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

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 02 May 2010 05:32

Mrinal wrote: 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!

I haven't said the report itself recommends a raising the FDI limit. I said it gives out the industry opinion bearing that out.

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!

Its still a pretty decisive opinion.

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).

And I didn't say, that the CII was asking for it to be raised over 49%. I said it was asking for the FDI limit to be hiked.

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

Am I?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 May 2010 05:50

Viv S wrote:I haven't said the report itself recommends a raising the FDI limit. I said it gives out the industry opinion bearing that out.

You noted: "Well the CII for some reason has been asking for the FDI cap to bumped up. " and then when asked said "CII KPMG report". And then when pointed out the CII report says no such thing, you attempt to mislead by saying "direct quote".

Clearly, you were wrong, even if you are unwilling to admit the same!!

Its still a pretty decisive opinion.

Nonsense. You cant even make out whether the respondents perceived a change, or support a change, what percentage of respondents supported what kind of change and you say this.

Try making such authoritative statements in any serious context, based on such flimsy claims, and you would be laughed out.

And I didn't say, that the CII was asking for it to be raised over 49%. I said it was asking for the FDI limit to be hiked.

Your own quote is above. So much for your claims!! And nor did the CII report- as pointed out above, ask for the FDI limit to be hiked.

Am I?

Well, hopefully, at least now you wont, if you have any ability or belief in proper citation and sourcing, beyond inaccurate, patently misleading one liners!

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 02 May 2010 06:37

Mrinal wrote:
Viv S wrote:I haven't said the report itself recommends a raising the FDI limit. I said it gives out the industry opinion bearing that out.
You noted: "Well the CII for some reason has been asking for the FDI cap to bumped up. " and then when asked said "CII KPMG report". And then when pointed out the CII report says no such thing, you attempt to mislead by saying "direct quote".

Clearly, you were wrong, even if you are unwilling to admit the same!!

The poll gives out the industry opinion. And the CII KPMG report is the source for it. I haven't changed my position. If I could have I would've posted a picture of the pie chart, but I didn't know how to do that, which is why I had to make do with the quote.

Nonsense. You cant even make out whether the respondents perceived a change, or support a change, what percentage of respondents supported what kind of change and you say this.

Its was a plain question - "Do you believe there is a need to increase the FDI limit from 26% to 49%, or higher in the defence sector in India" - and the responses are self explanatory. 57% polled say they would like the FDI cap hiked, they're no complexity to it.

Well, hopefully, at least now you wont, if you have any ability or belief in proper citation and sourcing, beyond inaccurate, patently misleading one liners!

I haven't been misleading anyone.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 May 2010 07:20

Viv S wrote: The poll gives out the industry opinion. And the CII KPMG report is the source for it. I haven't changed my position. If I could have I would've posted a picture of the pie chart, but I didn't know how to do that, which is why I had to make do with the quote.

Great - so first you you say "Well the CII for some reason has been asking for the FDI cap to bumped up" follow it up with "CII KPMG report" and when caught out in your own web of tangled claims when asked to cite when and where in this report the CII asked for the FDI cap to be raised, you now say "industry opinion" and "I dont know how to post a pie chart". Are you kidding?

Seriously, please stop spinning.

Its was a plain question - "Do you believe there is a need to increase the FDI limit from 26% to 49%, or higher in the defence sector in India" - and the responses are self explanatory. 57% polled say they would like the FDI cap hiked, they're no complexity to it.

And 43 % dont buy into that categorical belief including those who are unsure, and the CII noting how thin that margin of surety is, itself says industry response is varied, and nor does it offer the GOI a recommendation, unlike what you claimed prior.

I have myself known SMEs who are highly opposed to hiking the FDI limit whereas others could'nt give a darn either which way, and unlike you, I am not sitting and passing glib one liners about the state of the industry, by misquoting an industry organization. If you quote a report, quote what it says, not what you think it does and then pass it off as authoritative, kindly.

I haven't been misleading anyone.

You have been trying, and assuming that your glib one liners would pass scrutiny. Well, heres what, they didnt.

