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

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 22 Apr 2010 07:52

Read it and weep. HAL cannot make a turboprop trainer by itself.

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/04/ha ... um=twitter

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Apr 2010 15:04

Needs to be cross posted every where. Conference on future munitions for tanks etc.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 51#p861051

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 24 Apr 2010 19:27

shukla wrote:
Misraji wrote:why should this statement carry so much weight??
Coz it comes from a highly respected, currently serving, high ranked Air Force official on a public forum.

The Air Force gentleman is right. Publicly unpalatable statement but right!! Do it quietly as everyone else does. The chinese, pakis, israelis, russians and I dare say the americans.

If you think that it has not been done in India in the past just take a look at the HAL Kiran and the BAC Jet Provost and tell me.

http://www.answers.com/topic/bac-jet-provost

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Kiran

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 26 Apr 2010 22:52

Big Bang's Bangalore link: BEL detectors were a hit with CERN

BEL Detectors Contribute To Big Bang Experiment

...
One of India’s leading Defense Public Sector Undertakings (DPSU), BEL supplied 32-channel silicon strip sensors to the Large Hadron Collider to detect subatomic particles generated after high-energy particle beams collided.
...
The detectors were fabricated using high-purity, high-resistive, float zone processed, zero-defect silicon wafers. The process has been developed and optimized at BEL, in collaboration with the Bhabha Atomic Research Center in Mumbai. The process was certified by CERN and later cleared for production after evaluating the prototype samples.
...
...
BEL’s pre-shower detector just received the Indian Semiconductor Association “Technovation Award” for the best electronic product of the Year 2010. It also picked up an award instituted by Society Defense Technologists.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 26 Apr 2010 23:03

Responding to post from military aviation thread here ...

Mrinal wrote:
Craig Alpert wrote:http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 719071.JPG
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 720628.JPG
Courtesy Livefist
Quite interesting, considering:

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... 45/381923/

and

http://www.indiasharesinvestment.com/ma ... australia/

It looks like CISR/NAL is jumping to produce a whole lot of aircrafts without having produced a single good one till date. The indictment of NAL on the SARAS aircraft crash is there for all to see. Frankly, I am not surprised by NAL's failure. Long time back, in the 90s, I was looking around to do project as part of BE final year requirement and we had been to NAL. It was difficult to find anyone there, people would hardly be in office. The one project that used to have large number of BE students was the FLOSOLVER super-computer project. We didn't go for NAL finally.

However, a bunch of people I knew did their projects at NAL, and they said that most of the so called scientists there had very little practical knowledge, or very old info. And they could hardly answer many of the questions that would come up in the course of the project, or give very vague answers. Many of them weren't satisfied with the projects there, but they had to do something for BE requirements, and there weren't many companies willing to work with them, so they had to be satisfied with what they did.

I don't know if NAL has changed much since then.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 26 Apr 2010 23:27

chetak wrote: The Air Force gentleman is right. Publicly unpalatable statement but right!! Do it quietly as everyone else does. The chinese, pakis, israelis, russians and I dare say the americans.

If you think that it has not been done in India in the past just take a look at the HAL Kiran and the BAC Jet Provost and tell me.

http://www.answers.com/topic/bac-jet-provost

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Kiran

Sure but then he should be suggesting this to DRDO and HAL in closed door meetings, not announcing it to the press.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 27 Apr 2010 00:35

Israel Military Industries Said to Prepare for IPO, Plan Cuts

By Ronit Goodman

April 25 (Bloomberg) -- Israel Military Industries Ltd., a government owned defense-systems maker, plans early retirement for 30 percent of its workforce to prepare for an initial public offering next year, three people familiar with the talks said.

The program for 950 of the company’s 3,200 employees would cost about 1 billion shekels ($268 million). IMI may sell a 49 percent stake through an IPO, said two of the people, who declined to be identified because details of the plan haven’t been made public.

“The sides are still imposing difficult terms on the government,” said Doron Cohen, director-general of Israel’s Government Companies Authority, which is responsible for the activity of about 100 government companies. “So far there are no agreements. We are working on finding a solution that will eventually lead to a privatization of IMI at the end of 2011.”

Israel’s government and the Histadrut labor federation agreed on a plan to offer shares of Ramat Hasharon, Israel-based IMI on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, Calcalist reported April 21, without saying where it got the information. The government approved a plan in September to sell the companies that own and manage the Haifa and Ashdod sea ports. It’s also planning to sell stakes in Bank Leumi Le-Israel Ltd. and Israel Discount Bank Ltd. after bailing out the financial system more than 25 years ago.

The IMI offering will be conditional on a commitment from the government to continue purchasing IMI products, two of the people said. No one at the company was available to comment when Bloomberg called after business hours.

IMI had revenue of $650 million in 2008, according to its Web site.

Good way for Tata, or Mahindra to aquire a decent (probably a full 49%) stake in the company, make them a deal they can't refuse.. They have great products that the Indian Army can use (wave weapons sys) this can also be used by the Navy on board their naval ships amongst other products...

