Go Back   Team-BHP > BHP India > Commercial Vehicles


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 27th October 2009, 18:40   #61
Team-BHP Support
 
Jaggu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 17,752
Thanked: 7,476 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by it_inspector View Post
All this for one purpose over solid state boosters. So one can sht off the engine if needed which isn't the best feature considering all the resources will be used to get he rocket off the ground only and only once.
Is that the only advantage? what about the performance delivery? How does Cryo fair against solid propellants?

As far as start-stop is concerned, wont it help in mid flight corrections if required and save the whole mission at times?
Jaggu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th October 2009, 20:08   #62
BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 27
Thanked: 0 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggu View Post
Is that the only advantage? what about the performance delivery? How does Cryo fair against solid propellants?

As far as start-stop is concerned, wont it help in mid flight corrections if required and save the whole mission at times?
Cryo or liquid based system are more efficient than Solid State boosters/rockets. But the efficiency fads away when compared cost and success rates.

No Start-Stop is not that important in a booster rocket. Whole purpose of booster rocket is to burn away once started. Solid State boosters are feuled according to the destination or reach required. These don`t need computers to control or other precise and complex instruments and feul delivery mechanisms.

Remember for 1kg of weight to be launched in space you might just need 4kg of feul, but when using liquid feul rockets, you will also need to carry extra feul for that 4kg of feul. To be precise every 1gram of weight adds around 300grams of feul to the system. So keeping the weight down is the biggest priority and solid feul boosters excel here.

Start-stop comes into play when you need re-entry into the atmosphere and need control. To be honest all the re-usable space vehicles still use solid feul boosters and liquid feul or cryo systems for its re-entry and even then most of the re-entry is gliding directly to the ground with 1:16 which means for each vertical meter, height is reduced by 16 meters.

Hope i have made my point and it makes sense.
it_inspector is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th October 2009, 20:38   #63
BHPian
 
neel385's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Kharagpur
Posts: 530
Thanked: 401 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by it_inspector View Post
Also a big advantage of Angled body structure is DUAL ARMOUR or TILED ARMOUR or Explosive Armour. These all work in a similar pattern but with different techniques and different materials. As far as I know, not a single military vehicle used by INDIAN Armed Forces utilizes these.
Both the T90 and the Bhisma have reactive armour. The T 90 uses the Russian Kontakt-5 ERA and the Bhisma uses Kanchan ERA which is indigenous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anmol2k4 View Post
And you blame DRDO for the feature creeps. And how do you suggest that DRDO develop capability if they aren't going to be trusted for their first try in most of the projects named ?
Anmol, I wonder what you do for a living. I do not jest you when I say this, but consider this. The projects that we are talking about are kind of unique in nature. Firstly, they are projects that are of national significance, wherein, the security of the homeland depends upon them. And secondly, the products that are a result of the projects decide, or at least, have a serious impact on the lives of the people who operate them. This latter aspect needs to be dwelled upon in in a bit more detail.

It is nice to sit in AC environs in a nice "office" doing your daily work secure with the knowledge that the end of the working hours you will be back with your wife/parents/kids and talk of patriotism and the need for home grown solutions. Patriotism for this class is a notion. For the people safeguarding our integrity and sovereignty, patriotism is more than just a notion. It is a way of life. A life that they have dedicated to the nation. I do not in any way mean to say that those who are not in the forces are not working for the nation. Every singe single citizen is in his/her own way making a valuable contribution. But for the soldiers, this notion is one for which he/she has dedicated his/her life-litrally. At any point, when the call comes, they are committed to directly confront any force which threatens the nation, even at the cost of their own lives. The saying that " For your Tomorrow, We give our Today" is true for these people.

So now that we have these bunch of guys who have already underwritten their lives, what do we do with them? That is where the nation steps in. Or rather, national conscience and priorities. In today's confrontations, the defenders cannot be empty handed. They require arms and ammunition. What they get is decided by the nation and the representatives of the people in this country. What we give them is a direct result of our national priorities. Do we give them weapons that are proven and reliable or do we give them anything that fits the bill. This is where the DRDO kicks in.

It promises a lot, however hardly delivers. But since a lot of money has already gone in to the projects and they have to be justified, the equiptment is forced down the forces throat. Who bears the consequence of the failure of the systems? The DRDO? The Babus who sanctioned them? The ordinary citizen who in the name of national pride cheers for the DRDO? No. It is the soldier who pays for it. With his life, which, by the way was lost because of somebody else's incompetence. Is that single life worth nothing? For the information of all, Wing Commander Ravi Khanna who died in the Jaguar crash attributed to the faulty indigenous trigger mechanism developed by the Armament Research and Development Establishment (ARDE) was survived by a wife, two small children, the youngest being a toddler and two old parents. What does the nation tell them?

So my friend! Trust in this line of work is not about profit margins and financial statements. It is about lives. For the record, even money kicks in- it tales the GOI almost 6-10 Crs to train a lully operational fighter pilot which Wg Cdr Khanna was. So now, do people see a little bit of logic behind the apprehension of the forces with the DRDO?


Quote:
Originally Posted by anmol2k4 View Post
And my point was that we won't have money if we will spend it all to buy from other Military Industrial complex. And if we would have relied on indigenous products we wouldn't have to beg from ADB and lateron humiliated in from of the world.

Right, flush down decades of work and money spent and all the human hours rather than improving-upgrading-adding upon the rail/road and inventory system. Yeah that would motivate those 50 somethings to waste what is left of their careers to try again, hoping that Babus wont be smitten by the videshi-bribes.

I am sorry you are very wrong about that, as the money is spent in India and help develop precious IP and other technologies which can be reused,re-engineered and licensed. It also generates employment and pays workforces salary which circulates in the economy and thanks to multiplier effect have much bigger return than the money spent.
Actually the nation needs to decide on whether the money is being flushed down or is the life of a soldier being made more secure. The Babus and Scientists are hardly affected anyway! So what do we do? Motivate them at the expense of our soldiers? And we also need to remember that when push comes to shove, the equipment in the hands of our soldiers will play a vital part in the outcome of the battle. How many of us want to find out then, that, the stuff in the hands of the soldiers do not work?

Quote:
Originally Posted by anmol2k4 View Post
Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, India-Pakistan-China all are nuclear powers and have delivery systems in place.
And so conventional forces have no role? Going by your logic, the Americans must be crazy considering the fact that they have the worlds largest nuclear arsenal AND the largest standing Armed Forces!


Quote:
Originally Posted by anmol2k4 View Post
That is why America gives many countries money to buy arms from themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anmol2k4 View Post
And can you please tell me why is that unlike Russian-Chinese-Pakistani-American-French our Indian Army is always short of confidence when it comes to Made in India product ?

Don't you think corruption plays any role ?

This is an interesting point. The Americans do always buy form themselves and also do their level best to find more customers for it's products- after all the F-16 is the world's most selling fighter after the MiG 21. But then, are their products not the best that money can buy? And if I can buy the best in the world and it is home made, then why not?

And that is exactly my point about DRDO. Let them produce the stuff which is world class! So then why does the DRDO not get its act together? The answer to my mind is simple- no accountability and no competition. All the major defence hardware in America is developed by private players based on QRs given by their MOD. Hence, they develop the best and field them to the forces. And more importantly, they do it in a fixed time-frame. Now time-frame is important. The requirements in the field of battle, as in all other fields are very sensitive to time. The requirements of today will be very different from the requirements of 20 years hence. So, if something which is required in 5 years time is delivered by the DRDO in 15 years, that good is of no use to the forces! Yet people want the armed forces to accept them?! The LCA is a case in point.

It is not that the Armed Forces have without reason said no to any product of the DRDO. The Lakshya Target Towing Body is doing well in the IAF. As has already been stated in this post, the Arjun is being inducted in the Army. The Navy is today sailing many an indigenous ship, the Delhi class getting rave reviews! But then it is the kind of high handedness of the DRDO/Babus in some projects wherein they seem to tell the Armed Forces that this is the best that you can get which seems a bit irksome. Where is the accountability when projects are not finished in time or when the products do not meet the QRs?
Maybe the way the DRDO functions need a bit of scrutiny. After all, as has been pointed out ISRO is also a government organisation which is going great guns! Then what is it that plagues DRDO?


Quote:
Originally Posted by gshanky View Post
I am not sure whether it is just me, but I feel in INDIA we lack the fundamentals.
+1 to that. Core technologies, specially in metallurgy are a weak area. But my point is, why not accept that and move on? We can always set up JVs with those who do have the technology and ensure that a whole project does not get stalled? Is it a case misplaced pride or maybe the ostrich effect?

