Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

kit · Post by **kit** » 19 Sep 2013 11:26

.. regarding buyer making more

.. israel did ..quite a lot ..off uncle Sams back .most of stuff were free and they had access to tech as well to improve on it !

kit · Post by **kit** » 19 Sep 2013 11:37

Guess i want uncle Sam to gift India some real high tech like ..for example high end sonar tech and non hull penetrating optoelectronic masts for free ..just to show its pure intentions

..and maybe put in AESA radar tech as well .. ah OT i guess

kit · Post by **kit** » 19 Sep 2013 11:45

Also the places i think where real collaboration regarding IPR was maintained seems to be the deals between UAE and France. UAE still gets royalty for the technology upgrades it financed and made by France.
does India get any royalty for the upteen billions it spends through israel and russia ?

In the end money is king and the country should get what it pays for.

probably khan realises that india is a sucker for this game ..big time !

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 19 Sep 2013 12:08

Karan M wrote:All the rules get bent, overlooked or merely given a token acceptance, provided the Govt of the day or the decision maker of the day decides on something. Its always been the case. CAG then busts them up after the fact.. whether it be purchasing a Trenton or a T-90..

you are right. these things have happened in the past. possible it may happen again but DRDO, i guess, has become much wiser will take into account it's own capabilities and the industrial support it can get and decide on it. this is a co-development programme with DRDO and hence it's view can't be disregarded.

The question is whether that assistance will even be given. Based on current/prior details, expecting the US to assist India with any critical tech is to expect the impossible. At best, expect "build to print" model with limited TOT from the US. Typical stuff which our DPSUs are happy with SKD/CKD/limited TOT etc. But DRDO/DPSU R&D would require far more than that, which is not going to come our way. Since all that is subject to US laws as well, which prevent even TOT to frontline munna's.

i have no illusions of TOT wrt critical tech like FPA in the seeker - which would have to be imported - till it is mastered, but i 'assume' DRDO may need a lot more time/assistance in other aspects like - in miniaturisation of the seeker, warhead, meterial etc.. so it may not be possible for them to get the system in place in a timeframe it is required. hence IMO if the TOT minus FPA tech is passed on, DRDO might be able to master these for the future programmes.

IIRC Javelin procurement went for a toss because of the US refusal to pass on the TOT. but things changed with Leon Panetta's visit and Ashton Carter's appointment to coordinate defence coop with India and he says they have overcome the US congress/bureaucracy's reservations and is proposing this. 'if' this is true - MOD/DRDO need to be convined - i see no harm. besides if Javelin manufacture takes place in India it might become a hub too for global orders.

however all my points may turn out to be wrong too which is why i say MOD/DRDO need to convince themselves and 'only' if it is beyond DRDO to productionise the system in a reasonable time, they can move forward.

AS is very gung ho on the US because like many services guys he is fed up with Russian arm twisting in terms of prices and constant haggling over TOT, and the US appears very reasonable and corporate. It will take time for him to realize the grass is not always greener..

while the all of the first part is true, the second part has not been tested yet. so while i do see your point, it is fair to wait.

That apart, the influence of DRDO is pretty overstated.

in the past services/MOD have bent rules etc to favour imports which has affected DRDO no doubt. but in this proposal the DRDO is also a partner which makes a difference and hence DRDO's voice will count heavily IMO.

They were slagged/attacked publicly - media egged on by a defence mandarin, ex services- who is now Governor of a state, and the MOD did nothing.
They can't even make a DPSU cooperate on a national aircraft project, beyond a point. License production is deemed more important. MOD watches.

DRDO has basically learnt not to pick fights. They accept fait accompli's and try to make the best out of bad deals that are foisted onto them.
So if the services really want to import something and DRDO doesn't have anything ready - DRDO does not object, as versus offering to develop it etc. Similarly, if the lord and master, the MOD says something, the DRDO will comply.
Similar is the case for the DPSUs. They of course, depending on the DPSU in question, are far more restricted. As long as they keep getting production orders from MOD, all is well.

very true. this has been a perennial problem for India which needs understanding, cooperation with a realistic vision by all concerned. i am not sure if this can be achieved in my life time for sure.

that apart, as i said if DRDO can develop and build the system, there is 'no question' of any other proposal being even considered. my opinion is strictly based on what DRDO may gain (where/if they need help). an expanded industrial/manufacturing base will only help the future DRDO programmes besides the pvt sector (possibly) gets a foothold and contributes to the defence needs in a meaningful way.

So far, DRDO has got very little from the US, words apart. Saraswat said as much a couple of years back. Similar claims of "different era" etc had been made before that. The limited assistance during the mid-stage of the LCA program is the only notable stuff and after that, came the sanctions and arm twisting.. hence, judging by the reports, the organizations wariness regarding all these new "offers"..

true but 'hopefully' being corrected in Javelin NG proposal.

it 'may' just be possible things are changing!! who would have expected DRDO to transfer TOT wrt an explosive detection kit to an US company?? the US which used to make noises wrt to DRDO missile tests have stopped. ofc that does not mean they are doing a favour to us. far from it infact. US in the present sees India as a cog in their ambition to keep in check the dragon who would pose challenges - more so to India - to them. so it is all national interests in play. 10 yrs back it would have been unthinkable to even imagine C 130J/C 17s/Apaches/Chinooks etc in Indian colors!!

Well, that's what - one can hope that even without any magical/critical TOT, at least some commercial advantages to the industry accrue from the deal. Something like doing airframe, ancillary work for Boeing, as versus making complete jetliners, still good business..

i hope and expect more - in terms of miniaturisation of seeker, warhead, material tech etc..

Well the SAMHO, should technically be a manportable missile.. Nag will have to be heavily redesigned to be lighter, manportable is another thing entirely.

yes if not as shoulder fired, atleast as tripod mounted but still manportable. agree too on the NAG.

kit · Post by **kit** » 19 Sep 2013 12:15

*deleted*

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 19 Sep 2013 12:45

kit wrote:Dude , India doesnt need to be a cog in any other countries ambitions !

Dude, you seem to have a problem reading!! read again this is what i wrote -

US in the present sees India as a cog in their ambition to keep in check the dragon who would pose challenges - more so to India - to them.