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Apr 2010 01:40

putnanja wrote:It looks like CISR/NAL is jumping to produce a whole lot of aircrafts without having produced a single good one till date.

How many helicopters of its own did HAL produce before it made the ALH? If NAL sits idly, then people will complain it does nothing, on the other hand, if it ties up with HAL, there will be complaints of monopoly and inefficiency, well if it ties up with Mahindra..

The point is there is a substantial market for light aircraft in India. If a company like Mahindra w/NAL can capitalize on it, thats to India's advantage. It definitely wont hurt to have a second airframe fabricator and integrator either, will it.

The indictment of NAL on the SARAS aircraft crash is there for all to see.

Faulty relight procedures and suggested improvements to the design. Many OEM's the world over have done far worse.

Frankly, I am not surprised by NAL's failure. Long time back, in the 90s, I was looking around to do project as part of BE final year requirement and we had been to NAL. It was difficult to find anyone there, people would hardly be in office. The one project that used to have large number of BE students was the FLOSOLVER super-computer project. We didn't go for NAL finally.

However, a bunch of people I knew did their projects at NAL, and they said that most of the so called scientists there had very little practical knowledge, or very old info. And they could hardly answer many of the questions that would come up in the course of the project, or give very vague answers. Many of them weren't satisfied with the projects there, but they had to do something for BE requirements, and there weren't many companies willing to work with them, so they had to be satisfied with what they did.

When an organization has little to no projects and is kept running by the GOI without any clear purpose in mind, thats what happens. There is stagnation and no clear purpose to drive people within.

Its interesting you mention the FLOSOLVER. It was kept in some shape because it had some use thanks to the missile and aerospace programs. But apart from that, NAL had little to no funding for anything else or even mandate.

But if you observe, things changed around the mid-90's, at which time, programs such as the LCA, other defence and aerospace programs were funded, started and NAL's collaboration in them increased. NAL is responsible for a significant portion of the LCA program and several other programs as well and has done its share of work, well. I will have to see if I recall a talk made by a person a year or so back, but it was fairly clear PSUs and R&D are involving NAL in many programs, and their overall impression has been positive.

That has a spinoff on the kind of talent that chooses to stay back at NAL and of course, what experience the people there have as well.

I don't know if NAL has changed much since then.

It has, and it has some ways to go, but programs like the Saras and the RTA are critical to that change. We can either look at the past, or move ahead. If we don't, then others will make nice pitches and take our money and learn on our dime.

In my opinion, NAL and Mahindra's emphasis on civil aviation is a long overdue step. As you'd know, the PRC has hived off COMAC from Avic to focus purely on civilian aerospace. Their starting aims are to take the domestic market away from Airbus and Boeing. And in that respect, their state owned firms have no qualms in signing up with OEMs the world over, including US ones who supply Boeing as well. In our case, we can definitely aim for keeping a portion of the Indian market away from the Embraers, Bombardiers and ATR's, if not the Boeings and Airbus. Mahindra has a good worldwide presence, if they can translate this into commercial success in the export market, that would be yet another positive.

JMHO.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Apr 2010 01:50

tejas wrote:Read it and weep. HAL cannot make a turboprop trainer by itself.

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/04/ha ... um=twitter

I did weep, but at the knowledge of the author of that rather salacious blog.

Can you tell me how many turboprop trainer manufacturers, the world over - use entirely their own systems?

Embraer Tucano - P&W Turboprop
Air Tractor - P&W again
Korean KAI KT-1 - P&W again
T-6A Texan - P&W again
Polish Orlik - P&W again
Pilatus PC-21 - P&W again

I daresay if you check what designs are left, you'd not find it common for most aircraft manufacturers to be manufacturing or designing the engine inhouse. The exceptions would probably be the Chinese and Russians, and even there, the Chinese of late are also relying on global suppliers. Given the timelines that are specified for this program, I dont think it makes any sense for HAL to launch any such engine program on the fly either. The IAF should have made up its mind a while back. Now, its too late and focus on the airframe design and making sure it meets required specifications.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Apr 2010 01:53

Viv S wrote:
chetak wrote: The Air Force gentleman is right. Publicly unpalatable statement but right!! Do it quietly as everyone else does. The chinese, pakis, israelis, russians and I dare say the americans.

If you think that it has not been done in India in the past just take a look at the HAL Kiran and the BAC Jet Provost and tell me.

http://www.answers.com/topic/bac-jet-provost

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Kiran
Sure but then he should be suggesting this to DRDO and HAL in closed door meetings, not announcing it to the press.

Reverse engineering is a mugs game and only of limited utility. The IAF has been doing it for MiG and Antonov spares so he thinks it can be extended elsewhere as well. Were that things were so simple in an era of litigation, plus the limited utility of slowly reverse engineering which tends to achieve success by which time the object of affection become obsolete. Case in point, being the SA-2 experience.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 27 Apr 2010 01:56

Mrinal, boss, how many of those companies have been 'license building" jet engines for nearly half a century like HAL? Left in the hands of the TATAs rather than the GOI, who knows where HAL would be now.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Apr 2010 02:04

Sanku wrote:
Viv S wrote:
Well the CII for some reason has been asking for the FDI cap to bumped up.
Link?

