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

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

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

Post by chackojoseph »

nrshah,

1) T-90. And?

Please don't bring in what IAF and Navy are buying.

tsarkar,

Please lets concentrate on army.
Suresh S
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 22:19

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

Post by Suresh S »

sugriva wrote:
snahata wrote:It is the quality and not quantity of posts that counts.
You are trying to slender an institution, the Indian arme forces,
The quality of your post is indeed slender saar. Blijj to accept my salutes.
This is the best you can do pick on a couple of typos as analysis
Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

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

Post by Gaur »

tsarkar,
What intake design problems are you talking about? Are you referring to a recently posted news report (I think Ajai Shukla's) quoting a LCA test pilot(something about lca stalling above a certain AOA)? IIRC, it was agreed upon that the pilot was just talking about the dangers of flight testing while opening the flight envelope. Every a/c's intake can only handle a limited aoa and no amount of computer simulations can give guarantees that nothing would go wrong in real world after a certain aoa. This is nothing specific for lca but for every a/c testing out its max aoa for the fist time.
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

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

Post by tsarkar »

Gaur,

The constricted airflow issue was known earlier, and only now publicly disclosed in Ajai's article.

Members can infer, extrapolate, speculate, and perform all sorts of intellectual exercises, but the verbatim words are

“But no fighter engine should flame out at just 28 degrees Alpha. However, the Tejas air intakes have not been well designed and, as the Alpha increases, the intakes constrict the airflow, and the engine dies for want of air.”

Now, I am sure the good test pilot, while acquiring his qualification as a test pilot, surely knows the typical AoA limitations of similar aircraft. So when he points out that Tejas intakes are not well designed, he is speaking AFTER taking into consideration typical AoA limitations in the previous statement.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... al/400393/

Senior air marshals point out to Business Standard that, if they grant the Tejas IOC at the end of 2010, it will be in the long-term interest of the fighter programme, not because the Tejas has met all its targets. The Tejas does not fly as fast as originally planned; its acceleration is significantly less; and the Tejas has not been tested yet in carrying much of the weaponry it is designed to.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... me/397143/

Anyways, I realize I am hurting emotions, so I retire. We were discussing lack of user involvement, and I quoted above example to indicate why there is lack of user involvement.

I am optimistic about the future, cultures are changing across fences.
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

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

Post by negi »

tsarkar wrote: “But no fighter engine should flame out at just 28 degrees Alpha. However, the Tejas air intakes have not been well designed and, as the Alpha increases, the intakes constrict the airflow, and the engine dies for want of air.”
Those intakes were designed around KAVERI specs, current F404-GE-IN20 engine came much later (order placed in 2004).
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34881
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Post by chetak »

tsarkar wrote:My personal observations,

When LCA started out, IAF and ADA did indeed work together. However while IAF wanted a workable fighter like JF-17 to replace the MiG-21, ADA wanted to incorporate bleeding edge technology.

Things came to a breaking point when IAF wanted to use proven Dassault analogue FBW software while ADA wanted to develop its own quad channel digital FBW. Both IAF and ADA PoV hold merit. IAF PoV was using a proven subsystem will quicken development. ADA PoV was new system technologically superior.

At this point IAF walked out because its PoV was not being considered by ADA.

In hindsight, the ADA FBW system had a long development time, Lockheed Martin was roped in to assist testing the software, 1998 Pokharan happened, they kept the code, neither Boeing nor EADS could assist testing, and even today, the Tejas flight envelope has not been fully opened up. Hence implementing IAF's PoV would have resulted in a quicker and less risky development

The radar and engine were even murkier stories. No one kept track of how development was progressing. There was no internal audit done or review conducted.

Once IAF walked out, user feedback became unavailable. Small issues – like stressing the outer wing to carry a better missile – became big issue. ADA said original spec said R-60. However, if ADA was projecting themselves as seasoned designers, they should have kept in mind that R-60 was rapidly becoming obsolete, and they should have future proofed the outer wing by sufficiently stressing it. IAF acquired R-73 only in 1996-97 with the Su-30.

Not one BR member in LCA thread could respond why air intakes, that is one of the first things being designed and tested via computer modeling, simulations and wind tunnel testing, still has issues 10 years after first flight? Couldn’t we test, discover these issues and resolve then in the last 10 years?

Many members cited stealthy Y ducts, however, the primary function of a duct is to supply air and the secondary function is to offer stealth. Isn’t it irrational fulfilling secondary function while failing the primary function? A stealthy intake duct is designed for a plane that chokes it and restricts its envelope?

Refer here, http://www.cadfamily.com/download/CAE/n ... CA_ada.pdf. This is a 2003 study. The first three points on the first slide make the problem amply clear. So problem is known, simulation tools are available, yet problem persists to this day.

Practically, the stealthy duct is meaningless. Firstly, in a single engine aircraft, the forward fuselage hides the compressor face, unlike a twin engine plane like F-14 or Su-30. The simplest approach would have been focusing on supplying air to the turbofan ignoring the stealth requirement.

There are operational issues with inducting a platform like LCA.

An aircraft with sound basics and less than optimal performance OVERALL can be inducted. Not an aircraft exceeding performance in some areas and lacking in others. So, a chap with 15 inch biceps and normal lungs can be inducted. Here we have a chap with 18 inch biceps and asthmatic lungs. The 18 inch biceps doesn’t compensate for the asthmatic lungs.

Now, when ADA ignored IAF’s Point of View regarding flight control, how can one expect IAF to keep partnering? It takes two to tango. When one partner organization’s PoV is repeatedly disregarded, the natural reaction of that partner organization is WTF, go to hell.

DRDO’s feverish desire to over engineer to create superlative systems has been its major reason for failure and acrimony with its end users.

