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.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7730
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

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

Postby rohitvats » 29 Jul 2014 15:01

The up-gradation of our Air Defense assets - at Service and strategic level - is an opportunity looking for solution(s). And this is a huge multi-billion dollar opportunity.

If we're to broadly divide the thrust areas in this segment and see what the requirement is and where we are at present, we can have following categories:

1. SAM assets for all three Services:

(a) Medium SAM: Akash Mk1 will help to meet the Medium SAM requirement of IAF and IA and replace the SA-3 and SA-6 respectively. Given the expensive nature of AD assets, IA has historically had limited assets to cover its most valuable assets. However, with a home-grown system, if IA decides to extend the MR-SAM cover to other Corps apart from Strike Corps, we're looking at a bigger order beyond IA's requirement of 2 x SAM Groups.

(b) SHORAD: IAF has already taken the lead in changing over from their SA-8 GECKO to SPYDER SR-SAM system. The reports talk about IAF order comprising of '18 SPYDER Systems'. One assumes that since a Squadron of SPYDER consists of 1 x Mobile Command & Control Unit and 4 x launchers, these '18-Systems' correspond to 18 Squadrons. IAF Missile Units are called Squadron and generally consist of 2 x Missile Flights + 1 x Technical Flight. At least this was/is the case of PECHORA/SA-3 Squadrons. Assuming same TOE for SPYDER Squadrons, we're looking at 9 IAF Missile Squadrons with SPYDER SR-SAM. (There are other reports which say we bought only 2 x Regiment worth of SPYDER system - God knows which one is correct)

IA also requires replacement for their SA-8 and SA-10M equipped AD Missile Regiments.

Maitri LLQRM project with MBDA was supposed to fill this requirement but with the MOU signed only this year, there seems to be no clarity on when the project will reach maturity and delivery stage.

In the meanwhile, USD 2.2 billion RFP has already been floated for similar requirement for IA to US, Russia, Israel, France, Germany and Sweden. It seems the RFP is for 2 x Regiments (36 Systems) in Phase 1 which increases to 8-9 Regiments in future. And funny bit is that French intend to pitch the still 'in-development' MAITRI project for this RFP!

Given that IAF already operates SPYDER, it would make sense for IA to also opt for this system for sake of commonality. And get strong technology inputs from Israel + local manufacture.

(c) MANPAD/VSHORAD: This category in IA also seems to be going the import way. IIRC, there is an RFP for MANPAD Missile with Korean, Russian, French and Swedish missiles in fray.

(d) LR-SAM - This seems to be on track with Barak-8/NG for Navy and Indian Army. Something like this in decent numbers with IA should really raise the bar in AD cover we provide to not only military formations and static targets but other high value assets in hinter-land. Or those relatively close to border. Coupled with AAD missile derived for AA roles, this should offer robust AD cover to India.

(2) RADAR - There is a silent revolution going on in this field. There are plethora of radars being developed by DRDO and inducted by the three services. Apart from some foreign induction radars like Israel EL/M-2084 'Arudhra' (There is a follow-on DRDO project also of the same name) and Thales GS-100 LLTR. In another 5-8 years time, we should be in position to meet all our RADAR related requirements in house.

(3) AWACS - Well, the AEW&C system should reach maturity in sometime with work starting on full-fledged AWACS system.

Long story short - this transition in AD Missile assets of the three Services should be used by DRDO to develop know-how in all the relevant areas of missile technology. So that next transition happens completely in-house.

member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_23694 » 29 Jul 2014 17:46

2011 interview, but nice and practical

http://aviationweek.com/awin/india-thou ... -saraswat-

India Thought Leaders: India Cannot Have 100% Indigenous Development In Defense, DRDO Chief Saraswat Says

V.K.S.: We have been working on major multiple programs for a long time. Unfortunately, some time on the line, there was a certain amount of lack of confidence in our activities as far as the user was concerned. This percolated down the line into our system too. And the focus needed to complete programs like tanks, missiles, torpedoes and aircraft slowly started dipping. We were at the last 20% completion phase of various projects. This phase needs more time than what the initial 80% took and needed extra focus. This was the period, maybe for close to two decades until around 2005, [when] we found that the output was very fluctuating. This became a major sore point as the country and armed forces were concerned. The users thought we were not delivering. Actually, we were delivering, but never got the recognition. Then there was another thought spreading that DRDO was venturing into too many things. This was a very suicidal thought. I believe that while old programs will continue, we must take up new programs and develop related technologies for the same

V.K.S: It is a major cause of concern for us how to integrate the fruits of our work through production agencies. Since we are a developing country and our needs are not definitely in large numbers, we will have to do the production in phases. The country can’t afford systems and missiles in very large numbers, so we are not setting up mass-scale facilities. We will have to live with the current production facilities, which need to gear up to take the challenging task. Take the case of Tejas. The limited series production platforms (eight) are almost over, and the parallel work has to begin for the series production. We need a real lean manufacturing system in place to deliver the first lot of 20 Tejas on time in required quality and quantity. And then there’s an additional order of another 20 to execute. My assessment is that there should be much more effort from the production agencies to take the Tejas program forward.

AW: So there is a concern about Tejas deliveries?

V.K.S.: Yes. There’s a concern and at all forums we have expressed this. And what is required for the production of Tejas, a lean manufacturing process should be in place.

V.K.S.: The most neglected area is gun development, and we have already started work in this area. We don’t know why we have not necessitated any program in the country in this direction.

V.K.S.: I am for collaborations. The whole idea is to accelerate our pace of development and avoid reinventing the wheel. I personally don’t believe in the 100% indigenous philosophy, which is the most impractical one. Today, if anyone wants complete homegrown products in critical areas, it is because of the lack of [understanding] of the dynamics of the market and a lack of understanding of what is global competitiveness. We should opt for realizing a technology with minimum cost and maximum efficiency.
Low volume and large infrastructure cost-related systems should be made indigenous only under these conditions:
a) they are totally denied to you;
b) they are strategic in nature;
c) the country cannot afford not to have it.
If we are able to have 60-70% of indigenous content, then we are doing a great job.


Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

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

Postby Victor » 30 Jul 2014 03:00

Arun Menon wrote:
Critics like you and the DDM have a lot of characteristics in common and that itself explains where both are coming from.

Not all media are DDM and it is not yours to declare where I am coming from even when it's obvious you have no idea. However, a case can be made that those who bad mouth the services without substantiation and support an unaccountable, inefficient, corruption-ridden apparatus that has failed to provide even basic weapons are aiding and comforting the enemy.

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 588
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Shalav » 30 Jul 2014 04:40

The Indian Navy with its dedicated long term shipbuilding exercise, is now seeing the fruits of **decades** of labour. They supported indigenous efforts and encouraged localizations. These efforts are now admired by Indians as the world-class hulls and weapons systems they deploy. It took them 50+ years, but they got it done.

