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

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 18 Mar 2010 21:31

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

Dear ASPuar ji,

We are talking about professional institutions like DRDO & Army saar. Not about my uncle's and Aunty's mottos, missions and visions. As I said before, one of the mission of DRDO is to develop technology base. There are many spinoffs that DRDO commercialized. Kalam often says, his proudest moment is in providing light weight calipers for the kids as a direct spinoff from the development of re-entry vehicle of Agni missile. You ever questioned why DRDO a defence org under MOD is doing that ? What is in the name...

Does Army has motto mission statements ? Will that be treated in the sameway ASPuar ?

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 18 Mar 2010 21:33

Kanson wrote:
ASPuar wrote:Kansonji, lets not clutch at straws. The job of the DRDO is to fulfill the Armed Forces requirements for defence technology. A vision and mission statement is a pretty weak thing to try to base your counterclaims upon. I too have a vision, that I will be saviour of the human race. But its not happening anytime soon. A man can dream, and so can an organisation. But they should stay within the bounds of what their job is. If the government of India had wanted them to become the engine of making India prosperous, they would have called them the "Indian research and development org", and not DRDO. They also wouldnt have placed them under the MOD. But since they havent, and this argument is clearly just hoping against hope, lets come back to reality, and understand what DRDO was created for, which was to provide the AF the tech that they require.
Dear ASPuar ji,
We are talking about professional institutions like DRDO & Army saar. Not about my uncle's and Aunty's mottos, missions and visions. As I said before, one of the mission of DRDO is to develop technology base. There are many spinoffs that DRDO commercialized. Kalam often says, his proudest moment is in providing light weight calipers for the kids as a direct spinoff from the development of re-entry vehicle of Agni missile. You ever questioned why DRDO a defence org under MOD is doing that ? What is in the name...

This is getting a bit ridiculous..

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 18 Mar 2010 21:37

ASPuar ji...you are failling to see what a mission statement of a org is...I dont want to look like giving lecture to you...being a senior person, I ask you to check yourself. Activities of an Org is defined by their mission statement.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 18 Mar 2010 21:41

ASPuar,

CJ is the normal initials I use in my mails. Infact, its CJ or Chacko with most I know. You are welcome to call me that.

Fundamentally, I have never denied DRDO's shortcomings. The bad blood between Army and DRDO is well known. I hve no issues with it. The issues with Army are also known and I have been writing about it. Also it hurts as its our own army.

My perspective is to simulate a debate. I have presented some insights on the DRDO-ARMY spat on Arjun Tank project.

I believe, Arjun Tank is not a DRDO "only" project. There is an equal distribution of blame/success between them. The concerned army men were very involved with the project and so were the scientist.

what irks me is the way our scientists were berated in media and elsewhere. I just gave the taste of such medicine back to the Army. I find that I did no wrong.

If one blames DRDO for keeping the project as DRDO project, the what was Army doing while making GSQR and annual reviews from the VCOAS? I believe that the projects you mention are the needs of Army. As an big responsible army, which should be counted with US, Russia and other forward looking armies, has no culture of making and using such weapons. The blame of shoddy weapons should ideally go to the DPSU's, which have been secluded in the entire debate.

Unless a weapon is used in the field, it cannot be perfected. Army always wanted perfect weapons from DRDO and were ok with less perfect imports, why?

The onus lies on the Army. The smarter service, the Navy, does the right things. A) their own design bureau for their own things, b) use DRDO facilities where required, c) DPSU's where required d) import where required. It does a commendable job. Only difference is that navy requires equipment in smaller numbers, so, they can afford the luxury of imports in critical items. what about army, which requires imports in a large number? You fail to mention when DRDO helped army with many of their systems like Ajeya, modification of guns etc.

Army blames everybody, the intelligence, the politicians , the air force etc in most occasions. It is time they mature up and take up the responsibilities.

My simple reasoning is that Army should grow up and I want it to be a real army which makes and fights. The idea is simple. DRDO is not the end of all equipment woes. Its Army which is. I do not agree that army is just for fighting. If you say so, then I would say DRDO is for just R&D and it has got nothing to do with armies woes. Its the kind of tit for tat response.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 18 Mar 2010 21:46

CJ or Chacko,

Lets reply this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now onto understanding the threat over 20 years.

