What's new

DRDO, Army, kick-backs

Joined
Nov 9, 2014
Messages
3,000
Reaction score
-23
Country
India
Location
India
Many Indian trolls in PDF try to defend the failures of PSUs like DRDO by claiming that DRDO is a very efficient organisation that makes world class weapons but it is the army who plays spoil sport by making cunning, last minute changes to create an unfair scenario for DRDO.

The typical blame put on the army is that they love "foreign maal" instead of giving boost to indigenous industry. What the trolls fail to understand is that the responsibility of army is national security not domestic economics. The army buys foreign stuff because foreign is better than Indian. DRDO can never make anything like T-90, SMERCH, Tavor, Bofors etc. The army has to rely on foreign suppliers because domestic suppliers either don't have the desired product or the ones they have are woefully obsolete. It was the foreign suppliers that came to India's rescue in Kargil war.

The second most common, and rather serious allegation, blame given is that DRDO does not pay bribes (kick-backs) and thus army loves foreign goods. This is saying that the Indian army top brass is so hopelessly corrupt that they are willing to risk national security for kick-backs. Of course only a fool would select INSAS over TAR-21 rifle but trolls don't work on logic.

The indication is that army is corrupt and cannot be trusted. This blame is not only very serious but also very foolish and outright stupid. If the army was so corrupt as to sell defense of the country for money then Pakistan would have sent infiltrators to kashmir with sackfuls of dollars or a bundle of signed blank checks of a secure swiss bank account. Within 24 hours kashmir would have fallen if the army was so corrupt. The Indian army would not be standing guard in the cold wastes of Siachen risking life and limb if they were so greedy for bribes and kick-backs like these DRDO trolls allege.

And the final nail against this bogus argument of kick-back is that such a scandal once cost a government their seat in power. Bofors scandal rocked the country and proved to be the last straw in Rajiv Gandhi's career. The Kargil coffin scam nearly cost BJP their seat and created deep fissures in the NDA sarkar.

If the army was jeopardizing national security by trying to sabotage indigenous defense manufacturing then it would have created a scandal that would have put the entire armed forces personnel to shame and the after shocks would have continued for decades.

Just look at the design of the weapons made by DRDO and compare them with weapons made in France, USA, Russia, Israel or even Turkey. DRDO weapons look like garage-workshop models and they work like that as well. The INSAS is a 5.56 mm rifle which weighs 4 kg empty, has only a 20 round magazine and lacks suppressing firepower. And trolls in the Indian group call INSAS a world-class rifle better than Tavor, M-4, etc.

The army will buy DRDO products when DRDO products meet world standard. Till then the army is doing India a great service buy buying effective foreign weapons which are battle-worthy and reliant.
 
.
don't worry man, soon we will get there, India didn't get Independence in a day
 
.
don't worry man, soon we will get there, India didn't get Independence in a day

India would have been a defense manufacturing powerhouse if those responsible were

1. Investing their own money.
2. Accountable for their work.

Being a PSU the DRDO has unlimited funds and is free from any form of accountability. They can take years after years to come up with a working model and not a single scientist or worker will be fired from job because of incompetency.

The defense of a country cannot be entrusted to white elephants like DRDO. Private sector has to be involved.
 
.
India would have been a defense manufacturing powerhouse if those responsible were

1. Investing their own money.
2. Accountable for their work.

Being a PSU the DRDO has unlimited funds and is free from any form of accountability. They can take years after years to come up with a working model and not a single scientist or worker will be fired from job because of incompetency.

The defense of a country cannot be entrusted to white elephants like DRDO. Private sector has to be involved.

That is true, we need to start entering into deals with private firms too, at least then they will start improving their speed
 
. .
Just take a look at any PSU mutual funds :P They all suck .

PSUs suck because they will not be allowed to fail. A sarkari babu can reach office at 10:30 when the reporting time is 9:00 and he will be never fired from his job. PSUs have unlimited government funding, a PSU maybe making loss but the jobs of all employees would be secure. A PSU has no accountability, they don't need to answer to anybody why they are consistently failing.

An organisation like that will only end up as a failure.
 
. .
PSU's are really accountable not DRDO, HAL, etc
 
. . . . . .
Many Indian trolls in PDF try to defend the failures of PSUs like DRDO by claiming that DRDO is a very efficient organisation that makes world class weapons but it is the army who plays spoil sport by making cunning, last minute changes to create an unfair scenario for DRDO.

The typical blame put on the army is that they love "foreign maal" instead of giving boost to indigenous industry. What the trolls fail to understand is that the responsibility of army is national security not domestic economics. The army buys foreign stuff because foreign is better than Indian. DRDO can never make anything like T-90, SMERCH, Tavor, Bofors etc. The army has to rely on foreign suppliers because domestic suppliers either don't have the desired product or the ones they have are woefully obsolete. It was the foreign suppliers that came to India's rescue in Kargil war.

The second most common, and rather serious allegation, blame given is that DRDO does not pay bribes (kick-backs) and thus army loves foreign goods. This is saying that the Indian army top brass is so hopelessly corrupt that they are willing to risk national security for kick-backs. Of course only a fool would select INSAS over TAR-21 rifle but trolls don't work on logic.

The indication is that army is corrupt and cannot be trusted. This blame is not only very serious but also very foolish and outright stupid. If the army was so corrupt as to sell defense of the country for money then Pakistan would have sent infiltrators to kashmir with sackfuls of dollars or a bundle of signed blank checks of a secure swiss bank account. Within 24 hours kashmir would have fallen if the army was so corrupt. The Indian army would not be standing guard in the cold wastes of Siachen risking life and limb if they were so greedy for bribes and kick-backs like these DRDO trolls allege.
And the final nail against this bogus argument of kick-back is that such a scandal once cost a government their seat in power. Bofors scandal rocked the country and proved to be the last straw in Rajiv Gandhi's career. The Kargil coffin scam nearly cost BJP their seat and created deep fissures in the NDA sarkar.

If the army was jeopardizing national security by trying to sabotage indigenous defense manufacturing then it would have created a scandal that would have put the entire armed forces personnel to shame and the after shocks would have continued for decades.

Just look at the design of the weapons made by DRDO and compare them with weapons made in France, USA, Russia, Israel or even Turkey. DRDO weapons look like garage-workshop models and they work like that as well. The INSAS is a 5.56 mm rifle which weighs 4 kg empty, has only a 20 round magazine and lacks suppressing firepower. And trolls in the Indian group call INSAS a world-class rifle better than Tavor, M-4, etc.

The army will buy DRDO products when DRDO products meet world standard. Till then the army is doing India a great service buy buying effective foreign weapons which are battle-worthy and reliant.
Really !!!!!! the DRDO cant make anything like the T-90 !!!! do you have any idea on arjun and t-90 specifications,technology??? even after making an improved version of MK2 the army is insisting on missile firing ability which is non existent in m1a2,leopard,leclerc etc and the lahat as proved during the trials performs sub optimally when compared even to the Invar.
Do you know anything about small arms??? I am not saying that the INSAS is better than the tavor, but to clear things here.
1.Your comment that INSAS weighs 4 kg, check how much a m-16a4 weighs.
2.The INSAS also comes with 30 magazine(which is used in the LMG and excalibur) so there is no fault on the part of the DRDO.
3.When it comes to the lack of suppressive fire, I am not sure what you are talking about, if it is the 3 round burst you are talking about you need to know that it was requested so in the ARMY SQR. Again not the DRDO's fault.BTW all m-16a4 and most m-4 still have 3 round burst capability.
4.It was the ARMY's trial directorate which trialed the INSAS in all environments and cleared it so if problems still exist then it means the trials were not properly conducted or the OFBs workmanship is very poor.
5.Many of the problems like failure to extract,oil spraying into the eyes,jamming have been related to production quality issues and not the actual design.

The army instead of scouting for a new rifle endlessly, that time and money could have been utilised to
1. Iron out quality control issues with OFB.
2. Reconfigure existing rifles to fire in full auto mode and test it.
3. Issue metal insert plastic magazines(developed for MCIWS) and also eliminating extraction problems caused by the magazine if any.
4. Add rails(which are being made by private sector such as MKU),adjustable stocks,grips(developed for MCIWS),sights,laser designators.
5. If possible use a floating barrel as in snipers and hk-416, but this should be a nice to have desired feature and not a necessary one.

With this army would have a cheap, reliable and effective firearm for conventional warfare which would relevant for years to come which would buy time for the army to select a good replacement.In the meantime the special forces can use tavors,M-4 and the counter insurgency forces can use the now under production Ghaatak 7.62x39 rifles of RFI.
 
Last edited:
.
Really !!!!!! the DRDO cant make anything like the T-90 !!!! do you have any idea on arjun and t-90 specifications,technology??? even after making an improved version of MK2 the army is insisting on missile firing ability which is non existent in m1a2,leopard,leclerc etc and the lahat as proved during the trials performs sub optimally when compared even to the Invar.
Do you know anything about small arms??? I am not saying that the INSAS is better than the tavor, but to clear things here.
1.Your comment that INSAS weighs 4 kg, check how much a m-16a4 weighs.
2.The INSAS also comes with 30 magazine(which is used in the LMG and excalibur) so there is no fault on the part of the DRDO.
3.When it comes to the lack of suppressive fire, I am not sure what you are talking about, if it is the 3 round burst you are talking about you need to know that it was requested so in the ARMY SQR. Again not the DRDO's fault.BTW all m-16a4 and most m-4 still have 3 round burst capability.
4.It was the ARMY's trial directorate which trialed the INSAS at all environments and cleared it so if problems still exist then it means the trials were not properly conducted or the OFBs workmanship is very poor.
5.Many of the problems like failure to extract,oil spraying into the eyes,jamming have been related to production quality issues and not the actual design.

The army instead of scouting for a new rifle endlessly, that time and money could have been utilised to
1. Iron out quality control issues with OFB.
2. Reconfigure existing rifles to fire in full auto mode and test it.
3. Issue metal insert plastic magazines(developed for MCIWS) and also eliminating extraction problems caused by the magazine if any.
4. Add rails(which are being made by private sector such as MKU),adjustable stocks,grips(developed for MCIWS),sights,laser designators.
5. If possible use a floating barrel as in snipers and hk-416, but this should be a nice to have desired feature and not a necessary one.

With this army would have a cheap, reliable and effective firearm for conventional warfare which would relevant for years to come which would buy time for the army to select a good replacement.In the meantime the special forces can use tavors,M-4 and the counter insurgency forces can use the now under production Ghaatak 7.62x39 rifles of RFI.


Dude,there is simply no point wasting your time arguing with that swine!!He's just angry because some DRDO guy had *** fucked him in his childhood days!!Let him blow off his steams,even he needs a place to take out his frustration!!

And in any case,all the foreign rifles competing for that contract,including the BREN CZ and the IWI Galil ACE suffered from repeated failures including bolt carrier malfunctions and double feeds for multiple times and were pronounced unsuitable for Indian conditions!!Does that mean those are worse than INSAS 1B1??As per the OP's logic,that's the very case it would seem!!

And according to making a tank like T 90 - please,let the Russians continue to make that junk!!Even after more than a decade of their induction in the service,the Army still hasn't been able to make them fighting fit for the deserts - where most of the potential tank engagements are expected to take place!!And now they are again crying in front of the DRDO to fix those white elephants you call T 90!!Enough said!!
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom