later. What i see is that, with the proliferation of PGMs and glide bombs, it is better to have a cheapest missile in numbers which can do the job and better hi fi missiles can be restricted to high value intruding aircrafts and intelligent missiles like Brahmos.

[vina]

Vina ji, i guess i'm not putting myself correctly. What i'm trying to say is *if* we have to go for modern guidance system like seeker based homing system, then we must not go for some half baked options.

That is a fair point.

With the available of Derby and Python 5, exceptation of providing seeker based homing system goes high and the system should be valid for the future. So instead of going for any half-baked approach, as the developement of such system may take time to mature, it is better we can stick with Trishul CLOS system.

However, it is difficult to agree with this prescription in this day and age, especially when you have subsystem level collaboration possible like with the new programs (Maitri, Barak and Astra) where the RF seeker probably are sourced from France /Israel/ Wherever. In fact, I like the subsystem level collaboration / Joint Development model. That in fact seems to be the way forward currently.

So, I would really think that the way forward would be to become an integral part of the global supply chain at the component/sub component level and put all resources and efforts into climbing to the top tier in the key areas which are strong "differentiators" such as seekers and maybe propulsion. System integration to realize final systems can be a joint effort with like minded partners (good from risk, cost , market size and general program economics) if the needs match.

As what i'm trying to say is intead of calling one system as "forward looking", i like to see these systems as building blocks to each other for the entire IGMDP. Hope i was clear.

I fail to see what is so common between the Agni and Nag!. Okay, even if you divide it up broadly into "strategic" and "tactical", between Nag and Akash .. it is totally different. At best , like you said if you had some computers and subsystem that was common between Trishul and Nag kind of stuff, it is hardly much. To me the differences between the Trishul, Akash and Nag are far far higher than any "similarities".. I really dont see any "building" blocks in propulsion, airframe, guidance architecture or many key systems. maybe I am missing something here.

So for the cross-over targets, eventhough the tracking beam's track rate is considered faster, the widest beam captures the missile and allow the latax to be compensated to the reference of the tracking beam/target and it also employs Pro-Nav. By talking about latax, the missile is highly agile and has the speed higher than Barak-1. Becoz of the Wide beam in 3 beam, the system has comparatively wide coverage.

See, this is where the thorniest issues are.. You really want to capture the missile into the narrowest beam at the earliest and keep it there until it engages the target. Now in the wildly swinging middle beam (assuming that the 1st or better 2nd beam has enough azimuthal coverage, not to even have to swivel with the target) , the narrow beam which is tracking a fast maneuvering target, if you employ Proportional Navigation (i guess that is what you meant by Pro-Nav), and the missile flies keep the MISSILE'S line of sight constant (that is when the missile is proportionally tracking the target), but now since you have the beam guidance, the missile (even you our system design allows the missile to fly out of the narrow beam to the outer beam(s) , you will have have to recapture the missile into the narrow beam before engagement and if it is a highly maneuvering target, there will be huge engagement uncertainties you will start introducing if you do this kind of thing) will have to come back into the sharp beam and fly the line of sight between the RADAR and Target rather than MISSILE and Target . Hence the angular acceleration required will be far higher than in other guidance schemes, the missile flies a longer non optimal path .. both of which bleeds massive amount of energy, reducing range and requiring a larger missile and raises the larger question of if it can be done at all (even if your missile is capable of the much higher lateral accelerations required) ?. I really don't think you can persecute a final engagement with the wider beams without capturing the missile into the sharp beam.

I'm merely trying to point out that these guidance system evolution is like cat and mouse game. What is considered good for now may become bad later. What i see is that, with the proliferation of PGMs and glide bombs, it is better to have a cheapest missile in numbers which can do the job and better hi fi missiles can be restricted to high value intruding aircrafts and intelligent missiles like Brahmos.

