What's new

HAL confronts Snecma in light helicopter project

Dear Leonidas,

It appears that we are at cross-purposes; or are we? Let's try a reality check.

You're saying:

There're a lot of good private sector companies, and they have done a lot of good work in their own sectors, not military, not aerospace. We should encourage them to move into the aerospace sector, and that might help us to bridge the gap. They will probably do more, much more than the public sector has, over the last 60 years, to fill some of the gaps in technology that we have.

If this is correct, please confirm, and I will reply in detail.

If this is not correct, we need to figure out what you are saying that I am not able to get, and move forward from there.

I hope you find this a reasonable suggestion.

Regards,

Joe,

I guess you just got a bit of what my intentions were.

Terrestrial vehicles, our pvt sector companies hardly have any experience and that is what i was pointing in my post. If we would not have ignored them from so long, their R & D and the final output would have been much better then what it is right now.

Ignore the beginning; treat that separately please. with specific reference to your post,

(1) it is hugely incorrect to say that private sector has been ignored; they have chosen to stay out.
(2) those who came in wanted quick and easy pickings, and wanted to invest nothing.

Will you let me quote chapter and verse, as a private sector person watching this unfold, with considerable horror?

Well, i was just naming all our private defence companies & none of them specialize in aviation sector to be particular.

Not correct. Two do; I will send you details in PM. No need to be indiscreet.

The idea of involving the Indian private sector is excellent indeed & i wondered why you called it pathetic to let our private sector get involved in R&D even after being late for so many years.

I want to say that I do not think it pathetic to suggest that the private sector should get involved.

I do think it pathetic that we are under the impression that engine design just takes a little minimal effort, the public sector are not putting in this effort, and the private sector, given reasonable opportunities, will. Nothing personal, please be sure. The impression is pathetic, not the person labouring under the impression.

I do not think it pathetic to suggest that the private sector should get involved in R&D. I've watched them dodge serious issues so blatantly that I am sick of them. I had profit targets too, and didn't think that I would get 3 month ROI.


It has to start one day or the other. The sooner the better, because we cannot afford another 27 year old tejas, 36 years old arjun (after its designing) & a hell loads of missiles & miscellaneous weaponry which might become obsolete by the time they mature to be fit for induction.

Sure, a hundred times, of course, right away.

But what makes you think they'll do better? Their past record? Or what? Please specify. I have serious problems with this illusion.

I know it can be tackled. I have specifically tackled the technology issue, not personally, but at management level. But I am also aware of how private sector giants behave in this regard, vis-a-vis profitability competing with technical advancement, and am sceptical.

Here, in the case of HAL-Snecma too, HAL has been manufaturing helicopters since late 60's & early 70's, its been around 40 years & still not able enough to develop a helicopter engine by its own. Doesn't it causes some concern that something is not good enough somewhere?

Would you agree that the Chinese state sector is superb, streets ahead of both our public and our private sectors?

Are you aware that they have been manufacturing military equipment for the last forty years, or more, themselves?

How come they still look around for engines? How come a Russian threat to ban export of Russian-design engines causes such high BP in China and in Pakistan? It shouldn't be an issue; China, after such experience, far exceeding ours, and with such razor-sharp leadership of technology, should be able to substitute this engine within a few days of work.

Outlandish suggestion, to bring in private sector, really??

Its the matter of our defence & we need results without lapses, for which private sector is the way to go.

Regards

It is clear that you think that I am an idiot. Sometimes I feel like an idiot myself, particularly when everybody is wildly enthusiastic and I find myself alone in dogged opposition.

The private sector is a hopeless sector, and the less we trust it to carry everything before it, the better. We will not get results, first; the private sector is NOT result oriented where result equates to technology, rather than profitability. Second, you speak of results without lapses. Dear Lord, preserve us.

Let me get your responses first; I am really troubled at the naivete that some of you exude, and this is not intended as sarcasm or as a jibe.

Regards,
 
.
Joe,

the gist of what I actually meant was that 'keeping out' the private sector has not proved to be a very great decision. Its necessary to put in a system where PSUs & Pvt. sector could work together so that our defences get the maximum advantages. Private sector defence companies could serve as alternate backup to our defence PSUs though.

It is clear that you think that I am an idiot. Sometimes I feel like an idiot myself, particularly when everybody is wildly enthusiastic and I find myself alone in dogged opposition.

No sir, absolutely not. Infact, i found Tshering & your posts to be more informative than the rest. Feel free to put forth your viewpoint, i'm indeed learning some positives from our friendly discussion. :cheers:


The private sector is a hopeless sector

Hey, don't say that. I'm from the corporate sector. :angry::lol::lol:

results without lapses. Dear Lord, preserve us.

i guess i meant project delays, cost overruns, inferior quality end product vis-a-vis foreign suppliers etc. by lapses.


Regards.
 
Last edited:
.
Dear Mr. Tshering22,

You may have noticed that it was with misgivings that I commenced the unpleasant task of contradicting basic errors of fact and complete misunderstandings of the roles assigned to various players. This was in the interests of accuracy, not because I am a supporter of HAL. As a matter of fact, I am not; although external to that organisation, I had opportunities at close quarters to see the real flaws in that corporation, not the wholly fictitious ones that have been conjured up.

It is worth doing once; I did that in my earlier post, at a level of superficiality, in the hope that would dissuade you from your worst excesses.

It may be worth doing twice; I do so here at greater levels of detail, still in hope but increasingly fainter hope that you will use the information being given to you and do some work on your own. This is preferable to following popular journalists who have made a career of discovering inefficiency where none existed, of identifying culpability where none existed, of condemning bad design where design did not come into the picture. Your remarks in your previous post display the same lamentable lack of information that you displayed in your first, and it is clear that you neither know nor care to find out the facts, and that you prefer to go with your misinformation.

So be it. I present detailed facts in cases where you have presented mistakes in fact; and where you have made wholly untenable remarks, not sustainable in logic or by common sense, I shall endeavour to point them out to you.



A question of logic.

My intention is not to prove HAL employees, the vast majority of whom are technical staff and not administrators, as any superficial observer knows; it is to show that you are substantially, significantly wrong in your assessment of HAL capabilities.

Being reasonably knowledgeable about military matters due to curiousity is hardly a qualification, surely, to come to opinions about matters about which we appear to be completely ignorant. Nor does the other factor, knowledge by relationship, seem to be any more reasonable. In that case, any discussion on matters military must be vetted and passed by the one million plus Indians who are related to defence personnel.

Your lack of information will be presented item by item, either in this post, against your corresponding remarks below, or in subsequent posts, if they demand extended treatment.



A question of fact.

I remind you, once again, HAL was not set up to undertake original design and manufacture of aircraft. It was set up for maintenance, thereafter its role was shifted to contract manufacture of types adopted into the IAF. It is necessary to understand that India always undertook licensed manufacture, and has not violated the terms and conditions of its terms of trade in a single instance.

What does that mean?

It means that you have counted non-Indian agencies production under official or 'unofficial' license as a credit, and not counted HAL production at all!

It means that while HAL manufactured with official consent, and on payment of royalties in full, and with complete documentation and support, others did not.

When comparing manufacturing other people's designs, there are two stories, one, the Indian, that you have either deliberately or through ignorance of this process completely omitted from your account, and one, not Indian, that you have misrepresented as legitimate manufacture, when it merely amounted to extending the range of services permitted to make many copies from an initial small order.

Your first mistake is in saying HAL made nothing big in time for induction. If we are to take up the tale of comparison with Chinese manufacture, then we have on the credit side for HAL the following:

Folland Gnat (full manufacture, including body fabrication, component, sub-assembly and assembly fabrication, integration, trials and flight testing): 195 (until 1974)

HAL Ajeet (re-design of electronics improved hydraulics and controls, a better ejection seat, new avionics): 79 (until 1982)

Mikoyan MiG 21: 600 +

Sepecat Jaguar: 140 +
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, India's leading aerospace agency, manufactured 140 Jaguars under the name Shamsher.

HT 2: 166

HJT 16 KIRAN: 190



A question of fact.

A truly stupid analysis; I am sorry, but it is difficult to ameliorate the stupidity inherent.
1. The entire design activity was in the hands of ADA;
2. This involved enormous technical steps, including design and development of flight control laws for aircraft of unstable flight characteristics; I am aware that the magnitude of this is completely lost on you, but you might like to consult any technically competent person. The LCA/Tejas flight control laws are entirely original, and have proven to be more ‘flyable’ than others, according to preliminary reports by test pilots;
3. Enormous and fundamental changes in direction were made by the IAF, and this has been commented on unfavourably by every external audit;
4. Critical components promised by suppliers, and facilities committed by service providers went under embargo and created huge delays, not by HAL;

J10 started before 1979, inducted in 1998, timeline 19 years, is what you quote to prove the heroic achievement of Chinese government agencies. Of course, other questions like the ones cited below are not to be considered, only the long march for a trifling 19 years, on time, according to you, Mr. Tshering:



A question of logic.

Should that question not be addressed to the IAF? The aircraft is ready for induction in all respects.



Logic.

What was Kurt Tank doing, designing an airframe, without specifying and identifying an engine? Was he Guggiaro or Karmann Ghia?

And it is all right for IAI to have designed the prototype J10s, but not all right to engage a world-renowned German designer, whom the Egyptians later engaged? It is then a triumph of native technology by our neighbours?



Fact.

It was never my intention to support government agencies, but to correct your mistakes, and to put your rant in perspective.

Your standard of analysis is indicated in this small instance, and that is why it was pointed out, that in one small set of four organisations, you managed to get one wrong.

You still have it wrong, because your original ran: “PLAAF, PLAF, USAF …” and so on; if you meant PLAF was PLAAF, how many times was it your intention to mention it?



Fact.

Let us not waffle, Mr. Tshering; there are reported to be 80 in service.



Logic.

Your level of understanding is truly fantastic.

I quote from a source that you are likely to use, more than other sources, at any rate:

In 1995, China secured a $2.5 billion production agreement which licensed China to build 200 Soviet-designed Sukhoi Su-27SK aircraft using Russian-supplied kits. Under the terms of the agreement, these aircraft would be outfitted with Russian avionics, radars and engines. However, only 95 of the original aircraft were delivered and the contact for the remaining 105 is still pending.

It is believed that Russia cancelled the arrangement in 2006 after it discovered that China had reverse-engineered the technology and was developing an indigenous version, the J-11B.


Try to understand what that means, Mr. Tshering. If it helps, you can take your shoes off, to allow your brains full play.

It means, leaving aside all other examples, the J-11A is the direct equivalent of the Su-30MKI, with three components changed:

• Fire control radar;
• Helmet-mounted system;
• Multi-function displays;

These are the same items which differ between the Su 27 and the Su 30 MKI.

Making (or, to use your very professional term, well befitting the aerospace expert that you wish to be in future, integration) the J11A is exactly, precisely the equivalent of assembling, or integrating, if you prefer, the Su 30MKI.

What are you thinking about?

Other changes include:

• Standardisation of the HUD (Head Up Display) consistent with those on the MiG 27 and Sepecat Jaguar fleets;
• Sagem GPS navigation system;
• The Israeli Litening targeting pod for laser-guided munitions;
• The DRDO Tarang Electronic Counter-Measure System;

The Su 30MKI was arguably more indigenised, more customised, than the J11A.



Fact.

This is not a match-up between Indian and Chinese organisations. There is no doubt that Chinese organisations have acquired technology, and productionised this acquired technology at a much faster rate than Indian ones have.

However, I present a comparative table below of two aircraft types, and invite you to pick out the one that is the copy and the one that was the original.

General characteristics
• Crew: 2 (1 student pilot and 1 instructor/official pilot, or 1 official pilot and 1 weapons systems officer)
• Crew: 2 pilots

• Length: 12.27 m ()
• Length: 11.49 m (37 ft 8 in)

• Wingspan: 9.48 m ()
• Wingspan: 9.72 m (31 ft 10 in)

• Height: 4.81 m ()
• Height: 4.76 m (15 ft 7 in)

• Empty weight: 4.96 t (6.5 t)
• Empty weight: 4,600 kg (10,141 lb)

• Max takeoff weight: 9.5 t ()
• Max takeoff weight: 6,500 kg (14,330 lb)

• Powerplant: 2× Ivchenko Progress AI-222K-25F afterburning turbofans
• Powerplant: 2× Klimov-Motor sich AI-222-25 turbofan, 21.58 kN (4,852 lbf) each



Fact.

Again, I am faced with indomitable, granite hard ignorance.

Everybody is aware of the facts. Everybody is aware that the IAF had made up its mind twenty years ago, and that GoI, NOT HAL, but the Ministry of Defence, was reluctant to take a decision.



Fact.

The Hottentot tribe of the Kalahari Desert counts 'One, two, many', and then repeats. Presumably your quantitative skills are of that order.

After omitting entirely the facts on one side, and listing a spurious set of facts on the other, you come to astonishing conclusions. We have here a new mathematical genius.

Regrettably, your arithmetic is as sound as your reasoning or your listing capacities: as we have already seen, neither is outstanding, nor is your math. Of the five achievements that you have mentioned, without taking one iota of credit from Chinese engineers and production staff, who have proved to be among the best in the world, independently of their screwdriver missions, two are licensed manufacture, in numbers far less than has been achieved by them, themselves, or even by HAL, two are developments of Israeli designs, productised, and one is a close copy of an existing Russian model.

However, you have still not finished with the Tejas.

Unfortunately for your forensic career, the design of the Tejas still has not become the responsibility of the HAL.

In addition, if you had been following the development cycle with the anxiety that all of us in the aerospace industry had been, you would have known that the excessive weight was the direct result of changes in the QSR. Ask the IAF why they changed the QSR so many times.

You may see for yourself how ridiculous your double vision is. Some things, when HAL does them are not even cited. But what is not even listed in the case of HAL is held in the balance against it when a non-Indian firm does it.



Logic.

Please do.

You did not ask my permission to make a fool of yourself earlier; why start now and set a bad precedent?



Logic.

Your point being?

You started by criticising a public sector organisation, on account of faults that were not its own. You now deny any comparison with the private sector of other countries, which did not have a comparable public sector organisation.

Very well.

To stop any future whining that you have been taken by surprise, or not permitted to present your views, let us take it on your lines.

Please go case by case

on the century series,
on the debacle of the F-105,
on the F111,
on the disaster of a gunless F4 Phantom and what happened when MiGs came visiting,
on the Starfighter (unless you have covered it already under century fighers), and, of course, leading everything else,
the F14.

Unless you believe that the F15 sweeps all before it. I cannot help hoping that you will say something fanboyish like that.

Apart from suggestio falsi, your other method of argument seems to be suppressio veri.

You totally overlook the extreme reluctance of any Indian private sector organisation to invest in technology. I might remind you of Hindustan Automobiles, of Premier and of Mahindra & Mahindra. With the honourable exception of Tatas, none of them lifted a little finger to help.



Logic.

Of course, apart from this stagey drama, you are aware of the huge back-current of technology from Israel back to the USA?



Fact.

For the responsibility for that, you must look elsewhere, within the Ministry of Defence Production, and within the IAF, in this instance.