The Indian Army with its vastly greater resources, did not even participate in designing an assault rifle with designers and developers other than stating their needs. They opted to be buyers instead of investing in the design and development process. For whatever reasons they did so, they ended up not getting what they wanted.

Aside from their wanting best-of-brochure(s) equipment (nothing wrong with that - they should have it, if possible) from local producers they did nothing to actually help local designers and developers in the design and development of what they actually were going to use.

For any non-partisan observer the results are plain to see, the Indian Navy boasts world class warships, which can go toe-to-toe with any warship in the world, and is the pride of any Indian. Further there more lethal and technologically superior warships in the pipeline, a couple of locally built Aircraft carriers too! While the Indian Army is still searching for an assault rifle!

As an Indian citizen I ask the question - Why can the Navy with the lesser financial resources, and the same DRDO produce world-class ships, while the Indian Army with much greater resources and the same DRDO could not even manage to get an assault rifle they like?

There is something very wrong with this.

While there are some very serious faults and dropping-the-ball at the OFB and DRDO, the IA does not stand blameless from my perspective either. There is a lot to answer for by the DRDO and the OFB and the IA.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

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

Postby Victor » 30 Jul 2014 06:04

Shalav wrote:As an Indian citizen I ask the question - Why can the Navy with the lesser financial resources, and the same DRDO produce world-class ships, while the Indian Army with much greater resources...

The Indian Navy has the largest sanctioned pool of Naval Architects in India. The Army has no such sanction to finance even a small weapons engineering branch (probably because OFB would be put out of business). How then do we expect them to jump into designing guns? Same with the IAF, it doesn't have an aeronautical engineering branch although they are getting there via Maintenance Command and are talking about building planes themselves. This talk about no interest or support forthcoming from Army and IAF for guns and aircraft is absolute rubbish and doesn't deserve a retort.

As a concerned Indian, it is more fitting to ask why "the Navy with the less financial resources, and the same DRDO" produces ships with foreign engines, gearboxes and weapons systems. Better than buying off the shelf for sure but still not "Indian". Is it being suggested that we can't do better?

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

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

Postby Rien » 30 Jul 2014 10:58

Karan M wrote:
Rien wrote:To make it clear, even the raw materials to make the MKI are imported. Even the titanium! Bharat has first rate titanium production facilities, developed by ISRO and Madhani. Yet HAL imports even screwdrivers and nuts and bolts. That 69% sourced from Indian companies was 100% imported by them. That is an accounting trick.

Read the Aerospace materials thread where I start with a quote by the HAL chairman.


Well, a lot of these are also driven by the crazy TOT agreements which we sign without having a choice. If you underfund, don't take your own programs seriously and rush for TOT each time, you agree to such weird agreements. The MKI one for instance merits everything should come from Russia, but leaves out spares & replacement aggregates. So HAL is indigenizing those.


That isn't the only issue.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com.au/2014/ ... 30mki.html

HAL then transforms the raw material into aircraft components, using the manufacturing technology transferred by Sukhoi.

That results in massive wastage of metal. For example, a 486 kilogramme titanium bar supplied by Russia is whittled down to a 15.9 kg tail component. The titanium shaved off is wasted. Similarly a wing bracket that weighs just 3.1 kg has to be fashioned from a titanium forging that weighs 27 kg.


Additive manufacturing using metallic power is already a proven technology.

Titanium additive manufacturing layer by layer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSIImvwfNns

This tech is almost identical to the technology developed by ISRO so direct production of powder from sponge is possible in India.

http://www.atse.org.au/Documents/Events ... logies.pdf


Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8175
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 31 Jul 2014 01:14

MODERATOR TALK

Posts on corruption have been moved to the Corruption in Arms Deals - News and Analysis.

Karanji, thank you for your requests. They served their purpose and self destructed.

@Others, scientific studies show that there is a direct correlation between making a moderator work and issuing of warnings.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19586
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 31 Jul 2014 03:00

Thanks Indranil!

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19586
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 31 Jul 2014 03:08

Victor wrote:For the average jingo, the above quote is nice-sounding stuff that indicates we are progressing vaguely in the right direction. The point is that given the resources available in India, we are not progressing anywhere near fast enough. The DPSUs have not delivered desperately needed bread-and-butter items like guns, bullets, tanks, aircraft, smart bombs, MANPADs, AAMs and ATGMs but hey, we make seekers.


The above is a typical example of the kind of pointless filibustering which is increasingly wasting valuable forum bandwidth. How in anyones name can DPSUs or anyone else for that matter make "guns, bullets, tanks, aircraft, smart bombs, MANPADs, AAMs and ATGMs " in India without critical subsystems?

You are making no sense here and ignore all the laws of design and development, which is why something practical being done by the Govt institutions and their private public partners "is nice sounding stuff about progressing vaguely" to you, when it is actually hard nosed effort to get things done!

So without seekers, India can make smart bombs, MANPADS and ATGMs? In which crazy world??
Without similarly complex subsystems, India cannot make other items either.

DPSUs have not delivered because till date DPSUs were not tasked with any of these expensive programs. How hard is that to understand? Your attack on them for not making "smart bombs, MANPADS etc" is meaningless since the GOI controls the purse strings and in its wisdom never bothered with a long term roadmap for weapons & systems & was happy with the import and local assembly mantra for stuff like ATGMs with tens of thousands of Konkurs & Milans imported, with indigenization % also fixed to keep the OEM happy (anything above a certain threshold would violate the licensing agreement). More complex programs like the Nag have been stuck exactly because of challenges with its seeker, where India underinvested & was least bothered, with research proposals on acquiring/making state of the art arrays dismissed for ages, so we are now dependent on IIR detectors from abroad, even though we make the rest of the seeker, including stabilized optics and image processing modules within India.

Fact of life is folks like you love to rave and rant about socialist versus capitalist versus this, versus that while none of that is the real issue. The basic thing is there has been no interest in R&D or manufacturing as a core national indice* to focus on by the political leadership and then that attitude is prevalent elsewhere (including the services) which plan for & intend to persecute short conflicts under the working assumptions that their spares and weapons reserves will be sufficient since GOI never took a clear stand on the matter either.

*By which standards of course many things from health to infrastructure also fell by the wayside, so no big difference there either.

Your predilections for x vs y apart, fact remains there are now multiple seeker programs at various stages of development, some completed. Instead of acknowledging this or even tracking this, off you come with the usual socialist versus capitalist stuff which is completely meaningless. Whether private or public, weapons manufacturers will require complex subsystems & only now are those being funded locally.

