Def Min inducts IAF officer in HAL board

[Abingdonboy]

NEW DELHI (PTI): Meeting a long-pending demand of Indian Air Force, the government has inducted one of its senior officer in the board of state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited.

The move to induct IAF Deputy Chief Air Marshal S B Sinha will help the force to have more say in the functioning of country's only aerospace firm and force's largest supplier, Defence Ministry officials told PTI here.

The IAF, which is the largest customer of HAL, had been demanding for a long time to have its representatives in the HAL Board of Directors headed by its Chairman R K Tyagi, they said.

The first meeting of the HAL board with its new member was held recently in which it took a number of decisions such as creating a skill development body, spending more money for research and development activities were taken, they said.

Almost all the aircraft projects of the IAF including the Su-30 MKI, Light Combat Aircraft Tejas and multirole transport aircraft are with the HAL.

The IAF and HAL were not on the same page recently over the issue of Pilatus basic trainer aircraft project as the air force favoured imports for meeting it's requirement to train rookie pilots whereas the HAL wanted to develop it indigenously.

The government is also going ahead with its plans to disinvest 10 per cent stakes from the aerospace PSU with order books worth over 1 lakh crore.

Def Min inducts IAF officer in HAL board | Brahmand News

 

[NKVD]

Good move hope he uncovers impotentancy of this PSumad:

 

[Dillinger]

Good move hope he uncovers impotentancy of this PSumad:

Won't help.

Should have attended the professional lectures at aeroindia last year, almost all that needs to be done as suggested by the uniforms and the civvies was laid down, NONE of that has been implemented.

 

[Echo_419]

Won't help.

Should have attended the professional lectures at aeroindia last year, almost all that needs to be done as suggested by the uniforms and the civvies was laid down, NONE of that has been implemented.

Can you post a link for the video or explain what are the steps required to make D-PSUs more efficient

 

[Dillinger]

Can you post a link for the video or explain what are the steps required to make D-PSUs more efficient

National aeronautics commission run under the PMO like for our space sciences sector.

That's point one.

Will elaborate later.

 

[sancho]

Won't help.

Should have attended the professional lectures at aeroindia last year, almost all that needs to be done as suggested by the uniforms and the civvies was laid down, NONE of that has been implemented.

But maybe this helps to improve the understanding what the force want and to include them more into the project development stage.

 

[Dillinger]

But maybe this helps to improve the understanding what the force want and to include them more into the project development stage.

Not at that position, its been done before for projects specifically. This is not the sort of interface we need, IN has a way better model.

 

[axisofevil]

LOL so they HAL never even had an IAF officer all these yrs....UN F-King Believeable!

 

[KalaGhoda]

verry good move ! there should be a airforce design team too..like its naval counterpart. it should collaborate with both ADA and HAL/manufacturer.

 

[Dillinger]

@sancho

First thing first.

Structurally, ADA and HAL split has done us great harm.

ADA is the only real designing authority on the LCA and HAL is a simple systems integrator. Now the ADA had no idea of the technicalities and challenges of MRO, in fact to paraphrase their rep. they didn't even consider turn around time and per unit cost when they first presented to the IAF.

HAL is the ONLY org. in the country which understands manufacturing, yes it has issues but it can build due to the know how it has accrued. But it has no design authority on existing aviation projects. ADA on the other hand, by dint of the LCA program, holds on to the design expertise, they have cultivated the human assets required to seed our own know why but ADA has no manufacturing base, it did not appreciate that production and MRO are BOTH SEPARATE FIELDS OF TECHNOLOGY IN THEMSELVES.

There is no nodal or apex authority which has hands on operational control of getting these organisations to work together. That is to say, you need a fellow who outranks the folks heading these organisations, who has a clean mandate and authority to direct them to interface with each other. Without said structure you have organisations operating as silos.

Now you may ask, why don't they just work together? Why didn't the previous government's ministries work together? It seems so absurd, so impossible and so inexplicable that said agencies fight turf battles, I mean we think that they're playing for the same team so why fight about, because we do not appreciate the structural setup and institutional bias and tendencies in place.

I will try and dig up one particular presentation which deals with the managerial and resource deployment issues involved, in themselves these are VERY important facets.

 

[sancho]

IN has a way better model.

Which is?

 

[Dillinger]

Which is?

A design organisation (NDB) under their own command, and they fund and build testing facilities from their own budget (such as the marine gas turbine test bed). This has bred institutional involvement in home grown designs, in trying to promote building up of a captive supply pool in country within the bounds set by MoD policy, embedded naval personnel (not retired, active duty who actually are within the chain of command and actively interfacing with the yards and the navy in positions of actual authority, retired uniforms cannot go about commanding serving officers or even operating in official capacities) in the actual construction and production process brings direct oversight and collating operational briefs and data becomes a relatively simpler exercise.

 

[sancho]

@sancho

First thing first.

Structurally, ADA and HAL split has done us great harm.

ADA is the only real designing authority on the LCA and HAL is a simple systems integrator. Now the ADA had no idea of the technicalities and challenges of MRO, in fact to paraphrase their rep. they didn't even consider turn around time and per unit cost when they first presented to the IAF.

Yes and no, the split is not the actual problem, but that they are not just seen as a design lab, working for HAL for example, but with DRDO as the main developer. And then things get difficult as you said, when those that have no understanding of the manufacturing side are in control of the project and project management. I once made a mode showing that we actually need 2 manufacturing companies, NAL on the one side and HAL on the other, which are in charge of aero projects, that would work together with ADA for design and DRDO for tech developments. That would give us more options in the aero field, since we would not be dependent on HAL only, while ADA could specialize on aircraft design and work with both HAL and NAL. And with the manufacturers in charger for the overall project, the management side should be dealt far better too.
Sadly we have only HAL, which makes us totally dependent on them to succeed and at the same time also the only choice to put more and more projects on them. At the same time however, we make them dependent on decisions ADA and DRDO takes, although they have no clue of what it needs to get such projects done and although they are already overwhelmed with the development side.
When you then add the fact, that there is a big gap between the industry and the forces in these indigenous developments and that they don't really work together in a propper way, it gets evident why our performance is so low.

 

[Dillinger]

Yes and no, the split is not the actual problem, but that they are not just seen as a design lab, working for HAL for example, but with DRDO as the main developer. And then things get difficult as you said, when those that have no understanding of the manufacturing side are in control of the project and project management. I once made a mode showing that we actually need 2 manufacturing companies, NAL on the one side and HAL on the other, which are in charge of aero projects, that would work together with ADA for design and DRDO for tech developments. That would give us more options in the aero field, since we would not be dependent on HAL only, while ADA could specialize on aircraft design and work with both HAL and NAL. And with the manufacturers in charger for the overall project, the management side should be dealt far better too.
Sadly we have only HAL, which makes us totally dependent on them to succeed and at the same time also the only choice to put more and more projects on them. At the same time however, we make them dependent on decisions ADA and DRDO takes, although they have no clue of what it needs to get such projects done and although they are already overwhelmed with the development side.
When you then add the fact, that there is a big gap between the industry and the forces in these indigenous developments and that they don't really work together in a propper way, it gets evident why our performance is so low.

There are some flaws in the above.

ADA does not work with anyone, its a world in on itself, as in they are literally independent, hell DRDO labs feed it. HAL doesn't work with anyone either.

Sancho, what you are stating won't work specially because the way MoD has designed this structure, you need to understand they have choked any possibility of a nodal oversight and controlling agency under the PMO specifically because they will not give up their commanding position.

Its very difficult for me to put this in a post. Give me some time, I will collate the data for you.

 

[Dillinger]

@sancho

Below is an excerpt, cannot find the report online, have it stored as a copy in the archives, will try and post the complete thing.

DRDO has a vertical structure, headed by the director general of research and development, who is also the secretary of defense R&D and scientific
advisor to the defense minister. The head of DRDO is assisted by eight chief controllers. DRDO is a two-tier organization, with technical and corporate headquarters based in New Delhi, and laboratories and scientific establishments located around the country.
DRDO’s vertical structural dynamic is clearly evident in its project approval and sanctioning arrangements. Once a proposal is initiated by a laboratory or group of laboratories, it is peer reviewed within the organization and consequently approved by DRDO headquarters. The proposal is seen by the integrated finance branch and approved by the DRDO director, who then sends it to the defense minister for approval by the Cabinet Committee on Security,
the highest decision-making body on national strategic and security matters. Many affiliated institutions like the Aeronautical Development Agency, Society for Integrated Technology Applications and Research, Defense Institute of Advanced Technology, and Gallium Arsenide Enabling Technology Centre enjoy strong protection from DRDO. Although DRDO claims to have injected reforms like creating a new office of Chief Controller R&D (Service
Interaction) to improve its interactions with the armed forces or, for that matter, interacting more at the highest-level production and procurement related institutions like the Defense Acquisition Council, Defense Production Board, and the Defense Procurement Board, its vertical rigidity is clearly evident. It smartly opposes any new organizational innovations like including outside experts in DRDO or separating and splitting up research specializations
by arguing that inter-disciplinary research and allied activities have been successfully carried out within DRDO in the past. The fierce resistance to recommendations made by the P. Rama Rao Committee mentioned earlier typifies DRDO’s vertical rigidity and strong aversion to change.​

Now, notice where the authority lies, the fellow who runs DRDO also holds a position in the MoD, seems innocuous till you understand the monumental conflict of interest this brings about, akin to how the OFB being under the DDP in the MoD leads to the same bias. The structural rigidity cannot be changed by DRDO autonomously, it does not have the mandate to do so, the MoD on the other hand treats it as the overarching one stop agency which is to be preserved as is since its own functionaries are running it, as in any change will effect MoD's personnel, without a separation between MoD personnel and higher management of DRDO how will you ever see any structural changes, its like asking a man to give himself an enema.

AGAIN, this is a super simplification, I need more time to put this in properly, and right now I need to sleep.