TeerSarcasm if done well can hit the nerve and still get to the point across without being confusing, unfortunately you did it well enough that i got confused. 🙂
You have a point about needing to bring people together for a war to start, which is fine and from some comunity gatherings I have been to I can definately agree to your point. However my point was that those targets that will come towards the border will be better handled by pinaka and artillary and will be more cost effectively dealt by those artillary systems. Last time i checked sniper rifles do not have a reach of 200km+.
please do note that, i do not mean the above to mean that we should not have any Brahmos at all, i mean to mean that we should prioratise for atilary and MBRL’s and worrry about Brahmos for the Army as a third option.
Brahmos missiles carried by mirage or Su-30’s that can hit airfields up north or missiles with long enough range that can hit those targets are something worth buying.
Matt, do understand that logistics dumps, command and control centers, missile sites much behind the tactical war zone are all viable Brahmos targets.
Read about this:
http://defense-update.com/products/a/atacms.htm
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/himars/
TeerI really dont have much time to spend – so I will be brief & give it out a few pointers.
Success in any weapons program – especially for a beginner- is about iterative development. There are rarely radical changes in technology that can be implemented overnight.
But the more the experience, the greater the chance of institutional knowledge & the presence of experienced hands to steer the program & pass on what they know.
Lets take EW.
So a small offshoot of ADE called the ASIEO, makes a RWR as a pilot project for the MiG-23. Its podded. The IAF likes it – better than what they had.
The next version is more accurate – lets leave out the specific details.
The next after that, is internal.
The one after that is more compact, and sensitive. All these goes into production giving the developers and manufacturers experience to draw on for their next product.
An improved variant after that draws on new tech to create a new family of warners. Improved variants are trotted out & quickly become the IAF standard.
Now yet another system is in production.
And another in development which advances far beyond the previous one.
Clearly, a case of constant iterative development, with some two decades of experience behind the program.
ASIEO is now a full fledged lab by itself, called the Defensive Avionics Research Establishment, and the IAF has now asked DARE to make EW kit for two of its premier air superiority fighters derived from technology developed for a certain “radiant” fighter. From humble beginnings..
The success factors here were close cooperation between the developers and partner organizations and support from the user.
One of the people involved in such EW endeavors, or so one hears, ended up becoming the Chief of Air Staff.
However, if this iterative process is scuttled, for a variety of factors, delays are inevitable, in the quest for the mythical perfect first product.
And so it goes..
TeerYou really have to put a really strong case to say it is not broken. It has been pretty apparent that even for most of the sucessfull projects the DRDO etc have had to go to external companies or countries for help. This is not to say that all of them have been failures.
Matt, I really doubt whether you are aware of the depth or scale of DRDO programs in general.
For instance, what can you tell me about the IGMDP – the strategic missiles, tactical missiles etc.
I fear if I even ask you the basics of “most of the successful programs” you will be all at sea.
For instance, what makes you think they had to go to external companies as compared to having involved them from day 1. When do you think TATA sons first started working with DRDO? or Godrej Boyce.
Second, the DRDO’s role as developers means they are system integrators depending on the project, they will obviously rely on system manufacturers for items which are available off the shelf.
If denied, they will develop in house.
Now – if you break open a jammer from a certain European OEM, you will see Tx/Rx units made by a South African firm, integrated MMIC supplied commercially by an American firm, and so on and so forth. No kidding.
In DRDOs case, thanks to sanctions, several of these items are developed inhouse, which is cause for delay.
Furthermore, we see a lot of myth making as well e.g. DRDO approaching EADS for consultancy. What has not been reported is that this is merely a replacement for the role played by BAe, which was to act as a peer evaluator and make sure that all checks were done, but not too many – to understand, buy Radiance of the Tejas, which has a good account of the process.
And what would any private company do, but the same.
Frankly, I see no need for xenophobia in such things. If somebody is willing to help you, take it.
If its not, roll up your sleeves and get to work, which is what the DRDO has done, otherwise there would be no Agni, Akash etc.
There are many successes which dont get hyped. As things stand, the IN is ~80% indigenous viz sonars and EW both thanks to a partnership between DRDO & BEL. A towed array should shortly go into production rounding out the portfolio.