Quote:
Originally Posted by it_inspector View Post
DITTO!!!, That is the main issue in India, ministers and advisors do all the bidding while it should be handled by Army. Once the responsibility is handed over to the army, then certain individuals can be held responsible, right now ministers change every year before the order starts to arrive and then no one is left to held responsible.
+1 to that! But in a democracy, perhaps it is the law makers and the executives that are perhaps most apt to do the final purchases. I just wish that they were more accountable.
neel385 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th October 2009, 20:59   #64
BHPian
 
gshanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Coimbatore / Bangalore / New York
Posts: 718
Thanked: 13 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggu View Post
This particular engine, any reason why you included in the NOT so good enough list?
Correct me if I am wrong but didn't 2 of the GSLV launches fail with russian cryogenic engines? I think we had a total of 4 russian made engines and two of the launches were successful

I assume our indigenous cryogenic engine would be ready by this year end as attributed by Prof.Radhakrishnan

Overall our GSLV has not achieved the reliability of PSLV. But, I guess it should be just a matter of time
gshanky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th October 2009, 00:31   #65
Team-BHP Support
 
Jaggu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 17,752
Thanked: 7,476 Times
Default

When I meant performance I meant payload capacity also, cryo's are complicated. But does that mean Carb is better than FE?

Range (to acheive a higher orbit), payload capacity and overall efficiency of an engine matters in a satelite launch program, right?

Failure rates, hmm solid state motors also have one. If we go by failure we wouldn't have even tried out a single GSLV launch would we? I think it's just part and parcel of such advanced R&D/S ientific missions. Computers are also very much required for them. If not for combustion, zillion other things including guidance?

History I know of is here including stats of launch, developmental and commercial launches. Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle

Last edited by Jaggu : 28th October 2009 at 00:39.
Jaggu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th October 2009, 01:23   #66
BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 27
Thanked: 0 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggu View Post
When I meant performance I meant payload capacity also, cryo's are complicated. But does that mean Carb is better than FE?

Range (to acheive a higher orbit), payload capacity and overall efficiency of an engine matters in a satelite launch program, right?

Failure rates, hmm solid state motors also have one. If we go by failure we wouldn't have even tried out a single GSLV launch would we? I think it's just part and parcel of such advanced R&D/S ientific missions. Computers are also very much required for them. If not for combustion, zillion other things including guidance?

History I know of is here including stats of launch, developmental and commercial launches. Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle
Actually for GSLV these computers are required simply for the burning of fuel. Every single step of the process needs to be perfect everytime.

Biggest examples are when China and Canadian based company launched individual Liquid propellant rockets. There was this tiny mistake. They missed valve seal pressure UNDER -2 degrees, as a result a $2 seal broke leaking oxdiser inside the rocket and exploding it right before it even took of. Canadian firm went a step ahead, missed the right firmware for the computer, computer decided it wrong firmware and mission would be unsuccessful so it self detonated the rocket around 100metres off the ground.

I will say it last time, its the MATTER or comparison.

You need to goto the market in order to purchase eggs. You got 2 choices, take silly old maruti 800 or order in atom. What will you choose ????

Atom might be a nice and FAST car but all this looses relativeness when eggs are involved. Its the same thing here, unless ISRO wants to launch re-usable space vehicles they should stick to Solid fuel rockets and save both time and money.
it_inspector is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th October 2009, 01:48   #67
Team-BHP Support
 
Jaggu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 17,752
Thanked: 7,476 Times
Default

What about payload? Heavier satelites can be launched to geo orbit using PSLV? what about the commercial angle of having this capability once G also shows a track record?

Your comparison seems to be lil off from the debate we are having here, me feels
Jaggu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th October 2009, 19:02   #68
BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 27
Thanked: 0 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggu View Post
What about payload? Heavier satelites can be launched to geo orbit using PSLV? what about the commercial angle of having this capability once G also shows a track record?

Your comparison seems to be lil off from the debate we are having here, me feels
Payload wide, both liquid fuel propelled and sold fuel propelled rocket have almost same capacity. Point is solid fuel will always win in payload capacity part since it needs less moving parts and less equipment to work.

Ultimately the problem is for liquid fuel propelled rockets we need to take extra fuel for the fuel itself. This extra fuel reduces capacity to carry payloads.

Yea i guess debate went off topic from Indigenously development to actual choices made during the development.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neel385 View Post
Both the T90 and the Bhisma have reactive armour. The T 90 uses the Russian Kontakt-5 ERA and the Bhisma uses Kanchan ERA which is indigenous
Thanks for correction. I didn`t knew Bhishma had reactive armor. T90 came in both with and without reactive armor versions.
it_inspector is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th October 2009, 19:18   #69
Team-BHP Support
 
Jaggu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 17,752
Thanked: 7,476 Times
Default

Ok i didnt mean the discussion of rockets taking it offline, i was referring to vegetable shop visit in an atom

An interesting interview which came a while back, could find a soft copy. Shows some other view points regarding cryo's i guess.
www.ketan.net

Quote:
Articles
(1991-1994) SUNDAY MAGAZINE
(ANAND BAZAR PATRIKA GROUP)
IT WILL TAKE FOUR YEARS"
Space scientist Abdul Kalam on India's ability to develop its own cryogenic rocket technology

With the on-again-off-again status of the Cryogenic engine deal, nobody is sure of its status. The Russian Prime Minister, Victor Chernomyrdin, on this way to USA, is quoted as saying: "The Russian government has not taken a formal decision to freeze the Cryogenic deal. Adding a rider, he said, "Russians would provide high technologies to the Third World, but not at the cost of having the particular country develop its own nuclear weapon delivery vehicles."

However, one person is confident that irrespective of whether India gets the Cryogenic Technology or not, it will have to stand up for itself because "strength respects strength".

The man is Dr Avil Pakir Jainulabdeen Abdul Kalam, better known as Abdul Kalam, the brain behind the Indian Space Research Organisation's (ISRO) space development programme. He is the chairman of the Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme and the director of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

However, no longer with ISRO, Abdul Kalam's heart still lies with the organization. A father figure to ISRO scientists, Kalam is not exactly upset over Russia's reneging on the deal. Confident of himself and "his" scientists at ISRO, Kalam says that it's time Indians started respecting themselves and became "self-dependent".

Talking to SUNDAY in his South Block office, Dr ABDUL KALAM refused to discuss in detail India's missile development programme. He, however, agreed to talk at length on the cryogenic engine deal. Excerpts from the interview:

SUNDAY: Is the Cryogenic engine deal on or off? There are conflicting signals coming from various quarters.

Abdul Kalam: According to all the information reaching me, it is still on. There is no official information that the deal is off. Irrespective of whether we get the technology or not, as far as I can see, India, especially the ISRO, should become self-sufficient.

Q: Why in the first place, did India choose to depend on Soviet technology in a crucial area like the country's space programme?

A: Good question. There are two reasons. Cryogenic engine technology would have coasted us Rs 400-500 crore. Secondly, it (that money) would have cost us at least a five-year setback. So, ISRO decided to go faster, schedule-wise, and have a cost advantage. Anybody would do it. If there is available technology which given me cost and schedule advantages, then I would go for it. There is nothing wrong in it. But today, technology is used as a tool for commercial purposes and we have to break such strangle-holds. We have to be self-sufficient.

If you take any country or any space system, the fact remains that even in developed countries; 30-40 percent of the space technology comes from other countries. You cannot make everything indigenously. For example, India is one of the leading countries in the solid propulsion system. ISRO is developing the third-largest booster fir its Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) system. You have to be selective about what you want.

Q: Why is cryogenic technology important to India?

A: cryogenic engine has the highest energy level. It uses liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. Cryogenic engines help in increasing the satellite payload. Each kilogram of satellite payload has an advantage of a lakh of rupees. Normally you do not have to use a booster when you use cryogenic engine. Since cryogenic engines facilitate a high payload, it is useful at the upper stages. This, in turn, means cutting down costs. Missile boosters are normally solid boosters. Therefore, you do not use cryogenic engines for missile launches.

Q: Isn't our dependence on foreign technology at variance with our aim of become self-sufficient?

A: Let me explain what has actually happened in rocketry, there is solid propulsion and liquid propulsion. Initially, ISRO started concentrative on the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV). Naturally, it should be the highest priority. The decision was taken to go in for a XXX synchronous launch. At that time, a decision taken to go in for the cryogenic technology. The cryogenic technology was available not only in Russia but also in France and USA, The Russians were offering the technology at the lower cost and therefore we opted for the Russian technology.

Q: When India decided to go in for the technology, was there any indication that Russia would not fulfill the contract?

A: There was no indication that Russia would renege on the deal.

Q: Why then, has the deal been call-off for all practical purposes?

A: Cryogenic technology has more commercial implications than straits ones. Commercial philosophy and policy are the determining reasons when cryogenic technology should be given a particular country or not. Cryogenic technology will help the country achieving greatness as it can launch own commercial satellite via its satellite vehicle.