You recognise that.

Let us be thankful for small mercies.



Yes, unfortunately.

Not only wrong, but blind, deaf and dumb.

HAL’s role is to pick up the finished design and make aircraft. The Russian equivalent and the Chinese equivalents are well-known. In all three industrial contexts, there is a design bureau, and there is a production facility. Only a thorough dunderhead would mix the roles of the two; that is what you have done, at great length.



As I have already explained, but unfortunately without your absorbing it, I come from the private sector side of the aerospace industry. There is no question of my being a sarkari apologist; it is a question of setting right a twit who has no knowledge of the facts on the ground.



Fact.

More twittery.

Israel has several thousand times our resources. Having collaborated with Israeli firms, I know from first-hand experience. They do not lack for money. Their prototypes are tried and tested live by their armed forces, then and there, in preference to anything else. Their funding is arranged on the US stock markets.

The difference between them and everybody else is that their soldiers, airmen and sailors become their technicians after their military service. In the case of senior staff, they become managers. The integration between their battle experience and their practices, doctrine, technological direction, adaptation and manufacture is superb. Yet they too failed – most famously in the case of the Merkava.



Logic.

If you wish to abandon our clear and salient image of ethical commercial dealings, you are welcome to advocate it. I doubt that you will find many takers.



Neither fact nor logic, merely incomprehensible.

This has nothing to do with either public sector or private sector, and nothing to do with HAL and SNECMA’s dispute.



Fact.

This is curious.

And in what way have you disproved it?

On the subject of engines, have you stopped to ask yourself why there is a problem with tank engines, with helicopter engines, with aircraft engines, but not with truck engines or with marine engines? A little in-depth study might illuminate your area of interest better than jumping up and down and parroting silly defence journalists.



Faff, neither logic nor fact.

Please don’t pontificate.

First, get your facts right. Or even the fundamentals.



Logic.

There are, in fact, many options. These are in the process not of being identified, but at a far more advanced level of being stabilised.

If you read either the detailed analyses I have presented, or even if you read more on the subjects that you have mentioned, you will get the answers to these great mysteries.

First, we will never match China; it has manufacturing skills which are unmatchable, and which the whole world has recognised and accepted, even those masters of production technology, the Americans, the British, the Germans, the French, the Italians, the Japanese, or the Koreans.

Second, we will probably be competent in design, once there is a clear and transparent political road-map. This has never been present. We lack any kind of strategic thinking. Unfortunately, your effusions are not a substitute, although that may come as a vast surprise to you.

Third, when you take the example of other hostile nations, I trust that you have identified the changes in their doctrine. If you have not, you will forever be trapped in the comparison of numbers, a futile exercise. Try to understand these factors before jumping into speech or writing broadsides.

Fourth, while you have been raving and ranting, significant shipbuilding capacity has gone private sector. Not one, but two separate corporations are significantly involved. Shipbuilding and naval or maritime architecture and design is carefully tended by selected organisations, some known, some not so known, and has been since 2000, to my personal knowledge.

So, too, aircraft manufacturing technology; I have watched with awe as a private sector organisation has taken steady steps towards capacity building, and is poised today to make a difference. It is not one of the major houses. The major houses themselves, through their dedicated defence subsidiaries, have made significant progress in the last ten years; it is a different picture from the earlier decades, when their failure to see the huge opportunities in defence misled them into short-sighted and self-serving but ultimately self-defeating strategic blind alleys.

The really yawning gap is in engine technology. Here, too, answers are known, but are not implemented, again due to a failure of political will.

At the end of the day, returning to aerospace and aviation, we have mastered glass cockpit technology; composites in manufacture; flight control law design and development; mission computer design, development, including operating system development, and programming; visuals for simulator building; simulators for combat simulation; a very wide range of electronics applicable in military applications; metal-forming for aviation and maritime applications; and a host of other applications. This was in the teeth of political opposition from a leadership that was pacifist in its policy and denied legitimacy to any kind of industrial research associated with the military.

Of the technologies I have listed above, I have been personally associated with three. I don't need to lean on the strength of my relatives in the military, or on the strength of my batchmates now at general or flag rank, to prove my credentials, but can afford to do so on my own strength.

It is with that confidence that I say, even while remaining a critic of HAL in other respects, that it is not an HAL problem, it is a national policy problem, and the answer lies within the Ministry of Defence Production or within the Air Force.

Think before you write further.
Okay fine, now that you've told me that ADA and othre laboratories are the main hands and brains behind making of any fighter.... I have understood. My bad that I only blamed HAL for the inefficiency the entire sarkari brigade has shown.

However, after that what? What does it have for the future? ADA and the numerous other laboratories? assembling MiG-21s is a thing of past and the target is: self-reliance in future. So far no concrete step has been taken and posters on PDF have grown from children to adults and adults to senior citizens fantasizing what would Tejas be like. Tejas initially plans to have significant foreign components if I am right.

The AESA radar, the engine are two main of them. Despite this, the delays. Sanctions or whatever is no excuse. China was imposed with similar sanctions post-Tiananmen Square massacre. Still they came up with a fast turning alternative and developed the J-10. During the 67 Arab Israeli war, France dumped Israelis the last minute by putting embargoes on their Mirage supplies. Israelis instantly came up with Nesher and followed it with Kfir and Lavi.

I am sure you don't want me to start on USA. :P

The bottomline is, the entire sarkari brigade, whether ADA, HAL, DRDO, DRDL or ANY of their numerous hi-fi-named-zero-performing agencies, are not delivering under the current structure. They do something they're supposed to obviously do as a part of their job and expect kudos from the people.

Writing in crisp English and declaring my arguments as "illogical" still doesn't make your government agencies any better than the embarrassment they are right now to the country.. not the scientists and engineers but the loser decision makers who are causing the delays.

My point of giving all those "illogical" points according to you out of this world intellect was to get to the final point:

Whether it is Israel or China or USA or any other manufacturing country including the likes of even South Africa, all of these are ahead of us. Israel lacks its own natural resources so it smartly finds a sponsor like USA. China has been hit by embargo from the West so it smartly 'acquires' and develops technology from it while sarkari dodos of India.. what do they do? They wait it out in the hopes that "oh when will the great supplier remove his sanctions" and do nothing.

Don't bring Kaveri as an excuse. All this time and we still don't have Tejas, Dhruv is already facing problems (go through threads).

A word to the wise:

In a battle, the enemy won't come arguing with you in crisp english but will come with proven, tangible guns, tanks and fighters. Then lets see what you have to say for the lazy back decision-makers sitting and swatting flies in Sarkari brigade.
 
.
Joe,

the gist of what I actually meant was that 'keeping out' the private sector has not proved to be a very great decision. Its necessary to put in a system where PSUs & Pvt. sector could work together so that our defences get the maximum advantages. Private sector defence companies could serve as alternate backup to our defence PSUs though.

The only way I've seen things to work is for public-sector R&D to be supplied to private sector for productising.

This is contrary to personal management experience, because we were doing 'glass cockpit' related work, and passing it on to HAL (on command, no options!). There was also the building the mission computer for 'an aerospace device', which was the technical peak that I saw; the only outside agency to do work for that world-renowned agency. But they took back everything on future occasions, on the grounds that all development had to be internal, for best integration and best speed of execution.

We worked with 'a prominent engine specialised establishment', who wanted their engine design digitised; it was like visiting a sausage factory, and we exited green with nausea. I can't trust any Indian organisation to build an engine after that nasty experience.

OTOH, there was a brilliant success with farming out Lakshya, and it must be conceded that both the public sector and the private sector partners behaved very well. If all collaborations went like that, we would have zero problems.

Now the flip side.

After an absence of some years on other, rather glamorous and exotic work, on return to the aviation sector, on visiting the shining lights of Indian technological services, it was a horrible disappointment to find that they were staffed with the dumbest of the dumb; none of the public sector brains had been hired, and the technical levels were therefore pure ****. This was a big, a huge name, where the managers in charge are household names in India today. They were five to ten years behind where we were in the preceding five years, in spite of having hired token key figures such as the charismatic head of the Indian ASWAC programme, for whom his air force boys would have walked through walls.

There was the mammoth organisation in a central Indian city, the second venture of its entrepreneurial chief. They worked on GLS work mainly, and had an aviation section tagged on. That was the day I nearly killed myself, wondering what I was doing with these morons.

The private sector organisations which did contribute were typically secretive organisations headed by ex-military men doing the most electrifying work, which the general public never gets to see or to hear about. It took me a long time to find them and to penetrate them, and it was worthwhile to do it, professionally.

The rest of private sector was unrewarding rubbish, mediocre guys kissing their bosses' a***s.


No sir, absolutely not. Infact, i found Tshering & your posts to be more informative than the rest. Fell free to put forth your viewpoint, i'm indeed learning some positives from our friendly discussion. :cheers:

I'm taken aback.


Hey, don't say that. I'm from the corporate sector. :angry::lol::lol:

Aaaah, back on safe and unpredictable grounds again.

i guess i meant project delays, cost overruns, inferior quality end product vis-a-vis foreign suppliers etc. by lapses.

I wish I had five rupees for every instance of these that I saw in private sector. We still do it, except that handful that 'does' CMMi the way it ought to be done.

Things are unlikely to change in our lifetime.


Regards, and I hope for your sake that I am wrong.
 
.
A word to the wise:

In a battle, the enemy won't come arguing with you in crisp english but will come with proven, tangible guns, tanks and fighters. Then lets see what you have to say for the lazy back decision-makers sitting and swatting flies in Sarkari brigade.

BANGG!!!!! bull's eye :tup::tup:
 
.
Okay fine, now that you've told me that ADA and othre laboratories are the main hands and brains behind making of any fighter.... I have understood. My bad that I only blamed HAL for the inefficiency the entire sarkari brigade has shown.

The way one succeeds in aerospace is with zero error. Our KLOC error rates were fractions of those that the best local organisations, with world-wide reputations, those that got premium rates in Indian stock markets.

It gets in everywhere, this zero-error habit. Including here.

It is not at all clear that you've understood.

It is not that ADA and other laboratories are the main hands and brains behind making of any aircraft (fighters represent a special sub-set of problems and are by no means unique). They are the brains and not the hands. The hands are the production shops.

Zero error, please.

It is not that I've told you this, and you are buying peace by humouring me. If you don't understand, really understand this, you will continue not to have a clue. Aircraft don't fly on pilot josh, they fly on control laws, on control systems, electro-mechanical in older times and digital fly-by-wire now, and these have to be acquired to be indigenous in any aerospace venture. First.

That's where it starts. It goes on, and you obviously don't know even a fraction of the detailed work that goes into a modern fighter.


However, after that what? What does it have for the future? ADA and the numerous other laboratories? assembling MiG-21s is a thing of past and the target is: self-reliance in future.

ADA didn't touch a MiG 21 in its entire existence. Why don't you listen and try to learn, instead of trying to score debating points? You can't score them anyway, unless you learn.

So far no concrete step has been taken and posters on PDF have grown from children to adults and adults to senior citizens fantasizing what would Tejas be like. Tejas initially plans to have significant foreign components if I am right.

That comment, dear boneheaded Mr. Tshering from Gangtok with relatives in defence and a curiousity that makes you competent enough to comment on defence matters, is why I asked you to write about the century fighters. It would have helped you to understand how much the US struggled, how much of its aircraft industry was an absolute shambles, how much imported technology was involved.

I wonder if you have a foggy about the extent of 'foreign' components in, say, the Typhoon or the Rafale.

The AESA radar, the engine are two main of them. Despite this, the delays. Sanctions or whatever is no excuse. China was imposed with similar sanctions post-Tiananmen Square massacre. Still they came up with a fast turning alternative and developed the J-10.

It is so nice when people read my posts and the information within. DID YOU READ ABOUT THE SOURCE TECHNOLOGY OF THE J10, MORON?

During the 67 Arab Israeli war, France dumped Israelis the last minute by putting embargoes on their Mirage supplies. Israelis instantly came up with Nesher and followed it with Kfir and Lavi.

Instantly? Do you have an idea of what you are saying? Do you know the time lapses? Do you think aerospace is some kind of souping up a car?

Dassault's leakage of the entire technology, without the consent of the French government, is one of the worst-kept secrets of aviation history. But instant? Are you perpetually stoned?

Does five years to set up unlicensed production, with two example machines and the entire documentation systematically provided to you by the source technology organisation, seem to be improvisational - or instant - to you?

And before turning to other things, how many Lavis were built, how many entered service, and which airforces bought them?

I am sure you don't want me to start on USA. :P

<sigh>

If you genuinely had any knowledge, and wrote about the US, it would be pleasant reading. As it is, it is like correcting the homework, obviously carelessly, and uncaringly done, of a particularly backward pupil.

Believe me, going through your trash and correcting it painstakingly, is no pleasure.

The bottomline is, the entire sarkari brigade, whether ADA, HAL, DRDO, DRDL or ANY of their numerous hi-fi-named-zero-performing agencies, are not delivering under the current structure. They do something they're supposed to obviously do as a part of their job and expect kudos from the people.

ADA - design of a light-weight, composite-heavy interceptor from scratch;
HAL - manufacture of around 6,500 aircraft, ranging from WWII craft to Sukhois;

Whom else would you like to name? Let's see, now. Oh, DRDL?

Hmm.

Quite right. That's where that chuckle-head Kalam was head before leaving for Delhi to be Scientific Adviser, in place of V. S. Arunachalam.

You are the little Sherlock Holmes, aren't you? Fancy your spotting what a wus he was! Shiv Aroor has nothing on you!

Writing in crisp English and declaring my arguments as "illogical" still doesn't make your government agencies any better than the embarrassment they are right now to the country.. not the scientists and engineers but the loser decision makers who are causing the delays.

Zero error.

It's your government, chuckle-head, as well as mine. So your government agencies, not just mine.

And the loser decision makers are in the ministry, as I've already pointed out, not in these. There are also some in the military. I can give you examples, but not in PDF. You'll find them if you look hard enough, though.

My point of giving all those "illogical" points according to you out of this world intellect

I suppose carefully-researched and knowledgeable doesn't occur readily to you? Oh, well; there goes another promising relationship.

was to get to the final point:

PROMISE? REALLY?


Whether it is Israel or China or USA or any other manufacturing country including the likes of even South Africa, all of these are ahead of us. Israel lacks its own natural resources so it smartly finds a sponsor like USA. China has been hit by embargo from the West so it smartly 'acquires' and develops technology from it while sarkari dodos of India.. what do they do? They wait it out in the hopes that "oh when will the great supplier remove his sanctions" and do nothing.

Sure. Why not? Are we an advanced nation? Each of those you have quoted were advanced scientifically, technically, militarily far beyond we were, except in the wet dreams of - you guessed it, fanboys. So what's surprising in their being ahead of us?

Don't bring Kaveri as an excuse. All this time and we still don't have Tejas, Dhruv is already facing problems (go through threads).

Excuse for what? And Dhruv has got everything cleared and is going into production and being inducted. What's wrong? According to you? I know the Dhruv from the time its rotor blades were being modelled, its production GM was a director of my company, my staff were involved in helping them get through certification - what do you want to tel me about Dhruv, fanboy?