So far you have been openly fudging saying that the CII asks for an increase in FDI cap, name dropping the CII report, when it does nothing of the sort. When you were called on this, you didnt even attempt to correct your statement then, you fibbed some more by saying direct quote and deliberately not quoting all the other statements which rubbish your claim of certitude. And now, when there is no option out, you state you meant industry response all along and that you didnt know how to post pie charts!

What rubbish - how hard was it to just mention the percentages then? Or do you think your lazy, one line responses are something to be proud of?

In your response to me and then Sanku above, you say "direct quote". And then later say, there is an industry response as well. Not merely the response itself.

Clearly, you have been misleading people, including sparking off that entire avoidable conversation above, which would never have happened if you had admitted you were wrong all along about how to interpret the report.

You couldnt do that, so you attempted to salvage something by putting up that "direct quote". Even now, obsessed as you are with not admitting you were wrong, you are responding with useless one liners and attempting smart a$s come backs. All it would have taken is just one, ok I was wrong, I meant the industry response chart and the CII is not suggesting this - but no, that was too hard!

Not only have you been openly fudging a source but now you are attempting to spin your way out of it. Enough.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 May 2010 07:48

tejas wrote:No comments on my ajai shukla link. That article should make every Indian hang their heads in shame. Pukistan exports more military products than India!

Yeah, very high value items to be sure..they cant make a single radar, aircraft or ship on their own..

Can anyone name a single hardware product that BEL has brought to market, in use with the Indian armed forces in five decades of its existence?

http://www.bel-india.com (if that site is up) will have a lot to answer your rhetorical question.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 May 2010 08:00

Bheem wrote:To add to my post, the production line is hardly ever used for R&D as it disrupts production. Also the equipment required for R&D is normally very different from the equipment required for mass production. Also the labs and testing equipment requrred for R&D and normal production is different. Very low capex of 'alleged' R&D is a strong indicator of account fudging.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... 11/393168/

Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL), which is looking to increase its turnover from indigenously-developed products, has hiked its research and development (R&D) budget by 15.3 per cent to Rs 300 crore for 2010-11. Last year, the company spent Rs 260 crore on R&D.

Apart from the R&D budget, the company has also hiked its capital expenditure by about 16 per cent to Rs 350 crore for 2010-11 which will be used mainly to modernise its facilities, Ashwani Kumar Datt, chairman and managing director, BEL said.

Furthermore, the above understanding of R&D is not necessarily accurate. It seems to be only related to manufacturing R&D and that too at the process/manufacturing level looking only at BELs facilities alone, whereas design & development in any organization such as BEL, including additional headcounts for working via Workstations w/ s/w licenses would also be counted under R&D, and justifiably so with rise in Capex limited if existing infrastructure is used. Example in point, BELs work on software programs. Furthermore, BEL can hire extra engineers & depute them to work along with DRDO in labs/establishments, infrastructure is shared - again would reflect in R&D head as BEL pays them, but Capex would not show an immediate jump. The important thing is to look at the value chain of BELs activities and how it integrates with partner (local or abroad) organizations, and only then can you determine where the money flows.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 02 May 2010 08:02

Mrinal wrote:Great - so first you you say "Well the CII for some reason has been asking for the FDI cap to bumped up" follow it up with "CII KPMG report" and when caught out in your own web of tangled claims when asked to cite when and where in this report the CII asked for the FDI cap to be raised, you now say "industry opinion" and "I dont know how to post a pie chart". Are you kidding?

It was in PDF format so yes I couldn't post the pie chart without a lot of effort. And yes my point(or claim if you will) still stands. The KPMG does give out industry opinion that favouring a hike in the FDI.

Seriously, please stop spinning.

And 43 % dont buy into that categorical belief including those who are unsure, and the CII noting how thin that margin of surety is, itself says industry response is varied, and nor does it offer the GOI a recommendation, unlike what you claimed prior.

Well I guess I should clarify in that case. 57% for and 17% opposed leads me to believe the industry would like the FDI limit to be raised. IMO of course.

So far you have been openly fudging saying that the CII asks for an increase in FDI cap, name dropping the CII report, when it does nothing of the sort. When you were called on this, you didnt even attempt to correct your statement then, you fibbed some more by saying direct quote and deliberately not quoting all the other statements which rubbish your claim of certitude. And now, when there is no option out, you state you meant industry response all along and that you didnt know how to post pie charts!