BR members say services don’t take initiative, however there is a history behind the mindset of the services.

Having said that, things are changing for the better in both organizations.


tsarkar ji,

There were cock ups in the Naval LCA as well. That's a story for another day. :)
Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4929
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

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

Post by Tanaji »

The other thing one needs to consider is the restrictions that ADA is working under. A crash for the programme will be disastrous, and you will have the usual suspects and vested interests baying for cancellation. To overcome this, the designers have probably over engineered the aircraft on the safer side, and is not as efficient as they would want it to be. This also explains the slow opening of the envelope...

But as Chacko saab has said, lets get back to the IA, which is where the issue is.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34881
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Post by chetak »

Tanaji wrote: tsarkar, you propose shutting down the DRDO. The IA does not want to undertake its own research and neither has it shown the slightest inclination or aptitude to do so. IF indigenization is a worthwhile goal, given the former, how do you propose it be achieved? Your answer to DRDO inefficiency is...... buy more foreign equipment. Chetak, even you rail against the CISMOA in your other posts. So how does shutting down DRDO help?
Tanaji saar,

I never said shut down the DRDO. Get out the size 14 boots, kick some ass and make them work!!

Enough of excuses and services not cooperating stuff. Customers will only come back if they have confidence.
VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3269
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

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

Post by VinodTK »

defpro.news
Maritime Patrol Aircraft

Government constantly review the security environment and accordingly decide induction of appropriate equipment/platforms including maritime patrol aircraft for adequate defence preparedness. This is a continuous process undertaken through procurement of the approved requirements of armed forces from various indigenous as well as foreign sources as per the provisions of Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP). Contracts for procurement of P-81 aircraft and Dornier aircraft for maritime patrol/reconnaissance/surveillance have been signed. Funds required for this purpose have been allocated. Funds have also been released as per the contractual provisions. State Governments have no role in this regard.
VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3269
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

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

Post by VinodTK »

DRDO and Indian Air Force ink agreement on production of computerized pilot selection system
The embedded micro controller based CPSS having built-in security features captures accurate, reliable and high-speed data relating to the skills of the candidates appearing for selection as pilot. The state-of-the-art system is an outcome of collaborative efforts of DRDO and the IAF. It comprehensively evaluates the qualities required for a highly demanding job of a military pilot such as psychomotor skills, information processing skills (speed and accuracy), coordination, visualization, time-sharing, etc by subjecting the candidate to perform concurrent multiple tasks.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20844
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Post by Karan M »

Its clear you dont have any facts to back your rhetoric. Nor do I find any facts that IA has not supported local R&D or manufacturing.
I do feel that I have enough facts on my side & have made my points regarding the Army's lack of institutional capability to support and take up large systems programs and sustain them on their own. Its still fairly hit and miss, is my point.

But you are of course, free to disagree.

That is not an attack on the IA itself or its people.
Added later - The Arjun issue is indeed disheartening, but I attribute that to a cultural mindset rather than hatred towards indigenization. For example, many in IAF wanted Mirage 2000-5 that competed against Su-30 in the 90s. Their reasons, too, were cultural.
The simple point made was that "cultural issues" or other issues, will not hamper national programs to the level the Arjun suffered if the IA had a design organization that could sustain such programs instead of them being dealt with on an ad hoc basis.

Otherwise, there would have been "cultural issues" that would have plagued attempts to follow on from the Leander as well for the Navy. But the Navy persevered and succeeded. Not in every respect, but still a very robust effort.

And unfortunately, the Arjun issue is not the only one, the INSAS is another case in point where per first hand reports, there is bickering about imports. Let me tell you about one such interaction I observed two years back about ditching the INSAS, which was stated to be "poor". When another IA officer who had apparently worked on the system disagreed, the consensus was that it was OFB which had messed up. Fine.
The solution proposed by one IA officer was then to "get some world class company to give TOT to OFB" to make them. Which would lead to the same situation again. Here you had a case wherein the IA which had itself contributed to its own rifle, could not necessarily sustain its development, contribute to its sustainance or even propose an alternative route for manufacturing (which was entirely possible, as was observed with Pinaka). Simply put, many cooks but not one chef!


Karan M wrote:
IA asking BDL to license manufacture Milan 2's and Konkurs missiles? Are these examples of transformation.

I said SS-11 missile, NOT Milan. And YES, it is an example of transformation, because these were the FIRST missiles of any kind manufactured in India.
I said Milan to give a corresponding situation vis a vis your SS-11 example and to note that mere license manufacturing was not transformational. If you had to make a point about the services supporting transformation, you should have chosen the IGMDP, wherein service officers made a vital contribution, with the Trishul program even being started by a Naval officer. Its failure apart, it was a laudable attempt.


Karan M wrote:
They are merely examples of the respective services meeting political compulsions for local sourcing while attempting to get whatever they can.

You're making an outright false statement. There was NO political compulsion for the IA/IAF to manufacture missile in India. The only reason they insisted on local manufacturing that led to establishment of BDL is to have local logistic supply chain, and to establish a manufacturing base.
Hardly any false statement. There has been always a political objective to shift manufacturing to India whether it be for missiles or MiGs and the defence services cannot take decisions in vacuum. The entire MiG complex that was set up in Nasik is a perfect example. The interplay between politics and local manufacture is well established as it allows GOI to justify high import costs (e.g. Jaguars) to be part of a long term vision to manufacture items locally. Even in cases of friendship prices, the logic still applied. Sometimes such an approach works - case in point BEL making Signaal, Thales radars and going on to support local radar manufacture, sometimes it causes a new set of issues - eg HAL becoming a license production house and indigenous R&D suffering as a result with no mandate for the same, and sometimes it fails outright (the OFB example) or when dodgy products are chosen (the Vickers MBT or the Vijayant tank for instance, which many were not happy with).