A word to the wise:

In a battle, the enemy won't come arguing with you in crisp english but will come with proven, tangible guns, tanks and fighters. Then lets see what you have to say for the lazy back decision-makers sitting and swatting flies in Sarkari brigade.

OK, gather around, everybody; sit down and listen up. Tshering22 (wonder what that 22 stands for?) is going to tell us what happens in a battle. Goody! At last we'll get to know.

Seriously, if there were to be a battle, and another battle, perhaps a third battle, meaning that things were getting serious, I'd say to the lazy back decision-makers sitting and swatting flies in Sarkari brigade, "Grab those fan-boys, and strap them up, arse-backwards, to the sides of the Tejas. They have enough hot air to propel the craft to 30,000' in 1.5 minutes, as quick as a Gnat."
 
.
The way one succeeds in aerospace is with zero error. Our KLOC error rates were fractions of those that the best local organisations, with world-wide reputations, those that got premium rates in Indian stock markets.

It gets in everywhere, this zero-error habit. Including here.

It is not at all clear that you've understood.

It is not that ADA and other laboratories are the main hands and brains behind making of any aircraft (fighters represent a special sub-set of problems and are by no means unique). They are the brains and not the hands. The hands are the production shops.

Zero error, please.

It is not that I've told you this, and you are buying peace by humouring me. If you don't understand, really understand this, you will continue not to have a clue. Aircraft don't fly on pilot josh, they fly on control laws, on control systems, electro-mechanical in older times and digital fly-by-wire now, and these have to be acquired to be indigenous in any aerospace venture. First.

That's where it starts. It goes on, and you obviously don't know even a fraction of the detailed work that goes into a modern fighter.




ADA didn't touch a MiG 21 in its entire existence. Why don't you listen and try to learn, instead of trying to score debating points? You can't score them anyway, unless you learn.



That comment, dear boneheaded Mr. Tshering from Gangtok with relatives in defence and a curiousity that makes you competent enough to comment on defence matters, is why I asked you to write about the century fighters. It would have helped you to understand how much the US struggled, how much of its aircraft industry was an absolute shambles, how much imported technology was involved.

I wonder if you have a foggy about the extent of 'foreign' components in, say, the Typhoon or the Rafale.



It is so nice when people read my posts and the information within. DID YOU READ ABOUT THE SOURCE TECHNOLOGY OF THE J10, MORON?



Instantly? Do you have an idea of what you are saying? Do you know the time lapses? Do you think aerospace is some kind of souping up a car?

Dassault's leakage of the entire technology, without the consent of the French government, is one of the worst-kept secrets of aviation history. But instant? Are you perpetually stoned?

Does five years to set up unlicensed production, with two example machines and the entire documentation systematically provided to you by the source technology organisation, seem to be improvisational - or instant - to you?

And before turning to other things, how many Lavis were built, how many entered service, and which airforces bought them?



<sigh>

If you genuinely had any knowledge, and wrote about the US, it would be pleasant reading. As it is, it is like correcting the homework, obviously carelessly, and uncaringly done, of a particularly backward pupil.

Believe me, going through your trash and correcting it painstakingly, is no pleasure.



ADA - design of a light-weight, composite-heavy interceptor from scratch;
HAL - manufacture of around 6,500 aircraft, ranging from WWII craft to Sukhois;

Whom else would you like to name? Let's see, now. Oh, DRDL?

Hmm.

Quite right. That's where that chuckle-head Kalam was head before leaving for Delhi to be Scientific Adviser, in place of V. S. Arunachalam.

You are the little Sherlock Holmes, aren't you? Fancy your spotting what a wus he was! Shiv Aroor has nothing on you!



Zero error.

It's your government, chuckle-head, as well as mine. So your government agencies, not just mine.

And the loser decision makers are in the ministry, as I've already pointed out, not in these. There are also some in the military. I can give you examples, but not in PDF. You'll find them if you look hard enough, though.



I suppose carefully-researched and knowledgeable doesn't occur readily to you? Oh, well; there goes another promising relationship.



PROMISE? REALLY?




Sure. Why not? Are we an advanced nation? Each of those you have quoted were advanced scientifically, technically, militarily far beyond we were, except in the wet dreams of - you guessed it, fanboys. So what's surprising in their being ahead of us?



Excuse for what? And Dhruv has got everything cleared and is going into production and being inducted. What's wrong? According to you? I know the Dhruv from the time its rotor blades were being modelled, its production GM was a director of my company, my staff were involved in helping them get through certification - what do you want to tel me about Dhruv, fanboy?



OK, gather around, everybody; sit down and listen up. Tshering22 (wonder what that 22 stands for?) is going to tell us what happens in a battle. Goody! At last we'll get to know.

Seriously, if there were to be a battle, and another battle, perhaps a third battle, meaning that things were getting serious, I'd say to the lazy back decision-makers sitting and swatting flies in Sarkari brigade, "Grab those fan-boys, and strap them up, arse-backwards, to the sides of the Tejas. They have enough hot air to propel the craft to 30,000' in 1.5 minutes, as quick as a Gnat."
Typical response of an arrogant, self-obsessed sarkari bureaucrat eating up taxpayers' money. Funny you should talk like this sitting in Silchar. The Chinese are like about barely 2 hours away from your place and 20 minutess away from me right now.

You don't get it still don't you? Where is the end result? For your sakes I am less knowing than you are any day. But as an Indian to show the world I want to boast about a deployed, tested, reliable fighter. Ahh.. wait,Indigenous would be the key word.

Can you give us one? Or even for that matter we're ready to wait till next year. Can you assure us any delays won't take place for HAL Tejas? For the IJT-36's endless tests? For the AMCA? For the FGFA (I hope not here because Russians are involved to remind you)? For the MRTA?

Go ahead... give us the assurance and live upto it this time. And I will take back all the words and even apologize to you. I promise.
 
.
Typical response of an arrogant, self-obsessed sarkari bureaucrat eating up taxpayers' money. Funny you should talk like this sitting in Silchar. The Chinese are like about barely 2 hours away from your place and 20 minutess away from me right now.

I'm not sarkari, I'm not a bureaucrat; shows you can write but not read.

And I don't see what my sitting in Silchar has got to do with it. Or your sitting in Gangtok.

If you want to spout a wonderful fountain of rubbish, you can do it sitting in Tien An Men square.

You don't get it still don't you? Where is the end result? For your sakes I am less knowing than you are any day. But as an Indian to show the world I want to boast about a deployed, tested, reliable fighter. Ahh.. wait,Indigenous would be the key word.

No, it's you doesn't get it.

You set out to diagnose the situation, and pancaked the first time. Then you pancaked the second time. And now you're telling me, "Hey, listen, I can't figure out how to do it, you do it for me."

Seems like you don't read anything that doesn't fit the image you've formed of the world.

Have you ever heard of a situation where a critic gets demolished on account of lack of information and lack of analytical ability, and then turns around and asks his main de-construction contractor to take over? That's what you're doing.

Before we go further, what are you going to do with a deployed, tested, reliable fighter. Ahh, wait, indigenous would be the key word in those - deployed, tested, reliable, etc.

What is that supposed to do, within your steamy imagination? In case it hasn't come to your notice, let me point out some bitter truths.

You mentioned the Chinese at several points in your narrative, sometimes praising their manufacturing organisations, sometimes listing their military formations (for your ready reference, those are the PLA, the Army, the PLAAF, the Air Force, the PLAN, the Navy, and the PLANAF, the Naval Air Arm, as we call it). You mentioned them in your note above.