Yeah. I agree that a cheap CLOS missile is good against drones, PGMs, glide bombs ,sea skimmers etc as a point defense as a "last resort" kind of thing (like you were not able to shoot down the aircraft before it released the PGM and you atleast want a chance to take out the PGM/ A2G weapon when it is in flight). But that is a very very niche capability (though with potentially large market, given the large number of targets which will want final point defense), but then the AF would prefer to shoot down the platform itself before it gets to that stage. So at this stage , it is a rather difficult sell in the absence of such a strongly defined requirement from the end user.

JMT.

[Sanku]

Mrinal, if you keep talking about Army's procurement system, that in itself tells me that you do not understand the basics frankly.

Meanwhile, in your long post(s) to ASPuar, the discussion has been terribly mixed, there are issues being debated, along with opinions, and opinion about other opinion, and opinion about interpretation of opinion, as such it is terribly confusing what you really want to say -- off hand you appear as some one jumping in defence of DRDO and trying to primarily achieve it by pointing issues with IA -- that may not be the case but at least that is the message I get.

I have consistently taken a stand against "open fly, torn shirt" level of arguments, yes the fact that Indian Mil-Ind complex is badly flawed is common knowledge (as seen in the % of imports vs needs) its limitations are well understood as well. The real question is how to fix it. Trying to palm off every issue as imagined problems with Army or other services is not going to cut the mustard or solve the issue.

We had Chacko remark in anguish that he was on a jihad against the IA because he was tired of DRDO getting bashed up.

WOW, and I mean WOW.

If this is the level of maturity that patriots are going to display, the country is really doomed. Truly and completely.

The need of the hour is to actually understand how the system works -- and that includes GoI with various ministries, the IAS, and then specifically the MoD with its various subdivisions etc. and their role.

If we keep beating the mythical beast of "Army procurement" which is a organization as real as the Aviation research lab in my story (doing a bit of sell here ) then we can keep moving around in these infinite circles with nothing coming out of it.

Now it is indeed possible that I misunderstood your reply and hence am assigning a wrong POV to you, in which case apologies in advance and just let me know that I have misunderstood, I will accept that, drop the above line and not debate it any further.

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

Now coming to one specific point in your long reply -- the need to have a research culture in IA a la Navy -- this is I think one of the issues that are specific towards structural changes that are needed and as such can be discussed; so here are some points

1) There can be no higher criticism of DRDO than the above recommendation, it essentially means that DRDO over last many years, has failed to step up from a bunch of disparate research establishment to a one-stop-shop for technical advisory for the forces. Effectively the forces are being asked to provide the leadership in both product definition and design to a level that a full top level design exists. As Chetak remarked, and I back him up, the Navy has a better record in doing indegenous development because it chose to do it itself and kept the DRDO out of the crucial issues carefully.

BTW >> Note this is one of the recommendation to the MoD for change in structure by the committees appointed to improve the system.

2) There is no hope in hell of the above happening -- oh yes IA will quite easily step and do that function, however that at one shot will remove a huge amount of operating space in such matters from MoD civilians and DRDO. None of them are going to give that away, not a chance. DRDO is as well versed in the art of bureaucratic one up man ship as the IAS (even if less powerful) and well above that of the IA, as the head of DRDO, reports directly into the RM and has his ear. Rest assured, no one with that level of leverage is going to cede any power.

Navy managed to get away with it because when it took that step -- it was the Cinderella service, in the eyes of power traders in GoI -- inconsequential. Nothing at all like the current focus it has. So hey it could do many right things and yet not be blocked.

3) Is this a desired change? Rather than censure the DRDO by such a move, and create far more bad blood, as well as take on the very difficult task of building a new institution within the Army, from scratch and wait for it to mature, wouldnt it be better if the skills of various organizations could be leveraged? This would save the Army from diluting its focus as well, substantially.