I have that report. It is a well nuanced, non partisan report (unlike the blatant lobbying that has often become the norm in debates of this nature) and quite clearly mentions that

"The industry view on the case for increasing the FDI limit appears to be divided".

It makes no recommendation of what level the FDI cap should be at. It merely describes the different views currently prevailing around this debate, noting the pros and cons for each case and also notes that: "The case for maintaining the FDI cap is founded on sovereignty and security of supply issues and promoting organic industry development". Again, it also examines the expectation that the FDI cap may be raised by looking at different scenarios and who is saying what.

It in fact, concludes by saying "While industry continues to have varying views on the subject, Government faces the onerous task of striking a fine balance between aspirations of different stakeholders and the security issues of the country."

Clearly, the CII KPMG report does not evangelize on this respect.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Apr 2010 02:22

tejas wrote:Mrinal, boss, how many of those companies have been 'license building" jet engines for nearly half a century like HAL?

What does license assembling jet engines (indigenization of which aggregates at the level of 70-80% takes a decade and a half easily) have to do with developing turboprops for trainers?

Furthermore, you put the cart before the horse. HAL can develop an engine as an ab-initio project provided there is a need projected for one. The plans therefore have to be done much in advance. Where were these plans? We have been hearing of HAL pitching assorted trainers to the IAF, with nary a response from the latter. Given this, irrespective of what HAL has or does not have, how is one to expect HAL to come up with an engine overnight!

I for one would rather, HAL picks a mature, tested, certified (and hopefully non sanctionable) powerplant system and uses that, rather than being forced into some rush job because of a misplaced sense of priorities based on what a journalist writes! He quite foolishly refers to the sourcing of an engine from elsewhere as "cookie cutter" - well in that case, almost every airframer out there is a cookie cutter assembler since they rely on P&W, GE, CFM, Safran, Salyut, Klimov etc engines.

Left in the hands of the TATAs rather than the GOI, who knows where HAL would be now.

It would not exist. The TATAs would have taken one look at the amount of investment required to run an aircraft complex, with no firm orders in hand, and sold it off, lock, stock and barrel. If you want an example closer to India, Dassault took one look at the IAF's MMRCA delay and said sorry, but we are shutting down the Mirage 2000 line because we cant afford to keep it running while you make up your mind.

I think the internet is quite abuzz with news that the TATAs lost out to the HAL-BEL combine for the Rustom. As the PVT firms indignantly said "who would invest in product development spending hundreds of crores, without any firm orders in hand"? But thats exactly the point. That is what is usually required of HAL et al, given the services proclivity for only taking perfect, finished products, and which is why defence manufacturing continues to remain in the public space.

The alternative is for the Govt to fund defence programs in the R&D phase by treating the pvt sector at par - but here again, the pvt sector does not exactly cover itself with glory, as things currently stand. Program dollars or rupees are directly linked to complexity. As such, it is to every firms benefit to pitch for the most complex systems and for the consequent high margins. The result are programs such as the JSF in the US, Eurofighter (with BAE et al). In contrast, PSUs are firmly in the MOD hand & their internal workings, margins are well known.

Hence, you see, India has persisted with the PSU approach for the short term since it at least knows the pitfalls associated with the former. The challenge for India is to move away from this, gradually, as it leads to a monopoly situation and stifles the growth of the overall industry. The problem is that India simply does not yet, have the funds to do what the US (for example does) wherein it finances two competing designs (as Boeing and Lockheed Martin did, for the JSF) for extremely complex, large scale programs. The end result is a winner takes all, and hence the ire.

One possible approach is to split the production 70-30 or 60-40 between the winner and loser (irrespective of who they may be) for any program. But doing so, again escalates program costs (work replication or complaints about the nature of the work). There are no simple answers.

Don't assume that the so called bureaucrats and procurement officials are unaware of the pros and cons of each of these setups and so on and so forth. They are. But its a very challenging task to navigate each and every stakeholders opinion whilst being fair to as many and possible, keeping national aims in mind.

negi · Post by **negi** » 27 Apr 2010 02:25

Mrinal saar let us not compare India with likes of Switzerland ,Poland or even Brazil ours is a market big enough to warrant an indigenous turboprop manufacturer but even there the mastery over jet engine is a prerequisite , for a country trying to make its own turbo fan engine in the class of Kaveri we should have had a family of turbo props and turbo shafts derived from the Kabini core in works by now.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Apr 2010 02:38

negi wrote:Mrinal saar let us not compare India with likes of Switzerland ,Poland or even Brazil ours is a market big enough to warrant an indigenous turboprop manufacturer but even there the mastery over jet engine is a prerequisite , for a country trying to make its own turbo fan engine in the class of Kaveri we already should have had a family of turbo props and turbo shafts derived from the Kabini core in works .