The first thing you must figure out is that shiny new toys don't make a military doctrine, a strategic outlook, a set of battlefield tactics or an integrated war-fighting method. So the shiny new toy you want is not going to help you against the Chinese. What do you want it for? Have you ever stopped to think? In your life? ever?

Consider the facts. For this, you may have to torture yourself reading things.

The Chinese beat us in 62 not by human wave tactics alone, although they used it too. This campaign was in effect Mao's last campaign. That's where the clue lies.

They beat the Indian Army through mobility. They went off the road; they turned the flanks of Indian Army positions and trenches and outposts. In one attack, the IA was positioned on the forward slope of a mountain; there was a stream in between. The Chinese parked themselves beyond the stream, on the corresponding forward slope of the mountain on the other side of the stream, lit bonfires, made a loud noise. So that's where they wanted to be thought to be. Instead, they infiltrated the bulk of their formation to the rearward slope of the mountain where the IA was, after having crossed the stream at dead of night, in absolute silence, several companies strong, waited and then struck in the opposite direction from where they were supposed to. It was only then that the IA realised that the bonfires and loud noises were bluffs, and there were practically no troops there any more.

They fought according to the book. The book says strike with one fist in one direction at one time. They did. The IA, like the PA, was a British legacy; they were drawn up in trenches in linear fashion. What the Chinese did was to attack the extreme edge of each line, overwhelm each detachment, then move to attack the next in line. Their opponents were flanked, and could only oppose them with one extreme formation at a time; when that was overwhelmed, the next in line was attacked. These were all flank and rear attacks.

There has been a lot of fanboy talk, even responsible analyst talk, on air about how air power, deployed in 62, would have stopped the Chinese in their tracks. Recently, people in the Air Force have started asking themselves in public, how would that have happened?

Today, 62 is 48 years behind us. Today, our fighters and ground attack aircraft are positioned in the Brahmaputra valley. And till today, there are no familiarisation exercises being conducted; if the Chinese attack in brigade strength tomorrow, the air force can't help, because the air force doesn't know the IA positions, doesn't have familiarity flying missions in those mountains, and doesn't know what to do when it gets there.

If they get there, what will they do? bomb the mountainside into rubble? They've tried that, in Kargil, it didn't work.

In the case of Arunachal and Ladakh, some dimwits are talking their hind-legs off, discussing starting avalanches with iron bombs. Must be fan-boys who've read too many war comics. There must be a traumatised PLA analyst somewhere, asking for a transfer from having to wade through this gunk day in and day out.

Finally, only precision ordnance, smart bombs, worked in Kargil. And even that is tough to do here. Against a mobile, fast-moving enemy, moving to attack at night, well-defended by MANPADs during the day, down to company, down to platoon level, would you like to send in your multi-million dollar toys to be fried to a crisp?

Interdiction? Do I here you mumbling interdiction? You are from Gangtok. Just think about a Chinese retaliatory interdiction, imagine them swarming all over the place from Bagdogra onwards, with special attention to the Coronation Bridge. How long will you last in Gangtok (forget Nathu La)? I'm doing a mental rewinding of the road routes; in my estimate, six smart bombs should effectively cut off all communications between the rear echelons and the front.

You are Corps Commander XXXIII Corps, you have three divisions of mountain troops with you, and the Chinese can come in any which way: overland through Nepal (with profuse apologies to them for breaching their frontiers, delivered many weeks after the trouble, or even as the breaches are going on), or through Bhutan. Your LOC are cut off; you are running short of ammunition; you have no artillery, your 155 mm howitzers can't get to you from where they are deployed. Your helipads are within MANPAD distance.

So just explain to me once more, how are these deployed, tested, reliable, indigenous fighters going to help?

Can you give us one? Or even for that matter we're ready to wait till next year. Can you assure us any delays won't take place for HAL Tejas? For the IJT-36's endless tests? For the AMCA? For the FGFA (I hope not here because Russians are involved to remind you)? For the MRTA?

Don't be a dimwit. They haven't appointed me Raksha Mantri yet. And he's the only bod that can do all this.

Let's get the facts out of the way. Tejas is under advanced testing. Engine integration is needed, the MMR has to be sourced and integrated. Not a one-hour job, to be done while you get your haircut, but still doable - in quick time. Weaponising is in full swing, but it's comical weaponising when the main radar isn't in place, so they're using work-arounds.

Manufacture in series production commences once those two are over. There is no guarantee that the ministry won't foul up again, as it has on so many occasions in the past.

The IJT 36 is ready. Incidentally, designing and building it was a doddle; the prior LCA experience acquired saw to that. Productising it was different; it was found that converting a design to a product isn't that easy, a thousand practical details have to be taken up and resolved on the fly, even as craft are on the assembly line (that's not literal; these aircraft don't get made like cars). But given a thousand corrections, like happened to the Tata Motors Vista, everything's ready.

I don't see how the rest of the alphabet soup affects the situation.

Now get this: you still won't get guarantees, because India, represented by the elected government, still doesn't know if it wants a powerful military and a military that gets equipped without massive corruption being involved. If this is not fixed at the top, it can't be fixed at the bottom. If, and when, India wants a strong integration between military, economic and diplomatic doctrine and policy, we will get all of the things that you hanker for. Not now, not here. As of now, we will continue to be a Pakistan on steroids.

All my defence missions were delivered ahead of time, btw, including the mission computer o/s. In case you pull the Shiv defence: 'Your shirt is torn.' 'So what? your fly is open!'

Go ahead... give us the assurance and live upto it this time. And I will take back all the words and even apologize to you. I promise.

Yeah, right. What an idiot! You start the cribbing, fail to back it up, and now you want me to bail you out. Sitting from outside the government, outside the public sector, outside the organisation making it, and give you assurances.

You are the one.

My former employers used to build an aircraft called the Nimrod (a Comet doing military duty). In the 90s, the British government wanted an overhaul; the aircraft was running out of usable hours. New technologies were to be inducted. This was the Nimrod2000 project.

The time overrun, with an organisation involved that built the Eurofighter, and partially involved in the F35 build, was about a decade; official delay announced in public was from 2003 to 2010.

The earlier 70s effort to build a British AWACS on the Nimrod failed because they couldn't get the radar working right. These were the people who invented radar in the first place.

And you want me to guarantee the Indian system?

Why don't you go climb your left leg?
 
Last edited:
.
FOR GENERAL INFORMATION

Lots of people have been squawking about how nice things will get when the private sector galumphs up on a white stallion and saves everybody's bacon. There's a surprise for you: the stallion is already here and doing organic manure at strategic locations. Read on:

Some 800 small and medium sector companies are part of a national network involved in the development, production and delivery of components, modules and sub-systems for defence sector projects. About 40&#37; of DRDO's budget, and 10% of the ministry of defence (MoD) budget, reaches the small and medium sector industries.

Out of 800 companies, at least 200 are highly committed, enthusiastic and techno-savvy companies that have already made a mark, not just in the defence sector, but also in other sectors of the Indian market.

Around 100 of these companies are already under contract with multi-national entities, partnering in programmes related to development and production. Many of these companies have already begun production work for their foreign partners, mainly on the strength of technology acquired through their interactions with the DRDO earlier.


I don't agree with this three-year old assessment; my view of the private sector is pretty jaundiced, almost as bad as my view of the public sector. This is put up for information.
 
.
The first thing you must figure out is that shiny new toys don't make a military doctrine, a strategic outlook, a set of battlefield tactics or an integrated war-fighting method. So the shiny new toy you want is not going to help you against the Chinese. What do you want it for? Have you ever stopped to think? In your life? ever?

Consider the facts. For this, you may have to torture yourself reading things.