I brought up the report as a source and did not at any point claim that this was a recommendation made by KPMG.

What rubbish - how hard was it to just mention the percentages then? Or do you think your lazy, one line responses are something to be proud of?

In retrospect I should have. And had I known its would snowball I would have. And I'm posting one-liners because a verbose reply, while you're looking for a retraction rather than a explanation, is pointless.

Clearly, you have been misleading people, including sparking off that entire avoidable conversation above, which would never have happened if you had admitted you were wrong all along about how to interpret the report.

I had read the report long before I made the post and I'd seen the opinion poll at the same time. I took a look at it again before posting and yes I saw the opinion poll again(its bang in the middle of the page). Which is precisely why I have no intention of admitting I was wrong. And no its not an ego issue. I had no problem in admitting I was wrong about the Arjun's 2005 trials, this debate is of no more importance than that.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 02 May 2010 08:32

Quite worrisome state of Affairs

Link to article: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indi ... 880814.cms

Some important points (Quoting from the article):

The latest parliamentary public accounts committee report has blasted the government for failure to establish indigenous manufacturing capabilities for high-altitude gear, which is further compounded by gross irregularities in purchase of specialised clothing and mountaineering equipment from abroad.

"The committee is dismayed to learn that a country which is capable of successfully launching satellites, manufacturing missiles and other state-of-the-art defence equipment is still struggling with the problem of a narrow vendor base,''

Of the 55 "authorised items'', 19 critical items are still being imported. Apart from woollen socks, rucksacks and sleeping bags, these include `outer shell parka' and the `fibre-pile pant' from Finland (Rs 14,174 each), Swiss down jacket (Rs 9,093), Italian MP Scarpa boots (Rs 6,990) and French `boot crampons' (Rs 6,990).

Noting that there were 388 casualties in five years, the committee said, "The whole approach towards procurement appears casual... Neither quality nor timely availability of critical items is ensured, thereby compromising safety as well as comfort of troops deployed in the harsh climatic conditions.''

The defence ministry should "fix responsibility'' on all those found responsible for "flaws'' in procurement procedures, technical evaluations and rejection of ordered clothing and equipment. "Corrective measures should be initiated forthwith,'' it said.

At the same time, DRDO, defence PSUs and ordnance factories should be "encouraged'' to manufacture high-altitude gear even "if there is no profit to be made on some of the items''

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 03 May 2010 18:41

MOD press release...

Restructuring Of DRDO

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 04 May 2010 10:31

shukla wrote:MOD press release...

Restructuring Of DRDO

I am glad many of the much needed reforms that people have been asking for are happening.

Meanwhile GoI has de facto put a project structure around DRDO. I wish they formalize it even more by appointing A owner of this entire process for A vertical.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 06 May 2010 04:24

Antony faces same questions on DRDO performance 4 years later, update on major DRDO programmes

04 May 2010 PIB/8ak: Shri Mangani Lal Mandal, Member of Parliament from Bihar with the JDU in 2006 had questioned A.K. Antony on DRDO:

(a) Whether it is a fact that Indian Armed forces have to depend on foreign countries even today for getting modern arms and equipments, despite the claims of self-sufficiency in every field in the country
(b) whether it is also a fact that the country has not achieved the desired success in the field of defence research and innovation as per the circumstances and the needs
(c) whether it is also a fact that India’s approach in respect of defence research does not seem to come upto the reality

The Rakha Mantri's answer was "Defence Research in India is regularly reviewed and aligned with the long-term integrated prospective plan of the Armed Forces. In recent past, certain systematic changes have been introduced wherein DRDO would focus on the critical technologies and those of strategic importance."

4 years later, the same minister asked a similar question and the failure to re-structure the DRDO was hidden by another deflective answer that the government is still 'finalising' its report based on the recommendations of Dr. P Rama Rao Committee. The committee had recommended DRDO shed its non-defence laboratories and focus on critical technologies. DRDO is not happy about this, though the report also suggested a great role for DRDO in the procurement process if it restricts itself to critical, hi-tech projects.

