Surya wrote:You mean like huffy and tuffyThe IA has gone beyond the call of duty to improvise so that they could carry on
Well I am not saying that IA is unique in that respect, just that it did go beyond the call of duty since there was no help available, and well the comparisons with Israeli's is actually very welcome dont you thinkAsk the Israelis - they will tell you the M 60 was unusable the way they received it
I think all professional competent armies do that.
Cmon this is sillyThey do it because they get NO HELP from others in India to meet their needs.
In Israel, every one has been in the Army or will be very soon.Surya wrote:
The diff is of course the Israelis know how to involve their companies and army together.
Surya wrote:chetak
absolutely but also the motivation that even if weapons come from abroad they can never rely on them
And IA will happily involve any one who can help them as you yourself say is happening; which again does not take away from my original point.Surya wrote:Cmon this is sillyThey do it because they get NO HELP from others in India to meet their needs.
Right now ...
Which may still happen, now Arjun is finally ready, so whats the problem?chackojoseph wrote:RayC,
Wait for DRDO products? They had a chance to deploy T-72 and Arjun Tank side by side.
.
Look Surya, let me state that again, ANY specific R&D, improvisation etc activity undertaken by IA is because IA has not been able to get help in meeting particular needs from outside, some times it does carry out joint improvisations etc too.Surya wrote:How can it be your original point??
you just claimed no one helps them
I just pointed out that other have stepped in and worked overtime (like PSUs during IPKF) to help them when they(the Army) have run in distress to them
and you come back and claim that was your original claim??
Surya chuck it -- my statements were in a entirely different context -- you are entitled to what you think -- peace.Surya wrote:Please there is no department anywhere for improvisations??
tsarkar wrote:Rahul,
The point Chetak and I are making was the top brass in DRDO felt their position threatened and left no stones unturned to get Paulraj out of any cutting edge projects or leadership position.
{so the DRDO leadership that "left no stones unturned to get Paulraj out of any cutting edge projects or leadership position" brought him back at the end of his sabbatical as the founding director of the "Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics" which is one of DRDO's premier labs ?? http://www.drdo.gov.in/labs/cair/histor ... round.html
sorry, this story of DRDO leadership pushing out Paulraj sounds like it's coming off the hinges.}
What the Navy could have done in this matter is limited, since its an operational organization with limited mandate for scientific/development work. Navy couldn’t push Paulraj into a leadership position in the scientific community, nor did it have a suitable billet for him.
{The navy didn't have to for DRDO "pushed him into leadership position" by its own accord. see above. on the other hand please remember he left the navy to join DRDO (because navy was unwilling to let him continue as a scientist), that puts paid to this piece of imaginative story. }
He is a magnanimous person, and his capabilities were immense to carve himself a niche in the world, so he is being generous to his detractors.
{in these case the detractors were at NHQ, not at DRDO. and I agree he has been magnanimous to the institution that was unwilling to let him continue as a scientist}
What the use of the “Scientist of the Year” award after shoving him out?
{shoving him out ?
doesn't look like "shoving him out" to me.}
Would any BR member appreciate being demoted at work, followed by a paper certificate citing he’s “employee of the year”? Wouldn’t a promotion be a better appreciation of his work?
{this is an extremely disingenuous argument for what happened was quite opposite.}
VSM is a services decoration, nothing to do with DRDO.
{I never said it was. please read my post again if you didn't understand it}
I rest my case here. My conviction remains that IA would not unnecessarily block Arjun, and I will wait for further information to emerge.
{the army, since Gen VP Malik's days, has already blocked the arjun for far too long.}
BTW, please illuminate us on –
1. Was DRDO honest in saying Trishul was ready and Barak purchase was unnecessary?
{this is again a not very honest argument. Dr kalam gave the go ahead himself for a limited number of barak systems as preparedness was being hampered in mid 90's because of the delay in trishul. I think it's in the MOD reports as well. what they later argued was that navy shouldn't standardise on the barak as the much cheaper and according to them similarly capable trishul was ready. is that a wrong stand to make ?}
BTW, IA bought Tunguska for the same reason.
{and has IA standardised on the tunguska ? how many has it bought ? why did it buy the spyder then ? }
2. Where is Trishul technology demonstrator today?
{not sure what answer you expect to this rhetorical question, but in terms of development, fully developed. the small number of complete systems are expected to be transferred to the IAF}
3. Why is DRDO going ahead with Maitri JV with MBDA if Trishul is such a great technology demonstrator?
{is there any reason why they shouldn't want to improve ?
the general trend has been towards seeker equipped SAMs, trishul/SRSAM takes the same course in getting MBDA's help for seekers, which is our weak area.}
4. Why is DRDO going ahead with Maitri JV with MBDA if DRDO ALREADY HAS THE KNOW HOW, as it claimed during Trishul fiasco, to make quick reaction missiles?
{that "DRDO ALREADY HAS THE KNOW HOW" is clear from the fact that MBDA's primary contribution will be in providing seeker tech, the rest will be built from the knowledge base for trishul}
Incase anyone come up with the reason that IN killed Trishul because it looked ugly or IN brass had a personal dislike of DRDO brass, IN could gladly use Trishul in OPV/Corvettes/Missile boats, if it was available. Just like IAF will concurrently use Spyder & Akash, IN will use Maitri concurrently once it comes along.
{IN had already decided to standardise on the barak by then, and the focus moved to maitri.}
I couldn’t be more happier, if the nation’s premier scientific establishment came up with a successful missile. But I am against falsehood and misrepresentation to cover failures.
{same here. people peddling falsehoods and twisting facts out of a misguided sense of the service's honour and dignity (not talking of you) is a very reflection on the balance of these individuals }
I quote the Paulraj and Trishul examples, NOT TO GENERALIZE OR BELITTLE, but to indicate that DRDO is not above skullduggery and lying to protect its own interests AT THE COST OF NATIONAL INTEREST.
{which again is completely false and fabricated as is clear from the above comments.}
Good Sir, I appreciate that. Most of us are against falsehood and misrepresentation.tsarkar wrote:I couldn’t be more happier, if the nation’s premier scientific establishment came up with a successful missile. But I am against falsehood and misrepresentation to cover failures.
I think, everyone here condemns cronyism and neptoism. Leaving rumour-mongering and hand-waving, could you able to establish clearl proof for you assertion that drdo top brass got threatened by Paulraj so his ouster? You link states to the contrary that NPOL gave him enough levarage. Further Paulraj states in his own words, he putdown the drdo and NPOL in the fingerpointing fight at the end of the SONAR project with BEL team headed by another Navy Captain. So could this be one of the reason? But i'm willing to listen to you assertion with any supportive backup. Do you have any ?tsarkar wrote:The point Chetak and I are making was the top brass in DRDO felt their position threatened and left no stones unturned to get Paulraj out of any cutting edge projects or leadership position.
Through Chetak-ji, i heard Navy considers anyone seconded to DRDO as disloyal and he also stated Paulraj as exception to the officers who appeased DRDO to join the Org. In this situation, why Navy should have asked Paulraj to join DRDO. Despite facing detractors, Rickover put up with the US Navy and stayed there. So far i havent received any proper answer, why, Paulraj being a Naval Officer, didnt went back to his parent Org after the SONAR project? Instead he went to Stanford Univ. By leaving Navy is it not he showed disloyalty to Navy.tsarkar wrote:What the Navy could have done in this matter is limited, since its an operational organization with limited mandate for scientific/development work. Navy couldn’t push Paulraj into a leadership position in the scientific community, nor did it have a suitable billet for him.
He is a magnanimous person, and his capabilities were immense to carve himself a niche in the world, so he is being generous to his detractors.
Going by your logic, any gallantry award issued posthumously is a kind of demotion ? That award is for recognition and gratitude. I dont know abt your employees but Scientist look for recognition.tsarkar wrote:What the use of the “Scientist of the Year” award after shoving him out? Would any BR member appreciate being demoted at work, followed by a paper certificate citing he’s “employee of the year”? Wouldn’t a promotion be a better appreciation of his work?
There are two streams of discussion involving Barak deal. 1. Scandal involving GF, SushilKumar, Nada etc. 2. Procedural fiasco between DRDO/Navy. I deal with the second.tsarkar wrote:BTW, please illuminate us on –
1. Was DRDO honest in saying Trishul was ready and Barak purchase was unnecessary? BTW, IA bought Tunguska for the same reason.
But Kalam made two conditions.The process of acquisition of the missile was initiated in 1995, according to the FIR. It states that a team of officials of the Indian Navy and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) attended the field demonstration of the Barak-1 AMD (Anti-Missile Defence) system in Israel in December 1995. After this field trial, Naval Headquarters (NHQ) forwarded in 1996 a draft Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) note for the acquisition of six Barak AMD systems to the Defence Minister for approval.
Why he placed the first conditon ?The FIR states that the Scientific Adviser to the Defence Minister, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam (now the President), agreed to the NHQ proposal provided the Navy monitored and ensured the performance of the Barak system as claimed and installed it at the earliest and also placed an order for indigenous Trishul missiles and systems to give their production a thrust.
and the team who witness the trial says:Dr Kalam, who had earlier headed the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO) and was then the scientific advisor to the defence minister wrote in a letter dated June 23, 1999: "It has been brought to the Raksha Mantri's (Defence Minister) notice that imported anti-missile defence systems has a failure rate of nearly 50 per cent as witnessed by DRDO during trials by the services. Even the cost of failure analysis by foreign suppliers is very high. We will be at the mercy of foreign suppliers for spares and support during the lifecycle of the entire system."
This in accordance with what Kalam wrote as a conditon for the Barak purchase in 1996. Till 2000 such a comprehensive eval wasnt happened. In 2003, Barak failed to hit the test missile with dummy warhead in the test trial. So throughtout the Barak deal, DRDO has maintained consistency in telling its stated position. So where comes the dishonesty. If you still fell it that way then speak with facts.On August 4, 2000, A.K. Kapur, former Project Director of the Trishul Project and a member of the team that witnessed the demonstration of the Barak AMD system in Israel, wrote to the then Vice-Chief of the Naval Staff in his capacity as a member of the PNC constituted for the import of the seven Barak AMD Systems. Kapur claimed that the formal evaluation task was not assigned to the team that visited Israel in 1995. The manufacturer told the team that details would be given when India actually decided to acquire the system. "A more comprehensive system evaluation was required before procurement," Kapur wrote.
Let us talk about the Barak deal. Were you against it?
A professional is not for or against a deal. Building up an offensive capacity is our primary duty. We had a limited budget. The naval doctrine is to hit first and destroy enemy capability and neutralise them at a far enough distance. Any last ditch defence system does not fit in. I and Dr Abdul Kalam, scientific advisor to the PM, discussed it in great detail. A refit of the Virat would have cost us around Rs 350 crore. So I said one system of Barak was okay. But George Fernandes wanted a suitable recommendation from the naval headquarters for his approval. He then waited to reverse my decision.
Contrary to you assertion of "NOT TO GENERALIZE OR BELITTLE", you actually done that.tsarkar wrote:I quote the Paulraj and Trishul examples, NOT TO GENERALIZE OR BELITTLE, but to indicate that DRDO is not above skullduggery and lying to protect its own interests AT THE COST OF NATIONAL INTEREST.
correction, he joined DRDO after leaving the navy. he went to stanford on a sabbatical from DRDO and came back to DRDO once that period was over to head the CAIR.So far i havent received any proper answer, why, Paulraj being a Naval Officer, didnt went back to his parent Org after the SONAR project? Instead he went to Stanford Univ.
Good Rahul, my question is why he first of all left Navy, if what tsarkar/chetak says is true ? He was described as an exception to other Naval officers who wanted to join DRDO. The facts fly in the face, thats all.Rahul M wrote:correction, he joined DRDO after leaving the navy. he went to stanford on a sabbatical from DRDO and came back to DRDO once that period was over to head the CAIR.So far i havent received any proper answer, why, Paulraj being a Naval Officer, didnt went back to his parent Org after the SONAR project? Instead he went to Stanford Univ.
This is a self-propelled mine burier for burying the indigenously developed influence mines. This equipment is based on a high cross-country mobility vehicle. Around 480 mines can be stored in palletized containers housed inside the vehicle. A suitable burying mechanism is mounted at the rear end of the vehicle. A suitable arming device arms the mines before it is buried in the ground. This equipment can bury 240 mines in one hour.
2. Charge Line Mine ClearanceWiki wrote:Mining and De-mining equipment: The Self Propelled Mine Burier has been developed by the DRDO against a requirement projected by the Indian Army, its an automated mine laying system developed on a high mobility vehicle and is currently in trials. The Counter-Mine flail, is a vehicle built upon the T-72 chassis, and has a series of fast moving flails to destroy mines. A prototype has been displayed, with the program run per Army requirements.
3. Catapult SPG - Vijayanta:A Charge Line Mine Clearing (Vehicle) equipment was designed and developed to meet the tactical and strategic requirement of the Army for neutralizing antitank land mines and creating a safe lane for the advancement of tanks or armored vehicles in a mine infested war field. The CLMC (V) consists of an explosive filled hose 300 m long laid in a box and mounted on a two wheeled trailer towed by a tank. The explosive hose is projected onto the minefield by a cluster of six rockets. It gets straightened in flight with the help of parachutes and detonates after landing actuating the anti personnel and /antitank mines by blast. A safe lane 6 m wide and about 250 m long is formed by a single unit. The store was accepted by the Army for induction into Service.
4. Up-gunning of T-55: Kit for that was developed by DRDO lab.The M-46 Catapult is a self propelled gun developed in india by Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment of Drdo. It is based on the conversion of ageing British/Indian Vijayanta tank's hull mounted with Russian 130mm M-46 field gun.
ASP sahab, who is stopping them from conducting research ? and who says research is the monopoly of DRDO ? till a few years back, the barriers were from IN's side, thankfully the situation has started to change in the last decade. it is this attitude correction that is well on its way in IN and starting in IAF.Think what they could do in terms of R&D if they were allowed, instead of defence research being the monopoly of DRDO.
Fine, point taken. Glad to hear that things are going well in Navy & IAF R&D.Rahul M wrote:ASP sahab, who is stopping them from conducting research ? and who says research is the monopoly of DRDO ? till a few years back, the barriers were from IN's side, thankfully the situation has started to change in the last decade. it is this attitude correction that is well on its way in IN and starting in IAF.Think what they could do in terms of R&D if they were allowed, instead of defence research being the monopoly of DRDO.
I provide proof stating that Kalam never disagreed to Barak purchase and infact he agreed to them as Trishul is not ready. I have provided the links. DRDO never used the argument of "Trishul ready so no Barak". It highlighted the procedural flaws in the Barak purchase.Was DRDO honest in saying Trishul was ready and Barak purchase was unnecessary?
For the Armoured Corps, we made a significant contribution by the successful development of Up-Gunning kit for the T-55 MBT. The original 100 mm gun of this tank was retrofitted with 105 mm of the Vijayanta which greatly enhanced the fire power of the tank. Standardization of the gun and ammunition for both the tanks has brought about a major reduction in the logistic burden. With the combination of a rugged chassis and turret with a high performance gun and ammunition system, the upgunned T-55 compared well with the T-72s and Vijayantas.
Its ur words. So going by your logic, any gallantry award issued posthumously should not be considered.What the use of the “Scientist of the Year” award after shoving him out?
Thats is not the issue. As Bhagwat mentioned, DRDO laid its foot in the door of imports. You still not provided any proof that DRDO is lying..Negi, my only point here is that DRDO isnt a holy cow. It lies and misleads to cover failures, and that hasnt helped them win the services confidence.
Sir no one is a holy cow , for instance what was the IN estimate for Gorshkov induction (didn't a team go to Russia to check the Gorky first hand ?) ? Are the one's who did the original effort/cost estimate Liars ?tsarkar wrote: Negi, my only point here is that DRDO isnt a holy cow. It lies and misleads to cover failures, and that hasnt helped them win the services confidence.
Yes that point has been made and taken so why continue on that line ?tsarkar wrote: I only want to present my views that it isn’t always that DRDO is making fantastic stuff and services are hell bent on not accepting them.
And point being ? did anyone make a blanket statement alleging IA being not supportive of 'All indigenous' equipment ? I guess debate started with T-90 vs Arjun issue and I am waiting for people to post some similar rebuttals on it , if any .Look how IA jumped at Brahmos when it wasn’t even meant for them. It is because of IA that Block II with SCAN was developed. SCAN is a 100% Indian achievement.
RayC,RayC wrote:Valid point has been raised by you. Yet, at the same time, there will be a lot of people vociferously stating that one could have waited for the DRDO product rather than buying ex import.
That takes me back to the GSQR controversy of the Arjun, which surprisingly was cleaned up but not merged with this thread. There were informed posts and there were those which were embarrassing to some, or I surmise, since it is the normal practice to merge posts in appropriate threads. One could state it could also be because of oversight.
Sarkar, if Kalam said in 2006 that the Trishul missile is ready then that is called lying. The issue of Trishul is with some components that they couldnt get from outside. So they tinkered with whatever they got and aimed for rectifying that throu other means. So i dont see any dishonesty with DRDO and i repeat, DRDO never said, "Trishul is ready so dont go for Barak".BTW, Kanson, Dr Kalam and DRDO had seven years from 1999 to 2006. Why couldnt they make the missile ready? On what basis did Dr. Kalam say that Trishul could be made ready in two years? You have exact words from his letter.
Yes sir and that is why we surf BRF when at work.tsarkar wrote: OT - I just discovered over past days that internet discussion forum takes a heavy toll on time that could be used for social/recreational/sports or similar pursuits. Plus, creating acrimony among my own fellow countrymen isnt exactly satisfying