These will have an effect on future programs, the same way investments in rocket propulsion, navigation and metallurgy helped the IGMDP.
Last edited by Karan M on 31 Jul 2014 03:24, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19586
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 31 Jul 2014 03:15

Rien wrote:That isn't the only issue.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com.au/2014/ ... 30mki.html

HAL then transforms the raw material into aircraft components, using the manufacturing technology transferred by Sukhoi.

That results in massive wastage of metal. For example, a 486 kilogramme titanium bar supplied by Russia is whittled down to a 15.9 kg tail component. The titanium shaved off is wasted. Similarly a wing bracket that weighs just 3.1 kg has to be fashioned from a titanium forging that weighs 27 kg.


Additive manufacturing using metallic power is already a proven technology.

Titanium additive manufacturing layer by layer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSIImvwfNns

This tech is almost identical to the technology developed by ISRO so direct production of powder from sponge is possible in India.

http://www.atse.org.au/Documents/Events ... logies.pdf


Su-30MKI is TOT from Russia, so they will have to follow Russian advice and methods.
Their current "wastage heavy" process in other words would be as the Russians do it. We have the option to indigenize and replace parts over the long term with our own items - there, chances are we can use different methods and systems. In fact even working with Titanium extensively would have come to HAL from the MKI. Ideally, it should sponsor R&D in academia as DRDO does to come up with new methods. But HALs focus on R&D has just taken off over the past few years, lets see.

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

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

Postby Rien » 31 Jul 2014 10:15

Karan M wrote:The seeker technology we are chasing is for multiple applications. A high power seeker such as on the PDV is a breakthrough, which means tomorrow we can make seekers for other applications as the first step has been taken. Hence, there is an informal veto on passing such technologies to India, until & unless we agree to very expensive, large programs that include these sort of technologies. One example is the SRSAM where the agreement is to include MBDA developed seeker tech to be made in India. Similarly, we are licensing the smaller, less capable (than the PDV) Agat seeker for our Astra program. Hence, for the PDV we tasked the same firms which worked on the LCA MMR to make the seeker. BARC/ECIL (ECIL is owned by DAE but works on defense programs) did the gimbal assembly, and the first seeker prototypes were apparently reworked from MMR tech.


Karan you are tiptoeing around the issue. Since we've approached only two countries, I'm assuming France and Russia have imposed stiff ToT requirements. Even though we only need the six pack cd player, we have to buy the whole car?

That seems excessive, for that price it should be possible to develop the entire thing inhouse. I'm not sure however revolutionary and needed the seeker tech is, why the cheaper option of developing it in house was not taken? And I am fully aware of the Trishul sage. Best to fund multiple teams, and go with the first team that succeeds.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19586
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 31 Jul 2014 10:49

Rien, not tiptoeing at all, but you seem to miss the point that I was making, so let me restate it below.

Since we've approached only two countries, I'm assuming France and Russia have imposed stiff ToT requirements. Even though we only need the six pack cd player, we have to buy the whole car?

What makes you think we would have approached only two countries? I am fairly certain we have been looking out for all this stuff for ages. Problem is most countries don't have it (modern stuff) but "offer it" as we learned in our dealings in other issues with East Europe for technology, and those who have it, don't want to share it until and unless we give them a lot of money.

Even though we only need the six pack cd player, we have to buy the whole car?


Of course - think of it this way, the French state has funded Sofradir so that French firms like Thales, Sagem and partially owned ones like MBDA get a competitive advantage. Why would they give it away to another country without a quid pro quo? These ensure good sales for their products which have these subsystems.

Similarly, if India had not purchased thousands of rounds of R-77s do you think Russia would be ok to share Agat tech for the Astra, and that too with NG tech in progress for future variants (they have demo'ed AESA seekers).

Also countries have long got access to the inner workings of India's MIC by getting inside info about overall progress etc. They know when we are approaching the ability to make things inhouse. At that point, TOT is offered a couple of years ahead of our development to stall it.

Its a vicious, smart game played savvily.

I'm not sure however revolutionary and needed the seeker tech is, why the cheaper option of developing it in house was not taken?


Money!! The state of our test facilities and infrastructure for these programs used to speak a lot. Only in the past few years have we seen good change. We are still nowhere, practically speaking, in terms of making our own CCD/IIR arrays for night vision to other applications, since it requires millions in investment and nobody has signed off on it.

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

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

Postby Rien » 31 Jul 2014 12:05

Karan M wrote:Money!! The state of our test facilities and infrastructure for these programs used to speak a lot. Only in the past few years have we seen good change. We are still nowhere, practically speaking, in terms of making our own CCD/IIR arrays for night vision to other applications, since it requires millions in investment and nobody has signed off on it.


In spite of the fact that Bharat is the cheapest major economy in the world, why does GoI refuse to see that is cheaper to develop a system here than to import it? We have literally millions of unemployed engineers, and other smart people. Your point, as I understand it, is that we went to multiple countries and the best we could do was to spend billions in order to get only the seeker technology?

I view this as wasteful expenditure and a ripoff. The GoI has increased the DRDO budget, but it needs to understand the returns from research. If we took the money spent on the Rafale or the SRSAM we could fund a much more successful sequel to the Integrated Missile Development program. Fund research, not just the DRDO, but including private universities tapping a much bigger talent pool, and we can build own own high tech.

From what I've read in your posts is that we now have seeker tech and thus can build on this for our own missiles in the future. Still seems very expensive for what we got.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

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

Postby Victor » 31 Jul 2014 19:33

Karan M wrote:
So without seekers, India can make smart bombs, MANPADS and ATGMs? In which crazy world??

You are getting lost in your own knowledge of nuts and bolts manufacture by DPSUs. My point has consistently been that if we wanted seekers, why did we not simply float a tender and let EVERYBODY in India compete for the contract, not just a few mollycoddled outfits? Do we not have companies and people smart enough to do this kind of "research" outside of the ordained sarkari outfits? If not, how come LM, Boeing and NASA are filled with Indian scientists? IOW, the point is we have taken far longer than necessary to make "seekers" and ther eason is the reliance on a sarkari system that is skewed to discourage independent thinking and a lot of smart young people are leaving and being grabbed by American ccompanies.

DPSUs have not delivered because till date DPSUs were not tasked with any of these expensive programs. How hard is that to understand? Your attack on them for not making "smart bombs, MANPADS etc" is meaningless since the GOI controls the purse strings

Please spare us this rubbish. Are you suggesting that the DPSUs were tasked to make high-altitude chapati-makers, socks, mosquito repellent and skin care products for leucoderma but not MANPADs and smart bombs? From where did they suddenly spring the HTT-40 on us when faced with a fed-up IAF? The so-called purse strings allow them to play around with simple rotary engines for decades while we import the same for our UAVs. And by the way, now that we do make the seeker, where are the 100,000 Sudarshans that we need?