Similarly, what bears remarking is that the MMR program will finally close the gap that existed in India’s avionics portfolio, successive DRDO led programs have covered most of the requirements, from flight computers to mission processors, air data systems etc – all these are now being used on local upgrades.
Similarly, there has been substantial progress in EW systems etc.
They have a clear aim & are working towards it. They just don’t yack about it much & they have their reasons for it.
The GOI knows though, their worth which is why they get funded.
Teerhttp://www.hindu.com/2009/07/20/stories/2009072057201100.htm
That means the new trainers will come as a fast procurement with the aim of teaming up with the winning company to design the HTT 40, that will replace the major part of HTT32.
Apparently the plan seems to be to acquire 75 OTS and rest made by HAL. I hope both are essentially the same design, otherwise it just adds to the logistical menagerie in the IAF.
On the other side an unexperiance company, which has not even a 4. gen fighter ready developed, or operational yet. No indigenous radar, engine, or weapons available, which can be a base to improve them to the NG and the only prototype ready is a small wind tunnel model.
Co-developments, partnerships, jv, gathering ToT, that is the way to go and to improve our capabilities and not jumping into developments that are too big for us now, just because of pride (I mean it generally, not about you) to make something indigenous.
One needs to understand how technology development works rather than buzzwords like co-development, JV etc.
Nobody will work with you, or even if they do, nor will you learn anything unless you have a program of your own making these things.
If there is no MCA program launched within some 5 years from now, thats a decade lost when it is launched, because you will be doing these things again with a time gap.
Second, research about the LCA. The LCA is not just a fighter – its a technology program, which was intended to create a technology base in India to feed into other programs, eg the MCA, upgrades, and existing third party aircraft – eg Su-30 MKI.
Now, “no indigenous radar available” – which is not really true. There is one available, the IAF asked for comprehensive A2G modes, hence the decision to rope Elta in. Again, would Elta have come in if India did not have a basic MMR with functioning A2A capabilities? Plus there is an AESA program now underway.
“No weapons” – not strictly true. Thats where the Astra goes and which is exactly why its being developed.
“No engine” – which is where the Kaveri-2 tieup is supposed to fit in. For once GOI seems to understand where the achilles heel of aircraft development in India is.
Technology development is a painful, very expensive process. There are no shortcuts. We tend to look at the west, Russia etc and think we can get stuff on the cheap via TOT. Thats simply not possible, the real technology consists of the people who develop the items, and pass the knowledge on (organizational knowledge) not manufacturing to somebody else’s specs.
TeerActually when you want to happen in India is not that different to what the UK has already done. Pure research elements have been kept within the government by DSTL. Whilst the TSB and DSTL fund interesting research programs within UK Aerospace and Defense companies. Add to this all the different framework 6, 7 etc etc research projects.
India needs to do to the ADA/DRDO/HAL what you prescribe.
No it doesnt.
The UKs situation is different – the private sector is far more advanced in terms of R&D investment and cooperation with academia in general, than Indian industry.
As things stand, India needs to operate on its own model to its own strengths and constraints, namely allow the likes of L&T, TATA etc enough leeway so they compete with HAL, OFB etc as peers, while retaining DRDO, CSIR and giving them more freedom to execute their programs.
This addresses two vital areas, namely the lack of competition in the manufacturing space, plus building up scale as required. E.g. The Army went to the OFB to ask how many new grenades they could supply (of a new DRDO design), the Army needs 1000,000 per year to replace existing stocks. The OFB replied 50,000.
Similarly, if India had two aircraft production units, there would be attendant advantages.
If it ain’t broke, dont fix it. Whats broken fix that.
But first it needs an aeronautics policy, and a CDS to drive jointness in doctrine, and a new dedicated agency for procurement. The MOD system has failed utterly.
TeerNor me. I reckon the UK may have gone too far with privatisation.
In this case, I think that some parts of the DRDO should stay in government hands. The purely research elements, for example, and those pursuing developments with time horizons which may be too long to interest private industry. But I can’t see any justification for the GoI owning large numbers of manufacturing plants.