Commenting on the topic, DNA had earlier reported that IAF chief had asked DRDO to "Stop making juice". Secondly, it has been the long term complaint of the armed forces that the DRDO functions independently of the plans of the Armed Forces. On the co-ordination between the navy and DRDO, one naval officer said that the Navy has a 15 year acquisition plan but the DRDO is oblivious to it. He should know, he was one of the people who prepared the plan.

The Raksha Mantri went on to detail the major ongoing DRDO projects.

1. Light Combat Aircraft (LCA)

Full scale Engineering Development (FSED) Programme – Phase – II

Sanction: 20 Nov 2001, Original Proposed Date of Completion (PDC) 31 Dec 2008, Revised PDC 31 Dec 2012.

More than 1330 flight tests have been completed utilising 8 Tejas Aircraft. Maiden flight of the first two seater (trainer) version Prototype Vehicle (PV5) – Tejas carried out. Air – to ground weapon drop, air to air close combat missile release, sea level trials, cold weather trials, night flying trials and cross-wind take off and landing have been completed successfully.

2. Full Scale Engineering Development (FSED) of Naval Light Combat Aircraft (LCA-Navy)

Sanction: 28 Mar 2003, Original PDC 27 Mar 2010, Revised PDC 27 Dec 2014

Equipping of LCA (NP-1) fuselage is in progress.

3. Interception, Monitoring, Direction and Finding & Analysis System (IMDFAS)-Divyadrishti

Sanction 27 Aug 2002, Original PDC 26 Feb 2008, 26 Aug 2010

Limited integration configuration demonstration has been completed at production agency site successfully and ten stations have been installed at designated sites so far.

4. Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme (IGMDP)

Sanction 26 Jul 1983, Original PDC 30 Jul 1995, Revised PDC 31 Dec 2010.

Projects for development of Prithvi, Agni, Dhanush, Aakash and Trishul missiles have been completed, whereas PDC for only Nag missile has been extended upto Dec 2010. Prithvi, Agni and Dhanush missiles have been inducted into Services whereas, Akash missile system is scheduled to be inducted in 2012 and user trials of Nag missile has been completed. Development of Trishul missile has been completed as Technology Demonstrator.

5. Kaveri Engine for LCA

Sanction 30 Mar 1989, Original PDC 31 Dec 1996, Revised PDC 31 Dec 2010

About 1880 hrs on engine test has been completed on various prototypes of Kaveri Engine. A total of eight Kaveri Engines and four core engines have been manufactured, assembled and tested. High Altitude testing on core engine has been completed successfully.

Funds allocated and utilized by DRDO during the last three years is given below:-

Year 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Allocation 6256.81 7737.64 8317.27

Utilisation 98% 99% 98%

DRDO has inducted 523, 625 and 754 scientists during the year 2007, 2008 and 2009, respectively. The following steps have been taken to strengthen the organisation:

(i) Consortium approach has been used for design, development and fabrication of critical components.

(ii) Three-tier project monitoring approach is being followed in the major projects/programmes.

(iii) Project Monitoring Review Committee (PMRC); and Project Appraisal and Review Committee (PARC) meetings are held regularly to monitor the progress of the ongoing projects.

(iv) Concurrent engineering approach has been adopted in technology intensive projects to minimize time-lag between development and productionisation of the systems, and Information Technology and modern management techniques have been applied.

(v) Participation of Services in all major programmes right from the beginning of the projects, etc.

(vi) Large number of R&D projects and research initiatives taken up with nearly 100 academic and other scientific establishments.

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 06 May 2010 10:38

Craig Alpert wrote: 3. Interception, Monitoring, Direction and Finding & Analysis System (IMDFAS)-Divyadrishti

Sanction 27 Aug 2002, Original PDC 26 Feb 2008, 26 Aug 2010

Limited integration configuration demonstration has been completed at production agency site successfully and ten stations have been installed at designated sites so far.

Very very interesting... can gurus shed light on this? Is it a Kolchuga/VERA type passive detection system? Or is it more along the lines of off TECHINT/COMINT project?

srs · Post by **srs** » 07 May 2010 15:55

Why dont we build robots for watching infiltration in the kashmir region. I was reading an article in Spectrum(march 2007) whr samsung developed a robot as a sentry to guard no mans land in south korea. the robot, SGR-AI has a 5 mm light machine gun, low light camera and pattern recognition sw to differentiate bw human and animals. the robots are networked and can be accessed from back in seoul and see in real time what is happning.