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

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

Postby RoyG » 31 Jul 2014 20:22

Victorji,

You are 100% right and this is something that I've been trying to reason with Karanji about but he is just obsessed with PSU culture. Money and a change in management isn't going to work. A competitive university system along with selling off DPSU's to Indian companies to make them COMPETE for contracts is the only way to do it. Of course, our procurement process also needs to be fixed.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 03 Aug 2014 08:48

Here is a news item about Rear Admiral M K Badhwar who was the classmate of BRFite vsunder at IIT Kharagpur
http://www.iitfoundation.org/?p=216
Rear Admiral M K Badhwar (1973 ME RP Btech, 1975 PGDIT) is the man behind Indian Navy’s recent achievement:

The Indian Navy’s firepower is going to be significantly boosted with the addition of four heavy warships. The navy’s design chief, Rear Admiral M K Badhwar, has confirmed for the first time, to Business Standard, that the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) — the top procurement body in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) — has cleared Project 15-B, the construction of four 6800-tonne destroyers by Mazagon Dock Ltd, Mumbai (MDL).


vsunder had this to say:
Admiral Badhwar was a student of Naval Architecture( the only place in India with such a program)...The Navy recruited heavily in all cadres...

The IAF did not recruit anybody. Neither the Army. There was also Raghu Upadhyay who headed a big team in the LCA program and was just given distinguished alumni award of IIT Kharagpur. He joined NAL after PhD in Cranwell, Royal Aero Establishment

Then was Sandlass, one of Kalam's Panch Pandavs. All these were campus recruits. In marked contrast the IAF and Army did not build any capabilities. I am talking of 1972 now. There is a price to pay for this short sightedness.


These words should be tattooed on the foreheads of all India's strategic planners and leaders.

vsunder
BRFite
Posts: 951
Joined: 06 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Ulan Bator, Mongolia

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

Postby vsunder » 03 Aug 2014 09:22

M.K. Badhwar ( former head of Naval warship design, who retired 2011 I think)was a very notorious figure on campus. He was a senior underofficer in the NCC.
Kharagpur unlike other IIT's made NCC mandatory. You even got a grade for NCC and this grade appears in the transcript. There was a final exam each term.
Badhwar would shout at you, cuss you out and give punishment drill at the least pretext. You always made it in time for parade and kept your uniform in shape.

The Navy took excellent care. You got recruited in your 4th year. You became Acting sub-Lt. drew a stipend, and when you crossed 21, you were eligible to draw rum rations from IAF station Kalaikunda. This made these Navy fellows popular. The vision of the Navy then ( 1970's) is now evident. People went on to GRSE and Mazgaon and you can understand that if Head of Warship design, Badhwar is from the same school his relation with a Naval architect from GRSE or Mazgaon will be far different than between an Air Vice Marshal and a HAL engineer. I do not know of a single Major-General or Air Vice Marshal drafted from an engineering college, maybe I am ignorant.

Raghu Upadhyay whom Shiv mentions extracted from emails to him was Director NAL and heavily into the LCA program:

http://why.iitkgp.ac.in/sites/default/f ... CEALUM.pdf

The role of Ved Prakash Sandlas who became one of Kalam's Panch Pandavs, is delineated in Chengappa's Weapons of Peace.

Badhwar was not the only fellow to join the Navy, there was a long list every year who found
the Navy a great way to start their career. Some of these ex IIT KGP Navy officers are maintaining very nice web pages which gives you an idea what their role in the Navy was. I have posted these links in the past.
If now you go about building bridges, I fear it is too late. It shows that the IAF and the Army have not been lead by visionaries who were able to put in place programs that lead to weapons developments. These things take a lot of time to mature.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19586
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 03 Aug 2014 22:54

Victor wrote:You are getting lost in your own knowledge of nuts and bolts manufacture by DPSUs. My point has consistently been that if we wanted seekers, why did we not simply float a tender and let EVERYBODY in India compete for the contract, not just a few mollycoddled outfits? Do we not have companies and people smart enough to do this kind of "research" outside of the ordained sarkari outfits? If not, how come LM, Boeing and NASA are filled with Indian scientists? IOW, the point is we have taken far longer than necessary to make "seekers" and ther eason is the reliance on a sarkari system that is skewed to discourage independent thinking and a lot of smart young people are leaving and being grabbed by American ccompanies.


Actually anyone with any knowledge of whatever nuts and bolts manufacture across both the private and public sectors is would grimace at your post, which ignore all and every facts on the topic and eschew nuance in favor of idealogy. If you had any idea of the programs in question, you'd know that its the private sector which has been tapped from ages to provide systems for multiple programs, from radar modules to seekers themselves once the funding became available.

But lets get back to your amusing claims that private sector is not in seekers because of some DPSU kanshpiracy.

Data Patterns is the company developing the LPI seeker for the Brahmos/Nirbhay. It competed with Alpha to win the contract. Both are private companies. They are getting assistance from the entire MIC - including public & other private firms.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-U4YQF-uwpJA/U ... erns-1.JPG

VEM technologies makes many of the critical systems that go into Indian missiles including seekers. Again, a private firm. Pretty much every program there, must be magic. :lol:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YSEs8KRbsFI/U ... mblies.jpg

If you had done your legwork, you'd realize that it all boils down to funding.

Kalam roped in the private sector way back into Indian programs - their contracts have been liberal & customized to whatever the company can provide. At every step, if the company could step up to do more, it was asked to do so. But funding was and remains a challenge. Private firms which stepped up were those like the Tatas and Godrej (large warchests to do some patriotic business) or SMEs. As and when money has been made available, these niche high technology programs leverage any industrial capability across India, public or private.

And yes, its done via tenders, all SDRE like, after holding industry events and judging state of industrial capability. :P

Oh lets get to the Brahmos.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ILMvcrXNdpQ/U ... tium-6.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FATucvauUHw/U ... ium-10.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fq4GWBUoyYA/U ... tium-5.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_b1YaITfToY/U ... tium-9.jpg

All the above are PRIVATE companies. So much for the "point you were making" without the least interest in what's going on and why.

There were no seeker programs awarded in the past, before to private firms, because there was no funding, period for any comprehensive program! Even Akash seeker program was dropped on account of costs & investment required. Only Nag persisted with BDL supporting it as they were willing to park money into a program with no guarantee of firm orders. And even they cribbed about this to Std Committee on Defence.

The PGM & other advanced programs have been funded only recently & in each, the private sector & public firms are working hand in hand, with each given work per their capabilities. BARC for instance has a state of the art control systems group, with their inhouse manufacturing capability at ECIL, they are the ones who were given the gimbal programs while private firms like VEM, SLN, Sensor controls all have parallel programs awarded to build up capability.

You neither understand the complexity of the topic or the amount of effort that has gone into it & is going on.

Please spare us this rubbish.