DRDO does not own large numbers of manufacturing plants. I think you misunderstand what DRDO does or what its role is.
DRDO is the weapons system R&D unit of the Indian MIC. It gained prominence because the actual manufacturers e.g. the Ordinance Factory Board had limited R&D capabilities, and their mandate from the MOD was to just license produce or (in rare cases) manufacture lower tech items. As such it was the DRDO which fought for R&D capability and pretty much forced the launch of programs such as the Integrated Guided Missile Program, Arjun, Tejas etc. as a “last chance” sort of approach, since far too much time had been lost and nothing had been done.
Tejas was initially meant to be a HAL project, HAL backed off once they saw what the IAF wanted and the resources they’d get to achieve it. Then the Prime Minister at the time, Rajiv Gandhi asked India’s leading industrial houses, namely the Tatas, Bajaj and Godrej et al whether they would lead the Tejas program.
All refused.
Finally, DRDO was tapped, with a specific organization created under the aegis of the DRDO to manage the LCA, known as the ADA.
To reiterate, DRDO does prototyping, and limited serial production (e.g. Arjun pre production variants) and that too, most often at a pre-existing facility which manufactures similar items, and in cooperation with the aforesaid unit. They dont own manufacturing organizations India wide.
In the rarest of rare cases, DRDO operates production facilities for units which are either part of specific JVs – e.g. Brahmos (set up by the DRDO but operated independently as a separate corporate entity) or for other specific items which need to be made available ASAP and there is not a dedicated production line available in the industry.
As things stand, most defence R&D is not viable for private industry, hence DRDO and the central Public Sector Units need to steer the way. And it makes ample sense for the GOI to own these units, after all, the GOI has invested in them, and deserves to own the critical tech. without it being hawked to any bidder as was the case post collapse in the Soviet Union.
As such, given DRDO’s role, it is overburdened and miracles are expected of it with attendant problems of a lack of supporting industry in some cases, plus unreasonable expectations.
On the plus side, DRDO is no longer alone. HAL & BEL have both realized the importance of R&D and are raising their stakes and investments (BEL in particular).
In the current clime, DRDO has come a long way. It has enabled India to make world class gear in several areas, and make adequate items in others, plus given it capabilities which it did not possess prior to DRDO programs.
Your asking for privatization is ironic, as it would not do much good. This, as the DRDO has already matured capabilities in several areas, such as missiles, radars, C3I, EW, naval systems and has a decent network of public and private partners. Plus, it has a good set of committed technology leaders who are delivering world class results.
The Tata Nano brought India’s success in the “Frugal engineering” space wide publicity. But what has gone unnoticed are many DRDO programs which achieved exactly the same.
So where can privatization help?
Privatization is urgently required in the land systems space, currently dominated by the state owned Ordinance Factory Board, which could do with competition and may even need new management to fully exploit their potential.
The current situation there is very lack luster. The only limited success there has been via Arjun and associated programs, plus some small arms systems. OFB has simply not leveraged its scale to drive innovative programs for 155mm gun tubes, light artillery etc and nor has the Indian Army showed any interest or vision.
It is in this space that technology from BAE Systems etc. coupled with the manufacturing capabilities of the Indian private sector could make a huge difference.
What is stupid is that programs to locally develop such items were scuttled by the Army and establishment, as “imports” were readily available. Its been two decades now, and not a single new 155mm gun has been inducted. By now a local gun would have at least been in trials, even if a derivative of the Bofors FH-77.
TeerI think it is highly realistic to expect that Russia invents PakFA and hands over the entire technology to India in the next 5 years.
Yawn.
India contributes now only in financing a part.
50%.
TeerAt 100 million an airframe none of Russia’s other client states can afford this bird so if they hope to recoup their costs they will offer the Indians everything on a silver platter and the Indians will pick and choose what they want on their domestic birds. Seriously, who but the Indians is going to buy the PAK-FA? Libya, Algeria, Vietnam, Venezuela, Indonesia are all too poor and China is designing its own 5th gen. If the Saudis go Russian they are the only other potential buyers around. Iran sure as hell wont be getting any. :diablo:
Absolutely.