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 07 May 2010 17:19

srs wrote:Why dont we build robots for watching infiltration in the kashmir region. I was reading an article in Spectrum(march 2007) whr samsung developed a robot as a sentry to guard no mans land in south korea. the robot, SGR-AI has a 5 mm light machine gun, low light camera and pattern recognition sw to differentiate bw human and animals. the robots are networked and can be accessed from back in seoul and see in real time what is happning.

Where there is will,there is a way.

We dont have to specially develope some robots(in name) for the purpose.

A CIWS type installed after every 2-4 km on some towers is good enough to take down these scumbag infiltrators.

All it needs is programming and feeding the algorithms that can differentiate our own soldiers to those of infiltrators. Since its border areas we are talking,Civilians were restricted to pass by.So only army personel and terrorists.Army personel should be given some RF chips sticked either to their helmets or BPJs.the optical control system similar to the designed for IN if considered,is good enough to integrate with a 12mm or 20mm gun along with IFF that differentiates our soldiers.
We can network all the installed guns with no big hazzle.We dont even have to spare animals,because terrorists are considered as animals at times.

Each CIWS also guards its neighbouring tower base with a full 360Deg movement on horzontal plane and 300/270 deg inthe vertical plane.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 08 May 2010 06:52

3 Of 9 Hindustan Aeronautics JVs Profitable

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 09 May 2010 19:21

Kalam commissions India's first carbon fibre factory.

The Rs 250 crore facility begins manufacture of carbon fibre under technology transfer from the National Aerospace Laboratory (NAL) that had developed the ultra-light material for the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA).

The NAL, a constituent of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), will get upto five per cent of the turnover of this facility as royalty for the next seven years.

"We are also discussing about having a notional equity in the company as this is a strategic sector enterprise," Samir Brahmachari, Director General of CSIR, told reporters here.

Kemrock Industries' Chairman and Managing Director Kalpesh Patel said the facility's 400 tonne per annum output will primarily service the domestic aerospace needs, including that of Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).

The LCA, developed by HAL, uses 45 per cent carbon fibre in its airframe and the country's air force has placed an order of supplying 20 such aircraft with HAL.

srs · Post by **srs** » 10 May 2010 06:24

I think we should use sniper guns on these CIWS to shoot them when they still far away. that wont allow them to launch any rocket attack.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 May 2010 13:06

http://www.orissadiary.com/ShowBussines ... p?id=18370

a. Industry is not in favour of 100% FDI in defence segment.
b. Current 26% FDI in this segment may be increased subject to IP with Indian firms
c. The FDI should not exceed 49%.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/684 ... r-100.html

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/indus ... ii/616052/

vina · Post by **vina** » 10 May 2010 16:13

Yeah, very high value items to be sure..they cant make a single radar, aircraft or ship on their own..

Tchahh........ There is ALWAYS a COST. Now you are like my uncle's cow, Godi, tied to a post and milked at regular intervals.

Be self reliant , and no contracts and total freedom!

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 10 May 2010 20:14

Army Chief VK Singh seeks greater forces-DRDO-industry interface

"The user, the developer and the producer form a triad. Army is the user, which comes up with its operational requirements. The developer is the DRDO, which has made fair progress on Pinaka and Brahmos artillery systems. Industry is the producer. Great amount of interaction is required among the three, so we get better artillery for the armedforces," Singh said in New Delhi.

Describing artillery as the "decisive arm" in a battlefield, he told a CII-organised seminar on artillery that its role was proved beyond doubt in the US war in Iraq and in the Kargil war a decade ago. "Right from days of yore, artillery has always been a decisive arm. It is the artillery which has brought in devastating firepower to break the will of the enemy, whether it was in the days of the Moguls or it is today," he said.

"The developments in missile technology, guidance system and transparency in battlefield has made a person sitting on target the most vulnerable. This has been amply proved in the two Gulf wars and in the Indian context during the 1999 Kargil episode, where artillery was battle-winning factor in ensuring that the will of the enemy was seriously degraded," he said.

