US still denying us technology

[lhuang]

lhuang..correction us does not give arms to Pakistan free for reference for a fresh-up like you contact military professionals of Pakistan on this forum to make you understand.

I am pretty sure I read somewhere that US gives massive military aid to Pakistan, which Pakistan uses to buy weapons from the US.

 

[ADT]

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/op-ed/‘us-still-denying-us-technology’-866

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is looking at providing technology for low-intensity conflicts such as terrorism and cyber warfare, as well as towards ensuring the security of Indian space assets, the DRDO chief and science adviser to the defence minister, Dr V.K. Saraswat, tells S. Raghotham in his first interview to the media since he assumed office in September 2009.

Q. The obvious first question — where are we on the missile roadmap?
A. We have two streams of missile programmes — strategic and tactical. There is a momentum, a certain push to achieve our requirements for strategic defence. Agni 3 is set for production in numbers. We have no doubt about the missile after three consecutive successful tests.
The 5,000-plus km range Agni 5 has moved out of the drawing board, developmental activities are on, subsystems work is in progress. We plan to do the first test flight by the end of the year.
After the successful test of Shourya, a canisterised missile with a range similar to Agni 1 — around 700 km— more and more of our missiles will go the canisterised way because then they can go on multiple platforms on land, air and sea. Next is a canisterised version of the 2,000-plus km range Agni 2.

Q. What about tactical missiles?
A. Nag, the anti-tank missile, will go in for repeat summer trials this year after we incorporated user (Indian Army) suggestions. It’s a third-generation anti-tank guided missile with infrared seeker. India will be only the third or fourth country to make such a missile.
We have led Akash, the air defence missile, to production. The Indian Air Force (IAF) has ordered eight squadrons of Akash missiles, the Army has ordered two batteries.
In new missiles, the Astra air-to-air beyond visual range missile has undergone four to five ground launch trials. We are now qualifying its infra-red seeker. Once ready, it will go on multiple platforms, including Tejas and Sukhoi fighters.
For the Navy, we are developing a canisterised anti-anti-ship missile, with a range of 70 km, and able to intercept manoeuvring targets. It is an advancement over the 15-km range Israeli Barak missile. We are developing the Long Range Surface-to-Air Missile (LRSAM) in collaboration with Israel Aircraft Industries. The first flight test will happen in mid-2010. We started developing a similar missile for the IAF in late 2009.

Q. What about Cruise missiles? Sub-launched missiles? K-15?
A. We are setting up a cruise missile development programme under Nirbhay. I won’t say more than that.

Q. What does the future look like for DRDO?
A. We have made a technology development plan for the next 25 years. It is dovetailed to projections made by the armed forces in their long-range plans, what they call the LTIPP (long-term integrated perspective plan), taking into account the changing nature of warfare and the threats that India is likely to face. It calls for directed basic research in technologies that are still in their infancy, customising technologies for different users and “productionising” the most mature technologies into platforms and systems. The focus is on improving the velocity of research. All research is now in mission mode.

Q. There has been criticism of the DRDO-military relationship.
A. Look, as I said, DRDO’s technology development plan is now dovetailed to the military’s LTIPP. Two, there is now increasing coordination between the services and DRDO. The military is now involved at every stage in our projects. Also, what we do now is, if a development project is estimated to take five years but the military wants the capability sooner, we say, go ahead and buy it from outside. So, the potential for conflict between DRDO and military does not arise.

Q. What is the status of the Rama Rao Committee report and DRDO reforms?A. A panel headed by the defence secretary is looking into the issue of implementing the recommendations.

Q. What are the focus areas in the 25-year technology development plan?A. There are three. The closest to our heart is low-intensity conflict (LIC). Many technologies that we have developed for the military have relevance for LICs. You will appreciate that many agencies in the country are today involved in LICs — the paramilitary forces, police forces, counter-insurgency and counter-terror organisations and so on. We have started a programme to customise DRDO technology for each of them. LIC is one of our key result areas now.
Another area is space security because future wars are going to be controlled from space as network-centric warfare becomes the new way of war-fighting. So, technologies that are relevant for space security such as ballistic missile defence, anti-satellite systems, are going to be part of our development process. Secondly, to be able to quickly launch satellites to regain space-based capabilities when existing assets are attacked or denied to our military during war. These are low-cost, quick reaction satellite launch systems and low-endurance satellites — they last just long enough to do their job. What will emerge through our programme are micro-satellites, mini-satellites etc. On the launch side, some of our missiles can be modified, a satellite put on top of them and launched.

