DRDO is doing fine a very broad brush to call it a failure,given the resources its doing Ok.
Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) : News and Updates
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
DRDO is doing fine a very broad brush to call it a failure,given the resources its doing Ok.
You are oversimplifying a project's success or failure based on simple outcomes.
The F-22 was expected to replace all of USAF F-15s, but that didn't happen. So would you consider the F-22 a failure?
The Arjun tank itself is a success. But what failed it was our economic conditions, the same thing that "failed" the F-22. We just built something that took more time than expected, but does what it's meant to do. It's a different story that its unit price did not meet the Army's standards and support infrastructure did not meet Arjun's standards, both can be solved by simply throwing more money at it. But the tank itself is a success. If it wasn't, the army wouldn't have gone for 240 tanks, the total order would have been zero.
The Kaveri was expected to go on LCA, but it was also expected to become a whole family of engines for different purposes. Now, it's not that the Kaveri failed per se, but it's the LCA that became overweight that led to the demise of the fighter version of the Kaveri. The engine itself has pretty much met all the parameters expected from it. But then, I wouldn't call the LCA also a failure simply because it didn't meet your unnecessarily high standards. We simply put a more powerful engine in it and it performs as expected. The Kaveri will power UAVs and frigates for now and will move on to more bigger things as time goes.
As for Nag, it was designed for tank destroyers, and not as a man portable missile. The man portable version is in testing right now. The army will start taking delivery of the NAMICA in 2019.
https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/npc/2018/april/din-22april2018.pdf
I am basing my definition of success or failure based on whether it succeeded in doing its intended role. That is how any project manager will decide whether a project is a success or not. Outcome is the single most important part of a project, not the start, not the struggle.
F-22 as a project failed in achieving its project goal due to its higher cost per unit, so US limited its production and switched to another project that they hope will achieve their objective, F-35. But, the aircraft was suitable for all USAF theater of operation and it is one generation ahead of its all other aircrafts in the World. So, they used it in limitted numbers, the constraint was unit cost, not theater of operation.
Nope, Arjun is not failed because of the same thing that "failed" F-22. Arjun is failed because it cannot operate in Indian theater of operation, not becuase of its unit cost. If Arjun could operate in all Indian theater of operations like T-72 or T90, then Army might have bought it even if costs twice per unit. But DRDO made a product that is not suitable for Indian theater of operation and proposed a ridiculous plan to overcome that f*ckup. Just rebuilt the entire theater of operation to a point where tank can work in it, lol. Thats like my plumber asking me to rebuilt my home, so that his ridiculously large piping can fit in it. He is not gonna get business, I will just call another plumber who can do the job. But if the plumber was telling me that the size of pipe is not a problem and the pipe will cost twise, I might still buy it. But rebuilding the house, No, that is not a feasible solution to the problem I have.
tank only suitable for desert terrine so army bought some to field in desert terrine. Does this tank provide any advantage for the army in terms of ingenious components and strategic autonomy? No. Tank have ridiculously large amount of imported parts and it is a logistical nightmare. Even T90 have more locally manufactured components than Arjun.
My unnecessarily high standards? I didn't put this targets sweetheart, targets were set by the institutions themselves which they failed to achieve every time. I just expected them to achieve the targets they themselves set. I am sorry that they are incompetent to achieve the project objective, I wish they had, but they didn't. I am not a fanboy to sugarcoat institutional incompetency. kavery is under powered by any definition of the word under powered and they never manged to make it a 21st century aircraft engine
The core aim of Nag project was supposed to replace 2nd generation man portable ATGMs which they failed due to overweight. Then they proposed NAMICA as a part of project since the missile is over weight by a margin of 2.5 and cannot be carried by a human. They failed in achieving its core objective of replacing some 30,000 odd 2nd generation ATGMS. Are they gonna do it? Now they started a new project under another name for man portable ATGMs, which is as always in "Testing" phase. Judging by the track record of NAG project, it is going to be in testing phase for the next decade or so.
Last edited:
I do have bit of a stake in the fab business.
.Samsung and TSMC's 7 nm process is 15% denser than Intel's 10nm. That being said, Samsung and TSMC's 7 nm is not really 7 nm anymore and Intel's process is not exactly 10 nm either. :/. It is mostly marketing jargon now. Take GlobalFoundries 14 nm, it is actually 20 nm with FinFet design
Before any of you jump and say I am wrong, perhaps you should read about Zheng Gui's admission about the same. I believe, his words can be taken as final over internet anons. Another example, SRAM(intel) density measurement yields different values for different configs under the same process.
More to read: SemiWiki.com - IEDM 2017 - Intel Versus GLOBALFOUNDRIES at the Leading Edge, https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1332965
On a tangent, Moores law is getting slow now.