Noting that the emerging trend in artillery firepower deployment was "synergising and orchestration" of all resources towards degradation and destruction of the enemy, he said it reduced the enemy's fighting capability, making it easier to break its cohesion and ultimately his will to fight. Pointing out that the battlefield environment in our subcontinent was changing, the army chief said the armed forces had to look at the "hybrid threats" that were coming up beyond the conventional threats. "We have to look how we are going to employ our resources to counter the battlefield spectrum...they start something that is insignificant and go on to something that is larger," he said, obviously referring to use of terrorism.

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 12 May 2010 04:32

DRDO Newsletter May 2010

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 12 May 2010 12:06

Government scouting for private partners for civilian plane project

I really doubt if anyone will be interested (considering the change in last two DPP's and the latest Rutom order being bagged by PSUs). At best they will settle with miniscule component parts avoiding high risk and cutting edge items.

James B · Post by **James B** » 13 May 2010 15:18

Finally, Govt Orders Full Revamp Of DRDO, Formally Sanctions Mark-II Versions Of MBT Arjun & Akash SAM

More than three years after the Indian Express special series on the woeful state of the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) by me and Express senior editor Amitav Ranjan, the government has finally managed to order a comprehensive restructuring plan for the beleaguered organization with immediate effect. It was our 8-part special front-page series, titled "Delayed Research Derailed Organisation" in late 2006 which set the ball rolling. For starters, it compelled the government to set up a committee in February 2007, chaired by Former Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, Dr. P Rama Rao to review and suggest measures to improve the functioning of DRDO. After years of stiff resistance from some quarters in DRDO, the revamp plan has finally been pushed through.

A statement from the MoD today said, "To give a major boost to Defence Research in the country and to ensure effective participation of the private sector in Defence technology, the Defence Minister Shri AK Antony today approved a series of measures that will transform and revitalise the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) – in form and substance."

According to the statement, the key measures include the establishment of a Defence Technology Commission with the Defence Minister as its Chairman, de-centralisation of DRDO management, making DRDO a leaner organisation by merging some DRDO laboratories with other public funded institutions with similar disciplines, interest and administrative system, engagement of an eminent Human Resource (HR) expert as consultant to revamp the entire HR structure of DRDO and establishment of a commercial arm of DRDO.

Significantly, the decisions also include continuation of Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) for design and development of combat aircraft, continuation of the Kaveri aero-engine programme, development of MBT Arjun Mk-II and Akash Mk-II by DRDO and selection of industry partners by DRDO through a transparent process by evolving a suitable mechanism.

The recommendations of the Rama Rao Committee together with DRDO's views and the report were extensively deliberated upon by the three Services and the Defence Ministry. The Defence Minister Shri Antony had subsequently constituted a committee on June 25, 2009 under the Chairmanship of the Defence Secretary, to consider the responses and the suggestions made by various stakeholders on the recommendations of the Rama Rao Committee and to arrive at a set of acceptable recommendations. The committee chaired by the Defence Secretary met on five occasions and gave its recommendations to the Defence Minister.

Decentralisation of DRDO Management

The decentralisation of DRDO management will be achieved through formation of technology domain based centres or clusters of laboratories headed by Directors General. Seven centres will be created based on functionalities and technology domains. It will be the responsibility of the Directors General to ensure timely execution of major programmes and encouragement of research in laboratories. DRDO will also ensure full autonomy to all laboratories as far as S&T initiatives are concerned. While empowering the Directors of the laboratories, DRDO will put in a mechanism in place to ensure the accountability of the laboratory Directors.

Leaner DRDO

One of the major recommendations of the Rama Rao Committee was to make DRDO leaner by merging some of its laboratories with other public funded institutions have similar discipline, interests and administrative systems. Some of these ecommendations of the Committee have been accepted by the Defence Minister.

Restructuring of DRDO

The present Director General of DRDO will be redesignated as Chairman, DRDO. Directors General at centres and CCsR&D at Headquarters will report to Chairman, DRDO, who would be the head of the organisation. The Chairman will head the DRDO Management Council having seven Directors General and four CCsR&D at Headquarters and Additional Financial Advisor (R&D) as members. Financial Advisors at the appropriate levels would report to Directors General / Lab Directors to ensure accountability.