Karan M wrote:
Finally, if India can make do with vanilla citizens, vanilla soldiers, vanilla businesses, etc, it can make do with vanilla scientists as well.

Typical chalta hai statement of chalta hai attitude of chalta hai employee thriving on a welfare state.
To which country you too belong to, is it not. :) Anyways, what I was merely stating the facts as I perceive them. Nine out of ten people in every profession are average. The country that succeeds, is one which harnesses those average people to do above average things. Unfortunately, in this country, we have become obsessed with marques, with labels and everyone is elite this, or posh that. It is one of my pet peeves given the manner in which these labels are thrown about.

If you observe the vast majority of people in Boeing, Lockheed or elsewhere, they are not from MIT, or Stanford. They are from everyday, small engineering colleges throughout the US, but doing good work.

Simply put, my point vis a vis the topic was what I noted about misplaced elitism as construed from paper degrees and so forth. I'd rather take plain jane hardworking individuals from every day India anyday, whether they be of services or civilian background, or urban or rural.
While the Indian soldier is indeed from humble origins, he rises to the occasion when situation demands. Other than the ballistic missile teams, where the best talent goes, I never met any DRDO/PSU chap who had the intellect or drive to rise to the occasion when situation demanded.
That would be your personal experience, but I have observed many cases of my own to differ, from several civilian organizations, who put their duty, their country first over personal considerations. They do retain the respect of their peers and have a sense of achievement.

Also, that the best talent goes to the missile labs is not accurate. That may have indeed been the case in the early 1980's when the IGMP was launched and was the only game in town, but the record over the past couple of decades has been different. The new generation is very focused on specific technologies and interests they wish to master, and specialize around it. They dont merely look at labs but where what is being done and what infrastructure exists. The labs working on radar and EW for instance, attract a significant proportion of good individuals.
Most of whom I worked/interacted with spent their time publishing papers or hosting symposiums where papers were presented and enjoying the perks of a government job. Your words are not going to change my first hand experience of working with DRDO/PSU chaps. My opinion of them is low, and will stay so. There are exceptions, though, and I give full credit to them, however they are far and in-between.
So far my experience of several ex services types has been similarly hit and miss. Many of whom one observes are busy wheeling and dealing in various assorted trades, including running deals here and there. If I were to generalize, I too would have a low opinion of the Armed Forces.

Would that be fair?

Many of these guys fit the description you have given to a T, ironically enough. Publishing/marketing papers in assorted media, hosting "symposiums/trade events" which are nothing but business ventures for import houses to address Indias burgeoning import market and generally living a good life. They also exhibit a high degree of contempt for civilians who dont speak good english, dont dress well or dont come with a pedigree. I find that disconcerting, to be pretty honest.

But I dont use the aforesaid examples to generalize vis a vis the armed forces. For every one of these types, there are also the unsung guys who get two inches of media press and do remarkable things in peace and war. I just had a conversation today with folk who took the CAG piece about rations to broadbush the Armed Services as corrupt - I disagreed. My point is & was that things are not black or white when it comes to the blame game.

Furthermore, times have changed in the R&D units. Apart from a few places where the detritus remains, in most, there are ambitious and capable individuals who want to excel and are doing so, and their achievements are open to all, given the number of items developed and inducted over the past decade itself.

I would not generalize yesterday to today, or for that matter today to tomorrow, because the pace of change is rapid.

For instance in the services itself, the kind of people they will induct and require are going to face new challenges in many respects from those who existed before them. The kind of technology that is being procured, the kind of equipment inducted will put new constraints. Serviceability will suffer, teething problems will be galore, the CAG will publish more scathing reports, but they have to be seen in context.
The Navy took the lead in establishing DND because no facilities existed, no private or even public sector (including DRDO) took the initiative or effort required. Hence IN had to take initiative.
That is not what the quoted excerpt states per se, If I may. It points out that while the "spirit was willing the flesh was weak", namely the Navy observed that the developer being external always led to a conflict, as there was a vendor-developer situation, and the Navy created a DND to interface between the two and move it to an "our product" relationship. Has the Navy's creation of a DND meant that it does all the work inhouse, and there is no work being done at the PSU, DRDO, Shipyard, Pvt Sector Level? That is not the case.

What it does mean however, is that the Navy's efforts act as a critical force multiplier, with the Navy taking the lead in certain areas, or supporting industry as required and there is coherence and sustainability of effort. If the Navy Chief changes, the P-15 project is no longer thrown to the winds, the next Chief again supports it, because his own internal organization is part and parcel of the effort.

In the case of programs like the Arjun, there was little coherence and sustainance at multiple levels.

We had the bizarre situation wherein a serving PD appointed from the Army leaked details and openly contradicted his Chief, who asked for Arjun trials despite his juniors comments. We had the situation wherein deponents to the Std Committee on Defence accuse the IA appointees to such critical national programs of being disloyal for supporting the programs. The MOD literally had to force the penultimate T-90 and Arjun trials and even so, the latter got a raw deal of only an additional 124 orders.

We had a situation where a national program to develop artillery that was to take off, was cut off in its infancy because the short term benefit of imports was taken up.

If these are not examples of the problems in the current organizational setup, despite the presence of sterling men and women then what are. All organizations need to change. The USAF for instance, has the position of the USAF Chief Scientist who advises the USAF on technology matters, which then influences the allocation of the considerable USAF R&D Budget and which complements industry spending on programs.