The Chinese beat us in 62 not by human wave tactics alone, although they used it too. This campaign was in effect Mao's last campaign. That's where the clue lies.

They beat the Indian Army through mobility. They went off the road; they turned the flanks of Indian Army positions and trenches and outposts. In one attack, the IA was positioned on the forward slope of a mountain; there was a stream in between. The Chinese parked themselves beyond the stream, on the corresponding forward slope of the mountain on the other side of the stream, lit bonfires, made a loud noise. So that's where they wanted to be thought to be. Instead, they infiltrated the bulk of their formation to the rearward slope of the mountain where the IA was, after having crossed the stream at dead of night, in absolute silence, several companies strong, waited and then struck in the opposite direction from where they were supposed to. It was only then that the IA realised that the bonfires and loud noises were bluffs, and there were practically no troops there any more.

They fought according to the book. The book says strike with one fist in one direction at one time. They did. The IA, like the PA, was a British legacy; they were drawn up in trenches in linear fashion. What the Chinese did was to attack the extreme edge of each line, overwhelm each detachment, then move to attack the next in line. Their opponents were flanked, and could only oppose them with one extreme formation at a time; when that was overwhelmed, the next in line was attacked. These were all flank and rear attacks.

Tactics are just one cog in the wheel to victory and the shiny,new,useless(according to u) toys are another important components.Without one the other doesnt work.

And regarding the 1962 war werent the Chinese having superior rifles comapred to our Lee Enfield and didn they have better armour,equipment that time?

So these shiny,new toys do play an important role.

Today, 62 is 48 years behind us. Today, our fighters and ground attack aircraft are positioned in the Brahmaputra valley. And till today, there are no familiarisation exercises being conducted; if the Chinese attack in brigade strength tomorrow, the air force can't help, because the air force doesn't know the IA positions, doesn't have familiarity flying missions in those mountains, and doesn't know what to do when it gets there.

If they get there, what will they do? bomb the mountainside into rubble? They've tried that, in Kargil, it didn't work.

And how do you know that they r not familiar..? What are spy satellites for.? Im sure that the Chinese must be having a couple of them focussed on NE.;)

And in peacetime they may not have the exact locations but once the war starts they will definiely get to know where it comes from.... An analogy being the case of SAM radars (akin to Indian positions) once they are activated then it becomes easy target to enemy HARM (Chinese attack).


Finally, only precision ordnance, smart bombs, worked in Kargil. And even that is tough to do here. Against a mobile, fast-moving enemy, moving to attack at night, well-defended by MANPADs during the day, down to company, down to platoon level, would you like to send in your multi-million dollar toys to be fried to a crisp?

Exactly what Tshering was saying...they were the shiny,new toys produced by Israel that saves our rear end in the Kargil war.



Interdiction? Do I here you mumbling interdiction? You are from Gangtok. Just think about a Chinese retaliatory interdiction, imagine them swarming all over the place from Bagdogra onwards, with special attention to the Coronation Bridge. How long will you last in Gangtok (forget Nathu La)? I'm doing a mental rewinding of the road routes; in my estimate, six smart bombs should effectively cut off all communications between the rear echelons and the front.

You are Corps Commander XXXIII Corps, you have three divisions of mountain troops with you, and the Chinese can come in any which way: overland through Nepal (with profuse apologies to them for breaching their frontiers, delivered many weeks after the trouble, or even as the breaches are going on), or through Bhutan. Your LOC are cut off; you are running short of ammunition; you have no artillery, your 155 mm howitzers can't get to you from where they are deployed. Your helipads are within MANPAD distance.

So just explain to me once more, how are these deployed, tested, reliable, indigenous fighters going to help?

So why are we developing fighters..? why not abandon all fighter projects.Surely we are not more wise than those who proposed to develop them.

And secondly regarding the 155 howitzers isnt the sarkari (borrowed term) MoD that is sitting on the files eating my tax money and keeeps cancelling,postponing,cancelling the modernisation projects. on the flimsiest of reasons.

I need accountability- whether its HAL,MoD,ADA,GTRE or any damn PSU - for the hard earned money that I pay through form 16.


I don't agree with this three-year old assessment; my view of the private sector is pretty jaundiced, almost as bad as my view of the public sector. This is put up for information.

You mean to say Airtel or Vodafone is as badly managed as our dear BSNL.?
 
Last edited:
.
FOR GENERAL INFORMATION

Lots of people have been squawking about how nice things will get when the private sector galumphs up on a white stallion and saves everybody's bacon. There's a surprise for you: the stallion is already here and doing organic manure at strategic locations. Read on:

Some 800 small and medium sector companies are part of a national network involved in the development, production and delivery of components, modules and sub-systems for defence sector projects. About 40% of DRDO's budget, and 10% of the ministry of defence (MoD) budget, reaches the small and medium sector industries.

Out of 800 companies, at least 200 are highly committed, enthusiastic and techno-savvy companies that have already made a mark, not just in the defence sector, but also in other sectors of the Indian market.

Around 100 of these companies are already under contract with multi-national entities, partnering in programmes related to development and production. Many of these companies have already begun production work for their foreign partners, mainly on the strength of technology acquired through their interactions with the DRDO earlier.


I don't agree with this three-year old assessment; my view of the private sector is pretty jaundiced, almost as bad as my view of the public sector. This is put up for information.

you agree or not the entire goverment organisation are mis managed and it is the ultimate truth
 
.
Tactics are just one cog in the wheel to victory and the shiny,new,useless(according to u) toys are another important components.Without one the other doesnt work.

And regarding the 1962 war werent the Chinese having superior rifles comapred to our Lee Enfield and didn they have better armour,equipment that time?

So these shiny,new toys do play an important role.



And how do you know that they r not familiar..? What are spy satellites for.? Im sure that the Chinese must be having a couple of them focussed on NE.;)

And in peacetime they may not have the exact locations but once the war starts they will definiely get to know where it comes from.... An analogy being the case of SAM radars (akin to Indian positions) once they are activated then it becomes easy target to enemy HARM (Chinese attack).




Exactly what Tshering was saying...they were the shiny,new toys produced by Israel that saves our rear end in the Kargil war.





So why are we developing fighters..? why not abandon all fighter projects.Surely we are not more wise than those who proposed to develop them.

And secondly regarding the 155 howitzers isnt the sarkari (borrowed term) MoD that is sitting on the files eating my tax money and keeeps cancelling,postponing,cancelling the modernisation projects. on the flimsiest of reasons.

I need accountability- whether its HAL,MoD,ADA,GTRE or any damn PSU - for the hard earned money that I pay through form 16.
Leave it, bro. He has not answers like the rest of the sarkari brigade. Not only do they don't have answers regarding inventing a single decent piece of equipment without delays, failures, cost escalations and timely deplyments, but also cannot accept that they don't have answers to the common Indian public.

For 50 years they had a chance to prove themselves and still they cry unfair after we've seen enough troubles. Our sarkari weapons industries need a massive overhaul: A country like Pakistan where there's barely any attempt on indigenous developments has succeeded better than our lazy chumps in PSUs in selling domestic weapons to a dozen countries.

Except for Dhruv's case, there's not one single attempt at marketing properly and professionally by these agencies who have to wait for government to subsidize their inability to come up with a good product that through sales can itself cover up their development costs and reap profits. Arjun MBT is another example. It took the sarkari heroes 36 years to make 1 single type of tank that too loaded with problems till 2006 and only in last 4 years fast tracked solving these problems.

And now when its finally a proven weapon system, they're yet to launch any sort of promoting it anywhere outside India. India has an excellent market in countries of financially better-off southern African countries and South American countries and even for that matter South East Asia and Oceania.