Q. Can our current missiles be used for anti-satellite hits?
A. With modifications, yes. But that’s not our priority.

Q. What’s the third focus area?
A. Cyber security. As we move towards network-centric warfare, the security of the networks becomes a major requirement. DRDO already has a strong technological base in encryption and things like that. We want to enlarge that base to hardware and software to make our stand-alone systems impossible to penetrate, and harden for military usage those systems that have to work with commercial networks, such as the Internet. Cyber security will be most applicable in low-intensity conflicts. What we want is to be able to detect attacks on our systems and deny the attackers the pleasure.
Q. But much of the core electronics used in our defence equipment is imported.A. So what we plan to do is to set up a facility to detect Trojans — viruses, hidden locks, killer switches — in the chips that we buy from outside before clearing them for usage in sensitive equipment.

Q. What are you doing to give a fillip to the private sector defence manufacturing base?
A. The DRDO has been partnering with industry for the last 25 years and has a network of 800 small and medium enterprises and large public and private enterprises working with us on various projects.
Now, we are starting a commercial arm of DRDO to transfer technology to industry. We already have a programme called ATAC (Technology Assessment and Commercialisation), with industry body Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (Ficci) as our partner which identifies potential technology buyers.
There are also technologies that have a larger relevance for the civilian market. For instance, what we do in our life sciences labs — high-altitude agriculture, biomedical engineering research, nuclear-biological-chemical technologies, etc. The ministry of home affairs requires them for disaster management. For DRDO, 2010 is the year of R&D collaboration with industry, universities and the military.

Q. Are we going to see the Hyperplane test flight happen any time soon?
A. We faced a problem in high-temperature materials for the scramjet engine. We needed to run the engine for 20 seconds, but could do it only up to three seconds. We were denied imports of the material required. So, we launched a separate programme and developed three materials. We have now been able to reach 20 seconds twice. We want to do five to six more ground tests. We expect to be able to do the first test flight by the end of the year.

Q. But hasn’t it become easier since the Indo-US nuclear deal to obtain technology?A. No. We are still victims of US denial regimes. Our labs are still on the “Entity List”. Technology denial continues. There is a big gap between American talk and action towards us.

Its obvious India is not a responsible country. So why should the U.S. give India technology?

 

[sivadreams]

Its obvious India is not a responsible country. So why should the U.S. give India technology?

Here you are with another flaming...

How does it matter to you. The thread is more towards showing US in light of they will only transfer what is beneficial to them. Why should they show special interest to DRDO. Its the Indian Diplomats failure to get in these to DRDO than blaming USA.

 

[faithfulguy]

Here you are with another flaming...

How does it matter to you. The thread is more towards showing US in light of they will only transfer what is beneficial to them. Why should they show special interest to DRDO. Its the Indian Diplomats failure to get in these to DRDO than blaming USA.

As mentioned earlier, by the look of the article, India feel entitle to US technology. With an attitute that US should proved whatever India requested. Otherwise, India is being punished by the US.

This reminded me of some of hte poor people in the US that if the government is too slow in sending the welfare checks. The government is not treating them right and they are being oppressed. India is like the poor people in the US who feel entitled.

 

[Kinetic]

As mentioned earlier, by the look of the article, India feel entitle to US technology. With an attitute that US should proved whatever India requested. Otherwise, India is being punished by the US.

This reminded me of some of hte poor people in the US that if the government is too slow in sending the welfare checks. The government is not treating them right and they are being oppressed. India is like the poor people in the US who feel entitled.

Read the article properly no country can make all the equipments except USA. And none makes them. Some have co-operations, some are denied and some steal from others. Everything was OK before 1974 and 1998 but due to reply on some of the COTS products from outside some of our defence projects were delayed but we still manged to develop them of our own. Sanctions are delaying some of our products thats it.