Such attempts are what I am referring to, not being anti-IA.
On the other hand, DRDO had expertise to assist IA and IAF. If they are unable to, and if IA has to undertake its own R&D and project management, then fine, let IA do so. That makes DRDO redundant and I suggest it be closed down.
The IA does not need to take up the entire gamut of R&D and Project Management. That would clearly be an unworkable proposition simply because of manpower constraints alone, not to mention that the IA would not be able to execute such a mandate either. The IA for instance is already bleeding men for other commitments, take the 150 odd officers and 4000 odd men deputed to the NSG for instance.

The point is to create a lean R&D organization staffed with folks from the engineering disciplines within the IA who are treated on par, career wise vis a vis their peers and so dont lose out on that aspect, and stay within the Army (several leave because the pvt sector values their capabilities). Second, they can also rely on the pool of rtd service officers can contribute to the IA & national programs. Such an organization can perform critical functions in defence programs but most importantly give coherence and sustainability to programs and move them beyond "developer-vendor" procurement model to "our own product developed with a partner".

That has been my point all along.

For that, the IA has to look no further than the Navy, the smallest service but which has packed the biggest bang for its limited buck!

But till that day occurs, the IA's procurement efforts will similarly remain peice meal and lack coherence. Some will succeed, some will not, and finger pointing will continue. The Army has to look within, for reform and not just at external stakeholders. As the recent WLR procurement from abroad saga shows, things wont be radically different if the IA just imports.
Last edited by Karan M on 06 Aug 2010 06:11, edited 2 times in total.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20844
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Post by Karan M »

Kanson wrote:
Karan M wrote:
Finally, if India can make do with vanilla citizens, vanilla soldiers, vanilla businesses, etc, it can make do with vanilla scientists as well.



You duly accepted that the behaviour you detest present in the Army too but not in the scale as you observed in drdo and that is primarily due to Army's swift action in giving out punishment for such behaviour. And you also noted that even in Army the behaviour is less not because of high moral standards of gents there but beccoz of non availability of opportunities. So basically you are also saying the samething that Karan M also saying. It is the same vanilla soliders and same vanilla scientists. If Army can make do with those vanilla soliders in their own way, i guess the drdo can make do with vanilla scientists in their own way, isnt it ?
You got my exact point. I recall a very interesting exchange between a young turk and a grizzled IAF pilot who was being grilled about "how the IAF pilots required expensive trainers for average pilots and if IAF took best people would it not have to train them lesser and they would commit less mistakes" - so this guy said "listen, I am average, you are average, the point is these "average guys will do their job if we train them well"...that was my point.
One little lamented chairman of HAL used to specialize in vindictively and peremptorily transferring senior people to far flung divisions during official meetings for daring to disagree with him.
I'm sure such behaviour can be seen in every organization - public, private and even in Army. Can you vouch that such things hadn't happened in Armed Forces ? Pls welcome to the real world, Sir. Just as every person cant wear the uniform, Army procedure cant be replicated in every part of our life. Otherwise ours would be looking like a military state, with those swift punishments. Only difference that between Taliban's way may be that no chopping of hands and things like that but swift punishments nevertheless!

Absolutely. This "johnny come lately" has himself heard many horror stories of similar stuff across all GOI depts that be - civilian and military and public and private. None are exempt. As they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Not all have the moral rectitude to resist the temptation and do the right thing throughout.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20844
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Post by Karan M »

chackojoseph wrote:
chetak wrote:These are scratch my back and I will scratch your back type of papers and symposiums.

They full fill quotas required for promotion boards.

very very few of these have any possibility of seeing the daylight in any journal of repute.
Welcome to research. All need not be above par. If you remember LCA papers like the AoA, these have been road maps. In west, a lot of papers are published. China has overtaken India in research paper publishing. DRDO shouldn't be confused with manufacturing. These papers form the back bone of all the products of future. Its futile to say, publish only world class papers. Even professors from IIT publish papers. IIT students have built even prototypes. They have not seen the day light. Research and innovation means just that. You never know, when a million rupee idea comes or how it comes.

Actually tsarkar and you have just praised the researchers at DRDO.
99% of DRDO's real achievements will not be published in any papers etc., as they can be used to guage the state of progress of our R&D and then assorted MTCR etc can be gently applied to hamper our efforts even more.

The papers that are published are usually for non strategic systems, in an advanced state of development and relating to some innocuous bit of technology.

How many "public" papers have been published around "hitting a bullet with a bullet" by the low class, useless, good for nothing denizens of the DRDO? And yet, somehow, the ABM tests occur and manage to pull it off.

How many "world class papers" are published around advanced signal processing and EW techniques by DRDO? Yet, somehow, product after product magically appear for serial manufacture at organizations such as BEL, including ESM - SIGINT & COMINT and jammers.

The real worth of publishing these papers, lies elsewhere. The reason is fairly apparent, but it serves no good to discuss all this.

The real worth of what is being done at DRDO is well known to those from the services who work with them. In recent years, many programs are being done in India which would have otherwise gone to the good old suppliers abroad.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20844
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Post by Karan M »

Tanaji wrote:
chackojoseph wrote::D Its always 80 : 20 principle. 20% is best performing than the rest 80. Same in Army or IAF or Navy.

I too have services background. I have seen things very close. Its only some people in services are good. Rest of them are "saav dhan, veesh ram" guys. The quality of the officers is also known. Still they fill up the ranks. Army, Navy Air Force or DRDO, if you are not in good books of senior, you are in muck.

The DRDO promotions too have gone through a sea change. last time I met them, they acknowledged the issues and they were attempting to change.

In forces Officers have left forces in middle of their career. The reason is that its worthless to stay on, they say. Lot of them don't know what to do if they come out. A lot of them calculate, hmm... if I take premature retirement, I will get so much money and if I stay on, i will get so much etc etc.