India neither sees it like that nor will accept it ever.

kit · Post by **kit** » 19 Sep 2013 12:55

My bad ! thanks for correction.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 19 Sep 2013 13:31

IMO the biggest challenge in a JV with US would be to keep the Indian scientific folks from lure of American offered Laddus to them. The best of the talents will be targeted and we would end up as the loser both technologically as well as manpowe wise.

vic · Post by **vic** » 19 Sep 2013 22:03

Effective SAMHO missile weight is similar to Javelin missile as Javelin requires additional batteries, cooling bottles etc which adds to carriage weight.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 20 Sep 2013 04:27

geeth wrote:IMO the biggest challenge in a JV with US would be to keep the Indian scientific folks from lure of American offered Laddus to them. The best of the talents will be targeted and we would end up as the loser both technologically as well as manpowe wise.

The best of Indian brains are already working for the American MIC and will continue to do so. If you meant the DPSU folks, you must be kidding. We need to wake up and smell the kaafee. Unless we can offer our best people much better opportunities than the DPSUs, they will either go abroad or work for the private sector (ie. not in the weapons gravy train which is reserved for the parasites). There will always be some truly nationalistic-minded folks among the best who will choose to work for DPSUs out of patriotic fervour but that is not enough. Sadly, even they will not be allowed to shine and will also leave after a few years. It is happening as we speak.

The worst that can happen with JVs with Americans is that our people learn some manufacturing and management processes from the best MIC in the world. Being paranoid betrays either misplaced arrogance (we don't need them) or low self-confidence (they will eat us like laddoos) and leave us firmly stuck at square one. We are fully capable of becoming a world power in armaments but we need to be humble, self confident and most of all, kick out the order-hogging parasites in our system. It needs to firmly click in our heads that NOBODY will part with their crown jewels, Americans, Russians, British, French, South Africans, Israelis, Singaporeans included. For all we know, the Americans may WANT us to learn but without appearing to spoon feed us, which is what all this "we should demand ToT" business is. Let's remember that our rocket scientists got their start from the Americans, not the Russians.

Avarachan · Post by **Avarachan** » 20 Sep 2013 06:49

Dr. Chander, in this April 23, 2013 interview, says that a man-portable version of Nag is being planned. He says that it can be made ready within 2 years of the project being sanctioned. (He starts discussing the Nag missile from 9:00 onwards, and the man-portable version at 12:20.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... ayuFNTxoUc

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Sep 2013 06:49

Reading most posts feels like 2000 on BR !!!!! Do not know why so much negativity, what should India be scared of at this point in time?

A few things to note. First this topic of co-whatever is not new. It has been there since 2010 or earlier.

Secondly, it has been maturing for this many years:

But Carter said all such "misconceptions" were history now. The US is "working around" foundational military pacts like CISMOA (communication interoperability and security memorandum agreement)

(A few months ago I had stated that they would find ways around it. Actually there are more ways around it - in open source too.)

Thirdly, could it roll back? Perhaps, but probably not. There are a few major road blocks - on both sides - that need to be removed. And, that should take some time - a year or so at the very least.

Fourth, this is not just about technologies. There is a lot more coming down the pike. And, it will mean dramatic changes.

I would wait for MMS to meet with Obama to pick up on the direction of this wind. I do not expect much more than them figuring out what the next step is going to be, but it should provide some direction.

Avarachan · Post by **Avarachan** » 20 Sep 2013 07:15

NRao, let me give you some friendly advice. Quit waiting for "dramatic changes." I seriously doubt that they are coming.

Honestly, both India and the U.S. would be better off if people viewed the U.S.-India relationship more soberly and realistically. This hype--and the bitterness that inevitably follows--benefits no one.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Sep 2013 08:57

let me give you some friendly advice. Quit waiting for "dramatic changes." I seriously doubt that they are coming.

Honestly, both India and the U.S. would be better off if people viewed the U.S.-India relationship more soberly and realistically. This hype--and the bitterness that inevitably follows--benefits no one.

Wait for what? Lol. It is happening!! One word: ~~"Plastics"~~ "non-techs"!!! barter. However, thanks. NP. : ) . Have fun, life is too short.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 20 Sep 2013 09:27

The best of Indian brains are already working for the American MIC and will continue to do so. If you meant the DPSU folks, you must be kidding. We need to wake up and smell the kaafee.

See, these kind of sermons is what one doesn't expect from people. You have already assumed that what had migrated to US are/were the best brains, and what is leftover is of hardly any use (atleast to US). Then how come those leftovers had achieved so much with so less? And how many of those who had left the shores with best of their brains are allowed by US to work on critical/cutting edge technologies?

There are indeed some who have better than the best brains working in the In the Indian defence projects. There is a deliberate plan not to tom tom their achievements, so that they are not targeted, and yes, western powers are on the lookout to poach these talents. Hope you weren't kidding when you wrote those lines.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 20 Sep 2013 10:20

geeth wrote: There are indeed some who have better than the best brains working in the In the Indian defence projects. .

Wonderful. If the "better than best" are working on India's defense projects, that is very heartening. We should be seeing results, hopefully not too far off in the future.

There is a deliberate plan not to tom tom their achievements, so that they are not targeted, and yes, western powers are on the lookout to poach these talents

So the powers that be are in fact afraid that these people will leave if their accomplishments were made known? (that's the other side of "poach"). It is good that they are keeping some sensitive things quiet but they should be more confident, IMO.

You have already assumed that what had migrated to US are/were the best brains, and what is leftover is of hardly any use

Please read my post again without any prejudice. I am firmly against the DPSUs, not Indian industry in general.

nash · Post by **nash** » 20 Sep 2013 11:01

Is there any news on K-4 testing, it was suppose to be tested by this month.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 20 Sep 2013 11:07

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p1500123

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1500454

pragnya wrote:
Karan M wrote:Pragnya, thats a pretty good find. Only thing I can think of that counters that, is that if it was BMD, then it would be explicitly mentioned as such and not as a SAM. Which is why I think this program is different.

ramana wrote:pragnya, That is definitely a BMD vehicle.
150km and then 300 km is upper atmosphere and re-entry altitudes
i do know they are for the BMD as you can see in my post but pray tell what will fly so high other than BMs??

even if i were to use those to fly endo-atmospheric all the way in a diagonal upto 150/300km to take down tanker/awacs/sigit asset/ucav/aircraft, fact that the PDV is 'already' robust because of it being puposely built as such - only helps. isn't it?? after all even anti ballistic missile too is VLR SAM only. a missile which shoots a missile can shoot any other asset. that is my understanding.

is my understanding wrong?? if they are supposedly different, as being discusssed, then what would be different in terms of build, specs, tech etc.. between the PDV and VLR SAM??