 

[Kinetic]

"LIC is one of our key result areas now.
Another area is space security because future wars are going to be controlled from space as network-centric warfare becomes the new way of war-fighting. So, technologies that are relevant for space security such as ballistic missile defence, anti-satellite systems, are going to be part of our development process. Secondly, to be able to quickly launch satellites to regain space-based capabilities when existing assets are attacked or denied to our military during war. These are low-cost, quick reaction satellite launch systems and low-endurance satellites — they last just long enough to do their job. What will emerge through our programme are micro-satellites, mini-satellites etc. On the launch side, some of our missiles can be modified, a satellite put on top of them and launched."

This is a gold mine.... Now we know that our missiles can launch satellite with modifications.

 

[fallstuff]

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/op-ed/‘us-still-denying-us-technology’-866

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is looking at providing technology for low-intensity conflicts such as terrorism and cyber warfare, as well as towards ensuring the security of Indian space assets, the DRDO chief and science adviser to the defence minister, Dr V.K. Saraswat, tells S. Raghotham in his first interview to the media since he assumed office in September 2009.

Q. The obvious first question — where are we on the missile roadmap?
A. We have two streams of missile programmes — strategic and tactical. There is a momentum, a certain push to achieve our requirements for strategic defence. Agni 3 is set for production in numbers. We have no doubt about the missile after three consecutive successful tests.
The 5,000-plus km range Agni 5 has moved out of the drawing board, developmental activities are on, subsystems work is in progress. We plan to do the first test flight by the end of the year.
After the successful test of Shourya, a canisterised missile with a range similar to Agni 1 — around 700 km— more and more of our missiles will go the canisterised way because then they can go on multiple platforms on land, air and sea. Next is a canisterised version of the 2,000-plus km range Agni 2.

Q. What about tactical missiles?
A. Nag, the anti-tank missile, will go in for repeat summer trials this year after we incorporated user (Indian Army) suggestions. It’s a third-generation anti-tank guided missile with infrared seeker. India will be only the third or fourth country to make such a missile.
We have led Akash, the air defence missile, to production. The Indian Air Force (IAF) has ordered eight squadrons of Akash missiles, the Army has ordered two batteries.
In new missiles, the Astra air-to-air beyond visual range missile has undergone four to five ground launch trials. We are now qualifying its infra-red seeker. Once ready, it will go on multiple platforms, including Tejas and Sukhoi fighters.
For the Navy, we are developing a canisterised anti-anti-ship missile, with a range of 70 km, and able to intercept manoeuvring targets. It is an advancement over the 15-km range Israeli Barak missile. We are developing the Long Range Surface-to-Air Missile (LRSAM) in collaboration with Israel Aircraft Industries. The first flight test will happen in mid-2010. We started developing a similar missile for the IAF in late 2009.

Q. What about Cruise missiles? Sub-launched missiles? K-15?
A. We are setting up a cruise missile development programme under Nirbhay. I won’t say more than that.

Q. What does the future look like for DRDO?
A. We have made a technology development plan for the next 25 years. It is dovetailed to projections made by the armed forces in their long-range plans, what they call the LTIPP (long-term integrated perspective plan), taking into account the changing nature of warfare and the threats that India is likely to face. It calls for directed basic research in technologies that are still in their infancy, customising technologies for different users and “productionising” the most mature technologies into platforms and systems. The focus is on improving the velocity of research. All research is now in mission mode.

Q. There has been criticism of the DRDO-military relationship.
A. Look, as I said, DRDO’s technology development plan is now dovetailed to the military’s LTIPP. Two, there is now increasing coordination between the services and DRDO. The military is now involved at every stage in our projects. Also, what we do now is, if a development project is estimated to take five years but the military wants the capability sooner, we say, go ahead and buy it from outside. So, the potential for conflict between DRDO and military does not arise.

Q. What is the status of the Rama Rao Committee report and DRDO reforms?A. A panel headed by the defence secretary is looking into the issue of implementing the recommendations.