We should have had this, we should have had that..ideally speaking we should have had everything, because we are a big market, we have a 1.5 billion population and so on and so forth...

Care to tell me when

1. When the IAF asked for a primary trainer (with a firm requirement)
2. Given 1, any program for this was launched, or when HAL was given a mandate to do so?

Unless 2 occurred, a turboprop wont be developed. Its that simple. As things stand today, there is STILL no mandate for HAL to develop a turboprop engine. There is barely enough funding for some strategic powerplants, and barely at that.

Second, as I clearly noted, license manufacturing jet engines does not end up making HAL a master of the domain either. Their learning curve each time around is steep, with over a decade taken in indigenizing aggregates.

You mention the Kaveri. The Kaveri cleared its trials AFAIK just a couple of years back. After which, all focus has been on making it flight-worthy for the LCA.

The Kaveri program, far more critical than some piddly turboprop has been scouting for clearance for funding for a WW partner from 2001 - yes, thats from when the DRDO folks have been asking the GOI to loosen its purse strings. It is now reported that a venture with Safran will be funded. This is with the rate of growth of the Indian economy.

This must and should have is all very well, but as things stand, there was no mandate for a turboprop engine & nor was it HAL's business (as stated by the IAF or GOI) to develop one! Nor is Mahindra or any other firm aiming to develop one either. They will all be sourced from worldwide OEMs.

Will things change in the future - perhaps. But what I do know is that if current money is to be parlayed for future benefits, then there are many areas where that money may end up being allocated by decision makers, and not to turboprops.

So you can either continue to import entire aircraft, paying the markups for design, system integration or do it inhouse, with at least some 20-40% of that work going to private firms who support HAL, with imported turboprop/ propulsion systems. I'd rather the latter happens than the former!

As they are doing exactly what HAL will be doing, but the benefits accrue to some other firm and nation.

negi · Post by **negi** » 27 Apr 2010 03:49

Boss where did I blame the HAL in all this ? I realize it becomes pointless to blame PSUs given the way they operate under the GOI umbrella . The reactive mode in which R&D is done on 'on demand' basis by our MIC is a major deficiency of our system (that explains the straight jump to MIL TF engine). That is why the

about turboprop engine.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 27 Apr 2010 08:01

Mrinal wrote:
I have that report. It is a well nuanced, non partisan report (unlike the blatant lobbying that has often become the norm in debates of this nature) and quite clearly mentions that

"The industry view on the case for increasing the FDI limit appears to be divided".

It makes no recommendation of what level the FDI cap should be at. It merely describes the different views currently prevailing around this debate, noting the pros and cons for each case and also notes that: "The case for maintaining the FDI cap is founded on sovereignty and security of supply issues and promoting organic industry development". Again, it also examines the expectation that the FDI cap may be raised by looking at different scenarios and who is saying what.

It in fact, concludes by saying "While industry continues to have varying views on the subject, Government faces the onerous task of striking a fine balance between aspirations of different stakeholders and the security issues of the country."

Clearly, the CII KPMG report does not evangelize on this respect.

Quoting from the report:

The case for a higher Foreign Direct Investment cap in Indian defence industry is one of the most hotly debated issues amongst defence industry players. Opinion on a higher FDI cap appears to be divided. The case for raising the cap primarily rests on increasing investment and the transfer of foreign technologies. The case for maintaining the FDI cap is founded on sovereignty and security of supply issues and promoting organic industry development. Whatever the arguments, the clear expectation of industry is that the FDI cap will be increased above its current level of 26 percent.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 27 Apr 2010 11:01

Viv S wrote: Quoting from the report:

The case for a higher Foreign Direct Investment cap in Indian defence industry is one of the most hotly debated issues amongst defence industry players. Opinion on a higher FDI cap appears to be divided. The case for raising the cap primarily rests on increasing investment and the transfer of foreign technologies. The case for maintaining the FDI cap is founded on sovereignty and security of supply issues and promoting organic industry development. Whatever the arguments, the clear expectation of industry is that the FDI cap will be increased above its current level of 26 percent.

Link and quote.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 27 Apr 2010 11:16

Sanku wrote:
Viv S wrote: Quoting from the report:

The case for a higher Foreign Direct Investment cap in Indian defence industry is one of the most hotly debated issues amongst defence industry players. Opinion on a higher FDI cap appears to be divided. The case for raising the cap primarily rests on increasing investment and the transfer of foreign technologies. The case for maintaining the FDI cap is founded on sovereignty and security of supply issues and promoting organic industry development. Whatever the arguments, the clear expectation of industry is that the FDI cap will be increased above its current level of 26 percent.
Link and quote.

That was a direct quote.

http://www.kpmg.com/IN/en/IssuesAndInsi ... Sector.pdf (courtesy Google)

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 27 Apr 2010 11:26

Viv S wrote:
That was a direct quote.

http://www.kpmg.com/IN/en/IssuesAndInsi ... Sector.pdf (courtesy Google)

Thanks!