Satellite launching, as of now, is donated by Europeans and the Africans. In case a country achieves the technology of launching its own satellite domination will be removed. This is main fear that has been the key point the transfer of cryogenic technology.

Q: Does ISRO have any contingency plan to fall back on, now that there is little hope of getting cryogenic technology?

A: Why, should I have planned something? Why would have imagined that cryogenic technology would acquire such strategic dimensions? Cryogenic technology is not used for missile propulsion systems anywhere in the world.
At no time will I consider that cryogenic engines have any strategic implications, like application of missiles. Nobody will use cryogenic technology for developing missiles. Cryogenic technology is not considered as a strategic technology.

It is not as if ISRO has just been depending on the transfer of cryogenic technology to get going. Also, it is not as if they are basically zero in cryogenic technology. Work has already on in this area. Even though I am no longer with ISRO, I have worked there for almost 20 years. I know that cryogenic work has been continuously going on. That is why the ISRO scientists are confident that they will be able to meet the challenge.

Q: What kind of setback has the Indian space programme suffered because of the problem?

A: If we do not get the cryogenic technology, it does not mean that we will not be able to launch geo-synchronous satellite. It will, however, be more expensive. The launcher will be heavier, and there will be some safety problems.

Everybody did not start with cryogenic technology. I am confident that ISRO will recover in a few years' time. As far the launching of satellite is concerned, there are a number of satellite launchers available in the world market. ISRO can always select the appropriate one. So, the satellite programme, and our communication programme, will not be affected at all.

But it is our own satellite launching programme i.e., launching of satellites from Indian soil that will put it's behind by a few years. My assessment is that within two to five years, depending on a number of factors like our priorities, commitments and the money available, we will recover from is setback.

Q: Do you really think that the ISRO scientists can overcome these difficulties in two years?

A: Developing cryogenic technology has become a national commitment, a National programme. ISRO will gear up because it will become the single most important programme. If you ask me, I think it will take four years. But I have seen in the past that any programme or project, if given the highest priority, can be done faster and the time period for developing the technology can be reduced. So, one need not get tremendously worried. We will take it as a challenge. How to meet that challenge rather than this problem should be our concern now.

Q: The Americans had imposed sanctions against ISRO some time back. How much has that hurt ISRO?

A: Let me give you an example. In the 1980's, we needed a Supercomputer. When we approached America, they refused, saying that it could be used for strategic purposes. Now we have our own supercomputer, Anurag. Now the Americans are saying that they would like sell supercomputers to India (laughs).

Q: In spite of India's intensions of using cryogenic technology for peaceful purposes, why is it that it has not been able to convince the rest of the world, especially USA?

A: World politics is a strange thing. When politics and commercial interest combine, logic fails.

Q: Do you think that Indo-Russian cooperation in space technology will suffer because the Russians have reneged on the cryogenic deal?

A: We believe that it should not affect Indo-Russian cooperation in space technology. The entire issue of cryogenic engines is a business event and should be treated as one. But we should derive a lesson from the imbroglio. We have to be self-reliant in critical technology.

Q: As a compromise, Russia has offered India as many cryogenic engines as it wants without transfer of the actual technology….

A: I do not think ISRO will accept such a solution. It may not help ISRO. We cannot and should not make compromises. Technology has to be our mission. That is the only way India can be great.

Q: Recently, China has sold M-11 missiles to Pakistan. The USA has imposed sanctions against both China and Pakistan for the sale. How much of a threat does the M-11 pose to India?

A: First of all, have the M-11 missiles reached Pakistan? Even if they have, you should remember that India is a missile power (smiles).


Ketan Narottam Tanna/ New Delhi

Last edited by Jaggu : 28th October 2009 at 19:21.
Jaggu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th October 2009, 22:05   #70
BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 27
Thanked: 0 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggu View Post
Ok i didnt mean the discussion of rockets taking it offline, i was referring to vegetable shop visit in an atom
I give up, since you missed the whole point and if you read all of my posts and then go back and go through the interview. The point i am trying to make becomes clearer.

Last edited by Jaggu : 29th October 2009 at 10:08. Reason: Fixing the quote. Thanks
it_inspector is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2009, 10:04   #71
Team-BHP Support
 
Jaggu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 17,752
Thanked: 7,476 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by it_inspector View Post
I give up, since you missed the whole point and if you read all of my posts and then go back and go through the interview. The point i am trying to make becomes clearer.
I didnt miss your point dear friend, all i was questioning was your logic. Cryo engines are definitely more complicated and expensive, i 100% agree. But the advantage is huge, once a country masters its development. It might not be relevant for military applications at all, but for civilian and commercial activity it can rake in big moolahs. Just this engine can and has changed the ball game in commercial launch for India. Just go through the wiki pages and see how other countries are using our launch vehicle programs, mind you these are not free services or at discounted price.

Any new R&D requires investment, but when compared to other countries India has so far been able to develop and successfully implement launch programs for minuscule of cost and at far better pace. Failure's are part and parcel of such high tech games, still India has least numbers if you compare to even more affluent countries. Just compare our costs to US where private contractors charge a bomb for their job to NASA and huge amount of money flows around as bribes . Europe the next big player is no better either.

There are years of work, research and management brain storming that goes behind such decisions in taking calculated risks. It has to be respected.

Now please do carry on with your discussions/debate.

cheers
Jaggu

Last edited by Jaggu : 29th October 2009 at 10:06.
Jaggu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2009, 23:09   #72
BHPian
 
anmol2k4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Gr. Noida Aka Gurrator Naveda
Posts: 193
Thanked: 5 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by neel385 View Post
Anmol, I wonder what you do for a living. I do not jest you when I say this, but consider this. The projects that we are talking about are kind of unique in nature. Firstly, they are projects that are of national significance, wherein, the security of the homeland depends upon them. And secondly, the products that are a result of the projects decide, or at least, have a serious impact on the lives of the people who operate them. This latter aspect needs to be dwelled upon in in a bit more detail.
I am still a dependent, with few more years of education left. I am with you on every single point except your indication that products made in India are less safer in comparison to say Russian. In fact I strongly disagree with you on this. Anyone who keeps tabs on Defense related stories would know that more cases of fatal malfunctions have been occurred in imported products.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neel385 View Post
It is nice to sit in AC environs in a nice "office" doing your daily work secure with the knowledge that the end of the working hours you will be back with your wife/parents/kids and talk of patriotism and the need for home grown solutions. Patriotism for this class is a notion. For the people safeguarding our integrity and sovereignty, patriotism is more than just a notion. It is a way of life. A life that they have dedicated to the nation. I do not in any way mean to say that those who are not in the forces are not working for the nation. Every singe single citizen is in his/her own way making a valuable contribution. But for the soldiers, this notion is one for which he/she has dedicated his/her life-litrally. At any point, when the call comes, they are committed to directly confront any force which threatens the nation, even at the cost of their own lives. The saying that " For your Tomorrow, We give our Today" is true for these people.
I had no Idea that we civilians need a class on patriotism to speak on the subject relating to use of taxpayers money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neel385 View Post
So now that we have these bunch of guys who have already underwritten their lives, what do we do with them? That is where the nation steps in. Or rather, national conscience and priorities. In today's confrontations, the defenders cannot be empty handed. They require arms and ammunition. What they get is decided by the nation and the representatives of the people in this country. What we give them is a direct result of our national priorities. Do we give them weapons that are proven and reliable or do we give them anything that fits the bill.
I had no idea that we have already concluded that made in India products are unreliable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neel385 View Post
This is where the DRDO kicks in. It promises a lot, however hardly delivers.
I am sorry, but that is your opinion I am also amazed that you don't know what all the labs have delivered till now. IMHO the various labs have delivered satisfactorily for all the sanctions and restrictions that are and were in place. Going forward I think we need to change with time, and coincidently today Defense ministry have announced that they would change the regulations in this sectors allowing further public-private and multinational JVs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neel385 View Post
But since a lot of money has already gone in to the projects and they have to be justified, the equiptment is forced down the forces throat.
I guess the equipment coming with complementary bribes are lot more appetizing. Jokes apart, don't you know that China America Russia France do the same thing, do you think that they don't care about their national security and their forces ? Or are you suggesting that Indian scientists are less competent than say China America France Russia hell even Pakistan.