Are you suggesting that the DPSUs were tasked to make high-altitude chapati-makers, socks, mosquito repellent and skin care products for leucoderma but not MANPADs and smart bombs? From where did they suddenly spring the HTT-40 on us when faced with a fed-up IAF? The so-called purse strings allow them to play around with simple rotary engines for decades while we import the same for our UAVs. And by the way, now that we do make the seeker, where are the 100,000 Sudarshans that we need?


Actually, why don't you spare us your rubbish? It seems bereft of facts all you are left with are illogical claims. It clearly shows you don't have the first clue of what you are talking about.

What is the budget for a high altitude chapati maker, or a sock, or a mosquito repellent as versus the millions of dollars (a lot of which will be forex) which will go into a seeker program R&D? As versus the production itself? Do you even have any idea of the costs involved??

The amounts invested in the programs you contemptuously cite is miniscule in comparison & exactly what a developing country could fund without having to wonder about the costs involved. They were again given to labs like DFRL, CSIR etc because they had the trained manpower & infrastructure to address these requirements at low cost.

Further, the Army actually values all the labs who are engaged in these vital programs because they make a huge difference to the units deployed at the frontline & resisted their spin off to the private sector or other organizations. Given the Army's bread & butter requirements, its vital to make simple, quality of life equipment in India & get that to the troops.

I understand that to you, these items are no big deal, but do try and tell that to the soldiers who need these. Most of these items are also licensed to the SMEs in the private sector who then provide it to the Army, with a limited royalty payment back to the labs.

As regards HTT-40 etc, please don't make me laugh. Its the single straw that you grasp at feverishly whilst at the same time argueing that the DPSUs don't invest in & proactively work on products, but when they do, more of your ranting. Have your cake & eat it too.

Yeah, and meanwhile you quote the JSF to us regarding successful management. That single program has eaten more up than India's historical defence r&d investment for years.

There are dime a dozen other products that have on the other hand been successful & are being made by DPSUs & the private sector in partnership, you are deliberately obtuse when it comes to them, because they puncture a big hole in your rants.

I'd regard these folks (private and public) with all the respect due to them as versus your consideration which it seems is reserved for the folks in Boeing, LM, Nasa.

So yes, spare me your rubbish when you make claims based on zero facts & hence resort to ranting when contested on facts alone.
Last edited by Karan M on 03 Aug 2014 23:16, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19586
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 03 Aug 2014 23:11

RoyG wrote:Victorji,

You are 100% right and this is something that I've been trying to reason with Karanji about but he is just obsessed with PSU culture. Money and a change in management isn't going to work. A competitive university system along with selling off DPSU's to Indian companies to make them COMPETE for contracts is the only way to do it. Of course, our procurement process also needs to be fixed.


Actually, and I have said this before - don't address me in your posts with your lies and mischaracterizations ("obsessed with PSU culture etc") when my interests actually lie in understanding the entire Indian MIC, to whatever detail possible. You clearly have no interest in constructively debating folks and your pointless trolling is a waste of my time & forum bandwidth.

A Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 1148
Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31

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

Postby A Sharma » 05 Aug 2014 02:33

August Newsletter

ARDE conducts Dynamic Trials to test 120 mm PCB Ammunition
User conducts Technical Trials of BBD Mk II

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

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

Postby Vipul » 05 Aug 2014 07:02

Battle heats up for a share of the defence pie.

When it comes to high-mobility, multi-purpose personnel carriers like the Humvee, which is the transport backbone of the US Army, India lags far behind. But in three years from now, the world's third-largest armed force could have its own Humvee-like light combat vehicle - produced indigenously. With the opening up of defence production to private sector, with 49 per cent foreign participation, domestic automotive companies such as Tata Motors, Mahindra & Mahindra and Ashok Leyland are all in the running for this order.

"This vehicle can adapt itself for many uses. It can be used as a troop carrier or an ambulance, or for reconnaissance purposes. It can even carry small radars," says Vernon Noronha, vice-president (defence & government business), Tata Motors. The vehicle will weigh 5 tonnes and will have eight or nine variants, he adds. Request for proposals for this class of vehicle will be out as early as September, believes Noronha, followed by year-long trial and testing.

The Humvee-like troop carrier is only one of the machines Indian companies are hoping to supply to the country's armed forces. It is estimated that over the next seven years or so, India will buy equipment worth $75 billion to $100 billion. And domestic companies hope to bag a large chunk of those orders.

At least eight Indian companies are eyeing the Rs 52,000-crore contract to supply the heavily-armoured Future Infantry Combat Vehicle, or FICV, to the Indian Army. With annual service and maintenance agreements, this figure would swell further. At Rs 20 crore apiece, the vehicle, which can be used both on land and in water, will have an anti-tank guided missile system and a machine gun. The government is also working on contracts for rocket launchers, combat vehicles, troops carriers, light-strike vehicles, missile carriers, radars, mounted gun systems, submarines and transport planes, to name a few. Though Finance Minister Arun Jaitley has raised the defence budget 12 per cent to $38.35 billion (Rs 2.3 lakh crore), because of the limited reach of state-owned producers of defence goods, India remains the largest importer of arms in the world. More than 65 per cent of the country's defence needs are met from outside India. Now, as the government tries to progressively replace the Soviet-era military hardware, the stress is on greater involvement of private entities. For example, earlier this month, the government cleared the project for the production of military transport aircraft which is open only to the private sector. The government wants to replace the 56 Avro transport aircraft bought in the 1960s. Over a dozen private companies, including Tata Motors, Mahindra & Mahindra, Ashok Leyland, Bharat Forge, Pipavav Defence, Titagarh Wagons, Larsen & Toubro and MRF, are eyeing the contract that is worth over Rs 60,000 crore. Sources say over the last one month, activity at the defence ministry has gathered significant pace. "The frequency of meetings has increased. The government is inviting us (private sector) to explain its needs. We see a very positive environment ahead," says Noronha.

The government's decision to increase foreign direct investment in defence manufacturing to 49 per cent from 26 per cent has also given a boost to private companies. "International defence companies are eager to do business in India and are already in talks with many local companies," says a senior executive of an automobile company. There is the hope that complex technology, details of which are closely guarded by foreign companies, would now be shared with the Indian partners.

Collaborations are already under way. Chennai-based Ashok Leyland, which has been supplying the Stallion military truck to the army, has forged a tripartite agreement to manufacture mounted gun systems with French gun-maker Nexter and engineering giant Larsen & Toubro. Mumbai-based Tata Motors is holding talks with some producers of foreign defence goods, while Pipavav is in the advanced stages of bagging an Indian Navy contract to modernise or replace up to 100 ships over the next decade. The Australian unit of Swedish giant SAAB is assisting Pipavav in this venture under a technical partnership agreement.