Why not create a brand new organization under RM which is "Office of Indian product development"; note -- this is a organization which is tasked by the PRODUCTS it creates and manufactures. This can be run by a bureaucrat (let us be real, they will not let any one else run it); but manned by joint folks from Forces, DRDO and OFBs. With a well defined ownership, this entity will be responsible for product management.

This will make every one happy
1) Babus -- because it create more senior level posts and more chances for more of them to lord over every one else. They just love more bureaus dont they.
2) Forces -- they will have a forum where they are heard at ab initio level of product developments, yet they dont have to leave the parent forces and second themselves to DRDO, thus trying to work in a very different culture and with a different loyalty (not as a user but to a research org) thus their skills are retained.
3) DRDO -- they will be left alone in peace to do their blessed research and subsystem and component development without having worry about the responsibility of product ownership and the associated issues that crop up, that is not their skill area any way and as Kanson, pointed out, the secondary part of their vision/mission statement.
4) OFB -- I dont care if they are happy, in fact a lot of their brass should be made very unhappy as far as I am concerned.

And we may just have a directed approach towards Indian equipment rather than ad-hoc attempts, which sometime work, and mostly dont. (please note, fundamentally we have the same system today, but in a ad-hoc manner without fixed responsibilities, and vision and mission statements, I am asking for formalization of the same)

[vina]

so here are some points

There is only ONE point needed. That is this.

Get the Babu Monkeys in MoD out of Business. Privatize the DPSUs or hand them over to the industries ministry and throw the field open to the private players, then things will be fine.

Keep the Babu and Mantri in the business of running business, they will ensure one more spiral in the circle of death of the business.

[Sanku]

so here are some points

There is only ONE point needed. That is this.

Get the Babu Monkeys in MoD out of Business. Privatize the DPSUs or hand them over to the industries ministry and throw the field open to the private players, then things will be fine.

Keep the Babu and Mantri in the business of running business, they will ensure one more spiral in the circle of death of the business.

I am not going to wait for the Godot Vina

Meanwhile while acceptable at many levels, the above strategy still does leave a few questions unanswered, like -- will a private player be able and willing to pour in large amounts of money to build infrastructure which they are not sure of deliveries in future. Yes they can help and even own many sectors, but will they be able to own all of it? Will DPSUs still not be needed.

After all no weapon manufacture in the world is truly run as a market business, at best crony capitalism. I dont think India is fundamentally ready to make the shift -- incrementally thats the way to go to till we reach balance though -- that I agree with.

[Surya]

Navy managed to get away with it because when it took that step -- it was the Cinderella service, in the eyes of power traders in GoI -- inconsequential. Nothing at all like the current focus it has. So hey it could do many right things and yet not be blocked.

Sanku thats too simplistic - hopefully you just meant it in passing

The Navy has put in a lot of hard work and it would be unfair to pass it off due to luck et. whether its own design team or making sure many of its men got a tech education or other higher forms of education before the other services got into that mode.

My own theory is that because they are located in major centers they are in touch with the real world and are able to understand the issues and have access to info\people\industry etc more easily.


But you are right - just handing it to private sector without a steady stream of orders or the money to startup would not work

[nachiket]

But you are right - just handing it to private sector without a steady stream of orders or the money to startup would not work

They would have to find some private sector company to buy the DPSU's first. Would be a fairly difficult job IMHO.

[Sanku]

Navy managed to get away with it because when it took that step -- it was the Cinderella service, in the eyes of power traders in GoI -- inconsequential. Nothing at all like the current focus it has. So hey it could do many right things and yet not be blocked.

Sanku thats too simplistic - hopefully you just meant it in passing

The Navy has put in a lot of hard work and it would be unfair to pass it off due to luck et. k

Yes it was simplistic in just alluding to the reasons why Navy is different, however it is not luck that I meant. Navy has a different structural make up and according to me (and many others including the defence committees) that is one of the key reasons of its better record at Indian equipment. I completely agree with you that they put in a lot of hard work and dedication and worked towards that goal as well.