Quote:
Originally Posted by neel385 View Post
Who bears the consequence of the failure of the systems? The DRDO? The Babus who sanctioned them? The ordinary citizen who in the name of national pride cheers for the DRDO? No. It is the soldier who pays for it. With his life, which, by the way was lost because of somebody else's incompetence. Is that single life worth nothing? For the information of all, Wing Commander Ravi Khanna who died in the Jaguar crash attributed to the faulty indigenous trigger mechanism developed by the Armament Research and Development Establishment (ARDE) was survived by a wife, two small children, the youngest being a toddler and two old parents. What does the nation tell them? So my friend! Trust in this line of work is not about profit margins and financial statements. It is about lives. For the record, even money kicks in- it tales the GOI almost 6-10 Crs to train a lully operational fighter pilot which Wg Cdr Khanna was. So now, do people see a little bit of logic behind the apprehension of the forces with the DRDO?
You are indicating that Defense forces have always accepted DRDO products without a second thought ? Many will contest even a suggestion like that. Now with few cases like you have mentioned you are hinting that it is wiser to opt for foreign products because those are safer. Are you not aware of hundreds probably thousands of fatal malfunctions in foreign equipment. Do you want me to list all those cases for you ?

Do you hear about BAE doing upgrades upgrades and maintenance for Mirage ? or Sukhoi doing upgrades upgrades and maintenance for MIG 21 ? or Lockheed doing upgrades and maintenance on Boeing's equipment ? That is because they are not familiar with others creation and also because it is hard. And you expect that DRDO's work on an unfamiliar, ancient and unsupported equipment to be flawless.

Do you know what forces GOI and Defense Services to resort to that ? Because videshi defense contractors often stop supporting the equipment we bought, or they are for exorbitant prices. For example Mirage or Admiral Gorshkov.

And this is why I think it is even more important to stop relying on foreign equipment. And yet you think it is wiser to buy this stuff from outside. I would like to know do you think that Army personal are unfamiliar with the kind of dangers that are present in their profession. Do you think such cases don't happen outside ? How can you forget what happened to the crew of Nerpa submarine that we ordered ?

For the members of the forum: they all died. And this wasn't the first time the Russian nuclear submarine disaster which resulted into deaths of all the people on board. And we are to receive same submarine. I am not suggesting that we should not take it as we badly need lot of submarines. BTW Neel, do you see any double standard in here ?

Malfuncations in Nasa's space shuttle also took the astronauts life, what do you think America should have done ? outsource everything to other people ? They didn't do that, why is that ?

Should I post more stories of such disasters(Unnecessary as I am very sure you keep tabs on these things).

Also the example of Wg Cdr Khanna and his family was unnecessary if not in bad taste. I also think it was uncalled for to suggest that his death was caused by DRDO's incompetence when it is well known that only a OEM can support their own products and DRDO is forced to work on this due to end army's reliance on videshi end of life products.

I would also like to strongly contest the hint that only the Defense forces have sacrificed their life for the nation and scientists are incompetent. No one doubts the sacrifice that armed forces have made and continue to make, but no one should doubt or question the contribution of our scientists also it mustn't be forgotten that there have been many cases of scientists who sacrificed their life for example scientists who lost their life testing Saras and also the complete team of scientists who lost their life testing Indian AWAC ASP.

Do you think they didn't have family-kids-toddler-wives ? Do you think their contribution wouldn't have made any difference ? ASP was also for the security of the nation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neel385 View Post
Actually the nation needs to decide on whether the money is being flushed down or is the life of a soldier being made more secure.
Unlike you I think that it is easier to support Indigenous product and that can save many lives. With the poor record that imported products have had it is hard to comprehend the love for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neel385 View Post
The Babus and Scientists are hardly affected anyway!
Tell that to the family of scientists who worked on Saras and Indian AWAC pro gramme.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neel385 View Post
So what do we do? Motivate them at the expense of our soldiers?
First your example wasn't good enough and also the suggestion to equip them with arms made by same people behind MiG21 isn't any wiser, hell even MKI is taking life. What about Akula, are you comfortable with that ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by neel385 View Post
And we also need to remember that when push comes to shove, the equipment in the hands of our soldiers will play a vital part in the outcome of the battle. How many of us want to find out then, that, the stuff in the hands of the soldiers do not work?
By your logic China should lose because they rely on their own products not the best out there, do you agree with that ? And going by how well something that cost us BILLIONS worked for Russian navy's dead(and may they RIP) crew, I think it would be wiser to trust our own.

And because this discussion concerns the MBT, in World War 2 Nazi tank Panther which even today is considered the best tank in the world couldn't do much for Nazis due to the sheer number of Russian WWII tanks which were not flawless. So the suggestion that only the best can win wars is not true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neel385 View Post
And so conventional forces have no role? Going by your logic, the Americans must be crazy considering the fact that they have the worlds largest nuclear arsenal AND the largest standing Armed Forces!
Their Nuclear bombs are for Nuclear powers and Army for those against whom they cannot use nuclear bomb. How hard is this to understand ? Conflicts between Nuclear powers are different, for example American and Russian army haven't fought any war directly after acquiring nuclear warheads, same is the case between China and India. Do you think these nations have got any wiser, or do you think they are scared of nuclear conflicts ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by neel385 View Post
This is an interesting point. The Americans do always buy form themselves and also do their level best to find more customers for it's products- after all the F-16 is the world's most selling fighter after the MiG 21. But then, are their products not the best that money can buy? And if I can buy the best in the world and it is home made, then why not?
What about Russia and China ? And the claim "the best" is a little subjective, still how do you think they managed to achieve that ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by neel385 View Post
And that is exactly my point about DRDO. Let them produce the stuff which is world class! So then why does the DRDO not get its act together? The answer to my mind is simple- no accountability and no competition. All the major defence hardware in America is developed by private players based on QRs given by their MOD. Hence, they develop the best and field them to the forces. And more importantly, they do it in a fixed time-frame. Now time-frame is important. The requirements in the field of battle, as in all other fields are very sensitive to time. The requirements of today will be very different from the requirements of 20 years hence. So, if something which is required in 5 years time is delivered by the DRDO in 15 years, that good is of no use to the forces! Yet people want the armed forces to accept them?! The LCA is a case in point.
If you expect them to do produce world class products, then first Defense forces should stop their bad habits of eating world class bribes and start eating some dog food which is necessary. World over Industry use dogfooding to improve products. For example ISRO's Chandrayaan developed fault in its orbit due to excessive radiation, by your logic/suggestion ISRO shouldn't have been allowed to make it and should have been outsourced to someone else who did it better because it malfunctioned. But how do you think they would have learn't about the levels of radiation in space and around moon without even trying and testing ? Do you think they would have been able to improve their satellites without such knowledge.

In case of defense products, it is impossible to expect that scientists will be able to improve the product and make it world class when Army isn't even ready to use it and give their inputs over the years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neel385 View Post
It is not that the Armed Forces have without reason said no to any product of the DRDO. The Lakshya Target Towing Body is doing well in the IAF. As has already been stated in this post, the Arjun is being inducted in the Army. The Navy is today sailing many an indigenous ship, the Delhi class getting rave reviews! But then it is the kind of high handedness of the DRDO/Babus in some projects wherein they seem to tell the Armed Forces that this is the best that you can get which seems a bit irksome. Where is the accountability when projects are not finished in time or when the products do not meet the QRs?
Again, token purchases mean nothing, as they won't make DRDO to recover costs and why is Army even buying that many if they are not happy with it ?

And where is the same uncompromising attitude when it comes to purchase of MiG30MKI ? and Nerpa ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by neel385 View Post
Maybe the way the DRDO functions need a bit of scrutiny. After all, as has been pointed out ISRO is also a government organisation which is going great guns! Then what is it that plagues DRDO?
ISRO is doing great because there Defense forces cannot outsource their work, otherwise they too would be incompetent in view of same people.

As the workforce in DRDO and ISRO isn't very different many scientists have worked for both organizations, so it is hard to comprehend that the scientists who worked in ISRO can be competent in eyes of same people who called them incompetent when they worked in DRDO and vice-versa.

BTW do you know how much is common between Indian missile program and rockets program ?, and also can you please explain to me why is that defense forces are always satisfied with missiles that cannot be imported due MTCR regime and are never happy with missiles of range whose equivalent can are sanctioned by MTCR to be purchased from outside ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by neel385 View Post
+1 to that! But in a democracy, perhaps it is the law makers and the executives that are perhaps most apt to do the final purchases. I just wish that they were more accountable.
Lt Gen D Bhardwaj isn't a law maker nor an executive.

Edit: Saw your profile (I should have taken some hint),I feel like an @ss. You should have told me about your profession earlier.

Last edited by anmol2k4 : 29th October 2009 at 23:20.
anmol2k4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th October 2009, 01:47   #73
BHPian
 
neel385's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Kharagpur
Posts: 530
Thanked: 401 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anmol2k4 View Post
Anyone who keeps tabs on Defense related stories would know that more cases of fatal malfunctions have been occurred in imported products.

And on what basis do you say this may I ask? If you want to say that most of the reports of equipment failure that you come across in the media involves imported machinery, well the answer to that is simple-that's what we use!But then, do a quantitative analysis of MTBF of indigenous stuff. It will be a revelation for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anmol2k4 View Post
I had no Idea that we civilians need a class on patriotism to speak on the subject relating to use of taxpayers money.
I wish that you actually saw how the taxpayers money was not being efficiently utilised when it comes to the DRDO. Let us see what an ex member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence had to say about the DRDO!