In addition to Tata Motors, 13 other companies of the Tata group have interests in the defence sector and are looking forward to orders worth Rs 8,000 crore. Tata Advanced Systems, for instance, makes airframe components for the C-130J heavy-lift transport military aircraft, while Tata Power SED has worked on integrated guided missile systems and multi-barrel rocket launchers.

In some cases, private companies are not willing to wait for the product requirement to come to them. Instead, products are being developed in advance.Tata Motors, for example, has developed a 12X12 truck (the second of its kind in the world), which can haul inter-ballistic missiles to any part of the country. And the Kalyani group, the promoter of Bharat Forge, is in the process of developing mine-protected vehicles, a ground penetrating radar and ultralight gun system.

The road ahead, however, is long and challenging. While a handful of private Indian companies have been in the defence business for the last few decades, they are, however, no match for their western counterparts, some of whom have been around for over 200 years.

Major General K B Kapoor (retd), director, Centre for Joint Warfare Studies, says, "Technology has both hard and soft components. While India is very strong as far as the soft components are concerned, it still lacks in the hard components of technology, which necessarily means military hardware."

Known for frugal engineering, Indian companies will face the challenge of consistently maintaining the highest standards of quality. Delays or alterations to projects leading to cost escalation that could hinder government approvals will also have to be taken into account, say market watchers.

S P Shukla, president (group strategy & defence sector), Mahindra & Mahindra, says, "Stage I is about defining the specifications followed by request for prototype. Next comes the making of the prototype according to the specifications. Generally, these projects run into thousands of crores of rupees. This segment is not for companies with a small balance sheet."

Mahindra & Mahindra has five operational companies under defence. It is the only business house in India that is engaged in projects meant for all the three wings of the armed forces - the army, navy and air force. Since the FDI limit was raised, the group has opened talks with several potential partners. Though Shukla declines to divulge details of the projects the group is working on, he admits that the company is in the race for the FICV project. Others, such as the Kalyani group of Pune, are asking for speedier licences and better clarity on the issue of ownership. The Baba Kalyani-led group is looking at a number of segments, including artillery systems, armoured vehicles, futuristic ammunition, air defence systems, defence electronics and protected vehicles.

"It is important to address the problems associated with approvals and grant of industrial licences in a time-bound manner," says Amit Kalyani, executive director, Bharat Forge. "Currently, licences are in the pipeline for many years and we still do not have clarity on the issue of ownership and investment through Foreign Institutional Investor or the portfolio route."

The delays are palpable. Sometime in 2003, the government had announced that Mahindra & Mahindra had been issued a licence to make small firearms. The government was to initially procure 50,000 of these guns and order another 200,000 if their quality was found to be good. Mahindra & Mahindra immediately got down to work and tied up with an Austrian company called Steyr. It worked hard to customise the gun for Indian conditions. But there was no headway in this decision. The licence has since expired.

However, the problems notwithstanding, a beginning has been made. And the private sector hopes to make the most of it.

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

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

Postby Rien » 05 Aug 2014 12:06

Karan M wrote:Actually, why don't you spare us your rubbish? It seems bereft of facts all you are left with are illogical claims. It clearly shows you don't have the first clue of what you are talking about.

Yeah, and meanwhile you quote the JSF to us regarding successful management. That single program has eaten more up than India's historical defence r&d investment for years.


To put what Karan is saying in context, since most posters really seem to believe that the US Military Industrial Complex is successful.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-a ... story.html

There were originally supposed to be 750 aircraft. As development costs rose, the number of F-22s was repeatedly cut, to 648 in 1990, 442 in 1994, 339 in 1997, and 276 in 2003. The cost of each F-22 (the total cost of its development and production divided by the number of aircraft procured) is now over $300 million

http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/mili ... ns/weapsb1

The F-22 experienced almost every one of these problems. The Air Force began laying plans to build the F-22 in the early 1980s. A decade later, it estimated it would take nine years and $12.6 billion to develop the jet, but it ended up taking 19 years and costing $26.3 billion, not including the production of any aircraft. By the time production was completed, the F-22 cost an average of $412 million each, up from the original estimate of $149 million.

The same story has happened for the JSF except on a much larger scale. I would much rather no Indian organization learn any lessons of this kind from the US military industrial complex.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19586
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 05 Aug 2014 22:44

I guess Arunachalam's one big contribution was getting all these big ticket projects underway - Tejas, Arjun, IGMDP, Nishant etc. However, he left them in disarray and without any focused way to execute against very demanding staff requirements. Was it VSA who walked out on the IA Chief re: Nishant, angrily announcing they didn't need the Army? Personal like /dislike messing up institutional relationships.
One can equally argue that the delays in these programs tarred and feathered DRDOs image & only now with some programs constantly going into production is it able to build a better relationship with the brass.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

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

Postby Victor » 06 Aug 2014 01:45

Karan M wrote: anyone with any knowledge of whatever nuts and bolts manufacture across both the private and public sectors is would grimace at your post, which ignore all and every facts on the topic and eschew nuance in favor of idealogy. If you had any idea of the programs in question, you'd know that its the private sector which has been tapped from ages to provide systems for multiple programs, from radar modules to seekers themselves once the funding became available.

Everyone knows that private companies are farmed out stuff that the DPSUs can't/won't make for one reason or another (mostly can't) and I haven't alluded to or denied this anywhere AFAIK because it doesn't matter and is a non issue. What's your point?

* if private Indian companies do a lot, all or most of the work already, what exactly is the USP of the DPSUs?
* why have they earned the anger and contempt of the armed forces who are their only customers?
* do they contain the preeminent weapons design and development resources available in India and if not, why not?

As regards HTT-40 etc, please don't make me laugh. Its the single straw that you grasp at feverishly

It's far from "a single straw" as you well know. I didn't include the IJT which has also been dumped like the HTT-40, not by the big bad IAF but by the most nationalist-minded government India has ever had in its history. Modi Sarkar works fast and won't brook nonsense looks like.

But again, that's not the issue. And I resent your putting words in my mouth since I'm not dissing chapatis or skin disorders but suggesting very strongly that perhaps this should not be on a DEFENCE research organization's work schedule when more life-and-death items are needed. Without taking away from the very few exceptions of the DPSUs, it seems to me that it is you who are clutching at straws to justify their success in developing roti-makers, underwear and skin creme instead of guns and bullets with or without the help of the private sector.

I don't need to trawl for which private company makes what gizmo for which DPSU. The BJP govt has UNDERLINED the issue, trashed the ridiculous monopoly and opened the defence sector to India's private and foreign investment because they know that these companies would do 10,000 times better and faster for India's protection under a Tata or L&T and yes, even an LM. What else could they do after the half-century+ of stellar performance you trumpet so loudly?

And one more thing:
...grimace at your post, which ignore all and every facts on the topic and eschew nuance in favor of idealogy...