Forces too don't get people any more.

Weather its Army or DRDO, both are "Government Ration Eating Force."

I am not trying to out down or up an organization. I am saying is that government services are the same. Be it or Army or others. For example the IAS attitude towards the forces is different. Within services the attitudes wrt to DRDO is different.

How different is it in private sector? The best performer is not the top guy. The best politician is the top guy.
Exactly. The 80 -20% principle applies everywhere. The Armed Forces by the nature of the job they do, have rules that facilitate efficiency which cannot be applied to the civil sector. No one is arguing that all is hunky dory with DRDO, which has inefficiencies, but this is the same as any other PSU.
One interesting snippet with certain details omitted - a certain service decided that upgrades were better done inhouse rather than offloading to the sclerotic OFB. It took full responsibility, funded and upgraded its repair workshops with production machinery, etc, took up the responsibility to overhaul and repair its equipment. The OFB for its part, was glad to be rid of the task. Their prime reason was that spares and aggregates were not available as indian industry did not have the capability to design the same on its own without design data, in the stipulated timeframe and cost constraints. Clearly, this was an excuse and the service in question would do better.
A decade and a half on, in a CAG audit, the service in question had literally the same performance as the OFB across relevant parameters. Capacity underutilized, targets not met, quality suffered. And the reason? The same the OFB had given. Procurement contracts, now handled by the service in question, for an upgrade of specific electronics, were given to a country in civil war. The items never arrived and the equipment remained un-upgraded.

The lesson from this is fairly apparent, that the 80-20 rule applies everywhere, and the Armed Forces famed efficiency and discipline cannot wring wine from stone. For all the hopes of no-excuses only-results driven approach making a new stand, the result was anything but. The job was done, but at considerable more time, and cost. It bears remarking, that the next tranche of upgrades and overhauls for follow on equipment, were left for the OFB to pursue, despite the fact there would be delays and issues (and there were). Little of this is publicized or noted.

As such, I for one, no longer buy into the superhuman, magic results business. All organizations essentially face the same constraints, what matters is whether there is institutional perseverance to overcome repeated hurdles.

The services have these (e.g. compare 1962 and today), but so do the civilian institutions like the DRDO or DAE or ISRO. For all the sanctions and efforts, today India has Ballistic Missiles, Radars, nuclear bombs, satellites, launchers and other sophisticated items of technology. The record speaks for itself. Thing is India has never faced an extended conflict with the lines of trade and communication disrupted for months, years on end. If that had been the case, the need to develop a local MIC would have been an imperative from day one. However, with imports always available and only short conflicts anticipated, the MIC has had to make do with what it had. It apparently took a silent arms embargo imposed on India in 1971, for the expansion of basic bread and butter requirement like the manufacture of more kinds of artty and ammo in India. But at the end of the day, there has been considerable capability built up in India in various fields, which is creditable in itself.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20844
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Post by Karan M »

tsarkar wrote:My personal observations,

When LCA started out, IAF and ADA did indeed work together. However while IAF wanted a workable fighter like JF-17 to replace the MiG-21, ADA wanted to incorporate bleeding edge technology.

Things came to a breaking point when IAF wanted to use proven Dassault analogue FBW software while ADA wanted to develop its own quad channel digital FBW. Both IAF and ADA PoV hold merit. IAF PoV was using a proven subsystem will quicken development. ADA PoV was new system technologically superior.

At this point IAF walked out because its PoV was not being considered by ADA.

The radar and engine were even murkier stories. No one kept track of how development was progressing. There was no internal audit done or review conducted.

Once IAF walked out, user feedback became unavailable. Small issues – like stressing the outer wing to carry a better missile – became big issue. ADA said original spec said R-60. However, if ADA was projecting themselves as seasoned designers, they should have kept in mind that R-60 was rapidly becoming obsolete, and they should have future proofed the outer wing by sufficiently stressing it. IAF acquired R-73 only in 1996-97 with the Su-30.

Not one BR member in LCA thread could respond why air intakes, that is one of the first things being designed and tested via computer modeling, simulations and wind tunnel testing, still has issues 10 years after first flight? Couldn’t we test, discover these issues and resolve then in the last 10 years?
Not to get into another round of arguement, but if I may, there are some more details missing which have not been brought out on the forum. I'll just quickly summarize them:

1. The IAF wanted bleeding edge tech too, as recent as MK2, some of the specs mentioned in discussions are fairly advanced. At the time, the IAF specs were raised inhouse and criticized by no less than Idris Latif who originally wanted the LCA to be a simple light fighter.
The FBW case is not as straightforward as ADA wanted 4AxisQuad Digital, and so they chose it. What occurred was that the Guys from a certain Euro nation who supplied us aircraft with delta wings, made several misleading comments during the tech review. They continued with the same not realizing the ADA team had done their HW and had a fair bit of interaction with both the Americans and Germans around the tech. When pressed, they indicated their political stars were lined up in Delhi, and theyd get the contract anyway, and they would not share any more data with ADA. As a result, the ADA team marked them down for their non cooperative and non transparent attitude. This was revealed by a NAL Gent who was associated with the ADA FBW negotiations in a leading role, publicly.

2. The radar was kept track of, the IAF had a deadline by which if the A2G did not work, it would be free to source its own kit. This is what happened but in a more reasonable fashion since we adopted what we had with Israeli processors and software esp for A2G work. The Kaveri was a disaster but there too, the baseline engine has been developed, so there is basis for further work. ADA for its part, would have long moved away from Kaveri, but the program needed to be completed, one way or the other and it was tied to the LCA.