Just DRDO won’t do

Milind Deora


In 1958, the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) was set up by the United States’ Department of Defense. The agency was founded on several principles. This included the challenging conventional military and R&D structure; being a small, flexible and flat organisation; retaining substantial autonomy and freedom from bureaucratic impediments; providing a high return on taxpayer’s funds. While these beliefs have credited DARPA with several accomplishments in the military field, the agency has also achieved successful spin-offs, like the internet, in the civilian sphere.
That same year, India established the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). While DARPA has been a huge success since its inception, critics can easily argue (the special series in this newspaper being a case in point) that the DRDO still hasn’t been able to achieve its vision — everything that really matters in the Indian military is still imported.
Ads by GoogleIndia Statistical Data Emerging Mrkt Business Intelligence Company & Industry,Stats & Analysiswww.ceicdata.comJobs in Aeronautics 100s of Job Openings Submit Resume to Apply Now!MonsterIndia.comIndia's Economic Growth India looks to be taking a hit in growth this year. Why? Free reportMoneyMorning.com/Ind
While we are debating DRDO’s track record, we must keep in mind that some high-end technologies continue to be denied to India, and here DRDO plays a vital role. Furthermore, sometimes it was re-inventing the wheel. However, we still have tremendous room for systemic and regulatory improvements.
A special CAG review in 2000 of DRDO’s Vehicles Research and Development Establishment, Ahmedabad, found that almost 50 per cent of the lab’s budget was spent on salaries, with a ratio of 11 non-scientists for every scientist. At present the ratio of scientists in DRDO to other supporting personnel is 1:5. In DARPA, this is 1.4:1, meaning that out of the 240 people working at DARPA, only 100 are non-technical! The human resources programmes at DARPA are extremely flexible. World-class scientists are acquired from the private sector and universities. Several supporting personnel are temporarily hired from other agencies so that DARPA doesn’t have to support them on a permanent basis. Yet it is as sought-after as an employer as any leading defence private company.
Although the US defence budget is almost 25 times larger than that of India, DARPA’s annual budget is only twice the size of DRDO’s. DARPA’s comparatively low budget in relation to US defence spending is due to the fact that the agency is focused on high-end technologies, leaving other systems to industry. This has enabled it to stay lean. In the case of the Arjun MBT and Akash missile, DRDO needs to follow better management practices to deliver indigenous technologies to the military. The production of juices and insect repellants are other instances where the DRDO urgently needs to rethink its focus.
The various DRDO labs should avoid any kind of overlap and duplication. The organisation must draw up a list of future technologies based on certain criteria and go after them aggressively. First, strategic technology that no country may sell to India — for example, nuclear weapons, surveillance and communication satellites and long range cruise missiles. Second, technologies which are heading towards a global monopoly like conventional submarines presently being sold at a very high price. Third, future technologies on drawing boards all over the world — like unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs), unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) and robot soldiers. If our government’s scientific and research organisations can make the world’s most competitive satellite launch vehicles, we can surely do the same with other high-end defence technologies.
India can build strong indigenous capabilities while creating competitive benchmarks for DRDO through the active participation of the private sector. The Kelkar Committee has suggested important measures, and the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence has taken up this issue several times, inviting suggestions from trade associations. Earlier, India Inc wasn’t capable of building tanks or undertaking high-end R&D. Today, the industry is geared up to meet the challenge and the government only needs to establish a leak-proof regulatory framework that hand-holds the industry initially. The government could also provide tax incentives on the lines of those provided to the pharmaceutical industry.
And the DRDO must engage industry in a transparent manner. DARPA sends its programme managers to the private sector to jointly work on a technology. Once it is ready, it doesn’t matter who produces it, as long as it is done in a manner that is both cost and time effective, even while delivering on quality.
Defence public sector undertakings (DPSUs) and government-owned ordnance factories must be subjected to competition. India’s telecommunications, aviation and oil & gas sectors have generated incredible domestic as well as foreign investments due to deregulation. In defence, we continue to subsidise the economies of Russia and Israel by importing goods from them.
If India has built world-class multinationals in sectors such as information technology and pharmaceuticals, both of which are knowledge-driven industries, we could easily create a handful of defence multinationals in less than a decade that are more cost and quality competitive than their counterparts elsewhere. Besides reducing our reliance on imports, we would also generate massive investment in India, thereby creating employment opportunities.
The development and control of key defence technologies would be in Indian hands. Moreover, India would become a net exporter of defence goods and services rather than an importer. A small nation like Israel accounts for a tenth of world defence sales and approximately a fifth of its exports are defence-related. While India had an annual import bill of around $5 billion last year, we exported a paltry $47 million worth of arms. Pakistan, which lacks our industrial base, exported nearly twice as much.
In 2001 the government permitted 26 per cent FDI in defence production and full private participation in certain areas of the sector. But since 2002 the government received less than a dozen applications for private sector participation in defence. In addition to reforming the DRDO, therefore, the viability of select DPSUs, especially those not dealing with core areas like the production of missiles and warheads, should also be re-examined and certain products like food products should either be scrapped or outsourced to lower-cost vendors.
The writer is an MP and member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence

Source:Just DRDO won’t do

Quote:
Originally Posted by anmol2k4 View Post
I had no idea that we have already concluded that made in India products are unreliable.
You are hardly qualified to make a conclusion such as that. However, there are eminent people, and they seem to have, as far as the products of DRDO that are being discussed is concerned. For example, this is what Mr Jaswant Singh had to say about your favorite Arjun MBT :

CAG AND THE MAIN BATTLE TANK
JASWANT SINGH

In the wake of the Bofors' scandal, the CAG's report on the design and development of our Main Battle Tank (MBT) - Arjun, has got pushed into the background. The findings, however, are so disturbing that we must not permit such a situation to remain. Because, above all, what is involved is national security. As a friend remarked recently: "Tank is a weapon of decision in land warfare and directly affects the defence preparedness of our country. How can you people ignore this vital aspect in the parliament?"

In May 1974, when the project for our MBT was first sanctioned, the cost estimates were Rs.15.50 crores, and time estimates forecast its induction in service by the mid 80s, hence its name - MBT-80. The project envisaged a staggered production of prototypes, 12 by April 1982, and bulk production was to commence by April 84. In its report of 1981-82, on the Defence Services, the CAG then observed, "that no prototypes had been made, at which rate, an introduction of this MBT in service by 1985 did not appear possible, consequently, the army would have to either continue with outdated tanks even beyond 1985 or depend on imports". In its report of February 1984, The Public Accounts Committee of the Parliament observed "that the modern version of the tank was nowhere in sight and the production facilities ... had not been set up". It expressed Its "serious displeasure" on the "state of affairs". At about this time we abandoned MBT-80, being obviously unattainable, and instead of reterming the project as MBT-90, or whatever, prudently and ambiguously, named it as MBT-Arjun. In any case what were we trying to achieve through this project? An 'elimination of "dependence on foreign countries"; to place India "on par" with others in the field; and a "complete elimination of the requirement of foreign exchange" for this purpose. Against this background, and with these explicitly stated aims what have we actually achieved? How much has it cost us? And, where do we now stand so far as our indigenous manufacture of the MBT goes? That is precisely what the CAG has assessed.

By the early 80s, our armoured fighting vehicle (AFV) fleet of the Centurions, T-54/55 and Vijayanta had aged beyond recovery. There were no immediate alternatives, and MBT-80 was nowhere in sight. The existing production line of Vijayanta, in a decision of incredible folly, had not been progressively upgraded, which any prudent and far seeing government would have done. More disturbingly, there had already begun to appear by then, critical shortages in our AFV, spares, and reserves' fleet. In near panic, late Mrs. Gandhi's government then took the decision of branching out in a totally different direction. We opted for the unaffordable luxury of a second tank manufacturing line; a different MBT altogether, based on radically different concepts, and design, by importing in its entirety the T-72 from the Soviet Union. They came thereafter as SKD (semi knock down) packs, which we began assembling, after the usual inauguration of a new tank manufacturing plant etc. Since then we have progressed to some indigenisation, and to announcing a plan for local manufacture of the tank in its entirety. This we term as our alternative MBT project. I know of no other country in the world, not even the superpowers, that have engaged in such loose spending, by having two radically different tank manufacturing lines: One (T-72) based entirely on Soviet concepts and technology; the other (MBT- Arjun, as I will subsequently explain) almost entirely on western concepts.