...You neither understand the complexity of the topic or the amount of effort that has gone into...

...It seems bereft of facts all you are left with are illogical claims. It clearly shows you don't have the first clue of what you are talking about...

...I understand that to you, these items are no big deal, but do try and tell that to the soldiers...

...you make claims based on zero facts & hence resort to ranting when contested on facts alone...

I post here because I will not allow stuff like this to fly uncontested and because I know how a successful MIC works. I have posted my reasons for why I think India's DPSUs are the secret weapon of the enemy for having royally mucked up almost all of our critical weapons programs, resisting competition and leaving us to beg abroad for the most basic weapons. You have posted what gizmo is made by which company for which DPSU but we don't have acceptable local made guns and bullets because (insert excuse here). I believe that anyone who defends a horrible record like this, blames the customer instead and champions the continued existence of such orgs is siding with the enemy either knowingly or unknowingly, not that it matters an ant's rump in our case.

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

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

Postby Rien » 06 Aug 2014 06:49

Hey Vic,

I agree with point no 1. I think Karan's wrong on that one. Hey there has to be a first time. It doesn't make sense for the public sector to make things like roti-makers, underwear and skin creme.Those units should be privatized.

However, in the case of the IJT and HTT-40, the IAF is fully in the wrong. The HTT-40 is far cheaper than the Pilatus, and it makes no sense to import basic low tech things that can be made at home for lower cost. In the case of the IJT, again the IAF had some crazy gold plated requirements that forced HAL to import the Russian engine. This was 100% the IAF's fault again.

So your example is incorrect. Can you put forth a credible case why Bharat needs to import something as low tech as a training plane? When there is a desi product available off the shelf. The IAF is way off base, and some marshalls need to be fired.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

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

Postby Victor » 06 Aug 2014 07:04

Rien wrote:The HTT-40 is far cheaper than the Pilatus

It is indeed because it is entirely on paper backed by loud gas and is worth Rs 5/-. I think the IAF was looking for an actual physical, flying trainer that could carry 2 grown-ups and have the least number of bad flying habits possible. Preferably one that was designed from the ground up to be assembled on a modern production line at a rate of more than 5 or 6 per year. Unless I'm missing something, nothing remotely like this ""off the shelf desi product" is available today or anywhere near today. The trainers are needed yesterday.

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 557
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

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

Postby Avarachan » 06 Aug 2014 08:23

I have posted my reasons for why I think India's DPSUs are the secret weapon of the enemy for having royally mucked up almost all of our critical weapons programs, resisting competition and leaving us to beg abroad for the most basic weapons. You have posted what gizmo is made by which company for which DPSU but we don't have acceptable local made guns and bullets because (insert excuse here).


Victor, for a variety of reasons (limited funding, limited project-management expertise, etc.), thirty years ago, India had to choose: locally-made light weapons, or locally-made ICBM's. In general, India chose to develop the weapons that no one would sell to India, due to their strategic significance. It would have been better if India could have excelled in both high-tech and low-tech. However, Indian leaders decided that wasn't possible. Accordingly, they decided to prioritize their limited resources. Most Indians would say that they made the right choice for their time.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

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

Postby RoyG » 06 Aug 2014 11:46

Point is a DPSU monopoly isn't in our interest. I'm sorry, those advocating throwing more money at them and "management reform" are off the mark. Without competition we will always lag behind and our BRF DPSU geniuses will keep glorifying the very few products that do make it. It's bloody pathetic that we still can't make a decent f*cking rifle and even worse we can't even get the ammunition situation right. Just turn DRDO into a DARPA like agency and let privates slowly start doing most of the heavy lifting. Btw, just heard that HAL is going great things with the IJT project. They all deserve a raise :lol: .

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

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

Postby Rien » 06 Aug 2014 15:30

Victor wrote:
Rien wrote:The HTT-40 is far cheaper than the Pilatus

It is indeed because it is entirely on paper backed by loud gas and is worth Rs 5/-. I think the IAF was looking for an actual physical, flying trainer that could carry 2 grown-ups and have the least number of bad flying habits possible. Preferably one that was designed from the ground up to be assembled on a modern production line at a rate of more than 5 or 6 per year. Unless I'm missing something, nothing remotely like this ""off the shelf desi product" is available today or anywhere near today. The trainers are needed yesterday.


That's very unconvincing. There are already 75 Pilatus here. There are also plenty of imported trainers already, so there is no urgent rush to meet requirements as the IAF states. Rather the issue is of cost. Rather than a Pilatus, what is needed is the much cheaper HAL gear. If either Modi or Jaitley ever read this, fire the IAF marshals responsible for this. Indiginezation needs to happen and it will happen over the careers of IAF marshals and IA generals.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

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

Postby vic » 06 Aug 2014 15:46

A trainee requires around 60 hours on BTT. Each Pilatus on average can turn out 90-100 hours per month (flying different trainees). Hence 75 Pilatus can train anything between 1200-1500 pilots every year. So what's the hurry for more imports?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7730
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

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

Postby rohitvats » 06 Aug 2014 17:21

Rien wrote: That's very unconvincing. There are already 75 Pilatus here. There are also plenty of imported trainers already, so there is no urgent rush to meet requirements as the IAF states. Rather the issue is of cost. Rather than a Pilatus, what is needed is the much cheaper HAL gear.


What do you mean by 'plenty'?

Are you aware of the total requirement of Basic Trainer as against what is the current inventory in IAF of these types? And what do you think is being used for Stage II training at present for which IJT was planned as a replacement? How long can they be sustained in the IAF service?

f either Modi or Jaitley ever read this, fire the IAF marshals responsible for this. Indiginezation needs to happen and it will happen over the careers of IAF marshals and IA generals.


Are you out of your mind here? Fire Air Marshals because HAL has screwed up on a program which is running 7-8 years late? And for which IAF has placed orders for 73 aircraft? Think before you spout such nonsense.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7730
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

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

Postby rohitvats » 06 Aug 2014 17:38

vic wrote:A trainee requires around 60 hours on BTT. Each Pilatus on average can turn out 90-100 hours per month (flying different trainees). Hence 75 Pilatus can train anything between 1200-1500 pilots every year. So what's the hurry for more imports?


Why don't you bother to check your claims before making such tall claims? Especially, when information is so readily available?

http://www.forceindia.net/TrainingonTrack.aspx

According to Air Vice Marshal V.R. Chaudhuri, deputy commandant AFA Dundigal, “The training syllabus has been increased to 55 hours per trainee from the earlier 25 hours. The solo content has also increased to 14 sorties from only one sortie earlier. This amounts to the task of approximately 1,200 hours per month, making it approximately 60-70 sorties per day on PC-7 MK-II aircraft.” The IAF is looking at an utilisation rate of 300 flying hours per year per aircraft.