Last edited:
Nope. The F-35 didn't replace the F-22's role. They have simply given up on making up for the loss of the F-22 for now and will instead aim for the PCA to take over.
It's impossible for the F-35 to make up for the big F-22 hole they have.
It's actually not that simple. The Arjun was created primarily for a defensive posture in fear of the Pakistanis getting the Abrams. Once the threat was no longer relevant, the IA wanted to cancel the Arjun and start a new program. But DRDO insisted on continuing. So the tank wasn't a failure. If you present it to a country that wants an Arjun class tank, it will be competitive there.
That's fine. DRDO planned to indigenise electronics, and even the engine, once enough numbers were purchased.
The Arjun isn't a failure, the "heavy tank" concept in the Indian theatre is a failure.
Countries make many stuff that work, but don't induct it themselves. The Israelis are surrounded by such stuff, like the EL/M 2052. The army's disinterest in the Arjun has no relevance to the success of the tank itself.
Kaveri is not underpowered, the LCA is too heavy. It's now going into the IUSAV program.
Kaveri will be further developed to higher standards. If it was a failure, then the program would have been cancelled instead, like Trishul.
Nag was never designed as a MPATGM. You have completely wrong information there. It was always for a tank destroyer. There is a separate project for MPATGM.
There are in fact three ATGM programs. Prospina (tank destroyer to be inducted next year), MPATGM and SANT (air launched).
The new MPATGM is in fact superior to Javelin and Spike. That's why the govt has also cancelled the Spike deal.
Army never WANTED or REQUESTED a tank that will match Abrams in weight (LOL) or any other form. Can you show me a single official source other than fanboy claims that say otherwise? Perhaps DRDO scientists imagined it and made one heavy tank that will not work in Indian theater of operation. Arjun was supposed to replace 2200 odd Vijayanta tanks which it failed miserably.
Here is the problem. DRDO is not supposed to build Arjun tank for any other country, it was upposed to built a tank for Indian Army for use in Indian Theater of operation, that is why the government of a third world nation spend its peoples money to built one. If they built one tank that works perfectly fine in everyother corner of the world except in Indian theater of operation,then the project is failure, they they are too incompetent and their project definition team is worthless and incompetent.
Brodly speaking, a project has two steps. a)Project definition steps b) Project realization step
So in essence,
step a, project definition == One big failure. They conceptualize a product that didn't fit its intended customers theater of operation.
Step b, project realization == Partial failure. Failure to build the product in intended timeline.
And again, why did the project definition phase ended up in one big failure? Because of Project Manager's failure to include customer Army in project definition phase. You build something that your customer want, not something that is not useful for your customer.
That is fine for you, but the customer Army didn't think so. The entire strategic objective of indigenous tank program was to make sure that India is not dependent on imported stuff. Funny enough, 60% of the entire componets of arjun mk1 during its induction was imported, far higher than locally manufactured Russian Tanks. Supply chain extents many countries around the glob making it a nightmare for Army and it ended up with far more tanks grounted than Russian tanks.
Kaveri not being under-powered is just your fanboy delusion. It is not only under powered, the engine is also overweight. Here is what the director of GTRE, someone who is not a fanboy accepting some realities.
"We have a functional engine, but there is a slight shortfall in performance. It has achieved dry thrust of 4,600kg and reheat thrust of 7,000kg in Bangalore, which is around 3,000ft above sea level. So, it would be around 5,000kg dry thrust and 7,500kg reheat thrust at sea level. The engine is short of thrust by 400kg and overweight by around 150kg."
Source :In aircraft engine development, you cannot set a timeline - Livemint
Again, since this project is ongoing, they still have the possibility of delivering something useful. I really hope that they will make an engine that is useful in 21st century, But there is still a big "if"
Army wanted NAG to replace Konkours and milan which they will not. The words like "Prospina", "MPATGM" etc started coming out almost 2 decades after NAG project started, after many timelines missed and original design become absolute before even seeing the light. Its just a rebranding to get the project out of IGMDP after its failure to meet all deadlines. If they suceed in building them within reasonable timeline, it is worth it. Otherwise, it is just an addition of another story of DRDO failure to meet the nation's demand and expectation.
You are right but you don't have the complete picture just with this quote.
The product is under powered due to the manufacturing process and materials used(it cannot achieve its full envelope) and heavy due to the manufacturing process and materials used(Ex: The blades, too many parts need to be assembled. The rivets and bolts do contribute to the weight.). People seem to forget this.
The Arjun has been built based on the army's GSQR. You can't develop stuff without GSQR.
You still don't get it. The army asked for a tank, the DRDO delivered. It's a whole different story that the army doesn't want this class of tank right now.
That's ancient information. SAFRAN has already cleared the engine for flight testing.
Rebranding or not, the missile is the same.
Dude, the army has already ordered what they asked for. Who are you trying to sell your fiction?
This is 2008 information! There have been more development after that. The same person Mohana Rao had been shouting in 2009 that UPA was not providing high altitude test bed for kaveri despite repeated requests. But that has been resolved now and has been cleared by Safran So, taking ancient articles is not correct way of argument
NAG was delayed deliberately by UPA after successful tests in 2010 but nevertheless it is now complete and there is initial order. Also, the ATGM generation has been saturated. Hence even if a 3rd generation ATGM is made in 2030, it will be the highest end technology. The sudden improvement recently was caused by miniaturisation of semiconductors and improvement in semiconductors. But this seems to have reached saturation limits. There will be no more further development of ATGMs unless a new breakthrough in technology happens
The army changed GSQR whimsically Also, in prototypes off the shelf parts are high as they are easily available and do not need setting up of manufacturing plants for new parts which are under trials. Only when trials are completed, the parts are indigenised. Calling the Arjun as mostly imported based on prototype import content is not meaningful. India has all the technology needed to make Arjun tank and will make it fully inhouse after the design is finalised.
There was no deliberate delay. There were technical issues on the platform that needed to be cleared.
Yes, except for 1-2 year delay by Army changing its launch platform, it was not delayed much
Oh reeeelllyy? The total budget given for 'failed' Kaveri engine is about .5 billion, 'failed' LCA is 2 billion. The budget for Rafale was above 10 billion. As the Rafale guys to build a bicycle for this amount and they'll find it a bit of a stretch. DRDO has done wonders with what it has been given.
The length of the tube is not more than 25 feet. It can be roughly estimated by comparing the diameter of tyres to tube length.
The missile inside is likely 20feet. It is highly unlikely that any Agni missile, even Agni-1 can fit in
I usually avoid discussions cuz i'm a lazy guy since no one has provided a definite answer yet let me explain why i said that.
It looks nothing like TCT-5 we have seen for A5 which launched 65t dummy missiles during trials. Taking inputs from DRDO's annual report & comparing size i believe its Integrated transportation system for S1 rocket motor realised on 50t trailer for A3. Also,
For special purpose transporter of A3 70t semi trailer for short range transportation cum storage
Budget for DRDO
The total Budget of Department of Defence Research & Development (R&D) for the Financial Year 2018-19 is Rs. 17861.19 crore with a manpower of approximately 24224 (including 7354 scientists).
A total of 13 research projects in Technology Development (TD) and Science & Technology (S&T) category have been taken up in the year 2018-19 in the broad areas of hybrid power system, advanced materials, CBW Defence technologies, laser diode technology, technologies for insensitive munition etc. and since these are in design phase, outcome of research projects will be seen in the subsequent years.
The following projects have been completed by DRDO during the last three years which finds merit for indigenous production through various partner agencies: 46m inflatable radome, medium size integrated aerostat surveillance system (NAKSHATRA), heavy drop system – 16T, enhanced range rocket (PINAKA Mk-II), sub- munition warheads for PINAKA, 250 kg pre-fragmented bomb, air bursting grenades for individual weapons, penetration-cum-blast (PCB) and thermo-baric (TB) ammunition for 120 mm Arjun tank, multi calibre individual weapon system (MCIWS), minefieldmarking equipment Mk-II, CBRNe remotely operated platforms (CBRNeP), bar mine layer, mountain foot bridge, water mist system validation for fire protection in naval ships, electro-optical fire control system for naval ships, commander’s non-panoramic TI sight for AFVs (T-90, T-72 & BMP-II), medium power radar (MPR) for IAF, anti-torpedo decoy system (MAAREECH), high speed heavy weight ship launched torpedo (VARUNASTRA), multi-influence ground mine (MIGM) etc.
To streamline working of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to expedite various projects, DRDO has been reviewed/audited by a number of independent committees in recent past (since 2007) as listed below:
Rama Rao Committee (RRC) – most of the suggestions have been implemented.
In addition, Ministry of Defence (MoD) has set up various committees viz. Ravindra Gupta Task Force (RGTF) and Naresh Chandra Task Force (NCTF) on National Security – action has been taken accordingly.
Performance audit of DRDO labs is done on case-to-case basis by audit authorities.
This information was given by Rajya Mantri Smt Nirmala Sitharaman in a written reply to Dr. Vinay P. Sahasrabuddhe in Rajya Sabha today.
NAo/Nampi/Rajib/HS
The total Budget of Department of Defence Research & Development (R&D) for the Financial Year 2018-19 is Rs. 17861.19 crore with a manpower of approximately 24224 (including 7354 scientists).
A total of 13 research projects in Technology Development (TD) and Science & Technology (S&T) category have been taken up in the year 2018-19 in the broad areas of hybrid power system, advanced materials, CBW Defence technologies, laser diode technology, technologies for insensitive munition etc. and since these are in design phase, outcome of research projects will be seen in the subsequent years.
The following projects have been completed by DRDO during the last three years which finds merit for indigenous production through various partner agencies: 46m inflatable radome, medium size integrated aerostat surveillance system (NAKSHATRA), heavy drop system – 16T, enhanced range rocket (PINAKA Mk-II), sub- munition warheads for PINAKA, 250 kg pre-fragmented bomb, air bursting grenades for individual weapons, penetration-cum-blast (PCB) and thermo-baric (TB) ammunition for 120 mm Arjun tank, multi calibre individual weapon system (MCIWS), minefieldmarking equipment Mk-II, CBRNe remotely operated platforms (CBRNeP), bar mine layer, mountain foot bridge, water mist system validation for fire protection in naval ships, electro-optical fire control system for naval ships, commander’s non-panoramic TI sight for AFVs (T-90, T-72 & BMP-II), medium power radar (MPR) for IAF, anti-torpedo decoy system (MAAREECH), high speed heavy weight ship launched torpedo (VARUNASTRA), multi-influence ground mine (MIGM) etc.
To streamline working of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to expedite various projects, DRDO has been reviewed/audited by a number of independent committees in recent past (since 2007) as listed below:
Rama Rao Committee (RRC) – most of the suggestions have been implemented.
In addition, Ministry of Defence (MoD) has set up various committees viz. Ravindra Gupta Task Force (RGTF) and Naresh Chandra Task Force (NCTF) on National Security – action has been taken accordingly.
Performance audit of DRDO labs is done on case-to-case basis by audit authorities.
This information was given by Rajya Mantri Smt Nirmala Sitharaman in a written reply to Dr. Vinay P. Sahasrabuddhe in Rajya Sabha today.
NAo/Nampi/Rajib/HS
GS Reddy Appointed as New DRDO Chief For Two Years | LatestLY
New Delhi, August 25: GS Reddy, a top missile scientist at the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) scientist has been appointed as the new DRDO Chief for a period of two years. According to a tweet by ANI, the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet has approved the name of Dr G Satheesh Reddy to the post of the Secy, Dept of Defence Research & Development (DDR&D) and Chairman of the DRDO.
Reddy has been known for leading the Medium Range Surface to Air Missile (MRSAM) programme. In July, Reddy was appointed as the Scientific Adviser to Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar. The new DRDO Chief had joined the research organisation in 1985 and led the conceptualization, design, development and production of Inertial Sensors, Navigation schemes, Algorithms & Systems among others.
Reddy is an Indian Aerospace Scientist and presently heads the Dr APJ Abdul Kalam Missile Complex, The Missile Hub of India in Hyderabad. Earlier, Satheesh served as Director of the Research Centre Imarat a key laboratory of Dr APJ Abdul Kalam Missile Complex, Defence Research and Development Organisation and an advanced centre for design, development and delivery of avionics systems for missiles and other applications. Reddy pioneered many technological developments for Indian Missiles and has made significant contributions towards successful flight testing of the country's maiden intercontinental ballistic missile Agni-V mission.
New Delhi, August 25: GS Reddy, a top missile scientist at the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) scientist has been appointed as the new DRDO Chief for a period of two years. According to a tweet by ANI, the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet has approved the name of Dr G Satheesh Reddy to the post of the Secy, Dept of Defence Research & Development (DDR&D) and Chairman of the DRDO.
Reddy has been known for leading the Medium Range Surface to Air Missile (MRSAM) programme. In July, Reddy was appointed as the Scientific Adviser to Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar. The new DRDO Chief had joined the research organisation in 1985 and led the conceptualization, design, development and production of Inertial Sensors, Navigation schemes, Algorithms & Systems among others.
Reddy is an Indian Aerospace Scientist and presently heads the Dr APJ Abdul Kalam Missile Complex, The Missile Hub of India in Hyderabad. Earlier, Satheesh served as Director of the Research Centre Imarat a key laboratory of Dr APJ Abdul Kalam Missile Complex, Defence Research and Development Organisation and an advanced centre for design, development and delivery of avionics systems for missiles and other applications. Reddy pioneered many technological developments for Indian Missiles and has made significant contributions towards successful flight testing of the country's maiden intercontinental ballistic missile Agni-V mission.