Q. What are the focus areas in the 25-year technology development plan?A. There are three. The closest to our heart is low-intensity conflict (LIC). Many technologies that we have developed for the military have relevance for LICs. You will appreciate that many agencies in the country are today involved in LICs — the paramilitary forces, police forces, counter-insurgency and counter-terror organisations and so on. We have started a programme to customise DRDO technology for each of them. LIC is one of our key result areas now.
Another area is space security because future wars are going to be controlled from space as network-centric warfare becomes the new way of war-fighting. So, technologies that are relevant for space security such as ballistic missile defence, anti-satellite systems, are going to be part of our development process. Secondly, to be able to quickly launch satellites to regain space-based capabilities when existing assets are attacked or denied to our military during war. These are low-cost, quick reaction satellite launch systems and low-endurance satellites — they last just long enough to do their job. What will emerge through our programme are micro-satellites, mini-satellites etc. On the launch side, some of our missiles can be modified, a satellite put on top of them and launched.

Q. Can our current missiles be used for anti-satellite hits?
A. With modifications, yes. But that’s not our priority.

Q. What’s the third focus area?
A. Cyber security. As we move towards network-centric warfare, the security of the networks becomes a major requirement. DRDO already has a strong technological base in encryption and things like that. We want to enlarge that base to hardware and software to make our stand-alone systems impossible to penetrate, and harden for military usage those systems that have to work with commercial networks, such as the Internet. Cyber security will be most applicable in low-intensity conflicts. What we want is to be able to detect attacks on our systems and deny the attackers the pleasure.
Q. But much of the core electronics used in our defence equipment is imported.A. So what we plan to do is to set up a facility to detect Trojans — viruses, hidden locks, killer switches — in the chips that we buy from outside before clearing them for usage in sensitive equipment.

Q. What are you doing to give a fillip to the private sector defence manufacturing base?
A. The DRDO has been partnering with industry for the last 25 years and has a network of 800 small and medium enterprises and large public and private enterprises working with us on various projects.
Now, we are starting a commercial arm of DRDO to transfer technology to industry. We already have a programme called ATAC (Technology Assessment and Commercialisation), with industry body Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (Ficci) as our partner which identifies potential technology buyers.
There are also technologies that have a larger relevance for the civilian market. For instance, what we do in our life sciences labs — high-altitude agriculture, biomedical engineering research, nuclear-biological-chemical technologies, etc. The ministry of home affairs requires them for disaster management. For DRDO, 2010 is the year of R&D collaboration with industry, universities and the military.

Q. Are we going to see the Hyperplane test flight happen any time soon?
A. We faced a problem in high-temperature materials for the scramjet engine. We needed to run the engine for 20 seconds, but could do it only up to three seconds. We were denied imports of the material required. So, we launched a separate programme and developed three materials. We have now been able to reach 20 seconds twice. We want to do five to six more ground tests. We expect to be able to do the first test flight by the end of the year.

Q. But hasn’t it become easier since the Indo-US nuclear deal to obtain technology?A. No. We are still victims of US denial regimes. Our labs are still on the “Entity List”. Technology denial continues. There is a big gap between American talk and action towards us.

I doubt U.S is denying any technology it agreed to transfer. U.S is pretty good in delivering contractual obligations. Maybe there are fine prints. Just because U.S has agreed to provide sugar, does not mean U.S opened up the whole kitchen!

 

[pogularocky]

How is India a victim of a denial regime? If a country is requesting a technology from India and if India say no. Does that make Indian government the denial regime and that requesting country a victim? Many Indian government official spins more than the TV news more than MSNBC's keith Olbermann.

Faithfulguy.

When Dr. Saraswat said US is still imposing its Technology-Denial regimes, he does not expressly mean "American Technology" alone. The sanctions were far more widespread against India than just US-centric.

The whole list of NATO countries and most UN members were banned from sharing any military-grade technology with India. Israel broke this pact on more than one occasion and US got mad. As we all know, Israel doesn't care much for US in diplomatic issues. It does what it wants.

Take an example of the Kaveri Engine. DRDO was stuck with it in 1996 due to some technological barriers and they desperately needed outside help to figure out a solution. India approached BAE for help, but America stopped them from helping, citing sanctions. Later, SNECMA from France tried to help DRDO and yet again uncle sam flexed his muscles. Now that some of the sanctions are relaxed, SNECMA was able to finally strike a deal with DRDO.

But, there still exists a strong Denial Regime that US is holding against Indian indigenous programs. How much of it is diplomatic and how much is a mere economic stunt to keep India depended on outside sources is anybody's guess.