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

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

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

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

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

Let's get realistic!

Now, why the bought is that the DRDO did not deliver in time, the security environment changed over the 25 year of patient wait and if it meant more delay, what was the answer? Let India be defenceless or have something in the interim, the best available for the money we have?

That's why!

Do point out what is wrong.

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

No they are not revolutionary. They are the only bang for the bucks we can afford in view of the changed security environment.

If there was more money available, I am sure the IA would have got the Moon!

That's why.

I would also like to correct a misconception that the IA dictates the timeframe. No, it is mutually decided with all concerned including the DRDO. If they can say they can produce something in six weeks, then I would think that they should be taken for their word till proved otherwise. To believe that the IA can decide on the time for research and production of the prototype is a canard!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Mar 2010 21:57

chackojoseph wrote: what irks me is the way our scientists were berated in media and elsewhere. I just gave the taste of such medicine back to the Army. I find that I did no wrong.

Chacko; how is berating of DRDO helped by berating Army?

For one two wrongs do not make a right -- all you have done is in addition to one org that is hurt, you and others have made it two.

Secondly you have increased the bad blood.

Thirdly as you yourself admit; you have berated, that is went on emotional tirade without facts to justify you -- how does that help? IA is under attack by many sources already, what benefit do you get by further character assassination?

Note the above is not for you alone but for all who seem to have made berating Army fashionable on BRF.

As an big responsible army, which should be counted with US, Russia and other forward looking armies, has no culture of making and using such weapons.

Look CJ; it does not matter what you think Army should do or should not, what matters is the current structure of Polity and what is Army tasked to do and what is not.

What you want from the Army is not for the Army to do. Try and convince the Babus that it should be so.

Unless a weapon is used in the field, it cannot be perfected. Army always wanted perfect weapons from DRDO and were ok with less perfect imports, why?

That is incorrect; Army wants working weapons thats it not perfect. Arjun became a working weapon only in 2000 at most and became a working weapon which can also be manufactured by 2007.

The smarter service, the Navy, does the right things. A) their own design bureau for their own things, b) use DRDO facilities where required, c) DPSU's where required d) import where required.

And as Ajay Vikram Singh Committee suggests so should Army -- let the Politicians and Babu and DRDO give IA this power.

Meanwhile the above is actually the most stinging and scathing criticism of DRDO as can ever be.

My simple reasoning is that Army should grow up and I want it to be a real army which makes and fights. The idea is simple. DRDO is not the end of all equipment woes. Its Army which is. I do not agree that army is just for fighting. If you say so, then I would say DRDO is for just R&D and it has got nothing to do with armies woes. Its the kind of tit for tat response.

And thus by making the above wish list you display the total lack of awareness of how India works -- which is not acceptable for some one mounting a attack campgain on a institution like the Army.

As I mentioned before -- get your knowledge base right -- and figure out who is tasked to make and who to fight and who makes the decision on who is going to make and who is going to fight.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Mar 2010 21:58

Kanson wrote:ASPuar ji...you are failling to see what a mission statement of a org is...I dont want to look like giving lecture to you...being a senior person, I ask you to check yourself. Activities of an Org is defined by their mission statement.

Yet you get all prickly when I say indeed the mission statement of DRDO is also telling of their culture?

Have you decided what stand you want to take?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 18 Mar 2010 22:00

CJ,

Do address my post.

I would be delighted to know where I went wrong!

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 18 Mar 2010 22:00

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

........

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

Saar, I think you agree that by adding new GSQR, Army is expecting new capabilities in the Arjun tank. When the new capabilities are aimed for then it becomes a new product and its a new project. Even after the last GSQR made in 1990, Army continued to ask for modernisation as late as 2007/08 to implement the israeli recommendations. So why still this mudane 25 yrs and 35 yrs timeline is peddled. After fulfilling all the requirement as requested by Army, why Army still considers Arjun tank as obsolete[as per DGMF statement]?

As we talked earlier, do Army has something like Operational requirement and enacted the GSQR actually reflecting that ? And they havent practised adding the requirement from jane's as Col. Kaul describes ?

What is the acceptable standards that you talk about is not fulfillied in the Arjun case to not get accepted in numbers?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 18 Mar 2010 22:02

Sanku wrote: Yet you get all prickly when I say indeed the mission statement of DRDO is also telling of their culture?