However what I wanted to point out was, the reason they started off on this path was a little serendiptous, as a service they didnt get much time and money by MoD and they had to figure out ways of doing their jobs well in that scenario. However the neglect also meant that they had the space to make their own decisions without too many vested interests getting in their way.

Also they had the luxury of not being "in the front line and ready for combat" since day 1 after independence, (unlike IA) for various reasons, they were used sparingly and that gave the space to take risks etc.

The fact that Pakistani Navy was a third rate force (and unlike TSPA not comparable to IA in men and equipment in the theaters of war) went a long way.

All those factors helped the Navy plan a little better than be running around trying to match the latest threat perception for which they were already behind schedule.

They had the breathing space to do things their way -- that is basically the upshot of the allusion.

[Kanson]

With the available of Derby and Python 5, exceptation of providing seeker based homing system goes high and the system should be valid for the future. So instead of going for any half-baked approach, as the developement of such system may take time to mature, it is better we can stick with Trishul CLOS system.

However, it is difficult to agree with this prescription in this day and age, especially when you have subsystem level collaboration possible like with the new programs (Maitri, Barak and Astra) where the RF seeker probably are sourced from France /Israel/ Wherever. In fact, I like the subsystem level collaboration / Joint Development model. That in fact seems to be the way forward currently.

So, I would really think that the way forward would be to become an integral part of the global supply chain at the component/sub component level and put all resources and efforts into climbing to the top tier in the key areas which are strong "differentiators" such as seekers and maybe propulsion. System integration to realize final systems can be a joint effort with like minded partners (good from risk, cost , market size and general program economics) if the needs match.

Definitely sir, very much i agree with all you said here. If you note, JV in case of Barak and Maitri are mooted more or less at the same time. Infact, i would say, we must stop in buying weapons as complete system and engage in collaboration at the sub-system level, wherever the timeline to realise them indigenously may not be acceptable to the Services.

As what i'm trying to say is intead of calling one system as "forward looking", i like to see these systems as building blocks to each other for the entire IGMDP. Hope i was clear.

I fail to see what is so common between the Agni and Nag!. Okay, even if you divide it up broadly into "strategic" and "tactical", between Nag and Akash .. it is totally different. At best , like you said if you had some computers and subsystem that was common between Trishul and Nag kind of stuff, it is hardly much. To me the differences between the Trishul, Akash and Nag are far far higher than any "similarities".. I really dont see any "building" blocks in propulsion, airframe, guidance architecture or many key systems. maybe I am missing something here.

All are basically missiles. One has to look from the prescreptive to the kind of experience we had in 80s. Every lesson and failure learnt was applied in other systems. And missile involves many components, infrastructure to develop and test them. For eg, most of these missiles in IGMDP shared the guidance system developed initially and was developed further. Fwiw, of the five missiles, Trishul was the first to be flight tested and Nag and Akash was the last to be flight tested. PTA a target vehicle created for the Trishul was used in Akash flight testing program.

So for the cross-over targets, eventhough the tracking beam's track rate is considered faster, the widest beam captures the missile and allow the latax to be compensated to the reference of the tracking beam/target and it also employs Pro-Nav. By talking about latax, the missile is highly agile and has the speed higher than Barak-1. Becoz of the Wide beam in 3 beam, the system has comparatively wide coverage.