List of failures
When elaborating on MBT-Arjun, we must start by unreservedly commending our DRDO and its team of dedicated scientists for two attainments: Kanchan armour is an achievement of great significance, illustrating the excellence that has been attained in the field of metallurgy. Our MBT project is also largely self sufficient in respect of the tank gun and its ammunition. Having said that, we have to regrettably come to that long list of failures, which the CAG has identified. 15 years after the project was first sanctioned, the army has not yet been handed even a single prototype, not one, which is entirely indigenous. The CAG's report lists that some 11 or 12 prototypes have been provided; yet not one of them is complete, not a single one. As against the original estimates of Rs.15.50 crores, the CAG informs us that up to March 1988, Rs.118.22 crores had already been expanded and the revised estimate of the project (as of 1987) was Rs.280.80 crores, (almost a twenty fold increase). Against the stated aim of "elimination of foreign exchange", and against the originally estimated foreign exchange requirement of Ra.2.32 crores, by March 1988, some 47% of the total i.e. Rs.102.32 crores had already been spent in free foreign exchange "According to an assessment in August 1988, the imported content of the tank, (when completed) would be 45% of the total, coming down(to 35%) only as production picked up..."

Disturbing logic
The principal assumption behind our MET project was that the DRDO possessed the competence "to develop a tank on a totally indigenous design after development of the engine, which was considered as a grey area". This was an over stated assessment. In November 1983, therefore, we entered into a consultancy agreement with Krauss Maffei of West Germany: Essentially for hull design and for the power pack (engine and transmission). For this, we paid them around Rs.90 lakhs. There was, however, a disturbing logic inherent in this, and in such other consultancy arrangements that we began to seek with increasing regularity: It was that the subsequent development of our MBT would be channelised into similar concepts. Because we baulked at the political overtones of this logic, and at the inconvenience of having to admit that our MBT would then not be indigenous, the project developed a schizophrenic personality. In consequence it still flounders. Take some other examples: For the manufacture and supply of the gunners' main sight, we chose Oldelfe of Holland, essentially a 'go-through company', providing scanners, detectors and the main sight of the tank, which is actually manufactured by Hughes of USA. For this, we paid some Rs.77 lakhs in foreign exchange. The logic of the decision, yet again, pointed West. "Consultancy agreements", as the CAG's report informs, would be "needed in other areas as well", too technical, however, to burden this article with. But tank suspension, which is so important, is to come through the assistance of Walker Hunger, again of West Germany. Transmission assembly from Renk, W. Germany; engine from MTU (W. Germany) and consultancy for an indigenous development of it, which is perhaps our single greatest difficulty, from various foreign companies. "Thus", as the CAG points out, "major systems like engine, gun control, fire control and sighting systems are still under development", and we are still very far from indigenisation. An aspect that the CAG's report does not cover relates to tank tracks. For some inexplicable reasons, we have imported tank tracks as well for our MBT, from DIEHL, (yes, again of West Germany). This is particularly worrisome as the country has been manufacturing the item for almost two decades now.

Having conceded that in any indigenous programme of high technology, and great complexity, over runs in time and costs are perhaps to be expected, what is not acceptable are grossly faulty projections: Rs.15.50 crores increasing by almost twenty times, not accounting for pay, wages or time costs; despite over runs in time, no MBT in sight, not even on the horizon of the mid 90s, when, as originally conceived, it was to be an MBT-80. What is then beyond comprehension is this wastefulness of a second line of tank manufacture (T-72), and the abandoning of an already established manufacturing line (the Vijayanta). There can, of course, be no calculating the synergetic consequences to the total defence preparedness of the country on account of this great lag in a critical defence programme. What is unforgivable thereafter, is for our government to, firstly, paint a totally false picture, and thereafter, to denigrate agencies like the CA6 which, without fear or favour, highlight these very lapses. Our MBT project suffers from a mix of the technical, where we have given voice to exaggerated possibilities; the financial, which has been marked with wastage; and the managerial where, as in the other spheres of our national life, accountability has been given a go-by because authority is non-existent. Can it still be saved? Not if we on the advice of the defence minister, keep rejecting the CAG's reports, by a captive voice vote in the parliament.

2 August 1989

Source:Jaswant Singh : defence / CAG AND THE MAIN BATTLE TANK

Quote:
Originally Posted by anmol2k4 View Post
I am sorry, but that is your opinion I am also amazed that you don't know what all the labs have delivered till now. IMHO the various labs have delivered satisfactorily for all the sanctions and restrictions that are and were in place. Going forward I think we need to change with time, and coincidently today Defense ministry have announced that they would change the regulations in this sectors allowing further public-private and multinational JVs.
I would request you to kindly elaborate on "what all the labs have delivered till now."


Quote:
Originally Posted by anmol2k4 View Post
I guess the equipment coming with complementary bribes are lot more appetizing. Jokes apart, don't you know that China America Russia France do the same thing, do you think that they don't care about their national security and their forces ? Or are you suggesting that Indian scientists are less competent than say China America France Russia hell even Pakistan.
You do seem a bit paranoid about "bribes", but jokes apart, the competence of our scientists is probably beyond doubt since NASA, DARPA, Silicon Valley etc is essentially run by Indian scientists. However, strangely, in an organisation called DRDO, they seem to have lost their way. We need to perhaps analyse this peculiar phenomenon! Is it the scientists who are to blame or perhaps it is the way DRDO is organised and run that is to blame? I think that it is the latter and this problem has been acknowledged by none other than the CAG! Read this :

CAG drops a bombshell on DRDO

Josy Joseph in New Delhi

Finally, it is the turn of the Defence Research and Development Organisation, the cash-rich developer of military technology and weapon systems, to answer some embarrassing questions.

An extensive audit of some of the important DRDO projects undertaken by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India for period ending March, 1988 has brought to light investments running into billions that are unlikely to yield desired results. Hidden away from the media glare and public scrutiny in the name of national interest, projects of DRDO have always been carried out in utmost secrecy.

Consider these findings of the audit:

* Though the DRDO has spent almost Rs 20 billion on the ambitious Light Combat Aircraft project, the Indian Air Force is currently looking for foreign alternatives. The Indian Navy too, having lost all hopes of getting a naval version of the LCA, is planning to acquire MiG-29s for a new aircraft carrier that is being built at Cochin.

* After spending several billions of rupees on building an Air Surveillance Platform and other related systems, the project is on the verge of being rendered redundant as the IAF and the navy are importing their own Airborne Warning and Control System.

* Development of the multi-barrel rocket launcher system (Pinaka) too has failed to meet the defence requirements and the time frame specified. A disgusted army is proposing to acquire Russian manufactured MBRL system.

* Add to this yet another humiliating failure: a two-decade old project to develop the Indian Army's main battle tank 'Arjun' has almost been shelved. The army is now planning to buy T-90s from Russia.

While the Arjun tank shame was already out, the CAG audit has thrown up several fresh questions about the achievements of DRDO.

True, in missile technology the organisation has made credible progress. Its achievements in nuclear technology too are well acknowledged. But then, it is a well documented fact that missile technology is among the most common and simplest of military technologies. In fact, Indian scientists were ready for the next round of tests in 1974.

According to the report, which was tabled in Parliament on December 14, the government has pumped in close to Rs 20 billion in the development of the Light Combat Aircraft without any major breakthrough.

"The LCA, which was scheduled to replace the ageing Indian Airforce fleet in nineties, is still at the development stage and is facing many uncertainties," the CAG has said. The LCA development at the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), Banglore, a subsidiary of DRDO "has been beset with delays for almost every vital component of the aircraft," the report says.

The project, initiated in 1983 is behind the schedule by almost a decade, and "as per present indications and the ministry's optimism, the LCA can not be expected to be inducted, if at all, before 2005."

Pointing out that a frustrated air force has lost all hope of inducting the LCA into its fleet, the CAG has said the IAF is seeking interim "measures to cover the shortfall in force level by upgrading the MiG Bis with the help of a foreign firm at Rs 2,135 crore."

The reports also points out that the development of airframe by ADA; multi-mode radar by HAL and Electronics and Radar Development Establishment; flight control system by Aeronautical Development Establishment; Kaveri engine by Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE); and digital electronic engine control jointly by HAL and GTRE "are all lagging behind the schedule with no amount of certainty about their expected date of satisfactory development and final cost of development."

Any of these "falling further behind or failing to meet the required quality is likely to jeopardise the LCA programme in terms of time costs."

The air frame model that the ADA is presently working on is "heavier than what has been specified in the air staff requirements and the aerodynamic configuration too is not acceptable to the air force. These (factors) are likely to affect the performance of the aircraft with reference to the qualitative requirements."

The cost too has overshot several times. The original estimate of Rs 5.6 billion has "overshot approximately four times to Rs 21.88 billion for the first phase of the project. Phase II is yet to be sanctioned."