India wants 250 airframes – projected.
Lets take the MKI, India first ordered some40-50, added 140 to locally manufacture, then ordered 40 more (additional order) and now plans for 50 more.
So the 250 number may increase as well. Which other Russian strategic partner is ever going to order so many aircraft?
And why in whose name would Russia lock itself out of a revenue opportunity to maximize its content/contribution in so many airframes by offering inferior systems which the Indians would replace?!
Heck, this single program means that NIIP et al get an assured revenue stream either via royalties (and direct sales price for the initial batches) for around a decade.
And using India as a launchpad, and an assured customer, Sukhoi can then sell a couple of squadrons worth to countries like Malaysia (once Singapore buys the JSF) and here and there. Thats just icing on the cake.
For the MKIs, HAL already manufactures the radar computers, and airframe components, its private partner canard shipsets, these are then shipped to Irkut and then integrated for the MKM and MKA. India also won a deal from Algeria for upgrading the display equipment for the cockpit avionics, they were the ones who developed the original ones for the MKI.
Cooperation works.
TeerIndia is going to get everything the Russians have in their PAKFA and then some.
Hate to burst Zil et al’s bubbles, but the Su-30 MKI that flew with India had an Russian avionics fit that Russia itself would have loved to induct, but could not thanks to funding problems (with money expenditure concentrated towards the strategic forces).
I spoke to NIIP reps way back in 2003 and they were absolutely clear that the Russian AF loved the Bars and many of the systems in the MKI, but the funding was simply not available to retrofit these expensive systems into Russian Flankers.
And the Indian purchases were vital for keeping core capabilities alive. Which logic proved sound with the development of the IRBIS.
And has the IRBIS been safeguarded/locked away? An Indian delegation just returned from Maks having negotiated the MKI upgrade which upgrades the Bars with the tech from the Irbis (which itself used tech from the Bars) and other avionics and systems upgrades derived from the Su-35. So much for hoarding own tech and making export versions which are inferior.
In turn India has been updating the MKI itself in parallel with new weapons and sensors. Again, have Irkut/Russkaya Avionika/Sukhoi OKB created a stink? Hardly, first the original agreement catered for this, and second, they have used the IAF experience to further develop their products. The MKI MMI was developed in part by the IAF, and it proved very useful when pitching the MKI variants to both Malaysia and Algeria.
The IAF MiG-29 Upgrades are again, the most advanced upgrades yet fielded (with the exception of the indevelopment, new build MiG-35s) with the IAF asking for a new Zhuk M2 vs the existing M1, and Phazatron notes that after this is finished they will offer this to the Russian AF. Again, the IAF did not settle for what was available and asked for something superior.
In the past Russia has transferred tech to India for strategic, economic and other reasons. The PAK FA encompasses these and is no exception. India and Russia see eye to eye on most issues and more importantly, have no outstanding border or economic issues that aggravate relations.
It was Mikhail Pogosyan who broached the topic of cooperation on the PAK-FA with India. Anybody who thinks he did so without official approval and knowledge has clearly not followed Russian decision making. The current head of the UAC, Alexei Fedorov, was the head of Irkut, ie the Su-30MKI program in a manner of speaking and has a long history with India via the MiG-27s.
As to why this is a joint project – of course it is, the prototype has flown, without a definitive avionics fit, and there are several years to go before a production ready version arrives with all sorts of finetuning to be done.
That will only come about thanks (in part) due to Indian funding & will have components and systems of Indian origin. The workshare agreements will mean CAD work, design work, joint work on avionics definitions and development etc. There are several firms in India right now which work on programs for EADS/Airbus, Boeing etc. They will be tapped by HAL for the FGFA.
Those who think the Indian aircraft will have different radar etc are clearly unaware of how tightly integrated avionics systems are, especially on a 5G platform where EMCON is vital. India and Russia will jointly decide on an architecture which meets both their requirements and decide on a BOM for specific LRUs suitable for their respective needs.
Its fairly ridiculous to think Russia, in order to safeguard some techs will hand over an empty airframe to India and expect India to populate it with French and Israeli tech! First, this does nothing for security, and the less they give the more the Indians will have to share with OEMS who will have to reverse engineer aspects of the Russian engineering which is hardly good news, and second, no Russian firm would even like to miss out on the awesome revenue opportunity that is the PAF-FA.
With a projected 500 aircraft run, thats 500 radars, 500 IRSTs etc etc (not even counting spares).
The PAK-FA at the end of the day will have some specific requirements thanks to the Indian requirements, for one a wide open architecture which means India can integrate its own/third party systems with (relatively) minimum fuss and concern, some Indian and third party systems which India feels are still superior to what is available from Russian OEMs.
And this is not an insult – there is no nation today which is the absolute best in each and every LRU. Plus India has its own specific requirements eg local networking.
For instance, Thales plans to license manufacture its HMDs at a local JV with an Indian partner. The IN already has these for its MiG-29Ks – the IAF may follow suit. The IAF may want a local datalink/radio set as well, with customized waveforms to feed/ draw info from local networks.
India and Russia have already signed a comprehensive IP protection pact and India has stuck to it. Programs like the Brahmos have been extremely successful from the commercial POV for Russian firms, with production runs of 100’s of missiles and no attempts by India to gyp them out of their revenue.
The PAK-FA will proceed on the same lines. HAL has announced a multi billion $ capex recently, and well it might, it will need to sync up its production facilities, design facilities with Sukhoi OKB and KNAAPO & go ahead.
TeerInregards to “access”, we dont have that level of access so we are speculating. Some Indian nationals might have, but you dont? How can you be authoritive on Chinese tech development, I dont pretend to know what is happening behind close doors.
Why don’t you speak for yourself, rather than “we”? Seem to have struck a rather big nerve there when you say “some indian nationals may have, but you dont” – fact is I & many Indian and non Indian nationals know a fair amount of what constraints Indian, Chinese tech development are facing or for that matter those of several nations.
Its pretty well known across industries – just ask any western company on what they can sell to India and cooperate on versus what they can sell to China or for that matter Russia. There is no dearth of information. If you dont know whats happening, thats a pity, but there is no reason why you cant find out.
Its very simple really irrespective of how much you try to avoid the simple facts of the matter. India is NOT under an arms embargo and many international OEMs are engaging in JVs with it. The same level of access is not available to China thanks to politics, and laws and regulatory stuff. Heard of ITAR. Look it up.
TeerLets agree to disagree, when it comes to technology, particularly when we dont have access to them systems or details of sale, we only are speculating on impact on either China’s or India’s industry.
Hardly speculation. Everything I have said so far has tons of evidence behind it, if you’d only look.
Including where & how the PRC developed several of its systems, the sanctions thereafter and the availability of the Soviet Union, versus India’s current development program wherein it has access to & is adopting an approach which takes advantage of both access to technology & whats available locally.
Unless you work on the systems and have access to rival systems, then you cant be sure of anything.
Which is where you miss the point again, irrespective of how many times its been pointed out to you.
“Access to rival systems” – which is what India has, currently.
Let me just give one example.
For a recent product, India chose a ready off the shelf IR protection system available from an international OEM, but it chose to codevelop a different system from another OEM. Whimsy?
Hardly. The state owned defense agency evaluated a bunch of systems in the first phase, took the most mature to adopt for immediate needs for a production unit & then went for the most promising system to develop further as a JV for future needs.
Just the advantage of having an open market & sufficient funding.
Of course, the same level of access is not available everywhere, but where it is, it is an advantage. At the very least you can combine foreign expertise with local and come up with a product that meets local needs and at lower cost.
This approach is hardly unique either. Take a look at how Israel and South Africa developed their arms industries and you’d see the parallels.
TeerAny links to an Indian Airborne Laser ? Would be interested to read more about it.
Its not KALI is it?
No, its not KALI.
TeerIndia secretly counters Chinese successful Anti Ballistsic Missile test
India daily is probably the worst source there is. Their reporters are kids with overactive imaginations. Just check out their UFO stories.
TeerThats just a theory.
Hardly a theory, but a fact.
India wont export because hurt image.
