Could you explain and elaborate on the "substantial level of mess up"? Otherwise its just a baseless flippant statement from your side.
Actually I can - but its my prerogative not to get into a slanging match, which you seem intent on, despite my polite rejoinder to your post.
Could you give one iota of fact or explanation that IA goofed anywhere? What can IA do it MoD blacklists? Provide facts, not rhetoric.
I already did, in my follow on statements, noting that the Army could have done far more, but didnt.
Karan M wrote:
Harder question, why did no Army leadership even attempt a local development of the Bofors gun via RE and similar earlier?
Do you know about the Gurdial gun that was developed by an Army Officer. And how OFB screwed up manufacture of the 105mm Light Field Gun? The barrels exploded.
I said Bofors gun and similar, ergo 155mm. I am well aware of the Gurdial gun saga and the that it was resolved. If teething problems with any equipment were an issue on the lines of metallurgy and manufacturing problems and led to subsequent cancellation in toto, then the Army would never have gone for T-90 manufacture in India either, given similar issues were to recur with the T-72 as well. Such problems would effectively mean that no weapons would ever be made in India or anywhere, given that these problems are legion with any new effort. Net, your statements are not tenable.
The issue with the artillery is not about how bad the OFB is either and that it is and was the only option. If the Army so wanted and had visionary, determined leadership, it could have done what the Navy did, when it tapped Walchandnagar into assembling and then actually manufacturing gearboxes. Talk about a change in focus, yet the Navy worked with them and had it work. However, the Army made no attempts of this nature. Till date, the Army's engagement with local industry remains ad hoc and nothing transformative has been done.
Unfortunately, there was a large "Chalta hain", "imports will come" attitude which has & continues to be a problem with the Army.
Karan M wrote:
An attempt was launched, cancelled because the powers that be, in the Army decided, import was better.
Proof please - of any such development attempt, and IA scuttling it. OFB Kanpur couldnt even indigenize Bofors components and we've to import them. AFAIK, ARDE or any DRDO lab never made any offer to develop any howitzer.
So you want weblinks & that would construe proof? Weren't you the same person complaining about how some folks want the "DNA analysis" of every bit quoted, vis a vis things which folks are personally aware of? For the record, I met one of the people involved in this effort many years back and that the program was dropped in lieu of imports once they became available. It was not merely a DRDO effort or OFB effort but several companies with HE expertise were involved. As matter of fact, the barrels were not even to be made by the OFB but someone else.
For your information, DRDO makes offer to develop to the ministry, and not forces.
Which is the problem, given that in this case, the Army sat around doing nothing and not even pursuing back up options when its primary import/TOT option ran a cropper again and again. And still has no backup option. Releasing new RFP seems to be the solution.
If ministry sees value in that offer, they could allow development. Neither does IA have any issue with indigenous equipment, IA buys large numbers of Dhruv despite vibration issues never being fully resolved. IA proactively pushed Brahmos Block 2 with SCAN when DRDO never had plans for that.
The vibration issue is not critical for the Army Dhruv. My source is one of the display team, who in 2007 noted this was more of an issue for the Navy, in particular and that HAL's roadmap for successive reductions in vibration were good enough for Army requirements. And no, the Army does not compromise on features/specifications/services which are critical to its requirements. In the Army's case, it was serviceability which they were concerned about and which HAL met by setting up dedicated spares & serviceability teams.
The second statement is false. The Army did not "proactively push Brahmos Block 2 with SCAN when DRDO never had any plans for that" - the DRDO already had a technological roadmap for the Brahmos and the Army inducted the weapon, because there was nothing similar to it available. Even there, there were issues from some sections, again no point in getting into it as enough dirty linen has been washed already. There is also a roadmap after Brahmos which is also being worked on for multiple requirements. Again, the development is being led by the DRDO-Russian partners, with the services involved in terms of functional requirements.
Provide a little less rhetoric and a little more facts, Karan.
Please follow your own advice and tone down the aggression as it serves no purpose. I for one made a polite reply to your post & really see no purpose in a discussion on the lines of which it is going.
Right from RayC, those who try to put an argument against drdo quote OFB as an example.