The report says that the delay in the LCA programme has "compelled the air force to exercise other options to fill the gap in the force level. The Defence Ministry concluded a contract for upgradation of 125 MiG Bis with their manufacturer at a cost of US $ 626 million,"

A contract was also concluded in November 1996 for import of 40 Sukhoi-30s from Russia at a cost of Rs 61.30 billion to "minimise the adverse impact of delay in development of LCA on the combat force level of the Air Force."

The development of an Air Surveillance Platform, which would be capable of providing continuous, comprehensive and long-range air defence cover against low-level attacks, began 1985 with when a feasibility study was carried out. The study was completed in 1991 and the same year the government kicked off the ASP programme.

"ASP programme undertaken at a cost of Rs 6,080 million is running behind schedule by over three years and will be ready for demonstration only by the turn of the century. The main attributes of the technology demonstrator ASP being developed have fallen short of the projected requirements of the services in the area of endurance, speed, altitude and detection range," the CAG report has said.

"The ASP being developed is based on the rotodome approach, while the AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) which the government proposes to acquire soon, use array approach. The advanced technology of the imported system would render ASP being developed redundant," the audit has warned.

While the air force had pointed as early as in 1992 that the specifications meant for ASP were not likely to meet the air staff requirements, the defence ministry in February 1999 claimed the ASP "was not meant to meet the requirements of users but was aimed at demonstrating the technology by utilising the only viable platform."

However, the CAG report points out that the ASP "development programme was taken up as a first step towards the development of full fledged AWACS, the need for which was projected by the services in early 1980s."

Since 22 months would be required for the first demonstration of ASP after the primary radar was fully developed "the ASP would be ready for demonstration only by the end of 2000, provided all the sub-systems are ready by 1998." Even if developed, the ASP would "fall short of the qualitative requirements projected by the services way back in 1984. Moroever, the qualitative requirement of the services based on which the ASP programme had been launched would be outdated due to technological advancements in the field."

The air force had in 1996 finalised the import of first batch AWACS with technology transfer package leading to indigenous development of subsequent systems. The AWACS is "based on different platform which uses phased array inside a fixed rotodome," which is different from the platform of ASP. This too can render the ASP redundant.

The CAG has also termed "questionable" the wisdom of DRDO top brass to sanction the development of a second sub-system for ASP programme based on rotodome technology on HS-748 aircraft in May 1997 at a cost of Rs 100 million, when the IAF had already contracted AWACS for a different technology.

The story of multi barrel rocket launcher system (Pinaka) too is not very different. The Defence Ministry had in 1981 decided to induct regiments equipped with this launcher from 1994, but it still remains a distant possibility.

"Far from reaching the production stage, DRDO is yet to develop the various critical components of the system despite an expenditure of Rs 420 million against the original sanction of Rs 260 million and revised sanction of Rs 4,040 million. The re-revised expected date of completion of development is end 2000 with re-revised cost of around Rs 800 million," the report says.

Only seven out of the 29 general staff qualitative requirements had been met in the trials. Some of the qualitative requirements, which had not been fully met, viz range, area that can be neutralised, fire power, loading time of salvo and deployment time are crucial for the desired level of performance, the CAG has said.

While the development and selection of the launcher vehicle for the system is yet to be completed, the loader-cum-replenishment also yet to be approved despite splitting it into two separate vehicles. "The combined vehicle took up to 40 minutes to load one salvo in place of the designed four-five minutes," the report points out.

Further, the development of the command-post vehicle has also been delayed due to selection of an inappropriate chassis, which "did not match the mobility of the launcher vehicle." Thus, all the three important vehicles, necessary for launching the rockets, loading and replenishment and command had not been developed more than 11 years after the project was sanctioned.

Though there was a requirement of eight types of warheads for the rockets, the Armament Research and Development Establishment and High Energy Material Laboratory had developed only three. "Even out of these, one was not acceptable to the army," the report says.

If the army had Pinaka with it during Kargil, the casualties among the Indian soldiers could have been much lower, army sources believe. They said MBRL systems can pulverise an area of 500 sq metres in no time.

In the wake of Kargil, the army is reportedly going ahead with the purchase of MRBL systems from Russia. This could spell doom for Pinaka.

The story of MBT 'Arjun' is no different either. The controversy had hit headlines a couple of years back, and today the army is all set to finalise the contract for purchasing T-90 tanks from Russia.

Though no body in DRDO is ready to comment on the audit report, a senior defence ministry bureaucrat said: "They are trying to build from nothing. It will take too much of labour, too much of money, and may be a lot of time." He said CAG audit is a "very simplified way of looking at the complex set up of DRDO."

Source:Rediff On The NeT:CAG drops a bombshell on DRDO

Quote:
Originally Posted by anmol2k4 View Post
are indicating that Defense forces have always accepted DRDO products without a second thought ? Many will contest even a suggestion like that. Now with few cases like you have mentioned you are hinting that it is wiser to opt for foreign products because those are safer. Are you not aware of hundreds probably thousands of fatal malfunctions in foreign equipment. Do you want me to list all those cases for you ?
Malfunctions will take place in any thing mechanical. However, it is the MTBF that becomes crucial, and, it is here that the problems with the DRDO stuff come in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anmol2k4 View Post
you know what forces GOI and Defense Services to resort to that ? Because videshi defense contractors often stop supporting the equipment we bought, or they are for exorbitant prices. For example Mirage or Admiral Gorshkov.

According to the latest reports, the life cycle costs of the Mirage is amongst the lowest. So really cant be called expensive or exorbitant!

Quote:
Originally Posted by anmol2k4 View Post
And this is why I think it is even more important to stop relying on foreign equipment. And yet you think it is wiser to buy this stuff from outside. I would like to know do you think that Army personal are unfamiliar with the kind of dangers that are present in their profession. Do you think such cases don't happen outside ? How can you forget what happened to the crew of Nerpa submarine that we ordered ?

For the members of the forum: they all died. And this wasn't the first time the Russian nuclear submarine disaster which resulted into deaths of all the people on board. And we are to receive same submarine. I am not suggesting that we should not take it as we badly need lot of submarines. BTW Neel, do you see any double standard in here ?
I have no problems with our forces using indigenous equipment- just as long as it fits their requirements! Unfortunately, as of now, that has hardly happened with indigenous stuff. And those that have fit the bill, have been accepted by our forces. If you find it tokenism, well that is sad. What would you have the forces do? Buy anything, anyway, just because it is indigenous?


And what double standard do you speak of? If you go over the Nepra accident report, you will realise that the incident happened because a sailor violated SOPs leading to the release of the fire extinguisher. Any violation will lead to accidents! More importantly, the fault was pin pointed and addressed. In the case of the DRDO projects, most of the questions go unanswered-we still do not know why the fuse, which led to the death of Wg Cdr Khanna, malfunctioned!

Quote:
Originally Posted by anmol2k4 View Post
in Nasa's space shuttle also took the astronauts life, what do you think America should have done ? outsource everything to other people ? They didn't do that, why is that ?
Again because they were able to pinpoint the fault and rectify it!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by anmol2k4 View Post
the example of Wg Cdr Khanna and his family was unnecessary if not in bad taste. I also think it was uncalled for to suggest that his death was caused by DRDO's incompetence when it is well known that only a OEM can support their own products and DRDO is forced to work on this due to end army's reliance on videshi end of life products.
And why is it in bad taste? Reality bites? And by the way, I am not suggesting that the death was caused by DRDO's incompetence, I am stating it! Please read the report on the crash and be better informed!

Quote:
Originally Posted by anmol2k4 View Post
would also like to strongly contest the hint that only the Defense forces have sacrificed their life for the nation and scientists are incompetent. No one doubts the sacrifice that armed forces have made and continue to make, but no one should doubt or question the contribution of our scientists also it mustn't be forgotten that there have been many cases of scientists who sacrificed their life for example scientists who lost their life testing Saras and also the complete team of scientists who lost their life testing Indian AWAC ASP.

Both the Saras and the ASP we designed and manufactured by the same group of scientists who were killed in the crashes. Besides them, test pilots and test engineers of the IAF also had to lay down their lives!


Quote:
Originally Posted by anmol2k4 View Post
Unlike you I think that it is easier to support Indigenous product and that can save many lives. With the poor record that imported products have had it is hard to comprehend the love for them.
Anmol, please don't make your assumptions sound like the truth! What poor record are you talking about? Please provide concrete details.


Quote:
Originally Posted by anmol2k4 View Post
First your example wasn't good enough and also the suggestion to equip them with arms made by same people behind MiG21 isn't any wiser, hell even MKI is taking life. What about Akula, are you comfortable with that ?
The MiG 21 is the most successful fighter in the world, and this is as per the number of sales of the fighter and as per the Discovery channel, in it's " The Worlds Best" series it puts the MiG 21 at the 2nd or 3rd spot! So the point you make elludes me. If you are basing your emotions on the media hype around the MiG 21 crashes in the recent past, well, obviously, whatever plagued the IAF at that time has been addressed since the reports on such crashes have reduced drastically. And if you are suggesting that crashes just should not happen, well, that would be asking for the impossible! Even your cycle breaks down from time to time!!