So, please, do realize that India is not talking of getting technology from America alone. It is protesting the interference of America in every single defense deal India makes with any NATO country (which are actually happy to help, if not for Uncle Sam's orders).

This is my first post on this forum. SO, please, do not rail me if I made any mistakes or did not follow any rules/regulations of the forum.

 

[below_freezing]

Faithfulguy.

When Dr. Saraswat said US is still imposing its Technology-Denial regimes, he does not expressly mean "American Technology" alone. The sanctions were far more widespread against India than just US-centric.

The whole list of NATO countries and most UN members were banned from sharing any military-grade technology with India. Israel broke this pact on more than one occasion and US got mad. As we all know, Israel doesn't care much for US in diplomatic issues. It does what it wants.

Take an example of the Kaveri Engine. DRDO was stuck with it in 1996 due to some technological barriers and they desperately needed outside help to figure out a solution. India approached BAE for help, but America stopped them from helping, citing sanctions. Later, SNECMA from France tried to help DRDO and yet again uncle sam flexed his muscles. Now that some of the sanctions are relaxed, SNECMA was able to finally strike a deal with DRDO.

But, there still exists a strong Denial Regime that US is holding against Indian indigenous programs. How much of it is diplomatic and how much is a mere economic stunt to keep India depended on outside sources is anybody's guess.

So, please, do realize that India is not talking of getting technology from America alone. It is protesting the interference of America in every single defense deal India makes with any NATO country (which are actually happy to help, if not for Uncle Sam's orders).

This is my first post on this forum. SO, please, do not rail me if I made any mistakes or did not follow any rules/regulations of the forum.

then whats this i hear of AEGIS being offered to india? also if india was truly so technologically advanced, the sanctions would have absolutely no effect on india's progress.

 

[faithfulguy]

Read the article properly no country can make all the equipments except USA. And none makes them. Some have co-operations, some are denied and some steal from others. Everything was OK before 1974 and 1998 but due to reply on some of the COTS products from outside some of our defence projects were delayed but we still manged to develop them of our own. Sanctions are delaying some of our products thats it.

your arguement sound like from an ACRON lawyer sueing the government for more entitlements. Stop feel entitled and treat US as a nation, like India. If India wants to buy US product, then purchase them with tech support money that US pays India. Otherwise, stop whining about how US is not providing for India. Is India a child and US the parent of India that US has responsibility for India's technology growth?

 

[faithfulguy]

Faithfulguy.

When Dr. Saraswat said US is still imposing its Technology-Denial regimes, he does not expressly mean "American Technology" alone. The sanctions were far more widespread against India than just US-centric.

The whole list of NATO countries and most UN members were banned from sharing any military-grade technology with India. Israel broke this pact on more than one occasion and US got mad. As we all know, Israel doesn't care much for US in diplomatic issues. It does what it wants.

Take an example of the Kaveri Engine. DRDO was stuck with it in 1996 due to some technological barriers and they desperately needed outside help to figure out a solution. India approached BAE for help, but America stopped them from helping, citing sanctions. Later, SNECMA from France tried to help DRDO and yet again uncle sam flexed his muscles. Now that some of the sanctions are relaxed, SNECMA was able to finally strike a deal with DRDO.

But, there still exists a strong Denial Regime that US is holding against Indian indigenous programs. How much of it is diplomatic and how much is a mere economic stunt to keep India depended on outside sources is anybody's guess.

So, please, do realize that India is not talking of getting technology from America alone. It is protesting the interference of America in every single defense deal India makes with any NATO country (which are actually happy to help, if not for Uncle Sam's orders).

This is my first post on this forum. SO, please, do not rail me if I made any mistakes or did not follow any rules/regulations of the forum.

another whiner post. If US supplied technology to Europe, then US can make the request on how these technology should be shared. Otherwise, US has some leverage over these countries that cause them not to share technology with the US. If India really want US technology like Britain or Japan. Then India should join the US camp. The problem here is that India wants to be the big guy in the block and be equal to US while complain that US won't share technolgy with India. That is really pathetic.

 

[faithfulguy]

then whats this i hear of AEGIS being offered to india? also if india was truly so technologically advanced, the sanctions would have absolutely no effect on india's progress.