So a 78 page report, after much discussion on pro's and con's and various factors has this to say, in one line?

Whatever the arguments, the clear expectation of industry is that the FDI cap will be increased above its current level of 26 percent

Ok fine as far as I am concerned the report directly in sync with my though process.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 27 Apr 2010 12:31

Sanku wrote:
So a 78 page report, after much discussion on pro's and con's and various factors has this to say, in one line?

Whatever the arguments, the clear expectation of industry is that the FDI cap will be increased above its current level of 26 percent

Ok fine as far as I am concerned the report directly in sync with my though process.

There was a industry poll in there as well. Some 57% were for hiking the FDI cap and about 17% opposed it.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 27 Apr 2010 14:28

Viv S wrote:
Sanku wrote:
So a 78 page report, after much discussion on pro's and con's and various factors has this to say, in one line?

Whatever the arguments, the clear expectation of industry is that the FDI cap will be increased above its current level of 26 percent

Ok fine as far as I am concerned the report directly in sync with my though process.
There was a industry poll in there as well. Some 57% were for hiking the FDI cap and about 17% opposed it.

Ok haw hum.... yawn....

amit · Post by **amit** » 27 Apr 2010 15:00

Sanku wrote:Ok haw hum.... yawn....

Some random quotes:

Well thank god the entire CII-GoI disagrees with you then.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 83#p847483

Unfortunately for you guys claiming to be for private industry this is what the CII thinks, so that wraps it up for about Indian industry I think
http://www.ciidefence.com/pressreleases_015.asp?id=3
Offset Policy will leverage India’s buying power to upgrade technology, improve infrastructure and make it part of the global defence supply chain

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 59#p847059

Which point you have repeated many times, all the while expecting us to believe your word over the combined word of CII+MoD+other branches of GoI not to mention plain common sense and our own better judgment as well as all available data on ground.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 27#p859427

Just a few of many such references...

Indeed: Ok haw hum.... yawn....

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 27 Apr 2010 15:17

amit wrote: Indeed: Ok haw hum.... yawn....

Yawn!! Usual out of context quoting eh!

As Mrinal said, that KPMG report is completely neutral other than stating that some folks will expect some increase in FDI %.

And that one data point is somehow a major rebuttal to what I said about the offset policy?

YAWN.

amit · Post by **amit** » 27 Apr 2010 15:24

Sanku wrote:Yawn!! Usual out of context quoting eh!

Dear Sanku,

That post wasn't meant for you per se so please stifle your Yawn, it's seems to be all over the place.

My intention was/is just to give a reference point as to your style of debate. (Impressive I must say!). All of your "discussions" (quoted here) are with Viv S and pertains to the FDI cap and not just the Offset policy. It's an interesting exercise to contrast those responses with your current ones on the FDI cap.

Oh by the way please stop name dropping.

I'm sure everyone can understand the POV expressed by Mrinal or others without you hanging on to coattails to buttress your own POV.

Let it (your POV) stand on its own merit.

Just a genteel suggestion onlee...

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 27 Apr 2010 15:38

Oh by the way please stop name dropping.

I'm sure everyone can understand the POV expressed by Mrinal or others without you hanging on to coattails to buttress your own POV

@Amit, you have issues with my referring to Mrinals statement on this page but see nothing wrong is jumping into a discussion between me and Viv S by your own admission. How exactly does that work?

That post wasn't meant for you so please stifle your Yawn, it's seems to be all over the place.

Next time you dont want to me to reply to you feel free to not use my quotes? Or is it that you can use my quotes but I cant respond (even yawn) at them, why is that? Facts get uncomfortable?

Please spare? Kindly?

amit · Post by **amit** » 27 Apr 2010 15:50

Me asking you not to respond?

You gotta be kidding, right Sanku?

I requested you not to Yawn. You last few posts seem to be full of them.

Apologies if by doing that I inadvertently stepped on your toes.

The point is the CII-KPMG report (yes I've read the full report) may not give percentages but (I think) it clearly makes a case for more private sector participation and lifting the cap from the present level.

I don't know if you've read the report but all along your posts seem to imply that the CII is also against raising the FDI cap. Do note I'm not saying that the KPMG/CII report is something that's the final word in this issue. However, it's POV, IMO is quite different from what you are stating it is. It's as simple as that.

And yes I referred to Viv S in the context of the discussion you were having with him on this subject. I did not say something to the effect: "I think that this is like this and so does ..... (put in a BRFite's name)"

I'm sure you understand the difference.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 27 Apr 2010 16:19

amit wrote:
The point is the CII-KPMG report (yes I've read the full report) may not give percentages but (I think) it clearly makes a case for more private sector participation and lifting the cap from the present level.

1) May not give percentages

2) but YOU think

3) that IT CLEARLY makes a case.

Thanks for curing the yawns.