Have you decided what stand you want to take?

Dear Sanku bhai, first of all, by this, do you agree that DRDO has mission statement and it will stick to that ?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 18 Mar 2010 22:03

RayC,

Could you rephrase that. I have no idea what it means. I mean no disrespect. I "really', "actually' do not understand what is meant to be. why have you written that? What is the background?

Added Later....

Sir, allow me my Blonde moments...

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Mar 2010 22:06

Kanson wrote: When the new capabilities are aimed for then it becomes a new product and its a new project.

Kanson; sorry for asking this, have you ever worked in any engineering company (which does R&D) outside a PSU?

Because the above is hilarious, to say the least. Any engineering company worth its salt takes a fair number of change requests while still adhering to the old time lines.

Sure there are delays in any program, but no other company blames its customer for it.

After fulfilling all the requirement as requested by Army, why Army still considers Arjun tank as obsolete[as per DGMF statement]?

There is no DGMF statement to that effect; officially given to the media or any other source.

If your chaiwalla heard it and posted it on a blog; does not make it a company policy.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Mar 2010 22:07

Sanku wrote:
Rahul M wrote: but four times in 22 odd years ? a GSQR is expected to hold for the next 20-25 years from the time it is issued with minor periodic updates, 15 years being worst cases.
Rahul do you know a single GSQR which has been static for 22 years?

Heck a deployed product changes totally in 22 years.

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

who said anything about GSQR being static for 22 years ? this penchant for strawmen really makes me wonder your seriousness is discussing this topic. I'm a participant in this discussion which ties my hands somewhat but please do note that there's a limit to tolerance of arguing for argument's sake.

anyway, not being static DOESN'T mean changing GSQR (not small changes as well) 4 times, once every 6-7 years.
please show me another successful project from anywhere on this planet for which the GSQR was changed 4 times in 2 decades. if it's not a failure on the part of the army I don't know what is.

in the modern world a product takes 10-15 years to be developed, the requirements by a force that guides development is expected to hold for 15-20 years after the product is inducted with mid-life upgrades, that is around a total of 25-35 years after the GSQR (or its equivalent in other forces). if a GSQR needs to drastically altered every 6-7 years that's a very sad commentary on those who framed it.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 18 Mar 2010 22:08

Kanson wrote:

Saar, I think you agree that my adding new GSQR, Army is expecting new capabilities in the Arjun tank. When the new capabilities are aimed for then it becomes a new product and its a new project. Even after the last GSQR made in 1990, Army continued to ask for modernisation as late as 2007/08 to implement the israeli recommendations. So why still this mudane 25 yrs and 35 yrs timeline is peddled. After fulfilling all the requirement as requested by Army, why Army still considers Arjun tank as obsolete[as per DGMF statement]?

As we talked earlier, do Army has something like Operational requirement and enacted the GSQR actually reflecting that ? And they havent practised adding the requirement from jane's as Col. Kaul describes ?

What is the acceptable standards that you talk about is not fulfillied in the Arjun case to not get accepted in numbers?

What is adding new capability that makes it a new project?

Let us say that reactive armour has come into play, to add it is a new project?

I would be seriously surprised if the Army to quote you 'Army has something like Operational requirement and enacted the GSQR actually reflecting that? ' If it does not, then the Army is daft and we are in serious trouble as a Nation!

Anyway, Kanson, I have tried my best to explain as simply as I can.

Take it or leave it!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Mar 2010 22:10

Kanson wrote:
Sanku wrote: Yet you get all prickly when I say indeed the mission statement of DRDO is also telling of their culture?

Have you decided what stand you want to take?
Dear Sanku bhai, first of all, by this, do you agree that DRDO has mission statement and it will stick to that ?

Well hey; I have been saying that for about 100 pages right now.

But I also think that the DRDO mission statement is totally hokey in the current scenario -- it needs changing -- and they wont change it themselves, MoD will have to force the change -- and/or create a new organization into which DRDO reports too.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 18 Mar 2010 22:10

Sanku wrote:
Kanson wrote: When the new capabilities are aimed for then it becomes a new product and its a new project.

Kanson; sorry for asking this, have you ever worked in any engineering company (which does R&D) outside a PSU?