Revamping of DRDO's HR Structure

DRDO will now hire an eminent HR expert as Consultant to revamp the whole HR structure. The Consultant will be entrusted with the task to examine issues such as selection and tenure of Directors and avenues for the induction of talented persons, independently spotted by the Lab Directors and the heads of centres, including filling up of wastage vacancies.

Commercial Arm of DRDO

A new Commercial Arm of DRDO would be created by DRDO as a Private Limited Company with a seed capital of about Rs. 2 crores. The commercial arm would deal only with the spin-off products and technologies meant for civilian use. It will not take up any manufacturing activity. For any production activity the services of public or private sector industry will be utilised.

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/05/fi ... -drdo.html

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 13 May 2010 15:43

Shri A K Antony ki Jai. Mr Clean Zindabad.

Lungi dance, Lungi dance.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 13 May 2010 16:17

To add to what James B has posted above,

To increase private participation in DRDO activities, it has also been decided to select industry partners through a transparent process by evolving a suitable mechanism.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 13 May 2010 17:15

Same news from PTI

and Thaindian

And livefist actually took it from here

arya · Post by **arya** » 13 May 2010 20:38

"Continuation of Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) for design and development of combat aircraft" ?

Means MCA or LCa

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 May 2010 20:49

It means there will be an organization to desing and develop comabt aircraft and not an adhoc effort in future. ADA will be the nodal combat aircraft design and development agency.
Good thing. Or all the expertise in LCA development will be down the drain.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 May 2010 20:52

time to start the "wishlist for arjun mk2 thread" ... they should also press ahead and productionize the Abhay. BMP is long in tooth and way behind latest edge.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 13 May 2010 20:53

Singha wrote:time to start the "wishlist for arjun mk2 thread" ... they should also press ahead and productionize the Abhay. BMP is long in tooth and way behind latest edge.

Bah, when I tried my hand at it, they blamed me for hating Arjun.

Ankit Desai · Post by **Ankit Desai** » 14 May 2010 01:00

More news on same line Govt kicks off overhaul for more competitive DRDO

The DRDO’s management is being decentralised by merging its 50-odd labs to form seven clusters based on technology domains such as missiles, electronic warfare, radars, aerial vehicles and underwater weapons

The DRDO has also been asked to hire consultants to revamp it HR structure.

This will help to speed up some of the projects as well it will slow down few. By decentralizing, transfer of scientist between projects will be cut off and at same time particular project will keep pool of expert scientists to focus on one product and it's future versions.

Ankit

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 14 May 2010 08:06

Is DRDO's makeover just cosmetic?

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 14 May 2010 13:23

Singha wrote:time to start the "wishlist for arjun mk2 thread" ... they should also press ahead and productionize the Abhay. BMP is long in tooth and way behind latest edge.

Abhay was TD. Was not expected to be productized. I don't know if that will change after a reorg.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 May 2010 13:39

I see three variants of solid looking MPV put forward by M&M, AL and Telco. couldnt these be converted into ideal BTR80-mki type armoured cars for the mountains with due funding and efforts?
[a] get rid of the V-shaped hull , instead use some kevlar armour on underbody
heavier IFV class amour
[c] nice AC troop compartment for 6-8 people in back
[d] arjun std EO
[e] remotely operated weapon station turret featuring a "oerlikon" 20mm cannon
[f] 2 X MMG on the roof
[g] a grenade launcher operated from under cover with just the snout protruding
[h] coax HMG
loads of smoke grenades
[j] BMS

3000 of these could form the core of mountain cavalry brigades and take the war deep into enemy held territory,
in effect the "light tanks" IA wants.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 14 May 2010 17:43

SSridhar wrote:To add to what James B has posted above,
To increase private participation in DRDO activities, it has also been decided to select industry partners through a transparent process by evolving a suitable mechanism.

SSridhar ji,

This very aspect is already showing early signs of great promise of blooming into a full grown can of virulent worms.

Maybe with the possible exception of saint antony, it would be futile to look for any other saints in this business
of DRDO and industry partners.

Many sweetheart deals have already been shadily concluded by senior early movers. There is wonderful scope here. Data and technology transfer is much more than just what is indicated in the MOU. Once the project is kicked off snagging of key lab personnel already arranged in advance takes place. The lab is milked dry for a mere pittance.