But hey you know what?

for more private sector participation

is indeed clear from that report and also what I advocate!!

What I am not sure about is whether raising FDI is a good way of doing it which as you have also figured out

I don't know if you've read the report but all along your posts seem to imply that the CII is also against raising the FDI cap.

Exactly what the CII report is saying. It is not sure as to whether the FDI cap should be raised and if so to what level?

It is merely saying that folks expect some change?

So you see it makes a vague expectation of future after discussing various issues. The various issues run 78 pages, the vague expectation in ONE sentence.

Do note I'm not saying that the KPMG/CII report is something that's the final word in this issue. However, it's POV, IMO is quite different from what you are stating it is. It's as simple as that.

No Amit, YOU ARE WRONG in the POV you have happily assigned to me (without checking with me) and after first twisting my PoV you are TWISTING a clear cut statement.

"Some expectation of FDI increase"

TO mean that CII has a clear cut recommendation on what the FDI route should be.

Got that?

amit · Post by **amit** » 27 Apr 2010 16:31

Sanku wrote:Exactly what the CII report is saying. It is not sure as to whether the FDI cap should be raised and if so to what level?

So CII has gone to be not sure from:

The Indian private sector doesn't currently have any significant R&D capability nor can you force foreign firms share that through offsets.
Well thank god the entire CII-GoI disagrees with you then.

That's a small start.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 27 Apr 2010 16:40

amit wrote:>>Exactly what the CII report is saying. It is not sure as to whether the FDI cap should be raised and if so to what level?

So CII has gone to be not sure from:

>>
The Indian private sector doesn't currently have any significant R&D capability nor can you force foreign firms share that through offsets.

Well thank god the entire CII-GoI disagrees with you then.

That's a small start.

Oh man, Wow, I mean talk of clutching at straws.

Take two very different statements from totally different contexts, juxtapose them and claim a small start.
--------------------

No CII report (one part of CII-GoI) does not make a statement saying that increasing FDI is necessary to get in more ToT.

If the report had such a conclusion, you could claim the "not sure" part in the given context. All I am saying is that CII is not even sure whether FDI should be raised FOR ANY reason.

Surely the difference between the two is obvious?

archan · Post by **archan** » 28 Apr 2010 23:33

My guess is this childish bitching would stop if I were to hand out a few warnings and if people qualify for them, bans? if you guys cannot debate like grown ups, why bother with BRF at all?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 29 Apr 2010 00:47

Mea Culpa, I have been warned before to not respond but I end up doing it.

This is the very last time. From next time, no response, positive or negative.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 29 Apr 2010 20:24

Indian military scientists (DRDO)are studying an 82-year-old who claims he has not had any food or drink for 70 years.

India's Defence Research Development Organisation, whose scientists develop drone aircraft, intercontinental ballistic missiles and new types of bombs. They believe Mr Prahlad could teach them to help soldiers survive longer without food, or disaster victims to hang on until help arrives."If his claims are verified, it will be a breakthrough in medical science," said Dr G Ilavazhagan, director of the Defence Institute of Physiology & Allied Sciences. "We will be able to help save human lives during natural disasters, high altitude, sea journeys and other natural and human extremities. We can educate people about the survival techniques in adverse conditions with little food and water or nothing at all."

hmmm...... DRDO is planning to 'not feed' soldiers from now on to experiment

any believers out there?? count me out...I live to eat!

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 29 Apr 2010 22:43

shukla wrote:Indian military scientists (DRDO)are studying an 82-year-old who claims he has not had any food or drink for 70 years.

hmmm...... DRDO is planning to 'not feed' soldiers from now on to experiment
any believers out there?? count me out...I live to eat!

I strongly urge the DRDO to experiment on THEMSELVES before they come anywhere near the Soldiers.

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 01 May 2010 03:55

TOT(Transfer of Technology) Document on Jaguar Nose Radome Fabrication handed over to HAL

NAL indigenously designed, developed and fabricated a composite nose radome for the Fire Control Radar of Jaguar Maritime Aircraft for HAL, Bangalore, end user being IAF. In continuation to the development of 11 no. nose radomes, a request was made by HAL – Overhaul Division for transfer of technology of the Jaguar Nose Radome fabrication.

The TOT document was officially handed over to HAL by Director, NAL on 16th April 2010 at a small function held at Director’s Conference Hall. NAL had undertaken this project with FRP Division as a nodal point and coordinating the overall activities with interdivisional participation by CEM Lab., ALD, Structural Technologies Division, CTFD and Engineering Services Division. HAL supported the fabrication and supply of all metallic parts, inserts and structural static tests. CABS supported in lightning protection tests. LRDE, CATF-ISRO and IAI – Elta, Isreal for EM tests. The vibration test was carried out at STTD, NAL. The radome had gone through a systematic development right from structural design, fabrication, full qualification tests, including flight tests and ATP tests on all production radomes.