See, this is where the thorniest issues are.. You really want to capture the missile into the narrowest beam at the earliest and keep it there until it engages the target. Now in the wildly swinging middle beam (assuming that the 1st or better 2nd beam has enough azimuthal coverage, not to even have to swivel with the target) , the narrow beam which is tracking a fast maneuvering target, if you employ Proportional Navigation (i guess that is what you meant by Pro-Nav), and the missile flies keep the MISSILE'S line of sight constant (that is when the missile is proportionally tracking the target), but now since you have the beam guidance, the missile (even you our system design allows the missile to fly out of the narrow beam to the outer beam(s) , you will have have to recapture the missile into the narrow beam before engagement and if it is a highly maneuvering target, there will be huge engagement uncertainties you will start introducing if you do this kind of thing) will have to come back into the sharp beam and fly the line of sight between the RADAR and Target rather than MISSILE and Target . Hence the angular acceleration required will be far higher than in other guidance schemes, the missile flies a longer non optimal path .. both of which bleeds massive amount of energy, reducing range and requiring a larger missile and raises the larger question of if it can be done at all (even if your missile is capable of the much higher lateral accelerations required) ?. I really don't think you can persecute a final engagement with the wider beams without capturing the missile into the sharp beam.

Proportional Navigation has some varieties can be fine tuned to the beam guidance. It adds sophistication to the existing guidance law. It is an addition not a substituion to CLOS; like adding one more layer. With the velocity closer to Aster-15, Trishul, and being short range and quick reaction, applying of PN reduces any non optimal path and increases PK. It is applied in situation like cross-over targets, depending on targets position, like tail-chase/heads-on. Optimal path is calculated at the land based system(not by the missile) employing PN and it knows when to move the missile from wide to narrow beam, accordingly commands where issued to the missile. Simple way to say is instead of missile following the narrow beam( in basic CLOS), it will be done in reverse to the point where it is considered as optimal path to the target. In PN, the missile enters the Narrow beam little late. Pls note that PN is applied mainly during mid-course not for endgame. Sometimes there is no need for PN and the basic CLOS applies and the missile will be quickly transferred to the narrow beam.

Yeah. I agree that a cheap CLOS missile is good against drones, PGMs, glide bombs ,sea skimmers etc as a point defense as a "last resort" kind of thing (like you were not able to shoot down the aircraft before it released the PGM and you atleast want a chance to take out the PGM/ A2G weapon when it is in flight). But that is a very very niche capability (though with potentially large market, given the large number of targets which will want final point defense), but then the AF would prefer to shoot down the platform itself before it gets to that stage. So at this stage , it is a rather difficult sell in the absence of such a strongly defined requirement from the end user.
JMT.

Correct. Capabilities alone wont sell. But as the RADARs are getting sophisticated, the same RADAR used for Seeker based missile, *may* be used for the CLOS guided missile in engaging cheap targets, just some raw thoughts, may be, dont know.

[SureshP]

Government for 100% FDI in defence
Sujay Mehdudia

In a potential policy shift of enormous significance, the Manmohan Singh-led government is considering a proposal to open up the defence manufacturing sector for 100 per cent Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) by allowing big global players to set up production facilities in the country.

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... epage=true

At least 20 year too late. But as they say better late than never.

[Sanku]

100% FDI in defence when pretty much all sectors are capped at 49%?

Either it is pure DDM, or yet another signal that we are rapidly moving towards "mein bhee Japan" model.

[somnath]

100% FDI in defence when pretty much all sectors are capped at 49%?

Either it is pure DDM, or yet another signal that we are rapidly moving towards "mein bhee Japan" model.

On the contrary, most sectors have been opened up to automatic (or approvals based) foreign investment (FDI+FII) of upto 100%..The only major sectors remainig outside the scope are Insurance, Retail and a few others..

Its absolutely ludicrous to be ok to import P8Is from Boeing in US, but not allow Boeing to manufacture the same plane in a 100% owned subsidiary of Beoing in India...It makes no sense at all...

[somnath]

Don't you think it makes more sense to allow Boeing to manufacture the entire P8I here with the help of a Joint Venture with any of the business families in India and in which Boeing owns upto 49%? My concern is more to do with the political muscle these companies will gain, once we allow this kind of approvals in Desh. We will see more of Arjun cases happening and the armed forces and government authorizing more of phoren maal rather than swadeshi development.