As far as the Akula goes, read the article on them in this site:

SUBSIM Review - AKULA! The Soviet Shark

I really would have no problem with our forces having a sub this good!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by anmol2k4 View Post
By your logic China should lose because they rely on their own products not the best out there, do you agree with that ?
Do read reports on Chinese weapons being used by other countries. Last known , the Pakis were having a not so smooth time with them as was the case with other users. So the answer to your question, based on reports by other users, is that the efficacy of Chinese equipment is debatable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anmol2k4 View Post
And because this discussion concerns the MBT, in World War 2 Nazi tank Panther which even today is considered the best tank in the world couldn't do much for Nazis due to the sheer number of Russian WWII tanks which were not flawless. So the suggestion that only the best can win wars is not true.
If you read about warfare, you will find that numbers will always have an important role to play. However, all things being equal, it is the party with better weapons that will be victorious. In the case of a numerically superior adversary (India V/s China), the only way to neutralize the numerical superiority is by better and more effective weapons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anmol2k4 View Post
Their Nuclear bombs are for Nuclear powers and Army for those against whom they cannot use nuclear bomb. How hard is this to understand ?
It is very hard to understand my friend for the logic you talk of is seriously flawed!! The nuclear weapon is not a first use weapon! It is termed as a "Weapon of Deterrence" which implies that it will be used only when all else fails. And that implies that the conventional forces have to be able to ward off any threat and ensure that an occasion which requires nuclear conflict does not arrive!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by anmol2k4 View Post
What about Russia and China ? And the claim "the best" is a little subjective, still how do you think they managed to achieve that ?
Good question! Maybe the DRDO needs to deliberate on this and find a few answers for themselves!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by anmol2k4 View Post
If you expect them to do produce world class products, then first Defense forces should stop their bad habits of eating world class bribes and start eating some dog food which is necessary.
If you get your facts right, then you will realise that procurement is carried out by the GOI and the forces have no role to play other than specifying the QRs and carrying out the testing of the products. SO the point about "world class bribes" is not understood. Also from bribes to dog food? You are loosing me here!


Quote:
Originally Posted by anmol2k4 View Post
In case of defense products, it is impossible to expect that scientists will be able to improve the product and make it world class when Army isn't even ready to use it and give their inputs over the years.
Yup! The Army must give their inputs...or at least die trying! And you feel so sorry for the scientists in the Saras and ASP projects!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by anmol2k4 View Post
Again, token purchases mean nothing, as they won't make DRDO to recover costs and why is Army even buying that many if they are not happy with it ?
The DRDO dosen't have to recover anything! Its funded by the GOI. Duh!! And the Army is buying so many because some of the issues have been resolved. I'm sure that if the same is done in other equiptments, they will buy the others as well!! BTW, buy is a wrong term to use. The GOI will purchase them and the Army will accept it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anmol2k4 View Post
And where is the same uncompromising attitude when it comes to purchase of MiG30MKI ? and Nerpa ?
If I am not wrong, it is the same uncompromising attitude of the Armed forces that led to the two deals. Had this not been the case, the IAF would still be flying the MiG 21-T75 and the Navy would still have been waiting for its subs!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by anmol2k4 View Post
ISRO is doing great because there Defense forces cannot outsource their work, otherwise they too would be incompetent in view of same people.

As the workforce in DRDO and ISRO isn't very different many scientists have worked for both organizations, so it is hard to comprehend that the scientists who worked in ISRO can be competent in eyes of same people who called them incompetent when they worked in DRDO and vice-versa.
Good question and also the point that I have been making. Something is wrong in the way DRDO is being run.


Quote:
Originally Posted by anmol2k4 View Post
Edit: Saw your profile (I should have taken some hint),I feel like an @ss. You should have told me about your profession earlier.
Why should my profession matter? If the points you make are true, then, perhaps I will learn something form you as well!!So do go on..

Last edited by neel385 : 30th October 2009 at 01:49.
neel385 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th October 2009, 08:17   #74
BHPian
 
NutsNBolts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Kochi
Posts: 796
Thanked: 20 Times
Default

Good discussion above. Will agree a lot with neel. Although the reason why DRDO came into being and all that stuff is pretty noble, and likely to swell anybody's chest. But, rather than mere rhetoric, results on ground are what matter. No doubts that Forces need equipment, if we can get it done indigenously, its wow; however, ground realities are different. In today's babugiri ridden administration, DRDO's scientists have turned into glorified Babus with great scientific degrees. I guess the latest result of this babugiri was the brouhaha over PokharanII and some even suggesting the APJK was not even a good scientist!

All DRDO today seems to be busy in is fund grabbing and power grabbing. I really do not see any fruitful results of Research and Development in last 60 years. Like I said, initially there was that feeling of "let's do something for the nation" that did help in getting some good equipment, but with time, even that capability has eroded. The biggest problem, IMHO is that DRDO starts a media campaign with a product announcement, promise the moon (not chandrayan), grab the funds, and then go to sleep over it. The role being played by the DRDO stalwarts in actually undermining the defence preparedness is something that would leave one aghast. Just putting "we can do it" on a file meant for weapon modernisation, easily puts the programme back by a decade.

Overall, I feel guys who believe something, will continue to believe so. However, this belief must not become a hinderance where national interest is concerned.
NutsNBolts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th October 2009, 14:32   #75
BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 27
Thanked: 0 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggu View Post
I didnt miss your point dear friend, all i was questioning was your logic. Cryo engines are definitely more complicated and expensive, i 100% agree. But the advantage is huge, once a country masters its development. It might not be relevant for military applications at all, but for civilian and commercial activity it can rake in big moolahs. Just this engine can and has changed the ball game in commercial launch for India. Just go through the wiki pages and see how other countries are using our launch vehicle programs, mind you these are not free services or at discounted price.

Any new R&D requires investment, but when compared to other countries India has so far been able to develop and successfully implement launch programs for minuscule of cost and at far better pace. Failure's are part and parcel of such high tech games, still India has least numbers if you compare to even more affluent countries. Just compare our costs to US where private contractors charge a bomb for their job to NASA and huge amount of money flows around as bribes . Europe the next big player is no better either.

There are years of work, research and management brain storming that goes behind such decisions in taking calculated risks. It has to be respected.

Now please do carry on with your discussions/debate.

cheers
Jaggu
I have to respectfully disagree.

We are discussing locally developed military vehicles/equipment. At best military needs Surveillance Sattelites and missiles. Both at best served via Solid Fuel propelled rockets.

Also the atricle you mentioned is 10yrs old when Liquid fuel was all the hype and solid fuel was harder to manufacter as it was not 100% solid as name suggest more like a jelly and needed internal structure to maintain its shape. On the other hand Stainless steel welding was required for main booster tanks to keep the pressure sealed at a large scale. In Liquid fuel based systems same welds were needed by at the top of bell structure only which is usually 11-13 times smaller than actual rocket itself and is mostly driven by thrust requirement. These all worked against Solid Fuel rockets and almost every single R&D facility focussed on Liquid Fuel based systems. Single biggest benefit for Liquid fuel was temperatures, since evaporating/burning the fuel produced cooling as by product for the fuel lines while Solid Fuel based systems struggled to keep themselves from melting.

Biggest use of Liquid fuel systems was in Missiles kept in hidden cylos. These can be fueled on demand or kept in secret under a house for forseable future and kept the cold war from developing into an actual war.

10yrs in future and now its a completely difference scene. Stainless steel welding is comparitively cheaper than valves for Liquid Fuel systems and there is no need for hidden cylo`s, since Solid fuel rockets are stable and fuel used now is in ACTUAL solid form and not like a jelly, hence internal structures are not required anymore for Solid fuel boosters. There are other thousand reasons and the fact that both SOLID fuel and LIQUID fuel systems provide comparitively same thrust and efficiency. The only difference is Liquid systems provide ON-OFF switch.

For all reasons excluding repair on Satellites, military is better suited with Solid Fuel.

There is a huge reason why almost all of the modern missile systems use Solid Fuel.
it_inspector is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pre-War Military Vehicles in India harit Vintage Cars & Classics in India 67 16th December 2017 13:10
Government to launch indigenously developed electric vehicle platforms Rajeevraj The Indian Car Scene 11 15th November 2015 17:05
Military Registration Problem xtreme power Shifting gears 15 2nd October 2013 15:43
Military Green not allowed for private vehicles? satyamenon Modifications & Accessories 64 26th August 2013 16:47
WorldWar Jeep/Truck/Military Vehicles Manuals Twinn 4x4 Technical 4 19th April 2012 11:37


All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 07:01.

Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Team-BHP.com
Proudly powered by E2E Networks