It is a variable thickness, nose thick and base thin design radome. An inhouse developed closed mould resin injection technology has been used in fabrication of the radome. The composite radome is protected with anti-static / anti rain erosion paint subjected to qualification tests, viz., EM, lightning protection, static loading, vibration and rain erosion tests in presence of CRI.

From the HAL side, Wg. Cdr. MP Benjamin , DGM, Overhaul Division received the TOT documents and mentioned that it was an auspicious day for both HAL and NAL. He stated that HAL is accepting technology transfer for the first time and expressed it as a honour to take the TOT document to HAL on behalf of their GM Mr. KG Subramony.

In the light of IAF planning to deploy around 50 Jaguar aircrafts to its fleet with fire control radars, it is apt that this technology transfer of indigenously developed nose radome from NAL to HAL is befitting. Wg. Cdr. Benjamin stated that tentatively the first radome of the 50 nos. should be ready by June 2011. He also assured that once the mirage aircrafts get inducted and serve the IAF, HAL may come back to NAL for indigenising its radome.

Director, NAL congratulated the team for the successful execution of a national project leading to a technology transfer by CSIR-NAL to a Public Sector and in turn to the nations defence sector – the IAF.

Shri DV Venkatasubramanyam, Head, FRPD also spelt a word of appreciation to all those involved in this project and some of them who had superannuated to name a few Shri SK Veluswamy, Shri Ranganath Rao, Shri Sathyanarayan of HAL, Dr. S Christopher of LRDE, Dr. RMVGK Rao, Dr. S Viswanath, Shri C Chandrashekar and Shri Dwarakanath of NAL, Shri Majeed and Shri VL Raja of CRI-CEMILAC whose contributions need to be mentioned on this occasion.

The event was graced by Dr. Ranjan Moothithaya, Head, KTMD and team, Head, CTFD & team, Head, CEM Lab., ALD, Head, Engineering Services Division and the FRP team.

It was a moment of pride to NAL as it also marked yet another milestone on the map of CSIR-NAL’s achievements. The Jaguar Nose Radome Project team thanked the Director, NAL, on this occasion.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 May 2010 04:30

Viv S wrote: Quoting from the report:

The case for a higher Foreign Direct Investment cap in Indian defence industry is one of the most hotly debated issues amongst defence industry players. Opinion on a higher FDI cap appears to be divided. The case for raising the cap primarily rests on increasing investment and the transfer of foreign technologies. The case for maintaining the FDI cap is founded on sovereignty and security of supply issues and promoting organic industry development. Whatever the arguments, the clear expectation of industry is that the FDI cap will be increased above its current level of 26 percent.

That was a direct quote.

http://www.kpmg.com/IN/en/IssuesAndInsi ... Sector.pdf (courtesy Google)

Thats a clear misstatement of what the report says, whether intentional or unintentional. You state that the CII and KPMG support the opening up of defence to FDI. They do no such thing. The report just mentions that "industry expects" FDI to be raised.

In fact, the report mentions both sides of the coin, from what foreign manufacturers say, to what opponents of the FDI cap being raised say.

The report itself does not suggest any course of action, unlike what you claim and ends with the statement "While industry continues to have varying views on the subject, Government faces the onerous task of striking a fine balance between aspirations of different stakeholders and the security issues of the country".

If they were evangelising or supporting one particular course of action, as you so imply, they would not even have dwelt on the varying views and would have clearly suggested a course of action.

Clearly, CII KPMG are not advising the GOI to undertake any particular case of action and leave the decision to the GOI.

So much for your direct quote.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 May 2010 04:40

negi wrote:Boss where did I blame the HAL in all this ? I realize it becomes pointless to blame PSUs given the way they operate under the GOI umbrella . The reactive mode in which R&D is done on 'on demand' basis by our MIC is a major deficiency of our system (that explains the straight jump to MIL TF engine). That is why the about turboprop engine.

Then you jumped into a conversation where HAL was clearly being blamed, wherein my reply was in that context pointing to the same thing you noted, which is a failure of planning. Yes, reactive planning is a major problem in our MIC, and that stems from three critical factors:

- The lack of long term planning at the MOD level
- Individual services lacking a proper technology cell and planning capability + tendency to rely on imports
- PSUs being content with license manufacturing (though in this case, HAL was proactive, but it got them nowhere)

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 May 2010 04:59

amit wrote:However what I'm convinced about, and that's the point about a rigid view, is that things cannot go on the way it has. I'm not in a position to specify how but I think there has to be a change in management focus in say for example HAL and there has to be more market orientation. You made this point and so did I think Negi bhai, that HAL has its plate full. I think that's something companies the world over in any sector would welcome. HAL should then ramp up capacity, hire more people, invest in new facilities, the works. Is this being done? I doubt it.

This data is available.

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories449.htm
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/369 ... 25000.html

As you pointed out in another thread, they've even fired the Public Relations guy who was doing a good job publicising the Tejas. This kind of attitude cannot go on IMO.

Why some guy was asked to leave may have little to do with his function, and a lot to do with whose toes he stepped on. From his blog, it seems he had issues with one particular gentleman, though lets leave his name out.