Many Indians in here like to boast of the weapons India purchase. The unfortunate thing is that they do not purchase from the best suppliers. Instead, they purchase from inferior supplier but still boast about them. If there is a need to boast about purchasing some weapon, at least boast about purchasing the best technology in the world.

 

[humanfirst]

Many Indians in here like to boast of the weapons India purchase. The unfortunate thing is that they do not purchase from the best suppliers. Instead, they purchase from inferior supplier but still boast about them. If there is a need to boast about purchasing some weapon, at least boast about purchasing the best technology in the world.

we perfectly know that most of our equipments are inferior in quality when compared to usa.But that doesn't mean that all the things we have are junks and we should not be proud of it.For ex.Su30mki,brahmos,air defence systems are considered one of the best and we have every right to boast of having them(we are not boasting that they are superior to us technology)
coming to the topic,you are talking as if india begged for some technology and us refused to give and we are whining on that.That is not at all the case here.
We are having a good relationship with usa now a days and we have been offered most modern equipments like f35,aegis system etc BUT AT THE SAME TIME,INDIAN FIRMS LIKE DRDO,HAL,EVEN ISRO IS BLACK LISTED FROM DOING ANY BUSINESS WITH US DEFENCE FIRMS.US HAD REFRAINED MANY EUROPEAN FIRMS IN HELPING US IN DEVELOPMENTAL PROJECTS.Do you think that is fair?Offering us to purchase finished products to our army,airforce etc but refraining american and european firms in doing business with our defence firms.Fair or unfair,US have every right to do what suits its interests,at the same time we have the right to express our grievance(especially since usa is friendly to india),AND WE ARE JUST DOING THAT.So stop ordering us from what to say and what not to say,we are not one of your client states,we are just a friendly country to USA

 

[skyisthelimit]

Its obvious India is not a responsible country. So why should the U.S. give India technology?

Looks who is talking.....country maligned with supporting terrorism, talibans....not to 4get the gr8 Mr. Nuke.....

 

[topjumper]

sir

i want to bring ur attention to the highlighted part.

china apart from reverse engineering have got many technologies off the shelf which were denied to us also many sections against china were "Tienanmen Square Massacre of 1989" on the other hand India was sections for nuclear test in "1974".

So u can see that China get more time without sections to buy off the shelve technologies and materials which were denied to us and we have to reinvent the wheel.

Also, China got atom bomb and missile ready made and tech transfer transfer on large scale but we have to do it on our own.

China also involve in human intelligence, tech stealing and cyber spying for technologies etc. on the other hand our records are clean.

We have faced many problems economical, tecnchnologial etc. and It has taken but we have developed indiginious capabilities for future. I agree with u on that but was offended by glorifieing china the biggest thief on earth.

thanks

Uhh?? Am I even reading this right, are you saying someone built the atomic bombs and hydrogen bombs for the Chinese back in the 1960s? Who may I ask??

Back in the early 50s when its relation with USSR was good China did receive early assistance from it, but since late 50s USSR withdrew all of its support and China committed to the development by itself to break "the superpowers' monopoly on nuclear weapons", after 1964 china detonated its first atomic bomb, 32 months later it detonated its first hydrogen bomb -- it became the fastest fission-to-fusion development in history and shook the whole world, and whom by your account again gave China this technology?

Justin Joseph, I've came across your posts elsewhere quite a few times and some of them seemed very biased, please try to stick to the facts and give credit where credit is due not just going around smacking sour grapes, if any country including your home country can make a new record I would give you my respect, not spitting trash talks behind a computer.

Su-47 merely suggested that India should start focusing more on developing its own indigenous technologies like China instead of buying more, that's absolutely true and will be good for India in the long run if it wants to be a strong world power, but you just have to come up with some cheap excuses -- "look at China, ohh.. they had tons of transfer before 1989, ohh... they were accused stealing, ohh... they were accused spying, ohh... life is so unfair for India, but ohh... we are soo clean".

One simple example -- when the US allies are scheduled to get their 5 gen fighter jets, when India is getting help from Russia to get its 5 gen fighter jets you don't hear us chinese complaining the world is not fair, instead we are committed to build our own even though it takes longer and there are lots of challenges, get the picture? If anything India needs more people like Su-47 and less people like you for a stronger future.