Something like what our little lamented health minister did in the previous edition of the UPA when he shut down decades old government vaccine companies and gifted away vaccine seeds free along with key personnel to private companies started by "friends".

There's gold in them thar hills.

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 16 May 2010 07:04

Link

Dynamatic Technologies has received three industrial defence production licences from the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India, for the Industrial Production of Heavy Vehicles such as Battle Tanks, Land Systems and Sub-Systems, and for the manufacture of two defense products - Distribution Mechanism & Hydraulic Coupling which are fitted on Heavy Armoured Vehicles. Dynamatic has also received a licence to manufacture Aircraft parts and accessories.

Dynamatic® hands over Mobile Surveillance Unit for Field Trials

Dynamatic Technologies has handed over the first prototype of the Mobile Surveillance Vehicle, the Dynamatic® Rakshak, to one of India’s national security forces for field trials at an undisclosed location along the nation’s border. The Dynamatic® Rakshak is equipped with a sophisticated surveillance system to monitor infiltration on the Country’s borders, and also is capable of providing real-time Visual Intelligence within Cities.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 18 May 2010 03:35

Raising FDI cap in defence manufacturing to 74 percent will save forex (Second Lead)

The established players in the defence industry should be encouraged to set up manufacturing facilities and integration of systems in India with FDI (foreign direct investment) up to 74 percent under the government route,” says the paper, circulated by the commerce and industry minister among different stakeholders in the field for their views and suggestions by July 31.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 18 May 2010 14:00

Jamia gets eight crore for research in Nanosciences

New Delhi, May 17 (PTI) Government has granted Rs eight crore to Jamia Milia Islamia (JMI) University to carry out research in Nanotechnology and Nano-Sciences.

Under this grant, two projects will be undertaken by Departments of Physics and Applied Sciences, making JMI the only university to carry out research in "Synthesising Single Wall Carbon Nanotubes", a press release said here.

Nanotechnology seeks to explore new technologies for creating nanometer devices, which can open numerous avenues in space research, forensic sciences, electronics, medicine and industry. The university also runs a post-graduate course M.Tech in Nanotechnology.

Defence Research Development Organization has already given another project on Carbon Nanotubes to the university.

Nanotubes are the next big thing. If DRDO can get some tangible benefits out of this investment, would propel us in many different areas.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 18 May 2010 14:42

Not sure if this was already posted. This is a little dated, so requesting admins to remove if already posted

Boeing gets first Indian equipment from Bharat Electronics

Boeing today announced that it received a key communications technology for the Indian Navy's P-81 long-range maritime reconnaissance and
anti-submarine warfare aircraft from Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL) in April, a month ahead of schedule.

The Indian-designed Data Link-II -- a communications system developed by BEL -- will enable exchange of tactical data and messages between Indian Navy aircraft, ships and shore establishments.

Boeing will install the system during P-81 final assembly at its facility in Renton, Washington, said a company statement.

"Our deepening partnership with BEL endorses our ongoing initiative to build and strengthen the aerospace supply chain," said Boeing India President Dinesh Keskar.

Data Link-II is the first Indian-manufactured item delivered to Boeing as part of the P-81 programme. The P-81 is a variant of the P-8A Poseidon that Boeing designed and is building for the US Navy, it said.

"This milestone is a demonstration of the capability that BEL has developed to deliver cutting-edge work in avionics, software and structural components", said BEL Chairman Ashwani Kumar Datt.

Boeing will deliver the first of eight P-81 aircraft to India, which is first international buyer of the warplane, within 48 months of the original contract signing, which took place in January, 2009.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 18 May 2010 15:50

Defence Technology Commission coming: Saraswat

A Defence Technology Commission will be set up on the lines of the Atomic Energy Commission to improve the functioning of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) laboratories in the country, V. K. Saraswat, Scientific Adviser to the Defence Minister, said here on Saturday. He was here to inaugurate the Environmental Test Centre (ETC) on the premises of the Naval Science and Technological Laboratory (NSTL).

Talking to journalists later, Dr. Saraswat said that the Commission, to be chaired by the Defence Minister, would take key decisions to promote self-reliance among the DRDO labs through better funding and administrative decentralisation. He was optimistic that the setting up of the Commission would lead to improved performance and ultimately benefit the end-users.