The PC-7 MK-II has a design life of 10,000 hours and 30,000 landings per aircraft. By the end of August, the fleet had already logged 3,000 flight hours with almost 5,600 landings, and serviceability for the PC-7 MK-II fleet was at 81 per cent.

Chief Instructor (Flying) at AFA Dundigal, Air Commodore Nagesh Kapoor tells FORCE, “The rate of flying is very high and that speaks a lot about the maintainability of the aircraft. Earlier, we would need three to four people looking after one aircraft, presently one aircraft is looked after by one person, which is very good. It is very easy on fuel and has tremendous endurance.” He goes on to add, “We are really exploiting this machine and we are doing a whole lot of flying. By the end of this course we would have ended up flying twice as much as we would have done six months earlier.”


PS: We don't have all the 75 Pilatus, yet! Something like 35-40 aircraft with balance planned over next couple of years.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

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

Postby Viv S » 06 Aug 2014 18:06

rohitvats wrote:The IAF is looking at an utilisation rate of 300 flying hours per year per aircraft.

The PC-7 MK-II has a design life of 10,000 hours and 30,000 landings per aircraft.


That seems an awfully low utilization rate. Just an hour every working day on average. Theoretically we could flog them harder and retire them in say.. 15 years instead of 30 years. A decade should be long enough for the HAL to come up with the HTT-40.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

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

Postby Surya » 06 Aug 2014 18:35

why would you still keep looking to HAL if you are planning 10 years ahead

We have to bring in other players

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

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

Postby Viv S » 06 Aug 2014 18:45

Surya wrote:why would you still keep looking to HAL if you are planning 10 years ahead

We have to bring in other players


Even better. Let ADA be the design agency and a private consortium be the development/production agency.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

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

Postby Surya » 06 Aug 2014 19:12

Let ADA be the design agency and a private consortium be the development/production agency.


I am fine with that initially

long term we need multiple design teams - so the pvt players should build up by then

anyway the failure of the IJT is a good wake up call to not put all the eggs in the HAL\NAL basket

I dont think Saras will make it too. Thats another project which needs a cold hard relook.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

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

Postby vic » 06 Aug 2014 19:42

Pilatus can put out 100 hours per month, point is why is IAF only wanting to use it for 30 hours per month? To increase requirement of imports?

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

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

Postby Victor » 07 Aug 2014 00:16

Avarachan wrote:
Victor, for a variety of reasons (limited funding, limited project-management expertise, etc.), thirty years ago, India had to choose: locally-made light weapons, or locally-made ICBM's. In general, India chose to develop the weapons that no one would sell to India, due to their strategic significance. It would have been better if India could have excelled in both high-tech and low-tech. However, Indian leaders decided that wasn't possible. Accordingly, they decided to prioritize their limited resources. Most Indians would say that they made the right choice for their time.

This sounds reasonable but I find it very difficult to buy.

* If India chose to develop only the weapons that nobody would sell to us because of lack of money, great. But then why did we embark on the development of the INSAS, Trichy Rifle, Kalantak etc instead of just buying off the shelf? That would have been the cheapest route but OFB obviously had the money to develop these items and made a hash of it. Net result: all that money wasted and the army is forced to go for imports.

* Why did we sit on the paid-for ToT from Bofors for 30 years while the Army ran from pillar to post desperately begging for guns? It was only when a foreign purchase was imminent that the drawings miraculously appeared like manna from heaven. Net result: no friggin guns yet.

90% DPSUs are political milch cows first and foremost. They are rotten to the core, nothing can save them and it shouldn't take a rocket scientist (pun intended) to figure out why this is the case. Best we can do is save the experienced people that deserve to be saved, privatize and pension off the rest. Time to bite the bullet.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 07 Aug 2014 22:09

Market For Indian Defense Industry Opens Wide

India’s government officially opened up the defense industry to foreign investors Wednesday, allowing defense contractors from abroad to own up to 49% instead of 26% of Indian military equipment makers.

The plan was first announced in the July 10 budget by new finance minister, Arun Jaitley. The cabinet approval is all the proposal needed to become a national policy.

Indian defense contractors are known entities in the U.S. The wings of the C-130 Hercules are made in Hyderabad by Tata Advanced Systems. Tata also manufactures the main cabin of the Sikorsky S-92.

India is world’s largest importer of military equipment. The higher investment cap will help it attract the investment it needs to modernize its military. Over the last 10 years, India’s defense industry brought in just $4.1 million in foreign direct investment.
Building the Sikorsky S-92 main cabin at the Tata Advanced Systems facility in Hyderabad, India. New Delhi made it an official policy today to allow for 49% foreign ownership of Indian defense contractors. (Photo by Jackie O. Cruz/FORBES)

Building the Sikorsky S-92 main cabin at the Tata Advanced Systems facility in Hyderabad, India. New Delhi made it an official policy today to allow for 49% foreign ownership of Indian defense contractors. (Photo by Jackie O. Cruz/FORBES)

McKinsey & Company said in a report released last year that India’s $12 billion defense market will likely reach somewhere between $18 billion and $20 billion by 2020 for capital equipment alone. Platform spending, mainly Naval equipment, will likely hit $150 billion by 2017. India will continue to be a large net importer of defense hardware, however.

Domestic demand will likely be set by five factors, according to McKinsey.

These include geopolitical scenarios relevant to Indian foreign policy, such as Pakistan and home-grown terrorist groups that may necessitate the need for new defense equipment. Moreover, replacing outdated weapons and delivery systems are also high on the demand list.

If India’s economy improves, as many economists are now forecasting since Narendra Modi and his BJP party swept into power in May, the government will have more to spend on defense.

“The domestic industry seems poised for another period of rapid growth,” the report stated. “India has the potential to become an attractive destination for governments and companies around the world that need engineering services and components.”

As defense budgets shrink in the U.S., some contractors have turned to India to offset higher labor costs at home. Lockheed Martin’s C-130 is an example of that.

Such opportunities for offshoring could mean an additional $6 billion to $10 billion for Indian defense contractors over the next six years.

India is in its early days of expanding defense relations, including with the U.S.

The country’s defense spending will be determined by its geopolitical situation and its budding defense ties with Washington. Events and political relationships with the U.S. and other countries, namely France and Russia, will have the biggest potential to spark “substantial changes in India’s strategic relationships and ultimately the balance of trade in the global defense industry,” the McKinsey report stated.

Some of the main orders expected include Mirage and MiG-29 upgrades along with new, fifth-gen multi-role combat aircraft for the Air Force. On sea, India will likely spend upwards of $40 billion on nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers. For land vehicles, Indian made tanks and U.S. made Javelin anti-tank missiles are also likely purchases.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Anoop, brar_w, jhaloram, mody, Raveen, ravikr, Vips and 55 guests