Lekin marketing par mehnat kaun karega? sarkari guarantee hai baith ke khaane ki. Mehnat karke kyon samay kharab karein? Scientists and engineers are all slaves after all of these pathetic decision makers that they slog at low salaries and still don't get the credit for their hardwork because of lethargic decision-makers in sarkari top brass.

With such an attitude, it would be shameful for us to even compare to China. :disagree:
 
.
FOR GENERAL INFORMATION

Lots of people have been squawking about how nice things will get when the private sector galumphs up on a white stallion and saves everybody's bacon. There's a surprise for you: the stallion is already here and doing organic manure at strategic locations. Read on:

Some 800 small and medium sector companies are part of a national network involved in the development, production and delivery of components, modules and sub-systems for defence sector projects. About 40&#37; of DRDO's budget, and 10% of the ministry of defence (MoD) budget, reaches the small and medium sector industries.

Out of 800 companies, at least 200 are highly committed, enthusiastic and techno-savvy companies that have already made a mark, not just in the defence sector, but also in other sectors of the Indian market.

Around 100 of these companies are already under contract with multi-national entities, partnering in programmes related to development and production. Many of these companies have already begun production work for their foreign partners, mainly on the strength of technology acquired through their interactions with the DRDO earlier.


I don't agree with this three-year old assessment; my view of the private sector is pretty jaundiced, almost as bad as my view of the public sector. This is put up for information.
Hi Boss -

PLease keep your posts precise, iam lost in keeping track of what ur saying....

I have one question to you.
If after 20-30 years of research on a damn engine, making tanks and missiles, making aircrafts....

We cant make a bloddy engine extension and pay half a billion dollar to a French company.

Then do hell with HAL.......thay always cry.
 
.
Tactics are just one cog in the wheel to victory and the shiny,new,useless(according to u) toys are another important components.Without one the other doesnt work.

If you looked carefully, there were a host of things apart from tactics; they go into war-fighting long before toys do. If you look at what happened in the recent desert campaigns, and if you have read the relevant threads in this forum itself, you would get the picture.

Secondly, the PLA made war on the Japanese - the same IJA that soon afterwards made mincemeat of western armies - with arms and equipment barely a step above agricultural equipment. Most of their equipment was what they had captured from KMT troops or from Japanese troops themselves.

It was the superior warcraft of the PLA that prevailed.

It happened again in Korea. Perhaps you may have heard of that war. The level of equipment of the PLA, or the section that was deputed to fight that war next to the North Koreans, was abysmally lower than that of the combined Allied forces, fresh out of WWII. Yet they flung them back, from near the banks of the Yalu River to the end of the peninsula, until the Inchon landing forced them back again. It was not equipment but strategy and doctrine that prevailed when they drove out the Americans, the British and all the others; it was not equipment but strategy and doctrine that in turn threw them back.

And regarding the 1962 war werent the Chinese having superior rifles comapred to our Lee Enfield and didn they have better armour,equipment that time?

AK47s, yes, what else? What better armour? Armour was not deployed. What better equipment? Not even their HMGs or MMGs were as good as British equipment. Their mortars were the same as ours. So what - specifically - are you talking about?

Do you know or are you going around with a hazy notion and no facts?

So these shiny,new toys do play an important role.

Only, ONLY if the rest is in place. Without it, nothing. Ask the CRP; ask the Maoists. With it, everything. Ask the Greyhounds, or Walter Davaram; ask the Maoists.

And how do you know that they r not familiar..? What are spy satellites for.? Im sure that the Chinese must be having a couple of them focussed on NE.;)

Oh, great! We have another aviation expert in our midst.

Military Expert Dorai, the reference is to flying around in the mountain terrain, and a pilot familiarising himself with the landmarks. He can't do that from photographs. He has to be there. Ask the PAF.

And it isn't about spy satellites; it's about pilot familiarisation. Whether the Chinese have one or more focussed on the NE is not the point - I'm sure they have, just as I know that we have accurate flight-path maps to every Pakistani and Chinese airfield based on satellite mapping - but it doesn't help a pilot navigating in the mountains.

And in peacetime they may not have the exact locations but once the war starts they will definiely get to know where it comes from.... An analogy being the case of SAM radars (akin to Indian positions) once they are activated then it becomes easy target to enemy HARM (Chinese attack).

What are you talking about? Who's talking about SEAD? This is about how to fly a mission in the mountains. It has nothing to do with the half-digested mess you served up.

Exactly what Tshering was saying...they were the shiny,new toys produced by Israel that saves our rear end in the Kargil war.

And what I'm saying to Tshering is that you have to do your 'appreciations' long before war breaks out. That is determined by doctrine - what are we going to do with our air force? and why? - by strategy - how do we do this? - by tactics - in the air? on the ground? - long before need arises.

When we asked the Air Force to intervene, ACM Tipnis was frankly reluctant. It was a question of being asked to save the Army's backside; the Army was frantically trying to cover up the humiliation of having trusted the Pakistanis to do the same old same old, and been dealt a joker by Musharraf.

When the IAF did go in, they were unprepared, wholly unprepared. We had no aircraft suitable for the purpose, and the ROE laid down were ridiculous; our aircraft had to come down close to what was ground level in those high mountains, and come within reach of MANPADS as a result. Our aircraft had to do this because there was never any call earlier for air intervention in the mountains, the same thing that I was warning Tshering about. So they had no doctrine, no strategy, no tactics ready for this, and started out with iron bombs. This soon lost us a MiG 27 and its escort MiG 21. We then had to buy Israeli smart bombs at a huge price.

How difficult is it for you to see the point? Unless we plan for a war, or for engaging the enemy in particular conditions, we cannot do it off the cuff.

So why are we developing fighters..? why not abandon all fighter projects.Surely we are not more wise than those who proposed to develop them.

We are developing fighters because of the following history. While we were not favoured with aid and assistance, within some reasonable limits, acquiring weapons systems was not a problem. In 65, there was the first sign of hesitation, in 71, it solidified into hostility, and with the explosion of the nuclear device, we were under sanctions. According to the laws then in place, even a MAC mini could not be assigned to India. When we were working for the French aerospace sector, we had a few high-end systems; I was taken to see the equivalent facility in Singapore and they had wall-to-wall systems of a much higher capacity.

It was clear that we needed to indigenise. It was very, very late in the day - China had begun to indigenise as early as the 60s - but that was when we started.

We are building fighters, tanks, armoured cars, small arms, naval vessels and other equipment because we do not know who will pull the plug tomorrow and leave us high and dry. Now we have enough know-how so that none of the three services is left on the beach in case of future sanctions.

To come to your specific point, the IAF decides what it wants, the MoD decides what it gets. The decision to make in house, in the country, or to buy is that of the Ministry. The IAF has hardly any voice in the matter. If it feels that the Ministry is wrong, it starts stalling a decision, by changing the QSRs. So, too, does the Army. Now think of the delays and try to figure out what happened.

In all this, a minor role is played by DRDO, which has to certify that a certain piece of equipment can, or cannot be made in-country by a certain time. Its role has been disastrous.

And secondly regarding the 155 howitzers isnt the sarkari (borrowed term) MoD that is sitting on the files eating my tax money and keeeps cancelling,postponing,cancelling the modernisation projects. on the flimsiest of reasons.

And what else have I been saying from my first post?

I need accountability- whether its HAL,MoD,ADA,GTRE or any damn PSU - for the hard earned money that I pay through form 16.

So go out and seek it. You have an MP, important plants - CVRDE in Avadi is one that comes to mind straightaway - and a lot of influence. Why don't you do something practical?

Do you think sounding off in a Pakistani defence-oriented site is the way to get the accountability that we all should get? Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?
 
. .

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom