We are in a mess, I can't spell it out: Manohar Parrikar

[sancho]

@sancho those disaster happened because of stopped procurement of batteries for submarines and the chief after his resignation in an interview said that if I can't even get batteries for submarines, what is the point in me remaining a chief.

Exactly and that was the problem of the bureaucratic system as he said too, that made it difficult or not possible to change suppliers, because of the available contracts.

About support vessels and others, the government under the pressure of government shipyard did not let the private sector do much.

It's not about who build it, but about who develops it! IN prefers to buy foreign now, instead to invest into indigenous developments, the myth about them supporting indigenous developments simply doesn't hold it's own anymore.

Reply to the rest in the LCA thread, since that doesn't fit to the topic here anymore.

 

[Krate M]

@sancho IN has bought a few ships and systems from abroad, agreed to that. However they are also going to order LPD from Indian shipyards, which will be a start in ordering large ships from local shipyard.
Till recently the government shipyard had their order books full and were not modernized or had the capabilities to build large ships and the government did not use the private sector due to reasons above. Let's see if the further buys are from abroad.
Regarding aviation you are partially correct, navy can engage local manufacturer more. Over to LCA thread

 

[SrNair]

Contribution of 10 years of Congress rule.
Was always in front for blacklisting companies.

 

[sancho]

@sancho IN has bought a few ships and systems from abroad, agreed to that. However they are also going to order LPD from Indian shipyards, which will be a start in ordering large ships from local shipyard.

No they are not, because no Indian shipyard can offer LPDs today, that's the point of the competition, to get the know how to build them in India, so we procure foreign once only.

 

[Tshering22]

The defence sector is set to do businessin a way that is subtle and pronounced. Giving a spin to the Make-in-India pitch of the Narendra Modi government, defence minister Manohar Parrikar has made a strong case for getting Indian institutes like IITs on board.

This, he said, will reduce the country's dependence on imports and will do away with the system of blacklisting firms.

The policy of blacklisting companies had been used to "create a situation of single tender." That is, rivals were blacklisted to suit certain companies and this had left the ministry with hardly any option in many areas, Parrikar said.

In a free-wheeling interaction with the faculty and alumni at IIT Bombay campus, where he was felicitated as a distinguished alumnus, on Sunday, Parrikar said, "We are in a mess that I can't spell out".

Parrikar said he was keen to strengthen defence research base through tie-ups with institutes like IITs for two key: to reduce costs and dependence on imports and to ensure self-reliability in case of emergencies.

"None of the systems – be it American, Russian or Israeli – are free from trouble at all times. Our import bill in defence last year was $6 billion. Most countries do not rely so much on imports," he said.

While pointing out that there was no concrete decision on any of these ideas, he said policies giving shape to his ideas would be in place soon.

"By May-June next year, there will be a lot of synergy; the direction will be clear." A platform for interaction with senior defence personnel, for seamless applicability of research projects, would be created even earlier than that, he said.

Indicating his dissatisfaction with DRDO, Parrikar said that while the defence research organisation gels well with the navy, it is not working as well in most other programmes. The involvement of IITs will "put defence acquisitions in a different orbit," he said.

Parrikar said he would work out an alternative way of penalising errant contractors and companies, so that it doesn't affect future purchases. Secondly, middlemen would be weeded out. "You won't find any kickbacks in my regime," he said.

Prof S P Sukhatme, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, said the two primary areas of cooperation with academic institutes like IITs would be the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) and the Main Battle Tank (MBT).

The Arjun MBT was a good idea, but its execution and management were not that good, he said. Tejas, an LCA, was finally into production after decades. Cold weather protection rooms, night vision and bullet-proof equipment are some of the other areas for collaboration.

Modi's 'Make-in-India' mission, in one shot, sought to create employment, technology enhancement, and strengthening the country's capabilities on all fronts, Parrikar said.

We are in a mess, I can't spell it out: Manohar Parrikar | Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis

Look at the state in which the secular filth have left India in. Typical of their kind. Running the country because of their lack of love for the homeland.

Contribution of 10 years of Congress rule.
Was always in front for blacklisting companies.

So that they could pocket that money into swiss bank. After all, no one asked them where did the money go in bits & pieces.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Let's see how he gets on:

Defense Minister Manohar Parrikar sets out his top 15 priorities

 

[MilSpec]

Indicating his dissatisfaction with DRDO, Parrikar said that while the defence research organisation gels well with the navy, it is not working as well in most other programmes.

The question minister sahib should ask himself or some of his chiefs is why defence research organisation gels well with the navy, it is not working as well in most other programs?
Is it becuase the Navy has a consistent plan, and focuses on capacity building,
Is it because Shipyard directors are earmarked naval officers 10 years before thier term ends?
Is it because Navy actually has it's skin in the game when it comes to projects?
Is it because the navy get involved in solving delays (like Kolkatta/Kamorta/Viky) instead of writing articles on how bad the Drdo HAL, OFB are?
Is it because there is minimal accusations of corruption levied against the Navy compared to the army and IAF?
Is it becuase MOD has traditionally allied with corrupt aribtrators from all around the world for material for armed forces. T90, recovery vehicles, augusta westland, 21 spares, untested r27er, Kornet, Rolls royce adours??????

if none of the above ore true, lets make another ADA and alike for army and IAF, and lets leave HAL and DRDO to just work with the navy, lets see the results...

Exactly and that was the problem of the bureaucratic system as he said too, that made it difficult or not possible to change suppliers, because of the available contracts.

Wonder why AK Anthony never felt such guilt?

It's not about who build it, but about who develops it! IN prefers to buy foreign now, instead to invest into indigenous developments, the myth about them supporting indigenous developments simply doesn't hold it's own anymore.
.

And hence every Ship builder in India has a book order packed for the next 7 years... right?

What do you mean by that? You can only produce something, when you have developed it. What's the point if the industry know how to "produce" a 10t helicopter, when it can't develope one in India? We already can "produce" heavy class fighters in India, but struggle to develop a light class fighter.

Have we had a change in heart now? June 2013

You will never devlop the skill and protocols you need for a product unless you have been responsible for the entire PLM of the product, in ToT your role starts after the original manufacturer has gone through design validation, design Fmea, process fmea, early launch containment, DVP&R, non conforming material process. So by the time the product reaches you, the design, the process, the validation, and quality check for every product is frozen. In other words, you don't get to learn anything in the process. You dont develop engineers and managers who can innovate and lead from thier own experience, you get engineers and managers who can follow instructions.

No it's not! The intention of the buy and make (Indian) policy of the former government, that is the base for the Make in India agenda of the NDA is making India to a production hub, no matter on who the customer for there products are. The NDA government even specifically says, that the aim is, to produce parts in India, with the aim to export it! Sikorsky S92 cabines, made by TATA for the export to foreign countries, while they are not used for any of our forces, is the perfect example.
The orders of the forces, under the Buy and Make (Indian) policy, should only further improve the potential to make India a production hub, but the overall aim remains on producing for exports!

Very noble thought, an addition to your tata example might be, Hal has been exporting Boeing and Airbus doors, ramps, f18 bays, Isro Fusealges, Garrett engines, and other classified stuff for years now.

(Make in India in defence is a re-named policy that was implemented by Antony) to actually improve indigenous developments and in terms of defence modernisation we see a poor track reckord so far, mainly because he is giving more importance to his economic agenda.

Oops, I spotted BS (No Disrespect)

 

[Abingdonboy]

Is it because the navy get involved in solving delays (like Kolkatta/Kamorta/Viky) instead of writing articles on how bad the Drdo HAL, OFB are?

hahah, this made me chuckle, so true! Although, in fairness, the majority of the IAF fellows who do indulge in this ar retired and stress this is their perennials opinion but it is indeed reflective of the mindsets. I'd like to think things are changing within the IAF and the IN has certainly shown the way on this front. The IA is the final nut that needs to be cracked and it will be the hardest to do so.

I think, in part, one can explain this by there fact that the navy is inherently more technically minded especially its officer corps.

 

[sathya]

The

Oops, I spotted BS (No Disrespect)

Can you please tell the difference between previous buy global, buy and make, indigenous policy and the current make in India policy.

Current ' make in India ' policy seems broad term which includes buy and make.
I am just waiting for a few deals to happen where indigenous weapon compete against buy and make
So that the real difference can be made out.

If you have a clear understanding on this, please enlighten us.

 

[Krate M]

@sancho I mean the same thing. The big deal in the competition is the design we will get and the gained experience in local shipyard. Follow on units may be modified ala Leander, but important thing is the manufacturing in local shipyard of most of the LPD
I have a hunch that there may not be a foreign manufacture of the LPD, only local using foreign design most likely, even though the rfi says otherwise.

 

[Echo_419]

hahah, this made me chuckle, so true! Although, in fairness, the majority of the IAF fellows who do indulge in this ar retired and stress this is their perennials opinion but it is indeed reflective of the mindsets. I'd like to think things are changing within the IAF and the IN has certainly shown the way on this front. The IA is the final nut that needs to be cracked and it will be the hardest to do so.

I think, in part, one can explain this by there fact that the navy is inherently more technically minded especially its officer corps.

Indeed the army must be made to answer such as why lower the bar for T-90

 

[sancho]

Wonder why AK Anthony never felt such guilt?

Guilt for what?

And hence every Ship builder in India has a book order packed for the next 7 years... right?

How does that relay to IN's investments into indigenous developments? A licence produced foreign LPD / LHD means orders for Indian ship yards too, but it's not an Indian product. Could IN had invested in developing an LPD instead? Yes! If we can build carriers, could we then also build LHD's? Yes! Could we had just made a follow Scorpene order and IN investing in the indigenous development of an SSK? Yes! Indian ship yards build Fleet support tankers too, so why do we have a tender out to licence produce a foreign one, instead investing in the development of a new indigenous version?
And as I already showed, 90% of IN's aviation wing will be foreign too, where is the investment in any indigenous helicopter or drone project?

Have we had a change in heart now? June 2013

Meaning?

Oops, I spotted BS (No Disrespect)

You might want to re-check that:
India's new defence policy to open $100 bln market

Even after the new government took over, all new tenders they open run officially under the older Buy and Make (Indian) policy (re-issued P75I for example, or the Avro replacement) and not under Make in India.

 

[MilSpec]

Guilt for what?

For Not Providing the needed support for maintaining the batteries needed for Submarines on which the Navy Chief Resigned....

How does that relay to IN's investments into indigenous developments? A licence produced foreign LPD / LHD means orders for Indian ship yards too, but it's not an Indian product. Could IN had invested in developing an LPD instead? Yes! If we can build carriers, could we then also build LHD's? Yes! Could we had just made a follow Scorpene order and IN investing in the indigenous development of an SSK? Yes! Indian ship yards build Fleet support tankers too, so why do we have a tender out to licence produce a foreign one, instead investing in the development of a new indigenous version?
And as I already showed, 90% of IN's aviation wing will be foreign too, where is the investment in any indigenous helicopter or drone project?

IN's investment in indigenous equipment has been mammoth, form ttorpedoes to electronics, radars, platforms like frigates destroyers, Carriers, corvettes, FAC's, support ships, missile systems etc.
My comment was not limited to lpd's.

Meaning?

You were the one promoting license productions and JV's refuting my stand on indegenious development a couple of years ago, i was just checking if you've had a change in heart there....

You might want to re-check that:
India's new defence policy to open $100 bln market

Even after the new government took over, all new tenders they open run officially under the older Buy and Make (Indian) policy (re-issued P75I for example, or the Avro replacement) and not under Make in India.

That is because there are not many organisations that can make in India, this is going to get muddier and we will still be here to comment on that

I am still waiting to see which mega Indian Private firm will touch the AVRO replacement.

 

[MilSpec]

hahah, this made me chuckle, so true! Although, in fairness, the majority of the IAF fellows who do indulge in this ar retired and stress this is their perennials opinion but it is indeed reflective of the mindsets. I'd like to think things are changing within the IAF and the IN has certainly shown the way on this front. The IA is the final nut that needs to be cracked and it will be the hardest to do so.

I think, in part, one can explain this by there fact that the navy is inherently more technically minded especially its officer corps.

imo IAF is far far away from it. Pencil pushers in IAF have very different objective from the ones who are doing the grunt work in the platforms. These guys are worse than the bureaucrats in the south block.

I don't even like commenting on IA these days...

 

[axisofevil]

Not completely true. IIT Kharagpur for example, always had close relationships with ISRO, and the Navy. Most IITs have contributed a lot, in terms of IP and forex both. And frankly, IT was always a passing fad. When I was there, the fad was finance. And this happens, because in India everyone's family pushes them for higher earning jobs. But things are changing, and they will still take more time.
For all the hate the IITs get, they have a budget which is 1% of MIT, and even the oldest IIT Kharagpur, is still less than half the age of MIT.
Excellence takes both time and money. And Indians are willing to invest neither, yet demand results. It has never happened, and never will. To put it even more starkly, I am pursuing my PhD from a department which is ranked in the top 5 globally, and it has a larger budget than the IITs.

Bro I have a question? Why can't we create

hahah, this made me chuckle, so true! Although, in fairness, the majority of the IAF fellows who do indulge in this ar retired and stress this is their perennials opinion but it is indeed reflective of the mindsets. I'd like to think things are changing within the IAF and the IN has certainly shown the way on this front. The IA is the final nut that needs to be cracked and it will be the hardest to do so.

I think, in part, one can explain this by there fact that the navy is inherently more technically minded especially its officer corps.

I agree with the Naval corps being more technically minded. Have you seen the standards reuired to enter the Navy? Its pretty tough.