DRDO chief on the VLR/ELR SAM in the video below -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LPERPmDX8Y (after 8.45)

it is multi purpose SAM.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 20 Sep 2013 11:20

Avarachan wrote:Dr. Chander, in this April 23, 2013 interview, says that a man-portable version of Nag is being planned. He says that it can be made ready within 2 years of the project being sanctioned. (He starts discussing the Nag missile from 9:00 onwards, and the man-portable version at 12:20.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... ayuFNTxoUc

thanks for posting it. 'unfortunately' the interviewer did not pursue the question.

i don't know why DRDO is not being asked/tasked to produce the MANPORTABLE version when the chief says it can be done in 2 years?? now i think the Javelin NG co-development with USA looks doubtful now. i would be happy if this comes out of DRDO.

also changes in NAMICA (height) have been taken care too.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 20 Sep 2013 11:39

^^^

This is how I see things.

1. GOI first want's DRDO to deliver that which has already been promised i.e NAG/NAMICA and HELINA
2. When the DRDO chief says 2 years he probably means a prototype just like he promises to have A6 ready within 2-3 years from sanction and 3 years for DRDO 155/52 Gun and other such projects.
3. The mass production/deployment timelines for any such product could easily be between 5-10 years depending on the amount of work required.
4. Look no further than PINAKA Mk2, Akash MK2, HELINA, Bofors tot based OFB 155/39 gun and other such projects. None of these simple sounding projects could be delivered in 2 years.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 20 Sep 2013 12:11

^^^

pankajs

you are misinterpreting what i wrote. i am not saying they will be mass produced in 2 years just because DRDO chief says - even he does not mean it!! obviously the prototype will be availble which will go into testing phase and then post clearence into production.

when i said Javelin NG (sorry, i did add NG in my earlier post) co-development proposal is doubtful, i simply mean it on the ground that even a Javelin NG prototype will have similar prototype/testing timelines roughly. besides if the capability exists to build a MANPORTABLE version in the country why should we go for co-development?? my whole premise when i argued for Javelin NG co-development was precisely based on that point!!

as for the forces obviously they will have to procure Konkur M (already happening) for vehicle mounted - NAG/NAMICA in any case IA is not intending to use as a replacement. besides RV says NAG has a 'niche' role in IA which means they won't be procured in large numbers and NAG would be ready in 2014 for production.

either the present version Javelin or Spike will be procured for the infantry if IA simply can't live with Milan 2T 'till' DRDO comes up with it's own version 'provided' sanctioned.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 20 Sep 2013 12:20

No issues with your pov saar, I was just stating my pov. Hopefully on the closure of NAG/NAMICA saga we will see movement on mpAT NAG.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Sep 2013 13:02

Limited order for Javelin should be given conditional to DRDO developing man portable Nag and JV should include some ToT which can help in development of man portable F&F missile.

Else limited order for Javelin will get transferred into large order in the future on basis on familiarity , availability and logistics argument effectively killing Man Portable Nag in its development stage

vic · Post by **vic** » 20 Sep 2013 13:17

I think we can develop variants of MRSAM - LRSAM which can be used as long range AAM and Air launched ARM with minor modifications.

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 20 Sep 2013 13:23

What are the techs being eyed in the javelin ?
Is it its miniaturised Khanate IIR - in comparison to the Nag IIR (which seems to be our first attempt at IIR in a mijjile)
Also tech for the HEAT warhead of javelin - looks quite tfta - maybe we don't have this too as we are currently importing Lahat types from Israel ?

My ultimate chankian theory is that Javelin tot is being demanded to get an equivalent of homegrown Hellfire mijjile (though it has a different seeker to javelin) developed from it - which has to be light yet lethal enough to be fielded by UAV and UCAV s and other chhupa Rustom s in the future.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 20 Sep 2013 13:32

Wonderful. If the "better than best" are working on India's defense projects, that is very heartening. We should be seeing results, hopefully not too far off in the future.

Aren't you seeing the results already? For eg., How many countries boast of ICBM capability, despite international regimes / rules like MTCR enacted solely for the purpose of blocking India? And if the wester powers are not concerned about india's capability, then why are they denying technology perpetually through these laws? After making their intentions very clear, you want India to join them hoping to develop cutting edge technology through JVs..! If not for the better than best, India would not have reached this far even, with our noble sikular Govts and their "Satyam eva Jayathe" motto (only applicable in military matters)

So the powers that be are in fact afraid that these people will leave if their accomplishments were made known? (that's the other side of "poach"). It is good that they are keeping some sensitive things quiet but they should be more confident, IMO.

Ofcourse yes, and the reason is not lack of confidence, but the fear of money power of the opponent. Looking back at history, one should not wonder about the ability of the powers that be to loot talent by lure, deceit or even by force. For eg., German scientists contributed massively after World war II, for what America is today. It is enough if a couple of key people are lured out to keep a particular programme stagnant.

Please read my post again without any prejudice. I am firmly against the DPSUs, not Indian industry in general.

You have spelt out your prejudice about DPSUs and is now asking me to read your post without prejudice! For however worthy they are, what ever India has achieved so far is only through DPSUs. People like TATAs or BIRLAS or AMBANIs could have done a lot..Don't tell me they had no Govt Support -if they could get Govt Support for everything else, they would have got it for manufacturing military equipments as well - afterall, for most of them, it is "Apna Dukaan". They they don't do it. Why? Who wants to take risk when plenty of money is available elsewhere.

You may find one odd Walchand Nagar Industry or some such entity who would manufacture products of foreign firms under licence. But that is hardly any cutting edge research.

Pls don't belittle the Desi folks.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 20 Sep 2013 21:02

Geeth, we are on the same side and want the same things for India but have different views on how to get there. At no point have I "belittled desi folks" unless you consider only the DPSUs to be desi folks and not the many more people working in Indian private companies. If you consider the latter to be inherently "bad" because they operate on a profit basis, then we have a basic disagreement on how India can thrive. I will stand behind my belief that the best talent in India do not go to work for the DPSUs, that the DPSUs are deeply flawed in their structure and with notable exceptions, have been a major stumbling block to India's progress rather than a help. That is OT for this thread.

You are right about the Americans and Russians getting their start in missile tech from the Germans in the 40s. But who helped India start its missile tech in the 60s? It was the Americans. Today the Americans have the worlds largest and most efficient weapons industry and while it is mostly private owned, it is fully under the control of the US government. This is the model I believe is best for India. Why? All of these companies have a disproportionate percentage of Indian scientists and engineers working for them with new ones getting visas daily with ease. There may be more Indians working to make American weapons than Indian weapons. We need to find out why this is and try to reverse it. This is being done with some success by the Chinese. Keeping scientists hidden from view is a defeatist activity and will fail in the end.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Sep 2013 22:29

Victor wrote:I will stand behind my belief that the best talent in India do not go to work for the DPSUs,

A gross generalization. Private firms continue to recruit from the DPSUs because they come with hard engineering knowledge that is often not available elsewhere.

Today the Americans have the worlds largest and most efficient weapons industry

Efficient..Really? With a fraction of the resources, the Russians are creating similar items of equal complexity and capability including 5G platforms. With much much less, compared to even the Russians, the Indians have started fielding/developing IR/ICBMs, BMD systems etc. The Israelis may have started off with US tech on a platter, but today they are ahead of the US MIC in several areas and field systems faster.

The Americans may have the largest weapons industry, but the most efficient? Merely because they are profit oriented?

Its the same profit motive which makes the US weapons manufacturers launch complex, unneeded programs on the basis of unproven tech and they often end up in fiscal disaster. Crusader, Comanche, LCS ...so many programs that were either gobbling up money at incredible rates or were written off without a care..

It is such a wasteful method of working, that its now affecting US national security or will, if left unchecked. The JSF program is a perfect example, of burning through hundreds of billions, while competitors develop equivalent capabilities at a fraction of the cost.

The manner in which the US weapons industry influences Govt officials via lobbying, plum positions etc is also well documented and often commented on.

If anything the US weapons industry is a warning to any country, as to not letting the control go over completely to the private sector. The profit motive apparently trumps most other considerations.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 20 Sep 2013 22:46

Lilo wrote:What are the techs being eyed in the javelin ?
Is it its miniaturised Khanate IIR - in comparison to the Nag IIR (which seems to be our first attempt at IIR in a mijjile)
Also tech for the HEAT warhead of javelin - looks quite tfta - maybe we don't have this too as we are currently importing Lahat types from Israel ?

The Javelin seeker has a smaller range than that of Nag, Karan M said that it's for the FPA what we are after. I always thought that we have developed all the tech regarding IIR seeker, also BDL is already producing the said seeker. If we didn't develop the FPA for Nag seeker then who supplied it to us ???

LAHAT is a CLGM and what did you find TFTA about the Javelin warhead ??? Same thing is there in Nag.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Sep 2013 23:12

Sagar G wrote:The Javelin seeker has a smaller range than that of Nag, Karan M said that it's for the FPA what we are after. I always thought that we have developed all the tech regarding IIR seeker, also BDL is already producing the said seeker. If we didn't develop the FPA for Nag seeker then who supplied it to us ???

Sofradir. Its a French national organization funded by the French Govt and industry, which supplies both Thales and Sagem. There are 4 countries which make the latest tech FPAs - as I recall. The US, France, Israel and surprisingly, South Africa. China, Russia are behind in the race. Rest of the world sources FPAs from the top bunch.

A seeker is more than a FPA. It has a cryogenic cooling unit for the FPA, optics, including focusing capability, gimbal (as necessary), image processing hardware, software to run the detection, acquisition algorithms that have been developed by DRDO (hence all the trials).

It is this seeker which has been developed by DRDO and which is being made at BDL.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 20 Sep 2013 23:22

^^^ So our FPA's are still in the lab's ????

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Sep 2013 23:32

Yes, they have prototypes out of earlier gens out and even trialled them as I remember. But to graduate to the latest generation and then mass manufacture it, you need a fab plus a dedicated budget. Money, which DRDO doesn't have.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 21 Sep 2013 00:11

Karan M wrote:Its the same profit motive which makes the US weapons manufacturers launch complex, unneeded programs on the basis of unproven tech and they often end up in fiscal disaster. Crusader, Comanche, LCS ...so many programs that were either gobbling up money at incredible rates or were written off without a care..

It is such a wasteful method of working, that its now affecting US national security or will, if left unchecked. The JSF program is a perfect example, of burning through hundreds of billions, while competitors develop equivalent capabilities at a fraction of the cost.

The manner in which the US weapons industry influences Govt officials via lobbying, plum positions etc is also well documented and often commented on.

If anything the US weapons industry is a warning to any country, as to not letting the control go over completely to the private sector. The profit motive apparently trumps most other considerations.

KaranM,

Let me start of by stating that I don't claim to have the same level of knowledge in weapons systems as you, as is obvious from the authoritative posts you make on this forum. That said, I'd still like to put in 2 naya paise. I'm not sure there's much in the whole US MIC subverting the government argument. I would like to think it's the other way around. The US MIC invests so much in coming up with paradigm changing weapons platforms solely because it's the US stated goal to have unassailable dominance, and they're willing to pay for having that. The Raptor was way ahead of anything field able by anybody else when it came out. If weapons system NG is only iteratively better than the former, it isn't good enough to scare the living daylights out of any peer competitors and hence fails at it's very raison d'etre, dissuasion.

The erstwhile USSR's MIC was state owned and it still ended up dominating their industry to an extent that the only worthwhile thing the Russian industry can manufacture today is fighters, submarines and rockets. Also the Russian MIC doesn't have to compete with a tech industry like in the US. The one thing any big manufacturer can use to pressure the political dispensation in the US is jobs. That remains the same in India where the MIC is owned by the government.

The size of the non MIC tech industry in the US is vastly more than anything the MIC can manage. Let's see if the FB/GOOG/YHOO are able to pressure the government to slack up on NSA led spying. They have claimed openly that it's hurting their bottomline. That'll show you how much any industry, no matter how deep their pockets, can force the government to change it's opinion.

To claim the Russian's have managed to come up with an equivalent capability decades later for a lot less and hence claim the Russian MIC as more efficient doesn't fly boss. I suspect, the Russians without access to a lot of manufacturing tooling/COTS equipment/freely available software from the west will fail at manufacturing 5G fighters. There are more knowledgeable people on this forum who could possibly comment on if the F35 is far more advanced and capable than the PAKFA. I suspect in terms of uptime, serviceability and raw technological capability, it is the case.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Sep 2013 01:46

KrishnaK,

Let me start of by stating that I don't claim to have the same level of knowledge in weapons systems as you, as is obvious from the authoritative posts you make on this forum. That said, I'd still like to put in 2 naya paise. I'm not sure there's much in the whole US MIC subverting the government argument. I would like to think it's the other way around. The US MIC invests so much in coming up with paradigm changing weapons platforms solely because it's the US stated goal to have unassailable dominance, and they're willing to pay for having that.

The question is not whether they are subverting the USG. Lets leave that aside for a moment and focus on efficient.

I am pointing out that the profit motive is their be-all and end-all, and as a result, they constantly seek the riskiest, most expensive projects to push. By their very nature, many such programs fail. In the process, they use up valuable economic capital and also lead to an erosion of actual combat capability. Furthermore, the entire process to monitor such projects and ensure that the state controls them, fails because of the manner in which lobbying is institutionalized. The "it will bring jobs" argument peddled out by senators to ensure that these "too big to fail" programs continue in their home states, ensures that things remain the way they are.

At a fundamental level, this is no different from the workers union in a DPSU making a push to get their interests secured, and to prevent possible vote losses, the minister visiting the particular DPSU commits that it will be "business as usual".

So to claim that the US has the biggest MIC etc - fine. But see at what cost that was achieved and also the manner in which it has grown to be an out of control behemoth today.

Efficient the entire system certainly isn't. Since it constantly chooses to prioritize disruptive innovation, highly risky, speculative programs over more conservative ones.

The USG bargaining power has also gone down, if their audit mechanisms were already not bad enough, since post cold war consolidation means that the USG itself does not have multiple vendors to fall back on.

In days past, there were Northrop Grumman, Fairchild, General Dynamics, Lockheed, Martin Marietta, Boeing, Mc Donnell Douglas et al. Today? There are Lockheed Martin and Boeing in the fighter business, and for all practical purposes LM is where the fighter business is at.

Last, of course its a two way street about the US and the MIC both cooperating in the rush for more and more expensive, well funded acquisitions. The MIC lobbies the USG for more gear. The Pentagon buys them and is constantly seeking to justify its investment/growth by giving the politicians what they want, the politicians dig interventionism. Thats a whole different mess though.

The Raptor was way ahead of anything field able by anybody else when it came out.

Yes, only because the FSU fell. If they were still around, there would be something comparable to knock the Raptor down.

If weapons system NG is only iteratively better than the former, it isn't good enough to scare the living daylights out of any peer competitors and hence fails at it's very raison d'etre, dissuasion.

Hard to argue that the Raptor is dissuasive, when China has its own 5G programs underway and is doubling down on IADS programs. Furthermore, the Raptor is not a golden pill. Its a perfect example of a broken program, one would have thought that the B-2 was lesson enough..

- Rushed into service with inadequate testing. Raptor cough
- Serviceability/maint issues
- Improper production/batch scheduling. US cant afford to bring all aircraft to a common standard, and hence only 140 odd aircraft are full combat coded, rest will be for training
- All the talk of upgradeability apart - still lacks items like a HMDS, has datalink issues in full communication with other assets.
-And on top of all this, bust the bank and production was capped at 187 aircraft.

The erstwhile USSR's MIC was state owned and it still ended up dominating their industry to an extent that the only worthwhile thing the Russian industry can manufacture today is fighters, submarines and rockets. Also the Russian MIC doesn't have to compete with a tech industry like in the US. The one thing any big manufacturer can use to pressure the political dispensation in the US is jobs. That remains the same in India where the MIC is owned by the government.

That was their choice. The very nature of a state owned socialist set up meant that they prioritized certain activities over others. The point though is that despite having gone through a huge economic upheaval, and also literally breaking their own soviet MIC, they have - within the space of two decades - come to the point that they can compete with the US again in terms of weapons systems. So much so, that the US is busy trying to prevent the export of Russian SAMs - not even the latest ones, and Israel is concerned about ATGM proliferation. It just goes to show what optimized use of even limited resources can achieve.

To claim the Russian's have managed to come up with an equivalent capability decades later for a lot less and hence claim the Russian MIC as more efficient doesn't fly boss.

Your problem is that you seem to be responding emotionally to a point of view that does not necessarily buy into the US dominance stuff. Living/working in the US perhaps? Please step back and look at the issue dispassionately. Look at whats going on. Sequestration, the manner in which Iraq/Afghanistan have added to economic troubles/added to a veterans issue etc - yet, constant peddling of the "weapons for the warfighter" angle...and constant ballooning of scarce budgets and a budget which is anyways out of control.

The Russians had a tech capability that was capable of matching whatever the US did with little access to the manufacture/tooling/COTS the west fielded even before. But it too was pretty saddled up with excess capacity and political decision making the US seems to be struggling with today. Ironically, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian arms industry seems to be a lot more organized, rationally scaled down in some areas, though still struggling to recover from the lost decades of underinvestment in key ancillary industries.

If you read up sometime on how they developed their SAM systems and what it took in terms of intellectual capital. You'll get a better perspective of why the Russians were able to field comparable or even better (there are no equivalents of the combined capabilities of some of the Russian SAM systems in the US kitty) systems in a short period of time. They organized huge consortiums able to draw on pretty any and every national resource, unfettered political power, and considerable freedom in decision making, backed up by every sort of mechanism - including peer audit etc. Capitalism or socialism, the basic rules remained the same. However, their entire planned economy system was a mess...and that is where things broke down.

Today, they are still underutilizing COTS - because Russian law mandates local production/access. They have less access to some of the manufacturing tech locked in by various cartels helmed by the US (which India too suffers from. Try importing the latest fab process/production lines from any US affiliated supplier). But they are still fielding systems which can knock out the best US made gear. Speaks for itself.

I suspect, the Russians without access to a lot of manufacturing tooling/COTS equipment/freely available software from the west will fail at manufacturing 5G fighters.

Irrelevant comparison, because if the Russians really wanted to, they could develop many of these capabilities themselves. Heck, India when denied software to automate composite manufacturing processes, developed Autolay. The problem is that the US has access to even better tech, but is still struggling.
The F35 is a perfect example.

If we see the program, it becomes clear it is a requirements disaster from the word go. The Marines wanted a jump jet so they pushed hard for one. Their requirement put a lift fan into a stealth aircraft, making it boxy, increasing cross sectional area, increasing drag, impacting weight, thrust, the whole gamut of requirements. The Congress wanted rationalization, so they put all the USN, USAF and USMC requirements into one platform. LM wanted a program funded and so did the others, so they all went ahead and promised the moon and are now struggling to deliver. Meanwhile, the USAF is cutting aircraft performance KPIs (not even asking for a MK2, but reducing KPIs
like acceleration etc) because of the aircraft proving to be limited by its basic design.
If this is not an example of a flawed program, then what is?

There are more knowledgeable people on this forum who could possibly comment on if the F35 is far more advanced and capable than the PAKFA. I suspect in terms of uptime, serviceability and raw technological capability, it is the case.

Uptime and serviceability - judging by the F-22, it remains doubtful at best and will take time to even out. At any rate, putting hundreds of billions into one platform, to get it to achieve earlier standards is a perfect example of misallocated resources. The smart thing to do would have been to do what the Chinese are doing with their clones of the F-35.

Raw technological capability - again, apart from fans of these platforms, who cares? The outcome matters. If I can get x done with a mature tech at y cost, then why develop z "amazing tech" before the underlying basis technologies mature, rush it to production at y+++ only to discover, now I can't afford the original x's planned and hence have to ask for more and more from x, adding to y+++ in the process..

Here's the thing.

-Basic missile physics dictates the higher and faster you fly , the better, to escape from them. The PAK-FA is designed for this.
- The F35 has all its eggs in the stealth basket. What will the platform do, a decade and a half from now, as its entering mass service, and bistatic/counter stealth radars proliferate?
The PAK FA will rely on large SEAD/DEAD missiles and jamming to cover up for its reduced RCS (in beam and aft, as versus true VLO) and anyhow acquisition/tracking radar ranges reduce to a third when facing a receding target..
Again - achieving similar capabilities at a fraction of the cost. Nothing to prevent the Russians from coming up with a PAKFA MK2, 3 eg as in the Flankers which match up over time..
The US will deploy many jamming/strike/DEAD/SEAD assets to compensate. The rest of the world does not have that luxury.. which is why they are spending their money in a more prudent fashion.

And thats the basic issue here. We simply dont have the money or the kind of economic wherewithal to waste on creating a behemoth like the US MIC, which is now churning out programs which are so broken that they require hundreds of billions to fix. No point in dropping one broken system (quasi-socialist DPSU one) with another broken one (money uber alles, all private).

My take is that a conservative approach - liberalization of the DPSUs (with private partners) and open admission of private firms in competition, should work for India.

I simply don't buy into these x versus y arguments about how the much vaunted profit motive of the private sector triumphs everything. If anything, it creates a broken system if not properly vetted, that can result in gouging the captive customer, to ensure the management/investors all go away happy, making money et al. Not really different from how say, a HAL treats IAF as IAF is captive, and its MOD which has to be satiated on account of it being the mai-baap.

The key then is a proper enforcement system to ensure compliance to program objectives, a proper requirements/program management office, and open competition. Plus proper funding.
The US has a lot of things that it does well. But over a period of time, hubris, entrenched interests have allowed it to decay.. it will be interesting to see how they manage China's rise.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 21 Sep 2013 07:50

Karan M wrote:the profit motive is their be-all and end-all, and as a result, they constantly seek the riskiest, most expensive projects to push. By their very nature, many such programs fail. In the process, they use up valuable economic capital and also lead to an erosion of actual combat capability.

Karan, this is not correct. The profit numbers are no doubt huge but the margins are strictly regulated as a price of doing business with the govt. The bigger the project, the smaller the margin, the guiding principle being "fair profit". No company even "owns" its own IP if it is going to be used by the govt and the tech can and is often farmed out to competing companies with a token royalty to the originator. This is to ensure multiple vendors and to keep everyone in line. As I said, the numbers are huge so nobody complains. Further, it is the govt's policy to encourage, incentivise and maintain several companies in healthy condition for the long term. Competition is encouraged.

There is no way any company can push the "riskiest, most expensive projects" without getting kicked out of the system forever. You simply don't do this, period. Most often, it is the govt that initiates a project and pays for development, testing, verification, prototyping, validation and finally tooling, fixtures, production and even delivery.

Risks are taken without hesitation when needed, mainly to ensure an overwhelming American edge. Even in such cases, the risk is carefully calculated with the best of American technology and research at the govt's beck and call. Case in point is the F-35 which will give the US an unassailable advantage in economies of production and operation along with capability. We can crab and moan all we want but that's the truth and we are set to find out soon enough. Not all the i's were dotted or t's crossed when the "go" was given. Everyone knew what was doable within x percentage points and went at it hammer and tong. Things are coming together very well now. Of course it went over budget and past timetable but it would have taken much longer and cost much more if it were not done this way. That's a ballsy way to tackle major strategic objectives. I believe NDA had a similar idea when the NSEW and Golden Quadrilateral highway projects were started.

Furthermore, the entire process to monitor such projects and ensure that the state controls them, fails because of the manner in which lobbying is institutionalized.

Again, this is more politics than reality. There certainly is lobbying but that only goes so far. No politician is strong enough to force an uneeded project to stay alive unless it makes sense for the whole of America to keep those jobs going. Whether this is wasteful is debatable in the macro view. People without incomes are a drag on both Federal and State coffers. Sure, you will always find politicians, foreign interests and what not taking this up when it happens to tilt opinons one way or another to suit their agenda but in the end, it is the will of the Federal govt that calls the shots always.

Efficient..Really? With a fraction of the resources, the Russians are creating similar items of equal complexity and capability including 5G platforms. With much much less, compared to even the Russians, the Indians have started fielding/developing IR/ICBMs, BMD systems etc. The Israelis may have started off with US tech on a platter, but today they are ahead of the US MIC in several areas and field systems faster.

What Russian products are you referring to? I am convinced that India has been suckered into paying towards development of a 5G aircraft that will not come close to the F-35, let alone the Raptor. And we didn't come close to getting any ToT either. I would be happy to be proved wrong but that's my view for now. Whatever breakthrough techs the Russians had were products of the Soviet regime when engineers produced or perished, literally. The Pakfa included. Today they are a shadow of their former selves and won't be able to sell their weapons to any country that can buy from the west. It's not just capability but also the economics of operating those systems and the supply chain problems. And its about time India had ICBMs after little f@rt countries like NoKo have been producing them for decades, let alone China. But are we really efficient in making those missiles? How many do we have? Are they all operational? The Israelis can't build a single key weapon without the full support and consent of the Americans. Neither can they give whatever they have to any country that Unkil does not approve so let's not even go there.

Nope, I have to disagree with you here. The American MIC's efficiency is a thing to behold and we would do very well to copy it wholesale wherever we can. I'm afraid our heads are too big to do this though and we will muddle along for decades to come unless this changes. I think NaMo gets it but we'll see. And yes, "profit" is indeed the lubricant that not only keeps the machine humming but makes sure it is continually improving. What is the incentive otherwise? Patriotism?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Sep 2013 12:03

Russia today has recovered enormously after the fall of the USSR in its defence industry.It has gone through very difficult times,mainly because the elements of its arms industry was spread around the republics of the USSR,which could not be managed successfully after its fall.What has happened in the intervening decades has been the setting up of new plants in Russia manufacturing those components and final assembly of systems that were formerly manufactured outside Russia.The IL-76 is a case in point,manufactured in Uzbekistan,now being done in Russia alone.

The second act under Putin was to rationalise the various defence industries by amalgamating the many companies manufacturing aircraft,etc.Russian aviation today for aircraft and helicopters have been restructured.Here is an IDSA papaer on the same.

http://idsa.in/issuebrief/RussianMilita ... itk_230513

Conclusion

The on-going Russian military reforms have come a long way since they were first introduced in 2008. Most of the structural reforms have already been implemented. The material reforms, which are necessary to ensure that the structural reforms deliver, are progressing well, notwithstanding difficulties such as corruption, availability of limited resources, and recession. Russia’s growing confidence in its military was on display recently, when the Chinese President Xi Jinping was allowed to visit the Russian Armed Forces’ Operational Command Center. The visit to what is termed as the “heart” of the Russian Military Establishment was the first for a foreign leader. 24

To sum up, military sector reform is a top priority for Putin, who believes that these reforms will go a long way in achieving Russia’s military and comprehensive national power objectives. It is in consonance with this policy that he has asked his new Defence Minister to continue with the “grandiose plans for the reform of the army.”25

As for its products.There is universal praise for the S-30/35 series of aircraft,acknowledged as the best air-dominance fighter around and widely exported around the world,barring the stealth Raptor,which has never been exported.Russian Nuclear sub building is apace with the Borei and Yasen of SSBN and SSGN classes,apart from conventional Amurs and Kilos-the latter still being built in large numbers for Russia and export.In the missile stakes,there are some of which the west has no equal like our JV for the same for Brahmos,where they have a decade at lelast of time in which to catch up,by which time we will have our hypersonic version in service.

http://www.asianage.com/ideas/brahmos-w ... rhouse-824

BrahMos will cement India’s place as missile powerhouse
Sep 20, 2013 - Anil Bhat |

India’s successful test-launch of the nuclear-capable, intercontinental, surface-to-surface ballistic missile, Agni-V on September 15, 2013, following the April 2012 launch of the 5,000 kms range version of the same Agni-5 by Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is again a significant achievement. DRDO’s inventory of missiles coupled with the versions of BrahMos missiles places India in the top league with China, France, Russia, the US, Britain and Israel. While a feature on DRDO’s missile programme was published by this newspaper earlier, it is relevant to take stock of the BrahMos programme on its completion of 15 years.
On February 19, 2013, BrahMos Aerospace celebrated “Aardhik Diwas” — Partnership Day — to commemorate 15 years of missile making. “BrahMos is a formidable weapon system. It has offered more punch and strike capability for the three services. We owe it all to Dr A.S. Pillai, CEO & MD, BrahMos Aeropsace and Dr A.G. Leonov, director general, NPOM. It is because of the zeal and enthusiasm of Dr Pillai that we have reached this stage,” remarked Air Chief Marshal N.A.K. Browne, Air Chief and Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee. He added that the modified Su-30 Mk-I aircraft will soon be equipped with the BrahMos missile.
For 70 per cent of arms and equipment of India’s Armed Forces supplied by erstwhile USSR from the late 1960s onwards, its break-up in December 1991 resulted in major problems of spares for the various systems. Rediscovering their strategic value to each other and renewing the relationship with a major change from buyer-seller to partners in a joint venture, the first significant step was India and Russia signing an agreement in February 1998, to design, develop, manufacture and market BrahMos missiles. Coined as a combination of Brahmaputra and Moscva rivers, this is a versatile supersonic cruise missile system launchable from submarines, ships, aircraft or land, which was successfully accomplished by 2006. At speeds of Mach 2.5 to 2.8, it is the world’s fastest cruise missile, about three and a half times faster than the American subsonic Harpoon cruise missile.
BrahMos, with a maximum range of 290 km, can attack surface targets by flying as low as 10 metres over surface-level and can gain a speed of Mach 2.8. The ship-launched and land-based missiles can carry a 200 kg warhead, whereas the aircraft-launched variant, BrahMos A, can carry a 300 kg warhead. It has a two-stage propulsion system, with a solid-propellant rocket for initial acceleration and a liquid-fuelled ramjet responsible for sustained supersonic cruise. Air-breathing ramjet propulsion is much more fuel-efficient than rocket propulsion, giving the BrahMos a longer range than a pure rocket-powered missile would achieve. The high speed of the BrahMos likely gives it better target-penetration characteristics than lighter subsonic cruise-missiles such as the Tomahawk. Being twice as heavy and almost four times faster than the Tomahawk, the BrahMos has more than 32 times the on-cruise kinetic energy of a Tomahawk missile, although it carries only 3/5th the payload and a fraction of the range despite weighing twice as much, which suggests that the missile was designed with a different tactical role. Its Mach 2.8 speed means that it cannot be intercepted by some existing missile defence systems and its precision makes it lethal to water targets or those in a cluster.
BrahMos was first test-fired on June 12, 2001 from the Integrated Test Range (ITR), Chandipur, in a vertical launch configuration. On June 14, 2004, it was fired from a mobile launcher. On March 5, 2008, the land attack version of the missile was fired from the destroyer INS Rajput and the missile hit and destroyed the selected target amidst a cluster of targets. The missile was vertically launched on December 18, 2008, from INS Ranvir. BrahMos I Block-I for the Army was successfully tested with new capabilities in the deserts of Rajasthan, at a test range near Pokharan in December 2004 and March 2007.
On March 4, 2009, BrahMos was tested again with a new navigation system, found successful and then test-fired yet again on March 29, 2009. For this test, the missile had to identify a building among a cluster of buildings in an urban environment. It successfully hit the intended target within two-and-a-half minutes of launch. What made a quantum difference was the new “seeker,” considered unique and capable of seeking targets, which may be insignificant in terms of size, in a cluster of large buildings. India is now the only nation in the world with this advanced technology. After the third test, the Indian Army confirmed that the test was extremely successful and approved the missile. This marked the completion of development phase of BrahMos Block-II.
On March 21, 2010, BrahMos was test-fired and struck a free-floating ship piercing it above the waterline and destroying it completely. The test proved the missile’s manoeuvrability at supersonic speed before hitting a target, making India the first and only country to have a manoeuvrable supersonic cruise missile.
On September 5, 2010, BrahMos created a world record for being the first cruise missile to be tested at supersonic speeds in a steep-dive mode, achieving the Army’s requirement for land attacks with Block-II “advanced seeker software” along with “target discriminating capabilities.” BrahMos became the only supersonic cruise missile possessing advanced capability of selection of a particular land target amongst a group of targets, providing the user with an important edge of precision without collateral damage.
The Block III version of the missile was successfully test-fired on December 2, 2010, from ITR, Chandipur, with advanced guidance and upgraded software, incorporating high manoeuvres at multiple points and steep dive from high altitude. The steep dive capability of the Block III enables it to hit targets hidden behind a mountain range. It will be deployed in Arunachal Pradesh. It is capable of being launched from multiple platforms like submarines, ships, aircraft and land based Mobile Autonomous Launchers (MAL). On August 12, 2011, it was test-fired by ground forces and met all mission parameters. On March 4, 2012, it was test-fired by an Indian Army unit at the Pokharan range in Rajasthan to operationalise the second regiment of the weapon system in the Army. With this test, attended by top brass including vice chief Lt. Gen. Shri Krishna Singh and Director General Military Operations (DGMO) Lt. Gen. A.K. Chaudhary, the second BrahMos unit of the Indian Army became operational.
On October 7, 2012, the Indian Navy successfully test-fired BrahMos from the guided missile frigate INS Teg. This new highly manoeuvrable version was fitted with advanced satellite navigation systems turning it into a “super-rocket” capable of hitting targets over 300–500 km from sea, land and air launchers, and capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. The submarine-launched variant of Brahmos was test fired successfully for the first time from a submerged pontoon near Visakhapatnam at the coast of Bay of Bengal on 20 March 2013. This was the first vertical launch of a supersonic missile from a submerged platform. The missile can be launched from a depth of 40 to 50 meters.
The purchase of over 200 air-launched BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles for the IAF was cleared by Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) on October 19, 2012, at the cost of `6,000 crore ($1 billion). This includes funds for the integration and testing of the BrahMos on IAF’s Su-30MKI. Two Su-30MKI modified by the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited at its Nashik facility where they will also be integrated with the missile’s aerial launcher. The trial is expected to be conducted in early 2014. Also under development is a smaller variant of the air-launched BrahMos, to arm the Sukhoi Su-30MKI, Mirage 2000, future induction like the 126 Dassault Rafale, and the Indian Navy’s MiG-29K. A model of the new variant was showcased on 20 February 2013, at the 15th anniversary celebrations of BrahMos Aerospace. This smaller version is three metres shorter than the present missile will also have a range of 290 km. The Sukhoi SU-30MKI will carry three missiles while other combat aircraft will carry one each.
BrahMos is reportedly attempting a hypersonic Mach 8 version of the missile, BrahMos II, the first ever hypersonic cruise missile, expected to be ready soon. Former President of India, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam has reportedly recommended to BrahMos Aerospace to develop an advanced hypersonic version of the BrahMos cruise missile to maintain India’s lead in the field. He said that such a version, which will be able to deliver its payload and return to base and be re-useable, is needed. This would turn BrahMos into an Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle.
What needs to be emphasised yet again is that no matter how many or how sophisticated missile systems India has, with the threats it faces, its depleted arsenal of conventional weapons like battle tanks, artillery guns and some other weapons and equipment must urgently be modernized and refurbished enough to take on not one, but two intransigent adversaries very friendly with each other, over its vast disputed and undisputed borders.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 21 Sep 2013 22:01

India's missile story

good read.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Sep 2013 22:44

Ah, glad to have confirmation from MSM

I had posted
"Another interesting thing he and others mention is that these tactical programs were to be taken up sequentially, given DRDO resource constraints and Indian technology issues. Then DM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Venkataraman) was the one who essentially created the IGMDP by asking for all these programs to be taken up at once. General Sundarji was also part of these discussions. Pros and cons apart, while Kalam agreed to this, he was not entirely happy and the missile teams themselves were taken aback."

Ajai Shukla writes:
"Finally, at a fateful meeting in a South Block conference room in New Delhi in autumn 1982, Kalam presented his findings to the defence minister at that time, Mr R Venkataraman (both went on to become President of India). Also present were the three service chiefs, the cabinet secretary, principal secretary to Indira Gandhi, and the DRDO chief, Dr VS Arunachalam. Kalam recommended the phased development of five missiles --- the Trishul and Akash surface-to-air missiles; the Nag anti-tank missile; the Prithvi short range ballistic missile; and an Agni technology demonstrator to validate re-entry technology.

If Kalam was a hard-driving visionary, so too was Venkataraman. Dismissing all talk of a “phased programme”, he ordered all programmes to be taken up simultaneously. With the imprimatur of the prime minister on the project, the Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme (IGMDP) was formally sanctioned in July 1983, and funds were pre-allocated for a 12-year period up to 1995. Its executive head was Kalam, with the title of Chairman, Programme Management Board (PMB)."

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Sep 2013 05:21

Most of the stuff is there verbatim in "Wings of Fire" by Kalam himself and in his own words of how those five missiles got included in the IGMP. Also instead of the small 200 kg REX, Venkatraman came back with the 1 tonne payload requirement early in 1982 itself.

Kalam and RN Agarwal came up with the final velocity that the payload should survive.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Sep 2013 08:33

I always joked that the "IG" in the acronym stood for "Indira Gandhi's Missile Dev. Programme"! She had such vision to build up our indigenous military strength and deep mistrust of firang powers,whom we are shamelessly bootlicking today,including Pak.