Its a key factor. India has been playing the moral dance so long on the world stage using its non violent freedom struggle and non alignment, that the cart has been put before the horse as far as the MEAs influence on arms sales is concerned. Five decades of policy does not disappear overnight. Every export proposal is vetted closely.
So is it better to import? I was countering the argument India is innovating and China was doing opposite, we all know there are only a handful of nations on the cutting edge, in regards to military,
If you wish to counter statements, choose the correct examples, not flawed ones.
“Access” does not mean, giving up blueprints and experience. China might have a military embargo, but French have JV in helicopter production, EC 175.
China is forced to jump through hoops for finding a civilian equivalent to a military system. India need not and there lies the difference.
And yes, blueprints and experience are transferred given the money involved and strategic issues. Indian scientists have worked hands on in several projects leapfrogging several critical gaps in understanding & deploying (eg manufacturing) concepts. China would have done the same if it had the same access, but it doesnt, thanks to the embargo, thats the point. It did have access earlier and much of its current developments also hinge upon that aspect. Nothing particularly surprising there either.
Mi 17 is now assembled in China.
Yes which again reiterates my point – that China’s only key access point for legal, non espionage weapons tech is Russia, which has its own strategic aims and restrictions. India OTOH can play off Mil vs Bell vs Eurocopter to land what it perceives as its best interest.
GE and other engine makers are selling engines for civilian planes.
So? Please let me know one case where something like whats on offer currently eg EJ200 vs GE414 competition is available for the PRC? A free market helps.
Not all is black and white. PRC is getting alot of help, but not as much as it wants. :p
Quite clearly in line what I wrote. Yes, PRC is getting a lot of help, but not as much as it wants. But India has access to a lot more help, which it is utilizing (and why shouldn’t it?!) to meet its requirements. Its just doing what China did earlier, pre-sanctions.
Another point you fail to understand, is that India imports because in part it has access to the world’s best and most successful OEMs with a huge portfolio of arms! Not because it cannot make systems locally. Look at Iran, they make a lot of gear inhouse, thanks to their economic and political (western sanctions on arms) issues, they rely mostly on local & limited imports (China) but in most cases these systems are a decade or even more behind whats available for export from worldwide OEMs.
Iran is ok with this as its the only option it has, India is not. I am aware of many cases where a middle of the line system, developed at some expense and capable of mass manufacture was ditched because a (relatively) cutting edge product was available off the shelf.
Teerbeing a totally impartial observer here, I don’t understand how the Tejas MK1 (if that is the same as the prototypes? is it?) can be ground breaking. it looks unfinished, like its missing something.
The MK1 is not the prototype. Its more equivalent to the LSP (Limited series production).
The issue is not of being “ground breaking” – I mean what is, bar the F-22 and some would argue not even that, but meeting the AF needs.
That the MK1 does, but they also point out that if they standardize on a fighter, it makes more sense to do so on the far more capable MK2.
I wouldn’t rule out the JF-17, it looks like a decent addition to their capabilty.
Sorry for sounding glib.
The issue is of differing needs. The PAF needs a replacement for their Mirage Vs and older F-7s which neither have BVR or even modern avionics fits (the older F-7s have ranging radars, F.E.) so the JF-17 is great shakes for them, even if it does not have full FBW or the latest dinky electronics or whatever.
For the IAF, which aims for and is getting a fleet being built around Su-30 MKIs, MMRCAs and upgraded MiG-29s, Mirage 2000s etc, a JF-17 level item is clearly unacceptable. They can afford, and want more.
Plus they factor for a two front war capability, and mere numbers wont be enough, but numbers with capability.
Just one example – the IAF had a perfectly fine 7th station (referred to as a special pylon) on the LCA MK1 for carrying state of the art DRFM equipped jamming pods. Now they want an all internal EW suite for the LCA, superior to the pod mounted system to boot.
Even the Su-30 MKI, MiG-21 Bison, MiG-27 and Jag upgrades all carry external pods. But the IAF wants an internal suite for the LCA and with additional features, so thats that.
The thing is the IAF wants maximum bang for their buck equal to whatever’s available from import.
Differing needs, differing solutions.
Sign In