Because the above is hilarious, to say the least. Any engineering company worth its salt takes a fair number of change requests while still adhering to the old time lines.
.

Ok then list the company and the changes and requirement made and the timeline and lets see who worked where ? Ok?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 18 Mar 2010 22:10

I am not privy to foreign GSQRs, but I sure would like to know from those who are privy to foreign GSQRs as to where the first GSQR was the last one anywhere in the world!

And also that they sat pretty on the initial GSQR while their development agencies struggled for 25 years!

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 18 Mar 2010 22:13

Sanku wrote: Kanson; sorry for asking this, have you ever worked in any engineering company (which does R&D) outside a PSU?

Because the above is hilarious, to say the least. Any engineering company worth its salt takes a fair number of change requests while still adhering to the old time lines.

Sure there are delays in any program, but no other company blames its customer for it.

After fulfilling all the requirement as requested by Army, why Army still considers Arjun tank as obsolete[as per DGMF statement]?
There is no DGMF statement to that effect; officially given to the media or any other source.

If your chaiwalla heard it and posted it on a blog; does not make it a company policy.

Sanku, I take it you have worked in an engineering org and still making the bolded statements?? wow, I wonder which company it was, unless it built in such a big buffer in its original projection that it could take all changes and still stick to original timelines, or the nature of the changes were so trivial it didn't affect the timelines much!

Any big engineering project has a project definition phase, and beyond that the design is frozen unless testing shows up basic faults. You basically fix the issues that crop up. If the new changes requested by the customer needs altering the basic design, then your time lines will definitely be affected

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Mar 2010 22:14

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

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

{the promotion bit was not my argument and my point actually says the points suggest otherwise. the award was given because his work was appreciated by DRDO, nothing more nothing less}
chackojoseph wrote:Nobody said GSQR should not change.

but four times in 22 odd years ? a GSQR is expected to hold for the next 20-25 years from the time it is issued with minor periodic updates, 15 years being worst cases.
why even have a GSQR then ? why not provide weekly requirement updates after each jane's issue is out ?
Do you mean to say that the IA should not revise GSQRs to take note of newer threats or doctrine changes?
22 years is a very long time for any threat to stay static!

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

{threat can't change every week, simple because the force structure and logistics don't. and if threat perceptions change every week it is a problem with the analysts.

that's like a person saying I need a shirt but my size varies from kid-size to XL every week and I'll vary my order every week. it's simply not possible.}

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Mar 2010 22:17

Rahul M wrote: I'm a participant in this discussion which ties my hands somewhat but please do note that there's a limit to tolerance of arguing for argument's sake.

I actually expected better from you. Meanwhile, please note that I hold the same opinion of your statements on this thread at least.

please show me another successful project from anywhere on this planet for which the GSQR was changed 4 times in 2 decades. if it's not a failure on the part of the army I don't know what is.

LCA?

F18?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18_Hornet

Typhoon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon

Pretty much any real world Engineering effort which takes over 5 years to do?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 18 Mar 2010 22:18

RayC wrote:
Kanson wrote:

Saar, I think you agree that my adding new GSQR, Army is expecting new capabilities in the Arjun tank. When the new capabilities are aimed for then it becomes a new product and its a new project. Even after the last GSQR made in 1990, Army continued to ask for modernisation as late as 2007/08 to implement the israeli recommendations. So why still this mudane 25 yrs and 35 yrs timeline is peddled. After fulfilling all the requirement as requested by Army, why Army still considers Arjun tank as obsolete[as per DGMF statement]?

As we talked earlier, do Army has something like Operational requirement and enacted the GSQR actually reflecting that ? And they havent practised adding the requirement from jane's as Col. Kaul describes ?

What is the acceptable standards that you talk about is not fulfillied in the Arjun case to not get accepted in numbers?
What is adding new capability that makes it a new project?

Let us say that reactive armour has come into play, to add it is a new project?

I would be seriously surprised if the Army to quote you 'Army has something like Operational requirement and enacted the GSQR actually reflecting that? ' If it does not, then the Army is daft and we are in serious trouble as a Nation!

Anyway, Kanson, I have tried my best to explain as simply as I can.

Take it or leave it!