3.The R-60 missile replacement was not a straightforward decision as wing redesign carried a delay penalty, and the designers were risk averse about taking this given the IAF had not expressed any desire to change the system. There was also no confirmation that the R73E would be the missile of choice, as there was talk of a new HOBS missile being procured. Budgetary issues meant that never occurred and the R73E was finally chosen.

4. Intakes were designed for the Kaveri specs as set out originally. The GeIN20 is a different issue as it was never planned for. As matter of fact, beyond the TD's reengineering had to be done, both jigs and aircraft wise, to fit in the GeIN20. The issue with the High Angle of Attack is not intake ducts per se, as Ajai writes. Its an issue known for sometime around opening up the FBW envelope and hence Boeing, was chosen thanks to its extensive experience in this arena. They made a presentation in 2005. However, they did not get GOTUS permission and were dropped.

The intakes for MK2 will be redesigned for whichever engine is chosen, and there wont be an issue in this matter at any rate.

As regards Yducts, IAF specified a low signature, and hence Y ducts with a bend were chosen to minimize signature. The LCA incidentally has a sufficiently low signature, that some propose that even RAM is not required.
yantra
BRFite
Posts: 185
Joined: 28 Jul 2010 03:46

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

Post by yantra »

Karan M wrote:

Karan M wrote:
Finally, if India can make do with vanilla citizens, vanilla soldiers, vanilla businesses, etc, it can make do with vanilla scientists as well.
Karan, you are absolutely right. A country which makes an average citizen perform above average is the one that ultimately out-does others.
Karan M wrote:The country that succeeds, is one which harnesses those average people to do above average things. Unfortunately, in this country, we have become obsessed with marques, with labels and everyone is elite this, or posh that. It is one of my pet peeves given the manner in which these labels are thrown about.

If you observe the vast majority of people in Boeing, Lockheed or elsewhere, they are not from MIT, or Stanford. They are from everyday, small engineering colleges throughout the US, but doing good work.
Again, cannot agree with you more. Esp, in US - the country honors/respects people with genuine capabilities, caring the least about their Ph.Ds. It is always the average Joe, driven by passion who has triumphed over the so-called "intellectuals". It is high-time we got over this "elite syndrome" and focused on results than on degrees or number of papers published. Ultimately it is the rifle that kills the enemy on the battle-field that matters, not how many papers were published by the scientists behind it.
Suresh S
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 22:19

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

Post by Suresh S »

Karan, you are absolutely right. A country which makes an average citizen perform above average is the one that ultimately out-does others.
Nice quote from a politician running for office but not the truth.
To outdo others sir you are going to need a Homi Bhabha, a Abdul kalam, a Vikram Sarabhai, a Raja Ramanna and not a lallu prasad yadav ( I am sorry you were talking average not below average )
yantra
BRFite
Posts: 185
Joined: 28 Jul 2010 03:46

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

Post by yantra »

^^ Yes, we need more Dr.Kalams who were B.Scs (Aeronautical) than Ph.Ds is my point too. Quest for knowledge need not be certified in the form of Ph.Ds and papers published. There quite a few brilliant engineers who never got University Doctorate Degrees as part of their education (Sir M Vishweshwaraya or Srinivasa Ramanujan who was awarded a B.A. degree by research) but still did/or doing well. We need an eco-system that rewards and recognizes brilliance, innovation and ingenuity, and not just (or irrespective of) degrees or papers published is my point.
Suresh S
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 22:19

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

Post by Suresh S »

Yes I agree with your above point yantra
ShivaS
BRFite
Posts: 701
Joined: 16 Jul 2010 14:23

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

Post by ShivaS »

Sorry folks we need more ITI Fitters Machinists and Mechanics who take pride in their work. One Kalam here and a Kalam there will not help.
The attitude of Kalam was that of Machinist, Fitter and ITI (Industrial training Institute).
Proof his riding of Bike with a sounding rocket tied with suthli, (Purukosa in Telugu, or coconut fiber rope as can be seen in AP, Tamil Nadu, Kerala Karnataka) his hand packing of the solid fuel like substance.. these even a second class IIT grad will be ashamed to think of doing.

Most western companies histroy is full of people who would build things with their hands. Gunsmiths , black smiths etc.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60255
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

For the 90% average things one can manage with BSc etc. Its leading edge which needs the PhD. Its only PhD that can figure out theory of winglets etc. However if the PhD doesn't get to work with his hands its doesn't matter. To me India needs all its people and not any of one kind.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

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

Post by chackojoseph »

As per CAG
Although the imported ammunition was under warranty for a period of 10
years and the seller was contractually bound to either replace or rectify the
defects free of charge, Army HQ did not take up the matter with the seller.
Instead, Army HQ in September 2008 requested Ordnance Factory Board to
carry out thorough analysis of ammunition and to carry out repair or
replacement
of 67,453 rounds (valuing Rs 245.28 crore) of indigenous
ammunition and 6191 rounds of imported ammunition (valuing Rs 28.47
crore) held in defective state.
In November 2008, Directorate General of Quality Assurance suggested to
Army HQ to take up the matter with supplier as the imported ammunition was
under warranty. Army HQ however did not take up the matter with the
supplier as of November 2009. In reply to an audit query, Master General of
Ordnance (MGO) branch of Integrated HQ/MOD stated in November 2009
that the delay in taking further action was due to the delay in getting complete
details of defective lots from all the Depots.
MGO reported to OFB in
December 2009 that there had been no progress in carrying out repair or
replacement of 67,453 rounds of indigenous ammunition and 6191 rounds of
imported ammunition, despite repeated requests.