If you'd noticed in my example about Embraer, it was for much of the time a Govt owned entity. That means HAL doesn't need to go private to become a better managed company. It just needs a change in management culture.

Thing is HAL & Embraer operate in entirely different segments with entirely different constraints as regards their primary sectors. The most basic issue is and was that the Brazilian Govt simply did not have enough for Embraer to do. For the company to survive, it had to find a market niche, and function. To its credit, Embraer found business jets to be that function and has performed well (though the manner in which it has suffered of late shows the limitations of being dependent overly, on one sector). HAL's stated focus is entirely different. It's larger focus has been on military systems with a stated aim for indigenization. In many cases, this is not even economically suitable, but HAL does it anyhow (and it is required) to gain a 70-80% indigenization rate for the airframe over the product lifecycle.

Embraer on the other hand, really does not operate this way. It sources world class assemblies from manufacturers arll over the world, and incorporates those into its aircraft. Of course, it has a first class Design and Engineering team, with state of the art facilities. There are things we can learn from Embraer, but the claim that "HAL needs a change in management culture" looking at Embraer alone, is not justified.

And why shouldn't HAL enter civilian aircraft manufacture? It's a profitable enterprise but to do that it has to be weaned away from its single customer mentality.

It is a as problem - as HAL can either do x things well, or spread its limited resources out thin, and end up with a shortfall. Unfortunately, as much as I respect Mr Barbora - he performed the equivalent of a ghetto drive-by on HAL with his comments. If they end up spreading themselves all over civilian aircraft manufacture, he will undoubtedly be amongst those who target HAL for its failure. The other issue is of finances. A program to target (say) a narrowbody jetliner, the kind of which China is now building, requires huge funding and focus from assorted GOI bodies not just HAL, it soon becomes a national program. Second, it requires an economic rationale. I doubt we have either of those in the short term, and concentrating on short haul aircraft eg the RTA series makes more sense. I would also, rather that those projects went to private industry, not HAL, as we do need diversification.

A more competitive MIL in India IMO would act as a catalyst to bring about these changes. And that's the point I was trying to make with the Bombay Club's example. Even Rahul Bajaj's company emerged much stronger once it started to face real competition and it wasn't wiped as Mr Bajaj probably feared?

No issues with competition, it should be welcomed. Which is where I think Mr Mahindras comment about being the next Embraer may help.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 02 May 2010 05:01

Mrinal wrote: Thats a clear misstatement of what the report says, whether intentional or unintentional. You state that the CII and KPMG support the opening up of defence to FDI. They do no such thing. The report just mentions that "industry expects" FDI to be raised.

How do you figure that 'expectation' implies 'perceives a coming change' as opposed 'wishes for one'?

In fact, the report mentions both sides of the coin, from what foreign manufacturers say, to what opponents of the FDI cap being raised say.

The report itself does not suggest any course of action, unlike what you claim and ends with the statement "While industry continues to have varying views on the subject, Government faces the onerous task of striking a fine balance between aspirations of different stakeholders and the security issues of the country".

If they were evangelising or supporting one particular course of action, as you so imply, they would not even have dwelt on the varying views and would have clearly suggested a course of action.

Clearly, CII KPMG are not advising the GOI to undertake any particular case of action and leave the decision to the GOI.

So much for your direct quote.

There's a poll in there. Support raising the FDI limit - 57%, against raising the FDI limit -19%.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 May 2010 05:16

Viv S wrote:How do you figure that 'expectation' implies 'perceives a coming change' as opposed 'wishes for one'?

How do you imply the opposite, or that it is not even a mix of the two? While I have not even stuck to any of these 3 interpretations, you have jumped to one!

Second, even if it was the second, have a basic understanding of the report. Its a report citing the issues currently prevalent, it does not make recommendations, but is a briefing document about the issues currently facing the industry!! The entire report is structured around that aspect. Its purpose was to make industry (local and international) aware of the opportunity in the Indian defence industry, the procurement process and organizations involved, and current issues of debate! It was not meant to a consultancy for the MOD or GOI to take action!

Eitherways, do understand, that you are incorrect!

There's a poll in there. Support raising the FDI limit - 57%, against raising the FDI limit -19%.

First, lets split that poll up - 26% answered maybe! They were not even sure!

Second, there is no division of whether all believed in whether the FDI cap should be moved beyond 49% either. The format of the question asked did not allow for that! They just asked an open ended question (49%/and or above, and folks responded).

This is exactly why the report authors noted "varied views exist in the industry". It was not their intent to be that specific.

Furthermore, thats a survey done by the CII-KPMG, not their recommendation! Therein lies the difference, which you have been unable to grasp.

Tomorrow, the CII-KPMG may conduct a survey which ends up with entirely different percentages, they will report that as well, adding it as an update to their earlier report!

You, on the other hand, are tom tomming it as a recommendation by the CII-KPMG, which is entirely inaccurate.