Dont take me wrong, thats why i agree with CJ when he mentioned Army lacks scientific temper. Every new addition,like you mentioned abt, Reactive Armour, is akin to creating a new project. I hope you heard abt block development. Every block is considered as a fresh project.

Pls answer this question

What is the acceptable standards that you talk about is not fulfillied in the Arjun case to not get accepted in numbers?

You made the statement, it is odd not to accept a product which has met acceptable standards. what is missing there in Arjun...

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Mar 2010 22:22

putnanja wrote: Sanku, I take it you have worked in an engineering org and still making the bolded statements?? wow, I wonder which company it was, unless it built in such a big buffer in its original projection that it could take all changes and still stick to original timelines, or the nature of the changes were so trivial it didn't affect the timelines much!

Or it was just fairly competent.

That is one other possibility too?

Any big engineering project has a project definition phase, and beyond that the design is frozen unless testing shows up basic faults. You basically fix the issues that crop up. If the new changes requested by the customer needs altering the basic design, then your time lines will definitely be affected

And I am not disputing that; what I am disputing is
1) Assigning a massive slip due to changes, especially when not already signed off by the customer.
2) Being able to handle a finite amount of changes over the process of a long project without the schedule completely going out of whack

And in case of Arjun the design indeed showed basic faults, and since it was showing basic faults at a stage where the delay had already came in, further GSQR changes had to be made. This is the official (GoI official not IA official) statement of events (as seen in the parliamentary reports)

The delay causes GSQR changes and not the other way around.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 18 Mar 2010 22:26

Kanson wrote:
Dont take me wrong, thats why i agree with CJ when he mentioned Army lacks scientific temper. Every new addition,like you mentioned abt, Reactive Armour, is akin to creating a new project. I hope you heard abt block development. Every block is considered as a fresh project.

So CJ is an expert on scientific temper not being the the Army. Now, how did he come to that conclusion? Gut feeling? I believe he is a journalist. So, he has scientific temper? I have my own opinion about journalists and science and being an expert is not what I feel they have. I maybe wrong.

So, changing the magazine of the INSAS is a new project, right?

Pls answer this question
What is the acceptable standards that you talk about is not fulfillied in the Arjun case to not get accepted in numbers?
The meeting of GSQR is the acceptable standard.

You made the statement, it is odd not to accept a product which has met acceptable standards. what is missing there in Arjun...[/quote]

Search me.

Let us await the official report and feel we are pundits and know alls as we are seeing out here.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 18 Mar 2010 22:26

Col. Kaul interview from BR
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... arjun-.pdf

In all fairness why blame the ARJUN, The DRDO or even the MOD. If all you can do is pull out a GSQR from Jane's Armor cut & paste it this is what you will get notwithstanding almost 5000 Cr of taxpayers money going down the drain. The only comparison that strikes me from history is the SUPER TIGER of the Third Reich produced towards the end of the Second World War or Howard Hughes wooden airplane.

Is the bolded statement true or not ? And he is an Army veteran from armoured corps.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Mar 2010 22:27

Kanson wrote:
Dont take me wrong, thats why i agree with CJ when he mentioned Army lacks scientific temper. Every new addition,like you mentioned abt, Reactive Armour, is akin to creating a new project. I hope you heard abt block development. Every block is considered as a fresh project.

And there is some engineering temper missing in the concept of parallel development at your end perhaps?

Also the Army did not refuse Arjun because it did not have reactive armor.

The Arjun was delayed and DRDO and IA together felt that the reactive armor could be added while the faults in design which made the Arjun not pass the older GSQRs are fixed?

Pls answer this question

What is the acceptable standards that you talk about is not fulfillied in the Arjun case to not get accepted in numbers?

You made the statement, it is odd not to accept a product which has met acceptable standards. what is missing there in Arjun...[/quote]

Till 2007 DRDO accepted the AUCRT issues reported and fixed them.

Presumably there are no known issues NOW -- we will know once the latest test results are out, if CVRDE+Avadi has been able to live up to the claim they made to the Parliament.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Mar 2010 22:27

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

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

err no, it's not a matter of personal opinion or even speculation. I'll be doomed before I speculate on such a topic.