Thus, indigenous and imported ammunition costing Rs 273.75
crore remained in a state “unfit for use” for over five to eight years. Such
delays in making the ammunition fit for use are inexplicable.
Absence of monitoring of the work done against maintenance contract
resulted in overpayment of Rs 98.59 lakh to a contractor. Army HQ even
paid for non-existent unmanned aerial vehicles.
Though the firm agreed
in March 2009 to repay the overpaid amount, the amount was yet to be
received as of November 2009.
The GSQR of 2003 for Milan 2T indicated the
range as 2000 metres to meet the need of modernisation of forces. Based on
GSQR of 2003, RFP for procurement of 4100 Milan 2T was issued to BDL in
January 2007. The Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) did not find the
product offered by BDL compliant with the GSQR as the range of 2000
metres offered had only 1850 metres under guidance phase while the last 150
metres was left unguided.
Some people claimed that and Army man after passing through training becomes Super brilliant. While DRDO guys chi chi.. make pathetic research papers.

People living in glass houses ......
ShivaS
BRFite
Posts: 701
Joined: 16 Jul 2010 14:23

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

Post by ShivaS »

that's because of kickbacks and nobody wants to kick some backs
that's why all our problems are home made only
jaladipc
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 20:51
Location: i CAN ADA

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

Post by jaladipc »

One more iteration of DRDO web page

:arrow: http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/index.j ... mebody.jsp
:D :D 8)
Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1116
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

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

Post by Kailash »

DRDO to develop army's next-generation tank
For the first time, the DRDO has outlined the FMBT project’s contours. Talking exclusively to Business Standard, DRDO chief and Scientific Advisor to the Defence Minister, V K Saraswat, revealed, “While the Future Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) has been handed over to private industry, the DRDO will develop the FMBT. We need about seven-eight years from the time the project is formally sanctioned.
Amongst the capabilities being finalised for the GSQR are: active armour, which will shoot down enemy anti-tank projectiles before they strike the FMBT; extreme mobility, which makes the FMBT much harder to hit; the capability to operate in a nuclear-contaminated battlefield without exposing the crew to radiation; and the networked flow of information to the FMBT, providing full situational awareness to the crew, even when “buttoned down” inside the tank.
However, the DRDO chief ruled out an electromagnetic gun, the next generation in high-velocity guns towards which armament technology aspires. “The Future MBT is not so far in the future,” Saraswat quipped.
Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1116
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

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

Post by Kailash »

Ajai Shukla: You got it! Now deserve it

continuation on the FICV saga..
K_Reddy
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 33
Joined: 27 Jul 2005 00:45

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

Post by K_Reddy »

Guys, Check this out:

http://drdo.res.in/labs/lastec/director.html

He has been at the hub of the development of complex and sophisticated test systems for seeker heads of electro-optically guided Precision guided munitions (PGM) which are successfully utilised by DRDO laboratories to test laser seekers deployed in two National programmes of utmost importance concerning development of Laser guided bomb kits (SUDARSHAN) and cannon launched guided missile (CLMDP).

I had no idea a guided artillary round was in the works.
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

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

Post by tsarkar »

CLGM works similar to Lahat. It is not an arty round.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

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

Post by Kanson »

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/08/kn ... f-sec.html

My comment:
Agreed Aroor, if that is the case. But here, the letter further adds, "I must say that earlier also DRDO has been consistently taking the country in a glorious path by successfully executing some very difficult projects.

You say, Dutt, is a very straight man. You describe his as a harsh critic and brain child of Rama Rao committee. If what you say is correct, why he has to mention, DRDO is consistent in taking the country to glorious path earlier also. So it is not that he changed his position after becoming the Governor. It doesnt gells well with your observation, isn't it?
Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1438
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

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

Post by Craig Alpert »

India Develops Oxygen System For High-Altitude Helo Flights
Image
India’s Defense Bioengineering and Electromedical Laboratory (Debel) has developed an “oxygen life-support system for helicopter pilots operating at high altitudes.”

Debel— part of the Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) — was tasked to develop the system by the Indian air force (IAF) on “an urgent basis.” Following a quick development and rigorous tests by the Center for Military Airworthiness and Certification, a few prototype systems were delivered to the IAF. Per DRDO policies, the technology is being transferred to three Indian companies, which are gearing up for mass production.

“After extended user trials, we were told that the helicopter oxygen system worked satisfactorily,” Debel Director V.C. Padaki tells AVIATION WEEK.

During high-altitude operations, oxygen levels in the body drop, and pilots and other crewmembers have to depend upon on supplemental oxygen for normal breathing.

“IAF specification was to develop a system that can be useful for over two hours,” Padaki says. “This was critical while undertaking routine helicopter flying in border areas. Initially the system was developed for Cheetah helicopters. We are now working on one for Cheetal helicopters that can operate in excess of three hours. The IAF also wants separate systems to be developed for Mi-17 and Dhruv helicopters.”

The system consists of an oxygen cylinder, a pressure reducer head, dilution demand oxygen regulator and a mask mounted on the helmet. “We had provided IAF 10 sets of [the system], as per their immediate requirements after limited qualification and certification tests, and are now expecting combined orders in excess of 400 units,” Padaki says.

The estimated price per unit is Rs 1.5 lakh ($3,200) compared with Rs 10 lakh for an imported system. The total value of the order is pegged at Rs 6 crores ($1.35 million).
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

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

Post by Singha »

livefist/

BAE Systems is the only company that confirmed to me that it had responded to the IAF's RFI. The company's India spokesperson Guy Douglas told me, "We did reply to the RFI... However, and as we stated in the RFI response, we are unlikely to be able to offer a realistic response to a UCAV RFP within the immediate timeframe. In July we unveiled Taranis, the world's first stealthy autonomous UCAV. As Taranis is still in the prototype phase of development it would be incorrect to suggest it is available to compete for this programme. Instead we have made it clear that we are very interested in working together with the DRDO, and other agencies and companies in India to help develop an indigenous UAS capability." Since there are no operational UCAV products anywhere on earth that fit the IAF's stated requirements, the IAF had been expecting responses, at the very least, like BAE's.