A JV with an Indian partner to start with is also kosher, to allow some Indian companies to gain knowledge/experience..But 26% that is allowed now is too low to excite any investor really...Especially since vendors have a choice to simply export them to India and get some offset contracts done (doors, windows and curtains!!) out of Indian companies..

In case we really want LM to set up an F16 assembly line in Bangalore, we need to give them at least majority (51%) equity permission..

[Sanku]

100% FDI in defence when pretty much all sectors are capped at 49%?

Either it is pure DDM, or yet another signal that we are rapidly moving towards "mein bhee Japan" model.

On the contrary, most sectors have been opened up to automatic (or approvals based) foreign investment (FDI+FII) of upto 100%..The only major sectors remainig outside the scope are Insurance, Retail and a few others..
.

I meant these few others, the strategic space is still firmly closed. Defence should be the final frontier of these.

[shukla]

HAL Sunabeda unit gets new facility for Sukhoi-30

The engine division of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) at Sunabeda in Orissa's Koraput district has got a separate overhauling department for Sukhoi-30 MKI fighter aircraft. The facility was inaugurated by Union Minister of state for defence, M M Pallam Raju on Saturday.

The people of the state must be feeling proud for having a division of HAL at Sunabeda, Raju said. He also visited the M S Swaminathan Research Foundation at Jeypore in the same district. The minister, who reached Sunabeda in a special helicopter, also reviewed the performance of the engine division of HAL, a public sector undertaking of the Government of India.

The engine division of HAL has a long term plan to undertake manufacture of AL-31FP engines for Sukhoi-30 KLI aircraft under license, sources said. The division has a unique distinction of manufacturing almost all types of components required for the manufacture and overhaul of engines and spares for service exploitation.

[somnath]

I meant these few others, the strategic space is still firmly closed. Defence should be the final frontier of these.

So retail is a "strategic" space?! BTW, the FDI allowed in retail is 0%, not 49%...

Coming back to defence, whats the difference between importing F16s from LM's Texas plant and buying the same from a 100% owned unit in Bangalore?

[Sanku]

I meant these few others, the strategic space is still firmly closed. Defence should be the final frontier of these.

So retail is a "strategic" space?! BTW, the FDI allowed in retail is 0%, not 49%...

Coming back to defence, whats the difference between importing F16s from LM's Texas plant and buying the same from a 100% owned unit in Bangalore?

Made on what kind of land? Purchased from whom? At what prices?

And what if LM also wants to sell some of those made from the Indian plant to Pakistan? Free trade onlee?

What happens after IAF is done with the order, leave the plant empty? Sitting around?

And offset clauses? What about them (local partnership and money into India is needed)

You know, lets skip this discussion, its so bizarre its not even funny.

[somnath]

Made on what kind of land? Purchased from whom? At what prices?

And what if LM also wants to sell some of those made from the Indian plant to Pakistan? Free trade onlee?

What happens after IAF is done with the order, leave the plant empty? Sitting around?

And offset clauses? What about them (local partnership and money into India is needed)

You know, lets skip this discussion, its so bizarre its not even funny.

Most of the time you dont make sense, but this takes the cake..

Offset - you think that HAL making the canopies of F16s is better offset than a whole F16 assembly line in India?

What happens to the "line" once the order is filled - Given that LM will be spending money to set up the line and the associated infrastructure, they will have more onus to find out alternative uses for that line...Maybe they will transform that into an overhaul and servicing facility? Or sell it to (say) "Tata Aviation" or HAL, who can use it to possibly make LCA MkIII! But once an assembly line is setup, thousands of Indians will gain experience of working in a modern aircraft assembly, and those skills can be used by others even if LM closes shop for soem reason..

Selling aircraft to PAkistan - In case the LM India plant is a major part of LM's global supply chain, thats the best outcome as far as we are concerned! Imagine during a conflict, a key part to support Pakistan's frontline aircraft is in India's control!

Land etc - How is that relevant??

[Surya]

I have to agree with somnath

how can it be worse than importing the whole darn thing from abroad???