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

how many times do I have to repeat this thing ?

the GSQR's were changed (again and again and again) WELL BEFORE the time allotted to DRDO to finish the project. if your gripe is about the trishul I would agree but it DOES NOT lend to the arjun saga, for example.

it's like ordering your tailor for a shirt with the understanding that he will deliver it in 7 days. on the 2nd day itself you go and tell him "I don't want a shirt, I want a kurta" and then again on the 4th and 5th day you ask for a pair of trousers and then a safari suit, you CAN'T argue that the orders were changed because the tailor was late.
the real reason would be that the order was late because you couldn't make up your mind.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Mar 2010 22:29

Kanson wrote:Co. Kaul from BR
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... arjun-.pdf
In all fairness why blame the ARJUN, The DRDO or even the MOD. If all you can do is pull out a GSQR from Jane's Armor cut & paste it this is what you will get notwithstanding almost 5000 Cr of taxpayers money going down the drain. The only comparison that strikes me from history is the SUPER TIGER of the Third Reich produced towards the end of the Second World War or Howard Hughes wooden airplane.
Is the bolded statement true or not ? And he is an Army veteran from armoured corps.

That does not mean much frankly, I can pull out far more scatching reviews of Arjun from far heavier sources.

For example the video of Bharat Verma at DEFEXPO (posted in a strat thread -- dont remember which)

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 18 Mar 2010 22:31

Rayc,

I read again to understand. You said nothing wrong.

You cannot visualize. You are bang on target with that. So, what does Indian Army do? Wring its hands and give up?

If you look at other relevant armies, they have scrambled up and brought out newer and newer weapons. US never visualised 9/11. It happened, it changed its weapons and tactics. It is ahead of Indian Army in both in my opinion and mind you, a part of their army learn't from the Indian Army.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 18 Mar 2010 22:33

RayC wrote:I am not privy to foreign GSQRs, but I sure would like to know from those who are privy to foreign GSQRs as to where the first GSQR was the last one anywhere in the world!

And also that they sat pretty on the initial GSQR while their development agencies struggled for 25 years!

No.
and
No.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 18 Mar 2010 22:34

Sanku wrote:Or it was just fairly competent.

That is one other possibility too?

Like I said, if the changes were cosmetic, or if the original schedule had a big buffer, yeah. Otherwise, nope. Like someone said, you can't have 9 pregnant ladies give birth to one child in a single month! No matter how competent you are, you need time to design, implement and test something. Boeing 787 and Airbus A380 slipped by more than two years, and had weight overruns and they have been building planes for decades now!

putnanja wrote: Sanku, I take it you have worked in an engineering org and still making the bolded statements?? wow, I wonder which company it was, unless it built in such a big buffer in its original projection that it could take all changes and still stick to original timelines, or the nature of the changes were so trivial it didn't affect the timelines much!
Or it was just fairly competent.

That is one other possibility too?

And I am not disputing that; what I am disputing is
1) Assigning a massive slip due to changes, especially when not already signed off by the customer.
2) Being able to handle a finite amount of changes over the process of a long project without the schedule completely going out of whack

And in case of Arjun the design indeed showed basic faults, and since it was showing basic faults at a stage where the delay had already came in, further GSQR changes had to be made. This is the official (GoI official not IA official) statement of events (as seen in the parliamentary reports)

The delay causes GSQR changes and not the other way around.

Changing gun barrel from 105 to 155mm is a big design change. Having reactive armor is another big change.

How often should a GSQR change? Should it change in 5-6 years when the project development phase itself is around 8-10 years?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Mar 2010 22:34

Rahul M wrote:
the GSQR's were changed (again and again and again) WELL BEFORE the time allotted to DRDO to finish the project. if your gripe is about the trishul I would agree but it DOES NOT lend to the arjun saga, for example.

That is not correct Rahul M; whenever the GSQRs were changed, (barring the first change perhaps) the development period had almost expired.

Also if the changes were not acceptable, DRDO should have made it clear to the MoD that it was not going to work -- DRDO also signed on the dotted sheet.

Finally the last GSQR change was in 1994-96 time frame. After that IA has not asked for any significant changes. Surely the delay can not be attributed to that?

The issues found in AUCRT were real were they not? Even DRDO agrees in front of parliamentary committee.

When none of us on BRF are claiming that its DRDOs fault, understanding it to be the result of practical limitations, why does this become IAs fault?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 18 Mar 2010 22:36

AS Puar,

I don’t know how many times I have to repeat myself.

My post is adequate in explanation and since I don’t find anyone refuting it, I take it that none can contest it because it is the reality.

I am not too sure the tailoring example is quite the same as a necessity for a national requirement. However, just for discussions sake, if the tailor can assure me that he can do the changes so as to prevent me going to another tailor, I have to accept his word for after all, he is my favoured tailor, which my parents have approved!

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Mar 2010 22:38

please post the dates and how the allotted time was over. I'm getting tired of these attempts to derail the thread with inanities.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 18 Mar 2010 22:38

Guys, this is getting rather tiresome. For the sake of argument, could one of you in the debate please list (with sources of course) when the gsqr was given to the drdo, the agreed time frame for realising the product i.e the Arjun and when the next change in the GSQR was issued by the army. If these data points are available, I don't see the need for the tiresome back and forth trading of posts last few pages of debate.

Of course, I'm taking the easy way out by asking others to post but well, back to lurk mode.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 18 Mar 2010 22:40

I still await a reply that a weapon system was accepted on the first GSQR anywhere in the world or that such country stood still for 25 years.

That would be an education for me and I would be grateful to get educated.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 18 Mar 2010 22:40

RayC sir,

I don't know if you saw my post earlier in previous page, i am posting this again for your benefit.

chackojoseph wrote:Rayc,

I read again to understand. You said nothing wrong.

You cannot visualize. You are bang on target with that. So, what does Indian Army do? Wring its hands and give up?

If you look at other relevant armies, they have scrambled up and brought out newer and newer weapons. US never visualised 9/11. It happened, it changed its weapons and tactics. It is ahead of Indian Army in both in my opinion and mind you, a part of their army learn't from the Indian Army.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 18 Mar 2010 22:41

RayC wrote: So CJ is an expert on scientific temper not being the the Army. Now, how did he come to that conclusion? Gut feeling? I believe he is a journalist. So, he has scientific temper? I have my own opinion about journalists and science and being an expert is not what I feel they have. I maybe wrong.

So, changing the magazine of the INSAS is a new project, right?

So prove yourself that you(Army) have that scientific temper. Whos asking not to ? It doesnt end with CJ. In addition, Parliament Standing committee on defence made note that, IN knows much more than other services, what it wants exactly...Is it reflecting the same thing we are saying here. They are the making the GSQR from the jane's ?

The meeting of GSQR is the acceptable standard.

So does the T-90S fulfilled the GSQR enacted by the Army for the Arjun requirment ?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 18 Mar 2010 22:41

tsriram wrote:Guys, this is getting rather tiresome. For the sake of argument, could one of you in the debate please list (with sources of course) when the gsqr was given to the drdo, the agreed time frame for realising the product i.e the Arjun and when the next change in the GSQR was issued by the army. If these data points are available, I don't see the need for the tiresome back and forth trading of posts last few pages of debate.

Of course, I'm taking the easy way out by asking others to post but well, back to lurk mode.

I have already given the timeline. Just trawl through.

But obviously that requires ignoring by many for obvious reasons.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 18 Mar 2010 22:45

Kanson wrote:

So prove yourself that you(Army) have that scientific temper. Whos asking not to ?

Heard of Lt Col Gurdial Singh?

He designed the Gurdial Mountain Gun in the 50s which became the backbone of the IA.

Now, he did not have scientific temper? I agree he was a Sardar and so you would attribute some other temper to him.

I knew him personally and yes, he had a temper, scientific and otherwise!

T 90 is no replacement for the Arjun when it comes. It is an interim measure and if you had read by post you would have realised the necessity for interim measures.

One cannot be Little Bo Peep and expect the sheep to come home with their tails behind them and in the meantime, the Big Bad Wolf of REd Riding Hood devouring us!!

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 18 Mar 2010 22:47

If Operational requirement of Army is reflected in GSQR, then a big question, does the T-90S which Army purchased satisfied the GSQR of Arjun.

One fact is that, the GSQR for Arjun stipulated a first shot hit probability of 90% and above. Does T-90S tank has this accuracy ?

This clearly proves that Army's GSQR is more likely a copy paste from jane's than reflecting their need for Operational requirement.