Dassault Aviation, which also received the RFI, decided not to respond, but is understood to have separately conveyed its openness in partnering India on the AURA programme, though this will have nothing to do with the nEUROn UCAV demonstrator programme. Companies that received the IAF's RFI, but chose not to respond, include Boeing, Lockeed-Martin, General Atomics and EADS. Israel's IAI and Russia's UAC also received the RFI, but did not confirm how or if they responded.
shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

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

Post by shukla »

International industry unites, calls on India to reform offset policies
Defence industry associations across North America and Europe will send a jointly signed letter to the Indian Ministry of Defence (MoD) early next month outlining proposals to overcome what they view as excessive bureaucracy that is stifling defence trade. The letter will focus on defence companies' frustrations with existing offset policies and make a number of recommendations that industry bodies hope the MoD will include in a revision of the offset policy planned for next year.

Cosignatories of the letter include the Aerospace Industries Association in the United States; the Washington, DC-based US-India Business Council; the UK's ADS (AeroSpace Defense Security); the German Aerospace Industries Association (BDLI); France's Groupement des Industries Françaises Aéronautiques et Spatiales; and the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada.

Confirming the development to Jane's on 19 August, Brinley Salzmann, the director of overseas and exports at ADS, said the letter is a result of international defence industries' desire for a "workable offset policy in India that makes commercial sense for the overseas obligors and also generates value and benefits for Indian industry."

Salzmann said a particular focus of the letter is a request to the MoD that it establish a dedicated body that has authority to make key decisions on how vendors fulfil offset obligations. Salzmann added that such an agency would address the high level of bureaucracy that has been identified by international defence industries as one of the biggest challenges in doing business in India.

He did not reveal full details of the letter's content, but said: "It will be along the lines of the need for a simplification of the system to try to generate an entity that has the authority to make decisions."
prashanth
BRFite
Posts: 540
Joined: 04 Sep 2007 16:50
Location: Barad- dyr

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

Post by prashanth »

^
So that they can have a field day selling their weapons here, and stifle Indian industries altogether. Interesting to see how united they are in this case.
Juggi G
BRFite
Posts: 1070
Joined: 11 Mar 2007 19:16
Location: Martyr Bhagat Singh Nagar District, Doaba, Punjab, Bharat. De Ghuma ke :)

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

Post by Juggi G »

Does the CAG Leak Defence Secrets ?
Business Standard
To examine the questions raised, let us look at two of the audits tabled by the CAG on August 3. The first case details how defence PSU, or DPSU, Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) obtained an MoD order to indigenise radars in India, but then simply bought them from a foreign vendor and sold them to the MoD for a premium.

That DPSUs like BEL don the cloak of “indigenisation” to obtain preferential MoD orders is an open secret within the military, the MoD and the analyst community.

Soldiers joke that the only BEL-made part of an ostensibly BEL-made radar is the '"Made by BEL” plaque that covers the original “Made in France” stamp.

Proving that is difficult and the MoD and the DPSUs stonewall any questions. But this CAG audit painstakingly documents how the MoD paid BEL '870 crore for 22 radars in 2007, '41.39 crore more than the cost of buying from the original manufacturer, Italian company Selex.

The rationale for this largesse: indigenous production. But then, within three months of that contract, BEL ordered 13 radars from Selex in CKD (Completely Knocked Down) kits, “in gross violation of its own commitment of manufacturing these radars indigenously”.


The MoD, unusually, has admitted that BEL has effectively fronted for a foreign vendor and handsomely profited from it. What use would have been served by placing this audit before the MoD, when the ministry itself is a part of this charade? The CAG report has provided a public tool (howsoever apathetic our jaded janta and media might be towards it) to pressure the government for a level-playing field in defence production.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

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

Post by chackojoseph »

^^^^ So, French Radar is cheaper than what BEL can produce? :-?
Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

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

Post by Gaur »

^^
Not really. According to the report, BEL does not produce any radar so there is no question of which radar is cheaper. It just imports the knocked down kits from the French company Selex and sells them to IA for a profit. On top of that, they claim the radars to be indigenous.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

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

Post by chackojoseph »

^^^

You know, we really need to get to the bottom of that. I am surprised that BEL quotes higher than the French companies.
R Nathan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 19
Joined: 24 Jun 2009 10:15

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

Post by R Nathan »

How did people overlook this Gem? Clicky
...DRDO chief and Scientific Advisor to the Defence Minister, Dr VK Saraswat, revealed...While the Arjun is a 60-tonne tank, the FMBT will be lighter… about 50 tonnes.......Amongst the capabilities being finalised for the GSQR are: active armour, which will shoot down enemy anti-tank projectiles before they strike the FMBT; extreme mobility...capability to operate in a nuclear-contaminated battlefield ... networked flow of information ..full situational awareness......However, the DRDO chief ruled out an electromagnetic gun, the next generation in high-velocity guns towards which armament technology aspires. “The Future MBT is not so far in the future”, Dr Saraswat quipped.
What a shame. After promising Active Armour "not too far in the future"...he backed out from promising "electromagnetic gun". No doubt we will see the FMBT soon.
R Nathan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 19
Joined: 24 Jun 2009 10:15

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

Post by R Nathan »

chackojoseph wrote:^^^

You know, we really need to get to the bottom of that. I am surprised that BEL quotes higher than the French companies.
Why the surprise? BEL has no competetion...so why price anything down? What is the BEL share price now? INR 1727.05 :| must buy some.
Post Reply